May 6, 2015 CRWD Board packet

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

Regular Meeting of Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board Of Managers, for Wednesday, May 6

1, 2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

I. Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

A) Attendance

B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

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

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

and Action.)

A) Permit # 15-018 Highland’s on Graham II (Hosch)

B) Permit # 15-019 Northern Salt (Hosch)

C) Permit # 15-021 Joy of the People (Hosch)

D) Permit # 15-022 The Good Acre (Kelley)

E) Permit # 15-024 Saints Tailgating Lot (Kelley)

IV. Special Reports– U of M Capstone Project, Trout Brook East Branch Subwatershed Study

V. Action Items

A) AR: Approve Minutes of the April 15 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

B) AR: Approve Grant to City of Roseville for Wetland Protection (Doneux)

C) AR: Approve Board Workshop for Watershed Management Plan–Mid-Term Review, Bob

Fossum

VI. Unfinished Business

A) Education and Outreach Plan Update (Beckman)

B) CHS Field (Lowertown Ballpark) Update (Zwonitzer)

C) Lake McCarron’s Aquatic Plant Harvesting Update (Zwonitzer)

D) Upper Villa Stormwater Improvement Project Update (Kelley)

E) Ford Site Update (Fossum)

F) Building Committee Update (Texer & Thienes)

VII. General Information

A) Administrator’s Report

VIII. Next Meetings

A) Wednesday, May 13, 2015 CAC Meeting

B) Wednesday, May 20, 2015 CRWD Board Meeting

IX. Adjournment W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2015\April 1, 2015 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx

Materials Enclosed

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-018 Highland's on Graham II

Permit Report 15-018 Board Meeting Date: 5/6/2015

Applicant: Peter Austin River Road Investments II 9 West 7th Place Saint Paul, MN 55102

VARIANCE REQUEST: Approve variance from Stormwater Rule D, Flood Control requirements. The freeboard from the East Underground System (Filtration 2) is proposed at 0.5 feet. CRWD requires 1.0 feet, but the applicant has maximized the driveway slope and cannot achieve greater than 0.5 feet.

1. A high point in the driveway has been added to provide positive drainage to Norfolk Ave. in the 100+ year rain event. This serves to maximize the effective low floor elevation of the parking garage. This break is at the highest point possible based on other constraints, including:

a. The fixed length of the driveway based on the need for separation from the alley to the east. b. The fixed elevation difference from the garage entrance to the existing sidewalk based on

accessibility slope requirements.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 4 Conditions: 1. Receipt of $3,300 surety and document recording of maintenance agreement with Ramsey County. 2. Provide a site specific plan, schedule and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater

management practices that includes the following. a. Frequency of inspection or specific dates. b. At a minimum, require annual maintenance to include removal of accumulated sediment and

debris. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 4. Revise plans to include the following:

a. A detail of the underground filtration outlet pipe with Contech HydroBrake.

Consultant: Nicholas Mannel Loucks Associates

7200 Hemlock Lane N Maple Grove, MN 55369

Description: Construction of a new senior housing complex Stormwater Management: Two underground filtration areas District Rule: C, D, F Disturbed Area: 1.07 Acres Impervious Area: 0.65 Acres

Permit Location

Aerial Photo

Norfolk Ave

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report

CRWD Permit #: 15-018 Review date: April 27, 2015 Project Name: Highland’s on Graham II Applicant: Peter Austin

River Road Investments II 9 West 7th Place St. Paul, MN 55102 612-225-1913 [email protected]

Purpose: Removal of a portion of the existing facility and construction of an

underground parking structure, new addition, and underground stormwater facilities.

Location: 1925 Norfolk Avenue, St. Paul, MN Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Variance Request: Approve Variance to Stormwater Rule D, Flood Control

requirements. Recommendation: Approve Permit Application with 4 Conditions. EXHIBITS:

1. Stormwater Management Plan, by Loucks Associates, dated 4/22/15, recd. 4/23/15.

2. Construction Plans, by Loucks Associates, dated 4/22/15, recd. 4/23/15. 3. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review, by American Engineering

Testing, Inc., dated 1/28/15, recd. 3/20/15. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-018, Highland's on Graham II\15-018 Highland Assisted Living_Review_02.doc Page 1 of 5

Standards Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed

existing rates. Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount

equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site. Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to

maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area. Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point

source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze

runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for

the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development.

a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 28,314 square feet. b. Volume retention:

Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.)

BMP

Volume Retention

Provided below outlet (cu. ft.)

1 inch Runoff (cu. ft.)


2,124 None, filtration is proposed

c. Filtration is proposed due to poor soils: Filtration Volume Required (cu. ft.)

BMP

Filtration Volume




2,360 Underground 1 (W) 2,023 1,297 2,594 Underground 2 (E) 1,081 735 1,471

Total 3,104 cf

d. Banking of excess volume retention of is not proposed. e. Filtration volume and facility sizes have been calculated using the

appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design filtration rate.

f. The filtration areas are capable of filtering the required volume within 48 hours.


g. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested. 5. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from

runoff on an annual basis. 6. A recordable executed maintenance agreement has not been submitted.

Adequate maintenance access is provided for underground systems.

RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year

floodplain. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a

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

project site do not comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. The freeboard between the low floor elevation of the parking garage and the East Underground System (Filtration 2) is proposed at 0.5 feet. CRWD requires 1.0 feet, but the applicant has maximized the driveway slope and cannot achieve greater than 0.5 feet. (variance requested)

Variance Findings 1. A high point in the driveway has been added to provide positive drainage to

Norfolk Ave. in the 100+ year rain event. This serves to maximize the effective low floor elevation of the parking garage. This break is at the highest point possible based on other constraints, including:

a. The fixed length of the driveway based on the need for separation from the alley to the east.

b. The fixed elevation difference from the garage entrance to the existing sidewalk based on accessibility slope requirements.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard

Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.

A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

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

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL


Standards A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control

measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land-disturbing activity.

Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management

practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

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

erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has

been submitted and does not satisfy NPDES requirements. RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION

Standard Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and

proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.

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

proposed. 2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

VARIANCE REQUEST: Approve Variance from Stormwater Rule D, Flood Control

requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Approve permit application with 4 Conditions. Conditions:

1. Receipt of $3,300 surety and document recording of maintenance agreement with Ramsey County.

2. Provide a site specific plan, schedule and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices that includes the following.

a. Frequency of inspection or specific dates. b. At a minimum, require annual maintenance to include removal of

accumulated sediment and debris. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 4. Revise plans to include the following:


a. A detail of the underground filtration outlet pipe with Contech HydroBrake.


1.0%

2.0%

5.0%

4.1%

8.0%

11.0%

11.0%

1.6%

2.0%

2.0%

3.7%

4.4%

4.4%

833 832

2.8%

5.0%

5.0%

834

833

833

832

833

832

834

5.0%

2.0%

833

2.0%

2.0%

834

833 833

834834

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

34.60

34.50

34.70

34.7034.48

34.6834.46

34.20

34.20

23.70

23.7023.60

23.60

23.95

23.95

24.62

24.62

30.7230.7231.80

34.7034.70

34.7034.59

34.20

34.20

34.2034.20

34.20

33.58 32.86

32.80

32.80

33.00

32.45 33.20

32.81

31.93

31.64

31.53

35.0334.98

34.60

34.20

31.54

TW-34.50GW-24.20TW-34.50GW-24.10

TW-34.20GW-25.12

TW-31.85GW-31.05GL-30.55

TW-34.20GW-24.45

TW-34.20GW-24.20

TW-34.20GW-25.12

TW-31.85GW-31.05GL-30.55

33.80

33.53

31.57

TW-32.50GW-32.50

TW-34.00GW-31.57TW-34.00GW-31.57

TW-34.00GW-31.64

TW-31.60GW-31.60

33.30

34.64

35.16

35.7036.30

36.16

36.2336.31 35.03

RAMP UP 4"IN BLDG

35.03

36.50

33.60

31.6

34.60TW-31.57GW-31.57GL-31.07

TW-34.20GW-24.10

TW-34.20GW-24.45

34.7034.50

34.20

32.4

32.04

32.4 32.2

32.98

34.00 34.50

32.90 32.20

34.70

INV=25.5732.40 31.90

32.5033.3033.30

34.5034.30

32.20

34.07 34.57

33.80

33.25

34.45

32.4532.45

0.8%

5.0%34.70

32.10

34.06

34.60

34.0

33.8433.60

32.10

33.96

2.0%

33.95

34.0634.55

5.0%

5.0%2.0%

30.62 30.62

30.0930.20

33.96

34.16

34.60

2.0%

32.45

31.80

33.10

32.2033.60

33.60

34.45

33.60

TW-33.60GW-33.60

TW-33.60GW-32.10

TW-33.60GW-32.10

TW-32.80GW-32.80

TW-33.60GW-32.60

TW-33.60GW-32.00

TW-34.45GW-32.45

TW-33.70GW-33.70

TW-34.45GW-32.45

TW-33.70GW-33.70

32.70

33.20

34.30

34.0533.40

TW-36.16GW-36.16

31.22 HP

31.22 HP

4.0%

31.50

2.2%

2.4%

8.0%

3.0%

31.3031.30

MATCH EXISTING GRADESALONG DRIVE

MATCH EXISTING GRADES

MATCH EXISTING GRADES

Revision:

Date

___

____

____

# _

____

____

____

____

Nam

e __

____

____

____

____

___S

igna

ture

____

____

____

COLE

GRO

UP

A R

C H

I T E

C T

S L

LC.

Project No.

Issue Date:

MIN

NES

OTA

NIC

HOLA

S M

ANN

EL, P

.E.

Landscape Architecture EnvironmentalPlanning Civil Engineering Land Surveying

7200 Hemlock Lane - Suite 300Maple Grove, MN 55369

Telephone: (763) 424-5505www.LoucksAssociates.com

Sheet Title:

Sheet Number:

02/2

0/20

1545

861

N

WARNING:THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALLEXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES INMAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 ATLEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFOREDIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGEDDURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.

*REFER TO EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANFOR COMPLETE SURVEY LEGEND

23

1. ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OF TOP SOIL AND SOD OR SEED. THESEAREAS SHALL BE WATERED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL THE SOD OR SEED IS GROWING IN A HEALTHY MANNER.

2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENTPROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY DAMAGES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT.

3. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH ASBARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OFTRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TOPLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFICCONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSTANDARDS.

4. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELYAND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS ANDPROPERTY DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOTBE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS.

5. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OF THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTORSPERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTORS SAFETYMEASURES IN, OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.

6. BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A TEMPORARY ROCK ENTRANCE PAD ATALL POINTS OF VEHICLE EXIT FROM THE PROJECT SITE. SAID ROCK ENTRANCE PAD SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THECONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. SEE DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEET 250.CD AND 251.CD OF THEPROJECT PLANS.

7. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AROUND THE ENTIRE SITE PERIMETERAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, CITY REQUIREMENTSAND THE DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEET C8-1 AND C8-2 OF THE PROJECT PLANS.

8. ALL ENTRANCES AND CONNECTIONS TO CITY STREET SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS AND NOTIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY.

9. ADJACENT STREETS AND ALLEYS MUST BE SWEPT TO KEEP THEM FREE OF SEDIMENT. CONTRACTOR MUST MONITORCONDITIONS AND SWEEP AS NEEDED OR WITHIN 24 HOURS OF NOTICE BY THE CITY.

10. STREETS MUST BE CLEANED AND SWEPT WHENEVER TRACKING OF SEDIMENTS OCCURS AND BEFORE SITES ARE LEFTIDLE FOR WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. A REGULAR SWEEPING SCHEDULE MUST BE ESTABLISHED.

11. ADJUST ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TO THE PROPOSED GRADES WHERE DISTURBEDAND COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE UTILITY OWNERS. STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREASMUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC

12. DUST MUST BE ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED.

13. SEE UTILITY PLAN FOR STORM SEWER INFORMATION.

14. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY LOUCKS ASSOCIATES.

15. SPOT ELEVATIONS REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE GRADES AT GUTTER LINE, FACE OF BUILDING, OR EDGE OFPAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

16. SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND BITUMINOUS TAPER LOCATIONS.

17. ALL ENGINEERED SOILS SHALL REMAIN UNCONTAMINATED PRIOR TO AND DURING INSTALLATION.

GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES1. ORDERING OBSTRUCTION AND EXCAVATION PERMITS: CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS RIGHT OF

WAY SERVICE DESK AT (651) 266-6151. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THATCONTRACTORS CALL FOR COST ESTIMATES PRIOR TO BIDDING TO OBTAIN ACCURATE COSTESTIMATES.

2. OBSTRUCTION PERMITS: THE CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN AN OBSTRUCTION PERMIT IFCONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING SILT FENCES) WILL BLOCK CITY STREETS, SIDEWALKS ORALLEYS, OR IF DRIVING OVER CURBS.

3. EXCAVATION PERMITS: ALL DIGGING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY REQUIRES ANEXCAVATION PERMIT. IF THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS CLOSE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, ANDEXCAVATING INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY IS NEEDED TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION,CONTACT THE UTILITY INSPECTOR.

4. FAILURE TO SECURE PERMITS: FAILURE TO SECURE OBSTRUCTION PERMITS OR EXCAVATIONPERMITS WILL RESULT IN A DOUBLE-PERMIT FEE AND OTHER FEES REQUIRED UNDER CITY OFST. PAUL LEGISLATIVE CODES.

5. REQUIREMENTS TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: ALL UTILITIES AND CONTRACTORSWORKING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MUST TO BE REGISTERED, INSURED AND BONDED,AS RECOGNIZED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS SERVICE DESK. (651-266-6151)

CITY OF ST. PAUL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

1. SIGNS REGULATING PARKING AND/OR TRAFFIC ON PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OR CONTRACTOR OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY. SIGNS APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC ENGINEERING REGULATING PARKING AND/OR TRAFFIC IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THISDEVELOPMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED BY CITY FORCES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. CONTACT MIKE MILLER 651-266-9778 SIX WEEKS IN ADVANCE OFNEEDED SIGN(S).

2. ALL WORK ON CURBS, DRIVEWAYS, AND SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MUST BE DONE BY A LICENSED AND BONDED CONTRACTOR UNDER APERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS SIDEWALK SECTION (651-266-6120). SIDEWALK GRADES MUST BE CARRIED ACROSS DRIVEWAYS.

3. RESTORATION OF ASPHALT AND CONCRETE PAVEMENTS ARE PERFORMED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION. THE CONTRACTOR ISRESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT TO THE CITY FOR THE COST OF THESE RESTORATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE TOSET UP A WORK ORDER PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY REMOVALS IN THE STREET AT 651-266-9700. PROCEDURES AND UNIT COSTS ARE FOUND IN STREETMAINTENANCE'S "GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - ALL RESTORATIONS" AND ARE AVAILABLE AT THE PERMIT OFFICE.

4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT JOHN MCNAMARA AT 651-266-9780, GENERAL FOREMAN, LIGHTING - SIGNAL MAINTENANCE, IF REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OFEXISTING FACILITIES IS REQUIRED OR IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE LIGHTING OR SIGNAL UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY (ANDRELATED COSTS) FOR ANY DAMAGE OR RELOCATIONS.

5. CARE MUST BE TAKEN DURING CONSTRUCTION AND EXCAVATION TO PROTECT ANY SURVEY MONUMENTS AND/OR PROPERTY IRONS. CALL SAM GIBSON OFPUBLIC WORKS SURVEYING (651-266-6075) IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS

6. PIPE WORK INSIDE PROPERTY TO BE PERFORMED BY A PLUMBER LICENSED BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND CERTIFIED BY THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL. PIPE WORKWITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO BE PERFORMED BY SPRWS.

7. ABANDONING EXISTING SEWER SERVICE OR MAKING NEW CONNECTIONS TO CITY SEWER MUST BE DONE TO CITY STANDARDS BY A LICENSED HOUSE DRAINCONTRACTOR UNDER A PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS SEWER SECTION (651-266-6234).

8. INSPECTION CONTACT: THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONTACT THE RIGHT OF WAY INSPECTOR, SHARON HAMILTON, AT 651-485-0418 (ONE WEEK PRIOR TO BEGINNINGWORK) TO DISCUSS TRAFFIC CONTROL, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND COORDINATION OF ALL WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. NOTE: IF ONE WEEK NOTICE ISNOT PROVIDED TO THE CITY, ANY RESULTING DELAYS SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.

9. SAFE WORK SITE REQUIREMENTS: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A CONTINUOUS, ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY THAT MEETS ADA AND MNMUTCD STANDARDS IF WORKING IN A SIDEWALK AREA. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LATESTEDITION OF THE MN MUTCD OR SUPPLEMENTS THEREOF.

10. NO PRIVATE FACILITIES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY: THE DEVELOPER IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED FROM INSTALLING PRIVATE ELECTRICAL WIRING, CONDUIT, RECEPTACLESAND/OR LIGHTING IN THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY. THIS INCLUDES STUBBING CONDUIT OR CABLE INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO ACCOMMODATE UTILITYFEEDS TO THE SITE. COORDINATE WITH EACH UTILITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO DETERMINE FEED POINTS INTO THE PROPERTY. UTILITIES ARE RESPONSIBLEFOR SECURING EXCAVATION PERMITS TO RUN THEIR SERVICE INTO A SITE, AND (WHERE REQUIRED) SUBMITTING PLANS FOR REVIEW BY THE PUBLIC WORKSUTILITY REVIEW COMMITTEE.

11. AN OBSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM PUBLIC WORKS (651-266-6151) IF THERE WILL BE ANY EXCAVATION IN CITY R.O.W. OR IF TRUCKS/EQUIPMENTWILL BE DRIVING OVER CURBS OR IF CONSTRUCTION WILL BLOCK CITY STREETS, OR SIDEWALKS.

12. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE STORED ON THE PUBLIC BOULEVARD. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES SHALL NOT BEOPERATED OR PARKED ON TURF BOULEVARDS.

13. ROADWAY STRIPING IMPACTED BY THE WORK ZONE SHALL BE REPLACED IN-KIND AT NO COST TO THE CITY. IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS AS TO THE TYPE OFMATERIAL TO BE USED, CONTACT MIKE MILLER (651-266-9778) IN THE CITY'S TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SECTION. STRIPING RESTORATION SHALL BE COMPLETEDIMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINAL PAVEMENT RESTORATION. IF THERE IS A DESIRE FOR THE CITY OF ST. PAUL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO COMPLETE THEPAVEMENT MARKING RESTORATION WORK, CONTACT MIKE MILLER OF PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS FOR AN ESTIMATE. WHEN POSSIBLE, A MINIMUM OFFOUR WEEKS ADVANCE NOTICE OF ANY NEEDED STRIPING WORK IS PREFERRED. AT A MINIMUM, ONE WEEK'S ADVANCE NOTICE SHALL BE PROVIDED. IF ADVANCENOTICE IS NOT PROVIDED, ANY ASSOCIATED PROJECT DELAYS, AND COSTS INCURRED RESULTING FROM SAID DELAYS, SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THECONTRACTOR.

14. AS PER THE CITY'S "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR STREET OPENINGS" POLICY, RESTORATION ON ROADWAY SURFACES LESS THAN 5 YEARS OLD WILL REQUIREFULL WIDTH MILL AND OVERLAY OR ADDITIONAL DEGRADATION FEES. DEGRADATION FEES ARE DETERMINED BY CONTACTING THE RIGHT OF WAY SERVICE DESKAT 651-266-6151. PAVEMENT RESTORATION SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE ST. PAUL PUBLIC WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION. ALL RELATED COSTS ARE THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR. CONTACT STREET MAINTENANCE AT 651-266-9700 FOR ESTIMATE OF COSTS FOR PAVEMENT RESTORATION.

CITY OF ST. PAUL NOTES

PER CITY REQUIREMENTS, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WILLPROVIDE RECORD DRAWINGS ONCE THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE.

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-019 Northern Salt


Applicant: Gregory Dumke Northern Salt Properties 20920 Forest Road Forest Lake, MN 55025

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions: 1. Receipt of $11,500 surety and documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey

County. 2. Provide a site specific plan, schedule and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater

management practices that includes the following: a. At a minimum, requires annual maintenance of infiltration areas to include removal of

accumulated sediment and debris. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

Consultant: Bob Wiegert Paramount Engineering

1440 Arcade Street N. Saint Paul, MN 55106

Description: Building demolition, replacement building and rail road spur construction Stormwater Management: One underground infiltration chamber system proposed District Rule: —C, D, F Disturbed Area: 2.25 Acres Impervious Area: 2.56 Acres

Permit Location

Aerial Photo


CRWD Permit #: 15-019 Review date: May 1, 2015 Project Name: Northern Salt Applicant: Gregory G. Dumke

20920 Forest Rd. P.O. Box 1028 Forest Lake, MN 55025 651.209.3148 [email protected]

Purpose: Removal of two existing buildings, construction of rail spurs and

new building, and construction of an underground infiltration basin.

Location: 602 Prior Ave, St. Paul Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 3 Conditions EXHIBITS:

1. Storm Water Drainage Report, by CES Consultants, LLC, dated 4/13/15, recd. 4/15/15.

2. Construction Plans, by Paramount Engineering and Design, dated 4/14/15, recd. 4/28/15.

3. HydroCAD Report, by CES Consultants, LLC, dated 4/28/15, recd. 4/29/15. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT


existing rates.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-019 Northern Salt\15-019 Northern Salt_Review_02.2.doc Page 1 of 4

Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.

Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.

Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.




3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development.

a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 100,400 square feet. The applicant suggests 111,339 square feet of impervious (100% of the site). However, a portion of the site is not proposed to be reconstructed.

b. Volume retention: Volume

Retention Required (cu. ft.)

BMP

Volume Retention




7,529 Underground 7,797 8,350 16,701

Total 7,797 cf

c. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. d. Infiltration volume and facility size has been calculated using the

appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate.

e. The infiltration area is capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours.

f. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested. 5. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from

the runoff generated on an annual basis. 6. A recordable executed maintenance agreement has not been submitted.

Adequate maintenance access is provided for the underground system. Maintenance agreement does not include a site specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices.


RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL

Standards Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year



project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard










2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition. 3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from


been submitted and satisfies NPDES requirements. RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION






Recommendation: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions:

1. Receipt of $11,500 surety and documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County.

2. Provide a site specific plan, schedule and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices that includes the following:

a. At a minimum, requires annual maintenance of infiltration areas to include removal of accumulated sediment and debris.

3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.


Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-021 Joy of the People


Applicant: Ted Kroeten Joy of the People 890 Cromwell Ave. Saint Paul, MN 55114

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 5 Conditions: 1. Provide documentation of maintenance agreement when finalized with the property owner. 2. Provide a site specific plan, schedule and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater

management practices that includes the following: a. At a minimum, require annual maintenance of infiltration areas to include removal of

accumulated sediment and debris. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 4. Revise plans to include provisions a-f as outlined in the 15-021 Permit Report. 5. Revise SWPPP to include provisions a-g as outlined in the 15-021 Permit Report.

Consultant: Jay Pomeroy Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc.

7575 Golden Valley Road Minneapolis, MN 55427

Description: Synthetic turf field and site improvements Stormwater Management: Sand filter proposed District Rule: —C, D, F Disturbed Area: 1.5 Acres Impervious Area: 0.73 Acres

Permit Location

Aerial Photo


CRWD Permit #: 15-021 Review date: April 24, 2015 Project Name: Joy of the People Applicant: Ted Kroeten

Joy of the People 890 Cromwell Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55112 612-281-8456 [email protected]

Purpose: Redevelopment of a park including removal of two baseball fields

and installation of turf soccer fields and a puckleball field. Location: 890 Cromwell Ave., St. Paul, MN Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 5 Conditions EXHIBITS:

1. Stormwater Management Report, by Anderson – Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 4/20/15, recd. 4/21/15.

2. Plan sheet C1.41, by Anderson – Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 3/24/15, recd. 4/21/15.

3. Draft maintenance agreement, unsigned and undated, recd. 4/15/15. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT



equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-021, Joy of the People\15-021 Joy of the People_Review_01.doc Page 1 of 5

Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.

Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.




3. The applicant states that stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. However, the plan volume could not be confirmed because adequate detail was not provided.



BMP

Volume Retention

Provided below outlet (cu. ft.)*



1,558 Turf Storage 5,145 951 1,902

Total 1,902 cf * Volume estimated by CRWD

c. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. d. Infiltration volume and facility size has been calculated using the


e. The infiltration area is capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours.


4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested. 5. Best management practices do achieve 90% total suspended solids removal

from the runoff generated on an annual basis. 6. A recordable executed maintenance agreement has not been submitted.

Adequate maintenance access is not provided for underground system. Maintenance agreement does not include a site specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices.

RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL


Standards Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year


project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is unknown if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or

adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. However, the applicant has provided adequate conveyance to prevent flooding.













not been submitted and does not satisfy NPDES requirements. RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION







1. Provide documentation of maintenance agreement when finalized with the property owner.

2. Provide a site specific plan, schedule and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices that includes the following.

a. At a minimum, require annual maintenance of infiltration areas to include removal of accumulated sediment and debris.

3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 4. Revise plans to include the following:

a. Provide a section view of the turf that confirms the volume retention provided. Only volume retained below the low outlet will be credited to the volume retention requirement.

b. State that the bottom of the storage volume shall be flat. Sheet C1.41 shows the turf with a slope. The underlying storage system should be flat.

c. State that clay soils encountered during excavation shall be over-excavated and replaced with clean washed sand.

d. Geotextile fabric shall not be placed below the infiltration area. e. State that aggregate fill shall be “washed, angular, non-carbonate rock.” f. Add cleanouts to the perforated pipe system. At a minimum, provide one

cleanout per row of pipe. 5. Revise SWPPP to include the following:

a. Infiltration perimeter control and erosion control practices shall remain in place until the final completion of the project or vegetation has been established (whichever is later).

b. Installation of infiltration practices shall be done during periods of dry weather and completed before a rainfall event. Placement of engineered soils shall be on dry native soil only.

c. Excavation of infiltration areas shall be completed using a backhoe with a toothed bucket.

d. Native soils in infiltration areas shall be de-compacted to a minimum depth of 18 inches prior to placing engineered soil.

e. The bottom excavation surface of infiltration areas shall be level without dips or swales.


f. Engineered soil shall remain uncontaminated (not mixed with other soil) when installed.

g. During construction, stormwater must be routed around infiltration areas until all construction activity has ceased and tributary surfaces are cleaned of sediment.


TURF SOCCER FIELD(53,152 SF)

SAND COURT(82' x 52')

INTRAPARKTRAIL

(9' WIDE)

FIELDLIGHT (3)

PUCKLEBALLFIELD

(~10,760 SF)

8" COLLECTOR PIPE

8" COLLECTOR PIPE

8" CO

LLECTO

R PIPE

8" CO

LLECTO

R PIPE

8" CO

LLECTO

R PIPE

8" COLLECTOR PIPE

8" COLLECTOR PIPE

TERRACEDWALLS

MH 101RIM = 201.6

INV. = 191.53 NW ASSUMED (FIELD VERIFY)

INV. = 191.53 SE ASSUMED(FIELD VERIFY)INV. = 195.00 E

72" IDR-1642

CONSTRUCT MH OVEREXISTING STORM SEWER.

PROVIDE FLEXIBLE JOINTS.

CONNECT DT @ INV. = 199.00PROVIDE BW VALVE

CONNECT DT @ INV. = 199.00PROVIDE BW VALVE

CB 1RIM = 200.9INV. = 195.3048" IDR-2560EA

CB 2RIM = 201.0

INV. = 195.7248" ID

R-2560EA

CB 3RIM = 201.2INV. = 196.1348" IDR-2560EA

CB 4 (EXISTING)RIM = 201.1INV. = 195.6 (FIELD VERIFY)CORE DRILL EXISTINGSTRUCTURE. PROVIDEFLEXIBLE JOINT. ADJUST RIMTO FINAL GRADE. PROVIDEADJUSTMENT RINGS ASNEEDED. RECONSTRUCT ASREQUIRED.

CB 5RIM = 201.3

INV. = 197.3048" ID

R-2560EA

68' - 12" RCP @ 0.44%

95' - 12" RCP @ 0.44%

92' - 12" RCP @ 0.44%

58' - 12" RCP @ 2.95%

6" D

RAIN

TILE

6" D

RAIN

TILE

6" D

RAIN

TILE

6" D

RAIN

TILE

6" D

RAIN

TILE

6" D

RAIN

TILE

6" D

RAIN

TILE

6" D

RAIN

TILE

6" D

RAIN

TILE

6" D

RAIN

TILE

6" D

RAIN

TILE

6" D

RAIN

TILE6"

DRA

INTI

LE

6" DR

AIN

TILE

6" DR

AIN

TILE6" DR

AIN

TILE

6" DR

AIN

TILE

6" DR

AIN

TILE

6" DR

AIN

TILE

8" DT @ INV. = 199.20

8" DT @ INV. = 200.4

8" DT @ INV. = 199.4

7C2.11

7C2.11

PYLON FIELDLIGHT (3)

1C2.11

1C2.11

1C2.11

2C2.11

3C2.11

3C2.11

A

A

A

INTRAPARKTRAIL

(9' WIDE)

INTRAPARKTRAIL (9' WIDE)

RELOCATEDLIGHT POLE

02.0

01.501.6

01.6

02.2

02.2

02.2

02.2

02.0

02.5

02.3

02.5

03.0

02.9

01.3

01.1

01.2

01.0

00.9

202

202

202

202

202

202

202

205

202

0.2% SLO

PE

0.2% SLO

PE

0.2% SLO

PE

0.2% SLO

PE

0.2% SLO

PE

02.4

02.3

02.5

02.4

02.7

02.702.6

M.E.(02.05)

M.E.(02.3)

01.7

01.7

01.8

01.8

01.9

01.9

02.1

02.1

101.5

101.5

101.

5

07.0

02.1

02.602.5

02.3

01.6

01.5

01.5

01.7

01.3

01.2

02.0

M.E.(01.3)

M.E.(01.5)

1.0% SLOPE

1.0% SLOPE

03.0

02.9

02.8

01.7

01.701.7

01.9

01.9

01.8

01.7

203

202

203

203

205

202

203

202

204

M.E.(01.6)

M.E.(01.9)

A

A

A

A

ADJUSTCASTING TO201.8

FIELDLIGHT (3)

INTRAPARKTRAIL

(9' WIDE)GRASS FIELD(~120' x ~156')

CIRCULAR BENCHAROUND PYLONFIELD LIGHT (3)

EXCERPT FROM THE SWPPP NARRATIVEThe following is from the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Narrative, Section 01 89 13 of the Project Manual. In accordance withSection 31 00 00, the Contractor shall be responsible for full implementation of and maintenance required by the SWPPP Narrative until theNotice of Termination is approved by the MPCA. Should differences arise between the SWPPP Narrative information described below and theinformation contained within the SWPPP Narrative, bound into the Project Manual, the SWPPP in the Project Manual shall govern.

V. General Construction Sequence

A. Erosion Control Devices, noted herein, include:1. Silt fence2. Sediment Control Device at storm sewer inlets3. Sediment log4. Rock construction entrance5. Rock check dams6. Rip rap7. Storm water treatment basins8. Temporary sediment basins9. Storm sewer systems10. Temporary outlet pipes11. Erosion control blanket12. Temporary seeding13. Final seeding / sodding14. Temporary / permanent vegetation15. Other features identified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, City or Engineer as a Best Management Practice (BMP) device.

B. Contractor shall apply for NPDES Phase II Permit within 24 hours of award of Contract.1. The Contractor shall post the permit in the job site trailer or other suitable temporary storage area.

C. Review the SWPPP and its sequencing and requirements. The Contractor shall notify the Engineer if site conditions, construction sequencing, or other items are differentor require modification from this written SWPPP. The Engineer will review the suggested modifications and amend the SWPPP accordingly.

D. Following review of the SWPPP plans commence with the following construction sequence:1. Install perimeter silt fence where indicated on the Drawings. Silt fence shall be as specified in Section 31 25 00.2. Have silt fence and other erosion control devices inspected by local authorities, as required by the local authority.3. Construct the rock construction entrance.4. Strip and stockpile topsoil from the entire site. Provide temporary seed and mulch on stockpile as described herein.5. Establish the concrete truck washout area and post with a sign.6. Construct the permanent storm sewer system.7. Construct Sediment Control Devices at proposed storm sewer inlets (hay bales around castings and silt fence under castings will not be acceptable).8. Rough grade the athletic fields.9. Begin synthetic turf field curb construction.10. Begin rough grading the paved areas.11. Place topsoil on grass fields and provide temporary seeding and mulch.12. Rough and finish grade bituminous path subgrade following the procedures identified in Section 31 00 00 Earthwork.13. Once pavement subgrade testing is complete, construct the stabilized aggregate base course. This will serve as temporary stabilization for the paths.14. Construct the pavement for the bituminous paths. This will serve as permanent stabilization for the paths.15. Prepare athletic fields for permanent seeding (permanent stabilization) in accordance with the specified seeding dates.16. Use a temporary irrigation system to keep seeded areas adequately watered.17. Remove temporary outlet devices.18. Provide final stabilization and cleanup of the site.

E. Provide maintenance to erosion control devices and BMP’s to comply with the requirements of the permit.

F. Re-install all sediment control practices that have been adjusted or removed to accommodate short-term activates, such as passage of construction vehicles or equipment,immediately after the short-term activity has been completed. All sediment control practices shall be re-installed before the next precipitation event if the short termactivity is not complete.

G. Inspect erosion control devices and provide routine maintenance as follows:1. Inspect erosion control a minimum of once per week and after each rain event measuring 0.5" or more. Record inspection on log posted in Contractor’s construction

trailer or other suitable temporary storage area.a. Records of each inspection and maintenance activity shall include:

(1) Date and time of inspections(2) Name of person conducting inspection(3) Findings of inspections, including recommendations for corrective actions(4) Corrective actions taken (including dates, times, and party completing maintenance activities(5) Date and amount of all rainfall events greater than one quarter inch (0.25 inch) in 24 hours(6) Documentation of changes made to the SWPPP as required by the NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (MN R100001)

b. Inspections are not required where the ground is frozen. The required inspectionsand maintenance schedule must begin within 24 hours after runoff occurs at the site or 24 hours prior to resuming construction, whichever comes first.

2. Provide maintenance for all devices as follows:a. Silt fences, sediment logs, and erosion control devices at storm sewer inlets shall be inspected for depth of sediment, tears, to see if fabric is securely attached

to support posts or structure, and to see that posts and devices are securely in place.b. Silt fences, sediment logs and erosion control devices at storm sewer inlets, and other erosion control devices shall be cleaned when sediment reaches 1/3 the

height of the erosion control device, within 24 hours.c. Rock construction entrances shall be inspected for clogging of river rock. River rock that has become clogged with sediment shall be removed and replaced

with fresh river rock.d. Repairs or replacements to all erosion control devices shall occur within 24 hours of discovery.e. Temporary diversion berms shall be inspected and any breaches promptly repaired.f. Tracked sediment from construction vehicles on to public streets and paved areas (including paved areas on the construction site) shall be removed within 24

hours of discovery.g. Removal of sediment and restabilization of Surface Waters shall be accomplished within 7 days of discovery (note: surface waters include curb and gutter,

pavements, storm sewer, swales, or other similar storm water conveyance devices).h. Inlet protection may be removed if a local unit of government directs the permitee to do so because of a specific safety concern.

H. Provide dewatering of excavations as identified in Section 31 00 00.

I. Temporary Soil Stockpiles:1. Temporary soil stockpiles shall not be placed in surface waters of the state, including surface conveyances such as curb and gutter, swales, or ditches.2. Install silt fence at the base of the temporary soil stockpile (full perimeter).3. Temporary soil stockpiles shall be seeded with temporary seed mix and hydromulch when stockpiles are left inactive for seven (7) days. Note, this does not apply to

aggregate stockpiles or other stockpiles without significant silt, clay or organic components (clean aggregate stockpiles, clean rock, clean sand and similar cleanaggregates).

J. Stabilize denuded areas within the following number of days of last construction activity (temporary or permanent) in that area:1. Within 7 days, except:

a. Temporary soil stockpiles shall be treated with appropriate erosion control measure, including silt fence and temporary seeding when stockpiles are leftinactive for periods longer than 7 days. Note, this does not apply to aggregate stockpiles or other stockpiles without significant silt, clay or organiccomponents (clean aggregate stockpiles, clean rock, clean sand and similar clean aggregates).

K. Provide maintenance of all seeded areas until fully established.

L. Provide cleaning of storm sewer system at the completion of the project. Cleaning shall include removal of accumulated sediment from all surface waters as defined by thepermit (for example, curb and gutter, pavements, swales, and storm sewer piping and structures).

M. Remove silt fence and erosion control devices at storm sewer inlets following full establishment of site vegetation. Dispose materials properly off-site.

N. Apply for Notice of Termination (NOT) with MPCA. NOT must be submitted within 30 days after:1. Site has undergone Final Stabilization (at least 80% vegetative cover), and2. Removal of all temporary erosion control measures (silt fence, etc.), and3. Final cleanout and maintenance of all permanent storm water facilities, and4. Completion of all maintenance activities and site cleanup.

SILT FENCE = 300 L.F.

ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE = 31 C.Y.

EROSION CONTROL BLANKET = 365 S.Y.

SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE AT STORM SEWER INLET = 7

APPROXIMATE EROSION CONTROL DEVICEQUANTITIES

SITE

IMPR

OVE

MEN

TSJO

Y O

F TH

E PE

OPL

ESo

uth

Sain

t Ant

hony

Rec

reat

ion

Cen

ter

890

CR

OM

WEL

L A

VEN

UE

ST. P

AU

L, M

N 5

5114

UTI

LITY

AN

D

SED

IMEN

T A

ND

ERO

SIO

N C

ON

TRO

LPL

AN

(SW

PPP)

1408

4

03/2

4/20

15E

MH

DA

R

9

PRELIMINARY DRAFTAGENCY REVIEW SUBMITTAL

0 15 30

LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)

EXISTING CONTOUR

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION

PROPOSED CONTOUR

PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONME = MATCH EXISTING

PROPOSED STORM SEWER

PROPOSED DRAINTILE

PROPOSED MANHOLE (MH)

PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB)

PROVIDE MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION AT CROSSING -PROVIDE VERTICAL BENDS IN WATERMAIN AS REQUIRED TOACCOMPLISH

SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE AT STORM SEWER INLET

PROPOSED SILT FENCE

PROPOSED ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE

PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET

PROPERTY LINE

1C2.11

202

02.5

5C2.11

8C2.11

6C2.11

7C2.11

4C2.11

1

A

1. REFER TO SHEET C1.00 - TITLE SHEET FOR GENERAL NOTES.

2. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE LIMITS OF WALKS AND CURBING PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF CATCHBASINS AND MANHOLES. MANHOLE LOCATIONS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO AVOID PLACEMENT OF THESESTRUCTURES IN WALKS AND CURB.

3. REFER TO SWPPP NARRATIVE (SECTION 01 89 13) FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING AND EROSIONCONTROL REQUIREMENTS.

4. MAINTAIN ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS CLEAN FROM CONSTRUCTION CAUSED DIRT ANDDEBRIS ON A DAILY BASIS. PROTECT DRAINAGE SYSTEMS FROM SEDIMENTATION AS A RESULT OFCONSTRUCTION RELATED DIRT AND DEBRIS.

5. MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL DURING GRADING OPERATIONS.

6. ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHALL COMPLY WITH MPCA AND OTHER LOCAL REGULATIONS.

7. IF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES TAKEN ARE NOT ADEQUATE AND RESULT INDOWNSTREAM SEDIMENT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING OUTDOWNSTREAM STORM SEWERS AS NECESSARY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED RESTORATION.

8. SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE AT STORM SEWER INLETS. AT THE INLETS TO ALL STORM SEWERSTRUCTURES, PROVIDE A PRODUCT FROM THE FOLLOWING LIST. ACCEPTABLE PRODUCTS:

A. WIMCO TOP SLAB™ MODEL RD 27.B. INFRASAFE® SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER, DISTRIBUTED BY ROYAL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS,

INC. SCB'S SHALL BE SIZED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE STRUCTURE AND CASTING SPECIFIED. SCB'SSHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH FRAME AND PERFORATED SHROUD AND SHALL BE WRAPPED ON THEOUTSIDE, COVERING THE PERFORATED WALL ONLY, WITH A GEOTEXTILE SOCK.

C. DANDY BAG® OR DANDY BAG II® DISTRIBUTED BY BROCK WHITE COMPANY, ST. PAUL, MN (615)647-0950. DANDY BAG SHALL BE USED ONLY FOR CURB INLETS AFTER PAVEMENT (BINDERCOURSE OR WEAR COURSE) IS INSTALLED OR AT EXISTING PAVED AREAS.

D. INFRASAFE® DEBRIS COLLECTION DEVICE BY ROYAL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC.,DISTRIBUTED BY ESS BROTHERS, 9350 COUNTY ROAD 19, CORCORAN, MN 55357 DCD'S SHALL BESIZED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE STRUCTURE AND CASTING SPECIFIED. PROVIDE FILTER BAGS ANDTIES FOR COMPLETE INSTALLATION.

E. OR APPROVED EQUAL.

EROSION CONTROL NOTES

11C2.11

1C2.11

2C2.11

3C2.11

1. REFER TO SHEET C1.00 - TITLE SHEET FOR GENERAL NOTES.

2. ABANDONING EXISTING SEWER SERVICES OR MAKING NEW CONNECTIONS TO CITY SEWER MUSTBE DONE TO CITY STANDARDS BY A LICENSED HOUSE DRAIN CONTRACTOR UNDER A PERMIT FROMPUBLIC WORKS SEWER SECTION (651-266-6234).

3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, PROVIDE AS-BUILT DRAWINGSILLUSTRATING ALL UTILITY WORK INCLUDING STORM SEWER, WATERMAIN, DRAIN TILE ANDSANITARY SEWER AND ALL APPURTENANCES WHICH WERE INSTALLED OR ENCOUNTERED ON THESITE. CONSTRUCTION RECORD DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO:

ANCA SIMAPUBLIC WORKS SEWERS DIVISION700 CITY HALL ANNEX25 WEST 4th STREETSAINT PAUL, MN [email protected]

UTILITY NOTES6" DRAINTILE

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-022 The Good Acre


Applicant: Terry Egge Pohlad Foundation 60 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 6 Conditions: 1. Receipt of $6,400 surety and documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County. 2. Provide a site specific plan, schedule and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management

practices that includes the following: a. Inspect in winter months to ensure plowed snow is not being stored on infiltration/filtration practices. b. Establish a watering plan that extends a minimum of one year after planting. c. At a minimum, requires annual maintenance of infiltration areas to include trimming vegetation, replacing

vegetation where needed, mulch replacement, and removal of accumulated sediment and debris. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 4. Specify an outlet for Basin 3 that discharges to a public drainage system, or provide documentation from adjacent

landowner that proposed drainage route is acceptable. 5. Provide a landscaping plan that includes the following:

a. Specify potted plants or plant plugs to vegetate infiltration areas. Basin seeding should be avoided. b. Provide signage that deters snow management from using the infiltration/filtration basin for snow storage.

6. Reduce total area that runs off without receiving treatment to achieve 90% TSS removal.

Consultant: Ross Bertelson RJM Construction

701 Washington Avenue North, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55401

Description: Construction of a new commercial building and urban farm area Stormwater Management: Applicant proposes 4 surface infiltration basins District Rule: —C, D, F Disturbed Area: 2.47 Acres Impervious Area: 1.27 Acres

Permit Location

Aerial Photo

Larpenteur Avenue


CRWD Permit #: 15-022 Review date: May 1, 2015 Project Name: The Good Acre Applicant: Terry Egge

Pohlad Foundation 60 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.661.3922 [email protected]

Purpose: Removal of existing pavement and construction of a new building,

storage shed, three hoop houses, pavement, and three rain gardens. Location: 1790 Larpenteur Ave W. Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 6 Conditions EXHIBITS:

1. Architect’s Supplemental Instruction (ASI), by LHB Corp., dated 4/21/15, recd. 4/21/15.

2. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review, by American Engineering Testing, Inc., dated 3/16/15, recd. 4/15/15.

3. Construction Plans, by Jacobson Engineers and Surveyors, dated 4/28/15, recd. 4/28/15.

4. Drainage Narrative for Good Acre Project Hydrology and Ponding, by Jacobson Engineers and Surveyors, dated 4/14/15, recd. 4/15/15.

5. Subcatchment Map, by Jacobson Engineers and Surveyors, dated 4/28/15, recd. 4/28/15.

6. Existing and proposed HydroCAD reports, by Jacobson Engineers and Surveyors, dated 4/28/15, recd. 4/28/15.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-022 The Good Acre\15-022 The Good Acre_Review_02.doc Page 1 of 4

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT








the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area from basin 3 is not discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development.



BMP

Volume Retention

Provided Below Outlet (cu. ft.)



4,140

Basin 1 705 303 606 Basin 2 2,155 887 1,774 Basin 3 1,860 2,470 4,940

Total 4,240 cf

c. Banking of excess volume retention of is not proposed. d. Infiltration volumes and facility sizes have been calculated using the


e. Infiltration areas are capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours.


4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested. 5. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids

removal from the runoff on an annual basis.


6. A recordable executed maintenance agreement has not been submitted. Adequate maintenance access is provided for surface systems. A maintenance plan has not been submitted.




project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard












been submitted and satisfies NPDES requirements.


RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and






2. Provide a site specific plan, schedule and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices that includes the following:

a. Inspect in winter months to ensure plowed snow is not being stored on infiltration/filtration practices.

b. Establish a watering plan that extends a minimum of one year after planting.

c. At a minimum, requires annual maintenance of infiltration areas to include trimming vegetation, replacing vegetation where needed, mulch replacement, and removal of accumulated sediment and debris.

3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 4. Specify an outlet for Basin 3 that discharges to a public drainage system, or

provide documentation from adjacent landowner that proposed drainage route is acceptable.

5. Provide a landscaping plan that includes the following: a. Specify potted plants or plant plugs to vegetate infiltration areas. Basin

seeding should be avoided. b. Provide signage that deters snow management from using the

infiltration/filtration basin for snow storage. 6. Reduce total area that runs off without receiving treatment to achieve 90% TSS

removal.


³

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-024 Saints Tailgating Parking Lot


Applicant: Tom Whaley St. Paul Saints Baseball 360 Broadway Street St. Paul, MN 55101

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 9 Conditions: 1. Receipt of surety and documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County. 2. Update the maintenance plan to include inspection in winter months to ensure plowed snow is not being stored on

filtration practices. 3. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 4. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 5. Revise plans to include provisions a – d as outlined in the 15-024 permit report. 6. Revise SWPPP to include provisions a – e as outlined in the 15-024 permit report. 7. Provide a minimum of 7,534 cubic feet of filtration volume to comply with Rule C of the CRWD Rules. 8. Demonstrate that the site achieves a minimum of 90% TSS removal from runoff. 9. Revise HydroCAD model to include provisions a – d as outlined in the 15-024 permit report.

Consultant: John Hink Solution Blue

318 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101

Description: Construction of a new tailgating lot for the Saint Ballpark Stormwater Management: Surface filtration tranches District Rule: —C D F Disturbed Area: 2.5 Acres Impervious Area: 1.77 Acres

Permit Location

Aerial Photo


CRWD Permit #: 15-024 Review date: May 1, 2015 Project Name: Saints Tailgating Lot Applicant: John Hink

Solution Blue 318 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 651.289.5533 [email protected]

Purpose: Development of a vacant lot to construct a parking lot with island

biofiltration basins. Location: East of Highway 52 where it merges with Interstate 94. Bound on

the north by 4th Street East, the west by Willus Street, the south by E. Prince Street, and the east by vacant land and railroad.

Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 9 Conditions EXHIBITS:

1. Construction Plans, by Solution Blue, dated 4/21/15, recd. 4/28/15. 2. Technical Memo, by Civil Methods, Inc., dated 4/15/15, recd. 4/16/15. 3. Stormwater Management Plan, by Civil Methods, Inc., dated 4/27/15, recd.

4/28/15. 4. Filtration Basin Landscaping Maintenance, author unknown, not dated, recd.

4/28/15. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant indicates existing soils are contaminated RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-024 Saints Tailgating Lot\15-024 Saints Tailgating Lot_Review_02.doc Page 1 of 5

mailto:[email protected]









3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development.



BMP

Volume Retention




5,795 None. Filtration is proposed.

c. Filtration is proposed due to contaminated soils: Filtration Volume Required (cu. ft.)

BMP

Filtration Volume




7,534

Biofiltration 1 770 1,117 2,235 Biofiltration 2 770 565 1,130 Biofiltration 3 2,246 921 1,842 Biofiltration 4 770 1,258 2,516 Biofiltration 5 770 536 1,072 Biofiltration 6 864 908 1,816

Total 5,786 cf

d. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed.


e. Filtration volume and facility size has been calculated using the appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design filtration rate.

f. The filtration areas are capable of filtering the required volume within 48 hours.

g. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to filtration areas.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested. 5. It is unlikely that best management practices achieve 90% total suspended

solids removal from the runoff on an annual basis. Subcatchment 7 includes 19,846 square feet of impervious area that is untreated in the proposed plans.

6. A recordable executed maintenance agreement has been submitted. Adequate maintenance access is provided for surface systems. Maintenance plan includes a site specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices. However, the plan does not include long term maintenance or observation in winter months.



project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is unknown if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or

adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. However, adequate conveyance is provided to prevent flooding.














been submitted but does not satisfy NPDES requirements. RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION







2. Update the maintenance plan to include inspection in winter months to ensure plowed snow is not being stored on filtration practices.

3. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID.

4. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 5. Revise plans to include the following:

a. Provide specific erosion control on the perimeter of the biofiltration basins. The erosion control should limit construction activity on top of the filtration basins to prevent sediment deposition.

b. Provide inlet protection for the proposed catch basins on site and immediately downstream of disturbed areas. Include all catch basins at the intersection of Willius Street and E. Prince Street.


c. Provide signage that deters snow management from using the filtration basins for snow storage.

d. Provide a minimum of 18” of filtration media in the biofiltration basins. The Biofiltration Swale Section on sheet C5.0 of the plans specifies 1 foot of filtration media.

6. Revise SWPPP to include the following: a. Filtration perimeter control and erosion control practices shall remain in

place until the final completion of the project or vegetation has been established (whichever is later).

b. Installation of filtration practices shall be done during periods of dry weather and completed before a rainfall event.

c. The bottom excavation surface of filtration areas shall be level without dips or swales.

d. Engineered soil shall remain uncontaminated (not mixed with other soil) when installed.

e. During construction, stormwater must be routed around filtration areas until all construction activity has ceased and tributary surfaces are cleaned of sediment.

7. Provide a minimum of 7,534 cubic feet of filtration volume to comply with Rule C of the CRWD Rules.

8. Demonstrate that the site achieves a minimum of 90% TSS removal from runoff.. 9. Revise HydroCAD model to include the following:

a. Include all disturbed areas in the existing and proposed models and include all proposed impervious area in the volume reduction standard. The proposed reconstruction of East Prince Street constitutes a common plan of development and must comply with the CRWD rules.

b. Reduce the exfiltration rate to 1.0 inch per hour for all biofiltration basins, or justify how a rate of 4.0 inches per hour will be achieved.

c. Update biofiltration basin areas to better reflect plan contours. Consider separating basins with rock berms into multiple basins.

d. Revise outlet elevations to reflect plans. i. The plans show the CBMH 2 rim elevation at 713.75 while

HydroCAD shows 713.25. ii. The plans show the CBMH 4 rim elevation at 713.25 while

HydroCAD shows 712.25. iii. The plans show the CBMH 6 rim elevation at 710.75 while

HydroCAD shows 712.2.


715

716715714

713

714

714

713

714

713

712

711

712

712

712

711

711

711711

711

711

710

710

710

710

715

712

712712

714 715

714713 713712

713

710

709

711713

709

713

710

711

710

711

716

715

713

GR

AD

ING

AN

DD

RA

INA

GE

PLA

N

C5.0

CADD

USE

R: R

anda

l FIL

E: C

:\U

SERS

\RAN

DAL\

DRO

PBO

X\PR

OJE

CTS\

1504

01 -

SAIN

TS E

AST

LAFA

YETT

E LO

T\W

ORK

ING

FIL

ES\C

AD\D

WG

\PLA

N S

HEE

TS\C

5.0

DRAI

NAG

E PL

AN.D

WG

PLO

T SC

ALE:

1:2

.584

9 PL

OT

DATE

: 5/

1/20

15 9

:42

AM

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

JOB NO.

DATE

REVISIONS BY

SHEET

I HE

RE

BY

CE

RTI

FY T

HA

T TH

ISP

LAN

OR

SP

EC

IFIC

ATI

ON

WA

SP

RE

PA

RE

D B

Y M

E O

R U

ND

ER

MY

DIR

EC

T S

UP

ER

VIS

ION

AN

D T

HA

T I

AM

A D

ULY

RE

GIS

TER

ED

CIV

ILE

NG

INE

ER

UN

DE

R T

HE

LA

WS

OF

THE

STA

TE O

F M

INN

ES

OTA

318

CE

DA

R S

TRE

ET

SA

INT

PA

UL,

MN

551

01(6

51)2

94-0

038

SO

LUTI

ON

BLU

E.C

OM

SA

INTS

EA

ST

LAFA

YE

TTE

LO

TS

T. P

AU

L, M

INN

ES

OTA

LMM

RAT

04-21-2015

150401

( IN FEET )

GRAPHIC SCALE

BIOFILTRATION SWALE SECTION(NOT TO SCALE)

1.0'

1.50'

1.5:1

3.0"

3.0"WASHED PEA ROCK

6" PERFORATED PEPIPE, NO SOCK

IMPERMEABLE LINER,AS SPECIFIED

FILTRATION MEDIA(80% SAND/20% LEAF COMPOST)

4" RECYCLED BITUMINOUS

PRE TREATMENT ROCK STRIP

ROCK CHECK DAM

18"

VARIES

05/0

1/15

2687

1

05/01/15ADD WSD COMMENTS

NOTE: ROCK CHECKS TO BE 3" BELOW EDGE OF PAVEMENT (MIN.) & 1.75' (MIN) ABOVE UPPER CELL'SBOTTOM ELEVATION

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

DATE: April 29, 2015

TO: CRWD Board of Managers

FROM: Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist

RE: Capstone Project—Trout Brook East Branch Subwatershed Analysis

Background

Since 2010, the District, with assistance from local engineering firms (H.R. Green Company and HDR

Inc.), have worked with groups of students in the Civil Engineering Department of the University of

Minnesota on their Capstone Project. The projects vary each year but are related to water quality or

flooding issues within the District. This partnership helps further the work of the District while also

offering real-world experience for college level students in the water resources field.

Issues

For the spring 2015 semester, the District and H.R. Green worked with students at the University of

Minnesota Civil Engineering Department on their Capstone Project. The students worked on a

subwatershed analysis project for the Trout Brook East Branch subwatershed. A draft of the report is

enclosed.

The students will provide a presentation outlining the background, analysis and potential projects that were

identified.

Requested Action

None, information only.

enc: Draft Trout Brook Stormwater Interceptor East Branch Subwatershed Analysis report

\\CRWDC01\Company\06 Projects\TBI East Subwatershed Analysis\Brd Memo TBI East Capstone Special Report 5-6-2015.docx

May 6, 2015 Board Meeting

IV. Special Reports

A) Capstone Project—TBI East

Branch Subwatershed

Analysis (Zwonitzer)

TrEa

DRA

VOApr

out Brast BraAFT

ONC Enril 29, 15

rook Stanch Su

ngineeri

tormwubwate

ing

water Inershed

nterced Analy

ptor ysis

VONC ENGINEERING i

Certification Page By signing below, the team members submit that this report was prepared by them and is their original work to the best of their ability. _________________________________________________ Anthony Vecchi Project Manager _________________________________________________ Andrew Corkery Project Engineer _________________________________________________ Dillon Nelson Project Engineer _________________________________________________ Ian Olson-Holmly Project Engineer

VONC ENGINEERING ii

Executive Summary ThekeyobjectiveoftheTroutBrookInterceptor–EastBranchSubwatershedAnalysisistodesignfiveBMPswithinthesubwatershedthatwillreducetheTotalSuspendedSolids(TSS)andTotalPhosphorus(TP)passingthroughtheeastbranchoftheTBI.Inordertoaccomplishthisgoal,VONCEngineeringhasassessedthesubwatershedforlocationssuitableforBMPimplementation,selectedBMPsthatreduceTSSandTPlevels,andmodeledexistingandproposedconditionswithinthewatershedtoquantifythereductioninpollutantloadingatsubwatershed’soutlet.ThefiverecommendedBMPswerethensubjectedtoacost/benefitanalysistoestimatethepollutantremovalimpactperdollarspentovera30‐yearperiod.Therecommendationandaccompanyingcost/benefitanalysisgivestheCRWDthenecessarytoolstoinformfuturebudgetingdecisions.ThedecisiontopursuethisprojectcameafterreviewingtheCRWD’sextensivewaterqualitymonitoringdata.ThisdataindicatedthatrelativelyhighlevelsofTSSandTPwereleavingtheTBIeastbranch,enteringtheTBI,anddischargingintotheMississippiRiver.Moreover,thisstudyareahasyettobeassessedforpotentialvolumereductionandpollutantreductionBMPs.LocationsforpotentialBMPimplementationwerefirstselectedinArcGISusingasimplebufferbasedonlandusecriteriasuchasundevelopedlandorparkspace.Usingthisbuffer,andsomeengineeringjudgment,16locationswereselectedforconsideration.Theselocationswerenarroweddowntothebestfivebasedoncriteriasuchasmaximizingcontributingrunoffareatothatlocation,proximitytoexistingstormsewerinfrastructure,andpotentialwetlandconflicts.ExistingconditionswerethenmodeledusingHydroCAD,ahydrologicmodelingsoftware,andP8,apollutanttransportmodelingsoftware.ProposedconditionsmodelswerecreatedbyevaluatingdifferentBMPsateachofthe5locations.Thegoalofthemodelingwastomaximizethepollutantremovalwithoutincreasingthepeakdischargeatanypointinthesystemduringdesignstormevents.InordertooptimizetheBMPselectionsanddeterminetheirfinaldesigns,acost/benefitanalysiswascompleted.BMPswereratedforeconomicefficiencybycomparingtheirtotal30‐yearcosttothepoundsofTSSandTPremovedover30years.OptimizingthisratiowillhelptheCRDWimplementtheBMPsthatwillachievemaximumpollutantreductionforaminimumcost.ThisreportoutlinesthedetailsofallanalysesaswellasthefinalrecommendationsfortheCRWDBoard’sconsideration.

VONC ENGINEERING iii

TableofContents

Certification Page........................................................................................................................i

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................ii

1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................1

8 Background...........................................................................................................................2

9 Design & Methodology........................................................................................................49.1 Location Selection.......................................................................................................................49.2 BMP Selection.............................................................................................................................69.3 Modeling.....................................................................................................................................69.4 Cost/Benefit Analysis..............................................................................................................10

10 Sustainability Considerations......................................................................................10

11 Schedule & Budget.........................................................................................................11

12 Summary...........................................................................................................................1212.1 Recommendations.................................................................................................................1212.2 LimitationsandFutureStudy........................................................................................13

13 References.........................................................................................................................14

AppendixA..............................................................................................................................A‐1

VONC ENGINEERING iv

TableofTablesTable A1 : Preliminary BMP Locations Matrix..............................................................A‐3

Table A2 : Selected BMP Locations Matrix.....................................................................A‐4

Table A3 : BMP List from MN Stormwater Manual (CRWD 2014a).......................A‐6

Table A4 : BMP Matrix........................................................................................................A‐7

Table A5 : ATLAS 14 Data..................................................................................................A‐8

Table A6 : P8 Results and Other Pollutant Removal..................................................A‐14

Table A7 : BMP Costs........................................................................................................A‐14

Table A8 : Cost/Benefit Analysis Results.......................................................................A‐15

Table A9 : Project Budget.................................................................................................A‐16

TableofFiguresFigure 1 : Study Area.................................................................................................................3

FigureA1:TBIEastSubwatershedStudyArea..........................................................A‐1

FigureA2:PreliminaryBMPLocations........................................................................A‐2

FigureA3:SelectedBMPLocations...............................................................................A‐5

FigureA4:ExistingConditionsforModel....................................................................A‐9

FigureA5:ProposedConditionsforModel..............................................................A‐10

FigureA6:StormTechSC‐310ChamberDetail.......................................................A‐11

FigureA7:FieldInfiltrationSystemPlanView......................................................A‐11

FigureA8:SchoolInfiltrationSystemPlanView...................................................A‐12

FigureA9:InfiltrationSystemCross‐SectionView...............................................A‐13

FigureA10:InfiltrationSystemSideView...............................................................A‐13

FigureA11:ProjectHours.............................................................................................A‐15

VONC ENGINEERING

TroutBrookInterceptor–EastBranchSubwatershedAnalysis

1

1 Introduction The Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) governs and manages the water resources within its 40 square mile area. This area includes portions of the cities of St. Paul, Lauderdale, Falcon Heights, Maplewood, and Roseville. Trout Brook is the largest subwatershed in the CRWD, with a drainage area of nearly 8,000 acres (CRWD 2015). The Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (TBI) receives runoff from this drainage area, as well as inflow from the Como Lake and McCarrons Lake subwatersheds, and discharges into the Mississippi River. CRWD conducts extensive monitoring of its watershed, measuring both pollutants and flow quantity. Monitoring of the east branch of the TBI indicates elevated concentrations of total phosphorous (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) relative to other monitoring stations along the TBI. The TBI East Branch subwatershed, shown in Figure A1 of the appendix, is a problem for the CRWD because its 450 acres have yet to be assessed for water quality improvement and volume reduction opportunities. The CRWD Board of Directors has commissioned VONC Engineering to investigate potential areas within this subwatershed for volume reduction and water quality improvement Best Management Practices (BMPs). The objective of this analysis is to present to the CRWD Board the locations and preliminary designs for five suitable volume reduction or water quality improvement BMPs in the TBI’s east branch subwatershed. The proposed BMPs are planned to function successfully in concert or individually, giving CRWD the freedom to pursue each of the five options as resources allow. The construction of these BMPs has the potential to benefit an area much larger than the CRWD. While the effect may not be large, any improvement to the water quality discharged by the TBI into the Mississippi River is an important step toward improving the health of the river. This report includes a recommendation as to how each of the BMPs can benefit the CRWD and a cost/benefit analysis based on the criteria used by the CRWD for past projects. Cost/benefit criteria include costs of construction and 30-year maintenance, pounds of TSS removed per year, and pounds of TP removed per year. This report outlines how the BMPs were chosen and the analysis that went into choosing their location and design. First, the background and current condition of the TBI East Branch subwatershed will be explained. This will serve to establish the basis for the analysis and outline any inherent assumptions. Next, the methodology and analysis process will be explained to clarify how the problem was approached and how the modeling was conducted. This technical section of the report outlines how the project team reached its recommendations. A section devoted to sustainability follows, as this was identified as a key concern for the CRWD Board. This section will include a discussion about how each BMP option serves to improve the sustainability of the stormwater infrastructure in the subwatershed and educate the public about their role in sustainable water resources practices. Finally, a short section on scheduling and budget

VONC ENGINEERING


2

outlines how the scope of work was completed over the project schedule. The report concludes by reviewing the final recommendations and highlighting the key points of the BMP designs.

8 Background The project site is located within the TBI East Branch subwatershed area, an area currently facing water quality issues according to CRWD monitoring data. It consists of 450 acres within portions of the City of Maplewood and St. Paul, Minnesota. The study area is bordered on the north side by Larpenteur Avenue, on the west side by Interstate 35E, on the east side by Payne Avenue and Edgerton Street and extends several blocks south of Maryland Avenue, as shown in Figure 1 below. Historical records of the area indicate that the northern section consisted largely of small lakes and farms throughout the 1920s and 1940s (UMN Libraries 2015). The southern section near the City of Saint Paul became densely populated, as it has remained today. During the 1950s urban sprawl advanced into the north section and many of the small farms and lakes were developed for residential use. Today nearly all of the study area is developed into densely populated residential neighborhoods consisting of single and multifamily homes as well as a mixture of commercial and industrial buildings and transportation corridors. The topography in the area can be described as rolling hills with steep slopes in some areas. The soil consists of sandy and gravelly loam with drainage classification of well drained to somewhat excessively drained (NRCS 2014). There are several existing wetlands and BMPs within the study area that collect and percolate stormwater runoff from the storm sewer system. They are primarily located along the western edge of the study area and are classified as freshwater emergent wetlands except for a BMP that was constructed in the early 2000’s as a result of the I-35E reconstruction. The largest wetland is located near the corner of Arkwright Street North and Arlington Avenue East and is comprised of 2.73 acres of marsh. There are two wetlands and the I-35E BMP located in the southwestern section of the study area, with a total of 2.5 acres of water quality treatment area. A 0.85 acre wetland exists in the northwestern section with a small contributing watershed. There are few BMPs in the denser neighborhoods of the southeast and central east areas of the study area.

Figur

Tr

re 1: Study A

routBrookIn

Area

nterceptor– EastBranch

VO

Subwatersh

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

3

VONC ENGINEERING


4

9 Design & Methodology Ideally, proposed BMP types and locations need to be incorporated into the urban areas of the Subwatershed, to maximize the reduction of TSS and TP, while being economically feasible and not increasing the peak flow rate during design storms.

9.1 Location Selection In order to determine which locations within the study area were suitable for BMPs, an analysis was completed in ArcGIS (Version 10.2; ESRI, 2014), a geo-spatial analysis software. The analysis first identified 16 potential BMP locations, and these were eventually reduced to 6 locations. The following steps were used to select BMPs:

1. Identification of potential BMPs across the entire study area based on proximity to storm sewer and its current land use

2. Evaluation BMP locations based on select criteria in matrix 3. Review of the BMP locations with CRWD staff

The potential BMP locations were initially selected based on land use classification. As shown in Figure A2 of the appendix, an overlay was created in ArcGIS to highlight public, agricultural, golf course, open water, park, recreational, reserved land and undeveloped parcels. Next, a 300 ft buffer was created around the storm sewer system and merged with the more ideal land use classifications. This layer was then analyzed for existing BMPs, state and public lands, and areas where large amounts of untreated stormwater run-off may enter the storm sewer system. The buffered area contained four existing ponds that were chosen as possible rehabilitation sites. There were several state and public land locations that were large in area and/or were located in close proximity to the existing storm sewer system where new BMPs could be constructed. These locations were chosen because they possessed the necessary characteristics for rain gardens, hydrodynamic devices, or underground detention/infiltration systems. The remaining sites were chosen near large parking lots, gas stations, and major roadways because these areas can produce stormwater run-off with high levels of pollutants. Sixteen potential BMP locations were selected, as shown in Figure A2. A matrix with criteria to further evaluate the BMPs was created for these locations and is shown in Table A1 of the appendix. The criteria included in the matrix are: contributing area, percent impervious, hazardous waste areas, proximity to capital improvement projects, soil type, proximity to existing storm sewer, and conflicts with utilities. The contributing watershed area for each potential location was considered storm sewer or direct surface runoff to the potential BMP. An AutoCAD file from the City of St. Paul was used to determine the direction of flow in the storm sewer system. A one-foot

VONC ENGINEERING


5

contour map from the City of St. Paul was used to manually delineate the watershed areas for each proposed BMP location. Percent impervious data was taken from a subwatershed shapefile obtained from CRWD. The percent of impervious area for each potential BMP location was assumed to be the same as the original CRWD subwatershed divides. Areas were identified for hazardous waste concerns by inspection of historical aerial imagery and by reviewing hazardous waste investigations from the MPCA’s “What’s in my Neighborhood” records. Capital Improvement Project forecasts (CIPs) were investigated to identify locations where a BMP’s construction could be integrated into the City of St. Paul’s redevelopment projects, reducing the overall cost of the BMP’s construction. To find CIPs within our study area, research was conducted from the City of Saint Paul’s Residential Street Vitality Program (RSVP) website, redevelopment proposals to the state, and consulting with Megan Kane, an employee from Saint Paul Public Works. It was discovered that there are two projects proposed that are within the project study area (City of St. Paul 2015). Wheelock Parkway is to be reconstructed between Interstate 35E and Edgerton St. during the 2016 construction season. A revitalization of Maryland Ave. is also proposed between the intersections of Bradley and Payne Ave in 2016/2017. The Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) soil survey provided a detailed account of the soils within the project area, specifically the hydrologic soil groups and drainage characteristics. The average curve numbers for each subdivision of the watershed were estimated based on the hydrologic soil groups obtained from this survey. The proximity of each potential BMP location to the nearest existing storm sewer pipe was determined using the distance measurement tool within ArcGIS. Information regarding the existing storm and sanitary system alignments for the project area was provided by the City of Saint Paul. This information was used to determine which locations may interfere with the existing sanitary system if large construction projects were to occur. Using the BMP location matrix, the list of potential BMP locations was narrowed from 16 to five as shown in Table A2 of the appendix. Locations 0, 2, 3, and 13 were eliminated from further consideration due to their status as existing wetlands. Locations 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 were eliminated from consideration due to their small contributing watershed area. Location 7 was eliminated from consideration because a BMP had been constructed at this location. Location 15 was eliminated from consideration because its location required a BMP (such as a hydrodynamic device) to be placed inside the stormsewer, which would be inefficient as a treatment practice so far downstream in the system. The five locations chosen for further analysis displayed the necessary characteristics for the largest volume reduction and/or nutrient and solids removal and can be seen in Figure A3 of the appendix.

VONC ENGINEERING


6

9.2 BMP Selection The process of selecting appropriate BMPs for each of the potential locations began with the Minnesota Stormwater Manual from the MPCA website (MPCA 2014a). This manual contains a table of BMPs and information on their respective design and benefits, as shown in Table A3 of the appendix. Using this table a matrix was created to rate each option, similar to the one for determining suitable BMP locations,. The criteria in this matrix included optimum BMP size, need to connect to sewer, maintenance requirements, volume reduction, TSS removal, TP removal, subsurface infrastructure, watershed size limit, aesthetic appeal, and approximate cost. As shown in Table A4 of the appendix, BMPs were excluded from further consideration if they failed to meet certain requirements, such as large surface area requirement or low treatment impact. The remaining six BMP types were then matched with one of the five BMP locations that aligned well with terrain requirements, volume and pollutant loading from the contributing area, and space constraints. From this qualitative analysis, it was found that locations 1 and 4 are good candidates for a subsurface storage/infiltration BMP due to their large contributing area and proximity to park space. Locations 11 and 14 could host a network of tree boxes based on their position along roads. Lastly, location 12 is a good candidate for a rain garden due to its position near the Minnesota Historical Society, which could allow for a high visibility, educational implementation of sustainable water resources engineering practices.

9.3 Modeling HydroCAD (Version 10, HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC, 2011) is a computer software used for hydrological modeling and designing stormwater management systems. HydroCAD was used to determine the volume and flow rate within the TBI for the existing conditions where the stormsewer discharges from our project area. The four storm events modeled in HydroCAD were a 1.1-inch rainfall, and the 24-hr rainfall depths of the 2-yr, 10-yr, and 100-yr storm events. The 1.1-inch rainfall depth was determined from the MPCA design guidelines. Using the minimal impact design standards (MIDS) from the MPCA, it was found that 90% of storms have a rainfall depth of 1.1 inches (MPCA 2014b). The 24-hr rainfall depths for the 2-yr, 10-yr, and 100-yr storm events were found in NOAA ATLAS 14 data for our project location, as shown in Table A5 of the appendix (NOAA 2014). HydroCAD is capable of modeling subcatchments, ponds, and reaches for a site. Our specific project site consists of three subwatersheds and three ponds so a node was created for each. The total subwatershed area, time of concentration, and weighted curve number was found for each subcatchment node. The total area was provided in the ArcGIS CRWD file. The time of concentration was calculated using the SCS method (Mays 2011).

VONC ENGINEERING


7

. 1 .

1140 . Where: tc – time of concentration L – hydraulic length S – potential maximum retention Y – average slope The hydraulic length is the longest distance that a drop of rainfall must travel to reach the specified outlet location. The potential maximum retention is the ratio of actual soil retention once runoff begins and was found from the following equation (Mays 2011).

100010

Where: S – potential maximum retention

CN – curve number The curve number was calculated using the shapefile data provided by CRWD for each subwatershed. The curve number was estimated using the following equation.

∗ 8 ∗ 98

The average slope for the watershed was calculated by taking the difference in elevation at the point of the beginning of the hydraulic length and the outlet and dividing by the hydraulic length. Each pond was modeled as a detention pond with a prismatic geometry. The point at which each pond would overtop its banks was determined using ArcGIS. The surface area for each elevation within the ponds was calculated using a 1-ft contour map. The outlet structure for each pond was a reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) and the diameter, slope, and elevations were found from the storm sewer CAD file provided by the City of St. Paul. Manning’s number was found using a table provided in HydroCAD. A concrete sewer with manholes and inlets had a Manning’s number of 0.015. The entrance loss coefficient Ke was found for a pipe with a square edge and was determined to be 0.5. The tailwater for each outlet was modeled as a free discharge since it was flowing freely into the next pond. Once the water reached the bank elevation for each pond, it would then flood the surrounding area. HydroCAD does not account for this phenomenon and instead assumes that the water continues upward forming a cylinder in the shape of the pond. To account for the flooding a broad crested rectangular weir was inserted as an additional outlet structure at an elevation 0.01 feet above the bank elevation and was given a surface area of 100 acres.

VONC ENGINEERING


8

Several assumptions were made for Pond 3 because there was not a sufficient amount of inlet and outlet data available. Based on the site visit, it was found that the outlet structure for Pond 3 was similar to the outlet structures found in Pond 2. To be conservative it was assumed that the outlet pipe had similar characteristics as the outlet pipes for Pond 2 and Pond 0. The diameter was assumed to be 12 inches with a length of 50 feet and a slope of 0.01 ft/ft. In HydroCAD, a reach is created to model hydraulic routing. Reaches were modeled between Pond 2 and Pond 0 and between Pond 0 and the TBI outlet location. Each storm sewer network between the ponds consists of multiple pipe diameters with the largest pipe diameter located at the most downstream point in the storm sewer. To account for the change in diameters, the largest diameter was used so that there would be a small amount of pressure driven flow through the reach. The length of each reach was calculated by measuring the length of storm sewer between ponds using the CAD file. The Manning’s number was again assumed to be 0.015 and the tailwater was modeled as a free discharge. The inlet elevation was equal to the outlet elevation of the node that the reach was beginning at and the outlet elevation was equal to the inlet elevation of the node where the reach was ending. It is important to note that HydroCAD does not model storm sewer systems efficiently and although a pipe can be chosen as the structure for each reach, HydroCAD models it as an open channel. This may result in some error within the model. The existing conditions, as modeled, are shown in Figure A4 of the appendix. A proposed conditions model was created in HydroCAD using the existing conditions model and the two proposed underground infiltration systems, as shown in Figure A5 of the appendix. The underground infiltration systems were designed using StormTech SC-310 chambers. Each infiltration system was located within the Northeast subwatershed. The contributing catchment areas were determined using the same process used for the subwatersheds in the existing conditions model. The infiltration systems were designed to infiltrate all of the water stored within the system in 48 hours. First, the maximum available soil area for each location was determined. Then, the soil type and infiltration rate at each location was found using the NRCS soil data. It was found that each location had Type C soils and an Infiltration rate of 0.2 in/hr. The maximum flow rate was calculated by multiplying the maximum area available at each site by the soil infiltration rate. The volume of rainfall able to infiltrate the maximum area was then calculated by multiplying the flow rate by 48 hours. The largest storm event for the design was determined by comparing the volume of run-off produced by each storm to the maximum allowable volume for each location. It was determined that the infiltration systems would be designed for the 1.1 inch rainfall event because the larger storm events would require a greater amount of area to infiltrate the rainfall within 48 hours than what was available. The minimum area required to infiltrate the rainfall volume for a 1.1-inch event within 48 hours was calculated by reversing the same process. Once the minimum area was determined, an iterative process was used to calculate the number of rows and chambers per row that would be required to hold the volume of rainfall produced by the design storm event.

VONC ENGINEERING


9

The prefab chamber design tool within HydroCAD was used to model each infiltration system. The design tool had the manufacturer specifications for the chambers built-in and the required input parameters were the depth of granular material below the chambers, the number of chamber rows, and the number of chambers per row. Each infiltration system was designed with a concrete structure to be placed within the existing storm sewer system. The structure had a hydrodynamic device that filtered the suspended solids of the inflow. An 18-inch Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) was placed to direct flow into the infiltration system and a rectangular weir was designed so that once the infiltration system was at capacity, the remaining flow would bypass the infiltration system and discharge directly into the downstream pond. The complete details of the infiltration systems are shown in Figure A6 through Figure A10 of the appendix. A pollutant transport model for the existing and proposed conditions was created using P8 (Version 3.4; Dr. William W. Walker, 2007). The existing conditions model was created using the same inputs used in the existing conditions HydroCAD model. The results of this model are not intended to mimic the current CRWD monitoring data, but rather to develop a baseline for comparison with the results of the proposed conditions models. As with the HydroCAD proposed conditions model, only the underground infiltration systems were implemented in the proposed conditions P8 model. The decision to exclude the tree boxes and rain garden from the model was due to the fact that removal efficiencies for these BMPs are well documented in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (MPCA 2014b). The infiltration systems were modeled in P8 as general devices. For both systems, a rating curve (water depth versus discharge) was approximated to specify that until the infiltration system was full all outflow would be infiltration. After the system was full, overflow would bypass the system as flow over a weir the height of the infiltration system. The equation for discharge over a weir was used to estimate the overflow as a function of depth (Sturm 2010).

. Where: Q – discharge C – coefficient of discharge L – length of weir crest H – head over the weir The model was run using rainfall and temperature data from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area over a 10-year period. The output of the program is in terms of pounds of pollutant leaving the study area per year. The tree box systems were selected to be a standard size of 6 ft by 6ft, and the number of each units at each location was determined as 0.33% of the contributing impervious area divided by the area of one tree box unit (Low Impact Development Center 2007). It was

VONC ENGINEERING


10

found that 32 tree boxes will be required along Wheelock Parkway and 10 tree boxes will be required along Maryland Avenue for maximum removal efficiency. The pollutant load on both tree box systems and the rain garden were determined from P8 by using the contributing area to scale the loading from the subwatershed that each BMP is located. Removal efficiencies for both BMP types were found in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (MPCA 2014b). The results of this analysis, and the P8 proposed model can be found in Table A6 of the appendix.

9.4 Cost/Benefit Analysis The cost of purchasing and installing each of the potential BMPs was estimated utilizing historical data obtained from past CRWD reports (CRWD 2010). Namely, construction costs of installation and 30-year maintenance costs of similar BMPs on past projects were obtained and adjusted as appropriate for this project. The costs for each of the five BMPs are shown in Table A7 of the appendix. Using the results from the P8 model, a cost/benefit matrix was created and can be found in Table A8 of the appendix.

10 Sustainability Considerations The entire analysis and design of BMPs for this study area was an attempt to make the area more sustainable in regards to water quantity and pollutant management. The sustainability issues addressed are the pollutants contained in urban runoff and the potential for harm they pose to our rivers, lakes, and other natural resources vital to the sustainability of our environment. This project focuses on the reduction in the amount of total suspended solids, phosphorus and, to a lesser extent, nitrogen, that are carried away by stormwater in the area and eventually enter the Mississippi River. These pollutants pose a threat to the ecological sustainability of the Mississippi River and the many ecosystems that depend on it. By lowering pollutant loading in stormwater, as well as reducing the volume of stormwater that leaves the watershed, these harmful effects are mitigated. Elevated levels of TSS and TP in stormwater each pose unique ecological threats to the Mississippi River. The TSS that enters the Mississippi River increases the turbidity of the water and changes the bathymetry of the channel as the sediment from the stormwater builds up on the riverbed. As phosphorous is the limiting nutrient in fresh water eutrophication, the elevated levels of phosphorous in the stormwater exiting the system can cause algae blooms. Algae blooms have a number of negative effects on the rivers ecosystem including decreased biodiversity, new species domination, and water toxicity. This project promotes sustainability by reducing the impact of urban development and by considering the life-cycle costs and benefits in the selection and analysis of the

VONC ENGINEERING


11

recommended BMPs. This project may also serve to educate the citizens in the Twin Cities Metro about the role they have in protecting water resources in the area. Finally, the citizens within the TBI East Branch subwatershed will benefit from the new infrastructure in several ways: some BMPs will bring an improved, more natural aesthetic to the highly residential area, and all of the selected BMPs will improve the quality of surface water discharging from the watershed.

11 Schedule & Budget Work began on January 22, 2015, and was completed, in the form of a final presentation, during the first week of May. Cost for this project include hours incurred from the design team and and from the creation of presentation materials. To ensure a successfully managed project, work was divided into specific tasks. The tasks include a Project Development Workplan, meetings, report preparation, presentation preparation, BMP location identification, GIS analysis, BMP selection, modeling/design, and cost/benefit analysis. The last five tasks have been outlined earlier in the Design and Methodology section of this report. Since this project is a feasibility design study, construction is outside of the scope and no construction schedules or budget were created. The project was completed under budget as shown in the tracking of cumulative hours shown in Figure A11 of the appendix. The details of the project budget are shown in Table A9 of the appendix.

VONC ENGINEERING


12

12 Summary The high levels of TSS and TP leaving the TBI’s East Branch have led the CRWD to consider implementing pollutant reduction and volume reduction BMPs. In order to accomplish this, VONC Engineering has been commissioned to assess the TBI East Branch Subwatershed for the most suitable locations for BMP implementation, determine which BMPs could be used at each location, model their effectiveness, and to estimate their economic viability. The analysis outlined in this report demonstrates the iterative process through which a BMP matyrix, HydroCAD models, P8 models, and a cost/benefit analysis were used to determine BMP locations and types, and achieve a set of preliminary BMP designs. The findings and designs serve as a recommendation for CRWD to review and implement.

12.1 Recommendations Based on the results of the analysis outlined in this report, VONC Engineering recommends that CRWD pursue one of the following options. Each option will lead to a reduction in TSS and TP discharge into the east branch of the TBI. The options differ in the level of financial commitment. Option #1 Install a rain garden at the Minnesota Historical Society, 10 tree boxes along Maryland Avenue, and an underground infiltration system at Arkwright Park (as detailed in Figure A6, Figure A7, Figure A9, and Figure A10 of the appendix). The rain garden provides some treatment, but its main purpose is to serve as a strategic, educational tool to inform the public about sustainable water resources practices. Its location at the Minnesota Historical Society may help to increase its impact. The tree boxes along Maryland Avenue could be implemented as part of an upcoming (2016) Capital Improvement Project by the city of St. Paul. This system offers the best treatment per dollar of the BMP options considered. In the future a similar system could be pursued along Wheelock Parkway. Lastly, the infiltration system at Arkwright Park will have a high pollutant removal impact and its design could be altered to include for storage and stormwater reuse. Option #2 This option offers a lower cost alternative if the funds cannot be secured to install the underground infiltration system. As before, a rain garden is installed at the Minnesota Historical Society and 10 tree boxes along Maryland Avenue. While this option offers significantly less TSS and TP removal, it will have a positive effect on the quality of the discharge entering the TBI East Branch. The rain garden could help to educate the public

VONC ENGINEERING


13

on the importance of stormwater BMPs and the tree boxes along Maryland Avenue could lead to similar systems being supported in the study area.

12.2 Limitations and Future Study Theanalysesandrecommendationslaidoutinthisreporthavecertainlimitations.Beingafeasibilitystudy,thegoalsofthisprojectweretoidentifylocationswithinthestudyareathatBMPscouldbeinstalledtoimprovethestormwaterqualityenteringtheTBIEastBranch.Asaresult,allmodelingresultsreflecttheperformanceofpreliminarydesigns.Groundwatereffectsontheperformanceoftheproposedundergroundinfiltrationssystemswerenotconsidered.Alteringexistingstormwaterpondsclassifiedaswetlandswasnotconsideredduetothecomplexityofthepermittingprocess.Lastly,adetailedhydraulicanalysiswasnotconductedtodeterminehowthefiveBMPswouldperformduringextremerainfallevents.Futurestudyshouldincludeananalysistodeterminehowgroundwaterlevelsaffecttheabilityoftheundergroundsystemstoinfiltrate.Otherworksontheinfiltrationsystemscouldbedonetoaltertheproposeddesigntoincludeundergroundstorageandaharvesting/re‐useprogramtoirrigatethepreviouslynotirrigatedArlingtonArkwrightPark.AninvestigationcouldalsobedonetodeterminehowsmallchangestothethreeexistingpondsinthestudyareacouldimprovetheirabilitytoremoveTSSandTP.Finally,iftheundergroundinfiltrationsystemistobepursued,thebypassstructuremustbedesignedsuchthatthearenoupstreameffectsduringextremerainfallevents.

VONC ENGINEERING


14

13 References Capitol Region Watershed District (2015). “What is the Capitol Region Watershed District.” <http://www.capitolregionwd.org/> (March 9, 2015). Capitol Region Water District (2010). Watershed Management Plan, St. Paul, MN. City of Saint Paul (2015). “Streets and Utilities Project Index,” <http://www.stpaul.gov/DocumentCenter/View/77180> (March 8, 2015). Low Impact Development Center (2007). “Urban Design Tools: Tree Box Filter,” <http://www.lid-stormwater.net/treeboxfilter_sizing.htm> (April 22, 2015). Mays, L. W. (2011). Water Resources Engineering, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2014). “Minimal Impact Design Standards: Enhancing Stormwater Management in Minnesota.” <http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/stormwater/stormwater-minimal-impact-design-standards-mids.html> (April 7, 2015). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2014). Minnesota Stormwater Manual, St. Paul, MN. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2014). “NOAA ATLAS 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates: MN.” <http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=mn> (April 7, 2015). Natural Resources Conservation Service (2014). “Web Soil Survey,” <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov> (February 23, 2015). Sturm, T. W. (2010). Open Channel Hydraulics, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York. University of Minnesota Libraries (2015). “Minnesota Historical Aerial Photographs Online,” <http://www.lib.umn.edu/apps/mhapo/> (February 25, 2015).

Appe

Figur

Tr

endix A

re A1: TBI E

routBrookIn

East Subwa

nterceptor–

atershed Stud

EastBranch

dy Area

VO

Subwatersh

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

A‐‐1

Figur

Tr

re A2: Preli

routBrookIn

iminary BMP

nterceptor–

MP Locations

EastBranch

s

VO

Subwatersh

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

A‐‐2

Table A1

Trout

1: Prelimina

BrookInterc

ary BMP L

ceptor–East

ocations Ma

tBranchSub

atrix

VONC

bwatershedA

C ENGINEERIN

Analysis

NG A‐‐3

Table A2

Trout

2: Selected B

BrookInterc

BMP Locat

ceptor–East

tions Matrix

tBranchSub

x

VONC

bwatershedA

C ENGINEERIN

Analysis

NG A‐‐4

Figur

Tr

re A3: Selec

routBrookIn

cted BMP Lo

nterceptor–

ocations

EastBranch

VO

Subwatersh

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

A‐‐5

Tabl

Tr

e A3: BMP

routBrookIn

List from M

nterceptor–

MN Stormw

EastBranch

water Manu

VO

Subwatersh

al (CRWD

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

2014a)

ERING

A‐‐6

Table A4

Trout

4: BMP Ma

BrookInterc

atrix

ceptor–EasttBranchSub

VONC

bwatershedA

C ENGINEERIN

Analysis

NG A‐‐7

Tabl

Tr

e A5: ATLA

routBrookIn

AS 14 Data


VO

Subwatersh

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

A‐‐8

Figur

Tr

re A4: Exist

routBrookIn

ting Conditi

nterceptor–

ions for Mod

EastBranch

del

VO

Subwatersh

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

A‐‐9

Figur

Tr

re A5: Prop

routBrookIn

posed Condit

nterceptor–

tions for Mo

EastBranch

odel

VO

Subwatersh

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

A‐110

Figur

Figur

Tr

re A6: Storm

re A7: Field

routBrookIn

mTech SC-3

d Infiltration

nterceptor–

310 Chambe

n System Pla

EastBranch

er Detail

an View

VO

Subwatersh

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

A‐111

Figur

Tr

re A8: Scho

routBrookIn

ool Infiltratio

nterceptor–

on System P

EastBranch

Plan View

VO

Subwatersh

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

A‐112

Figur

Figur

Tr

re A9: Infilt

re A10: Infi

routBrookIn

tration Syste

iltration Sys

nterceptor–

em Cross-Se

tem Side Vie

EastBranch

ection View

ew

VO

Subwatersh

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

A‐113

Tabl

*Rem

Tabl

Tr

e A6: P8 Re

moval estima

e A7: BMP

routBrookIn

esults and O

ated using M

Costs

nterceptor–

Other Pollut

Minnesota Sto

EastBranch

tant Remov

ormwater M

VO

Subwatersh

al

Manual

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

A‐114

Tabl

*Rem

Figur

Tr

e A8: Cost/B

moval estima

re A11: Proj

routBrookIn

Benefit Ana

ated using M

ject Hours

nterceptor–

alysis Result

Minnesota Sto

EastBranch

ts

ormwater M

VO

Subwatersh

Manual

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

A‐1

15

Tabl

Tr

e A9: Proje

routBrookIn

ect Budget


VO

Subwatersh

ONC ENGINE

hedAnalysis

ERING

A‐116

1

Board Workshop of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for April 15, 2015,

4:30 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, MN 55108.

Board Workshop Minutes

I. Call to Order at 5:00 p.m. (President Joe Collins)

A) Attendance

Joe Collins

Mary Texer

Seitu Jones

Mike Thienes

Shirley Reider

Others Present

Mark Doneux, CRWD

Anna Eleria, CRWD

Michelle Sylvander, CRWD

Elizabeth Beckman, CRWD

Forrest Kelley, CRWD

Nate Zwontizer, CRWD

Bob Fossum, CRWD

Gustavo Castro, CRWD

Britta Suppes, CRWD

Public Attendees Wes Saunders-Pearce, City of

St. Paul – Water Resource

Mike Hahm, City of St. Paul –

Parks & Receation

Ricardo Cervantes- City of St.

Paul – Safety & Inspections

Jonathan Sage-Martinson – City

of St. Paul – Planning &

Economic Development

Bruce Elder, City of St. Paul –

Sewer Utility

John Matzko, City of St. Paul –

Public Works

Kathy Lantry, City of St. Paul –

Public Works

Steve Ubl, City of St. Paul –

Building Inspections

B) Workshop Goals and Objectives (President Joe Collins) President Collins called the meeting to order and thanked everyone for attending. President Collins asked for

additions or changes to the agenda. There were no additions or changes to the agenda.

Motion 15-098: Approve the April 15, 2015 Board Workshop agenda

Thienes/Jones

Unanimously approved

II. Review of Past, Current and Future Joint Projects (Wes Saunders-Pearce, Mark Doneux.)

Administrator Doneux thanked everyone for attending. Mr. Saunders-Pearce and Administrator Mark Doneux

reviewed a brief presentation of projects completed in 2014. Some of the projects completed include: winter

maintenance training for the Public Works staff, rain gardens, new fish monitoring, adopt a rain drain program,

Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary, Highland Ravine stabilization, Lowertown Ball Park rain water harvesting,


V. Action Item A) Approve

Minutes of April 15, 2015

DRAFT Regular Board Meeting

(Sylvander)

2

Hidden Falls feasibility study, Como Regional Park stormwater management plan, Dist. 6 Natural Resource

Inventory, former Ford site redevelopment, Inspiring Communities program, 92 BMP’s built in 2014.

III. Open Forum

President Collins shared that a lot of good things have come from the relationship between the City of

Saint Paul and CRWD. Mr. Cervantes supports rain water harvesting like the Lowertown Ball Park. Mr. Elder

shared that standards are not in place at this time for plumbing codes and that this could be a combined effort in

designing standards. President Collins recommended discussions with other Cities that are currently using water

harvesting systems. Mr. Sage-Martinson appreciates the work on the former Ford site. Discussion occurred

regarding current and future opportunities to collaborate.

IV. Next Meeting

President Collins thanked everyone for coming and felt the meeting was beneficial and will help with

collaboration on future discussions.

V. Adjournment

Motion 15-099: Adjournment of the April 15, 2015 Board and City of Saint Paul Workshop at 6:08 p.m.

Thienes/Texer

Unanimously Approved

Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander


Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday,

April 15, 2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

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

Managers

Joe Collins

Seitu Jones

Shirley Reider

Mike Thienes

Mary Texer

Staff Present

Mark Doneux, CRWD

Anna Eleria, CRWD

Bob Fossum, CRWD

Michelle Sylvander, CRWD

Public Attendees Carrie Wasley, Ramsey

Conservation District

Nicole Soderholm, CAC

B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

President Collins asked for additions or changes to the agenda.

Motion 15-100: Approve the April 15, 2015 agenda.

Texer/Jones


II. Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda

Ms. Wasley thanked the Board of Managers for inviting her to sit at the table.

III. Permit Applications and Program Updates

A) Permit #14-041 Higher Ground (Kelley)

Administrator Doneux reviewed Permit #14-041 in place of Mr. Kelley. The applicant has requested the review

period be extended. District and City staff been working with the project team to determine how much they can

narrow Main Street in order to provide improved pedestrian safety. Plans were re-submitted and there are still 7

conditions remaining to be addressed.

Motion 15-101: Approve 60-day review period extension for permit 14-041 Higher Ground to expire June 20,

2015.

Reider/Thienes



V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes

of April 15, 2015

DRAFT Regular Board Meeting

(Sylvander)


B) Permit # 15-013 Jamestown Homes (Kelley)

Administrator Doneux reviewed Permit #15-013 in place of Mr. Kelley. The applicant has requested the review

period be extended. The applicant has been working to revise application materials as needed to meet rule

requirements.

Motion 15-102: Approve 60-day review period extension for permit 15-013 Jamestown Homes to expire June

25, 2015.

Reider/Thienes


IV. Special Reports – No Special Reports

No update was provided.

V. Action Items

A) AR: Approve Minutes of the April 1, 2015 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

Motion 15-103: Approve Minutes of the April 1, 2015 with one correction.

Jones/Texer


B) AR: Approve March 2015 Accounts Payables/Receivables (Sylvander)

Motion 15-104: Approve March 2015 Accounts Payable/Receivable and March Budget Report, direct Treasurer

and Board President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments.

Thienes/Reider


C) AR: Approved 2014 Annual Report (Beckman)

Ms. Beckman reviewed that all metropolitan watershed management organizations are required to annually

submit to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) an Activity Report, Financial Report and

Financial Audit. Ms. Beckman reviewed the draft of the CRWD 2014 Annual Report. The financial statements

are incomplete till the 2014 Minnesota State Audit is complete. Staff will submit the Annual Report to BWSR

by April 30th. The Managers were very pleased with the report. They felt the report was well organized,

appealing and easy to read.

Motion 15-105: Review and approve CRWD 2014 Annual Report for submission to BWSR in fulfillment of annual

activity report requirement.

Texer/Jones



D) AR: CAC By Laws (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux reviewed that at the April 8, 2015 CAC meeting, the Bylaws Subcommittee of Michelle

Ulrich and Gwen Willems recommended possible revisions to the CAC Bylaws. A draft of the revisions was

reviewed by the Board of Managers for comments. Most of the changes are for consistency.

Motion 15-106: Support the recommended revisions to the CAC Bylaws.

Reider/Jones


VI. Unfinished Business

A) CHS Field (Lowertown Ballpark) Update (Zwonitzer)

No updates were available.

B) Upper Villa Stormwater Improvement Project Update (Kelley)

The project went out to bid on April 3rd. Bids are due April 24th. Construction for the project is anticipated to

begin in late October 2015.

C) Willow Reserve Restoration Plan Update (Eleria)

Ms. Eleria provided an update on the Willow Reserve Restoration Plan. Ms. Eleria has meet with City of St.

Paul, and District 6 Planning Council. The anticipated the cost of the restoration is $20,000. At the end of May,

Ms. Eleria plans to bring proposals and a recommendation back to the Board for review.

Ms. Eleria and Administrator Doneux have meet with the Blue Stem Heritage Group about creating a Willow

Reserve History Report. The Managers were very pleased this work is underway.

D) Ford Site Update (Fossum)

Mr. Fossum reviewed a time line for the redevelopment of the former Ford site. A public meeting regarding the

former Ford site has been rescheduled for June 23, 2015. The site is currently in an evaluation and refining phase.

In 2016 the City will adopt the zoning & public realm. Redevelopment should begin in 2018. In 2009 Barr

Engineering completed a feasibility study with scenarios including a central water feature. CRWD has been asked

to serve on a subcommittee to coordinate with City staff.

Ms. Texer inquired who owns the land. Mr. Fossum replied that Ford is the current property owner. The land

will go on the market next year. The buyer will most likely be a developer. The City wants to make sure the

expectations of the land are well defined.

VII. General Information

A) Administrators Report

1) Administrator Approved or Executed Agreements

a) Partner Grant Agreement with Saint Paul Parks and Recreation for education programming and

“Connecting Recreation Center Youth to the Watershed” - $12,000.


b) Consultant Services Agreement with Barr Engineering Co. for Phase I Ford Site Redevelopment

Green Infrastructure Feasibility Study - $35,000.

c) Consultant Services Agreement with EOR, Inc. for CRWD’s Watershed Management Plan Mid

Term Review - $38,500.

d) Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Services Agreement with Geosyntec to increase the budget for

installation of OptiRTC at Curtiss Pond by $2,500 for a total not to exceed $72,500.

2) Board Approved or Executed Agreements

3) General updates including recent and upcoming meetings and events

a) The Saint Paul Parks Cleanup will be held Saturday April 18 from 9 – 11:30 am.

b) The 21st Annual Great River Gathering is May 14 at Saint Paul River Centre.

c) Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary planting and opening celebration with Great River Greening and the

City of Saint Paul is May 30. The volunteer planting event is coordinated by Great River Greening

and the opening celebration will be held afterwards.

d) Saint Paul Street Vitality Program boulevard rain garden planting events are planned for Saturday,

May 16 (Montana-Greenbrier project area) and Saturday, June 6 (Montreal Avenue project area).

VIII. Next Meeting

A) Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Board Meeting

B) Wednesday, May 13, 2015 CAC Meeting,

Manager Thienes will be absent from May 27th – July 29th.

A public meeting regarding the former Ford site has been rescheduled for June 23rd. Mr. Fossum plans to attend

this public meeting.

Administrator Doneux nominated Linda Jungwirth for the Tri Area Block Club Stainable St. Paul award. She

will be receiving the award later in April at the Blooming St. Paul Awards.

WEFTEC 2015 abstracts were approved for Curtis Pond, RSVP Program, CHS field, and Villa Park dredging

project and will be presented.

Freshwater Society Ice Out/Loon In Awards will be on April 23rd.

MAWD Summer Tour will be June 24-26th in Duluth.

Motion 15-107: Adjournment of the April 15, 2015 Regular Board Meeting at 7:06 p.m.

Texer/Reider

Unanimously Approved

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle Sylvander


DATE: April 29, 2015 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Mark Doneux, Administrator RE: Approval of Grant to City of Roseville for Wetland Protection

Background As part of CRWD Permit # 15-008 Victoria Street, the City of Roseville will be acquiring land or an easement to construct wetland mitigation areas. In the process of the City conducting an appraisal for the property, it became apparent that because of the cost for an easement alone an outright purchase may be in the best interest of the City. At the April 15, 2015 Board Meeting, the Managers discussed the possibility of supporting the City of Roseville in acquiring the parcel. Issues On April 22, 2015, the District received a grant request from the City of Roseville of up to $38,600 from the District in support of the purchase of the parcel. I have drafted Land Conservation Analysis of Victoria Wetland, City of Roseville (enclosed). After a review of these criteria, I would recommend offering the City of Roseville a grant not to exceed $38,600 for the acquisition of this parcel. The 1.5 acre parcel straddles both a high quality wetland and buffer area but also abuts existing public land to the north and east as well as nearly connecting to a City Park (Pioneer) on the west. I would also recommend that conditions be placed on the approval of funds as outlined in the requested action below. Action Requested Approve grant funding not to exceed $38,600 to the City of Roseville for the acquisition of Victoria Street wetland parcel and direct Attorney and Administrator to draft an agreement subject to the following conditions: 1) The land remain in public ownership in perpetuity for primarily wetland protection and buffer purposes, as

well as open space/park connectivity; 2) The City grant to the District a conservation easement, deed restriction or similar instrument that provides

the District with controls to ensure the requirements of the grant are being met; 3) The City is responsible for all future ownership costs, maintenance and land management costs associated

with the parcel; 4) The City may provide a low impact future trail connection through the property but no further park

development including but not limited to buildings, parking and active recreational facilities; 5) The City shall develop and implement a restoration and management approved by the District for the

parcel. 6) The City may only construct stormwater and/or wetland mitigation features on this parcel associated with

CRWD Permit # 15-008 Victoria Street 7) In keeping with park connectively and public access, an unobstructed wide east/west trail or access lane

must be maintained. enc: Land Conservation Analysis of Victoria Wetland Parcel, City of Roseville, April 29, 2015

May 6, 2015 Action Item V. B)

Approve Grant to City of Roseville for Wetland Protection

(Doneux)


Land Conservation Analysis of Victoria Wetland Parcel, City of Roseville April 29, 2015

Prepared by: Mark Doneux, Administrator

Background As part of CRWD Permit # 15-008 Victoria Street, the City of Roseville will be acquiring land or an easement to construct wetland mitigation areas (see enclosed map). In the process of the City conducting an appraisal for the property, it became apparent that because of the cost for an easement alone an outright purchase may be in the best interest of the City. The City is considering purchasing the entire 1.5 acre parcel for meeting its wetland mitigation requirements but also as a way to protect the entire southern buffer of the wetland. At the April 15, 2015 Board Meeting, the Managers discussed the possibility of supporting the City of Roseville in acquiring the parcel and also discussed the general parameters under which the District would consider financially supporting the City with the purchase. Issues On April 22, 2015, the District received a grant request from the City of Roseville of up to $38,600 from the District in support of the purchase of the parcel (enclosed). The appraised market value of the parcel is $96,500 and the cost for an 11,000 square foot easement area for wetland mitigation is $57,900. Enabling Legislation MN Statues Chapter 103D.335, Subd. 11. Acquisition of property. The managers may acquire by gift, purchase, taking under the procedures of this chapter, or by the power of eminent domain, necessary real and personal property. The watershed district may acquire property outside the watershed district where necessary for a water supply system. While in this case, the District is not specifically acquiring property, District funds will be used towards acquisition. Examples of ecologically significant land for consideration include wetlands, lake shorelines, high quality native landscapes, and land that connects hydrologic and habitat corridors. These types of land provide one or more of the following environmental benefits: 1) water quality protection and improvement; 2) flood control; 3) wildlife habitat; 4) groundwater recharge; and 5) erosion and sedimentation control. Evaluation of City Request In evaluating this request from the City, staff utilized several criteria to test the value to CRWD. The criteria used included the Watershed Management Plan (Appendix F –Wetland Management Plan) and the CRWD Land Conservation Policy adopted in 2010. Land Conservation Analysis of Victoria Wetland, City of Roseville

April 30, 2015 Page Two

1) Watershed Management Plan The Watershed Management Plan clearly supports protection of this parcel. The Watershed Management Plan, Appendix F – Wetland Management Strategy lists the wetland (N142923-6) as a “High” ranking for:

a) Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime b) Flood and Stormwater Attenuation c) Water Quality d) Wildlife Habitat

The wetland is ranked Medium for: a) Vegetative Diversity b) Groundwater Interaction c) Aesthetics/Recreation

The only low ranking was for fisheries habitat. While the wetland itself is ranked relatively high, the adjacent upland buffer is degraded based on a site visit on April 29, 2015 and would benefit from management. There is also a smaller wetland (N142923-5) located entirely within the parcel and has all medium rankings except for fisheries habitat and aesthetic/recreation which were ranked as low. While no funding is in the 2015 budget for acquisition, the Watershed Management Plan suggests $30,000 annually be budgeted for wetland improvement.

2) Land Conservation Policy Selection of land parcels for conservation will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This review will be based on several factors including, but not limited to:

a) Land must be located within Capitol Region Watershed District boundaries. The parcel in question is within CRWD.

b) Land must currently serve or can be restored to serve a valuable water resource management purpose and help further the District’s mission to protect, improve and manage water resources. The Watershed Management Plan clearly supports protection of this parcel. The Watershed Management Plan, Appendix F – Wetland Management Strategy lists the wetland (N142923-6) as a “High” ranking for: 1)Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime, 2) Flood and Stormwater Attenuation, 3) Water Quality, 4) Wildlife Habitat

c) Land must be identified in or consistent with the District’s 2010 Watershed Management Plan. See answer to 2.b).

Other evaluation criteria to be considered include:

a) Benefits of owning and restoring parcel, if necessary, outweigh the costs of purchasing it. This criteria is difficult to quantify however, staff believe that in this case, expending up to $38,700 for buying the parcel will provide benefits above the cost to the District.

b) Parcel is adjacent or connected to District water resource including Mississippi River, lakes, and wetlands and/or to protected open spaces that will increase connectivity of water resources and/or greenspaces within the District. The parcel has wetland areas ranked high in value and includes upland areas. The Watershed Management Plan, Appendix F – Wetland Management Strategy lists the wetland (N142923-6) as a “High” ranking for: 1) Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime, 2) Flood and Stormwater Attenuation, 3) Water Quality, 4) Wildlife Habitat.

c) Possibility of short-term ownership and transfer of parcel to another entity. The District will never own the property. The City of Roseville will own the land in perpetuity.

Land Conservation Analysis of Victoria Wetland, City of Roseville

2

April 30, 2015 Page Three

d) Possibility of public access onto land. The parcel is abutting the west right of way of Victoria Street which serves as the western border of Reservoir Woods Park to the east. It is also abuts undeveloped parkland to the north which contains the majority of wetland N142923-6. This undeveloped parcel connects with the northwest corner of Pioneer Park. It would be the intent of the City with this purchase to connect and to ultimately allow public access to this parcel, most likely as a trail connection.

e) Threat of development. The threat of development on this parcel is moderate. If it was readily buildable it probably would have been built upon already. However, the parcel already has encroachment and uses by adjacent properties. Eventually, the property owner would likely attempt to find a purchaser that would look to develop the parcel. We have seen this happen already on two wetland parcels within the District 6 Community Council area of St. Paul.

f) Size of parcel. The size of the parcel is approximately 1.5 acres. This is a significant size parcel relative to the wetland N142923-6 and encompasses nearly the entire southern edge and buffer area for this wetland.

After a review of these criteria, I would recommend offering the City of Roseville a grant not to exceed $38,600 for the acquisition of this parcel. The 1.5 acre parcel straddles both a high quality wetland and buffer area but also abuts existing public land to the north and east as well as nearly connecting to a City Park (Pioneer) on the west. I would also recommend that several conditions be placed on the approval of funds as outlined in the requested action below. I would recommend approval of grant funding not to exceed $38,600 to the City of Roseville for the acquisition of Victoria Street wetland parcel subject to the following conditions:

1) The land remain in public ownership in perpetuity for primarily wetland protection and buffer purposes, as well as open space/park connectivity;

2) The City grant to the District a conservation easement, deed restriction or similar instrument that provides the District with controls to ensure the requirements of the grant are being met;

3) The City is responsible for all future ownership costs, maintenance and land management costs associated with the parcel;

4) The City may provide a low impact future trail connection through the property but no further park development including but not limited to buildings, parking and active recreational facilities;

5) The City shall develop and implement a restoration and management approved by the District for the parcel.

6) The City may only construct stormwater and/or wetland mitigation features on this parcel associated with CRWD Permit # 15-008 Victoria Street

7) In keeping with park connectively and public access, an east/west trail or access lane must be maintained.

enc: Request from City of Roseville Map of Parcel Map of Area Parks and Public Land CRWD Land Conservation Policy Excerpts from Watershed Management Plan W:\07 Programs\Land Conservation Policy\Land Acquisition\Victoria Street Wetland\Land Conservation Analsyis of Victoria Wetland 4-29-15.docx

3

1965Victoria

St N

1967Victoria

St N

0 Unassigned

0 VictoriaSt N

0 VictoriaSt N

1971Victoria

St N1975

VictoriaSt N

0 VictoriaSt N

0 VictoriaSt N

Prepared by :Engineering Depar tm ent

Data Sources and Contacts:* Ramsey County GIS Base Map (12/02/13)* City of Roseville Engineering Departm entFor further inform at ion regarding the contents of this m ap contact :City of Rosevil le, Engineering Department ,2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN

DIS CLA IM ER :This m ap is ne ither a legal ly r ecor ded m ap nor a sur v ey a nd is not in ten ded to be us ed as one. This m ap is a c om pi la tion of rec ords ,in for m ation and data loc ated in v arious c i ty , cou nty, sta te and federa l o ffic es and other s our ces r egard ing the area sho wn, and is to

be us ed for re fer enc e purpos es only . The C i ty d oes not war rant that the G eogr aphic I n form ation Sy s tem ( GIS ) D ata us ed to prep areth is m ap a re error free, and the C i ty does not repr es ent that the G IS D ata c an be us ed for nav ig atio nal, t rac king or any other pur poserequi ring ex ac ting m eas urem ent o f d is tanc e or d ir ec tion o r prec is io n in the depic tion o f geographic features . If er rors or d is c repanc iesare found p leas e c ontac t 651-792 -7075. The pr ec eding d isc la im er is prov ided pur sua nt to M innes ota Statute s §46 6.03, Subd. 2 1 (2000),

and the us er o f th is m ap ac k now ledges that the C ity s hal l not be l iab le for any dam ag es, a nd ex pres s ly w aiv es a ll c la im s , and agrees todefend, indem ni fy , and hold harm les s the C i ty fr om any and a l l c la im s br ought by Us er , its em p loy ees or agents , or th i rd par ties w hic harise out o f the us er' s ac ce ss or use of data prov ided.

´

0 40 80 Feet

Parcel North of:1975 Victoria StreetRoseville, MN 55113Marc h 13, 2015

mapdoc: 1975 Vi ctoria St reet Parcel.m xdmap: 1975 Victoria S treet Parcel .pdf

TypeParce l 1.52 AC

Wetland 0.65 AC

Wetland Boundary & Easement Location

Vict

oria

Str

eet

Existing Wetland

Existing Wetland

142

Ft115

Ft

83 Ft

75 Ft

12 Ft

Propose

d Dra

inage & U

tility

Easement

10,723 S

F (0.25A

C)

Map of Parks and Public Land

CRWD LAND CONSERVATION POLICY Date: November 3, 2010

Purpose Capitol Region Watershed District seeks to conserve ecologically significant land in the District that will help protect, improve and manage the District’s water resources. The District is over 40% impervious with many of the District’s historic wetlands and high quality native landscapes filled in or significantly altered and impacted by stormwater runoff from adjacent land uses. The District’s 2010 Watershed Management Plan outlines programs, capitol improvement projects, and initiatives necessary to carry out the District’s mission to protect, improve and manage the District’s lakes, wetlands and historic streams. Land conservation, either through purchase or donation of land or conservation easements, is one of many tools for the District to carry out its mission. MN Statues Chapter 103D.201 – Watershed District Purposes gives the District the authority to acquire property for water resource protection and restoration purposes. Land or permanent conservation easements can either be purchased by the District or donated to the District. The District will consider partnerships with cities, state agencies or nonprofit organizations to acquire and restore ecologically significant lands. Examples of ecologically significant land for consideration include wetlands, lake shorelines, high quality native landscapes, and land that connects hydrologic and habitat corridors. These types of land provide one or more of the following environmental benefits: 1) water quality protection and improvement; 2) flood control; 3) wildlife habitat; 4) groundwater recharge; and 5) erosion and sedimentation control. In addition, CRWD recognizes the potential opportunities for watershed education and outreach on protected, natural land. Land Selection Criteria Selection of land parcels for conservation will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This review will be based on several factors including, but not limited to:

Page 1

1410 Energy Park Dr., Suite 4, St. Paul, MN 55108 Phone: (651) 644-8888 Fax: (651) 644-8894 www.capitolregionwd.org

Capitol Region Watershed District

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

1. Land must be located within Capitol Region Watershed District boundaries; 2. Land must currently serve or can be restored to serve a valuable water

resource management purpose and help further the District’s mission to protect, improve and manage water resources; and

3. Land must be identified in or consistent with the District’s 2010 Watershed Management Plan.

Other evaluation criteria to be considered include:

1. Benefits of owning and restoring parcel, if necessary, outweigh the costs of purchasing it;

2. Parcel is adjacent or connected to District water resource including Mississippi River, lakes, and wetlands and/or to protected open spaces that will increase connectivity of water resources and/or greenspaces within the District;

3. Possibility of short-term ownership and transfer of parcel to another entity; 4. Possibility of public access onto land; 5. Threat of development; and 6. Size of parcel.

Land Conservation Process Below is a general outline of the steps the District will use to evaluate potential conservation parcels, establish and negotiate purchase price, and finalize the purchase agreement. Each parcel will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and the specifics for each evaluation process will vary. 1. Property Evaluation

• Landowner contacts CRWD • Desktop Analysis of Available Property (soils, land use, wildlife, plants,etc.) • Site Visit of Available Property

2. CRWD Board Committee Review and Recommendation

• Meeting with Landowner • Review and Discussion of Property Evaluation • Determine Recommendation to Full Board

3. Full CRWD Board Review and Discussion

• Discuss available property and determine if Board committee can negotiate an agreement to purchase the property or an easement

4. Purchase Agreement Offer and Negotiation

• Conduct a title search and appraisal to determine value of the property

Page 2


• Negotiate with landowner the purchase price and agreement

5. Final CRWD Board Approval

• Present the negotiated purchase agreement to the Board and seek final approval

Page 3


N142923-6

S142923-4

N142923-1N142923-4

S142923-3

S142923-1

N142923-8

N142923-3N142923-2

N142923-7

N142923-5

S142923-2

0 0.1 0.2 0.30.05MilesI

Capitol Region Watershed DistrictWatershed Extent and Subwatersheds

DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey, and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only.

CRWD

ParksSubwatersheds

WetlandsCity Boundary

Larpenteur Ave W

County B Rd WLe

xingto

n Ave

N Dale St N

COMO

TROUT BROOK

McCARRONS


DATE: May 1, 2015


FROM: Bob Fossum, Water Resource Program Manager

SUBJECT: 2010 Watershed Management Plan Mid-Term Review

Background

On September 1, 2010, the Board of Managers adopted the District’s Watershed Management Plan (WMP).

The plan covers the term from 2010—2020. As the District is currently at the half-way point in the term of the

WMP, it is a good time to evaluate implementation of the plan and consider adjustments (if any) to the WMP.

At the February 18, 2015 Board meeting the Managers approved the scope of work and budget for the 2010

Watershed Management Plan Mid-Term Review with EOR, Inc.

Issues

Staff and EOR, Inc. have completed significant work on the on Mid-Term WMP Review. Specifically, we have

thoroughly reviewed the Initiatives, Goals, Issues, and Themes. The elements of the plan were also reviewed

with the CAC at a special meeting on April 29th. Staff request that the Board set a Board workshop for later in

May to review and discuss the work on this project thus far. The focus of the Managers review will be focused

on the WMP Issues, Goals, and Themes. The 2010 WMP Issues and Goals Section has been enclosed. Staff

suggest the workshop be from 5:00—6:30pm on one of the following dates: May 11, 12, 13, or 19.

Requested Action

Set Board workshop for the Watershed Management Plan—Mid-Term Review for May xx, 2015, at 5:00pm

enc: Issues and Goals Section (pgs. 15-34) 2010 WMP

W:\06 Projects\WMP 2010\Mid-Term Review\Brd Memo WMP Mid-term Review, 02-13-2015.docx


V. Action Items, C) Mid-Term

WMP Review

ISSUES AND GOALS

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan — 9/1/2010 15

Themes – Our Approach for Action During the development of the District’s second WatershedManagement Plan, the organization has taken the opportunityto reflect on where it has been and to challenge itself onwhere it is going during the next 10 years and beyond. As partof that process, the District identified key visions and themesto promote positive change in the watershed. The key themesare woven throughout the District’s activities. The iconsshown below appear alongside the initiatives within this Planthat exemplify the respective theme. The icons are used toprovide a visual indicator for themes throughout the Plan.

Bring Water Back to St. PaulFrom the beginning of this planning effort, the theme “Bring Water Back to St. Paul”has been a centerpiece. The concept applies to both the physical restoration ofwater resources within the urban watershed as well as bringing water back into theconsciousness of the community.

Partnership and Community ConnectionsDuring the public input process of the Plan developing and engaging partnershipswas a recurring theme. Partnerships and community connects vital to the successfulimplementation of the Plan due to the diversity within the District.

Innovation and Emerging TrendsAs new technologies develop and the water resources management andengineering fields continue to evolve, the District is responsible for staying aware oftrends in science, design, and climate, and to interpret those trends for practicalapplication. It is a priority of the District that programs and projects in the Plan beinnovative and that the District anticipate emerging technological trends.

Adaptive ManagementAdaptive management refers to the feedback loop of performance evaluation andupdate of management strategies. Adaptive management initiatives are those thatincorporate monitoring, evaluation, and assessment followed by revisions inprocess, design, or management.

New Information TechnologyThe District plans new initiatives notable for their use of technologically advancedinformation management systems. Use of new information technology is necessaryfor the District to maintain a leadership role in urban water resource managementand effectively implement the Plan.


Issues and Goals Issue Identification The identification of issues forms the basis of the District’swatershed management plan. At the beginning of themanagement plan development process, residents,stakeholders, District staff, board members and otherinterested parties were asked to identify concerns about thewatershed and water quality. The issues identificationprocess documented the concerns of stakeholders and wasused to formulate issue statements, goals, andimplementation activities for the watershed managementplan.

This section of the plan describes the public involvement aspect of the issues identification process,and explains how comments and/or concerns shared with the District translated into the issuestatements and goals contained in the watershed management plan. It should be noted that thecomments and concerns identified in past plans completed by the District and its partners since thelast watershed management plan in 2000 were incorporated into the issues identification process.

Initial Public Involvement Process The public involvement portion of the issues identification process began with a series of meetingsheld with the District’s existing Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), the Technical AdvisoryCommittee (TAC), a Community Advisory Group developed specifically for the watershedmanagement planning process, and individual community members. One of the main objectives ofthe process was to reach as many constituents as possible in an effort to solicit issues, needs andconcerns reflective of one of the most culturally and economically diverse watershed districts in theState of Minnesota. A detailed description of the District’s efforts to reach a diverse audienceduring the watershed management planning process is contained in Appendix B.

Each of the meetings held during the issues identification process began with an educationalpresentation from District staff. During this presentation, participants were introduced to a numberof watershed management topics, the District’s current role in addressing these topics and what theDistrict has done to address these topics to date. The objective of this portion of the meeting wasto provide participants with a base level of understanding in an effort to provide the proper contextto share their experiences and desires for future watershed management activities.

The educational presentation covered the following topics: Urban Stormwater Management Monitoring and Data Assessment Future Trends Education and Outreach

Funding and District Organization Regulations and Enforcement Ecosystem Health

Following the educational presentation, participants were asked to voice concerns, comment onissues, ask questions, and discuss the topics. Meeting minutes were recorded to document thediscussion (see Appendix B).


Development of Issues and Goals During the public involvement process all comments, concerns, issues, and ideas were documentedin meeting minutes, which were summarized in an issues identification matrix that tracked thesource of all comments and how the comments were utilized throughout the issue identificationprocess (see Appendix C). Issues identified in previous CRWD plans, and the plans of othercommunity groups and partner agencies were also added to the matrix to ensure that all potentialissues related to watershed management were considered during the planning process.

All comments and issues entered into the matrix were categorized into one of the previouslyidentified issue topics, or a new topic. Each comment was classified as an issue, a goal, or a specificimplementation initiative. Issue statements were then crafted to encompass all comments receivedon each particular topic. The issue statements identify what needs to be addressed within thetimeframe of the watershed management plan. Issue statements guide the development of theDistrict’s goals, and implementation activities. The issues matrix was used as an organizational toolthat allowed transparent documentation of what input the District collected and how it responded.

With issue statements defined, the categorized comments were used to write goals, andimplementation initiatives for each issue statement. Goals are statements of what the Districtintends to achieve in order to address each specific issue. There may be several goals needed toaddress a given issue statement. The specific actions taken are classified as implementationinitiatives. As with the issues identification process, the goals identified in previous CRWD plansand plans from the cities within the District and Ramsey County were archived in a matrix andutilized in the development of goals.

A draft of this section of the plan was provided to the District’s CAC, TAC and the Community Groupfor their review and input. Participants from these groups submitted over 100 comments inresponse to their review of the section. Many of the comments provided suggestions on how toimprove the Issues Identification and Goal Setting section, while others provided suggestions onimplementation activities aimed at reaching various goals.

Cooperation – The Guiding Principle During the review process for the Issues and Goals section cooperation with District partners toachieve the District goals was a recurring theme. Cooperation with partners within the District aswell as partners in adjacent jurisdictions will yield benefits to all parties. The need to work with theDistrict partners to identify stormwater management retrofit opportunities was initially identifiedas the first issue, however, the need for cooperation was repeated in virtually all of the subsequentissues. It was determined that this concept should be highlighted as an overriding principle of theplan.


The District recognizes that it does not bear the sole responsibility for stormwater managementwithin the watershed. Also, the District does not possess all the resources financial, regulatoryauthority, or knowledge needed to meet the challenge of managing water resources. Districtpartners can provide access to opportunities to incorporate stormwater management practicesthroughout the watershed. An example of this type of cooperation is the Arlington Pascal Projectwhere the District was able to add a significant amount of stormwater treatment in conjunctionwith a City of St. Paul street improvement project. Another benefit of cooperation is the moreefficient completion of common tasks and meeting common goals. Working together also allowssharing of knowledge and information about new technologies and innovative approaches. TheDistrict has overlapping missions, goals and responsibilities with many of its partners. Coordinationof efforts results in greater efficiency and a reduction in expenditure.

In addition to collaborating with partners, the District recognizes the important role that residentsplay in watershed management. The goal of improved water quality by applying stormwatermanagement practices throughout the District is best accomplished by recruiting residents to applythese practices at the individual home level. When residents manage their own stormwater runoffit minimizes the need for large stormwater management projects. In cases where largerstormwater management practices are needed, or when opportunities arise to bring water featuresback to the landscape of the District, it is critical that there is support from the residents. TheDistrict intends to utilize the energy and skills of its residents to promote local initiatives to bringwater back.

District Partners Municipalities University of Minnesota Minnesota State Fair Board Federal Agencies (EPA, COE) Water Utilities People who live, work, or recreate in the

District

Ramsey County Ramsey Conservation District State Agencies (MnDOT, DNR, PCA, BWSR) Metropolitan Council Local businesses and institutions Other watershed organizations

Organizational Structure of the Issues and Goal Section This section of the plan is organized by issue topic and begins with a narrative of the topic: what isthe status of this topic today, and why does the District need to address this topic during the nextten years. The narrative goes on to explain what issues or concerns were raised during the publicinvolvement process for each particular topic.

Following the narrative is one or more issue statements addressing the topic. These issuestatements include all comments received for a particular topic. (See issues matrix, Appendix C)Below the issue statements are goals that reflect the comments and concerns expressed during thepublic involvement process. In many cases, further detail of the approach for reaching the goal isprovided.


Education and Outreach, Issues and Goals

Although nonpoint source pollution has become a moreprominent issue in the last several years, there is still a lackof understanding by the general public about the role ofstormwater runoff in water pollution. There is a lack ofawareness that everyone who lives, works, and recreates inthat landscape is part of the solution. This lack of awarenessis particularly pronounced in the District because the level ofdevelopment has limited the connections people have withwater. Because water quality is a function of how people goabout their everyday activities, educating the general publicabout how to modify those activities is an important goal forimproving water quality. A watershed, with its naturalboundaries dictating the flow and fate of water through thelandscape, provides a logical context for educational efforts.

Creating an informed community and thereby empowering those citizens to be stewards of the landand water resources where they live, is the goal of watershed education. Individuals within thecommunity can make a significant difference in protecting our water resources. Effective educationprograms and making information available to the public enhance participation in District activitiesand increase public knowledge relative to water.

The comments received throughout the issues identification emphasized the need for continuededucation throughout the District. Specifically identified was the need to target groups that havenot previously been reached by education and outreach programs. The District is a diversewatershed and in the past not all communities have been involved in District activities. It will beimportant for the District to be aware of varying uses, values, ideas and celebrations of water thatexist in the District. The District will need to continually seek input from the diverse communitieswithin the District to maintain this understanding. Educational approaches will need to bedeveloped to serve the needs of each community in different ways.

An additional issue identified was the overarching problem of residents not feeling a personalconnection with water. Water is taken for granted and not seen as a finite resource. The District’sprograms will not only need to educate the public about the local water resources, water quality,stormwater management, and the role of the District, but will also need to create a sense ofownership for the residents and invoke a change in people’s perceptions of and their behaviorsrelated to water.

The District developed an Education and Outreach Plan which was adopted on May 6, 2009. ThePlan is found in Appendix E.


Education and Outreach Issues and Goals

Issue 1 Many District residents, businesses and institutions do not feel a personalconnection with water and natural resources and therefore do not have asense of responsibility or ownership which negatively impacts their abilityto change behaviors and increase stewardship

Goal 1.1 Increase the awareness of water

1.1.a Determine the baseline knowledge level regarding basic watershedand stormwater concepts

1.1.b Increase the understanding of basic watershed, stormwater,groundwater and water pollution concepts through watershededucation and outreach

1.1.c Measure the change in knowledge and behavior as a result of theeducation and outreach efforts

Goal 1.2 Increase public knowledge and appreciation for local water resources in theDistrict

1.2.a Utilize District infrastructure to increase awareness andappreciation of water resources and watershed management

Goal 1.3 Raise an awareness of the District and increase the interest and publicparticipation in its activities

Issue 2 The District’s diverse community has a wide range of cultural, social andpolitical relationships with water, community interests, priorities, andopinions of the District’s water resources

Goal 2.1 Increase communication and encourage long term involvement withgroups not previously involved in District programs


Urban Stormwater Management, Issues and Goals

A significant portion of the District is made up of impervioussurfaces. These impervious surfaces increase the volume ofstormwater runoff and the pollutant load being discharged toDistrict wetlands, lakes and the Mississippi River withdetrimental effects on water quality. The increased volumeof runoff also increases the likelihood of flooding, whichthreatens public safety and increases the potential forinfrastructure damage. Both historic and currentdevelopment practices have contributed to compacted soils,the placement of fill material, the underground disposal ofwaste materials, and the presence of contamination. Thesefactors and others make Best Management Practices (BMPs)and other green infrastructure techniques more challengingto implement.

The urban stormwater management category received the most comments during the issueidentification process. The primary focus was water quality protection for District water resources.All groups identified the need for on going management and maintenance of District resources andstormwater management facilities as an important issue for the watershed management plan. Inaddition, all groups strongly expressed that the District should lead the investigation of theeffectiveness of new stormwater management techniques. The promotion of green infrastructureand identification of opportunities to increase the level of stormwater management were alsoidentified as key roles for the District. Existing storm sewer infrastructure capacity andcorresponding flooding problems was also identified as an issue that needs to be addressed in thenext ten years, as was the need to develop a better understanding of the role stormwatermanagement has on groundwater resources.

The District’s lake management plans for Como Lake, Loeb Lake, and Lake McCarrons identifiedgoals for the future condition of these vital resources. Numerical goals were set for loading of totalphosphorus to Como Lake and a target in lake total phosphorus concentration was established forLake McCarrons. These performance standards have been incorporated into Goal 2.1 as originallystated in those plans.

Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires that states establish pollutant TotalMaximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Theloading limits are to be calculated such that, if achieved, the water body would meet the applicablewater quality standard.

Como Lake and the Mississippi River are listed on the 2008 303(d) list of impaired waters.Downstream of the District, there are impairments within the Mississippi River for turbidity, PFOS,PCBs, and mercury. In addition, Spring Lake and Lake Pepin, located downstream of District, areimpaired for excess nutrients and biological indicators.


In 2010, the District converted the Como Lake Strategic Management Plan into a TMDL for ComoLake. The MPCA is currently working on the Lake Pepin TMDL which includes the turbidityimpairments within the Mississippi River between the confluence with the Minnesota River andLake Pepin and also a Bacteria TMDL for the Mississippi River between the Lower St. Anthony Fallsand Lock and Dam #1 and between the confluence with the Minnesota River to the MetroWastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul.

Urban Stormwater Management Issues and Goals Issue 3 Regular maintenance is critical to the success of stormwater BMPs and is

not consistently performed to achieve desired performance

Goal 3.1 Work to improve the short and long term maintenance of stormwaterBMPs

3.1.a Coordinate the development and implementation of a multijurisdictional BMP management plan that includes identifyingresponsible parties, define roles and determining maintenanceschedules for all stormwater BMPs located in the District

Issue 4 The pollutant load of stormwater has impacted the quality of water in theDistrict’s lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River

Goal 4.1 Reduce the chemical pollutant load to District lakes, wetlands and theMississippi River

4.1.a Achieve a Phosphorous Trophic State Index (TSI P) of 60 for ComoLake by reducing the average annual total phosphorus load toComo Lake by 60%

4.1.b Achieve the summer average lake concentration of totalphosphorus at 33 parts per billion (ppb) or less for Lake McCarrons

4.1.c Maintain water quality of Loeb Lake at current conditions(nondegradation)

4.1.d Achieve the District’s total phosphorus loading requirements forthe Lake Pepin TMDL in the Mississippi River

4.1.e Develop a target reduction for metals, pesticides, nutrients,chloride, organic contaminants, etc, discharged to District lakes,wetlands and the Mississippi River and work towards reaching thattarget

4.1.f Identify and manage the internal phosphorus load in District lakes,wetlands and the Mississippi River

4.1.g Identify and eliminate illicit discharges into District lakes, wetlandsand the Mississippi River


Goal 4.2 Reduce physical pollutant load to District lakes, wetlands and the MississippiRiver

4.2.a Develop a target reduction for the amount of trash enteringDistrict lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River and work towardsreaching that target

4.2.b Develop a target reduction for sediment entering District lakes,wetlands and the Mississippi River and work towards reaching thattarget

4.2.c Achieve District load requirement established in the turbiditycomponent of the future Lake Pepin TMDL

4.2.d Identify and eliminate illicit discharges into District lakes, wetlandsand the Mississippi River

Goal 4.3 Reduce bacteria pollutant load to District lakes, wetlands and the MississippiRiver

4.3.a Develop a target reduction for the amount of waterfowl and petwaste entering District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi Riverand work towards reaching that target

4.3.b Identify and eliminate illicit discharges into District lakes, wetlandsand the Mississippi River

4.3.c Meet the District’s bacteria load requirement established in thefuture Upper Mississippi River bacteria TMDL


Issue 5 The quantity of runoff from a highly urbanized area increases the risk offlooding and puts added strain on the infrastructure within the District

Goal 5.1 Minimize existing and potential flooding problems

5.1.a Work to identify existing and potential infrastructure capacityissues and flooding problems

5.1.b Utilize structural and nonstructural flood control techniques toimprove infrastructure capacity and reduce flooding problems

5.1.c Evaluate the impact of climate change on infrastructure capacity inthe future and identify potential flooding issues

5.1.d Preserve existing floodplain storage capacity and prohibitfloodplain filling unless compensatory storage is provided

5.1.e Identify opportunities to reestablish lost floodplain areas

Goal 5.2 Manage the volume of water in the Trout Brook storm sewer Interceptor toprotect the integrity of District infrastructure.

Issue 6 Within an urbanized area, runoff from impervious surfaces is directed tostorm sewers and discharged to surface waters rather than infiltrating intothe ground resulting in reduced groundwater recharge and impacts toreceiving waters

Goal 6.1 Promote groundwater recharge through increased use of infiltrationtechniques to manage stormwater

6.1.a Develop incentives/regulations to promote the use of stormwaterinfiltration techniques

6.1.b Identify those portions of the District most conducive tostormwater infiltration

Goal 6.2 Protect the groundwater resource

6.2.a Support and collaborate with Ramsey County, state and regionalagencies to better understand and monitor District groundwaterresources

6.2.b Support and collaborate with Ramsey County, state and regionalagencies on groundwater quantity and quality protection

6.2.c Avoid infiltrating stormwater in areas of contaminated soils


Monitoring and Data Assessment, Issues and Goals

To evaluate the quality District water resources, a monitoringprogram was initiated in 2004. The monitoring data helpsdetermine the type and quantity of pollutants discharged tosurface waters of the District. This baseline data is theultimate report card for the District. As Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) are implemented, it is important to collectdata and monitor the effectiveness of the BMPs in managingand treating stormwater. The monitoring data will be usedto guide future management decisions and to calibrate theDistrict’s hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality loadingmodels, which are tools used to evaluate current conditionsand predict future conditions.

Monitoring and data assessment are key roles of the District. The information collected is utilizedto make management decisions not only by the District but by the local communities andneighboring watershed management organizations. In addition, the monitoring program data areused to convey information about stormwater management and water quality to the residentsthrough education and outreach programs.

During the issue identification process, comments and concerns related to monitoring and dataassessment focused on two fundamental issues: the need to improve dissemination of collecteddata, and the need to expand the monitoring program to collect additional data.

The District needs to improve the way in which information is delivered to the public by makingmonitoring data available in user friendly formats. Comments were also received about the Districtbecoming a “clearinghouse” of information about current water issues. The District should compilepublished research from local, national and international sources for use by the District and itspartners.

The second issue identified was regarding the need to continue the monitoring program and addadditional monitoring locations. Currently, the District has an extensive monitoring program thatcollects data at four major outfalls to the Mississippi River, specific water resources, and severalBMPs in the District. See Figure 5 for locations of monitoring sites. Expansion of the monitoringand data assessment program would allow the District to gain additional information aboutgroundwater, wetlands, soils, and other types of BMPs.


Monitoring and Data Assessment Issues and Goals Issue 7 Monitoring and research data are needed to understand the watershed,

identify problems, and determine appropriate watershed managementapproaches within the District

Goal 7.1 Collect monitoring data and perform research to gather valuable informationabout the District

7.1.a Collect data on selected BMPs installed in the District and evaluateperformance, maintenance, and longevity

7.1.b Monitor the condition of District surface waters and majorsubwatersheds to establish baseline conditions and determinetrends

7.1.c Identify and support a program to collect soil and geologic data inorder to assess the infiltration potential within the District

Goal 7.2 As part of the annual budgeting process, review and refine the monitoringand data assessment program to improve efficiency and utilize the besttechnology

Goal 7.3 Utilize data as part of a regular evaluation of current water issues,performance of District programs and District rules

Issue 8 Monitoring and research data are difficult for the public to access andunderstand

Goal 8.1 Make monitoring and research data available and understandable to abroader audience

Goal 8.2 Serve as a clearinghouse for water resource management information toassist District stakeholders and partners

Goal 8.3 Establish partnerships to improve the District’s ability to increase access andunderstanding of monitoring and research data


Future Trends, Issues and Goals

The District recognizes that in order to stay at the forefrontof the rapidly changing field of watershed management, it isnecessary to be aware of new information, technology andmethods that will inform management decisions.Maintaining a forward thinking approach and anticipatingchanges is critical. By staying proactive on emerging issuesrather than reactive, the District will realize cost savings andmore effective stormwater management.

During the issues identification process, a number of future trends were identified for inclusion inthe plan. All of the groups in the public involvement process identified climate change as an issuethat needs to be addressed in the next ten years. While it is unclear what the District’s role shouldbe in addressing climate change, it is necessary for the organization to evaluate and coordinatemitigation efforts.

The need to be at the forefront of emerging trends in watershed management is accentuated dueto the dense urban development of the District. The highly developed nature of the District resultsin limited opportunities to incorporate traditional stormwater management practices, since thesetypically require large areas for implementation. Because of this limitation, it is vital that the Districtinvestigate new, innovative approaches to stormwater management that utilize techniquesappropriate to highly urbanized areas. An example of this type of alternative practice is the use of‘green infrastructure’ where vegetation is used to compliment traditional approaches tostormwater management. The level of imperviousness of the District also makes it moresusceptible to changes in hydrologic patterns that may arise in the future.

Future Trends Issues and Goals Issue 9 Future watershed management strategies need to be responsive to

emerging issues resulting from climate change and technological advances

Goal 9.1 Develop a better understanding of climate change, its impacts to Districtnatural and water resources and adaptive management strategies to addressthis emerging issue

9.1.a Participate in climate change working groups/forums

9.1.b Determine the District’s strategies in addressing climate changeimpacts on watershed management

Goal 9.2 Be a leader in conducting original research and reviewing existing researchon new stormwater management technologies to facilitate decision makingby the District and its partners


9.2.a The District will evaluate innovative stormwater managementtechniques, information management techniques, and monitoringand modeling techniques used locally, nationally, andinternationally

9.2.b The District will conduct research on stormwater managementBMP performance, applicability in different settings, and long termmaintenance needs.

Goal 9.3 Promote the use of emerging technologies and innovative watershedmanagement techniques

9.3.a Promote Green Infrastructure initiatives.

9.3.b Determine optimal balance of incentive based strategies andregulatory based watershed management strategies


Funding and Organization, Issues and Goals

The District takes its financial responsibility seriously, issensitive to the economic status of its residents, and ismindful of the importance of maintaining public support forexpenditures on water quality improvement. The Districtlevies taxes through its authority under MN Stat. 103D and103B to fund programs, projects, and capital improvementprojects identified in its watershed management plan. TheDistrict has also issued bonds and actively pursues outsidefunding sources to augment its tax levy. The District hasbeen successful in obtaining grants from the State andsecuring local cost share funding from its partners.

The District seeks to create funding partnerships with Ramsey County, municipalities, agencies, andother entities within its jurisdiction that have common goals and responsibilities for resourceprotection. These partnerships result in greater cost effectiveness and provide the additionalbenefit of creating ownership of the resources by a broader constituent base.

The District has created several grant programs to make funds available to District partners andresidents. The grant programs promote local projects that benefit water resources and serve asmodels for District residents.

Beyond discussions of the importance of District grant programs, the most prevalent theme heardduring the issues identification process was the need for coordination between the District and itspartners. The District was encouraged to take a leadership role in identifying opportunities tocollaborate on large scale redevelopment projects as well as programmatic approaches to resourceprotection. The district recognizes the impact of large scale redevelopment projects extendsbeyond the boundary of the project and intends to identify and capitalize on opportunities adjacentto these projects. Another common theme of the comments from participants in the issueidentification process was the need to prioritize District activities to maximize resource protectionwhile minimizing the cost to residents. Funding and Organization Issues and Goals

Issue 10 Many District partners and residents are willing to help the Districtaccomplish its mission if assistance is made available

Goal 10.1 Encourage District partners and residents to implement local water resourceimprovement projects

10.1.a Provide financial and technical assistance for resource protectionprojects and efforts by District residents and partners

Issue 11 The District is uniquely positioned to be able to identify and supportcollaborations between various partners/stakeholders with compatibleprojects and programs


Goal 11.1 Coordinate efforts with partners to ensure the most cost effective uses offunds for water resource management

11.1.a Coordinate the water resource management efforts that theDistrict and its partners are currently undertaking

11.1.b Identify opportunities to incorporate water resource managementefforts into capital improvement projects and large scaleredevelopment projects of District partners

11.1.c Provide support to District partners for activities with a connectionto water resources

11.1.d Maintain active membership in the Ramsey County GroundwaterPartnership

Issue 12 Multiple funding mechanisms and outside funding sources are available forthe District to pursue to offset financial needs

Goal 12.1 Increase the funds available to the District to meet its goals and objectives

12.1.a Identify new and supplemental funding sources

12.1.b Evaluate the optimal balance of financing options or revenuesources

Issue 13 The District must prioritize programs and projects to ensure that goals aremet in the most efficient, and cost effective manner

Goal 13.1 Utilizes long term planning and pursue the most cost effective solutionswhen carrying out resource protection programs and projects

13.1.a Evaluate the results and costs for programs and projects todemonstrate their effectiveness

13.1.b Consider initial and life cycle costs associated with programs andprojects when evaluating their effectiveness

Issue 14 An effective watershed organization needs to plan for change, growth, anddevelopment

Goal 14.1 Strengthen the District’s capacity to accomplish its mission

Goal 14.2 Strive for excellence, with competent, knowledgeable, committed, andinnovative Board members, advisory committees, and staff

Goal 14.3 Provide research based, informed, mission driven decision making

Goal 14.4 Be an open, approachable, facilitator of partnerships to enhance theDistrict’s capacity to protect, maintain and improve water resources


Regulations and Enforcement, Issues and Goals

The District has the authority to develop and adopt Rules toprotect water resources. The District currently regulatesdevelopment and redevelopment projects. Rules andregulations were established to ensure that water resourcemanagement standards are met and that the waterresources in the District are protected as development andredevelopment occurs. The District currently implementsrules adopted in September 2006 and revised in January2009. In addition to water quality and quantity, the rulesestablish standards for erosion and sediment control,wetland protection, connections to the Trout Brook StormSewer Interceptor, and floodplain management. DistrictRules and permitting currently require proper stormwatermanagement on all development and redevelopmentprojects that disturb one acre or greater of land.

The District reviews it rules and permitting program regularly with the District’s Technical AdvisoryCommittee (TAC). During this process, the District’s Rules are reviewed to assure they are effective,reasonable and implemented as efficiently as possible. The District will demonstrate a willingnessto look at alternatives in order to make the Rules as workable as possible.

The public involvement process identified the need for improved Rule compliance, and inspections.Additionally it was noted that the District needs to maintain clear and efficient rules by utilizing themost current research and science. The need to efficiently coordinate regulatory requirements,specifically those of the NPDES MS4 program, was identified as an area where the District should bethe lead agency.

Regulations and Enforcement Issues and Goals Issue 15 The District needs to maintain clear and effective Rules utilizing the most

current research and science available

Goal 15.1 Ensure that the rules are regularly reviewed, updated and readilyunderstood by the regulated community.

15.1.a Ensure effective Rules in meeting the District’s goals while allowingsome flexibility

Issue 16 Coordination with District partners on regulatory issues is needed for moreefficient and effective stormwater regulation across all jurisdictions

Goal 16.1 Work with District partners to improve the District Rules and othermunicipal/agency stormwater ordinances

16.1.a Work with District partners to make ordinances compatible withstormwater management goals and objectives


16.1.b Work with District partners to coordinate permit applications earlyin the design stage

16.1.c Work with District partners to achieve volume reduction on smallsites (disturbing less than one acre) through District Rules ormunicipal ordinances

Goal 16.2 Collaborate with partners to ensure that proper BMP construction, anderosion and sediment control techniques are being implemented throughoutthe District

16.2.a Ensure that effective routine inspections are conducted on allconstruction in the District

16.2.b Ensure that appropriate long term maintenance is beingperformed on stormwater management practices in the District

Goal 16.3 Continue to work with surrounding watershed management organizationsand state agencies to develop rule language that maximizes effectivenesswhile ensuring their consistency and ease of use throughout theregion/metro area.

16.3.a Compare District Rule language with that of surroundingwatershed management organizations to identify consistenciesand inconsistencies

16.3.b Evaluate the feasibility of addressing inconsistencies in watershedmanagement organization rules in consultation with the TechnicalAdvisory Committee (TAC)

Goal 16.4 Comply with applicable local, state, and federal watershed regulations

16.4.a Comply with the provisions of the District MS4 permit.

16.4.b Collaborate with all permitted MS4s within with District on TMDLload reduction efforts


Ecosystem Health, Issues and Goals

It is the primary focus of the District to protect and improvewater quality, but the health of the overall ecosystem hasbeen recognized as a complimentary issue. There are waysof managing stormwater runoff that have secondary benefitsof promoting healthy and viable natural ecosystems.Additional partners and collaborations can be identified andutilized when considering an ecosystem approach to waterresource management. This help to ensure the ecologicalintegrity of District natural resources are protected andimproved in conjunction with water resource improvement.

A consistent message heard throughout the issues identification process was the need forecological restoration within the watershed to correct mistakes from the past. Stakeholders in thishighly urbanized area recognize that the majority of natural areas have been paved or built upon.Streams that once flowed across the watershed down to the Mississippi River have been convertedto large, underground storm pipes. Wetlands and even some smaller lakes in the area were filled infor development.

Many of the remaining natural areas in the District have become significantly degraded over time.The areas consist primarily of non native or invasive species and lack the ecological integrity theyonce displayed. This degradation has reduced the effectiveness of remaining natural areas’ abilityto protect and buffer District water resources.

Comments received from District stakeholders ranged in specificity from identifying the need todevelop regional ecological greenways throughout the metropolitan area, to the restoration ofhistoric resources (Bring Water Back to St. Paul), to encouraging native plantings and restoring plantcommunities at specific locations within the District.

Ecosystem Health Issues and Goals Issue 17 The ecological integrity of many District lakes, wetlands, and the

Mississippi River has degraded to a point where the resources are notproviding their original level of function or value

Goal 17.1 Improve the ecological integrity of District lakes, wetlands, and theMississippi River

17.1.a Restore native plant communities and increase wildlife diversityand habitat in and around District lakes, wetlands, and theMississippi River


Issue 18 The loss of natural areas has decreased the ability of the watershed tocapture, filter and infiltrate rainwater prior to discharging to District lakes,wetlands, and the Mississippi River

Goal 18.1 Support increasing the amount and quality of open space as a means torestore habitat, and protect surface water and groundwater quality

Goal 18.2 Mitigate the loss of pervious areas by incorporating green infrastructure intothe built environment of the District

Issue 19 Reduced connectivity of natural habitat areas in the District limitmovement between the District’s resources

Goal 19.1 Coordinate with District partners to improve accessibility to and movementbetween natural habitat areas within the District

19.1.a Support the creation of travel corridors between natural areas forwildlife

19.1.b Support the creation of access points for people to better connectwith the water resource of the District

Issue 20 The land within the District developed during a time when resourceprotection was not a priority. As a result, there are a number ofopportunities to restore historic resources

Goal 20.1 “Bring water back to St. Paul”

20.1.a Increase awareness of current and historical water resources of theDistrict

20.1.b Identify and restore historic wetland resources of the District

20.1.c Identify opportunities to restore portions of historic streams of theDistrict by providing surface flow where water is currentlyconveyed through an underground pipe




FROM: Elizabeth Beckman

RE: Strategic Communications Plan Update -- Interviews

Background

In fall 2014, CRWD hired the communications firm Fourth Sector Consulting in collaboration

with Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed (RWMWD) and Mississippi Watershed

Management Organization (MWMO) to design a shared communications plan. In February

2015, CRWD Board of Managers approved a Memorandum of Understanding with MWMO and

RWMWD who will manage the contract with Fourth Sector.

CRWD staff has made progress toward establishing the shared Strategic Communications Plan.

On April 27, CRWD staff hosted Fourth Sector Communications staff Katie Eukel, Tom Elko

and Cathy Kennedy for an onboarding field day. Staff gave the consultant team tours of some

of our most impressive projects and described the details of our programs.

Issues

CRWD staff and the consultant team have developed a set of communications-related

interview questions. Fourth Sector will conduct group interviews with Staff and Board

Managers if interested. Examples of some questions that may be asked during the group

interview are; what do you see as the most important things CRWD should tackle in the next

year, how communications can help, what should be our top three audiences and what are

CRWD’s most effective communications strategies and tactics. Time and location for the

interviews has yet to be determined. Staff would like to determine Managers interest in

participating in these interviews.

Requested Action

Indicate interest in participating in group or individual interviews with Fourth Sector

Consulting.

W:\07 Programs\Edu-Outreach\Admin-Workplan\Communications Plans\Fourth Sector\BM Strat Comm Update_Interviews_LVP.docx


VI. Unfinished Business – A)

Strategic Communications

Plan Update


DATE: May 1, 2015


FROM: Bob Fossum, Program Manager

RE: Ford Site Redevelopment, Stream Restoration Cooridor

Background

Ford's former Twin Cities Assembly Plant will be redeveloped in the coming years on more than 135 acres

of land situated along the Mississippi River. The City of St. Paul’s vision for the site is that it will be a

livable, mixed-use neighborhood that looks to the future with clean technologies and high quality design for

energy, buildings and infrastructure. This site will support walking, biking and transit, and provide services,

jobs and activities that every generation can enjoy.

Issues

The Ford Site Redevelopment represents a tremendous opportunity to Bring Water Back to St. Paul. The

Ford Site (Hidden Falls extension) was identified in the District’s Stream Corridor Restoration Plan

completed as part of the 2010 Watershed Management Plan (enclosed). Significant emphasis was placed on

stream corridor restoration in the 2010 WMP and the Hidden Falls project was ranked high. As the District

moves into the planning of this significant project, it is timely to review how the stream corridor restoration

opportunity at the Ford Site was identified and ranked in the 2010 WMP. Staff will review the enclosed

documents with the Managers.

Requested Action

None, information only

enc: 2010 WMP, Appendix H—Stream Corridor Restoration Plan

2010 WMP, Sec 425—Wetland, Stream, & Ecosystem Restoration—Implementation (pg. 105-106)

W:\06 Projects\Ford Site\2015 Stormwater Feasibility\Brd Memo - Ford Update 5-01-15.docx

May 6, 2015

Unfinished Business VI. E)

Ford Site Update

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan ‐ 9/1/2010 Appendix H ‐ 1

Stream Corridor Restoration Plan

Stream Corridor Restoration Approach The Bringing Water Back to St. Paul campaign is a major effort to restore surface water features, in this case streams, within the Watershed. There are many important advantages this offers starting with improving water quality ‐ the ability to access and treat runoff at the surface with vegetative filtering and volume control and/or infiltration. Of similar importance for improving water quality is the longer term approach of raising awareness. Bringing Water Back to St. Paul will serve a key function to reconnect residents with their water resources. By being connected to the resource, this will lead to better stewardship of runoff and our waters. There are a number of locations around the city where, given the right circumstances with regard to development plans, funding, public support, and other factors, it would be feasible to recreate a stream feature in the same area as the historical stream.

The design goals of stream corridor restoration can be summarized in the following points:

• Water quality treatment of local drainage in surface features (e.g. raingardens and biofiltration) in conjunction with treatment provided by the stream itself (e.g. filtration and infiltration);

• Improved citizen awarenss and understanding of their impacts on water quality and thus better citizen stewardship;

• Enhanced communities and improved property values as a result of water‐related amenities;

• Ecologic benefits of additional green space in urban areas; • Systematically slowed runoff to reduce flooding and flow velocity.

The goal to reconnect urban residents with their waterbodies cannot be stressed enough. Stream restoration projects will increase the visual and physical access of District residents and visitors to surface water resources which can have the effect of increasing awareness. Increasing awareness of water resources in urban settings can instill a sense of value and improve public stewardship. Stream restoration projects are intended to have public access, trails and interpretive elements to aid in this goal.

While there are numerous potential benefits from projects under the Bringing Water Back to St. Paul campaign, there are also a number of significant issues upon which implementation depends including, but not limited to physical constructability, partner and stakeholder cooperation, maintenance requirements and responsible parties, and timing and nature of redevelopment. Detailed feasibility studies will evaluate these issues and will identify whether restoration projects can be integrated into the drainage system, the neighborhood, and the planning schedule of other affected entities. Results from the feasibility studies will guide the selection of projects for implementation. The following is a compilation of the issues each stream feasibility study will address:

Mears Park, St. Paul


• Redevelopment Opportunity – present/absent, timing of design and construction, owner interest;

• Stream Design – physical constructability, flood and flow control, streambank and channel stability, sediment transport, costs;

• Water Quality Treatment – implementation opportunities, magnitude of treatment benefits, costs;

• Maintenance of Function and Aesthetics – tasks and frequency, lifecycle costs, responsible parties;

• Educational Benefits – public use, access, interest and visibility; • Partnerships – entities (redevelopment authorities, property owners, local

government, neighborhood/community groups), level of interest and support, resource contributions;

• Funding – grants, cost‐shares, partnerships; • Permitting Requirements; • Community safety; • Site specific issues – including but not limited to brownfield sites, historic places,

trash.

Citizen participation will play a key role in scoping out and guiding the Feasibility Studies. To have success in bringing water back, figuratively and literally, it must be a collaborative effort. Citizens are also expected to have a role in selecting and prioritizing sites for restoration and hopefully will assist in the implementation. Areas with active, interested citizen groups will be weighted in the site‐selection process. As a way of initiating the site selection process, a preliminary list of potential restoration sites has been developed. Twelve sites were selected based on historical water features, site topography and infrastructure, land use and ownership, hydrologic impacts, and plans for redevelopment or restoration. The preliminary list, in random order, is as follows (see Figure 1 for a map of the stream corridors):

• Trout Brook

• Hidden Falls Creek

• Phalen Creek

• Sarita Stream

• Finn's Stream

• Edgecumbe Stream

• Mears Creek

• Highland Creek

• Rice's Brook

• Gateway Creek

• Cascade Creek/Fountain Creek

• Loeb Creek

The stream corridors identified at this stage of the process could be restored using a variety of different techniques. Storm sewer daylighting is one option that involves excavating earth around existing storm sewer and creating a healthy, stable stream bed in place of the storm sewer. This scenario requires existing storm sewer that is shallow and existing flowrates that are manageable. Alternatively, stream corridor restoration could occur through locallized collection of rain and snowmelt runoff in newly established stream channels, prior to discharge to storm sewer conveyance systems. The latter scenario could consist of a dual system where flows above design flowrates can drop back into stormsewer to provide control of surface flows. The primary visible


characteristics of a stream corridor restoration of this type could be described as natural area corridors with some landscaped features along which water will flow during rainfall and for a brief period afterwards. Water will not constantly flow through restored stream corridors except in the rare case where an opportunity for constant inflow materializes (described later in Table 1). Ultimately the site will dictate the stream’s flow regime and physical characteristics. Mears Creek stands apart from the other corridors due to its entirely urban location. The concept for this creek is to bring surface water to the forefront of people’s conscience with a focus on art above function while still restoring some natural flow patterns locally. The effect is to reference the presence and value of surface waters in areas where restoring a functional surface feature is more difficult. The images below, from www.artfulrainwaterdesign.net, illustrate how the stream corridor restoration could work for a site that could ultimately wind through any feasible portion of downtown St. Paul (e.g. along a wide sidewalk). Connectivity, either physical or visual, to the existing stream feature running within Mears Park, established the interest in the proposed location.


Stream Opportunities The twelve potential stream corridors have been categorized into one of three ratings according to the opportunities that may facilitate implementation. Physical constructability (not accounting for “political/neighborhood” considerations) and the potential corridor’s link to District Goals & Initiatives, e.g. accessibility, visibility, proximity to focus redevelopment sites, connectivity to existing water features of interest and hydrologic function also inform the rating done here. It should be understood that the rating is based on fairly limited data and a general, “high altitude” look at the various factors effecting their feasibility for implementation. It is understood that as new information becomes available, residents and communities are engaged, and funding sources become available, the priorities could shift. Table 1 illustrates the established priority ranking developed at this broad, planning‐level. Based on findings in Table 1, it is recommended that at least 4‐6 of the top rated corridors, which would include all Level 1 and some Level 2 stream corridors, be selected for completion of a feasibility study during years 1‐6 of the plan.

Due to the many variables affecting feasibility, corridor selection for feasibility studies needs to be flexible. Those corridors that are selected for technical feasibility studies will be based on the findings noted in Table 1, which could change as new information comes to light. Time sensitive factors that will guide the selection process include, but are not limited to, community support, funding opportunities and timing of redevelopment projects. Citizen participation will play a key role in selecting sites for restoration. Areas with active, interested citizen groups will be weighted in the site‐selection process. Based on findings of the feasibility studies, we expect that one to three of these stream corridors will be implemented during years 4‐10 of the plan. It is desired that citizen involvement at the planning stage will be coupled with participation at the construction stage. Opportunities for involvement will be explored (e.g. streambank plantings ‘adopted’ by residents, associated green infrastructure such as rain gardens).

Hidden Falls Sarita Forebay


Table 1 Stream Corridor Restoration – Potential Sites Opportunity Rating High Location Through Ford Plant/redevelopment site to Mississippi River Opportunity Ford Plant Redevelopment Site Constructability* High District Goals** High Hidden

Falls Creek Additional Highlights: Why Is This Site A Good Candidate?

Good visibility; identified for restoration by Saint Paul on the Mississippi Design Center (City of Saint Paul and the Riverfront Corporation); full site redevelopment gives design flexibility; potential to include entire historic creek; demonstration site potential for future stream corridor restorations.

Opportunity Rating High Location Stream under foot: Mears Park or Rice Park to Mississippi River in

downtown St. Paul

Opportunity Central Corridor Light Rail Development Constructability* Low District Goals** High

Mears Creek

Additional Highlights: Why Is This Site A Good Candidate?

"Stream under foot;" represented with artistic elements (grates, stamped concrete, sculptures ‐ see photos); popularity of and Connectivity to Mears Park “Stream”; high visibility and social/educational impact; establishes the campaign's presence in the downtown area.

Opportunity Rating High Location Restoration of upper Trout Brook and 'daylighting' lower Trout

Brook to Mississippi River

Opportunity Trillium Site Trout Brook Greenway Plan (City of St. Paul); CRWD owns Trout Brook Interceptor; Redevelopment SE of LaFayette Bridge and I‐94

Constructability* High District Goals** High

Trout Brook


Constant inflow (water treatment plant); proximity to Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary; partnership and public support/financing likely; Trout Brook is the largest historical stream in CRWD; phased implementation likely; restoration of existing surface reach.

Opportunity Rating High Location Along Phalen Blvd to Swede Hollow Park

Opportunity 3M Redevelopment Site Constructability* High District Goals** High Phalen Creek Additional Highlights: Why Is This Site A Good Candidate?

Site is along an existing bicycle trail and connected to stream daylighted in Swede Hollow Park; restoration of existing daylighted reach; good visibility; steady flow possible due to collection of spring water; close approximation of historical Phalen Creek.

Opportunity Rating High Location Through Fairgrounds to Sarita Wetland ‐ back into stormsewer

Opportunity Local flooding and water quality corrections needed

Constructability* High District Goals** High

Sarita Stream


Amenity for State Fair; high visibility and collaboration; connects to Sarita Wetland; open areas (UM farms, Fair parking) provides flexibility in restoration footprint.


Opportunity Rating Medium Location Along Ayd Mill Road to Mississippi River

Opportunity

Constructability* Medium District Goals** Medium

Cascade Creek/ Fountain Creek


Existing plan for Ayd Mill bike path (?); access to Fountain Cave; steady flow possible due to collection of spring water; close approximation of historical Cascade Creek and Fountain Creek.

Opportunity Rating Medium Location Summit Avenue to Shadow Falls/Finn's Glenn

Opportunity Constructability* High District Goals** Medium Finn's

Stream Additional Highlights: Why Is This Site A Good Candidate?

Wide parkway (easier construction) flows toward River; high visibility from running trail and local traffic (showcase); approximation of historical stream feeding Shadow Falls/Finn's Glenn; West Summit Avenue on National Register of Historic Places.

Opportunity Rating Medium Location Edgecumbe/St. Paul Ave to Mississippi River

Opportunity Constructability* High District Goals** Medium

Edgecumbe Stream


Corridor along St. Paul Avenue parkway; possible pilot Street Edge Alternative (SEA) site (as used in Seattle, WA); large‐lot industrial corridor at southernmost section; approximation of historical stream.

Opportunity Rating Medium Location Highland Golf Course to Mississippi River

Opportunity Constructability* High District Goals** Low

Highland Creek


Through open space; potential park/golf course amenity; some design flexibility; flow input from springs or leaking water storage tanks?; close approximation of historical stream.

Opportunity Rating Low Location Como Lake “to” Loeb Lake along Maryland Avenue

Opportunity Constructability* Medium District Goals** High Loeb Creek


Connects two District resources of interest; facilitates recreational movement across District; existing drainage infrastructure at low point of Maryland Avenue.


Opportunity Rating Low Location Irvine Park through Science Museum to Mississippi River

Opportunity Constructability* Medium District Goals** Medium

Rice's Brook


Downtown amenity and artistic opportunity; high visibility; approximation of historical stream, Rice's Brook.

Opportunity Rating Low Location Gateway Trail to Trout Brook

Opportunity Constructability* Low District Goals** High Gateway Creek


Existing bicycle trail; connected to Trout Brook.

Implementation Costs The costs to implement stream corridor restoration during the period of this plan are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Stream Corridor Restoration Feasibility Study and Implementation Costs

Implementation Program Description Budget Timeline

Feasibility Study Feasibility Study for 4‐6 Stream Corridor Restoration Sites $500,000 2011‐2016

Implementation of Projects Implementation of 1‐3 Stream Corridor Restoration Sites $3,669,000 2014‐2019


CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan 9/1/2010 105

425 – Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration - Implementation

Description and Purpose of Activity Nearly all of the pre settlement wetlands of the District havebeen lost to development and other ecosystems aredegraded. Wetlands, oak maple basswood forests, drysandstone cliffs, and other native ecosystems offer significantwater quality, habitats and aesthetic benefits. Some of thesebenefits can be recovered through ecological restorationprojects. The District Wetland Management Plan evaluatesthe wetland resources of the District, describes the approachto protecting the functions and diversity of the District’swetlands, and creates the framework to improve theseresources.

Projected Expenditures

10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20Ten YearTotal

Planned Initiatives

A. Green Corridor Restoration: Implementation $103 $103

B. Stream Corridor Restoration: Implementation $563 $580 $2,527 $3,669

C. Wetland Improvement $31 $32 $33 $34 $35 $190 $354

D. Wetland Reestablishment: Implementation $100 $100 $400 $600

E. Implementation of RR Land Restoration Projects $257 $257

Total for 425 Wetland, Stream, and EcosystemRestoration – Implementation

$31 $32 $33 $697 $714 $3,477 $4,983

Amounts are expressed in thousands of dollars

Objectives Identified initiatives to implement wetland, stream and ecosystem restoration projects, will helpensure the protection of wetlands and ecosystems, and encourage the enhancement of wetlandsand ecosystems. A consistent message heard throughout the District’s issues identification processwas the need for ecological restoration within the watershed. These initiatives will directly addressthis need.

Project Initiatives None.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan 9/1/2010 106

Explanation of Planned Initiatives

A. Green Corridor Restoration: Implementation

Based on the corridor restoration strategies identified and recommended in the throughinitiative 325A, projects for native plant, wildlife, and wildlife corridor restoration will beimplemented during years 4 through 10 of the plan. Projects in this initiative will becoordinated with the Stream Corridor and Wetland Restoration initiatives.

B. Stream Corridor Restoration: Implementation

As part of the Bringing Water Back to St. Paul campaign, the District will implement feasiblerestoration projects identified in 325C Stream Corridor Restoration Feasibility Studies. TheDistrict anticipated implementing 1 3 stream restoration projects in years 4 10 of the plan.Site selection and implementation will be guided by technical design criteria as well ascommunity vision expressed through public participation in the process. Availability offunding and the timing of redevelopment are key variables expected to affect the timing andpriorities of what corridors are pursued first. The Stream Corridor Restoration Plan inAppendix H describes the stream corridor identification process, the sites selected forfeasibility studies during the period of the plan, and the strategy for implementation.Included in this initiative will be maintenance of the existing Phalen Creek stream restorationin Swede Hallow Park. Once constructed, the District would expect these reestablishedwater resources to achieve all applicable water quality standards.

C. Wetland Improvement

Conduct wetland improvements as identified in the Wetland Management Plan which isincluded as Appendix F. Improvements will include vegetation and hydrologic improvementsthat will be conducted through a program that engages residents of the District. Specificinformation on wetland improvement opportunities and priorities can be found in thebulleted text on page F 14 of Appendix F.

D. Wetland Reestablishment: Implementation

Implementing feasible reestablishment projects identified in Wetland and EcosystemRestoration Planning (325 C), including key potential redevelopment sites such as the FordPlant, will be implemented in years 4 10 of the plan. Wetland Banking and projects identifiedin subwatershed analysis will be included for implementation. Refer to Table 1 on page F 20of Appendix F for further information on wetland reestablishment sites.

E. Implementation of Railroad Land Restoration Projects

Feasible and beneficial projects identified in 325D aimed at addressing the impacts ofrailroad lands will be implemented in this initiative.



TO: CRWD Board of Managers and Staff

FROM: Mark Doneux, Administrator

RE: May 6, 2015 Administrator’s Report

1) Administrator Approved or Executed Agreements

a) Amend. No. to 2014 Partner Grant Agreement with Roseville Area Schools – Harambee to extend

deadline to December 31. 2015.

b) 2015 Partner Grant Agreement with Roseville Area Schools for additional water themed education and

teacher training – not to exceed $5,000.

2) Board Approved or Executed Agreements

No new agreements.

3) General updates including recent and upcoming meetings and events

a) The 21st Annual Great River Gathering is May 14 at Saint Paul River Centre.

b) Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary planting and opening celebration with Great River Greening and the

City of Saint Paul is May 30. The volunteer planting event is coordinated by Great River Greening and

the opening celebration will be held afterwards.

c) Saint Paul Street Vitality Program boulevard rain garden planting events are planned for Saturday,

May 16 (Montana-Greenbrier project area) and Saturday, June 6 (Montreal Avenue project area).

d) Landscape Revival Native Plant Expo and Market is Saturday June 6 from 9 am – 3 pm at the Cub

Foods Community Pavilion on Larpenteur in Roseville.

e) Bugs Night Out, macroinvertebrate sampling event for children is Thursday, June 18 at Como

Lakeside Pavilion from 6 – 7:30 pm.

f) Como Lake Land and Water Cleanup with the Minnesota Standup Paddleboarders Association is

Sunday, July 12 from 10 am – 1 pm at Como Lakeside Pavilion.

4) CRWD events and meetings

a) Next CAC meeting is Wednesday, May 13, 2015 from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

b) Next Board meeting is Wednesday, May 20, 2015 from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.

W:\04 Board of Managers\Correspondence\Administrator's Report 2015\Administrator's Report 4-15-15.docx

Documents

May 6, 2015 CRWD Board packet