Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District Regular Meeting of Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board Of Managers, for Wednesday, April 1, 2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA I. Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) A) Attendance B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda II. Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda (Please observe a limit of three minutes per person.) III. Permit Applications and Program Updates (Permit Process: 1) Staff Review/Recommendation, 2) Applicant Response, 3) Public Comment, and 4) Board Discussion and Action.) A) Adopt 2015 Rule Amendments (Kelley) B) Permit # 15-009 3 rd Street (Kelley) C) Permit # 15-014 East 7 th Streetscape (Kelley) D) Permit # 15-017 Kellogg Boulevard (Hosch) E) Permit Closeouts – (Hosch) IV. Special Reports– Research Project Update, Staff V. Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the March 18 th Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve Monetary Limits of Municipal Tort Liability (Doneux) C) AR: Authorize Solicitation of Quotes for 2015 Lake McCarrons Harvesting (Zwonitzer) D) AR: Approve Clean Water Fund Grant Agreement and Accept Grant Funds for East Kittsondale Retrofits and Central High School Projects (Zwonitzer) E) AR: Approve Consultant Selection and Agreement for Lafayette Park Stormwater Improvement Plan (Eleria) VI. Unfinished Business A) Education and Outreach Plan Update (Beckman) B) CHS Field (Lowertown Ballpark) Update (Zwonitzer) C) Upper Villa Stormwater Improvement Project Update (Kelley) VII. General Information A) Administrator’s Report VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, April 8, 2015 CAC Meeting B) Wednesday, April 15, 2015 CRWD Board Meeting IX. Adjournment W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2015\April 1, 2015 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx Materials Enclosed
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
Regular Meeting of Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board Of Managers, for Wednesday, April 1,
2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
I. Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)
A) Attendance
B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda
II. Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda (Please observe a limit of three minutes per person.)
III. Permit Applications and Program Updates (Permit Process: 1) Staff Review/Recommendation, 2) Applicant Response, 3) Public Comment, and 4)
Board Discussion and Action.)
A) Adopt 2015 Rule Amendments (Kelley)
B) Permit # 15-009 3rd Street (Kelley)
C) Permit # 15-014 East 7th Streetscape (Kelley)
D) Permit # 15-017 Kellogg Boulevard (Hosch)
E) Permit Closeouts – (Hosch)
IV. Special Reports– Research Project Update, Staff
V. Action Items
A) AR: Approve Minutes of the March 18th Regular Meeting (Sylvander)
B) AR: Approve Monetary Limits of Municipal Tort Liability (Doneux)
C) AR: Authorize Solicitation of Quotes for 2015 Lake McCarrons Harvesting (Zwonitzer)
D) AR: Approve Clean Water Fund Grant Agreement and Accept Grant Funds for East Kittsondale
Retrofits and Central High School Projects (Zwonitzer)
E) AR: Approve Consultant Selection and Agreement for Lafayette Park Stormwater Improvement
Plan (Eleria)
VI. Unfinished Business
A) Education and Outreach Plan Update (Beckman)
B) CHS Field (Lowertown Ballpark) Update (Zwonitzer)
C) Upper Villa Stormwater Improvement Project Update (Kelley)
VII. General Information
A) Administrator’s Report
VIII. Next Meetings
A) Wednesday, April 8, 2015 CAC Meeting
B) Wednesday, April 15, 2015 CRWD Board Meeting
IX. Adjournment W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2015\April 1, 2015 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx
Materials Enclosed
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
DATE: March 26, 2015 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Forrest Kelley, PE Regulatory and Construction Program Manager RE: Adopt Revised CRWD Rules Background The Joint Technical Advisory Committee met February 25, 2014 and January 29, 2015 to discuss proposed amendments to District Rules. Draft Rules were distributed for informal comment in November 2014, and the Board authorized distribution of the draft amended rules for 45-day review and public comment on February 4, 2015 Issues The public comment period ended March 23, 2015. A public hearing was held March 4th with no attendance. Five comments were received during the 45-day review period and are summarized in the attached response to comments table. One revision was made based on the comments that clarifies the Alternative Compliance Sequencing requirements. Requested Action Adopt Resolution Approving Response to Comments and Amended Watershed District Rules enc: Draft Comment Response Table Final Draft District Rule w/Mark-up Draft Resolution Amending Watershed District Rules and Approving Response to Comments W:\07 Programs\Rules\2015\Final Adopted Rule 2015-04-01\Brd Memo Rules Adoption.docx
April 1, 2015 Regular Board Meeting
III. Permits A) Adopt Amended Rules
Reponse to Comments - CRWD and RWMWD Rules 45-Day Public Comment Period 04/01/2015
Name Agency Comment Section Response1 Mary
PetersonBWSR Thank you for the opportunity to review the final draft of the proposed rules of the Ramsey-Washington
Metro WD and the Capitol Region WD. We noted our previous review of the Draft rule and comments forwarded to you by Dennis Rodacker on November 26, 2014. Those comments have been sufficiently addressed in this final draft. The final draft of the proposed rules that have been reviewed were dated April 1, 2015 and were received by this office on February 5, 2015. The review was conducted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 103D.341, subd. 2, item b. Based on that review, we have no advisory comments.
No Response Necessary
2 Tom Parent St. Paul Public Schools SPPS has reviewed the proposed changes and sees no issues. Thank you for allowing the TAC the opportunity to comment on the language.
No Response Necessary
3 Beth Neuendorf
Mn/DOT The way the Rules are proposed is that if an applicant cannot do infiltration, then they should do filtration, however, only 55% credit will be given for straight filtration and 80% credit for iron enhanced filtration. The applicant is penalized for not doing infiltration on sites where it is not possible to do it and must find the room to make the filtration treatment basins I. 82 or 1.25 times larger than infiltration basins. The way the Rules are proposed, it seems like the applicant is not done yet, as the second part of the proposed compliance requires that the remaining 45% or 20% volume for infiltration be found on another project site and be built within two years or banked volume credits used, or lastly payment is made into the District's Stormwater Impact Fund. Please make it clear in the Rules that if the applicant does filtration through the sequencing process, that they are then in compliance with the Rules.
Rule C:3.(c)(2)(i) The phrase "If the applicant meets these requirements, the project is compliant, and no further Sequencing steps are necessary," shall be added to Rule C:3(c)(2)(i) and (ii).
4 Steve Love City of Maplewood The watershed districts are currently proposing changing the credit for filtration practices from 70% to 55%. This change has the possibility to represent a significant increase to the overall cost of street reconstruction projects that are in areas with poor soils. With a large portion of the overall street reconstruction project budget for street reconstruction projects already going to meet the current water quality requirements this change will further increase the demand on the City’s Environmental Utility Fund which is used to pay for a large portion of the required stormwater improvements. This will result in the City being unable to fund other storm water projects such new flood mitigation projects and new MS4 requirements.
The City of Maplewood supports the watershed districts and their proposed rule changes. However, I would recommend that the watershed districts consider the financial impact the change to the filtration credit will have on linear street projects.
Rule C: 3 (c)(2)(i) Whether using infiltration or filtration, the cap on costs for linear projects limits the expenditures necessary to achieve compliance with Rule C. On non-linear developments, the options for removing pollutants (dissolved phosphorus specifically) on sites that cannot reduce the volume of stormwater runoff are limited. When considering non-enhanced filtration media, it is anticipated that applicants will weigh the cost of upsizing practices with the cost of adding iron or other media enhancements. The Districts are open to exploring options to provide a more readily available source of iron to lower those related costs.
5 Kristine Giga City of Roseville We understand the need for the proposed rule revisions, as they are necessary to protect and /or improve the water quality of the local water resources within the watersheds. However, as cities, we are concerned with the additional project costs that will result from these rule revisions. In many instances, we will be constructing oversized best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate localized flooding issues. However, the additional cost was often funded by cost share or offset by future projects, as we would earn storm water credits for the additional or oversized BMPs. Cities are already struggling to meet unfunded mandates as part of the MS4 program with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the increased treatment requirements and associated costs may restrict our ability to complete projects in a timely and efficient manner. Increased requirements will also restrict other projects throughout the city that help residents with drainage/flooding issues, as funding will be diverted to our watershed district permitted stormwater projects.
Rule C: 3 (c)(2)(i) See Response #4. Additionally, The required volume reduction from 0.9 to 1.1 inches equates to 726 additional cubic feet required per acre of impervious, and will result in less volume available to bank. While not insiginificant, the average volume bank deposit is 17,800 cubic feet.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 1
Capitol Region Watershed District Rules
Adopted 09/06/2006
Effective 10/01/2006
Revised 04/18/201204/01/2015
Table of Contents
Certification of Rules 2
General Policy Statement 2
Relationship to Municipalities 3
Rule A. Definitions 4
Rule B. Permit Procedural Requirements 10
Rule C. Stormwater Management 13
Rule D. Flood Control 20
Rule E. Wetland Management 243
Rule F. Erosion and Sediment Control 26
Rule G. Illicit Discharge and Connection 28
Rule H. Enforcement 34
Rule I. Variances 34
Rule J. Severability 35
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 2
Certification of Rules I, ___________________, Secretary of the Capitol Region Watershed District Board of
Managers, certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the Rules of the Capitol
Region Watershed District having been properly adopted by the Board of Managers of
the Capitol Region Watershed District. Dated: _____________________
General Policy Statement
The Capitol Region Watershed District (District) is a political subdivision of the State of
Minnesota, established under the Minnesota Watershed Law, Minnesota State Statute
103d. The District is also a watershed management organization as defined under the
Minnesota Metropolitan Water Management Program, and is subject to its directives and
authorizations. Under the Watershed Law and the Metropolitan Water Management
Program, the District exercises a series of powers to accomplish its statutory purposes.
The District's general statutory purpose as stated in 103d.201 is to conserve the natural
resources of the state by land use planning, flood control, and other conservation projects
by using sound scientific principles for the protection of the public health and welfare and
the provident use of the natural resources.
As required under the Metropolitan Water Management Program, the District has adopted
a Watershed Management Plan, which contains the framework and guiding principles for
the District in carrying out its statutory purposes. It is the District's intent to implement
the Plan's goals and policies in these rules.
Land alteration affects the rate, volume, and quality of surface water runoff which
ultimately must be accommodated by the existing surface water systems within the
District. The watershed is 40.6 square miles and highly urbanized.
Land alteration and urbanization has and can continue to degrade the quality of runoff
entering the waterbodies of the District due to non-point source pollution. Sedimentation
from ongoing erosion processes and construction activities can reduce the hydraulic
capacity of waterbodies and degrade water quality. Water quality problems already exist
in all of the lakes and other water resources throughout the District. The Mississippi
River is the principle receiving water for all runoff from the District and is listed by the
EPA and MPCA as “impaired”. Como Lake, a high priority water resource of the
District, is also listed as impaired.
Projects that do not address the increased rate or volume of stormwater runoff from urban
development can aggravate existing flooding and water quality problems and contribute
to or create new ones. Projects which fill floodplain or wetland areas without
compensatory storage can aggravate existing flooding by reducing flood storage and
hydraulic capacity of waterbodies, and can degrade water quality by eliminating the
filtering capacity of those areas.
In these rules the District seeks to protect the public health and welfare and the natural
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 3
resources of the District by providing reasonable regulation of the District's lands and
waters to: 1) reduce the severity and frequency of flooding and high water, 2) to preserve
floodplain and wetland storage capacity, 3) to improve the chemical, physical and
biological quality of surface water, 4) to reduce sedimentation, 5) to preserve
waterbodies' hydraulic and navigational capacity, 6) to preserve natural wetland and
shoreland features, and 7) to minimize future public expenditures to avoid or correct
these problems.
Relationship of Capitol Region Watershed District to Municipalities
The District recognizes that the primary control and determination of appropriate land
uses is the responsibility of the municipalities. Accordingly, the District will coordinate
permit application reviews involving land development with the municipality where the
land is located. The District is the primary water quality and stormwater runoff
management entity within the watershed boundaries, however, cities are also actively
involved in water resource management projects and programs.
The District intends to be active in the regulatory process to ensure that water resources
are managed in accordance with District goals and policies. The District began
implementing rules effective October 1, 2006. All developments that did not have
municipal approval on or before October 1, 2006 will require a District permit under
these Rules. Municipalities have the option of assuming a more active role in the
permitting process after adoption of a local water management plan approved by the
District by adopting and implementing local ordinances consistent with the approved
plan.
The District will also review projects sponsored or undertaken by municipalities and
other governmental units, and will require permits of the contractor in accordance with
these rules for governmental projects which have an impact on water resources of the
District. These projects include but are not limited to, land development, road, trail, and
utility construction.
The District desires to serve as technical advisor to the municipalities in their preparation
of local surface water management plans and the review of individual development
proposals prior to investment of significant public or private funds. To promote a
coordinated review process between the District and the municipalities, the District
encourages the municipalities to involve the District early in the planning process.
Rule A: DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, the following
words and terms have the meanings set forth below.
References in these Rules to specific sections of the Minnesota Statutes or Rules include
any amendments, revisions or recodification of such sections. References in these Rules
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 4
to manuals, plans, rules, assessments, modeling methods, technical guidance or District
policies shall include any revisions or amendments.
The words “shall” and “must” are mandatory; the word “may” is permissive.
Adjacent. An area of land that has a common boundary or edge with a water resource or
development.
Alteration or Alter. When used in connection with public waters or wetlands, any
activity that will change or diminish the course, current, or cross-section of public waters
or wetlands.
Applicant. Any person or political subdivision that submits an application to the District
for a permit under these Rules.
Atlas 14. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) precipitation
event frequency and magnitude estimates. Replaces TP-40.
Banking Credits. Volume reduction in excess of the standard for use on subsequent
projects unable to meet the standard onsite.
Best Management Practices (BMPs). Measures taken to minimize negative effects on
the environment including those documented in the Minnesota Construction Site Erosion
and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (MBWSR, 1988); Protecting Water Quality in
Urban Areas (MPCA, 2000); and Minnesota Stormwater Manual (MPCA, 2005): as such
documents may be amended, revised or supplemented.
Board or Board of Managers. The Board of Managers of the Capitol Region
Watershed District
Clean Water Act. The federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.),
and any subsequent amendments thereto.
Common Plan of Development or Sale. A contiguous area where multiple separate and
distinct land disturbing activities may be taking place at different times, on different
schedules, but under one proposed plan. One plan is broadly defined to include design,
permit application, advertisement or physical demarcation indicating that land disturbing
activities may occur.
Compensatory Storage. Excavated volume of material below the floodplain elevation
required to offset floodplain fill.
Criteria. Specific details, methods and specifications that apply to all permits and
reviews and that guide implementation of the District's goals and policies.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 5
Critical Duration Storm Event. The storm duration that produces the largest peak
discharge rates within a channel or storm sewer system and the highest water surface
elevation within a water body.
De Minimis. An amount so small or minimal in difference that it does not matter or the
law does not take it into consideration.
Development. Any land disturbance, redevelopment affecting land, or
creation/replacement of impervious surface, including but not limited to, road and/or
parking lot construction or reconstruction.
District. The Capitol Region Watershed District established under the Minnesota
Watershed Law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D.
Drainage Way. All water conveyance systems including but not limited to storm
sewers, ditches, culverts, and open channels.
Erosion. The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of wind, flowing water, ice
movement, or land disturbance.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. A plan of BMPs or equivalent measures designed
to control runoff and erosion and to retain or control sediment on land during the period
of land disturbance in accordance with the standards set forth in these Rules.
Excavation. The artificial displacement or removal of soil or other material.
Fill. The deposit of soil or other earth materials by artificial means.
Floodplain. The area adjoining a watercourse or natural or man-made water body,
including the area around lakes, marshes and lowlands, that is inundated during a 100-
year flood.
Freeboard. The vertical distance between the regulatory high water elevation calculated
by hydrologic modeling and the regulatory elevation on a structure or roadway.
Gross Pollutants. Larger particles of litter, vegetative debris, floatable debris and coarse
sediments in stormwater runoff.
Habitable. Any enclosed space usable for living or business purposes, which includes
but is not limited to working, sleeping, eating, cooking, recreation, office, office storage,
or any combination thereof. An area used only for storage incidental to a residential use
is not included in the definition of "Habitable."
Hazardous Materials. Any material, including any substance, waste, or combination
thereof, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious
characteristics may cause, or significantly contribute to, a substantial present or potential
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 6
hazard to human health, safety, property, or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.
Illicit Connections. An illicit connection is defined as either of the following:
1. Any drain or conveyance, whether on the surface or subsurface, which allows an
illegal discharge to enter the storm drain system including but not limited to any
conveyances which allow any non- storm water discharge including sewage,
process wastewater, and wash water to enter the storm drain system and any
connections to the storm drain system from indoor drains and sinks, regardless of
whether said drain or connection had been previously allowed, permitted, or
approved by a political subdivision.
2. Any drain or conveyance connected from a commercial or industrial land use to
the storm drain system that has not been documented in plans, maps, or equivalent
records and approved by a political subdivision.
Illegal Discharge. Any direct or indirect non-storm water discharge to the storm drain
system, except as exempted in Paragraph 5 of Rule G in these Rules.
Impaired Waters. A waterbody that does not meet water quality standards and
designated uses because of pollutant(s), pollution, or unknown causes of impairment.
Impervious Surface. A surface compacted or covered with material so as to be highly
resistant to infiltration by runoff. Impervious surface shall include roads, driveways and
parking areas, sidewalks or trails greater than three feet wide, whether or not paved,
patios, tennis and basketball courts, swimming pools, covered decks and other structures.
Infiltration. A stormwater retention method for the purpose of reducing the volume of
stormwater runoff by transmitting a flow of water into the ground through the earth’s
surface.
Infiltration Area. An area set aside or constructed where stormwater from impervious
surface runoff is treated and disposed of into the soil by percolation and filtration, and
includes, but is not limited, to infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, dry wells,
underground infiltration systems, and permeable pavement.
Iron-Enhanced Sand. Any Best Management Practice (BMP) that incorporates filtration
media mixed with iron to remove dissolved phosphorus from stormwater.
Land Disturbance. Any activity on property that results in a change or alteration in the
existing ground cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil
topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, development,
(ix)(x) Specific site conditions may make infiltration difficult,
undesirable, or impossible. Some of these conditions are listed
in Table 2 and may qualify the applicant for Alternative
Compliance Sequencing. The applicant may also submit a
request to the District for Alternative Compliance Sequencing for
site conditions not listed below. All requests shall indicate the
specific site conditions present and a grading plan, utility plan,
and the submittal requirement listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Alternative Compliance Site Conditions* MPCA has limitations for constructing infiltration BMPs if it will receive discharges
from or be constructed in these areas of concern. These conditions will apply to this
permit.
Type Specific Site Conditions Infiltration
Requirements
Potential
Contamination
Potential Stormwater Hotspots
(PSHs)/Industrial Facilities
Prohibited
Contaminated Soils Prohibited
Vehicle Fueling and Maintenance
Areas
Prohibited
Physical
Limitations
Low Permeability (Type D Soils) Restricted- Soil borings
required
Bedrock within 3 vertical feet of
bottom of infiltration area
Restricted- Soil borings
required Seasonal High Groundwater within 3
vertical feet of bottom of infiltration
area
Restricted- Soil borings
required
Karst Areas Restricted- Soil borings
required
Land Use
Limitations
Utility Locations Concerned- Site Map with
detailed utility locations
Adjacent Wells Restricted- Well Locations
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 18
TABLE 2--Alternative Compliance Site Conditions*
Type Specific Site Conditions Submittal Requirements
Potential Contamination
Potential Stormwater Hotspots
(PSHs)
PSH locations and flow paths
Contaminated Soils State Permitted Brownfield
Documentation, Soil Borings
Physical Limitations
Low Permeability (Type D Soils) Soil Borings
Bedrock within 3 vertical feet of
bottom of infiltration area
Soil Borings
Seasonal High Groundwater
within 3 vertical feet of bottom of
infiltration area
Soil Borings
Karst Areas Soil Borings
Land Use Limitations Utility Locations Site Map
Adjacent Wells Well Locations
* Alternative Compliance is allowed for the volume reduction portion of Rule C only.
(2)(3) Alternative Compliance Sequencing. To the maximum extent
practicable, the volume reduction standard shall be fully met onsite. If
it is not possible because of site conditions listed above, the following
Alternative Compliance Sequencing may be achieved by any
combination of the sequence below, but shall be explored in the order
presented. If the applicant achieves steps shall be taken in the order
shown:
(i) First, the applicant shall comply or partially comply with the
volume reduction standard to the maximum extent practicable
on-site through alternative volume reduction methods as listed
below and in the application guidance materials or as approved
by the District. If the applicant meets these requirements, the
project is compliant, and no further Sequencing steps are
necessary.
If filtration of the water quality volume is deemed
necessary through alternative compliance sequencing,
the required stormwater runoff volume shall be
multiplied by 1.82 (i.e. 55% filtration credit) and the
filtration BMP shall provide this storage volume below
the invert of the low overflow outlet of the BMP
(perforated drain pipes for filtration will not be
considered the low overflow outlet).
If iron-enhanced sand is used as a filtration media, the
required stormwater runoff volume shall be multiplied
by 1.25 (i.e. 80% filtration credit) and the filtration
BMP shall provide this storage volume below the invert
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Highlight
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 19
of the low overflow outlet of the BMP (perforated drain
pipes for filtration will not be considered the low
overflow outlet).
Iron-enhanced media shall include a minimum of 5% of
iron filings by weight and shall be uniformly blended
with filtration media.
Other enhanced filtration media may be considered and
credited at the sole discretion of the District.
(i)(ii) Second, for the remaining volume reduction required to fully
meet the standard, the applicant shall comply or partially comply
with the volume reduction standard at an offsite location or
through the use of qualified banking credits as determined by
Rule C – 3.c.4. If the applicant meets these requirements, the
project is compliant, and no further Sequencing steps are
necessary.
Volume reduction may be accomplished at another site
outside of the project area or through the use of banked
credits as long as it yields the same volume reduction
benefit, and is approved by the District prior to
construction. When possible, offsite compliance and
banking credits shall be achieved in the same drainage
area as the project site in the same sub-watershed as the
project site. Projects that propose to construct
stormwater BMPs to achieve volume reduction credits
require District permit application, review and
approval.
(ii)(iii) Third, as a last alternative, for the remaining volume reduction
required, the applicant shall pay into the District’s Stormwater
Impact Fund to cover the cost of implementing equivalent
volume reduction elsewhere in the watershed. The required
amount to contribute to the Stormwater Impact Fund will be set
by the Board annually.
Money contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund
from a local government unit shall be spent within that
local government unit’s jurisdiction to the extent
possible.
Money contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund
shall be allocated to volume reduction projects by the
District according to the Stormwater Impact Fund
Implementation Plan as approved by the District Board.
Formatted: Highlight
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 20
The volume reduction achieved by these projects will
offset the volume reduction that was not achieved on
the permitted development.
(3)(4) Volume reduction provided in excess of the 1.1-inch requirement
may be banked for use on another project. Excess banked volume
reduction amounts shall not exceed the volume of two inches over the
impervious surfaces of the drainage area to the BMP or the volume
provided within the BMP, whichever is less. Transfer of banked
volume credits between applicants is allowed. Applicants shall submit
a letter to the District outlining the conditions of the transfer and
confirming the volume of the transfer. The District must review and
approve all credit transfers.
(4)(5) If an applicant determines during the course of planning, design or
construction of a linear project that the required volume reduction
cannot be achieved onsite and the applicant does not possess sufficient
excess volume reduction credits to offset the volume required, the
District may allow the applicant to defer the construction of volume
reduction BMPs to a future identified project that the applicant will
complete within two years of the date of the permit application.
Failure to provide the required volume reduction by that date would
obligate the applicant to pay into the stormwater impact fund at the
rate applicable at the time payment is made into the fund.
(d) WATER QUALITY -- Developments shall incorporate effective non-point
source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solids
removal from the runoff generated by a NURP water quality storm (2.5”
rainfall). Runoff volume reduction BMPs may be considered and included in
the calculations showing compliance with achieving the 90% TSS removal
requirement. Water quality calculations, documentation and/or water quality
modeling shall be submitted to verify compliance with the standard.
(1) For linear projects utilizing offsite locations, banking credits, or the
stormwater impact fund to meet the volume reduction standard;
(i) If any portion of the development falls within a Special Interest
Subwatershed as shown on the map in the application guidance
material, the development shall meet the water quality standard
onsite. Offsite or banked BMPs located within the same Special
Interest Subwatershed as the development may be considered.
(ii) If the entire development falls outside of a Special Interest
Subwatershed, the water quality standard shall be met onsite to
the maximum extent practicable as determined by the District.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 21
At a minimum, BMPs shall be placed in each drainage area of a
development to remove gross pollutants.
(e) For linear projects, costs specific to satisfying the volume reduction and water
quality standards shall not exceed a cost cap which will be set by the Board
annually. The cap shall apply to costs directly associated with the design,
testing, land acquisition, and construction of the volume reduction and water
quality stormwater BMPs only. Unit costs for construction shall be set by the
Board annually and shall be used to determine the cost of the volume
reduction and water quality BMPs. The District may contribute the amount
above the cap in order to meet the volume reduction and water quality
standards or it may allow the applicant to partially comply with the standards
when the cap is met.
(f) MAINTENANCE -- All stormwater water management structures and
facilities, including volume reduction BMPs, shall be maintained to assure
that the structures and facilities function as originally designed. The
maintenance responsibilities must be assumed by either the municipality’s
acceptance of the required easements dedicated to stormwater management
purposes or by the applicant executing and recording a maintenance
agreement acceptable to the District. Documentation of the recorded
agreement must be submitted to the District prior to issuance of permit.
Public developments will require a maintenance agreement in the form of a
Memorandum of Agreement or an approved Local Water Management Plan
that details the methods, schedule and responsible parties for maintenance of
stormwater management facilities for permitted development. A single
Memorandum of Agreement for each local government unit may be used to
cover all stormwater management structures and facilities required herein,
including volume reduction BMPs, within the LGU’s jurisdiction.
4. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size; one set, reduced to 11"x17”; and a copy of all submittals in
electronic .pdf format.
(a) Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
(b) Delineation of the drainage areas contributing runoff from off-site, proposed
and existing sub-watersheds onsite, emergency overflows, and drainage ways.
(c) Aerial photo showing the locations of water bodies downstream of site.
(d) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities location, alignment, and elevation.
(e) Delineation of existing onsite wetland, marshes, shoreland, and floodplain
areas.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 22
(f) Identification of existing and proposed normal, ordinary high and 100-year
water elevations onsite.
(g) Identification of existing and proposed site contour elevations with at least a
2-foot contour interval including offsite contours where overflows are
directed.
(h) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater management
facilities, including design details for outlet control structures.
(i) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analysis for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-
year critical storm events, existing and proposed.
(j) All hydrologic, water quality and hydraulic computations completed to design
the proposed stormwater management facilities.
(k) Narrative addressing incorporation of stormwater BMPs.
(l) For non-linear projects, site specific plan, schedule and narrative for
maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices.
(m) Onsite soil borings indicating soil type for purposes of infiltration design.
(n) For applications proposing infiltration area(s), information shall include
identification, description (soil group and texture), and field evaluation of soil
permeability in accordance with ASTM 3385 procedure and delineation of site
soils to determine existing and proposed conditions suitable for percolation of
stormwater runoff from impervious areas.
(o) For applications proposing alternative compliance sequencing, the required
exhibits listed in Table 2.
(p) District Volume Reduction Worksheet.
(q) All plan sheets shall be signed by a Minnesota licensed professional
appropriate for the project.
5. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to development less than 1 acre in
size for all land uses unless the development:
(i) Is part of a common plan of development or sale that will ultimately
exceed one acre in size.
(ii) Is greater than 10,000 square feet and is adjacent to a wetland, stream,
public water, or public water wetland., public water or wetland.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 23
(b) Rule C and its requirements shall not apply to land disturbing activity or the
development of land that post construction creates 100% pervious surfaces
unless the land disturbing activity or the development of land alters the
drainage boundaries shown in the District’s Watershed Management Plan.
(c) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to construction on individual lots
within a residential subdivision approved by the District, provided the activity
complies with the original common plan of development.
(d) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to bridges.
(e) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to annually cultivated land used for
farming, research, or horticulture.
Rule D: FLOOD CONTROL
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Encourage water quantity controls to ensure no net increase in the impacts or
potential for flooding on or off the site and encourage, where practical,
controls to address existing flooding problems.
(b) Discourage floodplain filling for new non-river dependent developments.
(c) Only allow floodplain development in a manner that is compatible with the
dynamic nature of floodplains.
2. REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall alter or fill land below
the 100-year flood elevation of any water body, public water, or public water
wetland without first obtaining a permit from the District.
3. CRITERIA.
(a) Placement of fill within the 100-year floodplain is prohibited unless
compensatory storage is provided. Compensatory storage must be provided
on the development or immediately adjacent to the development within the
affected floodplain.
(1) Compensatory storage shall result in the creation of floodplain storage
to fully offset the loss of floodplain storage. Compensatory storage
shall be created prior to or concurrently to the permitted floodplain
filling.
(b) All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a
project site shall comply with the following flood control and freeboard
requirements:
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 24
(1) See Table 3 below for freeboard requirements.
Table 3 – Flood control and Freeboard requirements
Condition
Water Bodies with Piped
Outlets and Mississippi
River
Water Bodies without
Piped Outlets
Subsurface Stormwater Management
BMPs
New Habitable
Buildings
Low floor must
be a minimum of
2 feet above the
100-year flood
elevation.
Low floor must
be a minimum of
5 feet above the
100-year flood
elevation.
Low floor must be a minimum of 2
feet above the 100-year flood
elevation or one foot above the
emergency overflow elevation
unless flood proofing measures are
constructed with the building; and
Low opening must be a minimum of
2 feet above the 100-year flood
elevation or one foot above the
emergency overflow elevation.
Existing Habitable
Buildings – Adjacent
to and Potentially
Affected by Flood
Waters
Low opening
must be a
minimum of 2
feet above the
100-year flood
elevation.
Low opening
must be a
minimum of 5
feet above the
100-year flood
elevation.
Low floor must be a minimum of 2
feet above the 100-year flood
elevation or one foot above the
emergency overflow elevation
unless flood proofing measures are
constructed with the BMP; and
Low opening must be a minimum of
2 feet above the 100-year flood
elevation or one foot above the
emergency overflow elevation.
Underground
Parking Structures
Low opening
must be a
minimum of 2
feet above the
100-year flood
elevation.
Low opening
must be a
minimum of 2
feet above the
100-year flood
elevation.
Low opening must be a minimum of
2 feet above the 100-year flood
elevation or one foot above the
emergency overflow elevation.
Public Roadway
Roadway shall
not flood when
adjacent to
stormwater
storage basin
designed to store
the 100-year
storm event.
Freeboard
requirement set
by road authority.
Roadway shall
not flood when
adjacent to
stormwater
storage basin
designed to store
the 100-year
storm event.
Freeboard
requirement set
by road authority.
Roadway shall not flood when
adjacent to stormwater storage basin
designed to store the 100-year storm
event.
Freeboard requirement set by road
authority.
(2) For water bodies without a piped outlet:
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 25
i. The normal water level of a water body without a piped outlet
shall be determined by a qualified licensed geologist or
hydrogeologist. A ground water analysis using existing or
installed monitoring wells on or near the site and soil
conditions in the basin shall be used. Ideally, the peak
groundwater elevation over a continuous three-year monitoring
period shall be considered the normal water level of a basin
without a piped outlet, provided soil conditions allow full
drainage of recent storm event within 48 hours.
ii. For existing water bodies without piped outlets, mottled soils
may be considered in establishing a water body’s normal water
level in lieu of groundwater analysis.
iii. An emergency response plan shall be developed for addressing
potential flooding in homes below the overland emergency
overflow swale around each water body without a piped outlet.
The plans shall be adopted by the City and be included in a
maintenance agreement for the development.
(3) For underground parking structures:
i. Underground parking structures shall be flood protected to
minimize impacts from high groundwater during flood events.
ii. All drainage structures within underground parking shall
include an anti-backflow device to prevent stormwater from
surcharging into the area.
(4) Emergency overflow swales or areas shall be constructed to convey
the peak 100-year discharge from each water body to the next
downstream water body and away from buildings.
4. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size; two sets, reduced to 11" x 17"; and copies of all submittals in
electronic .pdf format.
(a) Site plan showing the property lines, location, delineation of the work area,
existing elevation contours of the work area, ordinary high water elevations,
and 100-year flood elevation..
(b) Bench marks, including datum used, to establish vertical control.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 26
(c) Grading plan showing any proposed elevation changes including low floor
elevations of adjacent buildings and 100-year flood elevations resulting from
proposed development.
(d) Utility plans and details.
(e) Roadway plans and details.
(f) Preliminary plat of any proposed land development.
(g) Stormwater management plan showing all data and computations used in
estimating runoff, drainage areas, stormwater storage, and flood elevations for
the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm events for both existing conditions
and post development conditions. Study shall be prepared and signed by a
Minnesota licensed professional engineer. Study shall include a figure of
receiving water bodies downstream of the site.
(h) Computation of change in flood storage capacity resulting from proposed
grading.
(i) Erosion control plan.
(j) All plans shall be signed by a Minnesota licensed engineer.
Rule E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Manage wetlands to achieve no-net loss of acreage and values and where
possible, strive to enhance the functions and values of existing wetlands
within the District.
(b) Identify wetland restoration and creation sites to enhance water quality and/or
restore natural habitats.
(c) Interact with cities in the administration of the Wetland Conservation Act if
desired by the cities.
2. REGULATION. No person may fill, drain, excavate or otherwise alter the
character of a wetland without first obtaining a permit from the District.
3. CRITERIA.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 27
(a) Wetlands shall not be drained, filled wholly or in part, excavated, or have
sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the
inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland. Wetland impacts shall
be evaluated based on the following principles in descending order of priority:
avoid the impact to the wetland, minimize the impact to the wetland, replace
the wetland that was impacted. Projects that propose wetland impacts shall
follow the requirements provided in the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
and associated rules with the following amendments:
(1) The de minimis size will be zero.
(2) Sequencing Flexibility will not be allowed.
(3) Permanently impacted wetlands shall be replaced through creation of
new wetland, restoration of drained wetlands, or expansion of existing
wetlands of the same type (Circular 39)at a minimum 2:1 ratio
(4) All WCA non-temporary impact exemptions to wetlands will not be
allowed.
(5) All wetland replacements shall be within the District’s boundaries.
(b) A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent District approved un-manicured
vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.
4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT. The District intends to serve as the "local
government unit" for administration of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act,
unless a particular local government unit in the District has elected to assume that
role in its jurisdictional area. Notwithstanding the above, the District will continue
to require wetland alteration permits under this rule.
5. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size; one set, reduced to 11"X17" and a copy of all submittals in
electronic .pdf format.
(a) Site plan showing:
(1) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of
the applicant.
(2) Existing and proposed elevation contours with at least a 2-foot contour
interval, including the existing runout elevation and flow capacity of
the wetland outlet, and spoil disposal areas.
(3) Area of the wetland portion to be filled, drained, excavated or
otherwise altered.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 28
(b) Complete delineation of the existing wetland(s), supported by the following
documentation:
(1) Identification of the delineation method used in accordance with the
1987 Army Corps of Engineers Manual.
(2) Identification of presence or absence of normal circumstances or
problem conditions.
(3) Basin classification using the Cowardin method and Circular 39.
(4) Inventory of wetland vegetation using Eggers, Steve D., and Donald
M. Reed. 1997. Wetland plants and communities of Minnesota and
Wisconsin.
(5) Wetland data sheets, or a report, for each sample site, referenced to the
location shown on the delineation map. In each data sheet/report applicant
must provide the reasoning for satisfying, or not satisfying each of the
technical criteria and why the area is or is not a wetland.
(6) A delineation map showing the size, locations, configuration and
boundaries of wetlands in relation to identifiable physical characteristics,
such as roads, fence lines, waterways, or other identifiable features.
(7) The location of all sample sites and stakes/flags must be accurately
shown on the delineation map. Delineations submitted by applicants will
normally be field-verified by District staff knowledgeable in wetland
identification. Applicants must leave stakes in the field to aid review of
the site.
(c) A replacement plan, if required, outlining the steps followed for the
sequencing process and including documentation supporting the proposed
mitigation plan.
(d) A wetland functions and values assessment comparison before and after
project.
(e) An Erosion Control Plan.
6. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) Rule E and its requirements will not apply to annually cultivated land used for
farming, research, or horticulture, unless the activity results in draining or
filling the wetland.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 29
Rule F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to require the preparation
and implementation of erosion and sediment control plans to control the export of
sediment off site, which impacts surface water quality.
2. REGULATION. No person or political subdivision shall commence a land
disturbing activity of the development of land one acre or greater, unless
specifically exempted by this Rule, without first obtaining a permit from the
District that incorporates and approves an erosion and sediment control plan for
the activity or development.
3. CRITERIA. Erosion and sediment control plans shall comply with the
following criteria:
(a) Erosion and sediment control measures shall be consistent with best
management practices, and shall be sufficient to retain sediment onsite as
demonstrated in the MPCA manual, “Protecting Water Quality in Urban
Areas”, as amended.
(b) Erosion and sediment control measures shall meet the standards for the
General Permit Authorization to Discharge Storm Water Associated With
Construction Activity Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System/State Disposal System Permit Program, Permit MN R100001 (NPDES
General Construction Permit), issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, except where more specific requirements are required.
(c) The activity shall be phased when possible to minimize disturbed areas
subject to erosion at any one time.
(d) All construction site waste, such as discarded building materials, concrete
truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site
shall be properly managed and disposed of so they will not have an adverse
impact on water quality.
(e) Erosion and sediment controls necessary at the beginning of the project shall
be installed before commencing the land disturbing activity, and shall not be
removed without District approval or until the District has issued a certificate
of completion. Applicants may phase installation of erosion and sediment
controls provided the phasing plan is included in the approved erosion and
sediment control plan.
(f) The permittee shall be responsible for proper operation and maintenance of all
erosion and sediment controls, and soil stabilization measures, in conformance
with Best Management Practices and the requirements of the NPDES General
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 30
Construction Permit. The permittee is responsible for the operation and
maintenance of temporary erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs at
the site over all of the areas of the site that have not been fully stabilized until
the District has transferred the permit to another permittee, or until the site has
undergone final stabilization and has received an approved certificate of
completion.
4. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size; one set, reduced to 11"x17"; and a copy of all submittals in
electronic .pdf format.
(a) An existing and proposed topographic map which clearly shows contour
elevations with at least 2-foot contour intervals on and adjacent to the land,
property lines, all hydrologic features, the proposed land disturbing activities,
and the locations of all runoff, erosion and sediment controls and soil
stabilization measures.
(b) Plans and specifications for all proposed runoff, erosion and sediment
controls, and temporary and permanent soil stabilization measures.
(1) Temporary erosion and sediment control measures which will remain
in place until permanent vegetation is in place shall be identified.
(2) Permanent erosion and sediment control measures such as emergency
overflow swales shall be identified.
(c) Detailed schedules for implementation of the land disturbing activity, the
erosion and sediment controls, and soil stabilization measures.
(d) Plans and specifications for dewatering methods and outlet of stormwater.
(e) Detailed description of the methods to be employed for monitoring,
maintaining, and removing the erosion and sediment controls, and soil
stabilization measures. The name, address and phone number of the person(s)
responsible shall also be provided.
(f) For projects over one acre of disturbed area, documentation that the project
applicant has applied for a NPDES General Construction Permit shall be
submitted as well as the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
prepared for the NPDES permit.
5. EXCEPTIONS.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 31
(a) Rule F and its requirements will not apply to development less than 1 acre in
size for all land uses, unless such development is greater than 1,000 square
feet and:
(1) Is within the 100-year floodplain; or
(2) Is adjacent to a wetland, stream, public water, or public water wetland.
public water wetland, public water or wetland.
(b) Rule F and its requirements will not apply to annually cultivated land used for
farming, research, or horticulture.
Rule G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Regulate the contribution of pollutants to the District’s municipal separate
storm sewer system (MS4) by any user;
(b) Prohibit Illicit Connections and Discharges to the District’s MS4;
(c) Establish legal authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance and
monitoring procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this Rule;
(d) Require a District permit for new direct connections, significant changes to
existing hydrology, and other impacts related to the proper function, access,
and maintenance to the District’s MS4 or easements;
(e) Not allow new direct connections or other impacts to the Trout Brook
Interceptor or other components of the District’s MS4 if the connection will
cause or exacerbate water conveyance, or structural problems in the system,
including but not limited to surcharging and flooding.
2. REGULATION. This Rule shall apply to all water entering the storm drain
system of the District’s MS4 generated on any developed and undeveloped lands
unless explicitly exempted by the District. A permit and stormwater management
plan is required under this rule for new direct connections, replacement of
existing connections, changes to existing hydrology, or other impacts to the Trout
Brook Interceptor, the District’s MS4, or its easements.
3. CRITERIA.
(a) Connection to the District’s MS4 System.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 32
(1) New direct connections and replacement of existing connections will be
completed using a method that is approved by the District.
(2) Peak flow rate, the total volume of flow, and the timing of the flow for
new connections must be managed to not cause new water conveyance
problems or exacerbate existing water conveyance problems in the Trout
Brook Interceptor. Enlargement of existing connections is considered a
new connection.
(b) Discharge Prohibitions.
(1) Prohibition of Illegal Discharges. No person or political subdivision
shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the municipal storm drain
system or watercourses any materials, including but not limited to
pollutants that cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water
quality standards, other than storm water.
(2) Prohibition of Illicit Connections. The construction, use, maintenance
or continued existence of illicit connections to the storm drain system
without a District permit is prohibited.
(i) This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, illicit
connections made in the past, regardless of whether the
connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or
prevailing at the time of connection.
(ii) A person is considered to be in violation of this Rule if the
person connects a line conveying sewage to the District’s MS4,
or allows such a connection to continue.
(c) Suspension of MS4 Access.
(1) Suspension due to Illicit Discharges in Emergency Situations. The
District may, without prior notice, suspend MS4 discharge access when
such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge
which presents or may present imminent and substantial danger to the
environment, or to the health or welfare of persons, or to the District’s
MS4 or Waters of the United States. If the violator fails to comply with a
suspension order issued in an emergency, the District may take such
steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the
District’s MS4 or Waters of the United States, or to minimize danger to
persons or the environment.
(2) Suspension due to the Detection of Illicit Discharge. Any person
discharging to the District’s MS4 in violation of this Rule may have
their MS4 access terminated if such termination would abate or reduce
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 33
an illicit discharge. The District will notify a violator of the proposed
termination of its MS4 access. The violator may petition the District for
a reconsideration and hearing. A person commits an offense subject to
enforcement if the person reinstates MS4 access to premises terminated
pursuant to this Section, without the prior approval of the District.
(d) Monitoring of Discharges.
(1) Applicability. This section applies to all facilities that have storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity, including construction
activity.
(2) Access to Facilities.
(i) The District shall be permitted to enter and inspect facilities
subject to regulation under this Rule as often as may be necessary
to determine compliance with this Rule. The discharger shall
make the necessary arrangements to allow access to representatives
of the District.
(ii) Facility operators shall allow the District ready access to all parts
of the premises for the purposes of inspection, sampling,
examination and copying of records that must be kept under the
conditions of an NPDES permit to discharge storm water, and the
performance of any additional duties as defined by state and
federal law.
(iii) If the District has been refused access to any part of the premises
from which stormwater is discharged, then the District may seek
issuance of a search warrant from any court of competent
jurisdiction.
(e) Requirement to Prevent, Control, and Reduce Stormwater Pollutants
by the Use of Best Management Practices.
(1) The owner or operator of a commercial or industrial establishment shall
provide, at their own expense, reasonable protection from accidental
discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes into the municipal
storm drain system or watercourses through the use of these structural
and non-structural BMPs. Any person responsible for a property or
premise, which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be
required by the District to implement, at said person's expense,
additional structural and non-structural BMPs to prevent the further
discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system.
(f) Watercourse Protection.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 34
(1) Every person owning property through which a watercourse passes, shall
keep and maintain that part of the watercourse within the property free
of trash, debris, and other obstacles that would pollute, contaminate, or
significantly retard the flow of water through the watercourse. In
addition, the owner or lessee shall maintain existing privately owned
structures within or adjacent to a watercourse, so that such structures
will not become a hazard to the use, function, or physical integrity of the
watercourse.
(g) Notification of Spills.
Notwithstanding other requirements of law, as soon as any person
responsible for a facility or operation, or responsible for emergency
response for a facility or operation has information of any known or
suspected release of materials which result or may result in illegal
discharges or pollutants discharging into storm water, the storm drain
system, or water of the U.S., said person shall take all necessary steps to
ensure the containment and cleanup of such release. In the event of such a
release of hazardous materials, said person shall immediately notify
emergency response agencies of the release. In the event of a release of non-
hazardous materials, said person shall notify the District in person or by
phone or facsimile no later than the next business day following discovery
of the release.
(h) Enforcement.
(1) Notice of Violation. Whenever the District finds that a person has
violated a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this Rule, the
District may order compliance by written notice of violation to the
responsible person. Such notice may require without limitation:
(i) The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting;
(ii) The elimination of illicit connections or discharges;
(iii) That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall cease and
desist;
(iv) The abatement or remediation of storm water pollution or
contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected
property;
(v) Payment of a fee to cover administrative and remediation costs;
(vi) The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs.
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 35
(2) Abatement. If abatement of a violation and/or restoration of affected
property is required, the notice shall set forth a deadline within which
such remediation or restoration must be completed. Said notice shall
further advise that, should the violator fail to remediate or restore within
the established deadline, the work will be done by a designated
governmental agency or a contractor and the expense thereof shall be
charged to the violator.
(3) Appeal of Notice of Violation. Any person receiving a Notice of
Violation may appeal the determination of the District. The notice of
appeal must be received within 5 days from the date of the Notice of
Violation. Hearing on the appeal before the District Board of Managers
shall take place within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice of
appeal. The decision of the District shall be final.
(4) Enforcement Measures after Appeal. If the violation has not been
corrected pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Notice of
Violation, or, in the event of an appeal, within 3 days of the decision of
the District Board of Managers, then representatives of the District are
authorized to take any and all measures necessary to abate the violation
and/or restore the property. It shall be unlawful for any person, owner,
agent or person in possession of any premises to refuse to allow the
District or its agents to enter upon the premises for the purposes set forth
above.
(5) Cost of Abatement. The District may assess costs of abatement.
Within 30 days after abatement of the violation, the District shall notify
the property owner of the cost of abatement, including administrative
costs. The property owner may file a written protest objecting to the
amount of the assessment within 10 days. If the amount due is not paid
within a timely manner as determined by the decision of the municipal
authority or by the expiration of the time in which to file an appeal, the
charges shall become a special assessment against the property and shall
constitute a lien on the property for the amount of the assessment.
(6) Injunctive Relief. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any
provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Rule. If
a person has violated or continues to violate the provisions of this Rule,
the District may petition for a preliminary or permanent injunction
restraining the person from activities which would create further
violations or compelling the person to perform abatement or remediation
of the violation.
(7) Violations Deemed a Public Nuisance. In addition to the enforcement
processes and penalties provided, any condition caused or permitted to
exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Rule is a threat to
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 36
public health, safety, and welfare, and is declared and deemed a
nuisance, and may be summarily abated or restored at the violator's
expense, and/or a civil action to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the
cessation of such nuisance may be taken.
(8) Relation to Other Rules. None of the enforcement provisions of this
Rule shall abridge or alter the right of the District to seek remedies
provided for under Rule H herein.
4. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application.
One set, full size; one set, reduced to 11”x17”; and a copy of all submittals in
electronic .pdf format.
(a) Property lines and delineation of lands identifying ownership and
easements.
(b) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities’ location, alignment and
elevation.
(c) Identification of existing and proposed site contour elevations with at least a
2-foot contour interval.
(d) Construction plans and specifications of the proposed connection, including
design details, connection method, and timing of connection.
(e) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analysis for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year
critical events, existing and proposed conditions.
(f) Narrative addressing incorporation of stormwater BMPs.
(g) On-site soil boring indicating soil type.
(h) Construction dewatering plan and construction water control and treatment
plan.
5. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) The following discharges are exempt from discharge prohibitions
established by this Rule: water line flushing or other potable water sources,
landscape irrigation or lawn watering, diverted stream flows, rising ground
water, ground water infiltration to storm drains, uncontaminated pumped
ground water, foundation or footing drains (not including active
groundwater dewatering systems), crawl space pumps, air conditioning
condensation, springs, non-commercial washing of vehicles, natural riparian
habitat or wet-land flows, swimming pools (if dechlorinated - typically less
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 37
than one PPM chlorine), fire fighting activities, street wash water and any
other water source not containing Pollutants.
(b) Discharges specified in writing by the District as being necessary to protect
public health and safety.
(c) Dye testing is an allowable discharge, but requires a verbal notification to
the District prior to the time of the test.
(d) Any non-storm water discharge permitted under an NPDES permit, waiver,
or waste discharge order issued to the discharger and administered under the
authority of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, provided that the
discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver,
or order and other applicable laws and regulations, and provided that written
approval has been granted for any discharge to the storm drain system.
Rule H: ENFORCEMENT
1. MISDEMEANOR. A violation of these Rules, an order, or stipulation
agreement made, or a permit issued by the District is a misdemeanor subject
to penalties as provided by Minnesota law.
2. METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT. The District may exercise all powers
conferred upon it by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D. A rule, order, or
stipulation agreement made or a permit issued by the District may be enforced by
criminal prosecution, injunction, action to compel performance, restoration,
abatement, and other appropriate action.
3. PERMIT REQUIREMENT. Pursuant to the terms of the permit, the District
may issue a cease and desist order when it finds that a proposed or initiated
activity or project presents a serious threat of soil erosion, sedimentation, or an
adverse effect upon water quality or quantity, or violates any rule of the District.
4. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS. In any civil action arising from or related to
these Rules, an order or stipulation agreement made or a permit issued or denied
by the District, the court may award the District reasonable attorney fees and
costs.
5. ILLICIT DISCHARGE. In addition to the remedies provided for in this Rule,
the enforcement of Rule G shall be governed by Rule G(3)(h).
Rule I: VARIANCES
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 38
1. WHEN AUTHORIZED. The Board of Managers shall have the power to grant
variances from these Rules where they find that extraordinary and unnecessary
hardships may result from strict compliance with these Rules; provided that such
variances will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these
Rules and the overall plan of the District as adopted.
2. PROCEDURE.
(a) The Board of Managers will not consider a variance for Rule C until the
applicant has completed all of the steps of the alternative compliance section
in Rule C.
(b) A written request for a variance shall be submitted to the District at least 12
calendar days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting date of the Board of
Managers stating the exceptional conditions and the peculiar difficulties
claimed.
(c) The request shall be referred to the Board and they shall review the request
within 30 days of the date the request was filed with the District.
(d) In considering requests for variances, the Board shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the entire District and the anticipated effect of the
proposed variance upon the overall plan of the District as adopted.
(e) If the Board determines that the special conditions which apply to the
structure or land in question are peculiar to such property, and do not apply
generally to other land or structures in the District and that the granting of a
variance will not in any way impair or be contrary to the intent of these Rules
and the overall plan of the District as adopted; the Board may grant such
variances and impose conditions and safeguards to insure compliance with
these Rules and to protect adjacent property.
(f) Variances may be denied by Motion of the Board and such Motion shall
constitute a finding and determination that the conditions required for
approval do not exist. No application for a variance which has been denied
wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six months from the date
of said denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of
conditions found to be valid by the District.
3. TERM. The term of a variance shall be concurrent with the associated permit.
4. VIOLATION. A violation of any condition set forth in a variance shall be a
violation of the District rules, and shall automatically terminate the variance.
Rule J: SEVERABILITY
CRWD RULES 4/18/2012 39
If any provision of these Rules is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of these Rules shall not be affected
thereby.
Resolution Capitol Region Watershed District
In the matter pertaining to: Adopting Amended Watershed District Rules Board Member XXXXXXX introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by Board Member XXXXXX . WHEREAS, The Capitol Region Watershed District (hereinafter “District)” is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota established under the Minnesota Watershed Law, Minnesota Statute 103D; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute section 103D.341 mandates that the District adopt rules to accomplish the purposes of the Minnesota Watershed Law and to implement the powers of the Board of Managers; and WHEREAS, the District Board of Managers adopted Rules on September 6, 2006; and WHEREAS, the District convened a Technical Advisory Committee in 2014 and 2015 to discuss revisions to the adopted Rule; and WHEREAS, the District has submitted propose Rule revisions to the local municipalities, public transportation authorities and Ramsey County for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the proposed Rule revisions have been noticed for review and comment to all public transportation authorities within the District for at least 45 days; and WHEREAS, the proposed Rule revisions have been noticed for review and comment to each municipality affected by the District; and WHEREAS, the proposed Rule revisions have been noticed for public comment and hearing in legal newspapers generally circulated within the District once a week for two successive weeks; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Managers of the Capitol Region Watershed District adopts the response to comments table and amended watershed district Rules; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the adopted amended Rules shall be filed with the Ramsey County Recorder; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the adopted amended Rules shall be provided to public transportation authorities that have jurisdiction within the watershed district; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of the adopted amended Rules shall be mailed to each municipality affected by the watershed district. Vote: Approved/Denied
*Approval must receive minimum of 3 Yeas
Requested By: Forrest Kelley Recommended for Approval: Forrest Kelley Approved by Attorney: James Mogen Funding Approved: n/a
Manager Yeas Nays Absent Abstain Collins Texer Thienes Jones Reider Total
Supporting Documentation Incorporated By Reference Date Document Prepared By April 1, 2015 Response to Comments CRWD April 1, 2015 Final Rules CRWD
Resolution Adoption Certified By the Board of Managers: By: _______________________________________________ Date:______________________________
Resolution # XXXXXXXX Date Adopted: April 1, 2015
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-009 3rd Street
Conditions: 1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID.
2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.
3. Include note on Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Sheet 7 that all paved surfaces within and adjacent
to the project area shall be swept free of sediment within 24 hours of discovery.
VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Withdrawal of 6,044 Cubic Feet from the Public Works Volume Reduction Bank
Consultant: N/A
Description: Reconstruction of 3rd Street from Arcade to Johnson Parkway
Stormwater Management: Applicant has requested utilization of Volume Reduction Bank credits
District Rule: —C D F
Disturbed Area: 4.97 Acres
Impervious Area: 1.85 Acres
Permit Location
Aerial Photo
Third Street
Cyp
ress
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report
CRWD Permit #: 15-009 Review date: March 27, 2015 Project Name: 3rd Street Applicant: Barb Mundahl City of St. Paul Street Engineering 900 City Hall Annex 25 W. Fourth St. St. Paul, MN 55102 651-266-6112 Purpose: Reconstruction of 3rd Street and utility replacement Location: 3rd Street between Maple Street and Johnson Parkway Applicable Rules: C, D, and F PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions:
1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID.
2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Include note on Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Sheet 7 that all paved surfaces
within and adjacent to the project area shall be swept free of sediment within 24 hours of discovery.
VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve Withdrawal of 6,044 Cubic Feet from the Public Works Volume Reduction Bank EXHIBITS:
1. Subwatershed Delineation, by City of St. Paul, not dated, recd. 2/3/15. 2. Construction Plan, by City of St. Paul, dated and recd. 3/9/15, recd. 3. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review, by AET, dated 10/17/14, recd.
2/3/15. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS:
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-009 3rd Street\15-009 3rd Street_Review_1.doc Page 1 of 4
None. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Standards Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed
existing rates. Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount
equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site. Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to
maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area. Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point
source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.
Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is not used to analyze
runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Expected reduction in impervious area suggests that runoff rates for the
proposed activity will not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.
3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development.
a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 80,586 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)
6,044
None, Bank Withdrawal Requested
4. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested due to poor soils,
utilities, and space constraints a. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention
standard. b. The applicant proposes to comply with the volume retention standard
at an offsite location through the use of qualified banking credits. c. The applicant has not submitted money to be contributed to the
Stormwater Impact Fund. d. The project is linear, and the cost cap has not been reached.
5. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis.
6. A recordable executed maintenance agreement is not required.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-009 3rd Street\15-009 3rd Street_Review_1.doc Page 2 of 4
RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year
floodplain. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a
project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is unknown if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or
adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. However, adequate conveyance has been provided to prevent flooding.
RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard
Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.
A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.
Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property.
RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Standards A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control
measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land-disturbing activity.
Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.
Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management
practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.
2. Adjacent properties are not protected from sediment transport/deposition. 3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from
erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required.
RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-009 3rd Street\15-009 3rd Street_Review_1.doc Page 3 of 4
Standard Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and
proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.
Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not
proposed. 2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.
PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions:
1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID.
2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Include note on Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Sheet 7 that all paved
surfaces within and adjacent to the project area shall be swept free of sediment within 24 hours of discovery.
VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve Withdrawal of 6,044 Cubic Feet from the Public Works Volume Reduction Bank
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-009 3rd Street\15-009 3rd Street_Review_1.doc Page 4 of 4
3/27/2015 Volume Banking CreditsAccount: Saint Paul Public Works
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-014 East 7th Streetscape
Permit Report 15-014 Board Meeting Date: 04/01/15
Applicant: Ben Hawkins
St. Paul Public Works
25 West Fourth Street (CHA 1000)
St. Paul, MN 55102
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions:
1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID.
2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.
3. Include note on SWPPP Sheet 10 that all paved surfaces within and adjacent to the project area shall be
swept free of sediment within 24 hours of discovery
VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Withdrawal of 4,476 Cubic Feet from the Public Works Volume Reduction Bank
Consultant: N/A
Description: Streetscape, lighting, and street improvements at East 7th and Arcade
Stormwater Management: Applicant requests withdrawal from the Volume Reduction Bank
District Rule: —C D F
Disturbed Area: 1.6 Acres
Impervious Area: 1.37 Acres
Permit Location
Aerial Photo
Arcad
e
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report
CRWD Permit #: 15-014 Review date: March 27, 2015 Project Name: East 7th and Arcade Streetscape Applicant: Ben Hawkins
St. Paul Public Works 25 West 4th Street (1000 CHA) 651-266-6085 [email protected]
Purpose: Reconstruction of East 7th Street from Beech to Mendota and
streetscape improvements along Arcade Street Location: Arcade and East Seventh Applicable Rules: C, D, and F RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions:
1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID.
2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Include note on SWPPP Sheet 10 that all paved surfaces within and adjacent
to the project area shall be swept free of sediment within 24 hours of discovery.
VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve Withdrawal of 4,476 Cubic Feet from the Public Works Volume Reduction Bank EXHIBITS:
1. Plans by City of St. Paul dated and recd 3/11/15 2. Project Narrative dated and recd 3/11/15 3. Soil Boring Logs, dated 3/4/15, recd 3/11/15
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-014 East 7th Streetscape\15-014 East 7th and Arcade Streetscape.doc Page 1 of 4
HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Standards Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed
existing rates. Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount
equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site. Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to
maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area. Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point
source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.
Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is not used to analyze
runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Expected reduction in impervious area suggests that runoff rates for the
proposed activity will not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.
3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development.
a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 59,677 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)
4,476
None, Bank Withdrawal Requested
4. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested due to poor soils,
utilities, and space constraints a. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention
standard. b. The applicant proposes to comply with the volume retention standard
at an offsite location through the use of qualified banking credits. c. The applicant has not submitted money to be contributed to the
Stormwater Impact Fund. d. The project is linear, and the cost cap has not been reached.
5. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis.
6. A recordable executed maintenance agreement is not required.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-014 East 7th Streetscape\15-014 East 7th and Arcade Streetscape.doc Page 2 of 4
RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL
Standards Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year
floodplain. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a
project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is unknown if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or
adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. However, adequate conveyance has been provided to prevent flooding.
RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard
Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.
A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.
Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property.
RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Standards A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control
measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land-disturbing activity.
Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.
Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management
practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.
2. Adjacent properties are not protected from sediment transport/deposition. 3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from
erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required.
RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-014 East 7th Streetscape\15-014 East 7th and Arcade Streetscape.doc Page 3 of 4
Standard Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and
proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.
Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not
proposed. 2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions:
1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID.
2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Include note on SWPPP Sheet 10 that all paved surfaces within and adjacent to
the project area shall be swept free of sediment within 24 hours of discovery. VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve Withdrawal of 4,476 Cubic Feet from the Public Works Volume Reduction Bank
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-014 East 7th Streetscape\15-014 East 7th and Arcade Streetscape.doc Page 4 of 4
3/27/2015 Volume Banking CreditsAccount: Saint Paul Public Works
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-017 Kellogg Blvd reconstruction
Permit Report 15-017 Board Meeting Date: April 1, 2015
Applicant: Brent Christensen
City of Saint Paul-Public Works, Bridges
800 CHA, 25 W. 4th St.
Saint Paul, MN 55102
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 2 Conditions:
1. Clarify coordination provisions with the Ramsey County West Building demolition, immediately
adjacent to the project.
2. Revise SWPPP and plans to include the following:
a. General Erosion Control Notes, page 49 of 94 to include approval by CRWD staff for all
written weekly and ongoing erosion control and concrete management activities.
b. Include provisions for perimeter control on the southern edge of the project.
c. Include erosion and sediment control provisions for bluff protection, site access, and material
storage.
VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Withdrawal of 2,385 Cubic Feet from the Public Works Volume Reduction Bank
Consultant: James Bellefeuille
TKDA
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Description: Reconstruction of Kellogg Blvd bridges between Market and Wabasha
Stormwater Management: Applicant requests withdrawal from the Volume Reduction Bank
District Rule: —C F
Disturbed Area: 1.23 Acres
Impervious Area: 0.73 Acres
Permit Location
Aerial Photo
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report
CRWD Permit #: 15-017 Review date: March 27, 2015 Project Name: Kellogg Blvd Bridge reconstruction Applicant: Brent Christensen City of St. Paul-Public Works, Bridges 800 CHA, 25 W. 4th St. Saint Paul, MN 55102 651-266-6182 [email protected] Purpose: Reconstruction of Kellogg Blvd bridges between Market Street and
Wabasha Street. Location: Kellogg Blvd. between Market and Wabasha in downtown St. Paul Applicable Rules: C and F Recommendation: Approve with 2 conditions Conditions:
1. Clarify coordination provisions with the Ramsey County West Building demolition, immediately adjacent to the project.
2. Revise SWPPP and plans to include the following: a. General Erosion Control Notes, page 49 of 94 to include approval by
CRWD staff for all written weekly and ongoing erosion control and concrete management activities.
b. Include provisions for perimeter control on the southern edge of the project.
c. Include erosion and sediment control provisions for bluff protection, site access, and material storage.
VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve Withdrawal of 2,385 Cubic Feet from the Saint Paul Public Works Volume Reduction Bank EXHIBITS:
1. Construction plans, select sheets, prepared by TKDA for the City of St. Paul, dated 6/3/14, recd 3/11/15.
2. Project/stormwater narrative letter, prepared by City of St. Paul, dated 3/12/15, recd 3/12/15.
3. Permit application form, prepared by the City of St. Paul, undated, recd 3/11/15. 4. Construction plans, full set, prepared by TKDA for the Minnesota Department of
Transportation and City of St. Paul, dated 6/3/14, received 3/19/15. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: The Kellogg Blvd bridges are built on the edge of a steep bluff adjacent to the Mississippi River. The Ramsey County West building demolition is planned immediately adjacent to the Kellogg project, under permit application 15-007. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Standards Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed
existing rates. Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount
equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site. Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to
maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area. Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point
source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.
Findings 1. No increase in impervious surface or change to the route of existing
stormwater runoff is being proposed. 2. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount
equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development.
a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 31,799 square feet (0.73 acres).
*Note: this amount is less than the initial request, allowing for the corrected calculation of 0.73 acres*0.9 inch, rather than the full 1 inch used in the submittal.
3. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested, in the face of
numerous constraints, including bedrock, roadway, building foundations, and steep ravines.
a. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard.
b. The applicant proposes to comply with the volume retention standard at an offsite location through the use of qualified banking credits.
c. The applicant has not submitted money to be contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund.
d. The project is linear, and the cost cap has not been reached. 4. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids
removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis. 5. A recordable executed maintenance agreement is not required.
RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control
measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land-disturbing activity.
Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.
Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management
practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.
2. Adjacent properties should be protected from sediment transport/deposition. Additional detail is needed on perimeter control along south side of project/bluff protection.
3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems should be protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition. Additional detail is needed to ensure subsequent plans and revisions are routed through CRWD as well.
4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit has been submitted RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 2 Conditions Conditions:
1. Clarify coordination provisions with the Ramsey County West Building demolition, immediately adjacent to the project.
2. Revise SWPPP and plans to include the following: a. General Erosion Control Notes, page 49 of 94 to include approval by
CRWD staff for all written weekly and ongoing erosion control and concrete management activities.
b. Include provisions for perimeter control on the southern edge of the project.
c. Include erosion and sediment control provisions for bluff protection, site access, and material storage.
VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve Withdrawal of 2,385 Cubic Feet from the Saint Paul Public Works Volume Reduction Bank.
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
DATE: March 25, 2015
TO: CRWD Board of Managers
FROM: Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist
RE: Approve CWF Work Plans and Grant Agreement
Background
The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) has awarded two CRWD projects with FY
2015 Clean Water Legacy Amendment (CWF) grant funds. Project descriptions, grant awards, and
CRWD matching funds are outlined in the following table.
Issues
CRWD staff are working with BWSR representatives to develop work plans for both projects. It is
anticipated that both work plans will be completed and approved by BWSR prior to the April 1st CRWD
Board meeting. These work plans will be referenced in the attached agreement between CRWD and
BWSR for the grant funds. Once the agreement has been fully executed by CRWD and BWSR,
expenses for both projects will be eligible for grant funds.
Requested Action
1. Approve work plans for Central High School Stormwater Retrofits and East Kittsondale Stormwater
Retrofits.
2. Approve Clean Water Fund grant agreement, authorize the Administrator to be the Grantee’s
Authorized Representative, and authorize the Administrator to execute the agreement.
3. Approve acceptance of Clean Water Fund grants totaling $175,000 for Central High School
Stormwater Retrofits, and $200,000 for East Kittsondale Stormwater Retrofits.
enc: FY2015 BWSR Grant Agreement
\\CRWDC01\Company\02 Budget and Finance\Grants\2015\BWSR 2015 CWF\Brd Memo CWF Grant Agreement Approval.docx
Project Name Description CWF Grant
Award
Match
(25% min)
Central High School
Stormwater Retrofits
Final design and construction of stormwater
improvements to Central High School
$175,000 $150,000
East Kittsondale
Stormwater Retrofits
Design and construction of high priority
retrofit projects identified in the East
Kittsondale Subwatershed Analysis
$200,000 $50,000
April 1, 2015
V. Action Items
D) Approve CWF Grant
Agreement (Zwonitzer)
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
DATE: March 26, 2015
TO: CRWD Board of Managers
FROM: Anna Eleria, Water Resource Project Manager
RE: Approve Engineer for Lafayette Park Campus Stormwater Feasibility Study
Background
In late February, CRWD staff distributed to four engineering firms a request for proposals (RFP) for the
Lafayette Park Campus Stormwater Feasibility Study. Located between Lafayette Road and East 7th Street in
Saint Paul, Lafayette Park Campus encompasses over 40 acres across multiple parcels that serve as the offices
for a number of State agencies including MN Pollution Control Agency and MN Department of Natural
Resources.
The selected engineering firm will evaluate the opportunities and constraints for implementing green
infrastructures practices that treat stormwater runoff, are cost-effective and enhance the aesthetics of the
property. Three preliminary concepts will be developed for consideration by CRWD, State agencies and the
property owner with the desired goal of selecting one for final design and construction.
Issues
Proposals were received from four engineering firms with the following estimated costs: 1) Barr Engineering
- $59,945, 2) EOR - $73,997, 3) SRF - $69,647, and 4) Wenck Associates - $49,500. A committee, comprised
of CRWD staff and a Board of Manager, MPCA staff, and a representative of the property owner, reviewed
and discussed the merits and weaknesses of each proposal.
While all four firms prepared good proposals and are qualified to conduct the study, the committee is
recommending the Board approve Barr Engineering as the engineer for the Lafayette Park Campus study for
a number of reasons. Unlike the other firms, the Barr Engineering team includes a real estate consultant who
will evaluate the benefits of the project in terms of property value. In addition, Barr Engineering’s experience
on the Maplewood Mall Project has aspects that are likely transferable to Lafayette Park Campus. See the
enclosed consultant evaluation summary for the ranking of each firm and associated comments.
Requested Action
Approve Barr Engineering as engineer for the Lafayette Park Campus Stormwater Feasibility Study and
authorize Board President and Administrator to execute a contract in an amount not to exceed $59,945 and
approve contract amendments for an aggregate amount not to exceed $6,000. Subject to the review and
approval of the Ramsey County Attorney.
encs: Consultant Evaluation Summary
Lafayette Park Campus Proposal submitted by Barr Engineering W:\08 Orgs-Cities-Agencies\MPCA\Lafayette Campus GI Study\Board Memos\BM Lafayette Park Campus Engineer 04-01-15.docx
April 1, 2015 Board Meeting
V. Action Item E. Engineer for
Lafayette Park Campus
Stormwater Feasibility Study
(Eleria)
Lafayette Park Campus Stormwater Feasibility Study
Consultant Evaluation Summary
25-Mar-15
Consultant Rank Comments
Barr Engineering 1
Includes real estate consultant to quantify benefits of the project in terms of property value – important information for property owner and other stakeholders
Experience working on large parking lot retrofit project with multiple stakeholders (Maplewood Mall) that can likely be transferred to this project
Incorporating maintenance considerations into concept designs
Good value based on labor hours and cost
Reasonable distribution of work btwn team members
EOR 3
Experience with large, urban GI projects
Creative, innovative firm
Includes nationally recognized GI consultant, however, costly and uncertainty in benefits
No real estate consultant to quantify benefits to property value
Higher cost and identities of staff members who will conduct a significant amount of work was not provided (mid-level LA and civil engineer)
SRF 4
Well-detailed, sound approach to study
Extensive experience on GI projects, however, primarily within linear realm or part of larger redevelopment projects
Higher cost
Not clear on how non-stormwater benefits will be calculated
Lacks real estate consultant
Labor hours weighted heavily towards project manager
Wenck Associates 2
Conducted initial research and offered initial design approaches/concepts
Knowledgeable about the historic uses of area and potential brownfield issues
Not clear on how non-stormwater benefits will be calculated
Lowest cost but lacked budget detail
No indication that real estate staff will quantify benefits of the project in terms of property value
Proposal for the Lafayette Park Campus Stormwater Feasibility Study
Submitted by Barr Engineering Co. March 18, 2015
Prepared for the Capitol Region Watershed District
March 18, 2015
Anna Eleria
Water Resource Project Manager
Capitol Region Watershed District
1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4
Saint Paul, MN 55108
Re: Proposal for the Lafayette Park Campus stormwater feasibility study
Dear Anna:
Thank you for the opportunity to propose on assisting the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) and
your partner, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), with the stormwater feasibility study for
the Lafayette Park Campus in Saint Paul. We understand that you are seeking to retrofit the site with cost-
effective green infrastructure that not only treats stormwater but also provides multiple other benefits to
employees working in the buildings and to the building owners. As we demonstrate in our proposal, we
are well qualified to deliver the best study possible for this site and look forward to continuing our
working relationship with both the CRWD and MPCA.
While preparing our proposal, we began investigating the site’s existing conditions as well as its history
and the surrounding area. Understanding the former land use is important when considering green
infrastructure options because past use may result in some site constraints in terms of excavation and
infiltration. During our research, we discovered that the site has an intriguing past that may provide
inspiration for design, public art, and education, as well as a possible partnership with the Minnesota
Historical Society.
In the late 1880s, the Lafayette Park Campus was, in fact, a neighborhood park, once described as “a
pleasant little square with a central fountain” (Minneapolis St. Paul Pioneer Press. 10 September 1882, 6.).
The park was surrounded by a mansion district that some historians refer to as “Minnesota’s first Summit
Avenue” in the heart of St. Paul’s Lowertown. Trout Brook bordered the area to the east and provided a
pastoral escape for the area’s residents. By 1903, railroads covered the area, and the Pioneer Press
reported that “not much was left of Lowertown but the memories of departed grandeur.” All that remains
of the park now is the site’s name, shown on entrance monument signs that depict a flowing fountain.
Photo source: Minnesota Historical Society Photo source: Barr Engineering Co.
Anna Eleria
March 18, 2015
Page 2
Lafayette Park has moved far away from these historic roots, joining the ranks of the 20th-century parking
lot. The possibility of a green infrastructure retrofit in this part of the Twin Cities is an exciting opportunity
to improve the quality of stormwater leaving the site, and to reclaim a bit of the cultural and natural
history of the place. Such a project could transform the Lafayette Park Campus into a site that is more
green, natural, safe, connected, and walkable for the people who live and work there.
You will benefit from selecting our team for this work because:
Our green infrastructure team has successfully completed large-scale retrofit projects that create
ecologically friendly, context-sensitive stormwater solutions that enhance the pedestrian
experience. The Lafayette Park Campus includes approximately 20 acres of parking lot. The large-scale
and retrofit nature of the project site presents unique challenges. Every project is different and has
stakeholders with individual goals, but there are many parallels between your project and the project
examples we have included in our proposal.
Our staff understands the complexities of working with multiple stakeholders and is committed
to developing a feasible project that results in construction. Taking a project from the feasibility-
study level to construction can be challenging for several reasons. We understand that stakeholder
buy-in, especially from the building owner, is critical on a project like this. Without their participation
and commitment, construction can’t happen. That’s why we have added a real estate consultant to
our team to quantify the benefits of the project in terms of property value and communicate those
benefits to the owner. Another hurdle will be securing funding to pay for the construction. This starts
with a design that minimizes cost and maximizes benefits associated with the goals as determined by
the CRWD and MPCA. We have successfully helped acquire grant funding from a variety of sources
for similar projects. If brownfield issues need to be addressed, we have staff available to provide the
necessary expertise to understand the issues and address them, as well as identify funding sources for
cleanup and assist with securing grants. (Professional services related to brownfields are not included
in our current scope).
Our project team understands the trade-offs involved with design and maintenance. Barr’s
engineers and landscape architects and ecologists have experience designing a range of green
infrastructure projects: locales from the suburban to the ultra-urban and plantings from the showy to
the simple. We understand that increasing complexity of designs and diversity of plantings has certain
benefits and is desired in some situations, but that complexity comes with long-term maintenance
costs. We frequently prepare best-management-practice maintenance plans and write maintenance
specifications and contracts for several of our municipal and watershed district clients. These
maintenance plans are based on our many years of field experience with green infrastructure and on
conversations with the contractors responsible for doing the work. This understanding of
maintenance is translated directly into our designs, which we tailor to the needs of each project and
the level of maintenance acceptable to the project owner.
Our team understands the challenges of the urban environment. Barr has first-hand experience
with issues unique to urban areas including highly compacted soils, contaminated soils, densely
packed utilities, and the need for low-maintenance devices. We also understand that providing
sufficient parking is crucial to the success of the project, and we have a number of strategies that can
both preserve parking and treat stormwater.
Anna Eleria
March 18, 2015
Page 3
Our staff designs projects that provide multiple functions beyond stormwater management
and understands that this is an important aspect of this project. This is a passion of
ours―improving water quality while also educating, creating habitat, improving aesthetics and safety,
saving energy, and making places a better place to live or work. We achieve this by designing
integrated landscape, hardscape, and stormwater management systems.
We are enthusiastic about this opportunity to help the CRWD and MPCA explore stormwater treatment
and site improvement solutions for the Lafayette Park Campus, and we look forward to discussing this
project with you further. If you have questions about our proposal, feel free to contact me (952-832-2859
or [email protected]) or project manager Erin Anderson Wenz (952-832-2805 or
Green infrastructure At Barr, our practice is based on achieving results with green infrastructure design founded on the
footprint of natural ecosystems, with an emphasis on long-term sustainability. We understand the
interaction between the natural and built environment and use this to look for affordable and long-
term solutions that blend traditional engineering practices with an ecologically sound approach that
strives to balance ecological function, watershed characteristics, and hydrologic conditions with the
ways people use the site. Rooted in ecology, we design beautiful sites that are community defining,
enduring, technically sound, and innovative. We help clients achieve their goals of improved
community health, response to climate change, reduced energy use, regulatory compliance,
improved livability, reliable and maintainable infrastructure, improved economic development,
enhanced water quality, and much more.
Artistic design Barr has a successful history of artistic design in partnership with local artists. We see urban retrofit
projects, in particular, as unique opportunities to reach the public through art that piques curiosity,
educates, and inspires. It’s a powerful and integral part of our green infrastructure design. Innovative
parking lot design is a particular passion of ours, because we believe that a parking lot can be
something much more than just a place to park a car.
Project approach We design green infrastructure with multiple benefits and stacked functions, considering the social,
economic, and environmental impacts of what we propose. We see the Lafayette Park Campus
stormwater feasibility study project as an exciting opportunity to implement green infrastructure in a
way that improves other aspects of the site—such as site aesthetics and safety—while tying the site
to the natural environment and its historic significance through the use of public art.
An important initial step in this project will be to establish additional goals for the project over and
above the minimal impact design standards (MIDS) stormwater treatment performance goal and the
inclusion of public art in the project.
Barr Engineering Co. │ Page 2
Examples of potential goals include:
educational elements (environmental,
historical, etc.)
building and parking lot shading with
trees
improved site safety-reduce slips and
trips
improved site aesthetics at the
pedestrian level and from looking out
of the buildings
improved walking, resting, and eating
areas
perennial food plantings
wind breaks
alternative modes of energy generation
covered parking/walkways
rainwater collection for irrigation
habitat for birds, butterflies, and other
insects
carbon sequestration
minimal/no irrigation requirements
improved snow/ice management/snow
storage
vehicular traffic calming
improved site lighting
low carbon footprint of total project
low water footprint of total project
maximized recycled content of
materials
resilience to future changes in
precipitation
demonstration of new stormwater
management techniques
budget ranges for construction
An early determination of the desired goals is important and will help to define what should be
included in each of the three preliminary green infrastructure concept plans and, ultimately, the final
conceptual design for the site. Ideally, the full list of additional goals will be determined at the kick-
off meeting. Barr, along with our project partners, will help facilitate these discussions and guide
your decisions every step along the way.
Project team Barr proposes the following multi-disciplinary and experienced project team. Most of our team
members have worked on multiple Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) projects across the
district. Full resumes are included in Attachment A.
Role: Principal in
charge
Kurt Leuthold, PE, LEED AP Hourly rate: $165
Vice President, Senior Civil Engineer Availability during project: 15%
BS, Civil Engineering Est. hours spent on project: 35
Kurt has 27 years of stormwater design experience, 15 of which have been focused
on low impact development, green buildings, and green infrastructure. He has
designed surface-water management projects for a large spectrum of public and
private clients, specializing in designing infrastructure with an eye for ecology and
aesthetics, and he recognizes the need for designing with maintenance in mind.
Examples of Kurt’s work include design assistance for the stormwater planters and
rain gardens along the Green Line Light Rail Transit for the CRWD and campus-wide
infiltration-based stormwater management for Minnetonka’s city hall and civic
center and for Lockheed Martin’s 52-acre corporate campus in Eagan.
Barr Engineering Co. │ Page 3
Role: Project
manager
Erin Anderson Wenz, PE, ENV SP Hourly rate: $155
Senior Water Resources Engineer Availability during project: 25%
MS, Environmental Engineering and Science Est. hours spent on project: 67
Erin has 18 years of experience in hydraulics and hydrology, including both
stormwater and lake water quality modeling for watershed districts and
municipalities. Her work includes creating stormwater management plans and
designing and constructing low-impact development features such as rain gardens,
porous pavement, and tree trenches. Erin managed the implementation of
stormwater features and educational signage across a 35-acre mall parking lot at
Maplewood Mall for the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and is
currently managing the development of a stormwater management plan for Miller
Hill Mall in Duluth for the South St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation District.
Role: Landscape
architect
Eric Holt, PLA Hourly rate: $95
Landscape Architect Availability during project: 25%
BLA, Landscape Architecture Est. hours spent on project: 99
Eric has nine years of experience in landscape architecture and urban design,
focused on conceptual site design, integrated stormwater management, green
infrastructure design and planning, low-impact development, interpretive design
and communication, planting design, and graphic design. He completed plans and
specifications and provided construction observation for green infrastructure
practices along the Green Line Light Rail Transit in Saint Paul for the CRWD. He also
developed innovative integrated stormwater treatment and interpretive features for
the Maplewood Mall stormwater retrofit project.
Role: Landscape
architect
Fred Rozumalski, PLA Hourly rate: $150
Landscape Architect/Ecologist Availability during project: 40%
Master of Landscape Architecture Est. hours spent on project: 26
Fred has 19 years of experience in ecology, horticulture, and native landscape
design and restoration. His projects are designed to work with nature to create
economically viable, low-maintenance landscapes that support a diversity of plants
and animals, while also meeting the needs of people. He conducts natural resource
inventories and cultural site analyses; restores native plant communities; provides
landscape master plans for colleges, corporations, and municipalities; and designs
innovative stormwater management features. Fred designed an innovated structural
soil tree trench system at Maplewood Mall and alternative stormwater management
techniques for Minnetonka’s city hall.
Role: Designer
Nathan Campeau, PE, CFM, ENV SP Hourly rate: $135
Senior Water Resources Engineer Availability during project: 20%
MS, Civil Engineering Est. hours spent on project: 24
Nathan has 12 years of water resources experience in hydrologic and hydraulic
analysis, flood risk management design, green infrastructure, and GIS. He works on
low-impact site design, stormwater quality analysis and improvement, and flood
analysis and mitigation projects. Nathan designed and managed several green
infrastructure projects along the Green Line Light Rail Transit for the CRWD and
helped develop a sustainable site master plan for Lockheed Martin Corporation in
Eagan.
Barr Engineering Co. │ Page 4
Role: Designer
Candice Kantor Hourly rate: $95
Water Resources Specialist Availability during project: 20%
BS, Civil Engineering Est. hours spent on project: 111
Candice has five years of experience in stormwater pond improvement, watershed
analysis, design development, and construction observation. Through GIS, she
performs watershed analyses to be used in modeling, creates supporting
documents and figures, and determines hydrologic inputs for modeling. Candice
completed plans and specifications and provided construction observation for rain
gardens and stormwater planters along the Green Line Light Rail Transit in Saint
Paul for the CRWD. She also provided construction observation and assisted with
plans and specifications for tree trench design at Maplewood Mall.
Role: MIDS
calculator
technical
resource
Eric Novotny, PhD Hourly rate: $115
Water Resources Specialist Availability during project: 20%
PhD, Civil Engineering Est. hours spent on project: 32
Eric has seven years of experience in water quality modeling, hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling, computer programming, and statistical model development. He
designed and programmed the MIDS calculator, which quantifies the required
runoff treatment volume and determines runoff volumes, total phosphorus, and
total suspended solids load reductions with user-selected low-impact development
best management practices to meet MIDS standards. Eric has conducted training
sessions on the use and functionality of the MIDS calculator to professionals.
Role: Visual artist
Amanda Lovelee Hourly rate: $65
Visual Artist Availability during project: 20%
Master of Fine Arts Est. hours spent on project: 37
Amanda is a visual artist whose training is based in photography and video. She
creates interactive public art projects that explore how and where people connect.
As a member of Saint Paul’s City Artist in Residence team, she has worked with the
city to advise and curate public art for the new Saints baseball stadium, the
Arlington Hills Community Center, and numerous planning and open space initiates.
Her city art initiatives include Pedro Park Urban Flower Field, the new Highland and
Sunray libraries, and a soon-to-be launched city meeting fleet. Her past projects
have investigated topics such as the lives of beekeepers and ice fisherman, love
stories, and the sociology of square dancing. In summer 2014, she was a
collaborator in Balancing Ground for the Creative City Challenge.
Role: Real estate
analyst
Shannon Reilly Hourly rate: $350
Senior Vice President, Frauenshuh, Inc. Availability during project: 2%
BS, Business Real Estate Est. hours spent on project: 2
Shannon manages the Frauenshuh, Inc. Minneapolis office and is responsible for
preparing market analyses, conducting site selection research, and negotiating
commercial real estate transactions. She is well known for her attention to detail
and her ability to quickly grasp her clients’ goals and objectives. Shannon provides
corporate service representation; tenant representation; and property analysis,
development, and acquisition services.
Barr Engineering Co. │ Page 5
Scope of work
Task 1: Existing data collection and review After the notice to proceed, Barr will compile all relevant and publically available geospatial and site-
specific data for the study area and immediate surrounding areas and present in a map format. We
will include information such as soils (if available), storm-sewer infrastructure (pipes, ditches, catch
basins, and manholes), land use, property ownership, easements, trees, above- and below-ground
utilities, watersheds, flow direction, topographic data from LIDAR, and any other available relevant
data for the study. Barr will provide preliminary maps of collected geospatial data at the project kick-
off meeting (Task 5) to help facilitate the discussion of additional data needs with the CRWD and the
project partners, including any as-built drawings or site plans that the property owner might have. In
addition, Barr will review historical information for the site that is available through the Minnesota
Historical Society (some of this work has been done already).
Deliverables: Barr will provide the CRWD with maps of the collected, relevant layers and a list of
data gaps that will be collected in the field (Task 2).
Task 2: Field work Our field work will start with walking the site with our consulting artist, Amanda Lovelee, as well as
CRWD and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff, to take site photographs and discuss
initial ideas for the site.
For large-scale sites like the Lafayette Park Campus, with many different potential opportunities for
improvements, we suggest using a 3D laser scanner to capture the greatest amount of survey
information from the site. Our P20 laser scanner can collect data points from all over the site in a
data cloud that can be used back in our office to define objects and topography from the site in
high-resolution xyz coordinates. This information can be used to create site maps, CAD drawings, or
other deliverables. Before using the scanner at the site, we will call Gopher One to locate any public
utilities. For private utilities on site that are not located by Gopher One, we will use a private locator
in critical areas of the site that are likely to be retrofitted. We will survey the location of all marked
utilities for the basemap to be generated for Task 3.
Optional addition to Task 2: Soil borings and environmental screening
A site soil investigation is not included in our basic services for this project. If a soil investigation is
requested, Barr will contract with a drilling contractor to complete soil borings and boring logs. This
will provide important stormwater design information such as soil type(s) and density of surficial and
deeper soils. At this point in the project, it is difficult to determine the number of borings needed,
but we feel that approximately 10 soil borings—at approximately 20 feet deep and located in areas
likely to be disturbed—is a good assumption. Environmental screening can also be completed at this
time and would determine the presence of contaminated soils. Parts of the site have a long history as
a rail yard; environmental screening would help define limitations related to infiltration and soil
excavation. We estimate that the cost of this effort would be approximately $8,000, including lab
fees.
Barr Engineering Co. │ Page 6
Deliverables: Barr will provide any soil boring logs, soil analyses, and a location map of all
identified utilities in the study area, as well access to imaging of the site in critical locations from the
laser scanner survey.
Task 3: Preliminary conceptual designs Using the data collected in Tasks 1 and 2 and initial stakeholder feedback provided at the kick-off
meeting (Task 5), we will initiate our design with the project stakeholders at a multidisciplinary design
workshop (Task 5), bringing together our green infrastructure designers, landscape architects, and
consulting artist as well as CRWD and MPCA staff, the property owner, and other project
stakeholders. The purpose of the design workshop is to help identify project challenges and goals
early in the design process and promote stakeholder buy-in, increasing the chances of a successful
feasibility study.
After the workshop, Barr will develop three conceptual designs for the site using GIS and other
graphics programs to create attractive, easy-to-understand site plans and details. CAD design
drawings will not be created. Concepts will be developed in response to stakeholder comments, to
maximize stormwater treatment and exposure to public art, and to achieve any other project goals
identified by stakeholders during the kick-off meeting or design workshop.
Barr will prepare preliminary cost estimates (including anticipated maintenance) as well as water
quality benefits using the MPCA MIDS calculator, as performed by Barr on several previous CRWD
green infrastructure projects. A cost-benefit table will be developed showing the annual cost per
pound of phosphorus removed by the concepts. In addition, we propose to use the EnvisionTM
decision framework to help project members decide among project options by allowing a method
for quantifying the relative impacts of different project options on the social, environmental, and
economic benefits of each project option. Please note that life cycle analyses of project options are
not included in this scope of work. In addition, we propose to consult our real estate analyst at this
point in the project to get input on which options might make the most sense from a property value
point of view.
Barr will then present the concepts, cost estimates, and performance assessments to the stakeholders
at a meeting (Task 5) and to the CRWD Board of Managers (Task 5).
Deliverables: Barr will provide drawings of three preliminary concepts for the site as well as a draft
technical memorandum that includes the study background, preliminary conceptual designs and
descriptions, costs, and performance assessments, in digital format.
Task 4: Final conceptual designs Based on stakeholder and board comments collected at the meetings described above, Barr will
revise the selected conceptual designs presented in Task 3 to create a single, final conceptual design
for the site. This task assumes that one round of revisions will be completed after the three
preliminary conceptual designs are presented at the end of Task 3. Based on these changes, the cost
estimates and performance assessments will be updated as well. We will then meet with the CRWD
and project stakeholders (Task 5) to present the final designs and draft memo. Based on feedback
Barr Engineering Co. │ Page 7
received at this meeting and in subsequent emails, we will incorporate changes and finalize the
memorandum.
Deliverables: Final technical memorandum that includes the final conceptual design for the site, a
discussion of preliminary conceptual designs, green infrastructure performance assessments, and
cost estimates, in digital format.
Task 5: Project coordination and meetings Because of the unique arrangement of project partners (public and private) and placement of
practices on private property, we understand that project coordination and meetings are a critical in
obtaining stakeholder buy-in and maximizing the likelihood that the feasibility study will result in a
completed construction project. Barr and the proposed project team have significant experience
working on similar projects that require significant stakeholder engagement. Throughout the project
and as part of this task, Barr will assist the CRWD with project coordination and meeting
organization/facilitation, including the preparation of meeting agendas and minutes. This task
includes six meetings, including the facilitation of the design workshop.
1. kick-off meeting with the CRWD and project stakeholders, attended by three Barr staff and
the project’s consulting artist (during Task 1)
2. design workshop with the CRWD and project stakeholders, attended by six Barr staff
(including the workshop’s facilitator) and the project’s consulting artist (prior to Task 3)
3. presentation of preliminary concepts to the CRWD and project stakeholders, attended by
three Barr staff and the project’s consulting artist (conclusion of Task 3)
4. presentation of final concepts and draft technical memo to the CRWD and project
stakeholders, attended by two Barr staff and the project’s consulting artist (during Task 4)
5. presentation of preliminary concepts to the CRWD Board of Managers, attended by two Barr
staff and the project’s consulting artist (conclusion of Task 4)
6. presentation of final concepts to another advisory group (if needed), attended by two Barr
staff (conclusion of Task 4)
Budget and schedule The budget spreadsheet and schedule are on the following page.
Name (Last, First) Anderson Wenz, Erin Campeau, Nathan Kantor, Candice Novotny, Eric Rozumalski, Fred Holt, Eric Schluessler, Derek Vosejpka, Josh Leuthold, Kurt Reilly, Shannon Lovelee, Amanda
stormwater infiltration retrofit of suburban mall runoff reduced and filtered naturally
client
Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District
location
Minnesota
services provided:
ecological stormwater management
rainwater gardens
tree trenches (Stockholm Tree Trenches for Management
of Stormwater - STTeMS)
design, plans, and specifications
interpretive signage
Maplewood Mall is an aging shopping facility in the Twin
Cities metropolitan area with 35 acres of impervious parking
and road surface, and proximity to a nutrient-impaired lake.
Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District hired Barr to
design and construct a first-of-its-kind stormwater
management system in the parking lot. Incorporating an
array of best management practices (BMPs), the system will
significantly reduce pollution in downstream lakes while
adding aesthetic and educational features.
Along with rainwater gardens, porous paver crosswalks, a
sand filter, and a cistern that captures mall roof runoff for
irrigation, the system features more than a mile of rock
trenches planted with 200 trees. The technique was adapted
from one used by tree specialists in Sweden, and it will
remove up to 50 pounds of phosphorus and five tons of
sediment annually. Barr added public art and educational
components that explain to mall visitors the need for and
the benefits of treating stormwater.
A 5,700-gallon cistern captures runoff
from1 percent of the mall's roof for irriga-
tion. Mall visitors hand pump the rainwater
from the cistern onto a series of water
wheels that chime as water falls down. The
water then travels downstream to rain-
water gardens at the mall’s entrance.
The site’s largest rainwater gardens use sand trenches
enhanced with iron shavings, which trap dissolved
phosphorus as stormwater passes over it, reducing the
concentration of phosphorus by as much as 80 percent.
Stormwater infiltration retrofit of
suburban mall, continued
The result of four years of planning and
construction, the project was challenging
due to the size of the area (35 acres),
duration, number of stakeholders, and
the need to maintain vehicle and
pedestrian access and parking spaces.
The large-scale retrofit will capture and
treat runoff from 90 percent of the
parking lot. By intercepting, filtering,
and/or infiltrating the first inch of runoff,
the system will remove over 60 percent
of the phosphorus from the site that
would otherwise flow into impaired
Kohlman Lake.
In 2012, Ramsey-Washington Metro
Watershed District was awarded the
Project of the Year Award by the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts for the work at Maplewood
Mall. The project also won a Grand Award from the American Council of Engineering Companies of
Minnesota in 2013.
23621029.00
<TITLE START>stormwater infiltration retrofit of suburban mall<TITLE END>
resourceful. naturally.
Barr Engineering Company www.barr.com
sustainable site master plan for
corporate campus
green site plan reduces energy consumption
client
Lockheed Martin Corporation
location
Eagan, Minnesota
services provided:
campus master planning
site analysis
design of pervious concrete and porous
bituminous parking lot and sidewalks
design of above ground stormwater
management system
design of LED site lighting scheme
construction observation and administration
stormwater monitoring (pre- and post-project)
To show its commitment to being a good eco-
citizen and to improve the work environment of its employees, Lockheed Martin called on Barr to create a
master site plan for its campus in Eagan, Minnesota.
The 52-acre campus consists of a large central office building surrounded by large parking lots for 2,000
cars and mowed turf. The master plan showed how to implement innovative practices to reduce the
campus’ carbon footprint and energy consumption by:
reducing pavement and capturing stormwater through infiltration, which provides water for the
landscape and reduces irrigation needs
reducing the urban heat island effect by shading pavement
reducing building energy consumption by shading east and west windows and planting wind breaks
producing energy on site through the use of solar panels, geothermal heating and cooling, and a
wind turbine
reducing fuel and chemical consumption associated with large expanses of lawn by incorporating
native grass, shrub, and food-producing plantings
To provide an attractive landscape for 1,500 employees, the plan creates views from the building that look
out over a scenic landscape containing wildlife habitat and offering opportunities for walking. The plan
also contained a strategy to produce food on site for employee use, and set an example of sustainable
landscaping that employees can incorporate on their own property. <TITLE START>sustainable site master plan for corporate campus<TITLE END> 23190A41.00
Creating stormwater infiltration swales in the parking
lot not only cleans stormwater, but also supports
trees that shade pavement, break wind, and
sequester carbon from the atmosphere.
resourceful. naturally.
Barr Engineering Company www.barr.com
green infrastructure along Green Line light rail corridor low-impact design treats stormwater
client
Capitol Region Watershed District
location
Minnesota
services provided:
development of stormwater
treatment concepts
site assessment
stormwater design package
bid documents and construction
administration
interpretive signage
Barr worked with the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), the City of Saint Paul, and other
consultants in a two-phase project to develop low-impact stormwater treatment practices appropriate to
the urban Green Line (also referred to as the Central Corridor), which provides a light rail transit (LRT) link
between the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.
In the first phase of the project, Barr developed several concepts and assisted with development of a final
design that treats stormwater through underground infiltration trenches, incorporates an ambitious street
tree and stormwater treatment design, and improves the aesthetics of the transit corridor. We also
completed plans and specifications for construction of three stormwater planters that were installed along
the light rail corridor in 2011.
In the second phase, we assessed eight locations along the Green Line, considering their respective
suitability for infiltration/filtration practices. We selected five locations that were most feasible for
construction and maintenance and would best promote water quality, creativity, and education. We then
designed rainwater gardens and stormwater planters for these locations, incorporating public art where
possible. These 10 practices at five locations were completed in 2012.
Barr also developed graphical renderings for the four types of stormwater treatment practices (rainwater
gardens, stormwater planters, infiltration trenches, and tree trenches). Interpretive signage was placed at
the practices at 22 locations along the Green Line in 2013 to educate the public on the importance of
water quality and how the practices function. The interpretive signage was also translated into Hmong
and Spanish and placed on CRWD’s website. The translated signs can be accessed using the QR code
found on the signage placed along the Green Line.
Stormwater planter at Oxford Street and University Avenue
Green infrastructure along Green
Line light rail corridor, continued
In 2014 the City of Saint Paul honored this project with the
Sustainable Saint Paul Award for Water Quality. Barr continues
to serve CRWD as the Green Line green infrastructure
engineer, providing ongoing support in the operations and
maintenance of the green infrastructure practices.
<TITLE START>green infrastructure along Green Line light rail corridor<TITLE END> 23621062.00
resourceful. naturally.
Barr Engineering Company www.barr.com
low-impact landscape design for city hall campus
sustainable design reduces pollution from
stormwater runoff
client
City of Minnetonka
location
Minnesota
services provided:
design of green space
layout of primary roadway and parking lot
hydrologic analysis
planting design
design of alternative stormwater management
When the City of Minnetonka decided to create a model landscape for its citizens that demonstrated
sustainable landscape design and alternative stormwater management techniques, it hired Barr’s team of
landscape architects and ecologists. Barr worked closely with city planners to design a welcoming, user-
friendly place that not only serves the needs of people, but also reflects the native landscape of the area.
Barr’s work included:
Designing a sustainable landscape based on low-maintenance, native plants.
Creating a primary entry road to improve public safety
Redeveloping two large parking lots to include stormwater infiltration basins/rainwater gardens and
extensive tree plantings to provide shade
Creating park space in conjunction with an amphitheater and trail system
A sustainable landscape design incorporates low-maintenance, native plants. The planting design for this
project incorporates thousands of native trees and shrubs and acres of native prairie and wetlands.
Innovative stormwater management techniques,
including two types of porous pavers, serve as a
demonstration of the types of practices developers
and citizens can implement in their own projects.
Low-impact landscape design for
city hall campus, continued
Minnetonka’s city hall campus is located just two miles downstream of Lake Minnetonka along Minnehaha
Creek, which provides a natural corridor through Minnetonka downstream to the Mississippi River. Growth
in the Minnetonka and, more broadly, in the entire Minnehaha Creek watershed has had environmental
impacts on Minnehaha Creek and other water resources within the city. One of the project’s goals was to
protect these water bodies through the use of environmentally friendly, low-impact development
practices.
Stormwater runs off parking lots into a series of stormwater wetlands, large rainwater gardens, and
vegetated parking lot swales. Here, water infiltrates into the ground and provides needed irrigation to the
native plants, shrubs, and trees that inhabit these green spaces. In this way, Minnehaha Creek is protected
from large volumes of polluted water, and the design eliminates the need for irrigation and fertilizers.
As they designed the new campus, Barr’s engineers, landscape architects, and ecologists worked closely
with city staff to create a place that meets the needs of the city and its residents, but also serves as a
home to wildlife and native plants. In 2007, the project was recognized by the City Engineers Association
of Minnesota as an outstanding municipal project. <TITLE
START>low-impact landscape design for city hall campus<TITLE END> 23270F59.00
Prior to the project, the city hall, community center, and ice arenas all shared one large parking lot with
little traffic control. The new design created a primary access road that establishes a safe flow of traffic
through the site.
Mowed areas of the campus that were not used as active areas were planted with tough, native plants.
Vegetated areas and boulevards capture and treat stormwater by filtering it through plants and soaking it
into the ground, preventing it from entering Minnehaha Creek.
resourceful. naturally.
Barr Engineering Company www.barr.com
sustainable landscape plan for college campus
client
Macalester College
location
Minnesota
services provided:
master planning
facilitation of student and staff involvement and input
stormwater management planning and design
shade tree master plan
landscape design
Macalester College set a goal to generate zero waste by 2020 and
become carbon neutral by 2025. The college hired Barr to create a
landscape master plan to help it achieve these goals. Working with
school administrators and with input from students and faculty, Barr
created a plan that:
guides and informs decision making about the campus grounds
develops a landscape that is attractive, ecologically sound, does
not increase maintenance, and allows for multiple uses
addresses stormwater management, plant diversity, soil conditions, and energy efficiency
Large areas of turf were converted to low-maintenance plantings to shade buildings, provide wildlife
habitat, clean stormwater, and build soil. Pervious pavement and rainwater gardens increase runoff-water
quality and reuse water for irrigation purposes.
The campus plan is currently being implemented and serves as a demonstration of sustainable landscape
design principles.
23621027.00
The plan focuses on reducing lawn,
capturing stormwater, shading
buildings, and improving the
campus appearance.
Replacing unused lawn like
that above with low-
maintenance plantings
reduces the need for fertil-
izer, water, and pesticides
while shaping comfortable
spaces for student use.
The above rendering of turf plantings illustrates ways to
reduce unused lawn (right).
Barr Engineering Co.
Green Roof Bog - Minneapolis College of Art and Design