Minnesota Water Resources Conference

Forming a National Association ofMS4 City Permittees

October 13, 2015

Who am I?

Randy Neprash, PErandy.neprash@stantec.com 651-604-4703

Staff for Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition

Stantec Consulting

Motivation for Formation• To represent MS4s at the national level – a unified voice

• To lead changes in regulation both proactively and reactively

• To connect and unite MS4 programs

• To promote stormwater as a resource

• To improve the public image of stormwater

• To create opportunities for multi-benefit and multi-use projects and uses for stormwater

Vision for Organization

• Our vision is to provide clean water for the nation

• Supporting Principles:

• Provide efficient programs

• Provide effective programs

• Base decisions on sound science

Mission• Purpose – to be the

“voice of the MS4 communities”

• Members? – MS4s and others in the stormwater sector

• How to achieve this mission• By providing a forum to discuss and act on items of national

significance to MS4 permit holders

• By gathering and assembling critical metadata about the sector

• By helping to shape policies to ensure they are protective of the environment, can be implemented by permit holders, and provide for stewardship of public funds

Potential Action Areas

• Sector Support and Information

• Messaging/Communication

• Education

• Policy/Advocacy

Sector Support and Information• Explore topics and related projects at a national scope that

are of interest and benefit to MS4s• Coordinate technology and information transfer at the

national level between state and regional-level MS4 groups • Communications with member MS4s across multiple topics

using a variety of information dissemination venues and platforms

• Coordinate with other national organizations that impact the MS4 sector

• Assist states in forming and managing new and nascent state and regional-level groups representing MS4 communities and work with WEF member associations

Messaging/Communication• Distribute information about court rulings and new

rules & regs

• Collect, reformat, generate, and distribute public education materials related to MS4 programs and policies

• Explore national media campaign(s) to amplify public education for stormwater

Education• Provide exchange forums for MS4 permittees

• Support & expand public education for stormwater

• Provide or support technical reports

• Provide or support guidance manuals

• Host technical forums

Policy/Advocacy• Provide a conduit to Federal regulatory and legislative

contacts of interest to MS4 community

• Provide strategic support on regulatory and legislative actions at state/local level

• Provide timely communications on pending and ongoing regulatory and legislative actions impacting the MS4 community

• Provide policy analysis to MS4 community

• Work with other groups to amplify messages on MS4 issues

Where we are now• We have had an Executive Committee working on

details over the past year

• We have developed a draft charter and recommendations for the organization

• We had our first formal meeting at WEFTEC 2015 on September 30th

• We have empowered a Steering Committee and Executive Committee

Where we are nowAttending the meeting at WEFTEC

• Chris Kloss, acting head of the MS4 stormwater program at EPA HQ

• Deborah Nagle, Director, Water Permits Division, EPA

• “the formation of this group is an excellent step forward and would like this to happen quickly. It is challenging for EPA to communicate to so many permit holders and so they thank the organizers of the group.”

Recommendations & Charter• We should be organized within WEF

• Part of WEF’s new Stormwater Institute and other initiatives

• We will have a degree of autonomy – for collaborations, working with EPA, and policy/advocacy work

• Details will be set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding with WEF

Recommendations & Charter• Membership

• State and regional-level coalitions of MS4 cities – basis as we start

• Other groups, companies, DOTs, and individuals in the stormwater sector

• Two-tiered decision-making structure

• Steering Committee and Executive Committee

Recommendations & Charter

• National Municipal Stormwater Association

• National Municipal Stormwater Alliance

What can be done?• Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the

United States” 40 CFR 230.3• (2) The following are not “waters of the United

States” even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (1)(iv) through (viii) of this section.

• (vi) Stormwater control features constructed to convey, treat, or store stormwater that are created in dry land.

What can be done?

WEF Stormwater Institutehttp://wefstormwaterinstitute.org/

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”

Margaret Mead, cultural anthropologist

Northeast Minnesota Alternative Wetland Mitigation Options

Andrea Plevan and Jennifer Olson 2015 MN Water Resources Conference

Siting of Wetland Mitigation in NE MN

►High demand for compensatory mitigation in NE MN

►Limited opportunities (>80% of presettlement wetlands)

►Coordination of federal and state wetland regulatory programs

Are there other actions that can be taken to improve and protect aquatic resources, target functions?

Project Overview

►US EPA funded project (2014-2015)►Bank Service Area 1 (Lake Superior Basin in

Minnesota)► Interagency Northeast Mitigation Siting Team

(BWSR, DNR, MPCA, EPA, ACOE) March 2014 “Siting of Wetland Mitigation in Northeast

Minnesota” Several recommendations in Siting Team report

Explore Alternative Mitigation Options in NE MN

Alternative Mitigation Options…as recommended in the Siting Team report

►Expanded Use of Preservation ►Restoration and/or Protection of Riparian

Corridors and Streams►Stabilization of Natural Hydrology►Peatland Hydrology Restoration►Approved Watershed Plan Implementation

Projects

Note - These activities may/may not be currently allowed under mitigation rules

What types of projects might be applicable?

Alternative Mitigation Option

Type of Implementation Activity

Expanded use of preservation

Permanent protection of large tracts of land

Restoration and/or protection of riparian corridors and streams

Restoration of riparian buffers, corridors, and shorelineStream restoration and restoration of natural stream hydrology (reconnecting floodplain, streambankstabilization, natural channel design)Improve natural hydrologic conditions and aquatic habitat (fish passage, dams, culvert crossings, lateral connectivity)Miscellaneous projects

What types of projects might be applicable?

Alternative Mitigation Option Type of Implementation Activity

Stabilization of natural hydrology Restoration of large-scale wetland hydrology (ditch blocks, runoff retention)

Peatland hydrology restoration Restoration of peatland hydrologyRestoration of peatland vegetation (plant diversity, invasive species)

Approved watershed plan implementation projects

Projects that have been identified in a watershed or state plan or by an agency or organization.

Where are potential project opportunities?

►Site-specific project opportunities – local knowledge survey

►Watershed-scale opportunities – landscape level analysis

Identification of site-specific projects

►Review of reports/plans/studies County water plans,

TMDLs and implementation plans

► Interviews Siting Team State and federal

agencies, counties Outside parties including

tribes, universities, and NGOs

Site-Specific Projects—Examples

►Restoration and/or protection of riparian corridors and streams Skunk Creek restoration to

recover natural stream channel, stabilize road embankment, and remove fish barrier Stewart River restoration to

restore 150 feet to a natural stream channel, stabilize eroding stream banks, and eliminate a fish barrier to reduce sediment loading and turbidity in trout stream

Site-Specific Projects

Watershed-Based Opportunity Analysis

►GIS-based analysis Permanent protection of large tracts of land Restoration of riparian buffers, corridors, and

shoreline Stream restoration and restoration of natural

stream hydrology (altered and impounded watercourses) Dam/impoundment modification or removal Culvert enhancements (fish passage, erosion) Peatland hydrology restoration

►Understanding data limitations is critical

Datasets (Examples)► Land Use and Land Cover (2011

National Land Cover Dataset)► Sites of Biodiversity Significance,

Minnesota County Biological Survey► Altered Watercourses, MPCA► Ecological Ranking Tool, NRRI and

BWSR► 24K Streams, DNR► National Wetland Inventory, USFWS► Inventory of Dams, DNR► Land Ownership—Gap Stewardship

2008, DNR

Inventory

Inventory—Scale up to HUC12 watershed

Inventory—Scale up to HUC12 watershed

Determine Preservation or Restoration Needs

Preservation High Quality Resources MCBS Trout resources/wild rice

lakes SNA/BWCA

Anthropogenic Stressors Road density Proximity to mining

Restoration Water Quality

Impairments Altered Streams

Preservation

Preservation and Restoration Needs

Preservation

Restoration

Watershed Suitability Ranking

Watershed Suitability Ranking - Results

Project Summary

►Demonstrates that a potential exists in northeast Minnesota for alternative mitigation opportunities

►Provides a methodology for identifying and prioritizing opportunities by watershed

►Offers a methodology that can be used to further the efforts in the state

Acknowledgements (Siting Team)

U.S. EPA (Holly Arrigoni, Kerryann Weaver) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Greg Larson, Tim Smith) MN Department of Natural Resources (Colleen Allen, Jennifer Engstrom, Doug Norris) Board of Water and Soil Resources (Les Lemm, Ken Powell) MPCA (Tom Estabrooks, Catherine Neuschler, Mark Gernes) Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy The Nature Conservancy of Wisconsin Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Reservation Grand Portage Reservation Carlton Soil and Water Conservation District Lake Soil and Water Conservation District South St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District St. Louis River Alliance SWCD Technical Service Area III United States Fish & Wildlife Service United States Forest Service

For More Information:

Andrea Plevan or Jennifer Olson, Tetra Techandrea.plevan@tetratech.com

Kerryann Weaver, US EPA Region 5kerryann.weaver@epa.gov

Thank you!

Watershed Volume Reduction Rules: Ten Years Later

Minnesota Water Resources ConferenceOctober 13, 2015

Jennifer Koehler, Barr Engineering Co.Paige Ahlborg, Ramsey-Washington Metro

Watershed District

Presentation Outline● Introduction to RWMWD● History of Rules Process● 2014 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Studies● 2015 Rule Revisions● Next steps

District Objectives & Process for New Rules● Coordinate with CRWD and Joint TAC ● Work with other local governments to improve water quality● Improve water quality of our water resources● Provide for an effective and well run permitting program ● Reduce impact of runoff on our water resources

Rules and Standards (Adopted 2006)● Stormwater Management

● Rate Control● Volume Control● Water Quality● Lifetime Maintenance Agreements

● Erosion and Sediment Control ● Wetland Management● Flood Protection

What was the Standard?Required Volume Reduction (cf) =Impervious Area (sf) x 1.0” x 0.9 Runoff Coefficient x 0.083333

Alternative Compliance Sequencing● Partially Meet Onsite● Offsite or Banked Credits● Stormwater Impact Fee● Cost Cap for Linear Projects

2014 TAC Discussions: Are the Rules Still Accurate?

● 0.9” standard- less than MIDS ● 70% Filtration Credit- is it enough or too much?● How to credit stormwater reuse systems??

2014 TAC Studies● Utilized the “Best Available” information in relation to stormwater

management● MPCA Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS)● MPCA Stormwater Manual (as revised)● RWMWD BMP monitoring

● Establish Credit for Filtration, Enhanced Filtration, and Stormwater Reuse Practices

Establishing the “Baseline”The “Ideal” Scenario to meet the Volume Reduction Rule

Photo: Fred Rozumalski

Captures 1.1” of runoff from the impervious surfaces

Watershed HSG

Avg AnnualTP Removal (%)

A 97

B 89

C 87

D N/A

Filtration Credit• Performance similar

to Bioretention System with Underdrain (Filtration)

• Considers Media Type Used in a Filtration System

Filtration Media Types**From Minnesota Stormwater Manual Update

Filtration Media Type Composition Estimated TP Reduction Credit

(%)

A

60-70% construction sand15-25% topsoil15-25% organic matter*For credit, P content < 30 mg/kg per Mehlich III test

0% (if high P)34% (if low P*)

B70-85% construction sand15-30% organic matter*For credit, P content < 30 mg/kg per Mehlich III test

0% (if high P)34% (if low P*)

C85-88% sand by volume 8-12% fines by volume3-5% organic matter by dry weight

34%

D

60-75% sand by dry weight Min 55% total coarse and medium sand (as % of total sand)Less than 12% fine gravel less than 5 mm2-5% organic matter by dry weight

34%

Filtration ScenariosScenario 1: MIDS Calculator – Bioretention w/ Underdrain (Filtration Only)

Scenario 2: MIDS Calculator – Bioretention w/ Underdrain (With Infiltration)

Filtration Credit SummaryWatershed HSG “The Ideal” Scenario

Average Annual TP Removal Efficiency

(%)

Filtration Scenarios Average Annual TP Removal Efficiency

(%)

Performance Ratio

A 97 0 - 83 0.0 - 0.86B 89 0 - 70 0.0 - 0.79

C 87 0 - 68 0.0 - 0.78D N/A 0 - 45 0.0 - 0.52

RWMWD Filtration Credit = 55%

Enhanced Filtration Credit●Iron-Enhanced Sand Filtration –

●MIDS memo summarizing performance for IESF85% Particulate P (0.55) + 60% Soluble P (0.45) =

74% Average Annual TP Removal

●RWMWD Monitoring DataLocation Monitoring Years 2013 TP Removal (%)Beam Ave IESF 2009-2013 69%Woodlyn IESF RWG 2012-2013 68%

Enhanced Filtration Credit SummaryWatershed HSG “The Ideal” Scenario

-Average Annual TP Removal Efficiency

(%)

Enhanced Filtration Scenarios -

Average Annual TP Removal Efficiency

(%)

Performance Ratio

A 97 70 0.72B 89 70 0.79

C 87 70 0.80D N/A 70 0.80

RWMWD Enhanced Filtration Credit = 80%

Stormwater Reuse CreditPerformance is based on multiple factors:● Watershed Area● Storage Volume● Use Rate (Application area, Application

Rate, Application Season)

Source: UMN Extension

Source: Metropolitan Council Stormwater Reuse Guide

What if you could capture and reuse ALL runoff from May through September?

Month

Total Watershed Runoff Volume

(%)January 0February 3

March 11April 11May 12June 14July 13

August 14September 9

October 7November 4December 1

May - September 63

RWMWD Credit = 63% / 87% = 0.72

Stormwater Reuse Credit Summary●Credit for stormwater

reuse will vary with each system

●Use the water balance calculator to evaluate the performance of system and estimate the credit factor

Reuse for Irrigation from Cistern/Subsurface Storage

April 2015 Rule Revisions● Added definitions for new terminology and updated tables

● Volume reduction standard increased to 1.1 inch

● Volume reduction credit standard for filtration BMPs and enhanced filtration added to rules

● Stormwater reuse credit calculator guidance added

TAC Concerns with Proposed Revisions

● Not fully adopting MIDS● Concern with linear projects not having a lower standard

● Added project cost for constructing larger filtration or IES systems

Compliance Thus Far with 2015 Revisions● 10 Stormwater Management Permits Approved

● 1 applied cost cap● 2 partially met onsite with filtration systems, remaining paid into Stormwater Impact Fund● 4 infiltration● 3 filtration with iron enhanced sand

Next Steps● Continue to work with CRWD to

streamline rules and maintain consistency

● Continue to stay on top of advanced technology and research

● Meet with TAC in 2016

Questions?jkoehler@barr.com

(952) 832-2750paige.ahlborg@rwmwd.org

(651) 792-7964