July 16, 2014 cac meeting packet

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

Citizen Advisory Committee

7:00 PM, Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - Capitol Region Watershed District Office

Agenda

7:00 I) Welcome, Announcements and Updates – Introductions

7:05 II) Public Comment for issues not on the Agenda (3 minutes per person)

7:08 III) Approval of the Agenda

7:09 IV) Approval of Minutes

Approval of the May 14 and June 11, 2014 Minutes

7:10 V) District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recomendations

A) East Kittsondale Subwatershed:Urban Stormwater Retrofit Assessment

8:15 VI) CAC Initiatives

A) CAC Framework and Orientation Packet – Next Steps, Doneux

B) Discuss the September 18th

Event with Freshwater Society, Dr. Jay Famiglietti, Dwindling

Groundwater Reserves as Viewed from Space

C) Discuss 2014 Awards Program

8:45 VII) Project and Program Updates A) 2014 CRWD Construction Project Udpates

8:50 VIII) CAC Observer Update

8:55 IX) Discussion

A) New & Old Issues

B) Identify CAC Observer for July 23rd

and August Board of Managers Meetings

C) August 13th

CAC Agenda Overview

D) 2014 Meeting Schedule

9:00 X) Adjourn

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Agendas\2014\May 14, 2014 CAC Agenda.docx

Materials

Enclosed

1

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting

Wednesday, May 14, 2014 – 7:00 p.m.

CAC Members Present:

Gwen Willems

Bill Barton

Mike MacDonald

Richard Weil

Janna Caywood

Ted McCaslin

Michelle Ulrich

Steve Duerre

Members absent: David Arbeit, w/notice

Pat Byrne, w/notice

Kathryn Swanson

Others Present:

Mark Doneux, CRWD

Michelle Sylvander, CRWD

Lindsay VanPatten, CRWD

Britta Suppes, CRWD

Bob Fossum, CRWD

Mary Texer, Board Manager

Welcome, Announcements, and Updates

Ms. Willems opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. with a request for any announcements.

Administrator Doneux shared that he was contacted by Mr. Arbeit about a foamy substance seen on Como

Lake. Administrator Doneux will have staff follow up on this report.

Public Comments

There were no public comments.

Approval of Agenda

Ms. Willems asked for any additions or changes to the Agenda. No additions or changes were made.

CAC 14-049 Motion: To approve the CAC May 14, 2014 agenda.

Caywood/MacDonald

Unanimously approved

Approval of the April 9, 2014 CAC Minutes

Ms. Willems requested any changes or corrections to the minutes. A couple of corrections were noted.

CAC 13-050 Motion: To approve the CAC April 9, 2014 CAC Minutes with corrections.

Barton/Weil


Draft

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

2

District Initiatives

A) 2013 Stormwater and Lakes Monitoring Reports (Suppes)

Ms. Suppes reviewed that since 2005, CRWD has been collecting and analyzing water quality data through

the District Monitoring Program. During the 2013 monitoring period (January-December), stormwater

monitoring sites located throughout six of the sixteen major subwatersheds were monitored for flow and

water quality. Water quality samples were analyzed for a variety of parameters including nutrients, solids,

metals, bacteria, and chloride. Conclusions and recommendations from 2013 will help guide monitoring

performed in 2014.

For the first time this year, there will be two monitoring reports: Stormwater Monitoring Report and Lakes

Monitoring Report. Ms. Suppes reviewed the Stormwater Monitoring report with the CAC highlighting key

findings from the monitoring efforts. Ms. Suppes reviewed graphs with record high precipitation in 2013.

On June 21, 2013 an intense storm measured 1.13 inches of rain in 15 minutes, with a total of 2.85 inches in

24 hour period. This storm accounted for twenty five percent of the annual rain fall. Two new monitoring

stations have been added to the Trout Brook area. Ms. Suppes shared annual e coli average or loading, Sarita

subwatershed showed a very high increase. This area is located near the Minnesota State Fair Grounds and

typically does have higher pollutants due to the number of livestock in the subwatershed. Ms. Suppes noted

that for the first time Chloride was evaluated in the spring primary snow melt. Ms. Caywood suggested

further education and discussion on the topic of chloride.

The CAC thanked Ms. Suppes for her presentation.

CAC Initiatives

A) Adoption of CAC Orientation Packet

Administrator Doneux reviewed the development of the CAC Orientation Packet. The orientation packet

committee consists of: Michelle Ulrich, Steve Duerre, and Gwen Willems. Administrator Doneux reviewed

comments and changes made by the Board of Managers. On the Roster page a note will be added that

members are appointed by the Board of Managers. A statement of Expectations page will also be added.

Members discussed adding a geographic map of the current CAC members to help focus on recruitment

efforts.

CAC 14-051 Motion: Adopt CAC Orientation Packet.

Ulrich/MacDonald


B) Discuss the September 18th

Event with Freshwater Society, Dr. Jay Famiglietti, Dwindling

Groundwater Reserves as Viewed from Space.

Administrator Doneux reviewed the event planned for September 18, 2014. CRWD will partner with

Freshwater Society. Barr Engineering will also be co-sponsoring the event. Elizabeth Beckman will be

contacting Freshwater Society for information about having an educational table at the event and a few

minutes to talk about CRWD. Ms. Texer suggested inviting City Officials and other watershed districts.


3

C) Discuss 2014 Awards Program

As part of the survey results from CAC members on initiatives, members felt it would be very beneficial to

sponsor an awards program to recognize outstanding water and soil project in the district.

At the annual meeting in 2013, Jerome Wagner and Manager Mike Thienes were recognized for their work

with Capitol Regional Watershed District. CRWD currently partners with the City of St. Paul for the

Blooming St. Paul Award. Ms. Caywood suggested an award that is somehow linked to the mission

statement. A sub committee was formed by Mike MacDonald and Janna Caywood.

D) Discuss June Tour Sites

Administrator Doneux reviewed plans for the June 11th

Annual CAC site tour. This years’ theme will be the

Trout Brook Valley area. The tour will start at CRWD office at 5:30 with a presentation on the history of the

Trout Brook Valley area. The tour will include a tour of the Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary, Trout Brook

Monitoring site, 35E Realignment Project, and the Lowertown Ballpark.

Project and Program Updates

A) 2014 CRWD Construction Project Updates (Doneux)

The Curtiss Pond project is currently out to bid and has nine bidders at this time. The Highland Ravine is

also out to bid with three bidders.

CAC Observer Update

Ms. Texer gave a brief update on the May 7th

Board of Managers Meeting where the Curtiss Pond project

and Lowertown Ball Park were main topics of discussion. The Curtiss Pond project has gone out to bid.

This project involves a storage tank and pumping system. The level of the pond will be lowered prior to

rainfall events. The Lowertown Ball Park would reuse stormwater from the roof of the Metro Transit

building. The water would be stored and used for irrigation and flushing toilets. A system like this would be

the first of this kind.

Discussion –

A) New & Old Issues

There was no discussion.

B) Identify CAC Observer for the May 21st and June 4

th Board of Managers Meeting

No members were identified.

C) June 11th CAC Agenda Overview

The June 11th

meeting will be the annual CAC tour. This years’ theme will be the Trout Brook Valley area.

The tour will start at CRWD office at 5:30 with a presentation on the history of the Trout Brook Valley area.

The tour will include a tour of the Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary, Trout Brook Monitoring site, 35E

Realignment Project, and the Lowertown Ballpark.


4

D) 2014 Meeting Schedule

Adjourn –

CAC 14-052 Motion: To adjourn.

MacDonald/Weil


The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle Sylvander

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Minutes\2014\May 14, 2014 Draft Minutes.doc

1

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting -Site Tour

Wednesday, June 11, 2014 – 5:30 p.m.

CAC Members Present:

Gwen Willems

Bill Barton

Richard Weil

Michelle Ulrich

David Arbeit

Pat Byrne

Members absent: Kathryn Swanson

Mike MacDonald

Janna Caywood

Ted McCaslin

Steve Duerre

Others Present:

Mark Doneux, CRWD

Michelle Sylvander, CRWD

Anna Eleria, CRWD

Bob Fossum, CRWD

Forrest Kelley, CRWD

Joe Sellner, CRWD

Mary Texer, Board Manager

Shirley Reider, Board Manager

Joe Collins, Board Manager

Seitu Jones, Board Manager

Linda Jungwirth

John Jungwirth

Shirley Erstad – Friends of the

Parks & Trails

Dennis Lienke

The June 11th

CAC meeting started at 5:30 PM at the CRWD office. The annual tour included a variety of

projects in the Trout Brook Valley area. Ms. Shirley Erstad of Friends of the Parks and Trails provided a

presentation on the History of the Trout Brook Valley area. In the late 1800’s, the railroad came thru the Trout

Brook corridor. The land was not viewed for its resources but as the most efficient route of travel. Many ponds

and low laying areas were filled in by the railroad.

The group boarded a mini bus and proceeded to the City of St. Paul Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary. Mr.

Fossum reviewed with the group the contributions CRWD has had in the Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary

planning and execution. The goal of this project is to return water to the surface for wildlife conservation. The

Nature Sanctuary will include walking trails and is scheduled to be open for the public in 2015.

Mr. Sellner met the group at the next stop, the Trout Brook Stormsewer Monitoring Systems. Mr. Sellner

showed how the monitoring crew collects samples at the West Trout Brook Stormsewer. The information

collected at various monitoring sites is used in feasibility studies for future projects.

Ms. Eleria was on site at the next location, the Cayuga Interchange/35E/MN Pass and the Trout Brook

Realignment Project. Ms. Eleria reviewed how the storm sewer lines were connected. The project involved

removal and replacement of the railroad tracks within a 30 hour window.

The last stop of the tour reviewed some of the Lowertown Projects including the Union Depot, Lowertown

Ballpark, Lafayette Bridge, and Green Line OMF Building. The tour adjourned at 9:15pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle Sylvander

Draft

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

DATE: July 10, 2014 TO: CRWD Citizen Advisory Committee FROM: Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist RE: East Kittsondale Stormwater Retrofit Assessment Background In 2013, CRWD contracted with the Ramsey Conservation District (RCD) to complete a stormwater retrofit analysis of the East Kittsondale subwatershed. Monitoring data shows that water quality of stormwater runoff in East Kittsondale is consistently the poorest in the watershed. The goal of the retrofit analysis is to identify potential water quality improvement opportunities, develop preliminary cost estimates, model pollutant removals, and generate a prioritized list of project opportunities based on cost-effectiveness. Issues A variety of projects were identified in the report (enclosed). Some of the projects are very site-specific, and some are general concepts (alley treatments) that could be applied throughout the subwatershed. The next step is for CRWD staff to further explore and pursue the high priority opportunities. Since CRWD does not own land, staff will need to develop partnerships with property owners where projects are identified. The results of the report allows CRWD staff to pursue projects that provide the biggest “bang for the buck” systematically, and it provides much needed information when applying for grants. The information provided in the report is tremendously helpful for planning District activities, and additional areas for stormwater retrofit analysis are being considered. Requested Action

1. Feedback on the East Kittsondale Stormwater Retrofit Assessment and approach 2. Recommendation to the CRWD Board to consider funding for implementation of identified

projects and future stormwater retrofit assessments. Enc: East Kittsondale Subwatershed: Urban Stormwater Retrofit Assessment \\CRWDC01\Company\06 Projects\East Kittsondale Retrofit Analysis\CAC Memo East Kittsondale Retrofit Analysis.docx

July 16, 2014 V. District Initiatives for Review A) East Kittsondale Stormwater Retrofit Assessment (Zwonitzer)

East Kittsondale Subwatershed: Urban Stormwater Retrofit Assessment

Prepared by:

for the Capitol Region Watershed District

Funded in part by the Metro Conservation District from Clean Water Funds

East Kittsondale Subwatershed: Urban Stormwater Retrofit Assessment

Prepared for the Capitol Region Watershed District by: Samantha Kreibich, Ramsey Conservation District CRWD Staff:

Mark Doneux, Administrator Anna Eleria, Water Resource Project Manager Bob Fossum, Program Manager Britta Suppes, Monitoring Coordinator Corey Poland, Water Resource Technician - Permit Inspector Elizabeth Beckman, Education & Outreach Coordinator Forrest Kelly, Regulatory and Construction Program Manager

Gustavo Castro, Water Resource Specialist Joe Sellner, Water Resource Technician Jordan Jessen, Water Resource Technician Lindsay VanPatten, Education and Administrative Assistant Michelle Sylvander, Office Manager Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist Sarah Wein, Water Resource Technician

CRWD Board of Managers: Joseph Collins, President Mary Texer, Vice President Michael Thienes,

Seitu Jones, Secretary Shirley Reider, Manager

Treasurer

Front photograph: Courtesy of the Capitol Region Watershed District

3 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Assessment

Contents Map of Study Area....................................................................................................................................... 7

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Project Rankings and Page Numbers .................................................................................................. 12

Project Rankings and Page Numbers .................................................................................................. 13

Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 14

Retrofit Scoping ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Desktop Retrofit Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 14

Retrofit Reconnaissance Investigation.................................................................................................... 14

Design Your Own Detention or Infiltration Systems ............................................................................... 14

Capitol Region Watershed District Rule C ........................................................................................... 15

Treatment Analysis/Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................ 15

Retrofit Neighborshed Delineation ..................................................................................................... 15

Retrofit Modeling & Sizing .................................................................................................................. 15

Retrofit Types ...................................................................................................................................... 15

Retrofit Cost Estimates ....................................................................................................................... 16

Catchment Retrofit Results ......................................................................................................................... 16

East Kittsondale: Catchment 1 ................................................................................................................ 17

Project ID: EKD1-Residential Rain Gardens ......................................................................................... 19

Project ID: EKD1- Commercial Underground Infiltration Trenches .................................................... 20

Underground Infiltration Drainage Areas ............................................................................................... 21

EKD1- Commercial Underground Infiltration Trenches (Sites 101, 121, and 122) and ...................... 21

School Underground Detention and Reuse (Site 115) ........................................................................ 21

Project ID: EKD1-School Underground Detention and Reuse ............................................................. 22

Project ID: EKD1 Alley Project ............................................................................................................. 23


Project ID: EKD2- Residential Rain Gardens ........................................................................................ 27

Project ID: EKD2-Alley Project ............................................................................................................. 28



Project ID: EKD3-Institutional Projects ............................................................................................... 33

Project ID: EKD3-Multifamily Rain Gardens ........................................................................................ 34


Project ID: EKD3-Commercial Projects ................................................................................................ 35

Project ID: EKD3-Park Projects ............................................................................................................ 35




Project ID: EKD4-Multifamily Projects ................................................................................................ 40

Project ID: EKD4-Institutional Projects ............................................................................................... 42




Project ID: EKD5-Commercial Projects ................................................................................................ 47




Project ID: EKD6-Commercial Pervious Pavement ............................................................................. 54




Project ID: EKD7-Multifamily Projects ................................................................................................ 59




Project ID: EKD8-Multifamily Rain Gardens ........................................................................................ 65

Project ID: EKD8-Institutional Underground Infiltration ..................................................................... 66


Project ID EKD9-Residential Vegetated Swales................................................................................... 69


References .................................................................................................................................................. 72

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................. 73

WINSLAMM Standard Land Use Codes ................................................................................................... 74

RESIDENTIAL LAND USES ................................................................................................................ 74

COMMERCIAL LAND USES ................................................................................................................ 74


INDUSTRIAL LAND USES .................................................................................................................. 75

INSTITUTIONAL LAND USES ............................................................................................................ 75

OTHER URBAN LAND USES .............................................................................................................. 75

FREEWAY LAND USES ...................................................................................................................... 75

Appendix B: ................................................................................................................................................ 76

Curb cut raingarden, with 1.5-2ft perimeter wall, in a residential area. ...................................... 76

Bioretention Design .......................................................................................................................... 76

Residential Rain Garden - WinSLAMM Design ........................................................................................ 77

Underground Infiltration - WinSLAMM Design ....................................................................................... 78

Appendix C................................................................................................................................................ 78


This page is intentionally left blank


Executive Summary This study will examine optimal locations for placing cost-effective water quality improvements within a

highly developed region in the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), known as the East Kittsondale

(EKD) subwatershed. This subwatershed is an 1860-acre portion of land located in the southeast corner

of Ramsey County and St. Paul, Minnesota. It consists primarily of high-density residential areas with

portions of commercial and institutional land use. Consisting of nearly 70% residential land use, there

are also large portions of major urban highways, including Ayd Mill road, which follows the railroad,

Interstate 94, located near a commercial development, and Interstate 35E. The EKD subwatershed does

not consist of any natural or constructed water bodies and instead is connected by an extensive

stormsewer system which ultimately discharges to the Mississippi River. This section of the CRWD has

consistently demonstrated increased levels of runoff volume and pollutants, particularly Total

Phosphorous (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS).

The result of this analysis will be a prioritized list of the most cost-effective locations for retrofitting

water quality improvement projects or best management practices (BMPs). Over 200 projects were

identified in the following report. These projects will help improve existing water quality, provide

benefits to the impaired Mississippi River, and enhance the quality of a surface water drinking source

that serves a large portion the metropolitan population, including the entire southern half of Ramsey

County. Due to the highly developed nature of the EKD subwatershed, locations for BMP projects were

limited; therefore, this study focused primarily on placing residential boulevard rain gardens, pervious

pavement, and underground infiltration trenches. These BMPs are appropriate because of their

effectiveness in removing TP while requiring minimal space.

Approaches outlined in the analysis will focus on ranking projects based on the total project cost per

pound of phosphorous removed for each project. The outlined projects are merely a model and are

meant only as a starting point for future watershed planning. Other considerations for installation

prioritization should include areas prone to flooding, timing of future construction, and project visibility.

While the proposed projects aim to reach these considerations, more elaborate planning and research

should be completed prior to the installation of any of these projects. Significant efforts, however, were

made to provide the most accurate and precise estimates for pollutant loading and reduction, along

with estimated costs to reach these removal rates.

Areas that drain to the Mississippi River were delineated using GIS subwatershed information which was previously determined, as well as maps of stormwater conveyance features. The subwatershed was further divided into 9 smaller stormwater drainage areas, or catchments. For each catchment, modeling of stormwater volume and pollutants was completed using the software WinSLAMM. The program calculates pollutant and stormwater volume loads based off specific land use and reductions based off specified BMPs. Land use areas were delineated, then modeled based off the calculated area of each land use. Any existing BMPs found in the catchments were modeled to calculate pollutant reductions, which helped us determine base loading for each catchment. Portions of the subwatershed have pre-existing underground infiltration trenches. These were installed as part of the City of St. Paul’s, RSVP programs, or Residential Street Vitality Program. Projects identified were modeled with existing treatment, including street sweeping, to determine the overall pollutant reductions achieved for each proposed site. The results of the 60 most cost-effective projects are summarized in the table below.


Catchment Key

Pro

je

ct

Ra

nk

Ca

tc

hm

en

t

ID

Re

tro

fit T

yp

eP

ro

je

cts

Id

en

tifie

d

TP

Re

du

ctio

n

(lb

/yr)

TS

S

Re

du

ctio

n

(lb

/yr)

Vo

lu

me

Re

du

ctio

n

(a

c-ft/yr)

To

ta

l P

ro

je

ct

Co

st

Estim

ate

d

Op

era

tio

ns &

Ma

in

te

na

nc

e

(2

01

2 D

olla

rs)

Estim

ate

d c

ost/

1,0

00

lb

-T

SS

(3

0-ye

ar)

Estim

ate

d

co

st/

lb

-T

P (3

0-ye

ar)

1E

KD

7 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

12.

371

51.

8$3

,348

$75

$261

$81

2E

KD

7 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

22.

574

91.

9$5

,016

$150

$423

$127

3E

KD

9 R

es_S

wal

eS

wal

e2

1.5

209

0.3

$3,6

76$1

50$1

,304

$180

4E

KD

9 R

es_S

wal

eS

wal

e3

2.1

290

0.5

$4,7

86$2

25$1

,326

$184

5E

KD

6 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n4

9.6

2,82

17.

9$4

4,62

2$3

60$6

55$1

92

6E

KD

9 R

es_S

wal

eS

wal

e1

0.8

117

0.2

$2,9

54$7

5$1

,483

$207

7E

KD

6 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n9

12.5

3,71

310

.9$9

9,41

2$8

10$1

,111

$330

8E

KD

2 R

es_

RG

Mod

erat

ely

Com

plex

Bio

rete

ntio

n 3

1.4

389

1.1

$7,3

14$2

25$1

,205

$342

9E

KD

6 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n19

22.3

6,57

019

.2$2

09,3

77$1

,710

$1,3

23$3

90

10E

KD

2 R

es_

RG

Mod

erat

ely

Com

plex

Bio

rete

ntio

n 6

2.2

628

1.8

$13,

158

$450

$1,4

15$4

02

11E

KD

2_R

es R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

103.

41,

063

2.6

$20,

950

$750

$1,3

62$4

22

12E

KD

2 Al

ley_

PP

Per

mea

ble

Pav

emen

t 1

5.0

1,57

03.

7$6

5,56

8$7

5$1

,440

$452

13E

KD

1 R

es_

RG

Mod

erat

ely

Com

plex

Bio

rete

ntio

n3

0.8

257

0.7

$5,2

74$2

25$1

,560

$501

14E

KD

8 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n7

3.6

1,11

12.

6$4

4,62

2$3

60$1

,663

$513

15E

KD

3 Al

ley_

PP

Per

mea

ble

Pav

emen

t6

3.7

1,92

74.

6$6

5,56

8$4

50$1

,679

$527

16E

KD

1 R

es_

RG

Mod

erat

ely

Com

plex

Bio

rete

ntio

n6

1.5

466

1.1

$10,

548

$450

$1,7

20$5

34

17E

KD

4 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

71.

962

01.

2$1

2,06

3$6

30$1

,665

$543

18E

KD

8 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n3

2.5

792

1.9

$33,

748

$270

$1,7

61$5

58

19E

KD

3 M

F_R

GS

impl

e B

iore

tent

ion

41.

029

35.

7$8

,014

$300

$1,9

36$5

67

20E

KD

3 M

F_R

GS

impl

e B

iore

tent

ion

81.

955

96.

2$1

4,55

8$6

00$1

,941

$571

* P

ollu

tio

n r

edu

ctio

n b

enef

its

and

co

sts

can

no

t b

e su

mm

ed w

ith

oth

er p

roje

cts

in t

he

sam

e ca

tch

men

t b

ecau

se t

hey

are

alt

ern

ativ

e o

pti

on

s fo

r tr

eati

ng

the

sam

e so

urc

e ar

ea.


Catchment Key

Pro

je

ct

Ra

nk

Ca

tc

hm

en

t

ID

Re

tro

fit T

yp

eP

ro

je

cts

Id

en

tifie

d

TP

Re

du

ctio

n

(lb

/yr)

TS

S

Re

du

ctio

n

(lb

/yr)

Vo

lu

me

Re

du

ctio

n

(a

c-ft/yr)

To

ta

l P

ro

je

ct

Co

st

Estim

ate

d

Op

era

tio

ns &

Ma

in

te

na

nc

e

(2

01

2 D

olla

rs)

Estim

ate

d c

ost/

1,0

00

lb

-T

SS

(3

0-ye

ar)

Estim

ate

d

co

st/

lb

-T

P (3

0-ye

ar)

21E

KD

4 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex15

3.7

1,23

02.

4$2

5,24

2$2

5,24

2$1

,782

$592

22E

KD

1 Al

ley_

UG

Mod

erat

ely

Com

plex

Bio

rete

ntio

n12

0.8

257

0.7

$21,

096

$900

$1,9

00$5

94

23E

KD

3 R

es_

RG

Mod

erat

ely

Com

plex

Bio

rete

ntio

n 12

2.9

796

8.0

$24,

846

$900

$2,1

71$5

96

24E

KD

6 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex5

1.1

322

0.9

$8,7

90$3

75$2

,075

$607

25E

KD

5 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n 2

33.0

11,1

4622

.5$2

2,98

4$1

9,57

6$1

,825

$616

26E

KD

3 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

255.

71,

538

10.6

$50,

170

$1,8

75$2

,306

$622

27E

KD

4 S

choo

l_U

GU

nder

grou

nd In

filtra

tion

118

.36,

899

15.7

$275

,403

$2,2

50$1

,657

$625

28E

KD

3 S

choo

l RG

Mod

erat

ely

Com

plex

Bio

rete

ntio

n 1

0.3

102

5.5

$3,4

18$7

5$1

,852

$630

29E

KD

5 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n T

renc

h4

37.2

12,5

3925

.3$4

4,62

2$2

1,99

8$1

,873

$631

30E

KD

5 R

es_R

GM

oder

eate

ly C

ompl

ex3

0.7

189

0.6

$5,7

22$2

70$2

,438

$658

31E

KD

6 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex12

2.4

705

2.1

$20,

016

$900

$2,2

74$6

68

32E

KD

5 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n T

renc

h6

37.5

12,5

7425

.5$8

8,43

1$2

2,19

8$2

,000

$671

33E

KD

3 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

5010

.52,

827

15.2

$98,

870

$3,7

50$2

,492

$671

34E

KD

5 C

omm

_UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n1

7.7

1,93

05.

5$1

2,60

9$4

,818

$2,7

14$6

80

35E

KD

3 P

ark_

RG

Mod

erat

ely

Com

plex

Bio

rete

ntio

n 1

1.0

239

5.7

$15,

930

$150

$2,8

49$6

81

36E

KD

6 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex25

4.8

1,39

64.

1$4

3,95

0$1

,875

$2,3

93$6

96

37E

KD

4 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

306.

22,

019

3.8

$50,

174

$2,7

00$2

,166

$703

38E

KD

5 C

omm

_UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n2

9.2

2,86

96.

8$2

2,98

4$5

,924

$2,3

32$7

27

39E

KD

5 R

es_R

GM

oder

eate

ly C

ompl

ex7

1.4

407

1.2

$12,

063

$630

$2,5

36$7

37

40E

KD

8 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

50.

922

60.

9$8

,835

$375

$2,9

62$7

44

* P

ollu

tio

n r

edu

ctio

n b

enef

its

an

d c

ost

s ca

n n

ot

be

sum

med

wit

h o

ther

pro

ject

s in

th

e sa

me

catc

hm

ent

bec

au

se t

hey

are

alt

ern

ati

ve o

pti

on

s fo

r tr

eati

ng

th

e sa

me

sou

rce

are

a.


Catchment Key

Pro

je

ct

Ra

nk

Ca

tc

hm

en

t

ID

Re

tro

fit T

yp

eP

ro

je

cts

Id

en

tifie

d

TP

Re

du

ctio

n

(lb

/yr)

TS

S

Re

du

ctio

n

(lb

/yr)

Vo

lu

me

Re

du

ctio

n

(a

c-ft/yr)

To

ta

l P

ro

je

ct

Co

st

Estim

ate

d

Op

era

tio

ns &

Ma

in

te

na

nc

e

(2

01

2 D

olla

rs)

Estim

ate

d c

ost/

1,0

00

lb

-T

SS

(3

0-ye

ar)

Estim

ate

d

co

st/

lb

-T

P (3

0-ye

ar)

41E

KD

5 R

es_R

GM

oder

eate

ly C

ompl

ex14

2.7

777

2.3

$23,

585

$1,2

60$2

,633

$758

42E

KD

8 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

101.

742

61.

7$1

6,97

8$7

50$3

,089

$774

43E

KD

2 Al

ley_

PP

Per

mea

ble

Pav

emen

t 3

5.9

1,83

14.

3$1

29,4

56$2

25$2

,480

$775

44E

KD

8 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

203.

280

93.

4$3

3,54

0$1

,500

$3,2

36$8

18

45E

KD

3 P

ark_

RG

Mod

erat

ely

Com

plex

Bio

rete

ntio

n 4

1.6

386

6.2

$30,

390

$300

$3,4

02$8

21

46E

KD

4 M

F_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

30.

517

70.

6$5

,722

$225

$2,3

49$8

31

47E

KD

5 Al

ley_

PP

Per

viou

s P

avem

ent

23.

81,

225

2.5

$94,

463

$150

$2,6

93$8

68

48E

KD

2 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n3

5.1

1,58

93.

8$3

3,74

8$3

,320

$2,7

97$8

68

49E

KD

3 C

omm

_ R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

91.

574

81.

6$1

9,00

2$6

75$1

,749

$872

50E

KD

3 Al

ley_

PP

Per

mea

ble

Pav

emen

t13

5.9

1,83

14.

3$1

29,4

56$9

75$2

,889

$903

51E

KD

2 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n5

6.3

1,95

44.

7$5

5,54

5$4

,080

$3,0

36$9

43

52E

KD

8 R

es_R

GM

oder

atel

y C

ompl

ex B

iore

tent

ion

20.

411

80.

4$7

,254

$150

$3,3

20$9

79

53E

KD

5 C

omm

_UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n 1

14.6

4,25

612

.6$1

10,3

98$1

0,96

0$3

,440

$1,0

03

54E

KD

5 Al

ley_

PP

Per

viou

s P

avem

ent

612

.53,

937

8.8

$373

,247

$600

$3,3

13$1

,043

55E

KD

5 Al

ley_

PP

Per

viou

s P

avem

ent

46.

11,

922

4.3

$187

,246

$300

$3,4

03$1

,072

56E

KD

4 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n5

5.4

1,59

94.

6$5

5,54

5$3

,999

$3,6

59$1

,083

57E

KD

4 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n 5

5.4

1,59

94.

6$5

5,54

5$3

,999

$3,6

59$1

,083

58E

KD

1 Al

ley_

UG

Und

ergr

ound

Infil

tratio

n 2

1.8

576

1.4

$22,

984

$1,2

02$3

,417

$1,0

94

59E

KD

7Alle

y_U

GU

nder

grou

nd In

filtra

tion

10.

927

20.

7$1

2,69

0$5

66$3

,637

$1,0

99

60E

KD

4 Al

ley_

PP

Per

viou

s P

avem

ent

1312

.53,

856

9.3

$382

,975

$975

$3,5

63$1

,099

* P

ollu

tio

n r

edu

ctio

n b

enef

its

and

co

sts

can

no

t b

e su

mm

ed w

ith

oth

er p

roje

cts

in t

he

sam

e ca

tch

men

t b

ecau

se t

hey

are

alt

ern

ativ

e o

pti

on

s fo

r tr

eati

ng

the

sam

e so

urc

e ar

ea.


Project Rankings and Page Numbers

Project

Rank

Catchment

ID

Retrofit Type

Projects

Identified

Page

Number

1 EKD7 Res_RG Moderately Complex Bioretention 1 59


3 EKD9 Res_Swale Swale 2 71


5 EKD6 Alley_UG Underground Infiltration 4 55



8 EKD2 Res_ RG Moderately Complex Bioretention 3 27



11 EKD2_Res RG Moderately Complex Bioretention 10 27

12 EKD2_Alley PP Permeable Pavement 1 29



15 EKD3 Alley_PP Permeable Pavement 6 38



18 EKD8 Alley_ UG Underground Infiltration 3 69

19 EKD3 MF_RG Simple Bioretention 4 35

20 EKD3 MF_RG Simple Bioretention 8 35

21 EKD4 Res_RG Moderately Complex 15 41

22 EKD1 Alley_ UG Moderately Complex Bioretention 12 20





27 EKD4 School_UG Underground Infiltration 1 43

28 EKD3 School_RG Moderately Complex Bioretention 1 34




Project Rankings and Page Numbers

Project

Rank

Catchment

ID

Retrofit Type

Projects

Identified

Page

Number




34 EKD5 Comm_UG Underground Infiltration 1 49

35 EKD3 Park_RG Moderately Complex Bioretention 1 37








43 EKD2_Alley PP Permeable Pavement 3 30


45 EKD3 Park_RG Moderately Complex Bioretention 2 37

46 EKD4 MF_RG Moderately Complex Bioretention 3 42

47 EKD5 Alley_PP Pervious Pavement 2 51


49 EKD3Comm_ RG Moderately Complex Bioretention 9 36

50 EKD3 Alley_PP Permeable Pavement 13 34









59 EKD7Alley_UG Underground Infiltration 1 63

60 EKD4 Alley_ PP Pervious Pavement Alley 13 45


Methods In this analysis, the methods used were based on models developed by the Center for Watershed

Protection (CWP). In summary, these investigative methods included Retrofit Ranking, Retrofit Scoping,

Desktop Retrofit Analysis, and a Retrofit Reconnaissance Field Investigation. After these methods were

completed, a Treatment Analysis based on cost estimates was completed for each project. In addition

to the CWP methods, a design tool developed by Contech solutions, known as, Design Your Own

Detention or Infiltration Systems, was used in order to model sizing for underground infiltration

trenches. A summary of the methods used are described below.

Retrofit Scoping Each catchment was analyzed using standard land use files within WinSLAMM to determine a base load

of TP. The WinSLAMM parameters and standard land use files used are in Appendix A. These base loads

were calculated in order to determine which catchments had the greatest pollutant loads, which would

give them first consideration when deciding which identified retrofit practices to install. Although the

pollutant base loads may be higher than in reality, the consistent parameters were used in the modeling

so that an overall precise comparison could be made between the catchments. More accurate and

precise pollutant loads for each retrofit opportunity found within the drainage areas were calculated

and are discussed below in the Treatment Analysis/Cost Estimates.

Desktop Retrofit Analysis A desktop search was conducted for each of the nine catchment areas to identify potential retrofit

opportunities before completing a field reconnaissance. GIS layers including topography, hydrology,

soils, watershed/subwatershed boundaries, parcel info/boundaries, high-resolution aerial photography

and the storm drainage infrastructure data were reviewed to determine potential retrofit placement.

Several factors and key locations were considered during the desktop analyses which were conducive to

retrofitting opportunities. These locations included areas well known for installing retrofit projects

including schools and churches.

Retrofit Reconnaissance Investigation

After identifying potential retrofit sites through the desktop search, a field investigation was conducted

to evaluate each site. During the investigation, the drainage area and stormwater infrastructure

mapping data were verified. Site constraints were assessed to determine the most feasible retrofit

options as to eliminate sites from consideration. The field investigation also revealed additional retrofit

opportunities which were unnoticed during the desktop search, specifically those which dealt with poor

drainage. These areas were considered a priority and became a potential project location.

Design Your Own Detention or Infiltration Systems Contech Solution's Design Your Own Detention or Infiltration Systems offered a useful tool for designing

and sizing infiltration trenches. To determine the sizing, the underground infiltration trenches were

modeled based off a site by site analysis by using the calculated impervious area, and the CRWD Rule C

which provided the required treatment needed to treat 1 inch of runoff.


Capitol Region Watershed District Rule C

Treatment Analysis/Cost Estimates

Retrofit Neighborshed Delineation

After the retrofit sites were identified, each of their individual drainage areas or “neighborsheds,”

consisting of runoff from surrounding streets, buildings, parking lots, and landscaped areas, etc., were

delineated using drainage data gathered in the field and GIS contour data. See example below. This

information, in conjunction with the NRCS soil survey data, was used to model the pollutant loads from

each of the sites. A representative residential "neighborshed" was delineated to determine the

percentage of streets, landscaped areas, roads, sidewalks, and buildings. These source area percentages

were then applied over the whole residential land use. The source area acreages were manually

entered into the WinSLAMM program under the appropriate land use type in which the site was

located. To maintain consistency, all file data used in WinSLAMM, listed in Appendix A, was the same

for each site modeled.

Retrofit Modeling & Sizing

The retrofit type and dimensions, conducive to the landscape and size of each neighborshed, was then

chosen and incorporated into the WinSLAMM model to determine its capability to reduce TP. The

retrofit types identified include: simple bioretention, and moderately complex bioretention. The

majority of residential bioretention BMPs modeled were all sized at 120 square feet. Only boulevards

larger than 8 feet were considered in this analysis. The soil class determined which type of bioretention

cell could be installed for each location.

Retrofit Types

Bioretention: The bioretention referred to in this report, also referred to as curb cut rain gardens, takes

stormwater runoff off line for treatment and utilizes the current stormwater conveyance system for

overflow. Depending on the soil type at the location being constructed, the bioretention basins consist

of a depression utilizing native soils for infiltration or replacing current soil with an engineered soil and

native vegetation plantings more conducive to infiltration. At some sites, an underdrain with

connection to the existing stormsewer system may be needed if infiltration capability is limited by

underlying soils or if infiltration cannot be allowed due to soil compaction or other conditions. It is

An example neighborshed and the source areas that are entered in to WinSLAMM


important to properly design and install the engineered soils so that the bioretention basins take no less

than 24 hours but no more than 48 hours to drain. The bioretention basins fell within the categories,

listed below, depending on where the site was located within the landscape.

Simple Bioretention - includes native vegetation, a curb cut and forebay, but no engineered soils or under-drains. May include a retaining wall if the grade is steep.

Moderately Complex Bioretention - includes native vegetation, engineered soils, a curb cut, forebay, and no retaining walls.

The soils in this area are composed of urban land that consists primarily of silty-sand components. Due

to the urban landscape, the area was modeled as a silt-loam and any bioretention features would

require engineered soils to provide adequate drainage. A schematic of the retrofit types and example

modeling parameters used within WinSLAMM of each retrofit type are in Appendix B.

Pervious Pavement: Pervious pavement is pavement which allows for water to seep through and

infiltrate into the natural substrate. In general, pervious pavement can treat 1/3 of the total impervious

area. This criteria was used for site analysis. Design is available in Appendix B.

Underground Infiltration: Underground infiltration systems allows runoff to be stored in underground piping, then via void space, allows the water to percolate into the subsoil This treats the water as it infiltrates. Design is available in Appendix B.

Retrofit Cost Estimates

Each retrofit identified was then assigned an estimated materials, design, and installation cost given its square foot of treatment. These cost estimates were derived from The Center of Watershed Protection manuals and recent installation costs were provided by personal contacts. A unit promotion and administrative costs were calculated with a total project cost and annual maintenance. A 30 year term cost/TP-removed for each retrofit was then calculated for the life cycle of that retrofit, which was calculated from the total cost + (30 year * annual maintenance) / (30 year * TP (lb/yr)).

Catchment Retrofit Results CATCHMENT EKD1 EKD2 EKD3 EKD4 EKD5 EKD6 EKD7 EKD8 EKD9

Area (acres) 240.5 121.0 454.4 300.2 164.3 273.0 22.9 242.1 41.1

Volume ac-ft/year 259.4 87.4 357.9 182.7 132.0 222.8 19.2 188.4 27.7

TSS (lb/year)

93,333

31,756

93,709

56,084

45,335

75,568

4,958

60,997

12,716

TP (lb/year) 234.1 97.0 350.2 208.4 149.8 249.2 18.3 209.1 40.2

POLLUTANTS/ACREAGE

TSS(lb/acre) 388.1 262.4 206.2 186.8 275.9 276.8 216.4 251.9 309.4

TP (lb/acre) 0.97 0.80 0.77 0.69 0.91 0.91 0.80 0.86 0.98

RANK TP EKD9 EKD1 EKD6 EKD5 EKD8 EKD2 EKD7 EKD3 EKD4

TP (lb/acre) .98 .97 .91 .91 .86 .80 .80 .77 .69

RANK TSS EKD1 EKD1 EKD6 EKD5 EKD2 EKD2 EKD7 EKD3 EKD4

TSS(lb/acre) 388.1 309.4 276.8 275.9 262.4 251.9 216.4 206.2 186.8


Catchment 1 Description

Catchment 1 is the farthest upstream from the rest of the

catchments and begins the East Kittsondale subwatershed. This

catchment is the most commercial catchment of the subwatershed

and consists of large areas of industrial, residential, highway, and

institutional land use. A section of Interstate 94 runs adjacent to a

large commercial and industrial development. Portions of

Concordia University are also included in this catchment.

Existing Treatment

Besides bi-annual street sweeping which takes place in the spring and the fall, there are no other

existing stormwater treatment practices in this catchment. Therefore, any projects identified in this

catchment would be a beneficial improvement to the water quality in this uppermost catchment.

Existing Conditions

Base Loading

Treatment Net

Treatment %

Existing Loading

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 234.1 4.5 2% 229.6

TSS (lb/yr) 93,333 3940 4% 89,393

Volume (acre-feet/yr) 259.4 0 0% 259.4

Number of BMP's 1

BMP Size/Description Bi-Annual Street Sweeping

Retrofit Recommendation

During a field reconnaissance, several areas were discovered which were lacking proper drainage and

treatment. Multiple underground infiltration trenches were identified in order to remediate drainage

issues in the limited space available, including trenches in parking lots, roadways, and a sports field.

Specifically, corroded intersections off Hamline Avenue crossing Interstate 94 were in need of serious

drainage improvements. The commercial development in the northeast corner of the catchment was

built prior to stormwater regulations and therefore consists of a high percentage of impervious area that

remains untreated. Retrofitting underground infiltration trenches into existing storm sewer

infrastructure could provide added treatment while being minimally invasive to commercial parking.

Even though these features are underground, informational signage could provide educational outreach

in this highly visible area. In addition to numerous residential curb cut rain gardens, an underground

detention system was identified which could serve as stormwater treatment and sports field irrigation

for a large portion of Concordia University and the surrounding landscape.

Existing Catchment Summary

Acres 240.50

Dominant Land Cover Commercial

Parcels 416

Volume (acre-feet/yr) 259.4

TP (lb/yr) 234.1

TSS (lb/yr) 93333

East Kittsondale: Catchment 1


Project ID: EKD1-Residential Rain Gardens

Drainage Area: 45 Residential Acres

Location: South of Interstate 94 from Snelling and Hamline Ave Map Sites: 104-113

Description:

To treat the residential neighborhoods within Catchment 1, twelve curb cuts rain garden locations were

identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed upstream of a

stormsewer catch basin to treat the stormwater before it reaches the catch basin. To simulate likely

homeowner participation, scenarios for 3, 6, and 12 rain gardens were modeled. The results of the

pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.

Cost/Removal Analysis

EKD1_Residential Rain Gardens

3 6 12

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 0.8 2% 1.5 3% 2.7 2%

TSS (lb/yr) 257 4% 466 5% 844 4%

Volume (acre-feet/yr) 0.7 0% 1.1 0% 2.1 0%

Number of BMP's 3 6 12

BMP Size/Description 360 sq. ft. 720 sq. ft. 1,440 sq. ft.

BMP Type Moderately Complex

Bioretention Moderately Complex


Bioretention

Co

st

Materials/Labor/Design $5,004 $10,008 $20,016

Promotion & Admin Costs $270 $540 $1,080

Probable Project Cost $5,274 $10,548 $21,096

Annual O&M $225 $450 $225

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $1,560 $1,720 $3,612

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $501 $534 $1,160


Project ID: EKD1- Commercial Underground Infiltration Trenches

Drainage Area: 75 Commercial Acres

Cub Foods at University Avenue| Area UG: 4.1 acres | Hamline Ave N | Area UG: .82 acres

Hamline Ave S |Area UG: .6 acres

Location: North of Interstate 94, along railway

Cub Foods at University Avenue| Map Site: 101 | Hamline Ave N |Map Site: 121

Hamline Ave S |Map Site: 122

Description:

Several underground infiltration projects were identified in commercial parking lots and streets. The

first is a parking lot at Cub Foods located off University Ave in the Northern portion of the catchment. If

installed, this project would help treat the runoff coming off a large impervious area. Other

underground trench locations were identified off Hamline Ave, just North and South of where the road

passes over Interstate 94. These areas were identified as having poor drainage, which causes large

corroded areas on the roadways. If either of these projects are installed, they will help to improve not

only water quality, but will increase the road quality as well. Given the similar sizes of the infiltration

trenches, they were modeled as 1 individual trench, and then together as 2 trenches.


EKD1_Commercial Underground Infiltration

Cub Foods Hamline N and S Hamline N

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 5.1 4% 1.8 2% 1.1 3%

TSS (lb/yr) 3,039 7% 576 5% 359 5%

Volume (acre-feet/yr) 12.17 5% 1.4 0% .9 1%


BMP Size/Description 1,680 sq. ft. 600 sq. ft. 360 sq. ft.

BMP Type Underground

Infiltration Underground


Infiltration

Co

st


Promotion & Admin Costs $233 $495 $718


Annual O&M $10,603 $1,202 $802

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $5,182 $7,390 $4,040

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $3,088 $2,412 $1,293


Underground Infiltration Drainage Areas

EKD1- Commercial Underground Infiltration Trenches (Sites 101, 121, and 122) and

School Underground Detention and Reuse (Site 115)


Project ID: EKD1-School Underground Detention and Reuse

Location: Barnes Field, Concordia University located at Selby and Hamline Ave | Map Site: 115

Drainage Area: 32 Institutional Aces, 23 Industrial

Area UG: 18 Acres

Description:

A large area of Concordia University and the surrounding industrial development is connected through

stormwater infrastructure which runs directly through Barnes Field, making it an ideal location for

capturing stormwater for treatment and reuse. This could be made possible by placing an underground

detention and irrigation system in the sports field. If installed, this project would help treat runoff from

18 acres of industrial and institutional land use. Specifically for this project, as it deals with irrigation and

detention times, additional progressive modeling and analysis would be required prior to any

installation.


EKD1_Institutional and Industrial Detention/Reuse

1

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 11.7 7%

TSS (lb/yr) 5,537 10%

Volume (acre-feet/yr) 11.48 4%

Number of BMP's 1

BMP Size/Description 6,048 sq. ft.


Infiltration

Co

st

Materials/Labor/Design $554,904

Promotion & Admin Costs $495

Probable Project Cost $555,399

Annual O&M $10,001

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $5,147

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $2,436


Project ID: EKD1 Alley Project

Location: Any of the 5 Alleys shown in Catchment 1, see map below

Drainage Area: .66 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .22 acres each

Description:

Scenarios of 3, 2, and 1 alleys found in Catchment 1 were modeled as pervious pavement and

underground infiltration trenches to compare the cost-benefit for each type of water quality

improvement project. The results are summarized below. The analysis demonstrates that the

underground infiltration is the most cost-effective project.

Map of alley located in Catchment 1



EKD1_Alleys Pervious Pavement

1 2 3

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 2.5 3% 3.0 3% 3.20 3%

TSS (lb/yr) 804 5% 962 5% 1,013 5%



BMP Size/Description 9,583 sq. ft. 19,166 sq. ft. 28,750 sq. ft.

BMP Type Permeable Pavement Permeable Pavement Permeable Pavement

Co

st


Promotion & Admin Costs $1,680 $1,680 $1,680


Annual O&M $75 $150 $225

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $4,136 $6,855 $9,738

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $1,330 $2,198 $3,083


EKD1_ Alleys Underground Infiltration

1 2 3

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 1.1 2% 1.8 3% 2.3 3%

TSS (lb/yr) 359 5% 576 5% 733 5%



BMP Size/Description 120 sq. ft. 240 sq. ft. 360 sq. ft.




Infiltration

Co

st


Promotion & Admin Costs $1,599 $964 $718


Annual O&M $802 $1,202 $1,600

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $1,111 $1,094 $1,185

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $3,403 $3,417 $3,717



Catchment 2 lies downstream from Catchment 1 and upstream

from Catchment 3. This area is the third smallest of the

catchments and land use is primarily high-density residential with

areas of urban roads and railways. Ayd Mill Road runs through the

center of the catchment along the railway and historic Summit

Avenue runs through the southern part of the catchment.

Existing Conditions

In addition to the bi-annual street sweeping, 13 residential rain gardens were identified during desktop

analysis reconnaissance. These rain gardens were used to determine the pollutant loading for the

existing conditions. Existing rain gardens provide 1680 sq. feet of treatment, treating 1.4 lbs of total

phosphorous, 3,909 pound of suspended solids, and 1.1 acre-feet of runoff.

Existing Conditions

Base Loading

Treatment Net

Treatment %

Existing Loading

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 102.9 5.9 6% 97.0

TSS (lb/yr) 31,756 3,909.0 12% 27,847

Volume (acre-feet/yr) 89.1 1.7 2% 87.4

Number of BMP's 14

BMP Size/Description 13 Rain Gardens totaling 1680 sq. ft

1 Bi-Annual Street Sweeping

Retrofit Recommendations

The majority of the projects identified in Catchment 2 were residential curb cuts. Overall, more than 10

sites were identified as possible locations for curb cut rain gardens. Scenarios for 10, 6, and 3 rain

gardens were modeled and are described below. A rain garden placed on Summit Avenue could offer a

highly visible project which could provide public education and outreach.


Acres 121

Dominant Land Cover Residential

Parcels 437


TP (lb/yr) 97.0

TSS (lb/yr) 27,847



Project ID: EKD2- Residential Rain Gardens

Location: Residential Boulevards from Dayton Ave to Summit Ave| Map Sites: 201-213

Drainage Area: 95 Acres of High-Density Residential

Description:

To treat the residential neighborhoods within Catchment 2, thirteen boulevard rain garden locations

were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed upstream of a





EKD 2_ Residential Rain Gardens

3 6 10

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 1.4 7% 2.2 8% 3.4 9%

TSS (lb/yr) 389 14% 628 14% 1,063 16%



BMP Size/Description 360 Sq. Ft 720 Sq. Ft 1,200 Sq. Ft




Bioretention

Co

st




Annual O&M $225 $450 $750

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $1,205 $1,415 $1,362

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $342 $402 $422


Project ID: EKD2-Alley Project

Location: Any of the 9 Alley Locations in Catchment 2

Drainage Area: 4.04 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .4 acres each

Description:

Scenarios of 5, 3, and 1 alleys found in Catchment 2 were modeled both as pervious pavement and

underground infiltration trenches in order to compare the cost-benefit for each type of water quality

improvement project. The results are summarized below. Analysis demonstrated that underground

infiltration is the most cost-effective option.

Alley locations in Catchment 2



EKD 2_ Alleys Pervious Pavement

1 3 5

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 5.0 11% 5.9 11% 6.2 12%

TSS (lb/yr) 1,570 17% 1,831 18% 1,927 18%



BMP Size/Description 6,389 Sq. Ft 12,778 Sq. Ft 19,166 Sq. Ft


Co

st




Annual O&M $75 $225 $375

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $1,440 $2,480 $3,539

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $452 $775 $1,104


EKD 2_ Alleys Underground Infiltration

1 3 5

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 2.6 8% 5.1 11% 6.3 12%

TSS (lb/yr) 1,063 16% 1,589 17% 1,954 18%



BMP Size/Description 120 Sq. Ft 360 Sq. Ft 600 Sq. Ft




Infiltration

Co

st




Annual O&M $90 $270 $450

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $480 $878 $1,178

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $198 $272 $366



Catchment 3 is the largest in East Kittsondale and is composed of

high-density residential areas, with portions of commercial

development along Grand and Summit Avenue. Ayd Mill road and

the rail way run directly through this catchment. A multifamily

townhome development, Wilder Park, lies in the southeast corner

of the catchment and provided ideal locations for placing

bioretention.

Existing Conditions

As part of the City of Saint Paul’s RSVP program, three underground infiltration trenches were installed

beneath the roadways to treat the street runoff. In total, the three underground infiltration trenches

along with street sweeping treated 21 pounds of phosphorous, 5.3 acre-feet of runoff. These trenches

were modeled based off as-built data provided by the CRWD and the City of Saint Paul.

Existing Conditions

Base Loading

Treatment Net

Treatment %

Existing Loading

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 371.8 21.6 6% 350.2

TSS (lb/yr) 108,617 14,908.0 14% 93,709


Number of BMP's 4


3 Underground Infiltration Trenches


The majority of projects identified in this catchment were residential rain gardens because the land use

is primarily residential and multifamily. The most visible projects would be located along Summit

Avenue. One underground detention project was identified which could double as field irrigation for

Saint Paul Summit School. In addition, two underground infiltration areas were identified in alleys which

lie along in commercial developments. Areas of pervious pavement were also identified.


Acres 454.40


Parcels 1664


TP (lb/yr) 350.20

TSS (lb/yr) 93,709




Location: Residential Boulevards throughout the Catchment Map Sites: 302-316 and 318-358


Description:

To treat the residential neighborhoods within Catchment 3, nearly 70 boulevard rain garden locations

were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed upstream of a





EKD 3_ Residential Rain Gardens

12 25 50

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 2.9 7% 5.7 7% 10.5 9%

TSS (lb/yr) 796 14% 1,538 15% 2,827 16%







Bioretention

Co

st


Promotion & Admin Costs

$4,830 $8,470 $15,470


Annual O&M $900 $1,875 $3,750

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $2,171 $2,306 $2,492

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $596 $622 $671


Project ID: EKD3-Institutional Projects

Location: St. Thomas More Church, Summit Ave| Map Sites: 359

Mt. Zion Temple, Summit Ave |Map Site: 374

Saint Paul Academy and Summit School| Map Site: 362

Drainage Area: 19 Total Acres of Institutional Land Use

Description:

To treat the institutional land use in this catchment, 3 different types of projects were identified,

including pervious pavement, rain gardens, and underground infiltration. St. Thomas More Church has a

large parking lot which could be converted into pervious pavement to help treat the stormwater runoff

in a limited space. A rain garden located off a parking lot near Mt. Zion Temple on Summit Avenue

could help treat a large, currently untreated parking lot. Lastly, an underground infiltration site at the

Saint Paul Academy and Summit School could provide a unique opportunity for stormwater reuse for

irrigation for the sport's field. More extensive modeling and analysis would be required for stormwater

reuse.


EKD 3_ Institutional

1 1 UG Detention &

Reuse

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 1.7 6% 0.3 6% 3.9 7%

TSS (lb/yr) 884 15% 102 14% 1,640 15%



BMP Size/Description 19,602 Sq. Ft 120 Sq. Ft 1,200 Sq. Ft

BMP Type Permeable Pavement Moderately Complex

Bioretention Underground

Infiltration

Co

st


Promotion & Admin Costs $1,680 $1,750 $298


Annual O&M $75 $75 $6,800

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $7,540 $1,852 $6,385

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $3,921 $630 $2,685


Project ID: EKD3-Multifamily Rain Gardens

Drainage Area: 16 Acres of Multifamily Land Use

Location: Wilder Park Townhomes off Ayd Mill Road and Lexington Ave |Map Sites: 354-358

Lexington Commons Homeowner Association |Map Sites: 372-373

Other Apartments |Map Sites: 367-368

Description:

Wilder Park Townhomes are located in a low-lying

area, with little stormwater infrastructure.

Lexington Commons is located just North of

Wilder Park and had ideal locations for placing rain

gardens. These rain gardens were modeled as

simple bioretention because there is no curb to

consider in these areas. Other rain garden

locations were positioned at various apartment

complexes throughout the catchment.

Multifamily site locations


EKD 3_ Multifamily

4 8

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 1.0 6% 1.9 6%

TSS (lb/yr) 293 14% 559 14%

Volume (acre-feet/yr) 5.7 3% 6.2 3%

Number of BMP's 4 8

BMP Size/Description 480 Sq. Ft 960 Sq. Ft

BMP Type Simple

Bioretention Simple Bioretention

Co

st

Materials/Labor/Design $5,424 $10848

Promotion & Admin Costs $2,590 $3,710

Probable Project Cost $8,014 $14,558

Annual O&M $300 $600

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $1,936 $1,941

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $567 $571


Project ID: EKD3-Commercial Projects

Drainage Area: 22 Acres of Commercial Land Use

Location: Spectacle Shoppe, Grand Ave | Map Site: 360

Karuna Chiropractic, Saint Clair Ave | Map Site: 317

Description:

Due to the limited space available in commercial areas, boulevard rain gardens and pervious pavement

was found to be the most feasible projects in these areas.


EKD 3_ Commercial

1 9

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 0.7 6% 1.5 6%

TSS (lb/yr) 377 14% 748 14%


Number of BMP's 1 9

BMP Size/Description 720 Sq. Ft 1,080 Sq. Ft

BMP Type Permeable Pavement Moderately Complex

Bioretention

Co

st

Materials/Labor/Design $7,200 $15,012

Promotion & Admin Costs $1,680 $3,990


Annual O&M $450 $675

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $1,066 $872

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $1,979 $1,749

Project ID: EKD3-Park Projects

Drainage Area: 10.5 Acres of Park Land Use

Location: Summit Ave and Marshall Ave | Map Site: 301, 313-316

Description:

Summit Avenue has large boulevard space, making it an ideal location for a large rain garden. Based on

homeowner participation, scenarios for 2 and 4 rain gardens were identified. Rain gardens located in

this area would provide excellent exposure and outreach for citizens; however, given that Summit

Avenue is in a historic district, additional planning and cooperation would be required. Additionally,

parking stalls along Marshall Ave could utilize pervious pavement to help capture street runoff.



EKD 3_ Park

Park PP: Site 301 Park RG Park 2 RG New

trtmt Net %

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 0.1 6% 1.0 6% 1.6 6%

TSS (lb/yr) 47 14% 239 14% 386 14%




BMP Type Permeable Pavement

Moderately Complex Bioretention


Co

st




Annual O&M $75 $150 $300

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $12,362 $2,849 $3,402

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $5,810 $681 $821


Location: Any of the 52 Alley Locations in Catchment 3

Drainage Area: 14.5 Acres of Alleys

Description:

Scenarios of 26, 13, and 6 alleys found in Catchment 3

were modeled both as pervious pavement and

underground infiltration trenches to compare the cost-

benefit for each type of water quality improvement

project. For underground infiltration design, see

Appendix B. The analysis determined that the

underground infiltration would be the most cost-

effective option (results summarized below).




EKD 3_Pervious Alleys

6 13 26 New

trtmt Net %

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 5.0 11% 5.9 11% 6.2 12%

TSS (lb/yr) 1,570 17% 1,831 18% 1,927 123%





Permeable Pavement Permeable Pavement

Co

st




Annual O&M $450 $975 $1,950

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $1,679 $2,889 $4,356

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $527 $903 $1,358


EKD 3_ Alleys Underground Infiltration

6 13 26

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 4.7 7% 6.2 7% 7.0 8%

TSS (lb/yr) 1,457 15% 1,920 15% 2,161 16%



BMP Size/Description 720 Sq. Ft 1,560 Sq. Ft 3,120 Sq. Ft




Infiltration

Co

st




Annual O&M $8,200 $8,800 $9,000

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $7,149 $7,073 $8,583

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $2,216 $2,190 $2,650



Catchment 4 is the 2nd largest in the subwatershed and is a great

area for families as it consists of residential, park, and institutional

land use. Small portions of commercial land use lie along Randolph

Avenue in the southern portion of the catchment. Edgcumbe Park

and Cretin Durham Hall are located in this catchment. Multiple

apartment complexes completely lack any on-site stormsewer

infrastructure, and instead rely on drainage to the streets.

Existing Conditions

As part of the City of Saint Paul’s RSVP program, four underground infiltration trenches were installed

beneath the roadways to discretely treat urban runoff. These trenches help remove 76 pounds of

phosphorous, 56,084 pounds of suspended solids, and 47.8 acre-feet of runoff. In addition to street

sweeping, these trenches were modeled for their pollutant removal rates within the catchment. The

table below outlines the base conditions and the treatment provided by the existing features.

Existing Conditions

Base Loading

Treatment Net

Treatment %

Existing Loading

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 284.4 76.0 27% 208.4

TSS (lb/yr) 84,836 28,752.0 34% 56,084


Number of BMP's 4

BMP Size/Description 4 Infiltration Trenches Totaling 52272 c.f.

Bi-Annual Street Sweeping


The majority of projects outlined in this included boulevard rain gardens. A few opportunities for

underground infiltration exist, which would add to the pollutant removal success of the existing RSVP

trenches. Another treatment option is for current RSVP trenches located south of Edgcumbe

Recreational Area be retrofitted as stormwater reuse and irrigation.


Acres 300.2


Parcels 1420


TP (lb/yr) 208.4

TSS (lb/yr) 56,084




Location: Residential Boulevards throughout the catchment

Map Sites: 401-2, 404, 406-16, 427-34, 436, 439, 440-1


Description:

To treat the runoff from residential neighborhoods within Catchment 4, over 30 boulevard rain garden

locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally placed

upstream of a stormsewer catch basin to treat the stormwater before it reaches the catch basin. To

simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 7, 15, and 30 rain gardens were modeled. The

results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.



7 15 30

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 1.9 27% 3.7 28% 6.2 29%

TSS (lb/yr) 620 35% 1,230 35% 2,019 36%



BMP Size/Description 840.00 Sq. Ft 1,800 Sq. Ft 3,600 Sq. Ft.




Bioretention

Co

st




Annual O&M $630 $1,350 $2,700

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $1,665 $1,782 $2,166

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $543 $592 $705

Project ID: EKD4-Multifamily Projects

Location: Apartments off Randolph Ave, Edgcumbe Rd, and James Ave | Map Sites: 419-422

Drainage Area: 6.9 Acres of Multifamily Residential

Description:

Pervious pavement and rain gardens were ideal projects to treat the runoff from multifamily

neighborhoods within Catchment 4. Pervious pavement was used in areas which were lacking open

space for bioretention. The results of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table

below.


Apartments located off Randolph Avenue, ideal locations for pervious pavement


EKD4_Multifamily BMPs

3 3

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 0.5 27% 1.1 27%

TSS (lb/yr) 177 34% 688 35%


Number of BMP's 3 3

BMP Size/Description 360 Sq. Ft 27,138 Sq. Ft


Bioretention Permeable Pavement

Co

st


Promotion & Admin Costs $718 $1,680


Annual O&M $225 $20,354

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $2,349 $42,813

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $831 $26,778


Project ID: EKD4-Institutional Projects

Location: Edgcumbe Recreational Center | Map Sites: 435, 417 and 423

Drainage Area: 30 Acres of Institutional Land Use

Area UG: 7 Acres

Description:

To treat the runoff from institutional areas within

Catchment 4, underground infiltration, rain

gardens, and pervious pavement were ideal

projects for these locations. Pervious pavement

was used in areas which were lacking drainage

and open space. The results of the pollutant and

volume reductions are summarized in the table

below.


EKD4_Institutional Sites

1 2 1

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 18.3 33% 0.3 27% 0.2 27%

TSS (lb/yr) 6,899 42% 190 34% 167 34%



BMP Size/Description 3,000.00 Sq. Ft 360 Sq. Ft 392 Sq. Ft.


Infiltration Moderately Complex

Bioretention Permeable Pavement

Co

st




Annual O&M $2,250 $270 $294

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $1,657 $2,425 $2,678

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $625 $1,536 $2,236



Location: Any of the 51 Alley Locations in Catchment 4, see map below

Drainage Area: 10.4 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .202 acres each

Description:



improvement project. The results are summarized below, underground infiltration was analyzed as

being the most cost-effective.




EKD4_ Alleys Pervious Pavement

5 13 26

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 4.5 28% 12.5 31% 16.7 33%

TSS (lb/yr) 1,437 36% 3,856 38% 5,149 40%



BMP Size/Description 14,665.20 Sq. Ft 38,130 Sq. Ft 76,259 Sq. Ft.


Co

st




Annual O&M $375 $975 $1,950

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $3,702 $3,563 $5,326

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $1,182 $1,099 $1,642


EKD4_Alleys Underground Infiltration

5 13 26

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 5.4 29% 11.1 31% 16.2 32%

TSS (lb/yr) 1,599 36% 3,365 38% 4,955 40%



BMP Size/Description 600.00 Sq. Ft 1,560 Sq. Ft 3,120 Sq. Ft.




Infiltration

Co

st




Annual O&M $450 $1,170 $2,340

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $3,659 $3,704 $4,142

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $1,083 $1,123 $1,267



Catchment 5 lies upstream from Catchment 9 and 8. Like the

entirety of the subwatershed, it is primarily residential, but it also

encompasses commercial areas near Grand Avenue. Drainage and

grading seemed to be an issue in this area, so ideal projects in this

location included underground infiltration.

Existing Conditions

Bi-annual street sweeping is the only existing treatment throughout this catchment. Any projects

installed in this catchment would cause pollutant reductions and water quality improvements.

Existing Conditions

Base Loading

Treatment Net

Treatment %

Existing Loading

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 151.5 1.7 1% 149.8

TSS (lb/yr) 46,890 1555.0 3% 45,335


Number of BMP's 1



Several underground infiltration trenches were identified in commercial areas due to poor drainage in

these areas. The Grand Ave commercial parking lot had major flooding issues due to poor grading and

lack of infrastructure. Infiltration trenches were identified as a possible solution in order to maintain

parking capacity while providing solution to drainage and pollutant loads.


Acres 164.30


Parcels 503


TP (lb/yr) 149.80

TSS (lb/yr) 45,335




Location: Residential Boulevards throughout the catchment | Map Sites: 501-515 Drainage Area: 122 Acres of High-Density Residential Description: To treat the runoff from residential neighborhoods within Catchment 5, 15 boulevard rain

garden locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally

placed upstream of a stormsewer catch basin to treat the stormwater before it reaches the catch basin.

To simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 3, 7, and 14 rain gardens were modeled. The




3 7 14

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 0.7 2% 1.4 2% 2.7 3%

TSS (lb/yr) 189 4% 407 4% 777 5%




BMP Type Moderately

Complex Bioretention



Co

st




Annual O&M $270 $630 $1,260

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $2,438 $2,536 $2,633

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $658 $737 $758

Project ID: EKD5-Commercial Projects

Location: Juut Salon at Grand Avenue| Map Sites: 516 Goodrich and Victoria Ave| Map Site: 517 Fairmount and Avon Alley | Map Site: 518 Drainage Area: 20.9 Acres of Commercial Grand - Area UG: .97 acre Goodrich & Victoria Ave - Area UG: .22 Acre Fairmount and Avon Alley - Area UG: .22 acres Description:

To treat the runoff from commercial areas in Catchment 5, underground infiltration projects were

identified. These projects would help solve the drainage areas in this large parking area which lacks

infrastructure.



EKD5_Commercial UG Alley

1 1 2

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 14.6 11% 7.7 6% 9.2 7%

TSS (lb/yr) 4,256 12% 1,930 7% 2,869 9%



BMP Size/Description 1,200 Sq. Ft 120 Sq. Ft 240 Sq. Ft




Infiltration

Co

st


Promotion & Admin Costs $298 $1,599 $964


Annual O&M $10,960 $4,818 $5,924

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $3,440 $2,714 $2,332

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $1,003 $680 $727

Example location of Grand Ave parking lot, near Juut Salon. An infiltration trench would treat the

green shaded area.




Drainage Area: 5 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .32 acres each

Description:



improvement project. For underground infiltration design, see the Appendix B. The analysis found

underground infiltration as being the most cost-effective solution. The results are summarized below.




EKD5_Alley Pervious Pavement

2 4 8 New

trtmt Net %

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 3.8 4% 6.1 5% 12.5 9%

TSS (lb/yr) 1,225 6% 1,922 7% 3,937 12%






Co

st




Annual O&M $150 $300 $600

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $2,693 $3,403 $3,313

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $868 $1,072 $1,043


EKD5_Alley Underground Infiltration

2 4 8

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 33.0 23% 37.2 26% 37.5 26%

TSS (lb/yr) 11,146 27% 12,539 30% 12,574 30%







Infiltration

Co

st




Annual O&M $19,576 $21,998 $22,198

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $1,825 $1,873 $2,000

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $616 $631 $671



Catchment 6 is located just south of Interstate 35E. This is the

furthest catchment downstream, and ultimately discharges the

entire subwatershed into the Mississippi River. The 273 acre

subwatershed consists primarily of residential land use with

commercial areas along the southern portion of the site, following

West 7th St. Institutional areas are scattered throughout this area.

Existing Conditions

Besides bi-annual street sweeping, no other treatment type exists. If any of the identified projects were

installed, they would increase the water quality in this catchment. A summary of the existing conditions

is provided below.

Existing Conditions

Base Loading

Treatment Net

Treatment %

Existing Loading

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 256.3 7.1 3% 249.2

TSS (lb/yr) 81,887 6,319.0 8% 75,568


Number of BMP's 1



Because of the residential nature of this catchment, placing many curb cut rain gardens in boulevards

was identified as an ideal treatment option for the residential areas. Commercial develpments

surrounding West 7th St offered limited space for projects, so pervious pavement was often the best

solution.


Acres 273.00


Parcels 1219


TP (lb/yr) 249.20

TSS (lb/yr) 75,568




Location: Residential Boulevards from Monroe Ct to Otto Ave| Map Sites: 601-626


Description:

To treat the runoff from residential neighborhoods within Catchment 6, over 25 boulevard rain garden







5 12 25

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 1.1 3% 2.4 4% 4.8 5%

TSS (lb/yr) 322 8% 705 9% 1,396 9%







Bioretention

Co

st



$450 $1,080 $2,250


Annual O&M $375 $900 $1,875

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $2,075 $2,274 $2,393

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $607 $668 $696


Project ID: EKD6-Commercial Pervious Pavement

Location: Commercial Areas surrounding West 7th Map Sites: 631-634

Drainage Area: 22 Acres of Commercial Development

Description:

To treat the runoff from commercial areas, several

pervious pavement location were identified. These

locations would help treat runoff where limited space is

available. Scenarios were analyzed for pervious pavement

1, 2, and 4 different locations.

Example location of pervious pavement


EKD6_Commercial Pervious Pavement

1 2 4

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 0.4 3% 0.5 3% 0.7 3%

TSS (lb/yr) 234 8% 322 8% 424 8%





Co

st



$1,680 $1,680 $1,680


Annual O&M $75 $150 $300

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $3,662 $5,149 $7,689

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $2,143 $3,316 $4,657




Drainage Area: 5 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .23 acres each

Description:



improvement project. The results are summarized below; analysis revealed that underground





4 9 19 New

trtmt Net %

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 1.9 4% 2.1 4% 4.3 4%

TSS (lb/yr) 609 8% 652 9% 1,351 9%






Co

st




Annual O&M $300 $675 $1,425

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $7,046 $14,684 $14,961

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $2,258 $4,559 $4,700



4 9 19

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 9.6 7% 12.5 8% 22.3 11%

TSS (lb/yr) 2,821 11% 3,713 12% 6,570 16%







Infiltration

Co

st




Annual O&M $6,900 $9,479 $16,683

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $2,973 $3,445 $3,602

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $874 $1,023 $1,061



At only 22.91 acres, Catchment 7 is the smallest catchment, but has

the greatest pollutant load. This is likely due to the large arterial

roads such as Lexington Pkwy and Randolph Ave passing through

the area. The large number of urban roads greatly limited project

locations. Land use is primarily residential, with a large multifamily

development in southern most portion of the catchment.

Existing Conditions

Besides bi-annual street sweeping, no other treatment exists. Any projects installed would improve the

water quality in this catchment. The table below outlines the existing conditions for the catchment.

Existing Conditions

Base Loading

Treatment Net

Treatment %

Existing Loading

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 19.3 1.0 5% 18.3

TSS (lb/yr) 5,901 943.0 16% 4,958


Number of BMP's 1



Only 6 projects were identified in this catchment, due to lack of capacity for anything more. The arterial

roads provided limited locations for placing boulevard rain garden. Other project types were considered.

The downhill sloping nature of the multifamily development resulted in limited drainage areas, as the

site did not include any infrastructure. Pervious pavement and a rain garden were identified as

treatment options to help alleviate any drainage issues that occur on site.


Acres 22.91


Parcels 96


TP (lb/yr) 18.30

TSS (lb/yr) 4,958




Location: Residential boulevards off Lexington Pkwy | Map Sites: 702-703


Description: To treat the runoff from residential neighborhoods within Catchment 7, 2 boulevard rain

garden locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally


To simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 1 and rain gardens were modeled. The results

of the pollutant and volume reductions are summarized in the table below.



1 2

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 2.3 17% 2.5 18%

TSS (lb/yr) 715 28% 749 29%


Number of BMP's 1 2

BMP Size/Description 120 Sq. Ft 240 Sq. Ft



Bioretention

Co

st



$1599 $964


Annual O&M $75 $150

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $257 $392

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $80 $117

Project ID: EKD7-Multifamily Projects

Location: Lexington Pkwy and Randolph Ave | Map Sites: 704-706 Drainage Area: 4.35 Acres of Multifamily Description:

To treat the runoff from the multifamily neighborhoods within Catchment 7, 3 projects were identified,

including rain gardens and pervious pavement. The current site lacked drainage, so any installed projects

would help alleviate any drainage issues.



EKD7_Multifamily BMPs

1 Lot 1 Alley 1 RG

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 0.6 8% 0.4 7% 0.3 7%

TSS (lb/yr) 349 22% 250 20% 177 19%



BMP Size/Description 10,890 Sq. Ft 2,875 Sq. Ft 480 Sq. Ft

BMP Type Permeable Pavement Permeable Pavement Moderately Complex

Bioretention

Co

st



$1,680 $1,680 $582


Annual O&M $75 $75 $75

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $10,777 $4,357 $1,790

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $6,268 $2,723 $1,056

Location of projects in multifamily development




Drainage Area: .66 Acres of Alleys, modeled at .23 acres each

Description: Scenarios of all 3 alleys found in Catchment 7 were modeled both as pervious pavement and


improvement project. The results are summarized below, and analysis revealed that underground


Alley Locations in Catchment 7




1 2 3 New

trtmt Net %

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 1.4 12% 1.5 13% 2.2 17%

TSS (lb/yr) 422 23% 451 24% 673 27%






Co

st




Annual O&M $233 $467 $700

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $8,703 $16,162 $16,205

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $2,623 $4,859 $4,957



1 2 3

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 0.9 10% 1.2 11% 1.7 14%

TSS (lb/yr) 272 21% 375 22% 534 25%







Infiltration

Co

st




Annual O&M $566 $781 $1,112

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $3,627 $4,127 $4,188

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $1,096 $1,290 $1,316



Catchment 8 is primarily residential land use, with commercial

areas and portions of institutional land use surrounding Grand Ave.

A large park development, Linwood Community Recreation Center,

is located in the catchment, just north of Interstate 35E. Interstate

35E runs through the southern part of the catchment, cutting the

catchment in half.

Existing Conditions

As part of the City of Saint Paul’s RSVP program, two underground infiltration trenches were installed

beneath the roadways to treat the street runoff. Along with street sweeping, the two underground

infiltration trenches treat approximately 9 acre-feet of volume, 7,912 pounds of suspended solids and 17

total pounds of phosphorous. In addition to bi-annual street sweeping, these trenches were modeled as

existing conditions.

The sizing of the

infiltration

trenches was based

off as-built data

provided by the

CRWD and the City

of Saint Paul.


Projects identified in this catchment included rain gardens and an infiltration trench. Projects located in

institutional areas offer great opportunities for grant funding


Location: Residential Boulevards from Lincoln Ave to James Ave Map Sites: 803-5 ,809, 811-2, 815, 817-25 Drainage Area: 153 Acres of High-Density Residential

Description: To treat the runoff from residential neighborhoods within catchment 8, over 20 boulevard

rain garden locations were identified, though more may exist. Ideal rain garden locations are generally


To simulate likely homeowner participation, scenarios for 5, 10, and 20 rain gardens were modeled. The



Acres 242.10


Parcels 793


TP (lb/yr) 209.10

TSS (lb/yr) 60,997

Existing Conditions

Base Loading

Treatment Net

Treatment %

Existing Loading

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 226.2 17.1 8% 209.1

TSS (lb/yr) 68,909 7912.0 11% 60,997


Number of BMP's 3

BMP Size/Description 2 Underground Infiltration Trenches

Bi-Annual Street Sweeping





5 10 20 New

trtmt Net %

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 0.9 8% 1.7 8% 3.2 9%

TSS (lb/yr) 226 12% 426 12% 809 13%







Bioretention

Co

st



$495 $298 $180


Annual O&M $375 $750 $1,500

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $2,962 $3,089 $3,236

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $724 $774 $818

Project ID: EKD8-Multifamily Rain Gardens

Location: Boulevards located at Goodrich Ave to Linwood Ave | Map Sites: 806-8, 810, 813-4, 816, 822

Drainage Area: 11.4 Acres of Multifamily Residential land use

Description:

To treat the runoff from multifamily developments within Catchment 8, 8 boulevard rain garden







EKD8_Multifamily Rain Gardens

2 4 8 New

trtmt Net %

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 0.4 8% 0.6 8% 1.2 8%

TSS (lb/yr) 118 12% 204 12% 376 12%







Bioretention

Co

st



$582 $351 $212


Annual O&M $150 $300 $600

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $3,320 $3,708 $3,3980

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $979 $1,261 $1,247

Project ID: EKD8-Institutional Underground Infiltration

Location: St. Paul Childhood Center off Grand Ave | Map Site: 834

Drainage Area: 10.1 Acres of Institutional, UG Drainage: 1.61 Acres

Description:

To treat the runoff from institutional

areas in Catchment 8, an underground

infiltration trench was identified. This

location is in a 1.6 acre lot near the

Grand Ave commercial development.

The site has poor drainage due to

inadequate grading and lack of

infrastructure. An infiltration trench

would alleviate drainage issues while

providing adequate treatment and

parking locations. Pictures of the site

location are available in Appendix C.

St. Paul Childhood Center underground infiltration project location


Cost Removal/Analysis

EKD8_School UG Infiltration

1 New

trtmt Net %

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

New trtmt

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 1.6 8%

TSS (lb/yr) 956 13%

Volume (acre-feet/yr) 2.7 6%

Number of BMP's 1

BMP Size/Description 600 Sq. Ft


Infiltration

Co

st

Materials/Labor/Design $11,010

Promotion & Admin Costs $1,599

Probable Project Cost $12,609

Annual O&M $2,340

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $2,887

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $1,725


Location: Any of the 26 Alley Locations found

in Catchment 8, see map to the right.

Drainage Area: 6.5 Acres of Alleys, modeled at

.25 acres each

Description: Scenarios of 3, 7, and 13 alleys found in

Catchment 8 were modeled as both pervious

pavement and underground infiltration

trenches to compare the cost-benefit for each

type of water quality improvement project.

Analysis revealed underground infiltration as

being the most cost-effective. The results are

summarized below.

Alley Locations in Catchment 8




3 7 13

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 1.5 8% 3.0 9% 4.0 9%

TSS (lb/yr) 485 12% 947 13% 1,237 13%






Co

st




Annual O&M $225 $525 $975

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $8,064 $9,558 $13,550

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $2,607 $3,017 $4,190


EKD8_Alley UG

3 7 13

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 2.5 9% 3.6 9% 4.1 9%

TSS (lb/yr) 792 13% 1,111 13% 1,275 13%







Infiltration

Co

st




Annual O&M $1,640 $2,300 $2,640

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $3,491 $3,409 $5,819

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $1,106 $1,052 $1,810



This catchment consists primarily of highway and railway, with

Interstate 94 and 35E running through the majority of the

catchment. Pleasant Arena, an ice skating area, is also located in

this catchment. Due to the nature of this catchment, locations for

runoff treatment off major roads were limited. Unlike the rest of

the catchments, no alley improvement projects were analyzed.

Existing Treatment

Bi-annual street sweeping is the only existing treatment in this area; therefore, if any of the identified

projects were to be installed they would help improve the water quality of stormwater coming from this

catchment. The table below outlines the existing conditions.

Existing Conditions

Base Loading

Treatment Net

Treatment %

Existing Loading

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 40.2 0.0 0% 40.2

TSS (lb/yr) 13,132 416.0 3% 12,716


Number of BMP's 1



Only 3 projects were identified in this catchment, due to limited appropriate locations. It is

recommended that all of these projects are installed due to the treatment they provide and the low cost

of installation and maintenance.

Project ID EKD9-Residential Vegetated Swales

Location: Pleasant Avenue, just off Interstate 35E | Map Site: 901-3

Drainage: 3.5 Acres of Residential Land Use

Description: Vegetated swales along Pleasant Avenue could provide treatment for street runoff at a low

maintenance and total cost.


Acres 41.087

Dominant Land Cover Highway

Parcels 437


TP (lb/yr) 40.20

TSS (lb/yr) 12,716




EKD 9_Residential Vegetated Swales

1 2 3

New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net % New trtmt

Net %

Trea

tmen

t

TP (lb/yr) 0.8 2% 1.5 4% 2.1 5%

TSS (lb/yr) 117 4% 209 5% 290 5%




BMP Type Simple Bioretention Simple Bioretention Simple Bioretention

Co

st




Annual O&M $75 $150 $225

30-yr Cost/1,000lb-TSS $1,483 $1,304 $1,326

30-yr Cost/lb-TP $207 $180 $184


References Barr Engineering, Best Management Practices Construction Costs, Maintenance Costs, and Land

Requirements. Prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. June 2011.

Capitol Region Watershed District, BMP Performance and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Arlington Pascal Project

2007-2010. Prepared by Capitol Region Watershed District. March 9, 2012.

City of Saint Paul, Stormwater Permit Annual Report - 2012 Activities and 2013 Workplan. Prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; Nation Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. June 2013 Design Your Own Detention or Infiltration System. Urban Green Stormwater Solutions from Contech. Contech Solutions. Accessed March 2014. Schueler et. al. 2005. Methods to Develop Restoration Plans for Small Urban Watersheds. Manual 2,

Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual Series. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City,

MD.

Schueler et. al. 2007. Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices. Manual 3, Urban Subwatershed Restoration

Manual Series. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD.

WSB & Associate, Inc. 1995. 2012 Stormwater Quantity and Quality Monitoring Report. Prepared for City of Saint Paul, MN. January 17, 2013.


Appendix A.

WINSLAMM modeling parameters and files used in the assessment

File Name Date Created/

Last Modified Created By Description

“CPZ:” These files contain the sediment particle size distributions developed from monitored data. The files area used

in the evaluation of control practices that rely upon particle settling for pollution control.

NURP.CPZ 5/16/88 Pitt/UA Summarizes NURP outfall particle size data

“PPD” (Pollutant Probability Distribution) files describe the pollutant concentrations found in source areas.

WI_GEO01.ppd 11/26/02 Horwatich/USGS USGS/DNR pollutant probability distribution file from Wisconsin

monitoring data.

“PRR” (Particulate Residue Reduction) files describe the fraction of total particulates that remains in the drainage

system (curbs and gutters, grass swales, and storm drainage) after rain events end due to deposition. This fraction of

the total particulates does not reach the outfall, so the outfall values are reduced by the fraction indicated in the .PRR

file.

WI_DLV01.prr 7/8/01 Horwatich/USGS USGS/DNR particulate residue reduction file for the delivery

system from Wisconsin monitoring data.

“RSV” (Runoff coefficient file). These coefficients, when multiplied by rain depths, land use source areas, and a

conversion factor, determine the runoff volumes needed by WinSLAMM.

WI_SL06

Dec06.rsv 12/18/06 Horwatich/USGS

USGS/DNR runoff volumetric coefficient file from Wisconsin

monitoring data. Use for all versions of WinSLAMM starting

from v 9.2.0.

“STD” (Street Delivery File): These files describe the fraction of total particulates that are washed from the streets

during rains, but are subsequently redeposited due to lack of energy in the flowing water.

WI_Com Inst

Indust Dec06.std 12/12/06 Horwatich/USGS

USGS/DNR street delivery file from Wisconsin monitoring data.

Use for all versions of WinSLAMM starting from v 9.2.0 for

Industrial, Commercial and Institutional land uses.

WI_Res and

Other Urban

Dec06.std

12/07/06 Horwatich/USGS

USGS/DNR street delivery file from Wisconsin monitoring data.

Use for all versions of WinSLAMM starting from v 9.2.0 for

Residential and Other Urban land uses.

Freeway

Dec06.std 7/12/05 Pitt/UA

Street delivery file developed to account for TSS reductions due

to losses in a freeway delivery system based upon early

USDOT research. Renamed Freeway.std

“PSC” (Particulate Solids Concentration): Values in this file, when multiplied by source area runoff volumes and a

conversion factor, calculate particulate solids loadings (lbs).

WI_AVG01.psc 11/26/02 Horwatich/USGS USGS/DNR particulate solids concentration file from Wisconsin

monitoring data.

“RAN” (Rain Files):

MN Minneapolis

59.RAN NA NA

A n event-record of rainfall for the year 1959, considered as an

average year, in the form of Start Date, Start Time, End Date,

End Time and Rainfall (in inches).

Settings

Parameter Description

Start/End Date Defines the modeling period in reference to the rain file data. In this case, the entire one year period was

selected (i.e., 01/02/59-12/28/59).

Winter Season

Range Set to begin on November 7

th and end on March 17

th.

Drainage System Set to “Curb and gutter, valleys, or sealed swales in fair condition.


WINSLAMM Standard Land Use Codes

RESIDENTIAL LAND USES

High-density Residential without Alleys (HDRNA): Urban single family housing at a density of greater than 6 units/acre. Includes house, driveway, yards, sidewalks, and streets.

High-density Residential with Alleys (HDRWA): Same as HDRNA, except alleys exist behind the houses.

Medium Density Residential without Alleys (MDRNA): Same as HDRNA except the density is between 2 - 6 units/acre.

Medium Density Residential with Alleys (MDRWA): Same as HDRWA, except alleys exists behind the houses.

Low Density Residential (LDR): Same as HDRNA except the density is 0.7 to 2 units/acre.

Duplexes (DUP): Housing having two separate units in a single building.

Multiple Family Residential (MFRNA): Housing for three or more families, from 1 - 3 stories in height. Units may be adjoined up-and-down, side-by-side; or front-and-rear. Includes building, yard, parking lot, and driveways. Does not include alleys.

High Rise Residential (HRR): Same MFRNA except buildings are High Rise Apartments; multiple family units 4 or more stories in height.

Mobile Home Park (MOBH): A mobile home or trailer park, includes all vehicle homes, the yard, driveway, and office area.

Suburban (SUB): Same as HDRNA except the density is between 0.2 and 0.6 units/acre.

COMMERCIAL LAND USES

Strip Commercial (SCOM): Those buildings for which the primary function involves the sale of goods or services. This category includes some institutional lands found in commercial strips, such as post offices, courthouses, and fire and police stations. This category does not include buildings used for the manufacture of goods or warehouses. This land use includes the buildings, parking lots, and streets. This land use does not include nursery, tree farms, vehicle service areas, or lumber yards.

Shopping Centers (SHOP): Commercial areas where the related parking lot is at least 2.5 times the area of the building roof area. Parking areas usually surrounds the buildings in this land use. This land use includes the buildings, parking lot, and streets.

Office Parks (OFPK): Land use where non-retail business takes place. The buildings are usually multi storied buildings surrounded by larger areas of lawn and other landscaping. This land use includes the buildings, lawn, and road areas. Types of establishments that may be in this category includes: insurance offices, government buildings, and company headquarters.

Commercial Downtown (CDT): Multi-story high-density area with minimal pervious area, and with retail, residential and office uses.


INDUSTRIAL LAND USES

Medium Industrial (MI): This category includes businesses such as lumber yards, auto salvage yards, junk yards, grain elevators, agricultural coops, oil tank farms, coal and salt storage areas, slaughter houses, and areas for bulk storage of fertilizers.

Non-Manufacturing (LI): Those buildings that are used for the storage and/or distribution of goods waiting further processing or sale to retailers. This category mostly includes warehouses, and wholesalers where all operations are conducted indoors, but with truck loading and transfer operations conducted outside.

INSTITUTIONAL LAND USES

Education (SCH): Includes any public or private primary, secondary, or college educational institutional grounds. Includes buildings, playgrounds, athletic fields, roads, parking lots, and lawn areas.

Miscellaneous Institutional (INST): Churches and large areas of institutional property not part of CST and CDT.

Hospital (HOSP): Multi-story building surrounded by parking lots and some vegetated areas.

OTHER URBAN LAND USES

Parks (PARK): Outdoor recreational areas including municipal playgrounds, botanical gardens, arboretums, golf courses, and natural areas.

Undeveloped (OSUD): Lands that are private or publicly owned with no structures and have a complete vegetative cover. This includes vacant lots, urban fringe areas slated for development, greenways, and forest areas.

Cemetery (CEM): This land use file covers cemeteries, and includes road frontage along the cemetery, and paved areas and buildings within the cemetery.

FREEWAY LAND USES

Freeways (FREE): Limited access highways and the interchange areas, including any vegetated rights-of-ways.


Appendix B.

Bioretention:

Curb cut raingarden, with 1.5-2ft perimeter wall, in a residential area.

Bioretention Design

Photo Courtesy of Rusty Schmidt.


Residential Rain Garden - WinSLAMM Design


Underground Infiltration - WinSLAMM Design

Design for Contech Solutions_Corrugated Metal Pipe Design


Pervious Pavement- WinSLAMM Design

Pervious pavement example


Appendix C

Proposed location for underground infiltration trench at St. Paul Childhood Center (Catchment 8)

Citizen Advisory Committee Orientation Packet

Capitol Region Watershed DistrictSaint Paul, MN

May, 2014

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) covers 40 square miles and includes portions of the cities of Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Maplewood, Roseville and Saint Paul. CRWD has a population of 225,000 people located within Ramsey County.

Mission: To protect manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

Vision: Capitol Region Watershed District achieves cleaner waters through strategic initiatives and partnerships, using:

• Research-based, informed decision making,

• Effective water quality rules and

• Education and outreach to promote changed attitudes toward water quality stewardship.

Our Water Resources:The water resources located in CRWD all eventually discharge to the Mississippi River. The four major lakes in CRWD are Como Lake, Crosby Lake and Loeb Lake in Saint Paul and Lake McCarrons in Roseville. All four lakes serve important recreational needs for District residents and visitors, including fishing, boating and swimming.

Groundwater below the surface of the District provides non-drinking water for businesses and institutions in Ramsey County. Few natural wetlands in the District remain because they were removed or altered during urbanization and development over the past century. Woodview Marsh located off Larpenteur Avenue in Roseville, Willow Reserve located off Maryland Avenue in Saint Paul, and Villa Park wetland located northwest of Lake McCarrons in Roseville are the largest tracts of wetlands in the District.

Our Work: CRWD accomplishes its mission through the following programs:

• Watershed Rules and Permitting

• Stormwater & BMP Monitoring and Mapping

• Water Resource Improvement Projects

• Education and Outreach

• Providing Technical Assistance

• Funding water quality improvement projects and programs through our Grants Program

Capitol Region Watershed District

May 2014


May 2014 1

WelcomeCongratulations and welcome to Capitol Region Watershed District’s Citizen Advisory Committee! We’ve collected this set of documents to help orient you to your new position as a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). This booklet includes information on the missions, history and procedures of both Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) and the CAC.

If you have questions after reading this booklet, please contact Mark Doneux or one of the CAC co-chairs.

CRWD backgroundCRWD originated from a small group of dedicated citizens who wanted to protect Como Lake. They petitioned the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to create a watershed district, and in 1998 CRWD was formed. CRWD is a special purpose local unit of government created to manage and protect part of the Mississippi River Basin, along with the district’s wetlands, creeks and lakes that drain to the river.

CRWD is governed by a five-member Board of Managers that guides CRWD in the implementation of its Watershed Plan adopted in 2010. The work of CRWD is carried out by 14 staff members.

1410 Energy Park Drive, Ste. 4Saint Paul, MN 55108

651-644-8888 • fax 651-644-8894capitolregionwd.org

Introduction

ContentsIntroduction ......................................................... 1CAC framework ................................................. 2

Mission .............................................................. 2Roles and responsibilities ....................... 2Recruitment and appointment ............ 2CAC organization ..........................................3CAC initiatives ................................................3Expectations of CAC members ............. 4

CRWD organization chart ............................ 5CAC membership roster ................................ 6CAC member bios ..............................................7CRWD map ........................................................... 9Minnesota statute ......................................... 10CAC Bylaws ......................................................... 11

CAC online:capitolregionwd.org/about-us/citizen-advisory-committee/


May 2014 2

The CAC framework serves to guide the work of the committee. The framework includes the CAC mission, roles and responsibilities of members, description of member recruitment and appointment, committee organization and initiatives.

Mission of the Citizen Advisory CommitteeThe mission of the Citizen Advisory Committee is to assist and advise the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers (Board) in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes section 103D.331. This is accomplished by reflecting community values in the development of CRWD projects and programs and by providing information and feedback on projects and programs in the District.

Roles and responsibilities• The CAC actively participates in CRWD planning processes, watershed plan preparation and

long-term implementation of CRWD programs.

• The CAC is a communication link between the citizenry and the Board.

• Additional roles and responsibilities will be determined jointly by the CAC and the Board. Additional roles and responsibilities can include such things as:

> Identify issues that are relevant to the responsibilities of the District.

> Assist with the ranking of issues.

> Develop projects to bring to the Board and staff for consideration.

> Alert the Board and staff about potential projects and collaborations within the community.

> Review and comment on the annual budget.

> Review and comment on revised work plans and schedules as necessary.

> Assist the Board in communicating with various community groups, organizations and citizens on matters affecting the District.

> Identify areas where additional education and information could assist the CAC in making recommendations.

Recruitment and appointmentRecruitment

• It is the Board’s goal that the CAC be diverse and represent multiple stakeholders within the watershed.

• One CAC member residing within Roseville, Falcon Heights, Maplewood and each of Saint Paul’s District Planning Councils shall be recruited.

• CAC members will help recruit new members. All potential CAC members must apply directly to and be appointed by the Board.

• CRWD Board, staff and CAC members will treat each other with respect and give their motions, ideas and suggestions proper consideration.

Citizen Advisory Committee framework


May 2014 3

CAC framework (cont.)

Appointment

• An application form will be sent to individuals requesting one or it can be printed from the CRWD website.

• The Board will make a concerted effort to ensure that the CAC includes equal representation from residents throughout the watershed.

• The Board may appoint interested parties who do not reside within the District to serve at their pleasure.

• The Board will appoint new CAC members based on a candidate’s interest, availability, unique skills or experiences and ability to meet the District’s goal of CAC membership diversity.

CAC organization• The CAC will elect its own leadership.

• The CAC will create, update and operate under a set of bylaws that are adopted by the committee and approved by the Board.

CAC initiativesThe CAC will undertake, in addition to roles and responsibilities, a number of its own initiatives that enhance its knowledge base and create more cohesion between committee members. These initiatives could include:

• Recruit new CAC members and maintain an orientation packet.

• Sponsor guest speakers at CAC meetings.

• Increase interaction with neighborhoods, receiving information and sharing it in two-way communication.

• Interact more with local government units, Saint Paul District Planning Councils, commissions and committees.

• Sponsor an awards program to recognize outstanding District citizens, partners and projects in the District.

• Stay abreast of water resource issues by attending MAWD or other natural resource conferences.

• Attend more tours of projects/features in CRWD, increasing the number of tours in the watershed to at least two per year with the second tour focused on a particular project or facility.

• Participate in legislative activities that impact the District.

• Participate in public education about CRWD and its projects.


May 2014 4

Minnesota State Statute 103D.331 Subd.1a describes the duties of advisory committees. The CRWD CAC has also developed their own set of Bylaws to help guide their work.

Subd. 1a Duties of Minnesota statute 103D.331 Advisory Committee

(1) elect a chair from its membership;

(2) elect a recorder from its membership;

(3) establish a meeting schedule, which at a minimum meets annually;

(4) consider issues pertinent to the functions and purposes of the watershed district;

(5) review and comment on reports, minutes, activities and proposed projects of the managers; and

(6) report to the managers the general content of advisory committee meetings and resulting recommendations.

CAC Bylaws, Section V. Participation

To ensure the efficient and effective working of the Citizen Advisory Committee, regular attendance at meetings is necessary. Accordingly, if a member fails to attend four consecutive (unexcused) regular meetings or fails to attend eight of the 12 regular monthly meetings without notice, that member will forfeit his/her Citizen Advisory Committee membership. A member in jeopardy due to lack of attendance (above) shall be notified in the Citizen Advisory Committee minutes and by separate memorandum to the member that his/her attendance is required at the next regularly scheduled Citizen Advisory Committee meeting to avoid forfeiture of membership.

An absence shall be deemed excused if the member notified the Chair, another Citizen Advisory Committee member or District staff prior to the meeting. Excused absences shall be noted in the minutes of the meeting

Members of the Citizen Advisory Committee may request a leave of absence from the Citizen Advisory Committee by sending a letter to the Board of Managers. The Board of Managers may grant a leave of absence for a period of no less than three months and up to a maximum of one year. While a member is on leave of absence, they shall not be eligible to vote, and shall not be counted towards quorum.

Members shall communicate their intention to resign in writing to the Citizen Advisory Committee Secretary, who in turn will notify the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Board of Managers.

Advisory Committee members are encouraged to attend Board of Managers’ meetings and functions.

Expectations of CAC members


May 2014 5

CRWD organization chart

Capitol Region Watershed DistrictBoard of Managers

Joseph Collins, President

Mary Texer, Vice President

Michael R. Thienes, Treasurer

Seitu Jones, Secretary

Shirley Reider, Education/Information

Staff Members

Mark Doneux, Administrator

Elizabeth Beckman, Education & Outreach Coordinator

Gustavo Castro, Water Resource Specialist

Anna Elera, Water Resource Project Manager

Bob Fossum, Program Manager

Jordan Jessen, Annual Water Resource Technician

Forrest Kelley, Regulatory Program Manager

Corey Poland, Water Resource Technician

Joe Sellner, Water Resource Technician

Britta Suppes, Monitoring Coordinator

Michelle Sylvander, Office Manager

Lindsay VanPatten, Education & Administrative Assistant

Sarah Wein, Water Resource Technician

Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist

Citizen Advisory

Committee Members

Ramsey County

Board of Commissioners

Intro sentence here.


May 2014 6

David Arbeit, Co-Chair1384 E. Como Blvd.St. Paul, MN 55117(651) 489-6452 (H)[email protected]

Michael MacDonald1391 Almond Ave.St. Paul, MN 55108(952) [email protected]

Richard Weil25 Charles Ave.St. Paul, MN 55103(651) 698-7288 (H) (651) 210-5059 (O)[email protected]

William Barton533 Cretin Ave.St. Paul, MN 55116 (763) 551-3391 (O)(651) 699-5478 (H)[email protected]

Ted McCaslin1675 Lilac Ln.Mendota Heights, MN 55118(651) 644-4389(612) [email protected]

CAC membership roster and CRWD Board

The Citizen Advisory Committee meets the 2nd Wednesday of each month

at 7:00 p.m.

RCD Supervisor LiaisonGwen Willems, Co-Chair1880 Tatum St.Falcon Heights, MN 55113(651) [email protected]

Pat Byrne243 S. Lexington Pkwy.St. Paul, MN 55104(612) 224-3183 (H)[email protected]

Janna Caywood1395 Avon St. N.St. Paul, MN 55117(651) [email protected]

Steven Duerre76 Bates Ave.St. Paul, MN 55106(651) 771-6001 (H) (651) 757-2318 (O)[email protected]

Kathryn Swanson1879 Portland Ave.St Paul, MN 55104(612) [email protected]

Michelle Ulrich, Secretary1561 Lincoln Ave.St. Paul, MN 55105(651) [email protected]

Board Manager Joe Collins 534 W. Orange Ave.St. Paul, MN 55117(651) 488-5108 (H)[email protected]

Board Manager Mary Texer 113 Farrington St.St. Paul, MN 55102(612) 224-2919 (H)[email protected]

Board Manager Mike Thienes 284 S. McCarrons Blvd.Roseville, MN 55113 (651) 489-1998 (H)[email protected]

Board Manager Seitu Jones 629 Kent St.St. Paul, MN 55103(651) 227-9328 (H)[email protected]

Board Manager Shirley A. Reider1725 Fairview Ave. N.Falcon Heights, MN 55113(651) 644-7845 (H)(651) 647-6250 (O)[email protected]

Updated: May 2014


May 2014 7

David Arbeit, Co-ChairDavid Arbeit is a charter member of the CAC, appointed shortly after CRWD was established. As a member of St. Paul’s District 10 Community Council, David wrote the petition to the state that resulted in establishing CRWD. He has served several terms as CAC co-chair and advocated for environmental issues as chair of the District 10 Community Council. David is retired and enjoys living in the Como Lake watershed.

Bill BartonBill Barton has lived in Saint Paul’s Highland Park neighborhood for 30 years. He earned degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering and has worked on oil refining, water treatment, controls and heat recovery. Bill now works with pure aluminum plating equipment. The destruction of the ephemeral stream and wetlands in Minnesota motivates him to work to contribute to CRWD as a member of the CAC.

Pat ByrnePat Byrne served on CRWD Board of Managers in 1998-1999 and the CAC from 1999-2001. He was reappointed to the CAC in 2011 and has service continuously since. He is a retired employee of the cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, having worked in engineering, hydrology, hydraulic structures and water resources. Pat thinks of Crosby Lake and Mississippi River at Crosby Park as his home waters, places he often visited with his children.

Janna CaywoodJanna lives in the Como neighborhood and is leading the creation of a “Civic Governance” cross-sector network of citizens who work collaboratively on Como Lake’s restoration (with partial funding from CRWD). She has a degree in sociology, is trained in civic organizing and is a freelance consultant, working primarily on community-based citizen leadership development, community governance capacity building and the renewal of democracy.

Steve DuerreSteve Duerre has been a member of the CAC for 13 years. He lives in the Daytons Bluff/Mounds Park neighborhood and has been involved with water quality for most of his life. Steve works for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in the Wastewater Operator Training and Certification program.

CAC member bios

CRWD strives to have CAC members from various areas of the watershed and diverse backgrounds to represent the population of the District. Below are current members of the CAC.


May 2014 8

CAC member bios

Michael MacDonaldMike MacDonald has been a CAC member since 2006. He lives near Como Park and joined the CAC to help improve St. Paul. Mike thinks CRWD has done a lot of good work to improve the city’s waters and natural places.

Ted McCaslinTed has been a CAC member since 2009. He is an environmental planner with a professional background and interest in a range of water quality issues. He is also Minnesota Certified Wetland Delineator. Ted is a former resident of CRWD, but remains invested in his former neighborhood and still works and owns property in the District.

Kathryn SwansonKathryn Swanson has served on the CAC since 2012. She is a graduate student in conservation biology at the University of Minnesota, researching the effects of hydrological change on wetland resilience. Kathryn is also interested in water management and conservation.

Michelle Ulrich, SecretaryMichelle Ulrich is a resident of the MacGroveland area of St. Paul and has served on the CAC since 2007. She is a practicing attorney with experience representing metropolitan watershed districts and other public bodies in various aspects of governmental and environmental law.

Richard WeilRichard Weil joined the CAC in 2012. He was born in New York City and went to school in Wisconsin. After marrying his wife they decided to stay in the Midwest. He has a master’s degree in environmental science and a doctorate in geography. Richard teaches math and science in the Twin Cities.

Gwen Willems, Co-ChairGwen is an elected supervisor with the Ramsey Conservation District Board, which sets policies, directs staff in completion of goals and approves admin-istration and conservation activities. A Falcon Heights resident, she has served on the CAC since 2011. Growing up in small-town rural Minnesota first raised her interest in natural resources and climate issues.


May 2014 9

CRWD map

Lauderdale

Roseville

St. Paul

LakeMcCarrons

Como Lake

LoebLake

CrosbyLake

Mississippi R

iver

Mississippi R

iver

Falcon Heights

Little Canada

Proposed BMP LocationProposed BMP Location

TROUT BROOK

COMO

CROSBY

ST. ANTHONY PARK

DAVERN

ST. ANTHONY HILL

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVDEAST KITTSONDALE

PHALEN CREEK

DOWNTOWN

MCCARRONS LAKE

WEST KITTSONDALEURBAN

WEST SEVENTH

GOODRICH-WESTERN

HIDDEN FALLS

Capitol Region Watershed DistrictWatershed Extent and Subwatersheds

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25Miles I DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey, and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data

located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only.

Major Highways

Major Waterbodies

Parks

CRWD

Subwatersheds

Falcon Heights

Lauderdale

Maplewood

Roseville

Saint Paul

Maplewood

Service Layer Credits: Copyright: ©2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ

Lauderdale

Roseville

St. Paul

LakeMcCarrons

Como Lake

LoebLake

CrosbyLake

Mississippi River

Maplewood

Mississippi R

iver

TROUT BROOKCOMO

CROSBY

ST. ANTHONY PARK

DAVERN

ST. ANTHONY HILL

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVDEAST KITTSONDALE

PHALEN CREEK

DOWNTOWN

MCCARRONS LAKE

WEST KITTSONDALEURBAN

WEST SEVENTH

GOODRICHWESTERN

HIDDEN FALLS

35e

B

36

280

Pat Byrne

Mary Texer

Seitu Jones

Joe Collins

Mike ThienesGwen Willems

Ted McCaslin

Richard Weil

David Arbeit

Steven Duerre

Shirley Reider

William Barton

Michelle Ulrich

Kathryn Swanson

Michael MacDonald

35e

94

7th

B

Dal

e

Ric

e

Snel

ling

Shepard

University

Marshall

36

Larpenteur

Lexi

ngto

n

Como

Maryland

Arlington

Randolph

Ford

Saint Clair

Summit

Cle

vela

nd

Vict

oria

Wheelock

Jack

son

25

Pierce Butler

Energy Park

Earl

JeffersonAr

cade

Ham

line

Edge

rton

Warner10

Prio

r

6th

Roselawn

Robert

Fairv

iew

Saint Paul

Raymond

Fort

Montreal

Horton

Mounds

280

Smith

Otto

Tran

sfer

12th

Grand

Minnehaha

Lafayette

Vand

alia

Ivy

Edgcumbe

52

0 1 2 30.5Miles

FalconHeights

Capitol Region Watershed District is home to more than 225,000 people and is 42% impervious surfaces.

35E

94

City Boundary

CRWD

Parks

Roads

Subwatersheds

Major Waterbodies

Major Highways

Board Manager

CAC Member

* non-resident, non-voting member

*


May 2014 10

103D.331 ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Subdivision 1.Purpose.

The managers must annually appoint an advisory committee to advise and assist the managers on all matters affecting the interests of the watershed district and make recom-mendations to the managers on all contemplated projects and improvements in the watershed district.

Subd. 1a.Duties.

For purposes of carrying out its duties under this section the advisory committee shall:

(1) elect a chair from its membership;

(2) elect a recorder from its membership;

(3) establish a meeting schedule, which at a minimum meets annually;

(4) consider issues pertinent to the functions and purposes of the watershed district;

(5) review and comment on reports, minutes, activities, and proposed projects of the managers; and

(6) report to the managers the general content of advisory committee meetings and resulting recommendations.

Subd. 2.Members.

(a) The advisory committee consists of at least five members. If practicable, the advisory committee members selected should include a representative from each soil and water conservation district, a representative of each county, a member of a sporting organi-zation and a member of a farm organization. Other advisory committee members may be appointed at the discretion of the managers. The members must be residents of the watershed district, except representatives from soil and water conservation districts and counties, and serve at the pleasure of the managers.

(b) In addition, the managers may appoint other interested and technical persons who may or may not reside within the watershed district to serve at the pleasure of the managers.

Subd. 3.Expense reimbursement.

The managers may reimburse members of the advisory committee for actual traveling and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of duties in the amount as provided for state employees.

2013 Minnesota statute


May 2014 11

Adopted August 4, 19991st Amendment May 2, 20012nd Amendment October 3, 20013rd Amendment August 11, 20044th Amendment February 10, 2010

I. PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY

The Citizen Advisory Committee is established to advise and assist the Capitol Region Watershed District Board of Managers with:

(a) District organizational development, planning processes and program implementation

(b) District communications between the citizenry and the Board of Managers

(c) Consensus building and conflict resolution

(d) Additional roles as jointly determined by the Citizen Advisory Committee and Board of Managers

The Citizen Advisory Committee performs its duties in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103D.3311.

II. MEMBERSHIP

Citizen Advisory Committee members are appointed by the Board of Managers and serve at the pleasure of the Board.

The Citizen Advisory Committee will be composed of a minimum of five members who are District residents, as required by Minnesota Statutes 103D.331, and a maximum number as required to represent the diverse interests of the District’s communities and neighborhoods. In addition, the Board of Managers may appoint interested and technical persons who are not District residents to the Citizen Advisory Committee to serve in an ex-officio capacity.

The Board of Managers determines length of term for Citizen Advisory Committee membership.

III. MEETINGS

Citizen Advisory Committee meetings shall be conducted in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order.

Regular meetings shall be held on the Second Wednesday of each month. Those members present at the prior regularly scheduled meeting may make a variance from this meeting schedule by majority vote. Notice of the date, time, place and proposed agenda of the meeting shall be given at least seven days before the meeting.

Special and/or emergency meetings may be called by the Chair, and shall be limited in subject and scope to meet the need for such a meeting. Notice of special and emergency meetings should include the subject and scope of the meeting and be made 24 hours in advance of the meeting by mail, phone, fax or email.

A quorum to conduct Citizen Advisory Committee business will be the presence of at least five members or a simple majority of the members, whichever is least.

At the discretion of the co-chairs, a subcommittee or taskforce may be appointed to review proposals or to develop recommendations for the Citizen Advisory Committee’s consideration.

CAC bylaws


May 2014 12

The chair may appoint non-members who have expressed an interest in the topic or who have specialized expertise to a subcommittee or taskforce as appropriate. In the event that a regularly scheduled meeting is canceled or if there is not quorum to conduct business at a regularly scheduled meeting, a subcommittee or taskforce may meet during the time of the regularly scheduled meeting without providing 24-hour notice.

Prior to deliberation on an issue, a member who feels they have a potential financial conflict of interest shall disclose that information to the Chair and members. Members may also identify potential conflicts of interest of other members to the Chair and members. A majority vote of members present will determine whether the conflict of interest is substantial enough to exclude the member from voting on the issue. All conflicts of interest disclosures and the subsequent determi-nation on whether to exclude a member from a vote, shall be noted in the minutes.

All Citizen Advisory Committee meetings shall be public. Public participation at meetings will, to the extent possible, be for the purpose of presenting information or providing comments that were not previously available to the Citizen Advisory Committee.

IV. OFFICERS

Officers shall be elected for a one-year term. Elections shall be held during the regular Citizen Advisory Committee meeting in April. Candidates for office shall have been a Citizen Advisory Committee member for at least three months prior to the election. Officers shall be:

Two Co-Chairs, and Secretary

Duties of the officers:

(a) The two Co-Chairs prepare meeting agendas and preside at all regular and special meetings of the Citizen Advisory Committee. The co-chairs shall have the authority to appoint individuals to serve on subcommittees and taskforces as appropriate.

(b) One of the Co-Chairs presides at meetings whenever the other Chair is absent.

(c) Secretary administers the paperwork at each meeting, prepares and distributes meeting minutes, receives Citizen Advisory Committee members’ expense reports and forwards them to the Board of Managers, handles all Citizen Advisory Committee correspondence and maintains a Citizen Advisory Committee file of pertinent information.

Officers may delegate their duties to other Citizen Advisory Committee members or to District staff.

Any officer whose Citizen Advisory Committee membership ceases prior to the expiration of his/her term as an officer shall be replaced for the balance of his/her term by a special election of the Citizen Advisory Committee. Such special election shall be held during the second regular meeting of the Citizen Advisory Committee immediately following termination of the officer’s membership.

V. PARTICIPATION

To ensure the efficient and effective working of the Citizen Advisory Committee, regular attendance at meetings is necessary. Accordingly, if a member fails to attend four consecutive (unexcused) regular meetings or fails to attend 8 of the 12 regular monthly meetings without notice, that member will forfeit his/her Citizen Advisory Committee membership. A member in jeopardy due to lack of attendance (above) shall be notified in the Citizen Advisory Committee minutes and by separate memorandum to the member that his/her attendance is required at the next regularly scheduled Citizen Advisory Committee meeting to avoid forfeiture of membership.

CAC bylaws (cont.)


May 2014 13

An absence shall be deemed excused if the member notified the Chair, another Citizen Advisory Committee member or District staff prior to the meeting. Excused absences shall be noted in the minutes of the meeting.

Members of the Citizen Advisory Committee may request a leave of absence from the Citizen Advisory Committee by sending a letter to the Board of Managers. The Board of Managers may grant a leave of absence for a period of no less than three months and up to a maximum of one year. While a member is on leave of absence, they shall not be eligible to vote, and shall not be counted towards quorum.

Members shall communicate their intention to resign in writing to the Citizen Advisory Committee Secretary, who in turn will notify the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Board of Managers.

Advisory Committee members are encouraged to attend Board of Managers’ meetings and functions.

VI. REIMBURSEMENT

Citizen Advisory Committee members can be reimbursed for expenses incurred while carrying out the business of the District when such expenses are pre-approved by the Board of Managers. Typical reimbursements will be for travel, lodging, meals and supplies to attend and/or participate in confer-ences, workshops, tours, and meetings. Costs incurred in attending regular, special and emergency meetings of the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Board of Managers are not normally considered reimbursable expenses but can be reimbursed upon decision of the Board of Managers when need is demonstrated.

VII. AMENDMENTS

These bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the members present at any regular meeting of the whole Citizen Advisory Committee, provided that written notice setting forth in detail the content of the proposed amendment(s) has been presented at the prior regular meeting.

These bylaws shall be reviewed for possible changes or updates by approved motion of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee or Board of Managers.

Bylaws and any changes thereto shall be submitted to the Capitol Region Watershed District Board of Managers for comment prior to adoption.

1 Minnesota Statues 103D.331. Watershed District Advisory Committee

Subdivision 1. Purpose. The managers must appoint an advisory committee to advise and assist the managers on all matters affecting the interests of the watershed district and make recommenda-tions to the managers on all contemplated projects and improvements in the watershed district.

Subd. 2. Members. (a) The advisory committee consists of at least five members. If practicable, the advisory committee members selected must include a supervisor of a soil and water conservation district, a member of a county Board, a member of a sporting organization, and a member of a farm organization. Other advisory committee members may be appointed at the discretion of the managers. The members must be residents of the watershed district and serve at the pleasure of the managers.

(b) In addition, the managers may appoint other interested and technical persons who may or may not reside within the watershed district to serve at the pleasure of the managers.

Subd. 3. Expense reimbursement. The managers may reimburse members of the advisory committee for actual traveling and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of duties in the amount as provided for state employees.

CAC bylaws (cont.)

1

Capitol Region Watershed District

Citizen Advisory Committee

2014 Agenda Plan

Updated: July 11, 2014

Pervious Parking Lot

Permit Program Update

Education Program Update

Groundwater Management Pan Update W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Agendas\2014\2014 CAC Agenda Plan 7-11-14.doc

CAC Meeting Date District Initiatives CAC Initiatives

January 15, 2014 Lakes Analysis

Audubon Certification

2014 CAC Meeting Plan

February 12, 2014

Partner Grant Review

BMP Database Review

CAC Orientation Packet

Discuss 2014 “Event”

March 12, 2014

-Farrington/Cottage Drainage Study

-Stewardship Grant Program Updates

-Adopt CAC Duties and

Responsibilities

-Event Planning

How to Be Effective with the

Legislature (Date Pending)

-CAC Orientation Packet

April 9, 2014

-Monitoring Program Review

-Curtiss Pond Improvement Project

-Election of Officers

-CAC Orientation Packet

May 14, 2014

-2013 Monitoring Reports -CAC Orientation Packet

-Awards Program Development

-Event Planning

-CAC Tour Planning

June 11, 2014

Tour of District Projects

July 16, 2014

East Kittsondale Stormwater Plan

2015 Work Plan Development


-Event Planning

August 13, 2014

Review and Comment on 2015 Budget

Upper Villa Stormwater Reuse Plan


-Event Planning

September 10, 2014

Hidden Falls Stream Restoration Study -Awards Program Development

-Event Planning

October 8, 2014

November 12, 2014

December 10, 2014

2015 Reappointment

Recommendations

July 16, 2014 cac meeting packet

Documents

Transcript of July 16, 2014 cac meeting packet