september 1, 2010 capitol region watershed district · the capitol region watershed district 2010...

2010 Watershed Management Plan

Capitol Region Watershed District

September 1, 2010

Cover Image

Upper right: dragonfly detail, image courtesy of Capitol Region Watershed District

Main image: Mississippi River - downtown St. Paul at night, photo by Dan Oldre, image courtesy of Dan Oldre

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 i

Table of Contents

Page #

Acknowledgements iii

Acronyms ix

Glossary of Terms xi

Executive Summary xv

Land and Water Resource Summary 1

Issues and Goals 16

Implementation Plan 35

Implementation Plan Table 113

Watershed District Administration 117

Appendix A Land and Water Resource Inventory

Appendix B Public Participation Process & Meeting Minutes

Appendix C Issues Matrix

Appendix D Historic Waters of the Capitol Region Watershed District

Appendix E Education and Outreach Plan

Appendix F Wetland Management Strategy

Appendix G 10 Year Maintenance, Repair, and improvement Plan for the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 ii

Appendix H Stream Corridor Restoration Plan

Appendix I Stormwater Impact Fund Implementation Plan

Appendix J Program Evaluation

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 iii

Acknowledgments The Capitol Region Watershed District 2010 Watershed Management Plan was developed with the participation of numerous people. The Board of Managers wishes to acknowledge the following groups and individuals for their involvement in the planning process. Without their hard work and dedication this plan would not have been possible and the Managers thank them for their effort. Capitol Region Watershed District Board Members

Robert Piram Board President Joseph Collins Vice President Michael Thienes Treasurer Seitu Jones Secretary Marylyn Deneen Education/Information

Citizen Advisory Committee The District is proud to have one of the most active Citizen Advisory Committees in the Watershed District Community. Watershed Districts are required to organize and make use of a group of citizens to provide input on its operations, watershed management plan and annual budget, among others. The following are members of the District’s long‐standing Citizen Advisory Committee.

David Arbeit Ted McCaslin William Barton Michael MacDonald Jim Cotner Judith Monson Bill Downing Ole Olmanson Steven Duerre Shirley A. Reider, Co‐Chair Bruce Holdhusen Michelle Ulrich, Secretary Jerry Kafka Jerome Wagner Paul Kammueller, Co‐Chair Brandon Wiarda

Capitol Region Watershed District Staff

Mark Doneux District Administrator Melissa Baker Water Resource Technician Elizabeth Beckman Education and Outreach Coordinator Anna Eleria Water Resource Specialist Bob Fossum Water Resource Project Manager Forrest Kelley Permit Coordinator Camille Logan Administrative Assistant Matt Loyas Water Resource Technician Dawn Nelson Office Manager Carrie Robertson Water Resource Technician

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 iv

Technical Advisory Committee The District has assembled a Technical Advisory Committee from which they solicit input on a variety of technical issues. The committee is made up of staff professionals from the Cities, County, regional and State agencies and representatives from other partners such as the University of Minnesota, State Fair and various non‐profit entities. The following are standing members of the Technical Advisory Committee, many of whom were very active in the development of the Watershed Management Plan.

Lynn Leibfried BNSF Railway Company Melissa Lewis BWSR Steve Woods BWSR Justin Miller City of Falcon Heights Heather Butkowski City of Lauderdale Chuck Ahl City of Maplewood DuWayne Konewko City of Maplewood Steve Kummer City of Maplewood Deb Bloom City of Roseville Duane Schwartz City of Roseville Thomas Paschke City of Roseville Adam Robbins City of St. Paul Anne Hunt City of St. Paul Anne Weber City of St. Paul Bob Kessler City of St. Paul Brian Tourtelotte City of St. Paul Bruce Beese City of St. Paul Bruce Elder City of St. Paul Cecile Bedor City of St. Paul Cy Kosel City of St. Paul Dan Haak City of St. Paul Dave Nelson City of St. Paul Don Ganje City of St. Paul George Johnson City of St. Paul Jodi Martinez City of St. Paul Josh Williams City of St. Paul Larry Zangs City of St. Paul Phil Belfiori City of St. Paul Tom Beach City of St. Paul Yung Kang Lu City of St. Paul Michael Hamm City of St. Paul Judy Sventek Metropolitan Council Brian Hudalla Minnesota State Fair Craig Wills MNDNR Beth Neuendorf MnDOT Steve Johnson MNRRA Bruce Henningsgaard MPCA Denise Leezer MPCA Mike Findorff MPCA

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 v

Tom Petersen Ramsey Conservation District Julie Kleinschmidt Ramsey County Ken Haider Ramsey County Public Works Terry Noonan Ramsey County Public Works Joni Giese SRF Consulting Chuck Derscheid St. Paul Port Authority Kevin Umidon St. Paul Public Schools Isd 625 Operations Dave Schuler St. Paul Regional Water Services John Blackstone St. Paul Regional Water Services Steve Schnieder St. Paul Regional Water Services Deborah Swackhammer University of Minnesota Les Potts University of Minnesota Andy Phelan University of Minnesota

Community Advisory Group The District assembled a group of community members to assist in the development of the Watershed Management Plan. The following individuals were regularly apprised of the planning process and given opportunities to give input.

Lavonne Lee American Indian Family Center Georgia Lickness American Indians in Unity Ly Vang Association for the Advancement of Hmong

Women in MN Melvin Giles Aurora St. Anthony CDC Tara Chadwick Chilchiutlicue Environmental Project/Indigenous

People’s Taskforce Annie Levenson‐Falk Citizens League of Minnesota Tamara Downs Schwei Community Design Center of Minnesota Rhonda DeBough District 10 Community Council Michael Jon Olson District 11 Community Council Amy Sparks District 12 Community Council Theresa Heiland District 13 Community Council Melissa Martinez‐Sones District 14 Community Council Kathy Carruth District 15 Community Council Diane Hilden District 16 Community Council Jeff Roy District 16 Community Council Jill Hirons Maraist District 17 Community Council Ed Lambert District 4 Community Council Leslie McMurray District 5 Planning Council Kerry Antrim District 6 Planning Council Tait Danielson Castillo District 7 Community Council Irna Landrum District 8 Community Council Ed Johnson District 9 Community Council Janna Caywood District Resident Angela Earl District Resident Dan Edgerton District Resident Sherri Knuth District Resident Mike Kowski District Resident

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 vi

Barbara Leary District Resident Beth Mercer‐Taylor District Resident Tonya Micholie District Resident Bob Milligan District Resident Sarah Risser District Resident Bill Shreiner District Resident Elizabeth Ann Sletten District Resident Shawn Tracy District Resident Mari Bongiovanni East Side Neighborhood Development Corporation Faith Krogstad Eco Education Molly Johnston Eco Education Deborah Torraine Environmental Justice Advocates of MN (EJAM) Yonatan Assefaw Eritrean Community Center of Minnesota Susan Hubbard Eureka Recycling Peggy Lynch Friends of Parks and Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey

County Trevor Russell Friends of the Mississippi Deborah Karasov Great River Greening Jonathon Palmer Hallie Q. Brown/Martin Luther King Center Val Vargas Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Anita Yang Hmong Academy Sarah Clark Lower Phalen Creek Project Diane Hilden McCarrons Lake Association Lori Fritts Midway Chamber of Commerce Pamela J. Standing Minnesota American Indian Chamber of Commerce Barbara Davis Minnesota Black Chamber of Commerce Mario Hernandez Minnesota Department of Human Rights Bill Baker Minnesota Hmong Chamber of Commerce Suzanne Koepplinger Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center Nick Khaliq NAACP Mara O'Neill Neighborhood Development Center Armando Cacho Neighborhood House Sirad Osman New Americans Community Services Sarah Bellamy Penumbra Theater Christine Podas‐Larson Public Art ‐‐ St. Paul Sherry Howe Rotary Club Annie Huidekoper Saint Paul Saints Heather Cox Science Museum of Minnesota Art Weddington Selby Area CDC Gedaly Meerovich Slavic Community Center Jonathon Sage‐Martinsen SPARC Kristopher Johnson St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce Matt Anfang St. Paul Building Owners & Managers Assoc. Tim Griffin St. Paul Riverfont Corporation Robert McClain St. Paul Urban League Lee Pao Xiong The Center for Hmong Studies Saeed Fahia The Confederation of Somali Community in

Minnesota

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 vii

Susan Schmidt Trust for Public Land, Minnesota Office Brian McMahon University United Connie Cassela Wellington Management Tene Wells Women Venture

Consulting Resource

Emmons & Olivier Resources Patrick J. Conrad, Project Manager Brett H. Emmons Camilla Correll Jennifer Olson Kent Brander

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 viii

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 ix

Acronyms

BMPs Best Management Practices BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand BWSR Board of Water and Soil

Resources CAC Citizens Advisory Committee CERCLA Comprehensive

Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information

CIP Capital Improvement Program COE Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army) CRWD Capitol Region Watershed

District CSE Confined Space Entry CWA Clean Water Act CWI County Well Index DNR Department of Natural

Resources EPA Environmental Protection

Agency (U.S.) FEMA Flood Emergency

Management Act HSG Hydrologic soil group JPA Joint Powers Agreement LEED Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design LCCMR Legislative and Citizen Council

on Minnesota Resources MCES Metropolitan Council

Environmental Services MDH Minnesota Department of

Health MNDOT Minnesota Department of

Transportation MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency MS4 Municipal Separate Storm

Sewer System NA Not Applicable NCHF North Central Hardwood

Forest Ecoregion NPDES National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System NSQD National Stormwater Quality

Database

NURP Nationwide Urban Runoff Program

O&M Operation and Maintenance PED Planning and Economic

Development (City of St. Paul) PRAP Performance Review and

Assistance Program of the Board of Water and Soil Resources

RCD Ramsey Conservation District RR Railroad RCD Ramsey Conservation District RWMWD Ramsey‐Washington Metro

Watershed District SCS Soil Conservation Service SPRWS Saint Paul Regional Water

Service TAC Technical Advisory Committee TBI Trout Brook Storm Sewer

Interceptor TKN Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Loads TP Total Phosphorus TRI Toxic Release Inventory TSS Total Suspended Solids VIC Voluntary Investigation and

Clean‐up WMO Water Management

Organization

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 x

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xi

Glossary of Terms

Term Definition

Adaptive management strategies

An iterative process of evaluating progress toward stated goals and revising and refining implementation actions to ensure that progress is being made toward the goal.

Aeration The addition of air to a water body in order to increase the oxygen content of the water to benefit the health of the living organisms within the lake.

Arlington Pascal Project

Major Capital Improvement Project undertaken by the District in conjunction with the City of St. Paul. Project includes Como Golf Course Pond, Arlington Underground Storage, infiltration trenches and raingardens.

Bacteria

Microorganisms that can live in a variety of conditions, some types can cause illness in humans. The quantity of E. coli, a specific type of bacteria, is used as a metric to evaluate potential fecal contamination in surface water resources.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Methods used to control the speed and total amount of stormwater that flows off a site after a rainstorm and used to improve the quality of the runoff water. Can also refer to practices for control of sediment and erosion.

Chloride A chemical used as a water quality metric. Chloride is a component of many common road salts used for de‐icing in the winter.

Chlorophyll‐a A component of algae and other plants used to conduct photosynthesis. Chlorophyll‐a is used as a water quality metric to evaluate the amount of algae present in a water body.

Climate change A long‐term change in climate measures such as temperature and rainfall. Changes in climate have a large impact on water quality as well as lake and wetland water levels and stream and river flows.

Ecological integrity The quality of the plant community compared to a representative plant community for the local area. Higher quality communities have a higher ecological integrity.

Ecosystem The group of all living organisms in a certain area that are expected to interact within the same habitat.

Floodplain The land adjacent to a water body that is expected to be inundated with water after a large rainfall event.

Green infrastructure

A stormwater management approach that utilizes natural landscape features and hydrologic processes to treat stormwater by infiltration, evapotranspiration, and/or reuse of runoff. Green infrastructure also achieves other environmental goals such as carbon sequestration, reductions in urban heat island effect, improved air quality, improved wildlife habitat and increased opportunities for outdoor recreation. Adapted from US EPA

Groundwater Water located below ground in the spaces present in soil and bedrock.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xii

Term Definition

Groundwater recharge Water moving through the soil surface and deeper underground to become groundwater.

Hydrology The movement of water. Often used in reference to water movement as runoff over the soil after a rainfall event as it contributes to surface water bodies.

Illicit discharges Any contribution to the storm sewer system that isn't stormwater (i.e. illegal connections to the storm sewer, dumping of materials in the storm sewer).

Impervious surfaces

Surfaces that severely restrict the movement of water through the surface of the earth and into the soil below. Impervious surface typically refers to manmade surfaces such as non‐porous asphalt or concrete roadways, buildings, and heavily compacted soils.

Infiltration The movement of water into the soil.

Internal phosphorus loading

The total amount of the nutrient phosphorus that is contributed to the water column of a lake, stream, river, or wetland from sources within the water body. The sediment at the bottom of a water body is a common internal phosphorus source.

Macroinvertebrates

Aquatic insects used as a metric of water quality. Different macroinvertebrates will live in water with poor water quality than live in water with high water quality, thus the different types of macroinvertebrates present are an indication of the quality of the water.

Mercury

A metal that recycles between land, air and water. The primary source of mercury in water bodies is air pollution. Mercury accumulates in fish and often results in fish consumption advisories for lakes and rivers. Mercury can have toxic effects on the nervous system of animals, including humans, that eat large quantities of fish.

Metals Metals dissolved in water. Typical metals included in monitoring programs are cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc

Nonpoint source pollution Pollution, such as nutrients and sediment, that are not from one distinct origin. For example, soil can run off of land throughout the watershed, it does not come from just one point.

Nutrients A group of chemicals that are needed for the growth of an organism. Within surface water systems, nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen can lead to the excessive growth of algae.

Organic contaminants Contaminants including synthetic pesticides and herbicides and volatile organic compounds such as the compounds found in solvents and plastics.

Outwash plain A region of relatively flat to undulating topography covered by sediment deposited by the glacier meltwater. Outwash is usually composed of sand, sand and gravel, or fine sand and silt.

Perched water table An area that is underlain by a fine grained geologic unit or aquitard that restricts the downward movement of surface water. Perched lakes and wetlands are less connected to groundwater systems.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xiii

Term Definition

Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS)

A synthetic compound used in some fire‐fighting foams and other products. It is highly persistent in the environment and is suspected to be detrimental to human health.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xiv

Term Definition

Pesticides A substance intended to prevent, repel, or destroy a pest (insects, mice, bacteria, etc.).

Polychlorinated biphyenyls (PCBs)

A compound historically used in coolants, transformers, and other uses. They are highly persistent in the environment and are suspected to be detrimental to human health.

Quaternary Quaternary period is geologic time beginning about 1.5 million years ago to present. Term is often used with respect to geologic deposits: unconsolidated soils deposited during the Quaternary geologic period.

Ramsey County Groundwater Commission

Group formed for groundwater planning and management in Ramsey County. The District is a member.

Rotenone A pesticide used to facilitate lake restoration by killing unwanted fish populations.

Speleologist A person who studies caves.

Storm drain stenciling The practice of marking the location of inlets to the storm sewer system with a notice to remind people that the storm sewer system drains to a local river, stream, lake, or wetland.

Stormwater BMPs Methods used to control the speed and total amount of stormwater that flows off a site after a rainstorm and used to improve the quality of the runoff water.

Stormwater infrastructure Methods used to control the speed and total amount of stormwater that flows off a site after a rainstorm and used to improve the quality of the runoff water.

Stormwater management facilities

Methods used to control the speed and total amount of stormwater that flows off a site after a rainstorm and used to improve the quality of the runoff water.

Stormwater/Stormwater runoff The water that flows off a site after a rainstorm.

Subwatershed A smaller geographic section of a larger watershed unit with a drainage area of typically between 2 and 15 square miles and whose boundaries include all the land area draining to a specified point.

Surficial groundwater Groundwater present above bedrock units.

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

The total amount of a pollutant or nutrient that a water body can receive and still meet state water quality standards. TMDL also refers to the process of allocating pollutant loadings among point and nonpoint sources.

Total phosphorus The total amount of the nutrient phosphorus that is present in a water sample. Increased phosphorus is a key factor leading to decreased water quality.

Trophic State Index A measurement combining readings for total phosphorus, water clarity (secchi depth), and chlorophyll‐a into one value used as an indicator of water quality.

Trout Brook storm sewer interceptor

Major storm sewer pipe carrying flows through the eastern portion of the District. The District took over ownership from the Met Council which previously owned the pipe when it carried combined storm and sanitary flows.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xv

Term Definition

Turbidity

A measure of particles in the water, such as sediment and algae. Related to the depth sunlight can penetrate into the water. Higher turbidities reduce the penetration of sunlight in the water and can affect species of aquatic life that survive in the waterbody.

Water Quality

Water quality is a term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water, usually in respect to its suitability for a particular use. In the case of surface waters, uses are typically swimming and fishing.

Wetland Reestablishment

The making of a wetland in an area that had previously been a wetland but had been lost due to draining, filling or other means. The District refers to this process as wetland ‘reestablishment’ in an effort to distinguish it from the terms ‘restoration’ or ‘creation’ which have specific definitions is MN Rules 8420 Wetland Conservation Act.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xvi

Executive Summary The Capitol Region Watershed District (District) is a special purpose local unit of government created to manage and protect part of the Mississippi River Basin, along with the lakes, wetlands, and creeks that comprise the watershed and drain to the river. The District was established by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in 1998. The District is governed by five Board Members, while the Districts programs, activities and initiatives are carried out by staff members, consultants and citizen volunteers. The mission of the District is to “To protect, manage and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.” The first watershed management plan for the District was adopted in 2000. Since then, the District has worked towards accomplishing the goals and objectives set forth in the 2000 plan. The District has developed programs, projects and capital improvement projects to manage and restore its resources. With the experiences of the last 10 years, the input of stakeholders, and a vision for the future, the District set out to establish new goals for its next 10 years of operation. This 2010 Watershed Management Plan meets the requirements specified in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103B and 103D and will be valid through 2020. Land & Water Resource Inventory The District encompasses 40.6 square miles of fully urbanized and developed land within portions of Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, St. Paul, Maplewood, and Roseville. The Mississippi River forms the western and southern borders of the District. Within the boundaries of the District there are a number of valuable water resources including Como Lake, Lake McCarrons, Loeb Lake and Crosby Lake, as well as several significant wetlands. A summary of the land and water resource inventory section is included within the body of the Plan and the traditional inventory is included as Appendix A. Issues & Goals The process for developing this watershed management plan began with the identification of issues and documenting the concerns of stakeholders, residents, District staff, board members, and other interested parties in a thorough public involvement process. The public involvement process brought to light two guiding principles of the plan; the value in cooperating with District partners and the critical role that residents play in effective watershed management. A detailed description of the public participation process as well as meeting minutes can be found in Appendix B.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xvii

The District places great value on working with partners in order to explore new ideas, increase efficiency, prevent duplication of effort and save money when promoting best management practices across the watershed. This District also recognizes the importance of involving residents in watershed protection. In order for the District to achieve its mission of protecting, managing and improving water resources, it is essential that residents adopt preferred water quality protection behaviors in their own home landscape, and support large scale watershed management projects. Issue statements were crafted to encompass all comments received during the public involvement process and identify what needs are to be addressed within the timeframe of the watershed management plan. The issue statements were then used to formulate Goals for the District in order to guide activities for the next 10 years. During this process, an Issues Matrix was developed which can be found as Appendix C. The issues and goals crafted fall under the following seven Issue Topics.

Education and Outreach The purpose of education and outreach is to inform residents of the issues related to water quality and stormwater management, the role of the District, and to encourage change in people’s behaviors related to water. Through education and outreach, the District can disseminate information about the state of the local resources while delivering the message that residents are key part of the solution. With the Bringing Water Back campaign, the District’s goal is to reconnect people who live, work and recreate in the District with the water resources and to create a sense of ownership. The District is unique in that it has the most diverse population of residents within the state of Minnesota. Such diversity requires watershed education to be delivered in a way that meets the needs of each of the varying populations.

Urban Stormwater Management The watershed is fully developed, resulting in a landscape dominated by impervious surfaces. Urban stormwater management is necessary to reverse the impact of increased stormwater runoff and pollutant loading to District water bodies caused by impervious surfaces. The District’s urban stormwater management will be primarily focused on the protection of the water quality of the District’s water resources. Additional effort will be focused on investigating new stormwater management techniques, promoting green infrastructure and addressing storm sewer infrastructure capacity and corresponding flooding problems.

Monitoring and Data Assessment The data collected through the District’s monitoring program provide valuable information on the state of water resources and the effectiveness of stormwater management BMPs. In addition the data provide guidance for making decisions on stormwater management projects and is used in education and outreach programs to convey messages to the public about stormwater. The District’s monitoring efforts will continue to be focused on the subwatersheds draining to the Mississippi River and specific water resources and BMPs throughout the District while exploring additional monitoring opportunities with wetlands, groundwater, soils, and additional BMPs. The District will also focus on ensuring that collected data and assessments are in a format that is understandable and available to the public.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xviii

Future Trends Changes in watershed management and emerging issues such as climate change impact the District’s management decisions. The District recognizes the importance of staying up to date on new and innovative stormwater management approaches given the highly developed nature of the watershed and the limits of traditional practices. In addition, the District will need to have a role in addressing changes in watershed management due to climate change.

Funding and Organization The District funds programs, projects and capital improvements through levied taxes, grants, bonds and other outside sources of funding. Partnering with the county, municipalities, and other governmental entities to implement watershed management projects results in cost savings for the District and in turn, the residents. The District plans to continue to encourage and coordinate such partnerships and facilitate joint projects as well as continuing to offer grant programs for projects benefiting the water resources.

Regulations and Enforcement The District currently implements rules that address water quality and quantity, erosion control, wetland protection, Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor and floodplain management. The District will focus on keeping these rules clear and up to date with revisions as needed, improving compliance and inspections, and coordinating District rules with other local and state and federal regulatory requirements.

Ecosystem Health In addition to protecting and improving water quality, the District is dedicated to promoting healthy and viable ecosystems throughout the watershed. The District is highly developed and most natural areas no longer exist. The Bringing Water Back campaign focuses on restoring historic wetlands, streams and other natural areas as well as completing ecological restoration of degraded natural areas.

Implementation Plan The District developed a series of goals to address various aspects of these fundamental issues. The goals formed the basis for developing an implementation plan. The District’s 10 year implementation plan consists of programs, projects and capital improvements geared towards meeting the goals identified in the planning process. The following table with cost estimates summarizes the implementation plan.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xix

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xx

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 – 2020 Watershed Management Plan Implementation Plan Summary

Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

TOTAL COST $4,526 $4,128 $4,136 $5,421 $5,582 $5,786 $4,519 $4,642 $4,519 $4,586 $47,846 Code ADMINISTRATION $392 $404 $416 $428 $441 $454 $494 $509 $524 $540 $4,602 101 Administration $392 $404 $416 $428 $441 $454 $494 $509 $524 $540 $4,602 Code PROGRAMS $1,246 $1,286 $1,313 $1,395 $1,439 $1,479 $1,435 $1,478 $1,525 $1,567 $14,163 201 Groundwater

Protection $45 $47 $48 $78 $80 $83 $85 $88 $90 $93 $737

207 Rulemaking/Rule Revisions

$33 $34 $35 $14 $14 $14 $15 $15 $16 $16 $206

208 Permitting $151 $156 $160 $155 $160 $164 $169 $174 $180 $185 $1,655 210 Stewardship Grants $113 $116 $119 $121 $125 $129 $133 $137 $141 $145 $1,278 211 Monitoring and Data

Assessment $300 $308 $309 $360 $370 $381 $368 $379 $390 $401 $3,566

220 Education and Outreach $216 $223 $229 $194 $200 $206 $210 $217 $223 $230 $2,149 225 Technical Resources and

Information Sharing $167 $172 $177 $141 $145 $150 $156 $161 $166 $171 $1,605

228 Future Trends: Research and Positioning

$113 $117 $120 $225 $232 $239 $184 $190 $196 $202 $1,818

230 GIS $90 $93 $96 $87 $90 $93 $94 $96 $99 $102 $941 240 Safety Program $17 $21 $18 $19 $23 $20 $21 $21 $25 $23 $209 Amounts expressed in thousands of dollars.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xxi

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 – 2020 Watershed Management Plan Implementation Plan Summary Continued

Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

Code PROJECTS $826 $875 $764 $615 $643 $649 $671 $677 $605 $622 $6,948 301 Shoreline & Streambank

Assessment and Maintenance

$38 $40 $41 $33 $34 $35 $15 $16 $16 $17 $283

305 Como Lake Subwatershed

$120 $123 $127 $138 $142 $147 $150 $155 $160 $164 $1,426

313 Lake McCarrons Subwatershed

$32 $33 $34 $35 $36 $37 $39 $40 $41 $42 $370

315 Loeb Lake Subwatershed $21 $21 $22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $64 317 Crosby Lake

Subwatershed $50 0 $50 0 0 0 0 $50 0 0 $150

320 Trout Brook Subwatershed

$206 $292 $218 $156 $160 $165 $238 $144 $149 $153 $1,881

325 Wetland, Stream and Ecosystem Restoration – Planning

$129 $133 $137 $116 $120 $123 0 0 0 0 $757

330 Mississippi River Subwatersheds

$212 $214 $116 $128 $130 $133 $127 $129 $132 $134 $1,454

370 Watershed Management Planning

0 0 0 0 $12 0 $92 $133 $98 $101 $435

390 Special Projects and Grants

$19 $19 $20 $9 $9 $10 $10 $10 $11 $11 $127

Amounts expressed in thousands of dollars.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xxii

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 – 2020 Watershed Management Plan Implementation Plan Summary Continued

Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

Code CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

$2,062 $1,563 $1,643 $2,983 $3,058 $3,203 $1,919 $1,979 $1,865 $1,857 $22,133

401 Shoreline and Streambank Restoration

$89 $95 $95 $23 $23 $24 $25 $25 $26 $27 $448

405 Como Lake Subwatershed BMPs

$503 $518 $533 $370 $381 $392 $188 $193 $199 $205 $3,481

413 Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMPs

$525 $26 $226 $3 $3 $3 $211 $12 $12 $12 $1,034

415 Loeb Lake Subwatershed BMPs

$39 $41 $42 $28 $29 $30 $31 $32 $33 $34 $338

417 Crosby Lake Subwatershed BMPs

0 0 0 $38 $39 $40 0 0 0 0 $116

420 Trout Brook Subwatershed BMPs

$365 $200 $150 $75 $77 $80 0 $150 0 0 $1,097

425 Wetland, Stream and Ecosystem Restoration – Implementation

$31 $32 $33 $697 $714 $733 $684 $702 $720 $638 $4,983

430 Mississippi River Subwatersheds BMPs

100 200 100 $175 $177 $80 0 0 0 0 $832

435 Stormwater Impact Fund Implementation

0 0 0 $53 $54 $56 0 0 0 0 $162

440 Special Projects and Grants

$285 $294 $302 $281 $290 $299 $307 $317 $326 $336 $3,037

450 Future Trends: Implementation

0 0 0 $949 $978 $1,007 $12 $13 $13 $13 $2,985

490 Debt Service $125 $162 $162 $293 $293 $461 $461 $536 $536 $592 $3,619 Amounts expressed in thousands of dollars.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xxiii

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 xxiv

Administration The administration section of the Plan contains useful information on the operation of the District as well as a discussion on the interaction of the District and its partners. The financial implication of the Plan on local government is discussed and the requirements for local water management plans are established. The District defines two alternatives for local plan development; one for cities that wish to adopt the Districts Rules and another approach for those Cities that do not intend to adopt the Rules. The District will fund its implementation program using four primary sources of revenue:

1. Property tax levy 2. Grant funds 3. Local partner cost‐sharing funding 4. Bonds and Loans

The District’s financing approach for operations (administration, programs, and projects) will be to fund the costs primarily through the annual levy, however, typically 5% is raised through grants, fees, interest income, and local cost‐share funding. The financing approach for capital improvement projects is planned to be 25% through the annual levy and 75% through grants, loans, and bond proceeds. Small capital improvement projects (less than $250,000) will be financed through the annual levy. Larger projects will have the costs spread to the long‐term benefitting parties through financing via bonds and loans. The District will seek local partner cost‐share funding for capital improvement projects of all sizes to off‐set the District’s contributions. Current and past bond issues, loans and grants and their original amounts are listed below.

LAND & WATER RESOURCE SUMMARY

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

Land & Water Resource Summary Introduction and History of the Area The Capitol Region Watershed District (District) is 40.6 square miles in size and includes portions of Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, St. Paul, Maplewood, and Roseville. Within the municipal boundary of Falcon Heights are the State Fairgrounds and the St. Paul Campus of the University of Minnesota. (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The District is bounded to the east by the Ramsey‐Washington Metro Watershed District, to the west by Mississippi Watershed Management Organization and to the north by the Rice Creek Watershed District and the Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization. The Mississippi River forms the south and west boundaries of the District. The District is hydrologically situated at the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers, in a fully urbanized setting. The reach of the Mississippi River bordering the District has cultural and historically significance for groups. The River provides for power generation, regional recreational opportunities, major fly‐way for migratory birds, and barge traffic. The Mississippi River Valley has been a focal point for settlement since the time of the earliest inhabitants of the area, the Hopewell culture, built burial mounds on the bluffs overlooking the river. In addition to the Hopewell culture, the Dakota Indians lived in the area and used similiar mounds to bury their dead from about 1600 to 1837. The Dakota also revered Carver’s Cave, which they referred to ask “Wakân Teepee”, or dwelling of the Great Spirit. European settlement of the area began in the mid‐1800s and development became very rapid in the late 1800s. To accommodate the growth and development, natural areas were paved over and built upon, streams were filled or buried in pipes, and wetlands were drained and filled. These actions resulted in significant changes to the natural landscape and hydrology of the District. A further description of the historic water resources of the District can be found in Appendix D. Many of the remaining natural areas in the District have significantly degraded over time. These areas consist primarily of non‐native, invasive species and lack ecological diversity. This degradation has reduced the effectiveness of the remaining natural areas to protect and buffer the District’s water resources. Due to the District’s highly urbanized nature and impervious land cover, the water resources are greatly impacted by stormwater runoff. The District is faced with the challenge of managing its water resources while balancing the land use needs of a growing and diverse population.


Figure 1. District General Setting


Figure 2. District Boundary and Cities


Current Water Resources The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) Public Waters Inventory (PWI) identifies 10 basins within the District, including Como Lake, Crosby Lake, Lake McCarrons, and Loeb Lake as protected waters. The PWI also lists six public waters wetlands and one protected watercourse, the Mississippi River. Como Lake and the Mississippi River are listed on the 2008 303(d) list of impaired waters. Como Lake is impaired for aquatic recreation due to excessive nutrients. The Mississippi River is impaired for aquatic consumption due to mercury, perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), impaired for aquatic life due to turbidity, and impaired for aquatic recreation due to fecal coliform. In addition to the DNR Inventory, other water bodies in the District include Woodview Marsh, Willow Reserve, Burlington Pond, Town and Country Club Spring, and others. (See Figure 3) Many historical surface waters have been altered or filled to make way for development. An extensive series of pipes and tunnels were constructed to collect and convey stormwater downstream, replacing creeks and streams that once conveyed water within the area. Trunk storm sewers collect runoff and transport it to the Mississippi River, the eventual receiving waterbody for all runoff within the District. A total of 55 outlet pipes discharge to the River. Smaller storm sewer systems and ponds service the remaining portions of the District. For example, the following five ponds serve as surge basins for the Trout Brook Stormsewer Interceptor System: Sims‐Agate Storm Pond, Arlington‐Jackson Pond, Westminster‐Mississippi Pond, Arlington‐Arkwright Pond, and Willow Reserve.


Figure 3. Surface Water Resources


Historic Water Resources Prior to European settlement, the District contained a number of significant natural and water resources. These resources included lakes, wetlands, streams, and springs, in addition to habitat communities adjacent to these resources. As the District was developed, most of these resources were either lost or highly altered. Figure 4 shows a number of lakes, wetlands, streams and springs that historically existed within the District. For the most part, the larger historic lakes and ponds still exist today (i.e. McCarrons Lake, Como Lake, Loeb Lake, Burlington Pond and Crosby Lake), while a number of the smaller lake systems throughout the District no longer exist. Cozy Lake which once existed near Como Lake, has since been filled in and established as parkland. Sandy Lake was used by St. Paul Regional Water Services to store lime slurry and has since been covered with soil and developed into a prairie. Lake Sarita located on the University of Minnesota campus, was filled to develop campus housing. The Sarita wetland currently on the campus grounds is all that remains of Lake Sarita. Similarly, four large wetland complexes located in the center of the District and a number of smaller wetland systems have been filled in due to development. Some of the lost wetlands connected to other water resources that can still be found today such as Woodview Marsh, Willow Reserve, and Trout Brook. The stream and spring systems that existed in the District ultimately discharged to the Mississippi River. Some of these systems no longer exist, while others drain through storm sewers underground. For example, Trout Brook and Phalen Creek originally flowed through the eastern part of the District to the Mississippi River. Trout Brook roughly followed what today is Interstate 35E south to the Mississippi River. Phalen Creek flowed south to the Mississippi River from Lake Phalen, through a deep ravine along Dayton’s Bluff. Both streams were partially filled in the late nineteenth century by railroad companies using the stream valleys as track beds for railroad lines servicing industrial Lowertown in downtown St. Paul. Today, these streams remain buried underground for the majority of their lengths. In the southwestern portion of District, Cascade Creek, originating near Randolph St. and Hamline Ave, once made its way to the Mississippi River. In 1854, John Ayd, a German immigrant, bought 160 acres of land bounded by present‐day Lexington, Victoria, St. Clair, and Randolph Avenues. In 1860 he built a grist mill and mill house on Cascade Creek. The mill operated until 1878. In 1880, the Short Line, a commuter rail line built to connect Minneapolis and St. Paul was completed, and a portion of the stream bed was filled in at that time. Today, Ayd Mill Road follows a portion of the original route of Cascade Creek. Further detail on the historic water resources can be found in Appendix D.


Figure 4. Historic Water Resources


Current Watershed Conditions The District is entirely developed with approximately 42% of the land being impervious. Impervious roadways alone make up nearly a quarter of the total land use (Table 1). The District includes downtown St. Paul, a major commercial district with numerous businesses, entertainment services, tourist attractions, and industrial facilities. The commercial and industrial land uses within the District are generally located along the major roadways or rail corridors as well as along the Mississippi River. Some natural areas still exist within the District mostly in the form of parks which offer District residents and others recreational opportunities. The parks are distributed throughout District and include small, neighborhood parks as well as large regional parks located along the Mississippi River. The District also includes the Minnesota State Fairgrounds and eight college and university campuses. The dominant land use is single family residential, covering approximately 32.6% of the District. (See Figure 5) With an estimated population of 195,000, the District is densely populated with a diverse population. The population is projected to increase 15% by the year 2030 which will result in continued redevelopment with increasing density. Table 1. Present (2008) Land Use

Land Use Acres % of Watershed Single Family Residential 8,467 32.6% Multi‐family Residential 907.9 3.5% Commercial 2,526 9.7% Agricultural 28 0.1% Institutional* 2,776 10.6% Parks and Open Space 2,252 8.6% Industrial 808.4 3.1% Railway 653.7 2.5% Roadway 6,079 23.4% Unclassified 1,488 5.7% Total 25,987 100.0% *Note: The “Institutional” land use category includes the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota State Fair Grounds which contain lands that could be considered parkland, agriculture or open space. Source: Ramsey County, 2008


Figure 5. Present (2008) Land Use


Water Resource Monitoring The District began its water resource monitoring program in 2004. It includes monitoring of the water quality of lakes, wetlands and stormwater throughout the District. Monitoring and data collection provides valuable information to the District on the status of the water resources and is utilized to make management decisions. In 2007, a wetland monitoring program was initiated to collect biological data on wetlands around the District. In 2008, the program monitored four lakes and seven baseline stormwater stations. Figure 6 identifies the locations where monitoring has occurred in the District. The baseline stormwater monitoring stations collect flow and water quality data from stormwater leaving the District. Monitoring results are found in Table 2 and indicate that water leaving the District is generally more polluted than the Mississippi River, its receiving water body. In addition to the District’s monitoring efforts, other entities monitor water quantity and water quality parameters in the Mississippi River including the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Metropolitan Council, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. Monitoring results are more fully articulated in the complete Land and Water Resource Inventory (located in Appendix A). Future monitoring results can be found on the District’s website. Lake McCarrons, Como Lake, Loeb Lake and Crosby Lake are monitored to assess their health and determine if they support their designated uses for swimming, fishing and aesthetics. All lakes receive stormwater inputs from their subwatershed and then, with the exception of Loeb Lake, eventually drain to the Mississippi. Both Como Lake and Lake McCarrons drain to the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor, owned by the District. Lake monitoring is performed by Ramsey County Public Works (RCPW), and includes monthly or bi‐weekly sampling of the lakes. At each lake, temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles, Secchi disk (water clarity) readings are taken and water samples are collected. The water samples are analyzed for total phosphorus (TP), chlorophyll‐a, nitrate, ammonia, total kjehldahl nitrogen (TKN) and chloride ion concentrations. In 2008, District lake water quality was generally consistent with previous years (Figures 7 & 8). Since monitoring began, Como Lake has improved slightly, with large year‐to‐year variations in pollutant levels, but remains a eutrophic lake (high‐nutrient level lake experiencing frequent nuisance algal blooms). Lake McCarrons has improved, especially since 2004, when an alum treatment was applied. There are no long‐term data on Loeb and Crosby as monitoring of these lakes has only occurred since 2003 and 2004 respectively. As of 2008, all lakes but Como Lake meet the TP, Secchi depth and Chlorophyll‐a standards set by the MPCA for aquatic life, recreation and nutrients. In 2008, Como Lake exceeded the standards for TP. However, Como Lake was better than the standard for average Secchi depth for the majority of years it has been monitored. Como Lake was better than the standard for Chlorophyll‐a in 2008, for the first time since 2004.


Figure 6. Water Monitoring Locations


Figure 7. Historical Summer Average TP Concentrations in District Lakes

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

TP (m

g/L)

Como

Crosby

Loeb

McCarrons

Deep Lakes Standard

Shallow Lakes Standard

Figure 8. Historic Summer Average Secchi Depth in District Lakes

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008Year

Secchi Dep

th (m

)

Como

Crosby

Loeb

McCarrons

Deep Lakes Standard

Shallow Lakes Standard


Table 2. Agency Standards for Pollutants and their average concentrations at Monitoring Sites and in the Mississippi River

Mississippi River Reference Sites

2008 CRWD Monitoring Sites

Standard (mg/L)

Ford Dam

Lamberts Landing

East Kittsondale

Phalen Creek

St. Anthony Park

Trout Brook Outlet

TPa 0.13 0.08 0.13 0.39 0.23 0.21 0.20

TSSa 14 13 42 169 96 129 82

Ammoniab 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.09

TKNc 0.65 0.80 1.00 2.96 1.45 1.42 1.69

Nitrated NA 0.71 2.02 0.74 1.34 0.48 0.72

Nitritec 1.00 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.04

Cadmiume 0.0001 0.0001 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006

Chromiume 0.0008 0.0013 0.0087 0.0055 0.0054 0.0047

Leade 0.0006 0.0011 0.0569 0.0234 0.0155 0.0090

Zince 0.0111 0.0098 0.1139 0.0677 0.0734 0.0350

Nickele 0.0022 0.0038 0.0075 0.0047 0.0083 0.0045

Coppere 0.0015 0.0026 0.0249 0.0134 0.0145 0.0093

Chlorideb 230 18 27 171 72 49 99 aThere are no numeric standards for TP and TSS. These values are NCHF ecoregion averages from minimally impacted streams. CRWD monitoring values for TP and TSS are flow‐weight mean concentrations. bAmmonia, metals, and chloride standards are from the MPCA. cTKN and nitrite standards are from the EPA. dThere is no nitrate standard for surface water. e Metals standards are based on measured hardness values. All numbers are in mg/L. Numbers highlighted in exceed/equal the standard. Numbers highlighted in green exceed/equal the river concentration at Ford Dam, but not at Lamberts Landing. Numbers highlighted in orange exceed/equal both river concentrations, but not the standard. Numbers highlighted in red exceed/equal both river concentrations and the standard. NOTE: the term ‘standard’ refers to surface water quality standard. The use of this term in reference to stormsewer water quality is for illustrative purpose and not intended to infer that stormwater effluent is subject to that standard.

Regulatory Framework Previous development and redevelopment in the District have placed a significant burden on the health and sustainability of the District’s water resources due to increasing impervious surfaces generating polluted stormwater runoff. Regulations exist to improve water resources and protect them from further degradation. Federal and state regulatory programs have established water quality standards and best management practice requirements for cities, counties, and other


entities. For example, the Stormwater Program for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) requires MS4s to develop and implement best management practices to control stormwater and improve water resources. For further information on MS4s refer to Section 3.8.1 of Appendix A. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is currently working on the Lake Pepin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study which includes the turbidity and nutrient related impairments within the Mississippi River between the confluence with the Minnesota River and Lake Pepin. There is also a bacteria TMDL study for the Mississippi River between the Lower St. Anthony Falls and Lock and Dam #1; and between the Mississippi River’s confluence with the Minnesota River to the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul. In 2010 the Como Lake TMDL study for excessive nutrients was approved. This was a continuation of the Como Lake Strategic Management Plan of 2002. The District also has regulatory authority that it exercises in the form of Rules that protect water resources as development and redevelopment occurs. The rules, at this time, require projects that disturb one acre or greater of land to comply with standards for erosion and sediment control, water quality and quantity control, wetland protection and floodplain management. Programs and Capital Improvement Projects In addition to monitoring and enforcing regulations, the District coordinates a number of other programs and projects to protect and improve the quality of its water resources. Management plans written for District water resources include: Como Lake, Loeb Lake, Willow Reserve, Trout Brook, Sarita Wetland, and Lake McCarrons. Education and outreach programs encourage District residents to make decisions that improve water quality and avoid those that harm local water resources. Through studies and management planning, the District is able to recognize areas where improvements can be made that would enhance the resources and improve water quality. Capital Improvement Projects constructed by the District and its partners include: the Arlington Pascal Stormwater Improvement Project, the Villa Park Wetland Improvements, Sarita Wetland Improvements, Gottfried’s Pit Lift Station Renovation Project, and the Trout Brook storm sewer repairs and replacements. Many of the projects were successfully implemented with cooperation of District partners. Through partnerships, the District is able to augment the finances, knowledge, regulatory authority and other tools needed to carry out these projects that manage water resources. In addition, through partnerships, best management practices are implemented throughout the entire watershed. For example, when constructing the Arlington Pascal Stormwater Improvement Project the District was able to work with Ramsey County and the Cities of Falcon Heights, Roseville and St. Paul to significantly increase the amount of stormwater treatment in conjunction with a street reconstruction project. The Districts approach to constructing projects is to identify known large redevelopment initiatives and work to incorporate water quality improvements into the design. The Central Corridor Light Rail, Ford Plant and 3M Property are examples of redevelopment initiatives where the District has identified the opportunity to incorporate water quality improvements.

ISSUES AND GOALS


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

Bring Water Back to St. Paul From 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 of water resources within the urban watershed as well as bringing water back into the consciousness of the community.

Partnership and Community Connections During the public input process of the Plan developing and engaging partnerships was a recurring theme. Partnerships and community connects vital to the successful implementation of the Plan due to the diversity within the District.

Innovation and Emerging Trends As new technologies develop and the water resources management and engineering fields continue to evolve, the District is responsible for staying aware of trends in science, design, and climate, and to interpret those trends for practical application. It is a priority of the District that programs and projects in the Plan be innovative and that the District anticipate emerging technological trends.

Adaptive Management Adaptive management refers to the feedback loop of performance evaluation and update of management strategies. Adaptive management initiatives are those that incorporate monitoring, evaluation, and assessment followed by revisions in process, design, or management.

New Information Technology The District plans new initiatives notable for their use of technologically advanced information management systems. Use of new information technology is necessary for the District to maintain a leadership role in urban water resource management and effectively implement the Plan.


Issues and Goals

Issue Identification The identification of issues forms the basis of the District’s watershed management plan. At the beginning of the management plan development process, residents, stakeholders, District staff, board members and other interested parties were asked to identify concerns about the watershed and water quality. The issues identification process documented the concerns of stakeholders and was used to formulate issue statements, goals, and implementation activities for the watershed management plan. 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 issue statements and goals contained in the watershed management plan. It should be noted that the comments and concerns identified in past plans completed by the District and its partners since the last 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 meetings held with the District’s existing Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a Community Advisory Group developed specifically for the watershed management planning process, and individual community members. One of the main objectives of the process was to reach as many constituents as possible in an effort to solicit issues, needs and concerns reflective of one of the most culturally and economically diverse watershed districts in the State of Minnesota. A detailed description of the District’s efforts to reach a diverse audience during the watershed management planning process is contained in Appendix B. Each of the meetings held during the issues identification process began with an educational presentation from District staff. During this presentation, participants were introduced to a number of watershed management topics, the District’s current role in addressing these topics and what the District has done to address these topics to date. The objective of this portion of the meeting was to provide participants with a base level of understanding in an effort to provide the proper context to 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 on issues, ask questions, and discuss the topics. Meeting minutes were recorded to document the discussion (see Appendix B).


Development of Issues and Goals During the public involvement process all comments, concerns, issues, and ideas were documented in meeting minutes, which were summarized in an issues identification matrix that tracked the source of all comments and how the comments were utilized throughout the issue identification process (see Appendix C). Issues identified in previous CRWD plans, and the plans of other community groups and partner agencies were also added to the matrix to ensure that all potential issues related to watershed management were considered during the planning process. All comments and issues entered into the matrix were categorized into one of the previously identified issue topics, or a new topic. Each comment was classified as an issue, a goal, or a specific implementation initiative. Issue statements were then crafted to encompass all comments received on each particular topic. The issue statements identify what needs to be addressed within the timeframe of the watershed management plan. Issue statements guide the development of the District’s goals, and implementation activities. The issues matrix was used as an organizational tool that 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, and implementation initiatives for each issue statement. Goals are statements of what the District intends to achieve in order to address each specific issue. There may be several goals needed to address a given issue statement. The specific actions taken are classified as implementation initiatives. As with the issues identification process, the goals identified in previous CRWD plans and plans from the cities within the District and Ramsey County were archived in a matrix and utilized in the development of goals. A draft of this section of the plan was provided to the District’s CAC, TAC and the Community Group for their review and input. Participants from these groups submitted over 100 comments in response to their review of the section. Many of the comments provided suggestions on how to improve the Issues Identification and Goal Setting section, while others provided suggestions on implementation activities aimed at reaching various goals. Cooperation – The Guiding Principle During the review process for the Issues and Goals section cooperation with District partners to achieve the District goals was a recurring theme. Cooperation with partners within the District as well as partners in adjacent jurisdictions will yield benefits to all parties. The need to work with the District partners to identify stormwater management retrofit opportunities was initially identified as the first issue, however, the need for cooperation was repeated in virtually all of the subsequent issues. It was determined that this concept should be highlighted as an overriding principle of the plan.


The District recognizes that it does not bear the sole responsibility for stormwater management within the watershed. Also, the District does not possess all the resources ‐ financial, regulatory authority, or knowledge ‐ needed to meet the challenge of managing water resources. District partners can provide access to opportunities to incorporate stormwater management practices throughout the watershed. An example of this type of cooperation is the Arlington Pascal Project where the District was able to add a significant amount of stormwater treatment in conjunction with a City of St. Paul street improvement project. Another benefit of cooperation is the more efficient completion of common tasks and meeting common goals. Working together also allows sharing of knowledge and information about new technologies and innovative approaches. The District has overlapping missions, goals and responsibilities with many of its partners. Coordination of efforts results in greater efficiency and a reduction in expenditure. In addition to collaborating with partners, the District recognizes the important role that residents play in watershed management. The goal of improved water quality by applying stormwater management practices throughout the District is best accomplished by recruiting residents to apply these practices at the individual home level. When residents manage their own stormwater runoff it minimizes the need for large stormwater management projects. In cases where larger stormwater management practices are needed, or when opportunities arise to bring water features back to the landscape of the District, it is critical that there is support from the residents. The District intends to utilize the energy and skills of its residents to promote local initiatives to bring water 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 is the status of this topic today, and why does the District need to address this topic during the next ten years. The narrative goes on to explain what issues or concerns were raised during the public involvement process for each particular topic. Following the narrative is one or more issue statements addressing the topic. These issue statements 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 the public involvement process. In many cases, further detail of the approach for reaching the goal is provided.


Education and Outreach, Issues and Goals

Although nonpoint source pollution has become a more prominent issue in the last several years, there is still a lack of understanding by the general public about the role of stormwater runoff in water pollution. There is a lack of awareness that everyone who lives, works, and recreates in that landscape is part of the solution. This lack of awareness is particularly pronounced in the District because the level of development has limited the connections people have with water. Because water quality is a function of how people go about their everyday activities, educating the general public about how to modify those activities is an important goal for improving water quality. A watershed, with its natural boundaries dictating the flow and fate of water through the landscape, provides a logical context for educational efforts. Creating an informed community and thereby empowering those citizens to be stewards of the land and water resources where they live, is the goal of watershed education. Individuals within the community can make a significant difference in protecting our water resources. Effective education programs and making information available to the public enhance participation in District activities and increase public knowledge relative to water. The comments received throughout the issues identification emphasized the need for continued education throughout the District. Specifically identified was the need to target groups that have not previously been reached by education and outreach programs. The District is a diverse watershed and in the past not all communities have been involved in District activities. It will be important for the District to be aware of varying uses, values, ideas and celebrations of water that exist in the District. The District will need to continually seek input from the diverse communities within the District to maintain this understanding. Educational approaches will need to be developed to serve the needs of each community in different ways. An additional issue identified was the overarching problem of residents not feeling a personal connection with water. Water is taken for granted and not seen as a finite resource. The District’s programs 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 of ownership for the residents and invoke a change in people’s perceptions of and their behaviors related to water. The District developed an Education and Outreach Plan which was adopted on May 6, 2009. The Plan is found in Appendix E.


Education and Outreach Issues and Goals

Issue 1 Many District residents, businesses and institutions do not feel a personal connection with water and natural resources and therefore do not have a sense of responsibility or ownership which negatively impacts their ability to change behaviors and increase stewardship

Goal 1.1 Increase the awareness of water

1.1.a Determine the baseline knowledge level regarding basic watershed

and stormwater concepts

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

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

education and outreach efforts

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

1.2.a Utilize District infrastructure to increase awareness and

appreciation of water resources and watershed management

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

Issue 2 The District’s diverse community has a wide range of cultural, social and

political relationships with water, community interests, priorities, and opinions of the District’s water resources

Goal 2.1 Increase communication and encourage long term involvement with

groups not previously involved in District programs


Urban Stormwater Management, Issues and Goals

A significant portion of the District is made up of impervious surfaces. These impervious surfaces increase the volume of stormwater runoff and the pollutant load being discharged to District wetlands, lakes and the Mississippi River with detrimental effects on water quality. The increased volume of runoff also increases the likelihood of flooding, which threatens public safety and increases the potential for infrastructure damage. Both historic and current development practices have contributed to compacted soils, the placement of fill material, the underground disposal of waste materials, and the presence of contamination. These factors and others make Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other green infrastructure techniques more challenging to implement. The urban stormwater management category received the most comments during the issue identification 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 and stormwater management facilities as an important issue for the watershed management plan. In addition, all groups strongly expressed that the District should lead the investigation of the effectiveness of new stormwater management techniques. The promotion of green infrastructure and identification of opportunities to increase the level of stormwater management were also identified as key roles for the District. Existing storm sewer infrastructure capacity and corresponding flooding problems was also identified as an issue that needs to be addressed in the next ten years, as was the need to develop a better understanding of the role stormwater management has on groundwater resources. The District’s lake management plans for Como Lake, Loeb Lake, and Lake McCarrons identified goals for the future condition of these vital resources. Numerical goals were set for loading of total phosphorus to Como Lake and a target in‐lake total phosphorus concentration was established for Lake McCarrons. These performance standards have been incorporated into Goal 2.1 as originally stated in those plans. Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires that states establish pollutant Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. The loading limits are to be calculated such that, if achieved, the water body would meet the applicable water 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, are impaired for excess nutrients and biological indicators.


In 2010, the District converted the Como Lake Strategic Management Plan into a TMDL for Como Lake. The MPCA is currently working on the Lake Pepin TMDL which includes the turbidity impairments within the Mississippi River between the confluence with the Minnesota River and Lake Pepin and also a Bacteria TMDL for the Mississippi River between the Lower St. Anthony Falls and Lock and Dam #1 and between the confluence with the Minnesota River to the Metro Wastewater 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 stormwater BMPs

3.1.a Coordinate the development and implementation of a multi‐

jurisdictional BMP management plan that includes identifying responsible parties, define roles and determining maintenance schedules for all stormwater BMPs located in the District

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

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

Mississippi River

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

4.1.b Achieve the summer average lake concentration of total

phosphorus 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 for the 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 that target

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, wetlands

and the Mississippi River


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

4.2.a Develop a target reduction for the amount of trash entering District lakes, wetlands and the Mississippi River and work towards reaching that target

4.2.b Develop a target reduction for sediment entering District lakes,

wetlands and the Mississippi River and work towards reaching that target

4.2.c Achieve District load requirement established in the turbidity

component of the future Lake Pepin TMDL

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

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

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

4.3.b Identify and eliminate illicit discharges into District lakes, wetlands

and the Mississippi River

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


Issue 5 The quantity of runoff from a highly urbanized area increases the risk of

flooding 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 capacity issues and flooding problems

5.1.b Utilize structural and nonstructural flood control techniques to

improve infrastructure capacity and reduce flooding problems

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

5.1.d Preserve existing floodplain storage capacity and prohibit

floodplain 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 to protect the integrity of District infrastructure.

Issue 6 Within an urbanized area, runoff from impervious surfaces is directed to

storm sewers and discharged to surface waters rather than infiltrating into the ground resulting in reduced groundwater recharge and impacts to receiving waters

Goal 6.1 Promote groundwater recharge through increased use of infiltration

techniques to manage stormwater

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

6.1.b Identify those portions of the District most conducive to

stormwater infiltration

Goal 6.2 Protect the groundwater resource

6.2.a Support and collaborate with Ramsey County, state and regional agencies to better understand and monitor District groundwater resources

6.2.b Support and collaborate with Ramsey County, state and regional

agencies 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 monitoring program was initiated in 2004. The monitoring data helps determine the type and quantity of pollutants discharged to surface waters of the District. This baseline data is the ultimate report card for the District. As Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented, it is important to collect data and monitor the effectiveness of the BMPs in managing and treating stormwater. The monitoring data will be used to guide future management decisions and to calibrate the District’s hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality loading models, which are tools used to evaluate current conditions and predict future conditions. Monitoring and data assessment are key roles of the District. The information collected is utilized to make management decisions not only by the District but by the local communities and neighboring watershed management organizations. In addition, the monitoring program data are used to convey information about stormwater management and water quality to the residents through education and outreach programs. During the issue identification process, comments and concerns related to monitoring and data assessment focused on two fundamental issues: the need to improve dissemination of collected data, 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 making monitoring data available in user friendly formats. Comments were also received about the District becoming a “clearinghouse” of information about current water issues. The District should compile published research from local, national and international sources for use by the District and its partners. The second issue identified was regarding the need to continue the monitoring program and add additional monitoring locations. Currently, the District has an extensive monitoring program that collects data at four major outfalls to the Mississippi River, specific water resources, and several BMPs in the District. See Figure 5 for locations of monitoring sites. Expansion of the monitoring and data assessment program would allow the District to gain additional information about groundwater, 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 management approaches within the District

Goal 7.1 Collect monitoring data and perform research to gather valuable information

about the District

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

7.1.b Monitor the condition of District surface waters and major

subwatersheds to establish baseline conditions and determine trends

7.1.c Identify and support a program to collect soil and geologic data in

order to assess the infiltration potential within the District

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

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 and understand

Goal 8.1 Make monitoring and research data available and understandable to a

broader audience Goal 8.2 Serve as a clearinghouse for water resource management information to

assist District stakeholders and partners Goal 8.3 Establish partnerships to improve the District’s ability to increase access and

understanding of monitoring and research data


Future Trends, Issues and Goals The District recognizes that in order to stay at the forefront of the rapidly changing field of watershed management, it is necessary to be aware of new information, technology and methods that will inform management decisions. Maintaining a forward‐thinking approach and anticipating changes is critical. By staying proactive on emerging issues rather than reactive, the District will realize cost savings and more effective stormwater management. During the issues identification process, a number of future trends were identified for inclusion in the plan. All of the groups in the public involvement process identified climate change as an issue that needs to be addressed in the next ten years. While it is unclear what the District’s role should be in addressing climate change, it is necessary for the organization to evaluate and coordinate mitigation efforts. The need to be at the forefront of emerging trends in watershed management is accentuated due to the dense urban development of the District. The highly developed nature of the District results in limited opportunities to incorporate traditional stormwater management practices, since these typically require large areas for implementation. Because of this limitation, it is vital that the District investigate new, innovative approaches to stormwater management that utilize techniques appropriate 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 to stormwater management. The level of imperviousness of the District also makes it more susceptible 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 District

natural and water resources and adaptive management strategies to address this emerging issue

9.1.a Participate in climate change working groups/forums

9.1.b Determine the District’s strategies in addressing climate change

impacts on watershed management

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


9.2.a The District will evaluate innovative stormwater management

techniques, information management techniques, and monitoring and modeling techniques used locally, nationally, and internationally

9.2.b The District will conduct research on stormwater management

BMP performance, applicability in different settings, and long‐term maintenance needs.

Goal 9.3 Promote the use of emerging technologies and innovative watershed

management techniques

9.3.a Promote Green Infrastructure initiatives. 9.3.b Determine optimal balance of incentive‐based strategies and

regulatory‐based watershed management strategies


Funding and Organization, Issues and Goals The District takes its financial responsibility seriously, is sensitive to the economic status of its residents, and is mindful of the importance of maintaining public support for expenditures on water quality improvement. The District levies taxes through its authority under MN Stat. 103D and 103B to fund programs, projects, and capital improvement projects identified in its watershed management plan. The District has also issued bonds and actively pursues outside funding sources to augment its tax levy. The District has been successful in obtaining grants from the State and securing local cost‐share funding from its partners. The District seeks to create funding partnerships with Ramsey County, municipalities, agencies, and other entities within its jurisdiction that have common goals and responsibilities for resource protection. These partnerships result in greater cost effectiveness and provide the additional benefit 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 and residents. The grant programs promote local projects that benefit water resources and serve as models for District residents. Beyond discussions of the importance of District grant programs, the most prevalent theme heard during the issues identification process was the need for coordination between the District and its partners. The District was encouraged to take a leadership role in identifying opportunities to collaborate on large scale redevelopment projects as well as programmatic approaches to resource protection. The district recognizes the impact of large scale redevelopment projects extends beyond the boundary of the project and intends to identify and capitalize on opportunities adjacent to these projects. Another common theme of the comments from participants in the issue identification process was the need to prioritize District activities to maximize resource protection while minimizing the cost to residents. Funding and Organization Issues and Goals

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

Goal 10.1 Encourage District partners and residents to implement local water resource

improvement projects

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

Issue 11 The District is uniquely positioned to be able to identify and support collaborations between various partners/stakeholders with compatible projects and programs


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

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

11.1.b Identify opportunities to incorporate water resource management efforts into capital improvement projects and large scale redevelopment projects of District partners

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

11.1.d Maintain active membership in the Ramsey County Groundwater Partnership

Issue 12 Multiple funding mechanisms and outside funding sources are available for the 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 revenue sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goal 14.2 Strive for excellence, with competent, knowledgeable, committed, and innovative 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 the

District’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 to protect water resources. The District currently regulates development and redevelopment projects. Rules and regulations were established to ensure that water resource management standards are met and that the water resources in the District are protected as development and redevelopment occurs. The District currently implements rules adopted in September 2006 and revised in January 2009. In addition to water quality and quantity, the rules establish standards for erosion and sediment control, wetland protection, connections to the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor, and floodplain management. District Rules and permitting currently require proper stormwater management on all development and redevelopment projects that disturb one acre or greater of land. The District reviews it rules and permitting program regularly with the District’s Technical Advisory Committee (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 willingness to 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 the most 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 be the 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 readily

understood by the regulated community.

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

Issue 16 Coordination with District partners on regulatory issues is needed for more

efficient and effective stormwater regulation across all jurisdictions Goal 16.1 Work with District partners to improve the District Rules and other

municipal/agency stormwater ordinances

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


16.1.b Work with District partners to coordinate permit applications early

in the design stage

16.1.c Work with District partners to achieve volume reduction on small sites (disturbing less than one acre) through District Rules or municipal ordinances

Goal 16.2 Collaborate with partners to ensure that proper BMP construction, and

erosion and sediment control techniques are being implemented throughout the District

16.2.a Ensure that effective routine inspections are conducted on all

construction in the District

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

Goal 16.3 Continue to work with surrounding watershed management organizations

and state agencies to develop rule language that maximizes effectiveness while ensuring their consistency and ease of use throughout the region/metro area.

16.3.a Compare District Rule language with that of surrounding

watershed management organizations to identify consistencies and inconsistencies

16.3.b Evaluate the feasibility of addressing inconsistencies in watershed

management organization rules in consultation with the Technical Advisory 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 TMDL

load reduction efforts


Ecosystem Health, Issues and Goals It is the primary focus of the District to protect and improve water quality, but the health of the overall ecosystem has been recognized as a complimentary issue. There are ways of managing stormwater runoff that have secondary benefits of promoting healthy and viable natural ecosystems. Additional partners and collaborations can be identified and utilized when considering an ecosystem approach to water resource management. This help to ensure the ecological integrity of District natural resources are protected and improved in conjunction with water resource improvement. A consistent message heard throughout the issues identification process was the need for ecological restoration within the watershed to correct mistakes from the past. Stakeholders in this highly 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 converted to large, underground storm pipes. Wetlands and even some smaller lakes in the area were filled in for 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 they once displayed. This degradation has reduced the effectiveness of remaining natural areas’ ability to protect and buffer District water resources. Comments received from District stakeholders ranged in specificity from identifying the need to develop regional ecological greenways throughout the metropolitan area, to the restoration of historic resources (Bring Water Back to St. Paul), to encouraging native plantings and restoring plant communities 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 not providing their original level of function or value

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

Mississippi River

17.1.a Restore native plant communities and increase wildlife diversity and habitat in and around District lakes, wetlands, and the Mississippi River


Issue 18 The loss of natural areas has decreased the ability of the watershed to

capture, 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 to

restore habitat, and protect surface water and groundwater quality

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

Issue 19 Reduced connectivity of natural habitat areas in the District limit

movement between the District’s resources Goal 19.1 Coordinate with District partners to improve accessibility to and movement

between natural habitat areas within the District

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

19.1.b Support the creation of access points for people to better connect

with the water resource of the District

Issue 20 The land within the District developed during a time when resource protection was not a priority. As a result, there are a number of opportunities 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 the

District

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

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

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan —9/1/2010 35

Implementation Plan Introduction The implementation section of the District’s Plan includes programs, projects, and capital improvements. The implementation plan identifies the specific projects, studies, and other activities necessary to implement District goals and policies. This implementation plan identifies initiatives that were suggested during the public involvement process. The initiatives contained in the implementation plan seek to protect and improve District water resources. Inclusion of an initiative in the implementation plan is a statement of intent by the District. Final decisions on implementation rest with future decisions by the District’s Board of Managers to budget for and authorize the initiative. In most cases, implementation may require further action and/or the approval and participation of other parties. The District will regularly evaluate the water resource needs within the watershed and make appropriate changes in priorities during the 10‐year term of the Plan. Important Water Resources: • Mississippi River • Como Lake • Lake McCarrons • Loeb Lake

• Crosby Lake • Trout Brook Storm Sewer • Historic Streams • Wetlands

• Groundwater • Springs

The District commits to regular assessment of its programs, projects, and capital improvements. The District intends to engage the Technical and Citizens’ Advisory Committees in periodic (at least annually) review of its work program and progress towards implementing this Plan. In response to feedback, the District will, if necessary, revise the implementation plan through public input and the required watershed management plan amendment process. The District is committed to providing clear communications and documentation of implementation of this Plan to allow for objective evaluation of implementation success. Similarly, over the 10‐year period of the Plan, as information becomes available, priorities evolve, new concerns emerge, or new technical approaches are developed, the District will likely adapt the implementation plan to reflect this new information. The listing of initiatives in the implementation plan is not intended to exclude other initiatives consistent with the issues, goals, and policies identified in the Plan. If the new activity is widely different in scope or cost from that detailed in the implementation plan, the District would be required to amend the Plan. If not, the District would proceed with a new initiative under the existing Plan.


Management Areas The District uses a watershed framework to implement its management activities. Watersheds draining to primary District water resources are evaluated and potential management activities are developed. In many cases, as with Como Lake and Lake McCarrons, this approach has been further refined by evaluating the individual subwatersheds draining to each lake. The major watershed planning areas that are used by the District and form the framework for the implementation plan are: Como Lake Watershed, Lake McCarrons Watershed, Loeb Lake Watershed, Trout Brook Watershed, Crosby Lake Watershed, and Mississippi River Subwatersheds. (See Figure 9) It should be noted that the Como, McCarrons, and Loeb Watersheds are subwatersheds to the Trout Brook Watershed. Also, the Mississippi River Watershed is made up of several watersheds that at a future date may be subdelineated for further evaluation, planning, and implementation purposes.

Figure 9. Watershed Planning and Implementation Areas


Implementation Plan Structure In order to maintain consistency and strengthen the link between the implementation plan and the annual budgeting process, the structure of the implementation plan was based on the District’s 2009 Annual Budget format. Accordingly, activities were organized into four main categories: • Administration (100 series) • Programs (200 series)

• Projects (300 series) • CIPs (Capital Improvement Projects) (400 series)

The Administration and Program categories consist of the general operation of the District and are generally carried out by District staff. The Projects category (300 series) generally consists of feasibility studies and plans, while the CIPs category (400 series) is solely construction activities. Within each category are activity areas identified with a 3‐digit code and a title. Finally, the most specific level of the implementation plan structure is the implementation initiatives that were determined following an extensive public input and review process. A summary of the implementation plan structure is summarized as follows:

• Implementation Categories – Ex., Programs (200s), Projects (300s) o Implementation Activities – Ex., Permitting (208),Como Lake Subwatershed (305)

� Implementation Initiatives – Ex., 208B Web Based Permit Tracking Tool Implementation Plan Organization – The Major Categories and Activities:

Code ADMINISTRATION Page

101 Administration 41 Code PROGRAMS Page 201 Groundwater Protection 43 207 Rulemaking/Rule Revisions 45 208 Permitting 47 210 Stewardship Grant 49 211 Monitoring and Data Assessment 52 220 Education and Outreach 55 225 Technical Resources and Information Sharing 59 228 Future Trends: Research and Positioning 64 230 GIS – Geographic Information System 67 240 Safety Program 69 Code PROJECTS Page 301 Shoreline Streambank Maintenance 70 305 Como Lake Subwatershed 72 313 Lake McCarrons Subwatershed 75 315 Loeb Lake Subwatershed 77 317 Crosby Lake Subwatershed 79 320 Trout Brook Subwatershed 80 325 Wetland, Stream, and Ecosystem Restoration – Planning (includes Trout Brook) 83 330 Mississippi River Subwatersheds 89 370 Watershed Management Planning 92 390 Special Projects and Grants 93 Code CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Page 401 Shoreline and Streambank Restoration 94 405 Como Lake Subwatershed BMPs 96 413 Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMPs 99 415 Loeb Lake Subwatershed BMPs 101 417 Crosby Lake Subwatershed BMPs 102 420 Trout Brook Subwatershed BMPs 103 425 Wetland, Stream, and Ecosystem Restoration – Implementation 105 430 Mississippi River Subwatersheds BMPs 107 435 Stormwater Impact Fund Implementation 108 440 Special Projects and Grants 109 450 Future Trends: Implementation 111 490 Debt Service 112


Information regarding the anticipated initiatives, partners, and costs involved for each of the implementation activities is presented in the implementation plan table and in narrative sections for each activity area.

Implementation Plan Table The implementation plan table provides a summary of key information about each implementation initiative including cost estimates, scheduling, specific issues and goals to which each implementation initiative addresses, potential partners, and level of financial commitment by the District. Where applicable, implementation initiatives and their associated cost estimates were taken from previous studies. In other cases, the indicated costs are a planning‐level estimate based on current understanding of the scope of the initiative. In general, the table provides a planning‐level projection that can be used as a guide or starting point for the more detailed annual budgeting process. The implementation plan table includes a general timeline, of how the implementation initiatives could be implemented over the 10 years of the Plan. Priority initiatives are slated to occur early (years 1‐3), middle (years 4‐6), and/or late (years 7‐10) in the 10‐year period of the Plan. Cost estimates are shown as either a one time cost (typical of feasibility studies and capital improvement projects) or as annual costs in the case of on‐going programs. An annual inflation rate of 3% has been applied to account for the expected increase in costs for initiatives which occur later in the schedule. All projects in the Watershed Management Plan (including any in future amendments) will not be implemented without landowner (including City) approval and a formal agreement.

District Financing Approach This section of the Plan describes financing options, including tax levy and other sources of revenue, the District intends to utilize when implementing the Plan. The District will seek funding for District programs, projects, and capital improvement projects through grants and outside cost‐share funding. Where known cost‐share opportunities are lacking, partnerships may be developed for cost and workload sharing. Costs and responsibility will be shared with partners whenever possible.

In the Twin Cities metropolitan area, watershed districts have the authority to levy an ad valorem tax (a tax on all taxable parcels in the District that is based on property value) to pay for the costs of implementing their watershed management plan. These authorities are granted in MN Statutes 103B and 103D. These costs include the District’s administration, programs, projects, and capital improvement projects. The District legal boundary defines the area of land that comes under the District’s jurisdiction, and the area upon which the ad valorem tax is applied. The District will keep the District’s legal boundary as accurate as possible, closely matching it to the hydrologic boundary, so that the land that drains to District water resources is captured within the legal boundary. The legal boundary must follow property boundaries or other legally definable boundaries (e.g., roads), and a single property cannot be in more than one watershed district. This means there can be differences between the legal boundary and the hydrologic boundary. The District also has the authority to finance large capital projects by selling bonds or securing loans.


The District will fund its implementation program using four primary sources of revenue:

1. Property tax levy 2. Grant funds 3. Local partner cost‐sharing funding 4. Bonds and Loans

The District’s financing approach for operations (administration, programs, and projects) will be to fund the costs primarily through the annual levy, however, typically 5% is raised through grants, fees, interest income, and local cost‐share funding. The financing approach for capital improvement projects is planned to be 25% through the annual levy and 75% through grants, loans, and bond proceeds. Small capital improvement projects (less than $250,000) will be financed through the annual levy. Larger projects will have the costs spread to the long‐term benefitting parties through financing via bonds and loans. The District will seek local partner cost‐share funding for capital improvement projects of all sizes to off‐set the District’s contributions. Current and past bond issues, loans and grants and their original amounts are listed below.

Current and Past Bond Issues, Loans and Grants

Project Finance Type

Year Amount Note

Como Lake Strategic Management Plan

Grant 2000 $80,000 BWSR‐‐Local Water Management Challenge Grant

Arlington Pascal Stormwater Improvement Project

Grant 2005 $75,000 BWSR‐‐Local Water Management Challenge Grant


Grant 2006 $54,000 MPCA‐‐Clean Water Legacy Grant


Bonds 2007 $1,550,000 District Bond Issue

Green Infrastructure Practices in the CCLRT Project

Grant 2010 $665,000 BWSR‐‐Clean Water Program

Villa Park Wetland Improvement Project

Loan 2010 $430,000 MPCA‐‐Clean Water Partnership

Crosby Lake Management Plan Grant 2010 $50,000 MPCA‐‐Clean Water Partnership

Grants and loans will likely remain a small (5%) percentage of the District’s funding sources. The District will continue to apply for grants and loans to offset project costs whenever possible and cost effective. However, grant and loan programs change frequently as existing grant/loan amounts and priorities change, new grant and loans become available, and existing programs are terminated. The District will also seek partnerships, or cost‐sharing, to distribute a portion of project costs to all the benefitting organizations.

To implement the projects, programs, and capital improvements during the 10‐year life of the WMP, the District’s annual levy will increase from a 2010 amount of $1.7 million to approximately $3.8 million. This will result in a property tax rate change from 0.76% in 2010 to approximately 1.65% by the end of the plan period. This equates to an increase from $7.60 per $100,000 of property value in 2010 to approximately $19 per $100,000 of property value by 2020. This increase is the result of the District evolving into a more mature organization and will allow for the full implementation of the initiatives contained within the WMP.

At this time, the District does not intend to ask Ramsey County to use their taxing or bonding authority to fund District capital projects contained in this Plan. However, if District revises this Plan to make such a request to Ramsey County, the District will follow appropriate policies set by Ramsey County for the request.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan ‐ 9/1/2010 41

101 – Administration Description and Purpose of Activity Provide overall administrative services, manage employees and oversee consultant services. Support all District activities and programs such as planning and design, Lake McCarrons Improvements and Como Lake Improvements, the monitoring program, education and grant programs, permitting, and management of existing stormwater facilities including the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor. Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total

A. Program Initiatives $387 $398 $410 $423 $435 $2,380 $4,434

Planned Initiatives B. Clean Water Legacy & Other Funding

Opportunities ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $109 $109

C. Program Effectiveness Audit $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $16 $30

D. Annually complete BWSR’s PRAP and achieve the high performance standards

$3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $16 $30

Total for 101‐ Administration $393 $404 $416 $429 $441 $2,521 $4,603

Amounts are expressed in thousands of dollars

Objectives The Administration program objectives include effectively administering, coordinating, and evaluating all operating programs, services, and facilities provided by the District and providing financial management of the District. This program will also provide overall management of District operations, construction, maintenance, and monitoring and will oversee the review and update of the District work plan and goals.

Program Initiatives A. Administration initiatives include ongoing activities that recur annually to satisfy Minnesota

Rules for watershed districts and those that pertain to the organization, administration and coordination of programs, services and facilities provided by the District. Administration initiatives also include organization and coordination of the Citizen Advisory Committee and its activities. A complete list of program initiatives is provided below.

• 2010 Budget and Levy • Annual Audit • Debt Service Requirements • Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)

• Annual Report • Manage and Evaluate Staff • Lease


Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. Clean Water Legacy and Other Funding Opportunities

Pursue grant funding opportunities such as Clean Water Legacy funding. Develop a grant cycle calendar to keep abreast of funding cycles. Continually assess agency priorities, and develop competitive proposals.

C. Program Effectiveness Audit

Develop protocols for and perform cost/benefit evaluations of District programs and projects at least every 5 years. Protocols will include industry accepted indices and benchmarks. Programs and projects will be evaluated and described in terms of their benefit to the District and their potential to improve or protect water quality.

D. Annually complete BWSR’s Performance Review and Assistance Program (PRAP)

and Achieve the High Performance Standards

Achieve and maintain the PRAP high performance standards. Develop and annually conduct an objective performance evaluation of District programs and projects to be included in the District’s annual report.


201 – Groundwater Protection

Description and Purpose of Activity In the metro area all cities use deep groundwater resources for some or all of their drinking water. Protecting groundwater quality is necessary to protect public health. Soil contamination and migration of pollutants through the soil profile can result in groundwater contamination. Unused wells that have not been properly sealed are also potential sources of groundwater contamination and can act as direct pathways to the groundwater, making groundwater vulnerable to pollutant contamination.

Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total

A. Program Initiatives $20 $20 $21 $22 $22 $121 $226

Planned Initiatives

B. Groundwater Studies ‐ ‐ ‐ $28 $29 $158 $216

C. Local Groundwater Protection Initiatives $26 $27 $27 $28 $29 $158 $295

Total for 201‐ Groundwater Protection $46 $47 $48 $78 $80 $437 $737


Objectives Groundwater is best protected by identifying potential sources of contamination and developing methods and protocols to limit their impact. A planned initiative includes a District‐wide groundwater/soil contamination assessment to identify problem areas, potential sources, and ultimately provide guidance for future groundwater protection efforts. Collaboration with local, regional, and state agencies on groundwater protection efforts will be a priority of the District. Program Initiatives A. Groundwater and well sealing initiatives that were begun prior to this Plan will continue. The

well sealing cost share program will continue to be implemented throughout the term of this plan. A complete list of program initiatives is provided below.

• Well Sealing Cost Share • Cleveland/Randolph Groundwater Study


Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. Groundwater Studies

The District will be an advocate for the completion of a Ramsey County Groundwater Plan. The District will complete a surficial groundwater and soil contamination assessment to better inform stormwater management decision making. The assessment will document the existing sources of contamination and contaminate treatment effort (i.e. pumping). A groundwater monitoring plan will be developed and implemented as part of this initiative, which would measure if, how, and where contamination is entering District resources. Contamination plumes will be mapped and the interaction with storm sewer conveyances would be examined. Findings from local groundwater protection planing initiatives may augment the Districts surficial groundwater and soil contamination assessment. The District will work with appropriate agencies to assess the quantity and quality of the aquifer in the District. The District will stay informed about research that examines the replenishment of groundwater in urban areas.

C. Local Groundwater Protection Initiatives

Implement initiatives for watershed districts as identified in regional and local groundwater protection planning efforts.


207 – Rulemaking-Rule Revisions

Description and Purpose of Activity State statute 103D provides for and requires watershed districts to adopt Rules. In 2005‐2006, the District drafted and adopted Rules that apply to stormwater management, floodplains, wetlands, erosion & sediment control, and connection to Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor. As development and redevelopment occur, it is important to incorporate stormwater management facilities into site designs. As new science identifies more efficient and/or necessary volume control, water quality treatment, or erosion & sediment control approaches, District rules will be reviewed and revised. Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total


Planned Initiatives

B. Rule Comparison/Review with Other WMOs $15 $16 $16 ‐ ‐ ‐ $48

C. Evaluate Green Regulatory Framework $5 $5 $5 ‐ ‐ ‐ $16

Total for 207‐Rulemaking $32 $34 $34 $14 $14 $76 $206


Objectives As the District regularly reviews and maintains its Rules, it strives to conduct research and uphold environmentally sound development and redevelopment standards. During the period of this plan, the District will consider green infrastructure initiatives as part of its regulatory framework. The District will also consider how existing Rules compare to other watershed management organizations, and will explore opportunities to apply standards to existing sites. Program Initiatives A. The District regularly reviews its Rules with support from the Technical Advisory Committee

(TAC) to satisfy both the spirit and letter of State statute 103D, described above. The District strives to implement progressive Rules that are effective, practical and economically reasonable. The District works with adjacent watershed districts to ensure protection of water resources, including groundwater, and to encourage practices that promote clean water. The program initiatives of the District include regular evaluation and discussion of the Rules with the District TAC, including assessment of barriers and benefits of various implementation approaches. The District will regularly review all of its rules, specifically the wetland management rule to consider incorporating the recommendations of the wetland management plan. The District intends to review all the options for wetland rule amendments in 2011. See Appendix F for the District Wetland Management Plan.


Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. Rule Comparison/Review with Other WMOs

Compare the District’s Rules with those of surrounding WMOs in an effort to improve consistency of language and format. Research water management organization rules and regulations, nationally, in order to gain a clearer understanding of the state of the practice. Suggested modifications will be addressed with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Metro MAWD, and/or a joint WMO group. The regular review and comparison of District Rules to standards from across the nation will allow the District and adjacent WMOs to ensure that Rules do not unreasonably deter appropriate development and redevelopment and create regional understanding of straightforward regulations.

C. Evaluate Green Regulatory Framework

Green infrastructure initiatives such as LEED and State of MN B3 have gained acceptance in the last decade as effective incentives for environmentally protective design. The District will review these and other green infrastructure initiatives in relation to, how, and to what extent these initiatives relate to stormwater and how they could be incorporated in an updated regulatory framework. Findings may lead to recommendations for Rule updates or the development of funding incentives apart from the Rules process. The District will share information with its partner agencies and will evaluate how the permit program could be used to encourage or require the increased use of green/vegetated stormwater infrastructure.


208 – Permitting

Description and Purpose of Activity The District establishment Order stated, “The Board of Managers of the Capitol Region Watershed District should highly consider to: … set target pollutant loads and improve the water quality of Lakes Como and McCarrons and require erosion control for development and redevelopment.” The District initiated a rulemaking process in 2005 and adopted rules in 2006. The permitting program enforces the Rules and is essential to the protection of District water resources. Issuing permits provides a mechanism for requiring proper stormwater management and the authority for requiring BMP maintenance.


Ten Year Total

A. Program Initiatives $132 $135 $140 $144 $148 $810 $1,508

Planned Initiatives

B. Web Based Permit Tracking Tool $10 $11 $11 $6 $6 $32 $75

C. Provide District Industrial Permittees Technical Assistance

$9 $10 $10 $6 $6 $32 $72

Total for 208‐ Permitting $151 $156 $161 $156 $160 $874 $1,655


Objectives Initiatives that will support the permitting program in the next 10 years include a web‐based tracking tool that will automate some administrative elements of the process. The District will coordinate with its partners to develop a joint BMP inspection and maintenance program and will provide inspection support for partners. Efficient stormwater regulation and maintaining progressive Rules are key areas of concern for regulation and enforcement identified in the District issues identification process. The following initiatives are intended to address these issues. Program Initiatives A. Continued efficient and equitable implementation of the permitting program depends on

evaluation and discussion of revisions to adopted rules, evaluation of administrative processes associated with permitting, and gathering and dissemination of useful findings gleaned from implementing the permitting program itself. A complete list of program initiatives is provided following this page.


• Implement Permitting Program • Evaluate dollar amounts for fees, etc. • Electronic permit/fee tracking system • Assess compliance rates • Monitor effectiveness of filtration BMPs

• Assist all applicants with permits and provide guidance and suggests to meet District requirements

• Explore correlations between monitoring and permitted sites

• Permit closeout inspection process

Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. Web Based Permit Tracking Tool

The District will build a web based permit tracking tool to increase the efficiency of the permitting process. The tool will identify sites in the District that apply for permits and will be designed to automate inspection reports and violation notifications. The tool will also give the District and its partners shared access to inspection information.

C. Provide Technical Assistance to Industrial Permittees within the District

During years one through three of this Plan, the District will study its role in the implementation of the new MPCA Industrial Stormwater Multi‐Sector General Permit (Industrial Permit) in anticipation of an expanding number of industrial sites triggered by it. The study will identify how the District can provide technical assistance to new permittees as they develop appropriate stormwater management practices for their industry sector. The District will also consider expanding its role in the Industrial Permit process in order to promote educational information about stormwater management and applications that exceed requirements and provide greater benefits to District resources. Based on the findings and recommendations of the District regarding roles and opportunities in the Industrial Permit process, the District will implement the recommended initiatives during years four through ten of the plan.


210 – Stewardship Grants

Description and Purpose of Activity The District values and encourages the efforts of individuals and organizations to participate in its mission to protect, manage, and improve the water resources within the District. To further this goal, the District created the Stewardship Grants Program in 2001. The program is designed to provide financial grants and technical assistance for residential, business, and non‐profit Best Management Practices (BMPs) and education/outreach activities that encourage the protection, enhancement, and improvement of water quality within the District.


Ten Year Totals

A. Program Initiatives $105 $108 $111 $115 $118 $646 $1,203

Planned Initiatives

B. Actively Promote Grant Projects as Demonstration Sites

$5 $5 $5 $6 $6 $32 $58

C. Evaluate Grant Distribution and Target Areas $3 $3 $3 $1 $1 $6 $17

Total for 210‐Stewardship Grant $113 $116 $119 $122 $125 $684 $1,278


Objectives The Stewardship Grants Program is designed to support projects that improve water quality, reduce stormwater runoff, or educate individuals about water quality protection. The promotion and distribution of stewardship grants provides incentive for individuals and organizations to become stewards of their water resources through projects or activities that will help improve water quality. Previous projects funded by Stewardship Grants include: raingardens; rain barrels; green roofs; pervious pavement; soil erosion control; shoreline restoration; native habitat restoration adjacent to waterways, ponds and lakes; water quality education; events or festivals; educational printed material, video or posters; efforts that enhance participation of watershed residents in CRWD activities. Program Initiatives The Stewardship Grants Program will continue to be implemented throughout the duration of this plan. Program initiatives develop relationships with local residents, community groups, and program partners. Annual inspections of these projects to ensure continued function and water quality benefits will be completed. The Stewardship Grants Program is primarily directed to residential or small‐scale projects and consists of reimbursement grants up to $2,000 to property owners, schools, or community groups. The Partner Grants Program provides funding opportunities for projects of larger scale, or projects


with a number of collaborators like homeowner associations, district planning councils, or projects that involve several municipal departments with reimbursement grants up to $20,000. The Stewardship and Partner Grants programs aim to accomplish one or more of the following goals:

Improve water quality by decreasing stormwater runoff and increasing stormwater infiltration; Preserve and protect plant and wildlife communities adjacent to lakes, rivers and wetlands; Develop and deliver water quality education programs; or Develop initiatives that establish links between people and water resources.

The following criteria will be considered in evaluating grant applications

Will the project improve water quality? Will the project reduce stormwater runoff? Are project results measurable? Does the proposal include a reasonable budget, work plan and timeline? Is the site highly visible, or does it have a potentially high educational value? Does the project have an educational component? If so, is the audience clearly identified and a specific outreach method described? Are local citizens involved in planning and implementing the project? Does the project involve partners with other organizations or groups? Does the proposal address long‐term project maintenance? Does the project provide water quality treatment for a large parcel of land?

Application materials and process are available on the Districts website.

A complete list of program initiatives is provided below.

• Stewardship/Partner Grants community outreach

• Stewardship/Partner Grants project inspection

• Pre‐application site visits • Partnership with Ramsey Conservation District


Explanation of Planned Initiatives

B. Actively Promote Grant Projects as Demonstration Sites

Stewardship grants projects can be used more effectively to teach District residents about the importance of stormwater management and water quality. The District will identify improved methods to utilize grant projects as demonstration sites.

C. Evaluate Grant Distribution and Target Areas

The District will evaluate the location of previous grants and seek to balance the geographic distribution of the grant funds. The District will also target areas where stewardship grant projects would have the greatest impact on District water resources. Potiental areas will be evaluated on water quality treatment, overall environmental health, volume control, and/or public access/visibility. The District will focus outreach efforts to these target areas.


211 – Monitoring & Data Assessment

Description and Purpose of Activity Since the establishment of a water quality and quantity monitoring program in 2004, monitoring and data collection has formed a foundation for District initiatives, programs, and standards. The monitoring program allows the District and others to characterize the current state of water resources and identify trends over time. Ultimately, the monitoring data will allow the District to assess achievement of its goal to improve water quality. In addition, monitoring helps guide appropriate selection and design of BMPs and development of TMDLs. Monitoring guides District‐wide stormwater management improvements and provides a mechanism to evaluate individual BMP performance.


Ten Year Totals

A. Program Initiatives $284 $292 $301 $310 $319 $1,747 $3,254

Planned Initiatives

B. 10‐Year District‐Wide Monitoring Plan $16 $16 $18 $8 $8 $40 $96

C. Source Assessment Monitoring ‐ ‐ ‐ $23 $23 $75 $121

D. Analysis, Reporting and Dissemination of Monitoring Data

‐ ‐ ‐ $13 $14 $40 $66

E. On‐line Monitoring Data ‐ ‐ ‐ $6 $6 $17 $29

Total for 211‐ Monitoring & Data Collection $300 $308 $319 $360 $370 $1,919 $3,566


Objectives With an organized, extensive monitoring program already in place, the District is well positioned to provide guidance on regional water quality decision making, develop an accessible data dissemination tool, and expand the program to include citizen monitoring. The collected and analyzed data will be used to make decisions about future BMPs and to calibrate the District’s hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality loading model (tools used to predict future conditions). The monitoring program is also meant to address the issues and associated goals identified in the Plan including using data to identify problems, appropriate solutions, and increase the public’s ability use the data. The District intends to continue to utilize its monitoring data to evaluate the performance of its programs, standards, and BMPs. A further description of the Districts monitoring program including monitoring findings can be found in section 4.6 of the Land and Water Resource Inventory which is located in Appendix A.


Program Initiatives A. Collecting stormwater data is necessary to assess achievement of water quality standards,

evaluate BMP programs, calibrate computer models and perform trend analysis. Baseline data is needed for the water resources of the District including: lakes, wetlands, groundwater, and the Trout Brook Storm Sewer. The program initiatives listed below serve as the foundation for the monitoring program.

• Water quality monitoring stations • Villa Park monitoring • Annual Water Monitoring Report • Plan based on Annual Water Monitoring Report

• Long term storage of monitoring data • Coordinated illicit discharge program • Lake monitoring

• Assist St. Paul with NPDES monitoring • Wetland biological integrity monitoring

• Loeb Lake/Willow Reserve monitoring • Monitoring quality assurance plan • BMP Monitoring • Non‐CRWD BMP Inventory

Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. 10‐Year District‐Wide Monitoring Plan

Develop a 10‐year District‐wide monitoring plan that establishes the monitoring program framework. The monitoring plan will define the questions that monitoring will address, identify measureable objectives, and include specifics on monitoring sites, parameters, methodologies, timelines and direct the District to other monitoring needs and research. The plan will document the field and lab procedures used in monitoring and serve as a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Water quality monitoring needs and goals identified in other subwatershed or lake management plans (e.g., the Loeb Lake/Willow Reserve Plan) will be incorporated into the overall monitoring plan. The monitoring plan will also include periodic program evaluation. Other water quality and water quantity monitoring data will be incorporated in the the plan. (e.g. Water treatment plants, MNDNR fish and macrophyte surveys, and beach monitoring) Finally, the plan will consider a more rigorouse anlaysis of the District’s monitoring data twice during the 10‐year term of the Watershed Management Plan. This more detailed analysis will include statistical analysis to further document spatial, temporal, and climatic correlations between pollutant levels and other factors.

C. Source Assessment Monitoring

Develop a program to systematically assess the various sources of pollutants within the District by land type. The program will assess pollutant sources based on variables such as roof types, road surfaces, land use, age of housing, building type, and vegetative cover. This data could be used to better assess the specific pollutant loading by land use type in the District for comparison to nationally accepted data.

D. Analysis, Reporting and Dissemination of Monitoring Data

Determine the best tools for disseminating monitoring accessible to citizens so they may use the data design, water quality/quantity assessments, current state of the water quality, or other studies. Audiences will be District residents including non‐english speakers, university


researchers, students, members of the media, and local government, or non‐profit water resource managers, planners, and decision‐makers. Data will be analyzed and reported in a fashion that enables comparison to the National Stormwater Quality Database. Reports will be comparable to local/regional/national stormwater reports.

E. Online Monitoring Data

Publish monitoring data online in formats typically used by water resource practicioners and researchers. An initial step in this initiative is an exploration of software and staff time needed to accomplish this initiative. Maintenance needs including the updating processes and scheduling will be identified and documented.


220 – Education & Outreach

Description and Purpose of Activity The Education and Outreach Program provides those living, working and recreating in the District with knowledge and skills required to assure protection and improvement of the District’s surface water and groundwater resources. Watershed education has two crucial components: building awareness lays an important foundation, and social marketing to effect behavior change. CRWD will continue to involve multiple stakeholders to implement and adapt the 2009 CRWD Education and Outreach Plan, which was developed in response to three driving forces: public concern, regulatory compliance, and pollutant levels of District stormwater (based on CRWD monitoring data). Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total


Planned Initiatives

B. (Education Plan) Stormwater Education: Homeowners

$62 $64 $66 $68 $70 $380 $708

C. (Education Plan) Stormwater Education: Municipal Staff

$21 $21 $22 $23 $23 $127 $236

D. (Education Plan) Stormwater Education: Contractors

$21 $21 $22 $23 $23 $127 $236

E. (Education Plan) Knowledge and Behavior Change Measurement

$15 $16 $16 ‐ ‐ ‐ $48

F. Water Awareness via District Infrastructure $9 $9 $9 $6 $6 $32 $70

G. Public Awareness and Participation $34 $35 $36 $28 $29 $158 $322

H. Collaboration for Diverse Group Outreach $21 $21 $22 $23 $23 $127 $236

I. District BMP Walking Tour Guides ‐ ‐ 0 $3 $3 $8 $14

J. “Bring Water Back to St. Paul” Campaign $34 $35 $36 $23 $23 $127 $279

Total for 220‐ Education & Outreach $238 $243 $251 $220 $223 $1,213 $2,385



Objectives The District’s Education and Outreach Plan provides the framework to build basic awareness about stormwater runoff; to address the existence of multiple water quality problems; to articulate the behaviors responsible for those problems; and to modify those behaviors through outreach to the community. Objective “building blocks” used to measure and track willingness to change behaviors that protect water quality including (a) pollutant identification; (b) pollutant‐generating behavior identification; and (c) outreach to groups engaging in those behaviors. The District Education and Outreach Plan can be found in Appendix E. Program Initiatives A. The program initiatives listed below are ongoing education and outreach programs.

• Watershed evaluation (survey and focus group methodologies)

• Media and public relations outreach • Water quality education field events for schools, student groups

• Public water quality education field events

• Printed material production • Collaborative education partnerships: Blue Thumb, WaterShed Partners, Clean Water Media Campaign, Eco Education

• Baseline Stormwater Knowledge Survey

Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. (Education Plan) Stormwater Education: Homeowners

Increase homeowner understanding of basic watershed, stormwater and water pollution concepts as defined in the Education Plan. Through education of homeowners the District will 1) increase awareness of collective impact on water resources; and 2) aim for group behavior change. Behavior change can occur when citizens adopt a sense of stewardship toward local water resources. Stewardship will be encouraged through various means including community outreach; media and public relations campaigns; information sharing; and education. Community outreach efforts will include neighborhood engagement programs with multiple partners, a corps model with a groups of students or citizens focused on one pollutant generating behavior in an area identified through the District’s 2009 watershed evaluation. District efforts will be multiplied by use of citizen volunteers. Information sharing will include the production of printed and display materials. Education will include classroom presentation, field experiences, workshop models, and tours.

C. (Education Plan) Stormwater Education: Municipal Staff

Increase municipal staff understanding of water quality protection behaviors and technologies as defined in the Education Plan. This initiative will include training oppurtunities for continuing education, tours, and workshops that contribute to the professional development of municipal staff. This initiative will also seek to edcuate elected decision makers through established training programs such as Northland NEMO (Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials) and other technical programming.


D. (Education Plan) Stormwater Education: Contractors

Increase contractor understanding of basic watershed, stormwater and water pollution concepts to be defined in the Education Plan. Some contractor outreach efforts are: exploring education methods and possible enforcement measures to increase certification among unlicensed individuals, promoting education of consumers about hiring only licensed professionals for pesticide application, and establishing a voluntary certification program for landscape professionals not covered by Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) certifications. This program will likely be conducted in collaboration with an education professional.

E. (Education Plan) Knowledge and Behavior Change Measurement

Measure and evaluate the change in knowledge and behavior as a result of education and outreach efforts. Effort will be assesed by both process indicators like event attendee numbers, and impact indicators like measurment of outcomes from pre‐ and post‐ program testing; or measurments of pollutant loading reduction. The actual mix of evaluation tools will depend on timing and resources.

F. Water Awareness via District Infrastructure

In cooperation with partners, identify and implement methods to utilize District infrastructure to increase awareness of water resources and water management (Art, Signage, Interactive Exhibits). Develop a District Art Policy and Plan in collaboration with District partners.

G. Public Awareness and Participation

Identify and implement methods to increase awareness of the District’s existence and mission and increase public participation in its activities. This initiative includes use of media and development of a communication program that includes the production of printed materials, display materials, project and BMP guides, and other communication products. In order to increase outreach capacity, the District will update its internal communication infrastructure by purchasing software to create and maintain a contact database; and by enhancing electronic communication capabilities.

H. Collaboration for Diverse Group Outreach

Identify and collaborate with other organizations to diversify the age, income level, and cultural identity of those participating in all District initiatives.

I. District BMP Walking Tour Guides

The District will create walking tours of District BMPs that can be downloaded from the District website and used to learn about the improved water quality resulting from local stormwater management practices. Printed tour guides will require identifying geographic regions of focus, generating mapping and routes that are conducive to a wide range of audiences and promotion of the tours.


J. "Bring Water Back to St. Paul" Campaign

The Bring Water Back to St. Paul campaign will develop the detailed approach and implementation plan for the campaign to reconnect the community to its water resources, including the Mississippi River. The campaign will interface with many other efforts by identifying/promoting programs and projects to increase the use and awareness of District water bodies and the Mississippi River. The campaign will enlist public participation early in the planning process to ensure it is a collaborative process. To have success in bringing water back, figuratively and literally, it must be a collaborative effort. Target audiences and mechanisms will be identified to reach residents and neighborhoods. The campaign goals are to engage residents and create enthusiasm among the public for campaign initiatives. It is also important to encourage the member cities and the National Park Service to identify the need for and potential location of additional water resource access points in consideration of population density, safety, and site specific amenities.


225 – Technical Resources & Information Sharing

Description and Purpose of Activity As new technology is developed in the field of water resources management, science, and engineering, the District needs to work and interact regularly with its agency and technical partners so that information can be shared among various entities. This will enable the District to stay aware of new developments and provide better technical guidance. Activities such as plan review and web tool development also create opportunities for collaboration, on regional projects and inform partners and citizens.

Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2016‐20

Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives A. Interactive Storm Sewer/Pollutant Map ‐ ‐ ‐ $15 $15 $42 $72 B. Information Dissemination: Multiple

Audiences/Languages $5 $6 $6 $2 $2 $13 $34

C. Watershed Information Clearinghouse $5 $5 $5 $6 $6 $32 $59 D. Annual Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Review,

Planning and Coordination with Partners ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $77 $77

E. Review of District Partner Planning Documents (Non‐CIP)

$5 $5 $5 $6 $6 $32 $59

F. Unregulated Property Stormwater Management Planning

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $26 $26

G. Alternative (Non‐Infiltration) Volume Reduction BMP Guidance

$7 $7 $7 ‐ ‐ ‐ $21

H. BMP Performance Database ‐ ‐ ‐ $17 $17 $44 $78 I. Watershed Approach: TMDLs & NPDES $103 $106 $109 $56 $58 $317 $750 J. Strategic Project Preparation $21 $21 $22 $23 $23 $127 $236 K. Joint BMP Inspection and Maintenance Program $21 $21 $22 $11 $12 $63 $150 L. Inspection Support for Partners ‐ ‐ ‐ $6 $6 $32 $43 Total for 225‐ Technical Resources & Information Sharing

$167 $171 $176 $142 $145 $805 $1,605


Objectives The District will collaborate with partner organizations to study regional water quality issues and make District information such as storm sewer maps, local pollutant loading, and monitoring data available to the partners. In order to effectively share information, the District will develop efficient information distribution systems. The District will also be more involved in partner agency Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) and planning documents. As identified in its issues identification process, the District could more effectively identify and support collaborations between various partners/stakeholders who have similar projects and programs. The District inspects its BMP facilities and BMPs it has permitted, but it has become apparent that a joint BMP inspection and maintenance program with District partners could increase efficiency of maintenance and the performance of BMPs. The Technical Resource and Information Sharing initiatives will help address this need and result in a better use of funds to accomplished shared objectives.


Program Initiatives This budget item was formerly called Information Sharing. Its renaming has subsequently resulted in development of the new initiatives identified below.

Explanation of Planned Initiatives A. Interactive Storm Sewer/Pollutant Map

Develop an interactive Storm Sewer/Pollutant Mapping Application Tool that will allow the user to view the path stormwater takes to downstream resource and the pollutant loading per acre of contributing area. A pilot project will be completed to establish protocols and determine the level of effort needed to fully develop the tool. The project will involve taking storm sewer network data and adding direction of flow and connectivity information.

B. Information Dissemination: Multiple Audiences/Languages

Assess the need for information in multiple languages for citizens within the District. Identify information relevant to multiple public audiences and make it available in multiple languages. Initial steps will include written translation, when appropriate, of non‐point source pollution prevention and preferred behaviors.

C. Watershed Information Clearinghouse

Identify key categories of applied watershed information needed by District partners. This initiative will involve review of agency/partner planning efforts and soliciting input from District partners through meetings and surveys. Identify and implement standards and procedures for processing applied watershed information once the partner needs have been identified.

D. Annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Review, Planning, and Coordination with

Partners

Schedule annual meetings with partners to review CIPs as part of the annual budgeting process. Annual meetings will be followed by internal assessments of potential projects and partnerships or potential information sharing opportunities. Schedule regular meetings to provide input on school districts construction plans and other partner agency capital projects. This initiative will require, where necessary, establishing strong relationships with agencies and educational institutions and providing financial resources in order to have the greatest success. Use the CIP review process of partner agencies to introduce District concerns and recommend actions related to water resource management. The District will remain aware of the timing of various agencies’ CIP review schedule in order to introduce issues and ideas at appropriate times.

E. Review of Other Partner Planning Documents (Non‐CIP)

Regularly review District partner planning documents to identify collaboration opportunities. Planning documents to be reviewed may include sustainability, wetland management, park improvement, local water, large scale redevelopment, local area, comprehensive, or road salt management plans.


F. Unregulated Property Stormwater Management Planning

Develop an approach to improve stormwater management and water quality protection measures on properties unregulated by District rules. Currently, these properties include State of Minnesota, State Fairgrounds, University of Minnesota, and railroad properties. These properties are of interest to the District since they contain significant water resources such as the Sarita Wetland and the Burlington Pond and represent significant watershed areas to other District water resources. A preliminary step will be to evaluate the opportunities for providing input based on the owners, operations, and existing planning efforts. Incentives and federal regulations for railroads and their property owners will be researched. Designs and applications specific to pollutants of concern associated with the properties will be considered.

G. Alternative (Non‐Infiltration) Volume Reduction BMP Guidance

Not all areas in the District are conducive to infiltration due to soil type, soil contamination, groundwater elevation, or pollutants associated with the land use. For this initiative, volume reduction alternatives other than infiltration such as stormwater reuse will be evaluated. Guidence on the alternative practices will be developed.

H. BMP Performance Database

Develop a database of cost/benefit ratios based on BMP removal efficiencies. Relevant data will be obtained from the District and its partners. Summarize findings in a format that provides information and guidance for developer, District partners and future District projects. A standardized record keeping procedure will be developed.

I. Watershed Approach: MS4 & TMDL Compliance

MS4 Compliance The District; cities of St. Paul, Maplewood, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, and Roseville; MN DOT, Ramsey County, University of Minnesota, Minnesota State Fair, and Metro State University are all regulated MS4s under the Clean Water Act and are required to be in compliance with the MS4 General Permit, issued by the State of Minnesota. The MS4 General Permit requires each regulated MS4 to develop a Storm Water Pollution Program that addresses each of six minimum control measures (MCMs) including:

MCM #1 Public education and outreach; MCM #2 Public participation and involvement; MCM #3 Illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE); MCM #4 Construction site runoff; MCM #5 Post‐construction runoff control; and MCM #6 Pollution prevention and good housekeeping.

Collaboration between regulated MS4s can result in cost savings and enhanced water resource protection. Key elements of a Watershed Based MS4 Compliance program could include:

1. District providing public education and outreach (MCM #1) related to water resources to fulfill the regulated MS4 responsibilities through existing CRWD education staff and programs.


2. District and regulated entities combine annual meetings to meet MCM #2 requirements. This combined annual meeting could include an open house, education components, and presentations by District and MS4 staff to city elected officials as well as the public.

3. Develop a program to work together on IDDE programs. Specifically a non‐public web accessible map of all stormwater drainage networks could be developed to facilitate tracking of illicit discharges. This is important on a watershed scale because of cross municipal drainage issues. Inspections and education related to MCM #3 requirements could also be shared between the District and regulated MS4s.

4. Inspections related to construction site runoff requirements could be shared by the District and regulated MS4s as required under MCM # 4.

In each of the subwatersheds of the District multiple MS4s exist and have legal responsibilities to manage water. The table below identifies the overlapping MS4s that exist in each of the subwatersheds of the District.

Subwatershed MS4s Permittees Como Lake St. Paul, Falcon Heights, Roseville, MnDOT, Ramsey County Crosby Lake St. Paul, MnDOT, Ramsey County Davern St. Paul, MnDOT, Ramsey County Downtown St. Paul, MnDOT, Ramsey County East Kittsondale St. Paul, MnDOT, Ramsey County Goodrich‐Western St. Paul, MnDOT, Ramsey County Hidden Falls St. Paul, Ramsey County Lake McCarrons Roseville, MnDOT, Ramsey Mississippi River Blvd. St. Paul, MnDOT, Ramsey County Phalen Creek St. Paul, MnDOT, Ramsey County, Metro State University St. Anthony Hill St. Paul, Ramsey County, St. Paul Community and Technical College

St. Anthony Park St. Paul, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, MnDOT, Ramsey County, Metro State University, University of Minnesota

Trout Brook St. Paul, Maplewood, Roseville, MnDOT, Ramsey County, Capitol Region Watershed District

Urban St. Paul West Kittsondale St. Paul, MnDOT, Ramsey County West Seventh St. Paul, MnDOT, Ramsey County

TMDL Compliance In addition to the specifically spelled out MCM requirements, collaboration between the regulated MS4s can be an effective mechanism to implement Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study requirements.

The District and its partners will soon be subject to the requirements of several TMDLs for impairments in the Mississippi River and Lake Pepin. Each of the TMDLs will develop a pollutant loading goal and will require a specific reduction to be achieved by all of the entities that drain to the resource. The majority of pollutant sources within the District will be regulated under the NPDES Program (i.e. MS4, Industrial Stormwater and Construction Site Stormwater permittees). Each of the regulated entities will be required to demonstrate how they are complying with each of the TMDLs.

The District will make use of its subwatershed management planning process to address the requirements of the various TMDLs. The subwatershed based approach to TMDL compliance


would consist of coordinating the efforts of the District and the other regulated MS4s. Initially, the District will develop a process to define the role of each of the partners. The District could potentially take on a role that would include inventorying and accounting for reductions in pollutant loading in the watershed and representing the MS4s in large scale TMDL studies. The District could serve as the “aggregator” or TMDL coordinator to assist each of the MS4s, in coordination, in meeting their individual TMDL requirements. The District could also serve as a technical resource for the regulated MS4s with regards to TMDL implementation requirements. The Districts monitoring program could be used to determine what progress was being made on load reductions. Finally, the District could take the lead on providing documentation to collectively meet the annual reporting requirements of the MS4 Permits.

The specific approach for TMDL compliance would be developed through the District’s subwatershed management planning process. At the onset of each subwatershed management plan, the District will identify each MS4 involved in the subwatershed. The District will develop a technical approach for evaluating the subwatershed and potential water quality improvement opportunities. The District will develop an agreement between the MS4s within the subwatershed on the approach, including a cost distribution plan for improvements.

J. Strategic Project Preparation

In response to several grant programs preferring to fund implementation rather than planning activities, take selected projects through design to a level where they are ready for bidding in advance of available funding.

K. Joint BMP Inspection and Maintenance Program

Develop a program with District partners to identify consistent, reasonable BMP inspection and maintenance protocols. This coordination will identify the most effective inspection and maintenance approaches being practiced today. The program is expected to increase inspection and maintenance efficiency and, ultimately, BMP performance. The District will ensure that the permitting process encourages following through with maintenance activities.

L. Inspection Support for Partners

Through cooperation, District staff and District partners can assist one another with inspection responsibilities. The District will communicate to its partners that the District's is available to help achieve their inspection objectives and stay on schedule. This initiative will help ensure long‐term performance of BMPs and reducing erosion and sedimentation from construction sites in the District.


228 – Future Trends - Research & Positioning

Description and Purpose of Activity While the future is uncertain with regard to climate, technology, and policy, it is important to have a strategy for incorporating new information as it becomes available. To maintain a leadership role with regard to how key water resources concerns are addressed in an urban setting, a deliberate effort is needed to stay aware of trends in science, design, and climate, and to interpret those trends for practical application.


Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives A. Climate Change Impacts: Research & Analysis ‐ ‐ ‐ $21 $21 $73 $115 B. Climate Change Impacts: Action ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $39 $39 C. Research on Innovative BMPs $67 $69 $71 $73 $75 $412 $768 D. Design for Water Resources Awareness $31 $32 $33 $34 $35 $190 $354 E. National Speakers on Key Topics $5 $5 $5 $6 $6 $32 $59 F. Goals for Emerging Issues: Contaminants $10 $11 $11 ‐ ‐ ‐ $32 G. Analysis of Emerging Issues: Contaminants ‐ ‐ ‐ $30 $31 $32 $93 H. Project to Address Emerging Issues:

Contaminants ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $154 $154

I. Assessment of Water Quality and Ecology of

Springs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $13 $13

J. Evapotranspiration Rates Investigation ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ K. Green Infrastructure Barriers Assessment ‐ ‐ ‐ $6 $6 $6 $17 L. Strategy for Existing Site Stormwater

Standards ‐ ‐ ‐

$56 $58 $60 $174

Total for 228‐ Future Trends – Research & Positioning

$113 $117 $120 $225 $232 $1,011 $1,818


Objectives Looking forward to the next 10 years, key issues for the District are climate change, innovations in green infrastructure, and consideration of additional pollutants beyond those that have typically been the focus of water resources management. These issues are relatively unfamiliar to the District. The strategy will be to investigate the issue during years 1‐3 of the plan, perform analysis and scoping of applicable projects during years 4‐6 of the plan, and implement the projects during years 7‐10 of the plan. As new ideas are explored, the District will seek to involve citizens and partners in projects, programs, and areas of interest.


Program Initiatives This budget item was formerly called Future Trends. Its renaming has subsequently resulted in development of the new initiatives identified below.

Explanation of Planned Initiatives A. Climate Change Impacts: Research & Analysis

Research the potential impacts of climate change as they apply to the resources of the District during years one through three of the plan. Complete modeling and analysis of the likely impact(s) of climate change on hydrologic conditions within the District from both a water quantity and quality perspective to identify areas of concern. Analyze the District’s role in addressing and responding to the potential impacts. This will take place during years four through six of the plan.

B. Climate Change Impacts: Action

Formalize a District effort to address the identified local and watershed impacts from climate change, if any, during years seven through ten of the plan.

C. Research on Innovative BMPs

Research innovative BMPs focusing on performance, applicability in various settings, and their long‐term maintenance requirements.

D. Design for Water Resources Awareness

Identify stormwater design methods/techniques that maximize water resources awareness, visual appeal, and public understanding. Designs include stormwater management functions as well as structural or artistic components that communicate the stormwater management function to the viewer.

E. National Speakers on Key Topics

Sponsor/coordinate workshops with nationally known speakers on innovative urban management techniques, future trends, etc.

F. Goals for Emerging Issues: Contaminants

Determine the need for and if necessary develop quantitative goals for additional pollutants in District resources including metals, chloride, bacteria, pesticides, other toxic chemicals, and trash through a technical and public stakeholder process. (Years 1‐3)

G. Analysis of Emerging Issues: Contaminants

Work with partner agencies to study water quality issues of regional concern based upon District monitoring data and findings from the review of partner planning documents and partner agency CIPs. Perform analysis to identify projects to achieve desired reductions in metals, chloride, bacteria, and trash (Years 4‐6).

H. Projects to Address Emerging Issues: Contaminants


Implement projects to achieve desired reductions in metals, chloride, bacteria, and trash (Years 7‐10).

I. Assessment of Water Quality and Ecology of Springs

Complete assessment of water quality and ecological significance of springs. The springs are unique water resources which may contain species requiring additional protection.

J. Evapotranspiration Rates Investigation

Promote investigation by other research entities of the evapotranspiration rates of various plant species to maximize non‐infiltration volume reduction. Results will help document the volume reduction achieved by trees and plants and determine which species are most effective for volume reduction on green roofs and other stormwater management techniques that utilize plants.

K. Green Infrastructure Barriers Assessment

Review municipal ordinances to identify barriers to implementation of green infrastructure including graywater/re‐use systems, and work with partners to remove the barriers. Evaluate street design standards to determine barriers to green infrastructure implementation and tools to overcome those barriers.

L. Strategy for Existing Site Stormwater Standards

Stormwater management requirements for new and redeveloping sites are already in place in the District Rules. However, existing sites not slated for redevelopment make significant contributions to stormwater and pollutant loads within the District. The purpose of this initiative is to analyze the need for and feasibility of implementing stormwater treatment for existing sites and to assess barriers and benefits of various implementation approaches. Regulatory requirements, financial incentives, and other strategies will be considered. Research will examine example stormwater standards and incentive programs for existing sites.

The importance of treating stormwater runoff from existing sites is made clear by looking at the amount of treatment achieved in the past several years of the current permitting program. From 2007‐2009, runoff treatment has been provided for approximately 197 acres of the District’s impervious area. Assuming that this rate of redevelopment continues, this would mean that every year under the current permitting program, an additional 0.6% of the District’s impervious area would be treated. This would mean, at this rate 9% of the impervious area would be treated after 15 years, 18% of the impervious area would be treated after 30 years, and so on. Future rates of redevelopment are uncertain, and even at the current rate of redevelopment, progress toward the desired degree of water resources protection will be slow. While substantial treatment is being provided and gains in water quality are being made under the current program, to truly achieve significant water quality improvement, the impact of existing site runoff must be addressed.


230 – GIS (Geographic Information Systems)

Description and Purpose of Activity Geographic Information Systems, or GIS, is an effective tool for water resources management. GIS enables detailed mapping and analysis of hydrology, land use, land cover, population dynamics, or any data that has a spatial component. It also provides a central location for the District to maintain an information inventory that is up‐to‐date and easily accessible. GIS staff and training are essential to apply this tool. Initiatives that are primarily driven by GIS mapping and analysis are included herein.


Ten Year Total


Planned Initiatives

B. GIS Program Development $3 $3 $3 $2 $2 $10 $21

C. Permitted Discharge Assessment ‐ ‐ ‐ $9 $9 $14 $32

D. Stormwater BMP Inventory & Multi‐Jurisdictional Database

$27 $28 $29 $11 $12 $63 $171

E. District Boundary Correction ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $26 $26

Total for 230‐ GIS $90 $93 $96 $88 $91 $484 $942


Objectives GIS Program expansion is imminent based on the District’s needs and potential applications for GIS. The Program is intended to enable more in depth analysis of the state of the watershed in order to conduct source water assessments or preemptively identify pollutant sources. The District will also use GIS as a database/inventory tool for tracking the condition and performance of stormwater treatment BMPs. Program Initiatives A. An ongoing GIS Program element is the acquisition and maintenance of proper software and

hardware to run and apply GIS effectively. GIS training continues to be a key element to the Program.


Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. GIS Program Development

The GIS Program will be expanded to include geographic analysis, decision support, and interactive applications for the public. The expansion will require staff to be trained on the potential of GIS applications. This will enable the District to develop projects that can fully utilize the GIS software. Initiatives below begin to accomplish this goal.

C. Permitted Discharge Assessment

GIS will be used to conduct a point source water assessment of stormwater pollution. The project will document the location of all the permitted and illicit discharges in the District. Additional spatial data such as land use may be used to identify potential sources of stormwater contamination.

D. Stormwater Inventory & Multi‐Jurisdictional Database

GIS will be used to track the location of BMPs based on the volume of stormwater treated and infiltrated. BMPs will be identified by category (permitted, stewardship grants, CIPs, others) as mechanism to identify the relative effectiveness of District programs.

GIS will be used as a tool to develop and maintain a database of all stormwater BMPs in the District categorized by jurisdiction. This initiative will require on the ground research, multi‐agency coordination, and a significant effort for initial data entry. Maintenance and upkeep will be required after the capital investment.

E. District Boundary Correction

GIS will be used to continue and complete the periodic correction and update of the District boundary due to further refinement of the District’s hydrologic boundary as outlined in MN Statutes 103B.215 and 103D.251. Coordination with surrounding watershed districts is a key factor in the success and speed of completion of the project.

CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan – 9/1/2010 69

240 – Safety Program

Description and Purpose of Activity Because of the nature of the work and operations at the District including entry into storm sewers, work in roadways, inspection of construction sites, and use of hand tools, the District strives for the highest safety standards for its employees through a comprehensive health and safety program. The purpose of the program is to implement the policies, procedures and operations in the office, shop and field that shall ensure healthy and safe conditions in the workplace and minimize the frequency and severity of hazards for its employees. Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total


Planned Initiatives

B. Regular Safety Audits ‐ $3 ‐ ‐ $3 $3 $9

Total for 240‐ Safety Program $17 $21 $18 $19 $23 $110 $209


Objectives The objective of the Safety Program is to provide safe working conditions through training, education, and proper equipment.

Program Initiatives A. Safety Program elements comprise the majority of the cost and staff time of the initiative.

The District’s commitment to facilitating safe working conditions is ensured through provision of proper field operations equipment and routine equipment maintenance and calibration. Safety training is an equally vital program element. A complete list of program initiatives is provided below.

• Proper equipment • Equipment repair and maintenance

• Confined space entry (CSE) • Staff CSE and other safety training

Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. Regular Safety Audits

The District will conduct a safety audit every three years or more frequently if District activities or operations change. The audit will include equipment and operational inspections, status of staff safety training, and a review of working conditions. This initiative includes rectifying all issues identified as a result of the audit.


301 – Shoreline and Streambank Assessment and Maintenance

Description and Purpose of Activity Shoreline areas of the District’s water resources serve a critical function of filtering pollutants from runoff before it enters the water resource. Maintaining shoreland areas in a perpetually stable condition with native plants is an important component of managing the existing and future water resources of the District.

Projected Expenditures

10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20 Ten Year Total

A. Project Initiatives $13 $13 $13 $14 $14 $78 $146

Planned Initiatives

B. Mississippi River Streambank and Bluff Erosion Inventory

‐ ‐ ‐ $19 $19 $20 $58

C. Loeb and Crosby Lakes Shoreline Restoration ‐ Planning

$26 $27 $27 ‐ ‐ ‐ $80

Total for 301‐ Shoreline & Streambank Assessment & Maintenance

$39 $40 $40 $33 $33 $98 $284


Objectives District objectives include completing shoreland assessments and developing plans to restore degraded shoreland in the District. This project also will maintain restored shorelines and streambanks so they become well established over the long‐term. Project Initiatives A. Since the Como Lake Shoreline Vegetation Management Plan has been in place, the District

has helped fund projects around Como Lake. Similarly, implementation of a shoreline restoration program for Lake McCarrons was underway in 2009. Lake McCarrons and Como Lake Shoreline Restoration Projects will continue with Ramsey Conservation District and the City of St. Paul as project partners, respectively, to assist in identification and implementation of shoreline and streambank assessment and maintenance projects. These project initiatives are listed below.

• Lake McCarrons Shoreline Restoration Project

• Sponsor Natural Resources Intern with City of St. Paul for Como Lake Projects


Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. Mississippi River Streambank and Bluff Erosion Inventory

The District will identify and categorize streambank and bluff erosion issues. This initiative will primarily focus on Mississippi River streambank and bluff areas.

C. Loeb and Crosby Lakes Shoreline Restoration ‐ Planning

Assess the current conditions of Loeb Lake and Crosby Lake and develop plans for restoring necessary sections.


305 – Como Lake Subwatershed

Description and Purpose of Activity The District and its partners have constructed several BMPs in the Como Lake Watershed. These BMPs require regular inspection, maintenance and monitoring to ensure they are performing as intended. Individual subwatersheds draining to Como Lake have had subwatershed studies completed that identify BMPs to be implemented. In 2002, the District and its partners developed a lake management plan for Como Lake that identified subwatershed‐based phosphorus load reduction goals. In 2010 the approach for reducing loads to Como Lake was converted into a TMDL in response to the Lake’s status as an impaired water. Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total

A. Project Initiatives $99 $102 $105 $108 $111 $609 $1,134

Planned Initiatives

B. Internal Loading Study and Management ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $32 $32

C. Fish Population Monitoring ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ D. Invasive and Exotic Biota Monitoring &

Management ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

E. Como 2 Feasibility Study $21 $21 $22 ‐ ‐ ‐ $64

F. Como 4 Feasibility Study ‐ ‐ ‐ $23 $23 $24 $70

G. Como 5 Feasibility Study ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $51 $51

H. Como 6 Feasibility Study ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $51 $51

I. Como Lake Implementation Reporting & Audit

‐ ‐ ‐ $8 $8 $8 $23

Total for 305‐ Como Lake Subwatershed $120 $123 $127 $139 $142 $775 $1,425


Objectives The objective is to complete Como Lake subwatershed planning studies to identify opportunities for water resource improvements for implementation by the District, the City of St. Paul and other partners. This program also inspects and maintains BMPs that have been implemented in order to ensure intended performance.


Project Initiatives A. BMPs planned for or already constructed in the Como Lake Subwatershed (will) require

regular inspection, maintenance, monitoring, and/or installation. As a result, this budget item includes inspection and maintenance initiatives and a demonstration project. In addition, the District continues to sponsor interns with the City of St. Paul to help maintain rain gardens, restored shorelines and other natural areas. A complete list of project initiatives is provided below.

• Arlington Pascal Project Stormwater Improvement Project

• Street Maintenance

• Trash Net Demonstration Project • St. Paul Natural Resources Intern

Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. Internal Loading Study and Management

Reevaluate internal loading in Como Lake and investigate management options. This initiative is a priority for improving the water quality of Como Lake and successful implementation will only occur through partnership with other agencies identified in the planning process. The District will take the lead on this initiative with participation from Ramsey County Public Works and the City of St. Paul.

C. Fish Population Monitoring

Monitor fish population in Como Lake. This initiative will be used to guide water quality improvement decisions for Como Lake, but will likely be carried out by other agencies identified in the planning process. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Ramsey County Public Works are the lead agencies on this initiative. The District is committed to working with the DNR and Ramsey County Public Works to complete these activities.

D. Invasive and Exotic Biota Monitoring and Management

Monitor for and manage invasive exotic vegetation in and around Como Lake. This initiative is a priority for improving the water quality of Como Lake, but it is more appropriately implemented by other agencies identified in the planning process. St. Paul Parks and Recreation and Ramsey Conservation District (RCD) are the lead agencies on this initiative. The District is committed to working with St. Paul Parks and Recreation and RCD to complete these activities. The District will also collaborate on efforts in the Ramsey County Cooperative Weed Management area.

E. Como 2 Feasibility Study

Complete the Como Subwatershed #2 feasibility study to fulfill the Como Lake Strategic Management Plan.

F. Como 4 Feasibility Study



G. Como 5 Feasibility Study


H. Como 6 Feasibility Study


I. Como Lake Implementation Reporting & Audit

The Como Lake Strategic Plan was adopted in 2002 and was converted into a TMDL in 2010. The plan provides a target in‐lake water quality goal and establishes watershed pollution reduction targets by subwatershed. The plan provides projects and cost estimates. Several subwatershed initiatives from the plan have been implemented. When approximately half the subwatershed plans are implemented an audit will be conducted to: use monitoring data to evaluate performance, review which project types are most cost effective, track if load reduction goals are being met, and update cost estimates for future work. The District will make use of its subwatershed management planning process to implement the Como TMDL. The subwatershed based approach to TMDL compliance will consist of coordinating the efforts of the District and the other regulated MS4s. Initially, the District will develop a process to define the role of each of the partners. The District will take on a role that would include inventorying and accounting for reductions in pollutant loading in the watershed and representing the MS4s in large scale TMDL studies. The District will serve as the “aggregator” or TMDL coordinator to assist each of the MS4s, in coordination, in meeting their individual TMDL requirements. The District will also serve as a technical resource for the regulated MS4s with regards to TMDL implementation requirements. The District’s monitoring program could be used to determine what progress was being made on load reductions. Finally, the District will take the lead on providing documentation to collectively meet the annual reporting requirements of the MS4 Permits.


313 – Lake McCarrons Subwatershed

Description and Purpose of Activity The District planned, designed, and constructed the Villa Park Wetland Improvement project consistent with the Lake McCarrons Lake Management Plan. The District owns the four weir structures of the Villa Park Wetland System which is located on Roseville City park property. The District also modified the existing outlet structure for the system. The District cooperatively manages and maintains the weir structures in Villa Park with the City of Roseville. These weir structures were designed to reduce the amount of phosphorus from entering Lake McCarrons. An alum treatment was also applied to the lake in the fall of 2004.


Ten Year Total


Planned Initiatives

B. Fish Population Monitoring ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

C. Exotic and Nuisance Species Prevention Program ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Total for 313‐ Lake McCarrons Subwatershed $32 $33 $34 $35 $36 $199 $370


Objectives The primary objective of this initiative is to maintain in place BMP projects in the Lake McCarrons Subwatershed and to monitor the lake to determine the need for further management activities for implementation by the District, the City of Roseville and other partners. Project Initiatives A. BMPs planned for or already constructed in the Lake McCarrons watershed (will) require

regular inspection, maintenance, monitoring, and/or installation. As a result, this budget item already includes existing monitoring and maintenance initiatives and an implementation project. A complete list of project initiatives is provided below.

• Villa Park weir monitoring • Villa Park implementation Phase 1 • McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis

• Lake McCarrons Alum Treatment Project • Shoreline Restoration • Villa Park Subwatershed Management Plan


Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. Fish Population Monitoring

Monitor the fish population in Lake McCarrons. Improve the fishery by preventing winter fish kills (by keeping winter oxygen levels up) and by maintaining diversity of gamefish. The DNR will continue implementing its fisheries management plan for Lake McCarrons.

C. Exotic and Nuisance Species Prevention Program

Promote and support an exotic and nuisance species prevention program. The program will monitor for new invasive, exotic species infestations as well as monitoring the existing Eurasian water milfoil infestation found in 2004 to determine if it is expanding. An action plan for mitigating new exotic species will be developed. The program will also use every reasonable means to prevent new invasive, exotic species from entering Lake McCarrons and to prevent existing populations from expanding. The District will implement the Lake McCarron’s Aquatic Plan Management Plan developed in cooperation with the Minnesota DNR in 2010. This plan can be found on the District website.


315 – Loeb Lake Subwatershed

Description and Purpose of Activity The Loeb Lake and Willow Reserve Management Plan described the history and defined the value of Loeb Lake as a District water resource. The purpose of this initiative is to conduct the necessary studies and coordination with partners to develop an implementation plan and carry out the projects for protecting and improving Loeb Lake and Willow Reserve identified in the plan.


Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives

A. (Loeb/Willow) Southeast Pond Investigation $9 $9 $9 ‐ ‐ ‐ $27

B. (Loeb/Willow) Good Housekeeping Assessment $5 $5 $5 ‐ ‐ ‐ $16

C. (Loeb/Willow) Invasive Species Monitoring ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

D. (Loeb/Willow) Aquatic Plant Management Coordination

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

E. (Loeb/Willow) Fish Stocking Plan with DNR ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

F. (Loeb/Willow) Planning with Stakeholder Group $7 $7 $7 ‐ ‐ ‐ $21

Total for 315‐ Loeb Lake Subwatershed

$21 $21 $22 ‐ ‐ ‐ $64


Objectives The studies and work conducted by the District, the City of St. Paul and other partners as part of this initiative are aimed at achieving the primary District goal for Loeb Lake which is to maintain water quality at current conditions (nondegradation). Objectives to achieve this goal include: provide a natural land/water interface that reduces runoff and enhances pollutant filtration while providing access for recreational use of the lake, raise awareness of nonpoint source pollution and its effects on lake water quality, promote a healthy and balanced fish community, and achieve a healthy and diverse community of native plants and animals. An additional objective for this activity is to improve the functions and value of the Willow Reserve Wetland. Project Initiatives None.


Explanation of Planned Initiatives A. (Loeb/Willow) Southeast Pond Investigation

Investigate the performance of the stormwater pond at the southeast corner of Loeb Lake.

B. (Loeb/Willow) Good Housekeeping Assessment

Assess current municipal good housekeeping practices and determine the need for increased level of practices in the watershed.

C. (Loeb/Willow) Invasive Species Monitoring

Monitor invasive plant populations. Specifically, record the spatial presence of curly leaf pondweed, purple loosestrife, and Eurasian water milfoil using qualitative measurement techniques.

D. (Loeb/Willow) Aquatic Plant Management Coordination

Partner with St. Paul Parks and Recreation and the DNR to develop an aquatic plant management plan.

E. (Loeb/Willow) Fish Stocking Plan with DNR

Partner with the DNR to develop a fish stocking plan that maintains top predators in an effort to maintain good water quality.

F. (Loeb/Willow) Restoration Planning with Stakeholder Group

Develop a restoration plan for Willow Reserve by forming a stakeholder group to help determine the desired uses and ultimate restored condition of Willow Reserve.


317 – Crosby Lake Subwatershed

Description and Purpose of Activity A study of the Crosby Lake subwatershed will yield information to aid development of the appropriate strategy and activities for water quality protection and improvement in Crosby Lake.


Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives

A. Crosby Lake Management Plan $50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $50

B. Crosby Lake Studies ‐ ‐ $50 ‐ ‐ $50 $100

Total for 317‐ Crosby Lake Subwatershed

$50 ‐ $50 ‐ ‐ $50 $150


Objectives When the Crosby Lake Management Plan is completed, the District will identify specific projects that can be implemented by the District and its partners to improve the long term water quality of the Lake. The District will collaborate with partners to achieve management goals. Project Initiatives Starting in 2010 the District in cooperation with the City of St. Paul and other partners began work on the Crosby Lake Management Plan. Explanation of Planned Initiatives A. Crosby Lake Management Plan

Complete development of a Lake Management Plan for Crosby Lake, in which specific potential BMPs and other projects are identified along with partnership opportunities and issues.

B. Crosby Lake Studies Complete further studies identified in Crosby Lake Management Plan.


320 – Trout Brook Subwatershed

Description and Purpose of Activity In 2006, the District formally assumed ownership of the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (TBI) from the Metropolitan Council. Owning and operating this large trunk storm sewer involves regular maintenance, inspection and monitoring. Project planning and studies will be completed to identify and determine future repair projects. Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total


Planned Initiatives

B. Upgrade/Calibration of TBI Model $34 $35 $36 ‐ ‐ ‐ $106

C. MS4 Compliance and Annual Review of MS4 Requirements

$1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $6 $12

D. Restoration and Daylighting Assessment ‐ ‐ ‐ $15 $15 $16 $46

E. (TBI) Easement Verification ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

F. (TBI) Regular Inspection $4 $85 $4 $5 $5 $124 $227

G. (TBI) Television Inspection ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

H. Web System for Receiving/Addressing Illicit Discharge Reports

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $12 $12

I. Determine Long‐Term Single Ownership of TBI ‐ ‐ ‐ $6 $6 $6 $17

J. Feasibility Study For Reducing Storm sewer Connections

$5 $5 $5 ‐ ‐ ‐ $16

K. Maplewood Landlocked Area Feasibility Study ‐ ‐ ‐ $9 $10 $10 $29

L. TBI Subwatershed Studies $51 $53 $55 ‐ ‐ ‐ $159

Total for 320‐ Trout Brook Subwatershed

$205 $292 $217 $156 $160 $849 $1,881


Objectives The objectives of this program are to successfully own and maintain the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor System in good operating condition and to ensure planning, engineering and construction complies with the 10‐year maintenance, repair, and improvement plan adopted in 2009. See Appendix G for the 10 Year Maintenance, Repair, and improvement Plan for the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor.


Project Initiatives

A. In keeping with the responsibilities of ownership of the Trout Brook Storm Sewer, inspection and maintenance initiatives have been implemented and will continue throughout the duration of ownership. Associated projects have also been initiated in an effort to improve watershed hydrology and water quality, facilitate stormwater education, and to comply with NPDES requirements. A complete list of project initiatives is provided below.

• Inspection of system • Tunnel repairs • MS4 compliance and BMP implementation

• Illicit discharge detection/monitoring

• Center/Rice Street subwatershed analysis

• Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL • Use TBI as educational/WQ tool to increase stormwater awareness

Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. Upgrade/Calibration of TBI Model

Upgrade TBI hydraulic and hydrologic (H&H) model including calibration. Identify undersized and over‐capacity pipe sections and implement pipe upgrades. Investigate the function of the TBI stormwater ponds.

C. MS4 Compliance and Annual Review of MS4 Requirements

Coordinate District MS4 requirements in cooperation with District partners.

D. Restoration and Daylighting Assessment

Conduct surveys of the upper portion of Trout Brook that is not buried to identify restoration opportunities. Evaluate various portions of the TBI for daylighting feasibility with emphasis on the Trillium site (proposed St. Paul parkland along Trout Brook alignment, south of Maryland Avenue) and the area near Arlington Jackson pond. Land use, property ownership, grades, hydrologic impacts, and existing soil contamination are a few of the criteria to determine feasibility. Final recommendations will also be based upon the projected environmental and water resource benefits of daylighting each stream segment analyzed.

E. (TBI) Easement Verification

Complete easement verification work for TBI and work towards correcting errors in location and filling gaps where there are no easements.

F. (TBI) Regular Inspection

Regularly conduct TBI inspection. G. (TBI) Television Inspection

Conduct television inspection of TBI from Dale Street to Como Lake.


H. Web System for Receiving/Addressing Illicit Discharge Reports

Develop a web‐based system for citizen reporting of potential illicit discharges. Include in the application specific definition of District authorities and improved rules for responding to illicit discharge complaints. Ensure that the system is anonymous and user‐friendly.

I. Determine Long‐Term Single Ownership of TBI

Determine potential long‐term benefits of single ownership of the Trout Brook Interceptor.

J. Feasibility Study For Reducing Storm Sewer Connections

Study the feasibility of reducing the number of storm sewer pipe connections to the TBI. The investigation will include an analysis of treatment options, and will focus on surcharging areas as defined by the District’s Hydraulic & Hydrologic model.

K. Maplewood Landlocked Area Feasibility Study

Complete feasibility study to evaluate management options for the landlocked part of Maplewood within the District as well as those within the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District that are occasionally pumped into the District. The District will also examine the appropriateness of adjusting the District legal boundary.

L. TBI Subwatershed Studies

Conduct three studies within the Trout Brook subwatershed (for the Upper East, Upper West, and Lower portions of the drainage area), to evaluate conditions and develop appropriate management strategies and implementation plans for water quality improvement and flood reduction for implementation by the District and its partners.


325 – Wetland, Stream, & Ecosystem Restoration – Planning

Description and Purpose of Activity Nearly all pre‐settlement wetlands of the District have been lost to development and other ecosystems are significantly degraded. Wetlands, oak‐maple‐basswood forests, dry sandstone cliffs, and other native ecosystems offer significant water quality, flood prevention, habitat and aesthetic benefits. Some of these benefits can be recovered by increasing the number of wetlands, streams, and associated ecosystems.


Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives

A. Green Corridor Restoration Strategy ‐ ‐ ‐ $13 $14 $14 $41

B. Wetland Reestablishment Feasibility Study $51 $53 $55 ‐ ‐ ‐ $159

C. Stream Corridor Restoration Feasibility Studies $77 $80 $82 $84 $87 $90 $500

D. Study of RR Lands for Wetland Restoration, Infiltration, Soils

‐ ‐ ‐ $19 $19 $20 $58

Total for 325‐ Wetland, Stream, & Ecosystem Restoration ‐ Planning

$128 $133 $137 $116 $120 $124 $758


Objectives This program will achieve wetland, stream, and ecosystem restorations as opportunities arise. Protection of District water resources is essential. However, complete ecosystem health can be expanded through restoration of District wetlands and adjacent ecosystems. Project Initiatives None. This budget item was formerly called Ecosystem Health & Integrity. Renaming has resulted in the subsequent development of new initiatives identified below. Explanation of Planned Initiatives A. Green Corridor Restoration Strategy

During years one through three of the plan, research and analysis of strategies to restore native plants, wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors will be conducted. The analysis will be coordinated with efforts to restore stream corridors and reestablish wetlands. Recommended corridor restoration strategies will be determined.


Figure 10 Wetland Reestablishment Sites

B. Wetland Reestablishment Feasibility Studies

This initiative will investigate the feasibility of specific reestablishment projects identified in the wetland management plan. The District refers to this process as wetland ‘reestablishment’ in an effort to distinguish it from the terms ‘restoration’ or ‘creation’ which have specific definitions is MN Rules 8420 Wetland Conservation Act. The entire Wetland Management Plan can be found in Appendix F. Specific wetland reestablishment opportunities at key redevelopment sites such as the Ford Plant will be studied. It is anticipated that 4‐6 detailed feasibility studies will be conducted. Citizens are expected to have a role in selecting and prioritizing sites for restoration and will hopefully participate in the implementation of the projects. Areas with active, interested citizen groups that can assist the District in implementation will be considered in the site‐selection process. The creation of additional wetland resources within a watershed enhances overall wetland functions. Especially in an urban setting, the contribution of additional wetlands provide additional wildlife habitat, improve water quality of adjacent waterbodies, increase local vegetative diversity, and reduce the amount of pollutants that ultimately reach the Mississippi River or District Lakes. The District has committed staff and resources to identifying opportunities for reestablishment of historic wetland resources within the District. The District is also committed to monitoring and maintenance of created wetland features. The methodology used to define potential Wetland Reestablishment sites focused on sites containing historic wetland resources. This process began with a review of historic maps generated for the District Land and Water Resource Inventory from the 2010 Watershed Management Plan.

C. Stream Corridor Restoration Feasibility Studies

As part of the Bringing Water Back to St. Paul campaign, the District will explore the feasibility and value of restoring a number of stream corridors during years 1‐6 of the plan. A preliminary list of potential restoration sites has been developed for consideration. Sites were selected based on historical water features, site topography, infrastructure, land use, ownership, hydrologic impacts, and existing plans for redevelopment or restoration. Citizens, landowners, and government agencies will play a key role in guiding the scope of the Feasibility Studies. To have success in “bringing water back”, figuratively and literally, a


collaborative effort is important. All District partners are expected to have a role in selecting and prioritizing sites for restoration. The District will look to and support citizens who garner grass roots community support for projects. The Stream Corridor Restoration Plan which can be found in Appendix H describes the stream corridor identification process, the site selection process for feasibility studies during the period of the plan, and the strategy for implementation. It is anticipated that 4‐6 detailed feasibility studies will be conducted.

• 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

Figure 11: Stream Restoration 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. The following table illustrates the established priority ranking developed at this broad, planning‐level. 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 the following table 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). Stream Corridor Restoration Ratings

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 Additional Highlights:

Why Is This Site A Good Candidate?

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.

D. Study of Railroad Lands for Wetland Reestablishment, Infiltration, Soils

Railroad properties are not under the jurisdiction of the District and often have significant impacts on District water resources and restoration efforts. A study will be conducted in order to determine the best strategy, methods, and opportunities for reducing stormwater runoff and other impacts from railroad land within the District.


330 – Mississippi River Subwatersheds

Description and Purpose of Activity The District will provide technical assistance and planning on stormwater management for these projects. Additionally, inspecting, maintaining and monitoring projects after they are constructed will help to ensure they function as intended for the long‐term. This activity is intended to capture initiatives in all areas outside of specifically named subwatersheds of Como, McCarrons, Loeb, Crosby, and Trout Brook. Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total


Planned Initiatives

B. Large Scale Redevelopment Stormwater Management Planning

$150 $150 $50 $50 $50 $250 $700

C. Perform Stormwater Audits and Provide Recommendations

‐ ‐ ‐ $30 $31 $135 $196

D. Complete Strategic Street Sweeping/Structure Vacuuming

‐ ‐ ‐ $17 $17 $95 $129

E. Subwatershed Contamination Mitigation: Study $26 $27 $27 ‐ ‐ ‐ $80

F. Subwatershed Planning Process Schedule $7 $7 $7 ‐ ‐ ‐ $21

G. Sarita Wetland Plan Implementation Monitoring

$2 $2 $2 $1 $1 $6 $15

Total for 330‐ Mississippi River Subwatersheds

$212 $214 $115 $128 $130 $654 $1,454


Objectives The objective is to complete subwatershed‐based stormwater assessments and planning for areas beyond the five specifically named subwatersheds in the District. This includes investigation and management planning for specific areas of concern within the District and identification of BMPs for implementation by the District and its partners. Project Initiatives A. The District has already laid the groundwork for subwatershed projects outside of the

McCarrons, Como, Loeb, Crosby, and Trout Brook watersheds. Projects include early review and coordination of stormwater management planning for major redevelopment projects. The State Fair Board and the University of Minnesota (U of M) continue to be project partners on ongoing projects and for opportunity identification. A complete list of project initiatives is provided below.


• Planning for Central Corridor, Ford Plant, etc.

• Collaborate with U of M and State Fair • State Fair Progress Building rain garden maintenance

• Participate on U of M Stormwater Steering Committee

• U of M Sheep Pasture basin observation

Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. Large Scale Redevelopment Stormwater Management Planning

The City of St. Paul is on the verge of one of the biggest redevelopment projects in decades. The Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Project and the associated redevelopment that is expected to occur bisects the entire District. It will provide many opportunities for development and redevelopment throughout the entire ten mile corridor. The District intends to partner with the City of St. Paul, Ramsey County, and the Metropolitan Council to recreate and redevelop with sustainable stormwater management as a focus. This approach began with the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit stormwater design workshop held on June 25, 2009 and is summarized in the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit Stormwater Design Workshop Summary Report which can be found on the Districts website. The west‐central portion of the District consists entirely of large, nearly completely impervious land cover. The District will evaluate this area and develop area‐wide stormwater management approaches for large scale redevelopment properties.

C. Stormwater Audits and Provide Recommendations

Develop a program to perform stormwater audits for residents, businesses, and other property owners in the District. Emphasis will be on large parcels of land. Audits will identify stormwater issues and recommend potential management activities to address problems.

D. Strategic Street Sweeping/Structure Cleaning Plan

Determine the most cost effective method to achieve greater level of street sweeping and catch basin cleaning throughout the District. The District will consider the option of purchasing a combination street‐sweep/vacuum truck.

E. Subwatershed Contamination Mitigation: Study

An investigation will be conducted in order to determine the source of high levels of contamination originating from subwatersheds of the District. Follow‐up/implementation activities will be performed as part of 430 A.

F. Subwatershed Planning Process

The District has completed a management plan for Como Lake, Loeb Lake, and Lake McCarrons as well as for specific subwatersheds within each of the larger areas. Subwatershed plans for other key water resources of the District will be scheduled under this initiative. In addition, the District will outline the subwatershed planning process, creating a framework for future subwatershed plans.


As part of the subwatershed planning initiative, the District will identify priority areas for water quality, hydraulic, and hydrologic modeling based on known flooding and water quality problems. Existing and proposed model scenarios will guide mitigation measures. Tasks include implementation of watershed‐ and conveyance‐based mitigation measures. This initiative includes evaluation of alternatives to reduce flooding issues by implementing practices in the watershed as opposed to providing increased conveyance. Distributed upstream measures can also have meaningful ecological and water quality impacts. The modeling and analysis performed as part of the subwatershed planning efforts will be used to identify and evaluate water quality treatment or improvement measures in the given subwatershed. In addition to addressing flooding issues the subwatershed planning approach will be used to conduct water quality improvement efforts to meet the various TMDLs being developed for the Mississippi River and Lake Pepin. The subwatersheds will be evaluated to identify potential water quality improvement opportunities to be implemented by the District and its partners. Previously, the subwatershed plans have included a partner coordination component. The partnership approach will allow for addressing the accounting of water quality treatment, and the plans will include a cost allocation approach to be agreed upon by each of the MS4 partners. These plans will serve as the basis for the District’s subwatershed approach to addressing TMDL requirements. Despite this coordinated effort, each MS4 will be ultimately responsible for their own area. The Districts existing P8 water quality model and the findings of its monitoring program will be used to continue prioritization of subwatershed planning efforts, following the initial top priorities of East Kittsondale (based on high pollutant concentrations) and Trout Brook (based on District ownership, MS4 responsibility, and high pollutant loadings). The subwatershed management planning process will be one mechanism the District uses to keep its Watershed Management Plan updated during its ten year timeframe. The District intends to use the subwatershed management planning process as a minor plan amendment process. The public notification and review process of the minor amendment process will be followed in the subwatershed management planning effort and will result in an amendment to the Watershed Management Plan.

G. Sarita Wetland Plan Implementation Monitoring

The Sarita Wetland Plan was developed in 2003 and projects identified in the plan have been implemented. This initiative will monitor the implementation process. Monitoring results will be analyzed to guide future work on Sarita Wetland and for other similar implementation activities.


370 Watershed Management Planning

Description and Purpose of Activity Watershed Districts are required to develop a watershed management plan according to Minnesota State Statute 103D.401. The Board of Water and Soil Resources sets the requirements of the plan. Watershed management planning sets the stage for the studies, projects, and programs to be implemented over the planning period. In 2000, the District adopted its first plan. This second plan is the result of the required 10‐year update.


Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives

A. Third Generation Watershed Management Plan ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $386 $386

B. Strategic Planning ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $12 $38 $50

Total for 370 ‐ Watershed Management Planning ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $12 $424 $436

Amounts are expressed in thousands of dollars Objectives The major objective of watershed management planning is to maintain an up to date plan that reflects the activities and initiatives of the District. This may necessitate plan amendments before the next required 10‐year update.

Project Initiatives None. This budget item has historically been related only to generation of the next generation watershed management plan.


A. Third Generation Watershed Management Plan

Completion of the Third Generation Watershed Management Plan will be required no later than 2020. This will be a multi‐year effort beginning in 2018.

B. Strategic Planning

Strategic planning will be conducted as an initiative under watershed management planning. Every five years the District will complete a situation assessment with input for District partners and review and develop the District five year vision. Strategic planning will allow the District to evaluate how it is implementing the Plan and identify ways to improve implementation methods.


390 – Special Projects and Grants

Description and Purpose of Activity The District is uniquely positioned to assist development and implementation of special projects by District partners. This project will make grants available to support specific, timely, and new technologies for stormwater management. Programs across the country may inspire special projects, or they may come out of local planning processes. As opportunities arise, the District will help develop and implement these special projects. Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total


Planned Initiatives

B. Green Infrastructure Incentive Program $10 $11 $11 ‐ ‐ ‐ $32

Total For 390‐Special Projects and Grants

$18 $20 $20 $9 $9 $51 $127


Objectives Implement specific projects and grants with a special purpose that have come out of partner planning processes. This budget item is intended to provide a funding source for campaigns, programs, and projects that are not routine and are not yet covered by an existing budget item.

Project Initiatives A. Staff and engineering support of special projects and grants. Explanation of New Initiatives B. Green Infrastructure Incentive Program

Work with member communities to develop an incentive program designed to improve the quantity and quality of environmentally sensitive landscaped areas while allowing greater flexibility for developers and designers to meet open space requirements and federal, state, and local stormwater regulations (e.g. Seattle Green Factor Program). This program will increase green elements in the landscape which will improve air quality, reduce heat island effect, help reduce energy consumption, provide for carbon sequestration, reduce stormwater runoff and provide water quality treatment.


401 – Shoreline and Streambank Restoration

Description and Purpose of Activity The City of Saint Paul, Division of Parks and Recreation developed a Como Lake Shoreline Vegetation Management Plan with protocols for managing vegetation in 13 shoreline sections around the lake. This plan was reviewed and approved by the two St. Paul Planning Districts in the Como area, Districts 10 and 6, as well as the Environment Committee of District 10 and the Saint Paul Parks Commission. The District assists with the implementation of this plan through cost‐share funding. The District also participates in a shoreline restoration program for Lake McCarrons in cooperation with Ramsey Conservation District and BWSR. Shoreline restoration for other District water resources will also be studied and implemented. Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total

A. Project Initiatives ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Planned Initiatives

B. Mississippi River Streambank and Bluff Restoration

$45 $46 $47 $11 $12 $63 $224

C. Loeb and Crosby Lakes Shoreline Restoration – Implementation

$45 $46 $47 $11 $12 $63 $224

Total for 401‐ Shoreline & Streambank Restoration $90 $92 $94 $22 $24 $126 $448

Dollar amounts are expressed in thousands of dollars

Objectives The objectives of the shoreline and streambank restoration programs are to provide cost‐share funding for the shoreline restoration work around Como and McCarrons Lakes and to implement the shoreline restoration plans for Loeb and Crosby Lakes and streambank and bluff restoration adjacent to the Mississippi River.

Project Initiatives A. Since the Como Lake Shoreline Vegetation Management Plan has been in place, the District

has helped fund projects around Como Lake. Similarly, implementation of a shoreline restoration program for Lake McCarrons was underway in 2009. The Lake McCarrons and Como Lake Shoreline Restoration Projects will continue with Ramsey Conservation District and the City of St. Paul as project partners, respectively. These program initiatives are expected to be largely completed by 2011. Funding for maintenance only will be needed for Lake McCarrons and Como Lake shoreline restorations which will be accomplished through initiative 301.



B. Mississippi River Streambank and Bluff Restoration Streambank and bluff restoration plans developed under 301B will be implemented.

C. Loeb and Crosby Lakes Shoreline Restoration – Implementation

Shoreline restoration plans developed under 301C will be implemented.


405 – Como Lake Subwatershed BMPs

Description and Purpose of Activity Stormwater BMPs were analyzed and evaluated in the Como Lake Strategic Lake Management Plan to reach water quality goals. Practices considered included: water quality ponds, rain gardens, infiltration trenches, alum treatment for stormwater, catch basin sump manholes, mechanical separators/filter systems, and catch basin inserts. Management activities were also identified for each area of concern, such as street sweeping. This program implements these stormwater BMPs in the Como Lake Watershed. Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives A. (Como 3) Orchard Center Underground

Infiltration $54 $56 $57 ‐ ‐ ‐ $167

B. (Como 3) Horton and Van Slyke Rain Garden $4 $4 $4 ‐ ‐ ‐ $11 C. (Como 3) McMurray Field Re‐Use Basin $253 $260 $268 ‐ ‐ ‐ $781 D. (Como 3) Lake Como Pavilion Pervious

Parking $40 $41 $42 ‐ ‐ ‐ $123

E. (Como 3) Argyle and Van Slyke Rain Gardens $15 $15 $16 ‐ ‐ ‐ $46 F. (Como 3) High School Pervious Parking $56 $58 $59 ‐ ‐ ‐ $173 G. (Como 3) Bump‐out Rain Gardens $14 $15 $15 ‐ ‐ ‐ $44 H. (Como 3) Chatsworth / Como Underground Filtration

$68 $70 $72 ‐ ‐ ‐ $209

I. Como 2 Implementation Plan ‐ ‐ ‐ $163 $168 $276 $607 J. Como 4 Implementation Plan ‐ ‐ ‐ $206 $213 $348 $766 K. Como 5 Implementation Plan ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $277 $277 L. Como 6 Implementation Plan ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $277 $277

Total for 405‐ Como Lake Subwatershed BMPs $504 $519 $533 $369 $381 $1,178 $3,481


Objectives Construct the BMP facilities identified from the Como 3 and Como 8 subwatershed study recommendations and develop implementation plans for Como 2, 4, 5, and 6. District urban stormwater management goals to reduce pollutant loading to the District’s water resources and to use volume reduction techniques to manage stormwater are addressed directly by the initiatives below. Project Initiatives None


Explanation of Planned Initiatives A. (Como 3) Orchard Center Underground Infiltration

The Orchard Recreation Center contains open areas used for soccer and baseball by the neighboring community. Design and install an underground basin and associated diversion structure that discharges to Lake Como. This will provide continued recreation opportunities without the possibility of flooded or soggy fields.

B. (Como 3) Horton and Van Slyke Rain Garden

The intersection of Horton Avenue and Van Slyke Avenue currently includes a mix of medians and lane separations for traffic control. In one such triangular median that is currently grass covered and of sufficient area, design and install a depressed rain garden. Install curb cuts, valley gutters and/or street gradient adjustments to direct runoff to it.

C. (Como 3) McMurray Field Re‐Use Basin

The St. Paul Park and Recreation Department is considering a major renovation of the Como Park swimming pool. Additionally, St. Paul Public Works identified this location as a prime location to treat the largest stormwater subcatchment area due to the large trunk line under Lexington. Design and install an underground storage reservoir for irrigation use on the pool site as well as the adjacent McMurray Field. Obtain additional soil borings and determine the water table location to further evaluate the site for infiltration.

D. (Como 3) Como Lake Pavilion Pervious Parking

The expansive parking lot located south of the Lake Como Pavilion slopes towards the lake. Design and install pervious pavers or other porous pavement along the eastern parking stalls with an underdrain system discharging into the existing storm sewer outfalls. Runoff from the parking lot as well as drainage from the hill to the west, would drain into the pervious surface, through a rock media, and be collected by the underdrain system. Evaluate the soils and groundwater table elevation to determine whether an underdrain system would be needed.

E. (Como 3) Argyle and Van Slyke Rain Gardens

Argyle Street intersects Van Slyke Avenue in a “Y” pattern leaving a large triangle median and an expanse of pavement. Design and construct the realignment of the intersection into a traditional “T” using the resulting berm areas for rain garden development. The rain garden to the west would treat surface flows collected at the curb line from rooftops, yards and sidewalk from the west and south while an additional rain garden on the east side of the intersection would treat curbline flows traveling from the south. Install curb inlets downstream of the curb openings into the rain garden to accept excess flows once the first 1.0‐inch of runoff is captured in rain gardens.


F. (Como 3) High School Pervious Parking

The expansive parking lot located on the campus of Como Park Senior High School provides the opportunity to construct a pervious pavement system. Design and install pervious pavers or another porous surface (concrete or asphalt) in the vicinity of the existing storm drain inlet located at the western end of the parking lot. Runoff from the parking lot would drain through a pervious surface, through rock media and would be held in void space below ground. It is expected that the soils below the rock media will allow infiltration back into the groundwater thereby reducing storm sewer water quantity as well as improving water quality. Since the site is currently paved, borings were not taken at this location. Before final design, a boring is recommended to confirm the ability to infiltrate. Excess stormwater would be collected by a catchbasin and conveyed via the existing storm sewer collection system.

G. (Como 3) Bump‐out Rain Gardens

The existing streets south of the railroad in the subcatchments identified as 3_2, 2_2, and 2_3 are scheduled for improvement by the City of St. Paul. This area is in the City’s 2010 RSVP (Residential Street Vitality Program). Orchard Avenue has the potential for implementation of small bump‐out rain gardens at the street intersections because there are no sidewalks and fewer trees. Construct bump‐outs to provide a depressed area where runoff containing the first flush would enter via curb openings and either infiltrate, evaporate or be taken up by plantings. Engineered soil with an infiltration rate of 1.0‐in/hr is required due to the small footprint to maximize treatment. Runoff that is greater than the garden volume would bypass the depression and travel to a traditional curb inlet. If implemented, the bump‐outs would provide visual enhancements to the street and traffic calming benefits.

H. (Como 3) Chatsworth/Como Underground Filtration

Design and construct an underground infiltration basin at the open turfed area located near the Chatsworth Street storm trunk line in the subcatchment identified as 3_1. Divert flows from the trunk line under Chatsworth Street with a 12‐inch storm pipe. Alternatively, divert flows from the smaller adjacent storm sewer under Como Avenue. Take additional soil borings that are deeper than 6‐feet to further evaluate the soils and infiltration ability.

I. Como 2 Implementation Plan

Complete the Subwatershed #2 implementation plan based on the feasibility study.

J. Como 4 Implementation Plan


K. Como 5 Implementation Plan


L. Como 6 Implementation Plan



413 – Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMPs

Description and Purpose of Activity Stormwater BMPs were analyzed and evaluated in the Lake McCarrons Management Plan in combination to reach water quality goals. Various practices have been considered. This program implements these stormwater BMPs in the Lake McCarrons subwatershed.

Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

2016‐20

Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives

A. (McCarrons 4) MnDOT Pond Baffle Skimmer $1 $1 $1 ‐ ‐ ‐ $1

B. (McCarrons 4) William Street Pond Retrofits $5 $5 $6 ‐ ‐ ‐ $16

C. (McCarrons 4) Lakeshore Buffer Improvements $11 $11 $12 ‐ ‐ ‐ $34

D. (McCarrons 4) Boulevard Hydrodynamic Separator $8 $9 $9 ‐ ‐ ‐ $26

E. (McCarrons 4) Boat Launch ‐ Pervious Pavement ‐ ‐ ‐ $3 $3 $3 $10

F. (McCarrons 4) Boulevard Infiltration Trenches ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $48 $48

G. Villa Park Performance Improvement Projects $500 ‐ $200 ‐ ‐ $200 $900 Total for 413‐ Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMPs

$525 $26 $228 $3 $3 $251 $1,035


Objectives Implement the recommendations from the Subwatershed #4 Subwatershed Management Plan and the improvements identified in the Villa Park Wetland Management Plan. These initiatives directly address the District urban stormwater management goals to reduce pollutant loading to the District’s water resources and to use volume reduction techniques to manage stormwater.

Project Initiatives None. Explanation of Planned Initiatives

A. (McCarrons 4) MnDOT Pond Baffle Skimmer

Request that Mn/DOT and Ramsey County install a baffle skimmer outlet at the Mn/DOT facility on Highway 36 for those rare times that flow does leave the facility. A skimmer would keep most of the floatable organic debris from the highly vegetated storage area within the facility. The facility should be managed for infiltration and maintained accordingly.


B. (McCarrons 4) William Street Pond Retrofits

The City of Roseville maintains a drainage easement for a detention facility located east of William Street and adjacent to the National Guard Armory. Most of the remaining area north of Lake McCarrons, not draining to the MNDOT pond and within the subwatershed, drains to the William Street pond. This facility has a large amount of currently unused volume above the normal water level that could be used for storage and treatment of untreated stormwater runoff, if the outlet structure were modified. Retrofit the existing detention pond in order to take advantage of the available storage and increase the pond’s treatment capacity.

C. (McCarrons 4) Lakeshore Buffer Improvements

Install shoreline restoration projects in cooperation with the Ramsey Conservation District cost‐share program.

D. (McCarrons 4) Boulevard Hydrodynamic Separator

Due to space considerations and steep slopes, it would be difficult to install surface BMPs at a location that would intercept runoff coming from North McCarrons Boulevard. Instead, install a hydrodynamic separating device within the stormwater drainage network. A logical location for such a device would be on North McCarrons Boulevard, just west of the Giesman Street intersection, where two pipes join together and then discharge to the south, down to Lake McCarrons.

E. (McCarrons 4) Boat Launch ‐ Pervious Pavement

Install a 3,600 square foot pervious pavement boat launch at the Ramsey County beach location. The pervious pavement boat launch would be in an area heavily used by the public with great potential for an education project.

F. (McCarrons 4) Boulevard Infiltration Trenches

Install infiltration trenches in several areas along both North and South McCarron Boulevards within the road right‐of‐way to treat the street and near‐street drainage. By routing the runoff from 7.3 acres of land in these areas into infiltration trenches, an additional 3.1 pounds of total phosphorus can be removed.

G. Villa Park Performance Improvement Projects

Implement projects recommended in the Villa Park Wetland Management Plan (VPWMP) including potential watershed improvement projects. The VPWMP is available on the District website.


415 – Loeb Lake Subwatershed BMPs

Description and Purpose of Activity Stormwater BMPs were recommended in the Loeb Lake and Willow Reserve Management Plan to reach water quality goals. This program implements stormwater BMPs in the Loeb Lake subwatershed and restores wetland areas in Willow Reserve.


Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives

A. (Loeb/Willow) Skimmer Structure $3 $4 $4 ‐ ‐ ‐ $11

B. (Loeb/Willow) Stormwater Treatment Practices $10 $11 $11 ‐ ‐ ‐ $32

C. (Loeb/Willow) Willow Reserve Restoration $26 $27 $27 $28 $29 $158 $295

Total for 415‐ Loeb Lake Subwatershed BMPs

$39 $42 $42 $28 $29 $158 $338


Objectives Implement the relevant recommendations from the Loeb Lake and Willow Reserve Management Plan. These initiatives directly address District urban stormwater management goals to reduce pollutant loading to the District’s water resources and to use volume reduction techniques to manage stormwater. Project Initiatives None. Explanation of Planned Initiatives A. (Loeb/Willow) Skimmer Structure

Install a skimmer structure on the pipe connecting the southeast pond to Loeb Lake to retain floatable debris.

B. (Loeb/Willow) Stormwater Treatment Practices

Install stormwater treatment practices in the Loeb Lake South subwatershed as opportunities arise.

C. (Loeb/Willow) Willow Reserve Restoration

Implement the restoration plan recommended by the stakeholder group.


417 – Crosby Lake Subwatershed BMPs

Description and Purpose of Activity Stormwater BMPs will be analyzed and evaluated in the Crosby Lake Management Plan. Feasible projects identified in the plan will be implemented as part of this initiative.


Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives

A. Crosby Lake Management Plan Implementation ‐ ‐ ‐ $38 $39 $40 $116

Total for 417‐ Crosby Lake Subwatershed BMPs

‐ ‐ ‐ $38 $39 $40 $116


Objectives Specific recommendations from Crosby Lake Management Plan (to be developed under 317 A) will be implemented. These activities directly address District urban stormwater management goals to reduce pollutant loading to the District’s water resources and to use volume reduction techniques to manage stormwater. Project Initiatives None. Explanation of Planned Initiatives A. Crosby Lake Management Plan Implementation

Feasible restoration projects identified in the Crosby Lake Management Plan (317 A) will be implemented as part of this initiative.


420 – Trout Brook Subwatershed BMPs

Description and Purpose of Activity In 2003, the District completed the first 10‐Year CIP for the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor system. In that plan, major repairs were identified in the vicinity of the intersection of the Maryland Avenue and the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor as well as a segment of Trout Brook adjacent to Willow Reserve. These major repairs were completed between 2006 and 2009. The second generation 10‐year CIP was completed in the spring 2009 which identified future needed repairs for the TBI. The Trout Brook Interceptor CIP is included as Appendix G of the plan.


Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives

A. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 0+00 – 19+93 $81 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $81

B. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 23+15 – 28+49 $22 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $22

C. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 28+49 – 32+33 $16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $16

D. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 32+33 – 33+34 $4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $4

E. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 33+62 – 59+45 ‐ $105 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $105

F. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 112+76 – 136+16 ‐ $95 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $95

G. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 136+16 – 168+73 $132 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $132

H. (TBI) Repair Invert Sta. 185+82 – 186+94 $40 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $40 I. (TBI) Repair Work (West Tunnel) Sta. 0+00 –

17+62 $70 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $70

J. (TBI) Future Tunnel Repairs ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

K. (TBI) General Tunnel Maintenance ‐ ‐ $150 ‐ ‐ $150 $300

L. TBI Subwatershed Study Implementation ‐ ‐ ‐ $75 $77 $80 $232 Total for 420‐ Trout Brook Subwatershed BMPs

$365 $200 $150 $75 $77 $230 $1,097


Objectives Complete necessary major repairs to ensure the Trout Brook Storm Sewer will function in good operating condition. Project Initiatives None. Explanation of Planned Initiatives

A. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 0+00 – 19+93

Complete Repair Work Sta. 0+00 to 19+93.


B. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 23+15 – 28+49

Repair and Replacement Work Sta. 23+15 to 28+49.

C. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 28+49 – 32+33

Complete Repair Work Sta. 28+49 – 32+33. D. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 32+33 – 33+34

Complete Repair Work Sta. 32+33 – 33+34. E. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 33+62 – 59+45

Complete Repair Work Sta. 33+62 – 59+45.

F. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 112+76 – 136+16


G. (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 136+16 – 168+73


H. (TBI) Repair Invert Sta. 185+82 – 186+94

Repair Invert Sta. 185+82 – 186+94.

I. (TBI) Repair Work (West Tunnel) Sta. 0+00 – 17+62

Complete Repair Work (West Tunnel) Sta 0+00 – 17+62.

J. (TBI) Future Tunnel Repairs

Complete repair work throughout tunnel based on inspection in 2012. K. (TBI) General Tunnel Maintenance

Complete minor tunnel maintenance work. L. TBI Subwatershed Study Implementation

Projects identified in TBI Subwatershed Studies (320 L) will be implemented.


425 – Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration - Implementation

Description and Purpose of Activity Nearly all of the pre‐settlement wetlands of the District have been lost to development and other ecosystems are degraded. Wetlands, oak‐maple‐basswood forests, dry sandstone cliffs, and other native ecosystems offer significant water quality, habitats and aesthetic benefits. Some of these benefits can be recovered through ecological restoration projects. The District Wetland Management Plan evaluates the wetland resources of the District, describes the approach to protecting the functions and diversity of the District’s wetlands, and creates the framework to improve these resources.

Projected Expenditures

10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20 Ten Year Total

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 Ecosystem Restoration – Implementation

$31 $32 $33 $697 $714 $3,477 $4,983


Objectives Identified initiatives to implement wetland, stream and ecosystem restoration projects, will help ensure the protection of wetlands and ecosystems, and encourage the enhancement of wetlands and ecosystems. A consistent message heard throughout the District’s issues identification process was the need for ecological restoration within the watershed. These initiatives will directly address this need.

Project Initiatives None.



A. Green Corridor Restoration: Implementation

Based on the corridor restoration strategies identified and recommended in the through initiative 325A, projects for native plant, wildlife, and wildlife corridor restoration will be implemented during years 4 through 10 of the plan. Projects in this initiative will be coordinated 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 feasible restoration projects identified in 325C ‐ Stream Corridor Restoration Feasibility Studies. The District 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 as community vision expressed through public participation in the process. Availability of funding and the timing of redevelopment are key variables expected to affect the timing and priorities of what corridors are pursued first. The Stream Corridor Restoration Plan in Appendix H describes the stream corridor identification process, the sites selected for feasibility 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 restoration in Swede Hallow Park. Once constructed, the District would expect these reestablished water resources to achieve all applicable water quality standards.

C. Wetland Improvement

Conduct wetland improvements as identified in the Wetland Management Plan which is included as Appendix F. Improvements will include vegetation and hydrologic improvements that will be conducted through a program that engages residents of the District. Specific information on wetland improvement opportunities and priorities can be found in the bulleted text on page F‐14 of Appendix F.

D. Wetland Reestablishment: Implementation

Implementing feasible reestablishment projects identified in Wetland and Ecosystem Restoration ‐Planning (325 C), including key potential redevelopment sites such as the Ford Plant, will be implemented in years 4‐10 of the plan. Wetland Banking and projects identified in subwatershed analysis will be included for implementation. Refer to Table 1 on page F‐20 of 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 of railroad lands will be implemented in this initiative.


430 – Mississippi River Subwatersheds BMPs

Description and Purpose of Activity In areas outside of the McCarrons, Como, Loeb, Crosby, and Trout Brook subwatersheds, projects are being planned and constructed by the District. This program will construct these projects to improve water quality. The most significant project over the 10‐year life of this Plan will be the Central Corridor redevelopment project


Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives

A. Subwatershed Contamination Mitigation: Implementation

‐ ‐ ‐ $75 $77 $80 $232

B. CCLRT BMP Implementation $100 $200 $100 $100 $100 $600

Total for 430‐Mississippi River Subwatersheds BMPs

$100 $200 $100 $175 $177 $80 $832


Objectives Objectives of this initiative are to complete planned projects for areas outside of the McCarrons, Como, Loeb, Crosby, and Trout Brook subwatersheds, that use cost effective stormwater BMPs for water quality improvements. Through these projects the District will develop and maintain positive working relationships with District partners. These initiatives directly address District urban stormwater management goals to reduce pollutant loading to the District water resources and to use volume reduction techniques to manage stormwater.

Project Initiatives None. Explanation of Planned Initiatives A. Subwatershed Contamination Mitigation: Implementation

Implement measures to mitigate the contamination present in subwatersheds of the District, per the investigation conducted as part of 330 E.

B. Central Corridor Light Rail Transit: Implementation

Implement 15 ‐ 20 green infrastructure practices in the CCLRT area to reduce stormwater runoff, improve water quality in the Mississippi River and enhance landscaping and aesthetics of the corridor. These projects will also raise public awareness of stormwater and its management.


435 – Stormwater Impact Fund Implementation

Description and Purpose of Activity Rules were adopted by the District in September of 2006. The alternative compliance section of Rule C provides for a payment to the Stormwater Impact Fund when onsite compliance with the volume reduction criteria cannot be achieved. The funds collected will be used to construct volume reduction BMPs of the equivalent magnitude of what could not be achieved on the permitted project. The funds will be spent according to the Stormwater Impact Fund Implementation Plan adopted by the District which can be found in Appendix I.


Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives

A. Volume Reduction BMP Implementation ‐ ‐ ‐ $53 $54 $56 $162

Total for 435‐Stormwater Impact Fund Implementation

‐ ‐ ‐ $53 $54 $56 $162

Dollar amounts are expressed in thousands of dollars

Objectives Stormwater Management Rule C of District Rules requires permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) to achieve volume reduction in the amount equivalent to one inch of rainfall over the new impervious surfaces of the development. The alternative compliance section of Rule C, section 3(c)(2), part (iii) allows for payment to the Stormwater Impact Fund when on‐site practices, off‐site treatment, or banked volume reduction credits can not be used to achieve compliance. Money contributed to the Fund will be used to provide equivalent volume reduction elsewhere in the District per the District Stormwater Impact Fund Implementation Plan. See Appendix I. Project Initiatives None. Explanation of Planned Initiatives A. Volume Reduction BMP Implementation

The funds collected through the Stormwater Impact Fund will be used to construct volume reduction BMPs of the equivalent magnitude to what could not be achieved on permitted project sites per the District Stormwater Impact Fund Implementation Plan as amended. See Appendix I.


440 – Special Projects and Grants

Description and Purpose of Activity Periodically, projects initiated by other entities present a great opportunity for the District to improve water quality while partnering with local agencies. These projects can difficult to anticipate so an accessible funding source is needed so the District can take advantage of these opportunities. This program provides stable and available funding for projects initiated by the District and other agencies. Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total

A. Project Initiatives $258 $265 $273 $281 $290 $1,585 $2,952

Planned Initiatives

B. Stormwater Reuse Demonstration $27 $28 $29 ‐ ‐ ‐ $85

Total For 440‐ Special Projects and Grants $285 $293 $302 $281 $290 $1,585 $3,037


Objectives The objectives of this program are to assist in funding capital improvement projects of District partners. The intended outcome is cost effective water quality improvements and the development of positive working relationships with District partners. Goals for establishing partnerships are stated throughout the Issues, Goals and Policies of the District. Projects and grants are also intended to improve ecosystem health through the restoration of natural areas, an important issue identified during the issue identification process.

Project Initiatives A. The Special Projects and Grants Program has been active since 2008. In fact, the District

has made and will continue to make significant ongoing efforts for implementing the program and related guidance, leveraging funding, encouraging partnerships and implementing BMPs with partners. A complete list of project initiatives is identified below.

• Implement Special Grant program, protocols, and guidance • Award grants for WQ, leveraged funding, partnerships • Work with partners to implement water quality practices


The goal of the Special Grants program is to accomplish one or more of the following in partnership with governmental units and other entities:

• Improve water quality by decreasing stormwater runoff and increasing pollutant removal

• Preserve and protect plant and wildlife communities adjacent to lakes, rivers and wetlands

• Establish links between people and water resources through education • Provide demonstration projects for innovative management practices

The Special Grants are primarily intended for public projects. Private projects will be evaluated based on public benefit. Only water resource improvement elements of the project are eligible for funding. Projects must be located within the Capitol Region Watershed District. Projects completed or in progress prior to application are not eligible for funding. CRWD may offer to fund all, or a portion of, the requested amount. The following entities are eligible for CRWD Special Grants:

• Government agencies serving the CRWD • Public and private schools located within the CRWD • Nonprofit, faith‐based or religious organizations serving the CRWD

Special Grants Project applications will be evaluated against the following 3 major criteria: 1. Water Resource Management effectiveness and efficiency 2. Education and Demonstration Potential 3. Innovative Solution

Explanation of Planned Initiatives B. Stormwater Reuse Demonstration

Plan and implement a demonstration site utilizing a stormwater capture and reuse system.


450 – Innovation and Future Trends

Description and Purpose of Activity As new technologies emerge in water resources management, science, and engineering and the fields continue to evolve, the District is responsible for staying aware of scientific trends and interpreting them for practical application. The District is uniquely positioned to ensure that new knowledge is properly applied within its boundaries. This is necessary in order for the District to maintain its leadership role with regard to technical understanding of how key water resources concerns are manifested in this ultra‐urban setting.


Ten Year Total

Planned Initiatives

A. CRWD Green Office Building/Campus ‐ ‐ ‐ $949 $978 $1,058 $2,985

Total for 450‐ Innovation and Future Trends ‐ ‐ ‐ $949 $978 $1,058 $2,985


Objectives Looking forward to the next 10 years, emerging issues the District will need to address are climate change, innovations in green design, and consideration of additional pollutants beyond those that have typically been the focus of water resources management initiatives. The District’s Issues identification process identifies one issue statement pertaining to future trends: future watershed management strategies need to be responsive to emerging issues resulting from climate change, and technological advances. This program is intended to address, in part, the associated goals and policies. Given that innovations and future trends are relatively new or unfamiliar issues, only one initiative is identified to date. Project Initiatives None. Explanation of Planned Initiatives A. CRWD Green Office Building/Campus

Renovate a building to serve as the District’s office incorporating as many innovative stormwater practices and sustainable building features as practical to demonstrate leadership in using new techniques. This building/campus will create a learning environment for the public and will be an accessible demonstration site. Monitoring and maintenance data from the BMPs used on‐site will supplement the growing District research database used to inform future work.


490 – Debt Service

Description and Purpose of Activity Debt, levy limits and other restrictions established under Minnesota State Statutes 103B and 103D, give the District the opportunity and the responsibility to establish realistic and affordable Capital Improvement levies for debt service from possible future bonds and loans. The financing approach for capital improvement projects is planned to be 25% through the annual levy and 75% through grants, loans, and bond proceeds. Small capital improvement projects (less than $250,000) will be financed through the annual levy. Larger projects will have the costs spread to the long‐term benefitting parties through financing via bonds and loans. Projected Expenditures 10 Year Plan: annual schedule breakdown 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016‐20

Ten Year Total


Planned Initiatives

B. Planned Debt Service ‐ $37 $37 $168 $168 $1,961 $2,371

Total for 490‐ Debt Service $125 $162 $162 $293 $293 $2,585 $3,619


Objectives The objectives of the debt service initiative are to: • Assist in the funding of capital improvement projects by other agencies • Improve water quality through capital improvement projects and housekeeping BMP • Use cost effective stormwater BMP’s for water quality improvements • Develop and maintain positive working relationships with our partners Project Initiatives A. Annually meet the full requirements of the Districts past debt service.


B. Planned Debt Service Annually meet the full requirements of the Districts future debt service. The costs listed here are for finance issuance and interest only.

(VALUES ROUNDED TO NEAREST 1000, SUMMATION VALUES MAY BE SLIGHTLY OFF DUE TO ROUNDING.)

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 10-Year Total

#1 #2 #3 #4

$14,215,000 $2,461,000 $4,526,000 $4,128,000 $4,136,000 $5,421,000 $5,582,000 $5,786,000 $4,519,000 $4,642,000 $4,519,000 $4,586,000 $47,846,000

$5,000 $401,000 $392,000 $404,000 $416,000 $428,000 $441,000 $454,000 $494,000 $509,000 $524,000 $540,000 $4,602,000

101 Administration $5,000 $401,000 $392,000 $404,000 $416,000 $428,000 $441,000 $454,000 $494,000 $509,000 $524,000 $540,000 $4,602,000A [Administrative Initiatives] $376,000 $387,000 $398,000 $410,000 $423,000 $435,000 $448,000 $462,000 $476,000 $490,000 $505,000 $4,434,000

Budget and Levy xAnnual AuditDebt Service RequirementsCitizen Advisory CommitteeAnnual Report xEvaluate Staff RolesLease

B Clean Water Legacy and Other Funding Opportunities 12 x x 100% $5,000 $20,000 - - - - - - $26,000 $27,000 $28,000 $29,000 $109,000C Program Effectiveness Audit 13 x x 100% - $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $30,000D Annually complete BWSR's PRAP and achieve the high performance standards 14 x 100% - $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $30,000

$1,100,000 $1,128,000 $1,246,000 $1,286,000 $1,313,000 $1,395,000 $1,439,000 $1,479,000 $1,435,000 $1,478,000 $1,525,000 $1,567,000 $14,163,000

201 Groundwater Protection - $69,000 $45,000 $47,000 $48,000 $78,000 $80,000 $83,000 $85,000 $88,000 $90,000 $93,000 $737,000A [Program Initiatives] $19,000 $20,000 $20,000 $21,000 $22,000 $22,000 $23,000 $24,000 $24,000 $25,000 $26,000 $226,000

Well Sealing Cost Share xCleveland/Randolph GW Study x x x

B Groundwater Studies 7 6 x x 50% - $25,000 - - - $28,000 $29,000 $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $216,000C Ramsey County Groundwater Plan Initiatives 7 6 x x 100% - $25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $27,000 $28,000 $29,000 $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $295,000

207 Rulemaking/Rule Revisions $60,000 $12,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $15,000 $15,000 $16,000 $16,000 $206,000A [Program Initiatives] $12,000 $12,000 $13,000 $13,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $15,000 $15,000 $16,000 $16,000 $142,000

Evaluate Rules x x x xAnnual TAC Meeting Re: Rules x x x x

B Rule Comparison/Review with Other WMOs 16 15 x x 100% $45,000 - $15,000 $16,000 $16,000 - - - - - - - $48,000C Evaluate Green Regulatory Framework 9 15 x x 100% $15,000 - $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 - - - - - - - $16,000

208 Permitting $27,000 $138,000 $151,000 $156,000 $160,000 $155,000 $160,000 $164,000 $169,000 $174,000 $180,000 $185,000 $1,655,000A [Program Initiatives] $128,000 $132,000 $135,000 $140,000 $144,000 $148,000 $152,000 $157,000 $162,000 $167,000 $172,000 $1,508,000

Implement Permitting ProgramEvaluate dollar amounts for fees, etc. xElectronic permit/fee tracking system xAssess compliance rates xInspection process for BMP function and surety funds xCorrelate monitoring data to permitted BMPs, activities xPresent at water resources conferencesMonitor effectiveness of filtration BMPs x x

B Web Based Permit Tracking Tool 16 3 9 x 100% $15,000 $5,000 $10,000 $11,000 $11,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $75,000C Provide Technical Assistance to Industrial Permittees within the District 4 x x 100% $12,000 $5,000 $9,000 $10,000 $10,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $72,000

210 Stewardship Grants $5,000 $108,000 $113,000 $116,000 $119,000 $121,000 $125,000 $129,000 $133,000 $137,000 $141,000 $145,000 $1,278,000A [Program Initiatives] $102,000 $105,000 $108,000 $111,000 $115,000 $118,000 $122,000 $125,000 $129,000 $133,000 $137,000 $1,203,000

Stewardship/Partner Grants community outreach x xStewardship/Partner Grants project inspection xPre-application site visits xPartnership with Ramsey Conservation District x

B Actively Promote Grants Projects as Demonstration Sites 10 1 x x 100% - $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $58,000C Evaluate Grant Distribution and Target Areas 10 1 x x 100% $5,000 $1,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $17,000

211 Monitoring and Data Assessment $76,000 $300,000 $300,000 $308,000 $309,000 $360,000 $370,000 $381,000 $368,000 $379,000 $390,000 $401,000 $3,566,000A [Program Initiatives] $276,000 $284,000 $292,000 $301,000 $310,000 $319,000 $329,000 $339,000 $349,000 $360,000 $370,000 $3,254,000

Water quality monitoring stations xVilla Park monitoring xAnnual Water Monitoring ReportPlan based on annual Water Monitoring ReportLong term storage of monitoring data xCoordinated illicit discharge program x x xLake monitoring xAssist St. Paul with NPDES monitoring xWetland biological integrity monitoringLoeb Lake/Willow Reserve monitoring x xMonitoring QA plan x xNon-CRWD BMP Inventory x x x x x x x x

B 10-Year District-Wide Monitoring Plan 13 7 x x x 100% $16,000 $8,000 $16,000 $16,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $96,000C Source Assessment Monitoring 4 7 x x x 100% $30,000 $10,000 - - - $23,000 $23,000 $24,000 $12,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $121,000D Analysis, Reporting and Dissemination of Monitoring Data 8 2 x x x 100% $20,000 $5,000 - - - $13,000 $14,000 $14,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $66,000E Online Monitoring Data 8 100% $10,000 $2,000 - - - $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $2,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $29,000

220 Education and Outreach $125,000 $171,000 $216,000 $223,000 $229,000 $194,000 $200,000 $206,000 $210,000 $217,000 $223,000 $230,000 $2,149,000A (Program Initiatives 1 x x 100% - $20,000 $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 $23,000 $23,000 $24,000 $25,000 $25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $236,000B (Education Plan) Stormwater Education: Homeowners 1 x x 100% - $60,000 $62,000 $64,000 $66,000 $68,000 $70,000 $72,000 $74,000 $76,000 $78,000 $81,000 $708,000C (Education Plan) Stormwater Education: Municipal Staff 1 x x 100% - $20,000 $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 $23,000 $23,000 $24,000 $25,000 $25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $236,000D (Education Plan) Stormwater Education: Contractors 1 x x 100% - $20,000 $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 $23,000 $23,000 $24,000 $25,000 $25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $236,000

Implementation InitiativesCOSTS

Sch

ool D

istri

ct

Ram

sey

Cty

/RC

D

Uni

vers

ity/C

olle

ge

Age

ncie

s

CRWD Cost Share

Theme Key for Implementation Section :

Bringing Water Back to St. Paul

Partnership & Community Connections

Innovation & Emerging

Adaptive Management

New Information Technology

Annual Cost

PROGRAMS

ADMINISTRATION

TOTAL COSTS

One-Time/ Periodic

Cost

Issues Partners

Non

-Pro

fit/C

omm

unity

Gro

ups

Bus

ines

s/La

ndow

ners

Citi

es

WD

/ W

MO



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 10-Year Total

#1 #2 #3 #4


Sch

ool D

istri

ct

Ram

sey

Cty

/RC

D

Uni

vers

ity/C

olle

ge

Age

ncie

s

CRWD Cost Share





Adaptive Management


Annual CostOne-Time/ Periodic

Cost

Issues Partners

Non

-Pro

fit/C

omm

unity

Gro

ups

Bus

ines

s/La

ndow

ners

Citi

es

WD

/ W

MO

E (Education Plan) Knowledge and Behavior Change Measurement 1 x x 100% $45,000 - $15,000 $16,000 $16,000 - - - - - - - $48,000F Water Awareness via District Infrastructure 1 x x 100% $10,000 $5,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $70,000G Public Awareness and Participation 1 x x x x x x x 100% $25,000 $25,000 $34,000 $35,000 $36,000 $28,000 $29,000 $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $322,000H Collaboration for Diverse Group Outreach 1 x x x x 100% - $20,000 $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 $23,000 $23,000 $24,000 $25,000 $25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $236,000I District BMP Walking Tour Guides 1 x 100% $5,000 $1,000 - - 0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $14,000J "Bring Water Back to St. Paul" Campaign 20 1 4 x x x x x x 100% $40,000 $20,000 $34,000 $35,000 $36,000 $23,000 $23,000 $24,000 $25,000 $25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $279,000

225 Technical Resources and Information Sharing $265,000 $127,000 $167,000 $172,000 $177,000 $141,000 $145,000 $150,000 $156,000 $161,000 $166,000 $171,000 $1,605,000A Interactive Storm Sewer/Pollutant Map 8 1 20 x x 100% $25,000 $5,000 - - - $15,000 $15,000 $16,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $72,000B Information Dissemination: Multiple Audiences/Languages 8 2 x 100% $10,000 $2,000 $5,000 $6,000 $6,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $34,000C Watershed Information Clearinghouse 8 x x x x 100% $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $59,000D Annual CIP Review, Planning and Coordination with Partners 11 x x x x 100% - $15,000 - - - - - - $18,000 $19,000 $20,000 $20,000 $77,000E Review of District Partner Planning Documents (Non-CIP) 11 x x x x x 100% - $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $59,000F Unregulated Property Stormwater Management Planning 4 11 100% - $5,000 - - - - - - $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $26,000G Alternative (Non-Infiltration) Volume Reduction BMP Guidance 15 9 x x x 100% $20,000 - $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 - - - - - - - $21,000H BMP Performance Database 13 x x 100% $30,000 $5,000 - - - $17,000 $17,000 $18,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $78,000I Watershed Approach: MS4 & TMDL Compliance 16 11 4 x x x x 100% $150,000 $50,000 $103,000 $106,000 $109,000 $56,000 $58,000 $60,000 $61,000 $63,000 $65,000 $67,000 $750,000J Strategic Project Preparation 12 100% - $20,000 $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 $23,000 $23,000 $24,000 $25,000 $25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $236,000K Joint BMP Inspection and Maintenance Program 3 16 x x x 100% $30,000 $10,000 $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 $11,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $150,000L Inspection Support for Partners 16 3 x 100% - $5,000 - - - $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $43,000

228 Future Trends: Research and Positioning $440,000 $115,000 $113,000 $117,000 $120,000 $225,000 $232,000 $239,000 $184,000 $190,000 $196,000 $202,000 $1,818,000A Climate Change Impacts: Research and Analysis 9 5 x x x 100% $25,000 $10,000 - - - $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 $12,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $115,000B Climate Change Impacts: Action 9 5 x x x 100% $10,000 $5,000 - - - - - - $9,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $39,000C Research on Innovative BMPs 9 x x x 100% - $65,000 $67,000 $69,000 $71,000 $73,000 $75,000 $78,000 $80,000 $82,000 $85,000 $87,000 $768,000D Design for Water Resources Awareness 1 20 x x 100% - $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000 $36,000 $37,000 $38,000 $39,000 $40,000 $354,000E National Speakers on Key Topics 11 9 x x x x 100% - $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $59,000F Goals for Emerging Issues: Contaminants 4 x x x 100% $30,000 - $10,000 $11,000 $11,000 - - - - - - - $32,000G Analysis of Emerging Issues: Contaminants 4 x x x 100% $80,000 - - - - $30,000 $31,000 $31,841 - - - - $93,000H Project to Address Emerging Issues: Contaminants 4 x x x 100% $120,000 - - - - - - - $37,000 $38,000 $39,000 $40,000 $154,000I Assessment of water quality and ecology of Springs 20 7 x 100% $10,000 - - - - - - - $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $13,000J Evapotranspiration Rates Investigation 9 x x x 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - -K Green Infrastructure Barriers Assessment 17 x x x 100% $15,000 - - - - $5,628 $5,796 $5,970 0 0 0 0 $17,000L Strategy for Existing Site Stormwater Standards 4 5 6 15 x x x x 100% $150,000 - - - - $56,000 $58,000 $59,703 - - - - $174,000

230 GIS $93,000 $71,000 $90,000 $93,000 $96,000 $87,000 $90,000 $93,000 $94,000 $96,000 $99,000 $102,000 $941,000A [Program Initiatives] $59,000 $60,000 $62,000 $64,000 $66,000 $68,000 $70,000 $72,000 $74,000 $76,000 $79,000 $692,000B GIS Program Development 14 x 100% $3,000 $2,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $21,000C Permitted Discharge Assessment 7 4 x 100% $20,000 $1,000 - - - $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $32,000D Stormwater BMP Inventory & Multi-Jurisdictional Database 13 x x x 100% $50,000 $10,000 $27,000 $28,000 $29,000 $11,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $171,000E District Boundary Correction 16 x x 100% $20,000 - - - - - - - $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $26,000

240 Safety Program $9,000 $17,000 $17,000 $21,000 $18,000 $19,000 $23,000 $20,000 $21,000 $21,000 $25,000 $23,000 $209,000A [Program Initiatives] $17,000 $17,000 $18,000 $18,000 $19,000 $20,000 $20,000 $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 $23,000 $200,000

Proper equipmentEquipment repair and maintenanceStaff CSE and other safety training

B Regular Safety Audits 14 100% $9,000 - $3,000 - $3,000 - - - $3,000 - $9,000

$2,003,000 $388,000 $826,000 $875,000 $764,000 $615,000 $643,000 $649,000 $671,000 $677,000 $605,000 $622,000 $6,948,000

301 Shoreline and Streambank Assessment and Maintenance $125,000 $12,000 $38,000 $40,000 $41,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000 $15,000 $16,000 $16,000 $17,000 $283,000A [Project Initiatives] - $12,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $14,000 $14,000 $15,000 $15,000 $16,000 $16,000 $17,000 $146,000

Lake McCarrons Shoreline Restoration Project x x xSponsor Natural Resources Intern with City of St. Paul for Como Lake Projects x

B Mississippi River Streambank and Bluff Erosion Inventory 17 18 x x x x 100% $50,000 - - - - $19,000 $19,000 $20,000 - - - - $58,000C Loeb and Crosby Lakes Shoreline Restoration - Planning 4 x x x 100% $75,000 $26,000 $27,000 $27,000 - - - - - - - $80,000

305 Como Lake Subwatershed $245,000 $96,000 $120,000 $123,000 $127,000 $138,000 $142,000 $147,000 $150,000 $155,000 $160,000 $164,000 $1,426,000A [Project Initiatives] $96,000 $99,000 $102,000 $105,000 $108,000 $111,000 $115,000 $118,000 $122,000 $125,000 $129,000 $1,134,000

Arlington Pascal project xStreet maintenance xTrash net demonstration project xSt. Paul natural resources intern x

B Internal Loading Study and Management 4 17 x x 100% $25,000 - - - - - - - $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $32,000C Fish Population Monitoring 17 2 4 x 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - -D Invasive and Exotic Biota Monitoring and Management 17 4 x x 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - -E Como 2 Feasibility Study 4 11 x x 100% $60,000 - $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 - - - - - - - $64,000F Como 4 Feasibility Study 4 11 x x 100% $60,000 - - - - $23,000 $23,000 $24,000 - - - - $70,000G Como 5 Feasibility Study 4 11 x x 100% $40,000 - - - - - - - $12,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $51,000H Como 6 Feasibility Study 4 11 x x 100% $40,000 - - - - - - - $12,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $51,000I Como Lake Implementation Reporting & Audit 13 x 100% $20,000 - - - - $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 - - - - $23,000

313 Lake McCarrons Subwatershed - $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000 $36,000 $37,000 $39,000 $40,000 $41,000 $42,000 $370,000A [Project Initiatives] $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000 $36,000 $37,000 $39,000 $40,000 $41,000 $42,000 $370,000

Villa Park weir monitoring xVilla Park implementation Phase 1 x

tes in Imp NaLake McCarrons Alum Treatment Project xShoreline restorationMcCarrons Subwatershed AnalysisVilla Park Subwatershed Management Plan

B Fish Population Monitoring 17 2 4 x 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PROJECTS



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 10-Year Total

#1 #2 #3 #4


Sch

ool D

istri

ct

Ram

sey

Cty

/RC

D

Uni

vers

ity/C

olle

ge

Age

ncie

s

CRWD Cost Share





Adaptive Management



Cost

Issues Partners

Non

-Pro

fit/C

omm

unity

Gro

ups

Bus

ines

s/La

ndow

ners

Citi

es

WD

/ W

MO

C Exotic and Nuisance Species Prevention Program 17 4 x x 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - -

315 Loeb Lake Subwatershed $60,000 - $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 - - - - - - - $64,000A (Loeb/Willow) Southeast Pond Investigation 4 x 100% $25,000 - $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 - - - - - - - $27,000B (Loeb/Willow) Good Housekeeping Assessment 4 x 100% $15,000 - $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 - - - - - - - $16,000C (Loeb/Willow) Invasive Species Monitoring 4 17 x 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - -D (Loeb/Willow) Aquatic Plant Management Coordination 4 17 x 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - -E (Loeb/Willow) Fish Stocking Plan with DNR 4 17 x 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - -F (Loeb/Willow) Planning with Stakeholder Group 17 19 20 11 x x x 100% $20,000 - $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 - - - - - - - $21,000

317 Crosby Lake Subwatershed $50,000 - $50,000 - $50,000 - - - - $50,000 - - $150,000A Crosby Lake Management Plan 4 17 x x x x 100% $50,000 - $50,000 - - - - - - - - - $50,000B Crosby Lake Studies - - $50,000 - - - - $50,000 - - $100,000

320 Trout Brook Subwatershed $350,000 $128,000 $206,000 $292,000 $218,000 $156,000 $160,000 $165,000 $238,000 $144,000 $149,000 $153,000 $1,881,000A [Project Initiatives] $106,000 $110,000 $113,000 $116,000 $120,000 $123,000 $127,000 $131,000 $135,000 $139,000 $143,000 $1,257,000

Inspection of systemTunnel repairsMS4 compliance and BMP implementation x x x xPlan based on 2008 Water Monitoring ReportIllicit discharge detection/monitoring x x xCenter/Rice Street subwatershed analysis x xUpper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL xUse TBI as educational/WQ tool to increase stormwater awareness x x

B Upgrade/Calibration of TBI Model 5 x 100% $100,000 - $34,000 $35,000 $36,000 - - - - - - - $106,000C MS4 Compliance and Annual Review of MS4 Requirements 16 11 x x x 100% - $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $12,000D Restoration and Daylighting Assessment 20 1 x 100% $40,000 - - - - $15,007 $15,457 $15,921 0 0 0 0 $46,000E (TBI) Easement Verification 5 11 x x 100% - - - - - - - - - - - - -F (TBI) Regular Inspection 5 100% - $19,190 $4,000 $85,000 $4,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $103,000 $5,000 $5,000 $6,000 $227,000G (TBI) Television Inspection 5 100% - - - - - - - - - - - - -H Web System for Receiving/Addressing Illicit Discharge Reports 4 7 x 100% $5,000 $1,000 - - - - - - $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $12,000I Determine Long-Term Single Ownership of TBI 11 16 x 100% $15,000 - - - - $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 - - - - $17,000J Feasibility Study For Reducing Stormsewer Connections x 100% $15,000 - $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 - - - - - - - $16,000K Maplewood Landlocked Area Feasibility Study 5 x 50% $25,000 - - - - $9,000 $10,000 $10,000 - - - - $29,000L TBI Subwatershed Studies 4 5 11 x x x 100% $150,000 $51,000 $53,000 $55,000 - - - - - - - $159,000

325 Wetland, Stream, and Ecosystem Restoration – Planning $685,000 - $129,000 $133,000 $137,000 $116,000 $120,000 $123,000 - - - - $757,000A Green Corridor Restoration Strategy 17 19 x x x x 100% $35,000 - - - - $13,000 $14,000 $14,000 - - - - $41,000B Wetland Reestablishment Feasibility Study 20 x x x x x 100% $150,000 - $51,000 $53,000 $55,000 - - - - - - - $159,000C Stream Corridor Restoration Feasibility Studies 17 20 1 x x x x x 100% $450,000 - $77,000 $80,000 $82,000 $84,000 $87,000 $90,000 - - - - $500,000D Study of Railroad Lands for Wetland Reestablishment: Infiltration, Soils 4 11 17 x 100% $50,000 - - - $19,000 $19,000 $20,000 - - - - $58,000

330 Mississippi River Subwatersheds $118,000 $113,000 $212,000 $214,000 $116,000 $128,000 $130,000 $133,000 $127,000 $129,000 $132,000 $134,000 $1,454,000A [Project Initiatives] $27,000 $27,000 $28,000 $29,000 $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000 $36,000 $313,000

Planning for Central Corridor, Ford Plant, etc. x x xCollaborate with U of M and State Fair x xProgress Building rain garden maintenance xParticipate on U of M Steering Committee xSheep Pasture basin observation x

B Large Scale Redevelopment Stormwater Management Planning 11 4 20 x x 100% - $50,000 $150,000 $150,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $700,000C Perform Stormwater Audits and Provide Recommendations 11 4 9 x 100% $20,000 $20,000 - - - $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $25,000 $25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $196,000D Complete Strategic Street Sweeping/Structure Cleaning 4 x x 100% - $15,000 - - - $17,000 $17,000 $18,000 $18,000 $19,000 $20,000 $20,000 $129,000E Subwatershed Contamination Mitigation: Study 4 x 100% $75,000 - $26,000 $27,000 $27,000 - - - - - - - $80,000F Subwatershed Planning Process Schedule 4 11 13 x x x 100% $20,000 - $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 - - - - - - - $21,000G Sarita Wetland Plan Implementation Monitoring 4 11 x 100% $3,000 $1,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $15,000

370 Watershed Management Planning $340,000 - - - - - $12,000 - $92,000 $133,000 $98,000 $101,000 $435,000A Third Generation Watershed Management Plan 13 14 x x x x x x x 100% $300,000 - - - - - - - $92,000 $95,000 $98,000 $101,000 $386,000B Strategic Planning 14 x x x x 100% $40,000 - - - - - $12,000 - - $38,000 - - $50,000

390 Special Projects and Grants $30,000 $8,000 $19,000 $19,000 $20,000 $9,000 $9,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $11,000 $11,000 $127,000A [Project Initiatives] x x x $8,000 $8,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $11,000 $11,000 $95,000

Staff and engineering support of special projects and grants x x xB Green Infrastructure Incentive Program 9 18 x x 100% $30,000 - $10,000 $11,000 $11,000 - - - - - - - $32,000

$11,108,000 $545,000 $2,062,000 $1,563,000 $1,643,000 $2,983,000 $3,058,000 $3,203,000 $1,919,000 $1,979,000 $1,865,000 $1,857,000 $22,133,000

401 Shoreline and Streambank Restoration $200,000 $20,000 $89,267 $91,945 $94,703 $22,510 $23,185 $23,881 $24,597 $25,335 $26,095 $26,878 $448,398A [Project Initiatives] - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lake McCarrons Shoreline Restoration Project x x xComo Lake Shoreline Restoration - with City of St. Paul x x

B Mississippi River Streambank and Bluff Restoration 4 17 x x x x 50% $100,000 $10,000 $45,000 $46,000 $47,000 $11,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $224,000C Loeb and Crosby Lakes Shoreline Restoration - Implementation 4 17 x x x x 50% $100,000 $10,000 $45,000 $46,000 $47,000 $11,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $224,000

405 Como Lake Subwatershed BMPs $2,665,000 $65,000 $503,000 $518,000 $533,000 $370,000 $381,000 $392,000 $188,000 $193,000 $199,000 $205,000 $3,481,000A (Como 3) Orchard Center Underground Infiltration 4 x x 50% $157,000 - $54,000 $56,000 $57,000 - - - - - - - $167,000B (Como 3) Horton and Van Slyke Rain Garden 4 x 50% $10,000 - $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 - - - - - - - $11,000C (Como 3) McMurray Field Re-Use Basin 4 x 50% $736,000 - $253,000 $260,000 $268,000 - - - - - - - $781,000D (Como 3) Lake Como Pavilion Pervious Parking 4 x 50% $116,000 - $40,000 $41,000 $42,000 - - - - - - - $123,000E (Como 3) Argyle and Van Slyke Rain Gardens 4 x 50% $43,000 - $15,000 $15,000 $16,000 - - - - - - - $46,000F (Como 3) High School Pervious Parking 4 x 50% $163,000 - $56,000 $58,000 $59,000 - - - - - - - $173,000G (Como 3) Bump-out Rain Gardens 4 x 50% $42,000 - $14,000 $15,000 $15,000 - - - - - - - $44,000

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 10-Year Total

#1 #2 #3 #4


Sch

ool D

istri

ct

Ram

sey

Cty

/RC

D

Uni

vers

ity/C

olle

ge

Age

ncie

s

CRWD Cost Share





Adaptive Management



Cost

Issues Partners

Non

-Pro

fit/C

omm

unity

Gro

ups

Bus

ines

s/La

ndow

ners

Citi

es

WD

/ W

MO

H (Como 3) Chatsworth/Como Underground Filtration 4 x 50% $197,000 - $68,000 $70,000 $72,000 - - - - - - - $209,000I Como 2 Implementation Plan 4 x 50% $375,000 $20,000 - - - $163,000 $168,000 $173,000 $25,000 $25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $607,000J Como 4 Implementation Plan 4 x 50% $475,000 $25,000 - - - $206,000 $213,000 $219,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $766,000K Como 5 Implementation Plan 4 x 50% $175,000 $10,000 - - - - - - $66,000 $68,000 $70,000 $72,000 $277,000L Como 6 Implementation Plan 4 x 50% $175,000 $10,000 - - - - - - $66,000 $68,000 $70,000 $72,000 $277,000

413 Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMPs $618,000 - $525,000 $26,000 $226,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $211,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $1,034,000A (McCarrons 4) MnDOT Pond Baffle Skimmer 4 x x 50% $1,000 - $200 $200 $200 - - - - - - - $1,000B (McCarrons 4) William Street Pond Retrofits 4 17 x x 50% $15,000 - $5,000 $5,000 $6,000 - - - - - - - $16,000C (McCarrons 4) Lakeshore Buffer Improvements 4 17 x x 50% $33,000 - $11,000 $11,000 $12,000 - - - - - - - $34,000D (McCarrons 4) Boulevard Hydrodynamic Separator 4 x 50% $24,000 - $8,000 $9,000 $9,000 - - - - - - - $26,000E (McCarrons 4) Boat Launch - Pervious Pavement 4 1 x x 50% $8,000 - - - - $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 - - - - $10,000F (McCarrons 4) Boulevard Infiltration Trenches 4 x 50% $37,000 - - - - - - - $11,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $48,000G Villa Park Performance Improvement Projects 4 x x 50% $500,000 - $500,000 - $200,000 - - - $200,000 - - - $900,000

415 Loeb Lake Subwatershed BMPs $40,000 $25,000 $39,000 $41,000 $42,000 $28,000 $29,000 $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $338,000A (Loeb/Willow) Skimmer Structure 4 x 100% $10,000 - $3,000 $4,000 $4,000 - - - - - - - $11,000B (Loeb/Willow) Stormwater Treatment Practices 4 x 100% $30,000 - $10,000 $11,000 $11,000 - - - - - - - $32,000C (Loeb/Willow) Willow Reserve Restoration 17 19 20 11 x x 50% $25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $27,000 $28,000 $29,000 $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $295,000

417 Crosby Lake Subwatershed BMPs $100,000 - - - - $38,000 $39,000 $40,000 - - - - $116,000A Crosby Lake Management Plan Implementation 4 17 x x x 100% $100,000 - - - $38,000 $39,000 $40,000 - - - - $116,000

420 Trout Brook Subwatershed BMPs $1,065,000 - $365,000 $200,000 $150,000 $75,000 $77,000 $80,000 - $150,000 - - $1,097,000A (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 0 - 19+93 5 100% $81,000 - $81,000 - - - - - - - - - $81,000B (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 23+15 - 28+49 5 100% $22,000 - $22,000 - - - - - - - - - $22,000C (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 28+49 - 32+33 5 100% $16,000 - $16,000 - - - - - - - - - $16,000D (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 32+33 - 33+34 5 100% $4,000 - $4,000 - - - - - - - - - $4,000E (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 33+62 - 59+45 5 100% $105,000 - - $105,000 - - - - - - - - $105,000F (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 112+76 - 136+16 5 100% $95,000 - - $95,000 - - - - - - - - $95,000G (TBI) Repair Work Sta. 136+16 - 168+73 5 100% $132,000 - $132,000 - - - - - - - - - $132,000H (TBI) Repair Invert Sta. 185+82 - 186+94 5 100% $40,000 - $40,000 - - - - - - - - - $40,000I (TBI) Repair Work (West Tunnel) Sta. 0+00 - 17+62 5 100% $70,000 - $70,000 - - - - - - - - - $70,000J (TBI) Future Tunnel Repairs 5 100% - - - - - - - - - - - - -K (TBI) General Tunnel Maintenance 5 100% $300,000 - - - $150,000 - - - - $150,000 - - $300,000L TBI Subwatershed Study Implementation 4 5 x x x 100% $200,000 - - - - $75,000 $77,000 $80,000 - - - - $232,000

425 Wetland, Stream, and Ecosystem Restoration – Implementation $3,500,000 $50,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $697,000 $714,000 $733,000 $684,000 $702,000 $720,000 $638,000 $4,983,000A Corridor Restoration: Implementation 17 19 x x x 100% - $20,000 - - - - - - $25,000 $25,000 $26,000 $27,000 $103,000B Stream Corridor Restoration - Implementation 20 x x x 100% $3,000,000 - - - - $563,000 $580,000 $597,000 $461,000 $475,000 $489,000 $504,000 $3,669,000C Wetland Improvement 20 17 x x x x 100% - $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000 $36,000 $37,000 $38,000 $39,000 $40,000 $354,000D Wetland Reestablishment: Implementation 20 17 x x x x 100% $300,000 - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 - $600,000E Implementation of Railroad Land Restoration Projects 4 11 17 x 100% $200,000 - - - - - - - $61,000 $63,000 $65,000 $67,000 $257,000

430 Mississippi River Subwatersheds BMPs $200,000 - $100,000 $200,000 $100,000 $175,000 $177,000 $80,000 - - - - $832,000A Subwatershed Contamination Mitigation: Implementation 4 x x 100% $200,000 - - - - $75,000 $77,000 $80,000 - - - - $232,000B CCLRT BMP Implementation $100,000 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 - - - - - $600,000

435 Stormwater Impact Fund Implementation $140,000 - - - - $53,000 $54,000 $56,000 - - - - $162,000A Volume Reduction BMP Implementation 4 17 x x x x 100% $140,000 - - - $53,000 $54,000 $56,000 - - - - $162,000

440 Special Projects and Grants $80,000 $250,000 $285,000 $294,000 $302,000 $281,000 $290,000 $299,000 $307,000 $317,000 $326,000 $336,000 $3,037,000A [Project Initiatives] - $250,000 $258,000 $265,000 $273,000 $281,000 $290,000 $299,000 $307,000 $317,000 $326,000 $336,000 $2,952,000

Implement Special Grant program, protocols, and guidanceAward grants for WQ, leveraged funding, partnerships x x x xWork with partners to implement water quality practices x x x x

B Stormwater Reuse Demonstration 9 x x x x 100% $80,000 - $27,000 $28,000 $29,000 - - - - - - - $85,000

450 Future Trends: Implementation $2,500,000 $10,000 - - - $949,000 $978,000 $1,007,000 $12,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $2,985,000A CRWD Green Office Building/Campus 13 9 1 x 100% $2,500,000 $10,000 - - - $949,000 $978,000 $1,007,000 $12,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 $2,985,000

490 Debt Service - $125,000 $125,000 $162,000 $162,000 $293,000 $293,000 $461,000 $461,000 $536,000 $536,000 $592,000 $3,619,000A [Project Initiatives] $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $1,248,000B Planned Debt Service 100% - $37,000 $37,000 $168,000 $168,000 $336,000 $336,000 $411,000 $411,000 $467,000 $2,371,000


Watershed District Administration


Watershed District Administration Developing and utilizing partnerships to fulfill the District mission has been identified as a guiding principle of this Watershed Management Plan. This approach requires involvement from the local government units within the District. Since the District began its rulemaking process in 2005, the District and its local government units have had open communication. Since Rule adoption, the District has held regular meetings to solicit input on various facets of its rules and permitting program. The activities that have been identified as having a financial contribution from a District partner are identified in the implementation table. The District has only included partner contribution for programs and projects which provide the partner with a direct means to meet their own stormwater management mission or benefits them in some other way. Each of the partners is committed to effective stormwater management and recognizes the efficiencies which come from working in collaboration with the District.

Existing Local Control The local government units in the District are affected by a wide array of stormwater management initiatives, programs and regulations coming from various Federal, State and regional entities. Each local government unit has adopted a stormwater ordinance. All of the local government units, with the exception of the City of St. Paul, have adopted the District Rules by reference. The District Rules require stormwater management permits for construction projects disturbing more than one acre of land. Most of the District is fully developed, making it necessary to utilize stormwater improvement technologies as part of redevelopment projects to reduce stormwater pollution to District lakes, wetlands, and the Mississippi River. In order to achieve the Districts goal of cleaner water resources, the Rules require volume reduction practices that capture one inch of rainfall over all newly constructed impervious surfaces. This is most often achieved by infiltration of runoff into the soil. The following is a general summary of the Districts Rules. The complete and most current Rules can be viewed on the District website and is also available at the District office. Permits are required for projects under the following rules and have the following requirements:

Rule C. Stormwater Management: Permit required for projects disturbing greater than one acre of land, or 10,000 square feet of land adjacent to a waterbody and repairs, replaces, or creates impervious surface.

Applicants are required to meet three stormwater management standards:

1. Rate control ‐ Runoff rates shall not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2‐year, 10‐year, and 100‐year critical storm events.

2. Volume reduction ‐ Stormwater runoff volume reduction shall be achieved onsite in the amount of one inch of runoff from impervious surfaces.


3. Water quality ‐ Stormwater BMPs shall remove 90% of total suspended solids from the runoff generated by a 2.5‐inch rainfall event (NURP water quality storm).

Rule D. Flood Control: Permit required if within the 100‐year floodplain of a waterbody. A floodplain is the area adjoining a watercourse or natural or man‐made waterbody, including the area around lakes, marshes and lowlands that is inundated during a 100‐year flood.

No placement of fill within the 100‐year floodplain is allowed unless compensatory storage is provided. Compensatory storage must be provided on the development or immediately adjacent to the development within the affected floodplain.

Rule E. Wetland Management: Permit required for any work that may fill, drain, excavate, or otherwise alter the character of a wetland. The District wetland rule adopts by reference the MN Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) with the following exceptions..

(1) The de minimis size will be zero. (2) Flexibility Sequencing will not be allowed. (3) Public Value Credits can not be used for replacement. (4) All other WCA non‐temporary impact exemptions to wetlands will not be allowed. (5) All wetland replacements shall be within the Districts boundaries.

The following steps are required for projects that will drain, fill or excavate wetlands:

1. Attempt to avoid direct and indirect impacts to wetlands; 2. Minimize impacts to wetlands by limiting the degree or magnitude of wetland activity; 3. Rectifying temporary impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland; 4. Reducing or eliminating impacts to wetlands over time by preserving the wetlands through

proper maintenance, management, and operation of the project to avoid further draining or filling of wetlands, and

5. Replace unavoidable wetland impacts by replacing with wetland areas of equal or greater public value.

Rule F. Erosion and Sediment Control: Permit required for any land disturbing activity over one acre, or greater than 1,000 square feet and adjacent to a waterbody or within the 100‐year floodplain.

Applicants are required to prepare an erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan that meets the following requirements:

1. ESC plans shall comply with the standards of the MN Pollution Control Agency's NPDES General Construction Permit except where more specific standards are required.

2. Natural site topography and soil conditions shall be used to control runoff and reduce erosion and sedimentation.

3. Construction activity shall be phased when possible. 4. All construction waste shall be properly managed and disposed. 5. All erosion and sedimentation controls shall be installed before commencing the land

disturbing activity. 6. The permittee shall be responsible for proper operation and maintenance of all controls.


Rule G. Illicit Discharge and Connection: Permit required for new direct connections or replacement of existing connections to the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor or other components of CRWD's municipal storm sewer system. CRWD must approve the methods for making a new direct connection or replacing an existing connection.

Peak flow rate and the total volume of flow must not cause new water conveyance problems or exacerbate existing water conveyance problems. Enlargement of existing connections is considered a new connection.

In addition to the Districts Rules, each of the local government units, as well as other entities, are all regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under the Clean Water Act and are required to be in compliance with the MS4 General Permit, issued by the State of Minnesota. The MS4 General Permit requires each regulated MS4 to develop a Storm Water Pollution Program that addresses each of six minimum control measures (MCMs) including:

MCM #1 Public education and outreach; MCM #2 Public participation and involvement; MCM #3 Illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE); MCM #4 Construction site runoff; MCM #5 Post‐construction runoff control; and MCM #6 Pollution prevention and good housekeeping.

Financial Impact on Local Government Potential costs to local government units associated with adoption of the District Plan include the development of a local water plan and cooperative roles in implementation programs and projects. Each of the Cities within the District will be required to update their local water plan within two years of adoption of this Plan which will be October 2012. The cost for developing the local water plan can range from $25,000 to $100,000 depending on the level of detail. As identified in the implementation tables, the District intends to seek financial participation from its partners on projects of mutual benefit. Specifically, the District has identified implementation of water quality improvement projects as an activity where it anticipates having financial cooperation from its partners. The District uses a subwatershed analysis approach to evaluate stormwater runoff issues and develop potential Capital Improvement Projects. This approach engages all affected entities and identifies opportunities that result in a more efficient and cost‐effective approach to BMP implementation. The fully developed nature of the District with little undeveloped land requires this type of coordinated approach, which positions the District and all of its partners to be able to strategically implement projects as opportunities arise. The District identified “Strategic Projects” as a primary goal in its 2008 Five Year Strategic Plan:

“CRWD projects will be strategically selected, designed and implemented to effectively improve water quality and efficiently use resources. Being strategic includes early involvement in the development of projects, seeking creative funding solutions, identifying and implementing innovative water quality practices, and working with partners in the watershed to promote the best use of everyone’s resources. CRWD will demonstrate fiscal responsibility to succeed in its projects.”

The implementation table identifies specific projects the District would consider implementing and


the source of funding. In some cases the District will fund the entire project and for others supplemental funding will be needed. The potential partners are also listed in the table. The Plan identifies approximately $3.8 million in outside funding, which could come from the partner entities listed or from other funding sources such as grants. The District intends to seek funding for these projects from the Cities and other local government units which will benefit from the project but will also pursue outside funding sources to offset the expense. Numerous Federal and State funding opportunities exist to implement water quality improvement projects.

Local Water Management Plans Each municipality within the District is required to complete a local water management plans (LWMPs) that conforms to Minnesota Statues 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410.0160. The policies and goals established by the LWMP must be consistent with the District's plan. The section of the LWMP covering assessment of problems must include those issue statements in the District plan that affect the community. The corrective action proposed by the cities must be consistent with the District plan. In accordance with Minnesota Statues 103B and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410.0160, cities within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) will adopt LWMPs within two years of the BWSR's approval of the last watershed management organization (WMO) plan that affects the city. All cities in the District are located within the MUSA boundary. Cities in the District must have their LWMPs approved by the District within 24 months after BWSR approves the District's plan. According to Minnesota Legislative Session 1995 Charter No. 176, LWMPs must also be submitted to the Metropolitan Council at the same time they are submitted to the District. Major amendments to the LWMP should also be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review. Once a plan is received, the District shall have 60 days to review the document and to approve or reject it (in whole or in part) based on its compliance with the District's management plan. If the District fails to complete its review within 60 days, and if the city has not agreed to an extension, the plan will be deemed approved. Cities are encouraged to solicit information for District input and review before they submit their plans for formal review. After the District approves a LWMP, the city shall adopt and implement the plan within 120 days and shall amend its official controls accordingly within 180 days. If a municipality later wishes to amend its plan, it must submit the proposed amendment to the District for review of consistency with the District's management plan. The District must approve or disapprove of the amendment (in whole or in part) within 60 days of its submittal. Interim approval may be granted by the District if the District agrees with the purpose of the amendment and if the amendment does not conflict with provisions of the District plan. The status of local water management plans in each community within the District is summarized below:


Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) Status Municipality LWMP Status

Falcon Heights Approved October 18, 2008 Lauderdale Approved July 9, 2008 Maplewood Approved September 2, 2009 Roseville Approved July 9, 2008 Saint Paul Approved September 14, 2006 These cities will be required to revise or prepare local water management plans that conform to the District Plan and in accordance with Minnesota Statues 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410. Following BWSR approval and District Board's final adoption, the District will notify each city of the requirement to revise or prepare LWMPs that conform to this plan. The District will send pertinent information to assist the cities, including drainage and water quality data and maps and a proposed timeline for each city to follow for LWMP review, approval and adoption. The District's minimum requirements coincide with the state requirements, and the District will work with the cities on their LWMPs accordingly. The District will discuss with each city the options that address its circumstances and will collaboratively determine the most practical approach to meeting the requirements of this plan and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410. The District will work closely with cities as needed in LWMP preparation, review and implementation. The District understands the need to be sensitive to consistency and coordination with adjacent WMOs in implementation of watershed standards and projects while maintaining the integrity of District goals. The District is especially interested in LWMP problems identified and corrective actions that affect District concerns stated in this plan or require District collaboration. Furthermore, the District will work with the cities regarding financial considerations, implementation priorities and programs for plan elements of mutual concern. The District’s requirements for local plan content coincide with or add on to the requirements of Minnesota laws and rules. The District set two levels of requirements for local plans: Level 1 – a shorter list of plan requirements for local units of government that do not wish to take over permitting authority from the District (i.e., District continues their permitting role). Level 2 – a longer list of plan requirements for local units of government that do wish to take over all permitting authority from the District. If a local unit of government wishes to take over permitting authority from the District, the local unit of government must first prepare a local water management plan, obtain District approval of the plan, and then adopt and enforce stormwater management and erosion control ordinances. In this situation, the local water management plan needs to meet additional requirements. The detailed requirements are described below. In general, the District encourages the local government units to use as much District data, modeling results, etc. as possible to meet these requirements.


Level 1 District Requirements for Local Water Plan Content (applies to local units of government that do not wish to take over permitting authority from the District):

1. Phase I or Phase II NPDES MS4 permit communities must integrate their Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) policies, goals and actions into their local water management plans, in accordance with MPCA requirements and schedules. Nondegradation requirements, policies, goals, and actions, must also be included, if applicable.

2. Impaired waters, TMDLs, and Lake Management Plans – the local plan must include a listing of any impaired waters (as shown on the MPCA’s 303(d) list) within the local unit of government’s jurisdiction. The local plan must describe the local unit of government’s role/level of participation in preparing and implementing TMDL studies. The local plan must also address issues identified in the District Lake Management Plans prepared for water bodies within the jurisdiction of the local unit of government and implementation recommendations that involve local implementation or coordination with the District.

3. The local plan must describe the local unit of government’s stormwater management requirements, including erosion and sediment controls, for land alteration activities that do not require a District permit (i.e., projects that disturb less than 1 acre of land). The local plan must describe the local unit of government’s relevant ordinances or proposed ordinances to address this. Particular attention should be paid to addressing redevelopment and reducing total suspended sediment and total phosphorus loadings from redevelopment sites.

4. The local plan must describe the local unit of government’s responsibilities for maintenance, repair, etc. of “non‐District‐managed” public and private stormwater management systems. The local plan must address maintenance issues and identify the situations where the local unit of government needs to coordinate with CRWD on maintenance activities. In accordance with Minnesota rules (8410.0100, Subp. 6), the District requires that local water management plans “…assess the need for periodic maintenance of public works, facilities and natural conveyance systems and specify any new programs or revisions to existing programs needed to accomplish its goals and objectives.” The local water management plans will also be required to address, at a minimum, the following maintenance issues, also taken from Minnesota rules (8410.0100, Subp.6):

• The need and frequency for street sweeping of public and private streets and parking lots.

• The need and frequency for inspecting stormwater outfalls, skimmers, sumps, and ponds.

• The adequacy of maintenance programs for stormwater facilities and water level control structures owned by both the city and private parties.

• The need for other maintenance programs as considered necessary (e.g., cleaning catch basins, trash racks, etc.).

5. The local plan must describe local flood control and water quality issues (including those issues discussed in the District Plan), and the local unit of government’s responsibility for addressing these local issues.

6. The local plan must include an implementation program (including funding methods) to address all of the items listed above.

7. The local plan must describe the local unit of government’s spill containment clean‐up plans.


Level 2 District Requirements for Local Water Plan Content (applies to local units of government that do wish to take over all permitting authority): In addition to the requirements listed for Level 1, the following additional requirements apply:

1. The local plan must describe existing and proposed physical environment and land use – the city’s latest comprehensive land use plan and maps, along with information from the District, can be used to meet much of this requirement. The local plan must include maps showing the DNR public waters, the District ‐inventoried wetlands, and the District wetland classifications. This description must include a groundwater section, which could include information identifying infiltration areas, wellhead protection areas, geologic features, groundwater sensitivity, groundwater dependent natural resources, and groundwater recharge/discharge areas. The local plans should also include references to completed groundwater studies that affect the City.

2. The local plan must include drainage areas, and the volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff. Local units of government are encouraged to use the District modeling data or otherwise available from the District to help meet this requirement. The following criteria apply:

• Design storms and storm durations shall conform to the District standards. • The preliminary size of future pipes or channels must be identified. • Determination of allowable runoff rates • Any minor watersheds within those identified in the District Plan must be identified. • Waterway locations must be identified. • A storm sewer system map must be provided, if available. • The local plan must demonstrate that its hydrology conforms to the hydrology in the

District Plan.

3. The local plan must identify storage sites not identified in the District Plan, including wetlands. The following criteria apply:

• Storage volumes must be provided. • Normal water level elevations and flood elevations must be provided. • Outflow rates must be provided.

4. The local plan must describe the local unit of government’s regulations and specific regulatory provisions in place or that need to be developed to satisfy and incorporate the District standards and District rules and regulations, as revised.

5. The local plan must acknowledge and describe the respective roles of the District and the local unit of government in managing the water quality of the District‐managed water bodies.

6. The local plan must identify the local unit of government’s goals, objectives, policies, standards and guidelines pertaining to water resource management.

7. The local plan must set forth an implementation program, including a description of official

controls and, as appropriate, a capital improvement program and funding methods.

8. The local plan must describe the local unit of government’s permitting process (or proposed process) for land and wetland alteration work. This description should include outlining the process for:

• Reviewing development proposals and permit applications • Review of preconstruction plans • Coordinating permit requests with other simultaneous reviewers • Coordinating timelines with other permitting agencies


9. The local plan must identify the status of septic systems (if any) and describe the regulatory tools in place, including local enforcement of existing local septic system ordinances, and whether ordinances are in conformance with the MPCA 7080 Rules and Metropolitan Council requirements.

Annual Evaluation of Plan Implementation The District will perform an annual inventory and outcome assessment for District activities either underway or completed in the preceding year. The District will use the PRAP level II Review as provided by the Board of Water and Soil Resources and included as Appendix J. Additionally, the District will perform a more detailed evaluation of each of the goals contained in this Plan. The purpose of the evaluation will be to determine the level of progress achieved on each of the District’s stated goals, and is therefore structured around those goals. This evaluation will provide important insight about District priorities and focus areas, and will guide budgeting decisions for the subsequent year. For each goal, three categories of data on progress will be considered: quantitative impacts, qualitative results, and quantitative results. See Appendix J for the evaluation form. In many cases, the scope of District goals and the complexity of the affected systems make it difficult to quantitatively measure the results of District activities, although ideally this would be the best way to determine the District’s progress on its mission. Sometimes, the best information indicating progress (or lack thereof) may be qualitative or anecdotal in nature. Regardless of what information on outcomes is available, it is always possible (and useful) to quantitatively document what actions were performed. At the very least this provides a measure of the level or effort expended in the service of a particular goal. Finally, following documentation of the actions and the quantitative and qualitative assessments of progress, an annual internal survey will be performed, in which individual members of the Board and staff assign a numerical score (e.g., from 1‐10) to each Goal, based on their knowledge and experience of District activities and watershed issues (see Appendix J). Survey results would be summarized as part of the annual evaluation process. This relatively simple tool would allow a wide range of understanding to be factored into the assessment, providing another important perspective on District progress. Amendments to Plan This Watershed Management Plan will be in effect from 2011 through 2020. During that time it is anticipated that the Plan will need to be amended. All amendments to the plan will adhere to the review process provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.231, subdivision 11, except when the proposed amendments constitute minor amendments and:

A. The District has held a public meeting to explain the amendments and published a legal notice of the meeting twice, at least seven days and 14 days before the date of the meeting;

B. The District has sent copies of the amendments to the affected local units of government, the Metropolitan Council, and the state review agencies for review and comment; and

C. The BWSR has either agreed that the amendments are minor or failed to act within 45 days of receipt of the amendments.


Amendments to the Plans capital improvement program will be considered to be minor plan amendments if the following conditions are met:

A. The original plan set forth the capital improvements but not to the degree needed to meet the definition of "capital improvement program" as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.205, subdivision 3; and

B. The affected county or counties have approved the capital improvement in its revised, more detailed form.

Unless the entire document is reprinted, all amendments adopted by the District will be printed in the form of replacement pages for the plan, each page of which will:

A. On draft amendments being considered, show deleted text as stricken and new text as underlined;

B. Be renumbered as appropriate; and C. Include the effective date of the amendment.

The District will maintain a distribution list of agencies and individuals who have received a copy of the plan and will distribute copies of amendments within 30 days of adoption. The District will consider sending drafts of proposal amendments to all plan review authorities to seek their comments before establishing a hearing date or commencing the formal review process. Internal Process for Plan Amendments The District has developed a subwatershed based planning process for managing water resources in the District in a systematic manner. The subwatershed planning process utilizes a strong stakeholder involvement process. Partners such as local governmental entities, non‐profit groups and community members are involved from the very onset of the planning process to help define issues and identify the proposed analysis. The core of the subwatershed planning process involves detailed hydrologic and water quality analysis of the given area and identification of proposed structural and non‐structural improvement aimed at improving the water resource of interest. Regular meetings are held with stakeholders throughout the process to solicit input on the findings of the analysis and on the proposed improvements. The District intends to use the subwatershed planning process as the method to achieve compliance with the public notification process requirements of the plan amendment process. The District will expand the stakeholder group involved with the subwatershed plan to include those entities identified in the plan amendment process and will build in a public hearing into the process. The intent is to streamline the plan amendment process and to eliminate duplication of effort.