May 15, 2019 Board Packet by Capitol Region Watershed District

Board Workshop and Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, May 15, 2019 5:00 p.m. (Workshop) and 6:00 p.m. (Regular Meeting) at the office of the CRWD, 595 Aldine Street, St. Paul, Minnesota.

WORKSHOP AGENDA I. II. III.

Materials enclosed

Call to Order of Board Workshop Review Draft Strategic Plan Adjourn Board Workshop

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA (6:00 PM) 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) B) C) D) E)

12-003 Cretin Derham Hall ballfields – Closure (Hosch) 17-017 Dickerman Park – Closure (Hosch) 18-022 Rivoli III (Hosch) 19-010 Raymond Station (Hosch) 19-012 University of St. Thomas 2nd Year Housing (Hosch)

IV.

Special Reports – No Special Reports

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the May 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve April Accounts Payable/Receivable (Sylvander) C) AR: Approve Como Lake Management Plan (Belden) D) AR: Approve Snelling Midway Operation and Maintenance Contractor (Kelley) E) AR: Appoint Andrea Lovoll to the Citizen Advisory Committee

VI.

Unfinished Business A) Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary (Fossum) B) Ford Site Redevelopment (Fossum)

VII.

General Information A) Board of Manager’s Updates

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

VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Board Meeting B) Wednesday, June 12, 2019 CAC Meeting IX.

Adjournment

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

May 15, 2019 Board Meeting Workshop II.) District Draft Strategic Plan DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

May 10, 2019 CRWD Board of Managers Bob Fossum, Division Manager CRWD Strategic Plan--Draft

Background In 2008, The Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) completed a strategic planning process with Barbara Deming, MN Management and Budget. In 2018, the District began development of its next watershed management plan renewing the ten-year-old strategic plan. Issues Staff have worked to complete the first draft of the District Strategic Plan (enclosed). Although the document is 14 pages long, the plan itself is only the first 4 pages and is the important part that the Board should review. The remainder of the document includes supporting information in appendices. What is the draft Strategic Plan document? 1. Includes the outcomes of the situation assessment input process that was completed in late 2018, early 2019. 2. Includes the results of 3 meetings the planning team had with Barb Deming to take the input and turn it into a Strategic Plan for the District. The strategic plan includes: a. Mission b. Vision c. Values d. Goals e. Strategies 3. Not the public facing document a. This is the content only and not what the final product will look like. Staff would like to review the plan in this format with Staff, CAC, Board to get the content of the plan right and adopted first. Then the District can evaluate how we publish it for our external audiences. b. Diagramâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;There is a diagram being developed to depict the plan and show graphically how the pieces work together. Staff have reviewed the draft plan with the CAC. Staff will review the plan with the Managers. Requested Action Review and comment Enc: CRWD Draft strategic plan, dated April 24, 2019 Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

CRWD Draft strategic plan, April 24, 2019 In late 2018, Capitol Region Watershed District began a strategic planning process. The strategic plan was timed to be completed ahead of the District’s 2020 Watershed Management Planning process and sought to understand the current situation and define the vision, values and high-level goals of the organization for the next 10 years. A detailed description of the planning process can be found in Appendix 1.

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

Vision statement Cleaner waters through innovative, resilient and equitable watershed management in collaboration with diverse partners.

Values The District values our vibrant, and varied communities and strives to focus our work to support the goals of each community. We complete our work with the following values: • • • •

Integrity: transparency, accountability, fiscal responsibility Diversity: equity, inclusion, openness Collaboration: strategic partnerships, communities Innovation: bold, science-based

Goals (desired future condition) 1. Cleaner waters Measurably cleaner water resources will be achieved as documented by conventional water quality metrics. Additionally, the public will agree that the District’s water resources are noticeably cleaner (perception).

2. Stormwater managed to mimic natural hydrology Stormwater management approaches, that include more green infrastructure systems, will improve water quality, recharge groundwater and provide multiple other benefits for the community. Stormwater runoff is embraced as a resource instead of waste product. 1

3. Communities connected to water Re-establish historic, previously lost water resources and connect communities to water resources. More equitable access to water across all communities of the District will be achieved.

4. Community awareness and action for water quality Community understanding and support of the need for and value of clean water is foundational to implementing the work of the District and accomplishing our mission. A community that is engaged and informed is empowered to take action.

5. Resilient watershed management strategies Changing climate will require the District to incorporate resilient strategies and practices into everything we do. The District will achieve more resilient water management infrastructure.

6. Improved, consistent water governance Water governance will be more consistent, streamlined, and equitable in and adjacent to the District. Consistent watershed boundaries and regulation across municipal jurisdictions will result in better and more efficient efforts towards water quality improvement.

7. Equity in the work of CRWD Diversity of our community will be reflected in the Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s staff, board and CAC. Programs and projects are offered and implemented equitably across the watershed.

8. Organizational excellence The District will be key partner and innovator, both locally and nationally. The District will implement industryleading work while widely sharing our experiences to help move the field of water management forward. The District will be a creative and collaborative workplace with passionate, skilled staff and Board Managers.

Strategies (actions to achieve our goals) A. Leadership (Lead in stormwater management) 1. Increase implementation green infrastructure The District will continue to promote green infrastructure. This approach to stormwater management provides additional community benefits (social, environmental, economic) beyond the stormwater function and focuses on rain as a resource rather than a waste product to be managed.

2. Bring water back to St. Paul The District will work to restore/re-create water resources that have previously been lost or buried. This strategy includes bringing water back to the consciousness of the community through increased awareness, connection, and access to water.

3. Innovate using new technologies and research The District will innovate when developing, implementing and evaluating its programs and projects to be most effective in carrying out the mission of the District. Research, including practical application of new technologies, will be critical to effective innovation.

4. Ensure long-term project operation and maintenance Significant investment has been made in stormwater management practices. Providing adequate resources and commitment to ensure long-term maintenance and operation is critical to making sure these investments are protected and continue to function as designed.

5. Implement targeted water management projects across the District that improve water quality, are resilient and provide community benefits The District will ensure the most value is derived from funds spent to implement water management projects. These strategic investments will be accomplished through targeted identification of projects that are resilient to climate change and provide equitable community benefits.

B. Inspiration (Inspire and engage stakeholders to actively support the Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission) 6. Increase visibility to cultivate support Increased visibility of the District and its mission is important for long-term public support of its work. Sharing and communicating the work of the District (near/around projects) will help to build community support.

7. Maintain existing and cultivate new partnerships The District has been successful in cultivating partnerships and will continue to maintain them. Cultivation of new partnerships will need to occur as they are a key method for implementing work to all areas the District.

8. Connect and engage with diverse/underserved communities of CRWD The District will expand its work with and in diverse and underserved communities. This will include finding new ways to connect communities to District work and focusing new projects/programming in areas the District has had less presence.

C. Organizational Strength (Strengthen and expand the Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role and capacity) 9. Promote consistent, efficient water management, governance and funding Watershed District representation across all of St. Paul would provide a more consistent, equitable, and efficient delivery of water resource improvement/protection work to all City residents. The District will strive for consistent water management regulations across all its member municipalities.

10. Hire, develop and retain high quality staff Passionate and highly skilled staff are vital to implementing the often times complicated and nuanced work of the District. The District will provide competitive compensation, enriching professional development, and a challenging and collaborative work place to develop and retain high quality staff.

11. Recruit and retain high quality volunteers Support, train and empower volunteers to help expand the reach and work of the District.

Appendix 1—Strategic Planning Process CRWD strategic planning process In 2018-2019 the Capitol Region Watershed District created a 10-year strategic plan, which will guide development of the next watershed management plan. The process engaged partners and staff in assessing the current situation, reaffirming the agency’s mission and articulating values, and describing a vision of the desired future, 10-year goals and strategies to achieve the goals. Specific implementation actions will be included in the watershed management plan. The CRWD contracted with the State of Minnesota’s Management Analysis and Development (MAD) office to facilitate the planning process.

Strategic plan elements Elements of the strategic plan are intended to answer the following questions: Situation assessment: What should we keep in mind as we plan for the future? Vision: What is the desired future state we are helping to create (brief description)? Mission: Who are we and why do we exist? Values: How does the organization approach its work? Goals: What specific outcomes should we look for within this broad vision? Strategies: How will we achieve the goals?

Situation assessment (see Appendix 2) Over the Fall and Winter of 2018-2019 MAD met with stakeholders in one-on-one interviews and focus groups, discussing the following questions: 1. Describe in your own words the mission of the CRWD. 2. What is the CRWD doing well? 3. What are the two most important issues the CRWD needs to address? 4. What should the CRWD enhance or change in order to respond to these issues and effectively carry out its mission over the next 10 years (may include internal organizational considerations)? 5. Is there anything else you would like to comment on? The stakeholders included: • •

Focus groups • • •

Citizen Advisory Council Board of Managers CRWD staff

Agency and city partners Grantees, citizens and community groups

Interviews • 5

St. Paul Public Works Director

• •

St. Paul Water Resource Coordinator St. Paul Chief Resilience Officer

•

CRWD artist in residence

Mission and vision Board members and strategic planning team members [describe team membership] met in February 2019 to review and draw conclusions about the current situation, review and confirm the agency’s mission and identify possibilities for a 10-year vision. Participants also brainstormed values to complement the mission, as a way to express how the organization approaches its work.

Goals The strategic planning team met in March 2019 to review and refine products created at the previous meeting, identified goals and brainstormed strategies for achieving the goals.

DRAFT

Appendix 2—CRWD 2018 Situation Assessment CRWD Situation assessment February 2019

Introduction In preparation for developing a new 10-year strategic plan, the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) asked Management Analysis and Development (MAD) to conduct a situation assessment. Over the Fall and Winter of 2018-2019 MAD met with stakeholders in one-on-one interviews and focus groups, discussing the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Describe in your own words the mission of the CRWD. What is the CRWD doing well? What are the two most important issues the CRWD needs to address? What should the CRWD enhance or change in order to respond to these issues and effectively carry out its mission over the next 10 years (may include internal organizational considerations)? 5. Is there anything else you would like to comment on?

The stakeholders included:

Focus groups • • • • •

Citizen Advisory Council Board of Managers CRWD staff Agency and city partners Grantees, citizens and community groups

Interviews • • • •

St. Paul Public Works Director St. Paul Water Resource Coordinator St. Paul Chief Resilience Officer CRWD artist in residence

MAD’s summary of the interview and focus group results is presented below, for review and discussion at the February 28, 2019 meeting with CRWD board and strategic planning team members. The intent is to stimulate thinking about the vision and strategies for the CRWD’s next strategic plan. 7

DRAFT

Mission All of the interviewees see the mission of the CRWD as to protect, manage, and improve the water resources within St. Paul or the Capitol Watershed district. Many interviewees explained that the CRWD does so through: • Education and outreach to the public • Advocating for water resource management • Coordination and collaboration with other municipal and government entities for water management • Gathering sound data and using scientific evidence for decision making • Technical expertise and guidance in developing Best Management Practices (BMPs) • Securing funds for projects and developing programs to promote water quality • Playing a regulatory role such as permitting, wetland management, etc.

Accomplishments Leadership • •

Many interviewees described the CRWD as leaders in watershed management in the region. Some also added that that work done by CRWD is transferable and they have done a good job of sharing that knowledge. One interviewee noted that while in the past the CRWD’s role as a regulator had caused friction, the CRWD has managed to balance its role as a regulator and partner.

Partnership •

•

Several people commended the work done by CRWD to engage with stakeholders and partners in a meaningful way in the work they do. Examples include: o Working with cities to do cooperative projects to share dollars o Work with other agencies such as the Central High School parking lot project o Work with the city of St. Paul and individual homeowners on raingardens in the Como Park neighborhood o Work with the city on the storm water management project at Alliance Field by providing funds to make the system viable and cost competitive. o Stormwater management project along University Avenue and Aldine Street. One interviewee also noted that CRWD partnerships help to foster innovation in how stakeholders approach watershed management. The interviewee cited the example of the stormwater management project at Alliance Field: “That site is the first time the city has done a district stormwater system… the district saw the benefit of that approach. [The CRWD is] a key partner in them pursuing that approach. In fact, ordinance changes are in process to structure rates differently to users. This is really valuable to the city.”

• •

A few interviewees noted that the CRWD has worked on relationship building over time. One interviewee noted that they have improved their relationship with the communities compared to 10 years ago, while another discussed how CRWD has worked to build trust in their partner relationships. One interviewee also noted that the CRWD builds relationships not just with stakeholders in a technical capacity, but also others in the watershed communities to get their involvement in a meaningful way. 8

DRAFT

Innovation •

•

Several people described the CRWD as innovative in their approach to their work. Interviewees mentioned work done by CRWD including: working with the community and individual home owners to use boulevards for raingardens; building cisterns; porous pavements, daylight Trout Brook, work with the CHS field and Met Council to collect water for watering the field and flushing toilets, etc. Some interviewees praised the innovative and can-do attitude in leadership and staff of the CRWD.

Operations • •

•

Many interviewees noted that the high level of skills and expertise of the staff at CRWD. Staff pointed out that CRWD has established ways to collaborate across projects and expertise level, and that the organizations leaderships supports the work they do. Similarly a few interviewees noted that the board and staff trusted each other. The board lauded the way that the staff gather information and new ideas. Staff members commended the board for governing well and described them as functional and supportive. Others noted the high level of engagement of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) compared to other districts, some who do not have a CAC. Interviewees noted the effective management of the CRWD, including: o Thoughtful and informed decision on where to allocate resources and documenting logical decision making (e.g., rule making) o Technical expertise in watershed management with well-planned processes grounded in science o Clear processes for competing for funds o Commitment to monitoring and evaluating impact of project over long-term, and adapting strategies based on this information o Tracking information to build database of information (WSKI database and DIRT) o Ensuring distribution of projects throughout the district, and willingness to put resources to projects, and o Looking for projects with more comprehensive benefits (example reducing groundwater pumping and use of potable water, aesthetic benefits and ways to better engage the community, etc.

A few interviewees noted that the CRWD’s skilled workforce, trust between staff and leadership, data-driven decision making, and stakeholder engagement positions them well to address the future needs of the organization.

DRAFT

Future Challenges When asked about the two most important issues on the horizon for the CRWD, interviewees noted:

Climate change The majority of interviewees noted that CRWD needed to address changing conditions related to climate change. Several interviewees highlighted that the changing climate, resulting in increased storm events, temperature extremes, and higher precipitation will affect how the district manages its watershed and stormwater systems. One interviewee noted about heavier precipitation, “there are going to be challenges with existing infrastructure handling those events in particular . . . requiring even larger facilities, larger pipes, which could create tension with development.” Another noted that the CRWD will need to develop a crisis communication plan. Another interviewee said the CRWD needed to make a deeper connection between water quality and climate change mitigation in its education efforts.

Education and outreach Many interviewees focused on changing people’s attitudes towards water through education and outreach. As one interviewee noted, the CRWD needs to “elevate the awareness and appreciation of water across the watershed. Everyone gets drinking water importance. Other water is seen as a waste product.” Specific outreach and education efforts mentioned include: • • •

•

The need to raise awareness about the CRWD and its role to build stakeholder support Outreach to communities who have not been engaged with in the past, such as apartment owners Partnership with communities that are underserved by the district now such as racial and ethnic minority groups, and connecting the work of the district to equity and justice issues. Some interviewees also noted the importance of communicating water quality messages with communities that are different from them (e.g., those who had previously lived in arid regions with different relationship to water), and suggested tapping into local knowledge and cultural heritage of other communities to deliver those messages Build capacity of the public to play a role in advocating for public policy changes

Development and infrastructure A few interviewees discussed the capacity of the existing infrastructure of the watershed management systems and highlighted future challenges related to development in the region. Interviewees noted that the region is heavily built out, with aging storm systems and infrastructure, so there is a greater need for public policy changes to build resilience. Interviewees cited priorities, such as the need to work together across county, city and the watershed to address these issues, and the need to work with policy makers and individuals to promote changes such as permeable surfaces and raingardens. One city official noted that, with the growing need for newer infrastructure, CRWD can play a role in helping stakeholders work through new systems. Another interviewee noted that CRWD should continue to guide and support the city of Saint Paul in long term maintenance of green infrastructure that has been installed.

DRAFT

Addressing diversity A few interviewees discussed the need for the CRWD to address diversity both within the organization and in how it interacts with the communities. One interviewee noted that attracting staff that is diverse is important for the CRWD stating that, “[We] cannot have people go to public meetings and tell the great things we’re doing if the staff don’t reflect the communities we serve.” Some interviewees noted that the CRWD does have a diversity plan aimed at working on issues of race, class and gender, however, as one interviewee noted implementation of the plan is a long journey.

CRWD’s role A few interviewees discussed the potential for growth in the role and scope of the CRWD, including: • • • • • • • • •

How to manage the staff and budget of the CRWD with the growth in the organization Providing funding and maintenance for BMPs that are existing and will be built over the next 10 years How to address emerging issues such as related to emerging contaminants, and how to address them in project planning, monitoring, and communications Prioritizing the initiatives of the CRWD to identify their role while being aware of capacity, and understanding the role of the CRWD within larger state system Tackling projects under one acre Providing access to water ways by providing seed money to recreation departments such as canoeing and fishing opportunities Attracting staff who are forward-thinking, risk-taking, and willing to try new things Dealing with impact of salt and road salt Advocating for expansion of the watershed boundary to include the rest of St. Paul, which has a lot of activity and development and needs more protection.

Opportunities When asked about what the CRWD should enhance or change in order to respond to the challenges outlined above and effectively carry out its mission in the next 10 years, interviewees noted the following; •

Funding: Interviewees noted the need to continue to funding BMPs and to develop stable and predictable funding for BMPs such as using bond financing. Other suggestions include alternative funding mechanisms to build new infrastructure to improve water quality, such as environmental impact bonds and new taxing districts. One interviewee proposed setting aside funding for future projects that may come up (e.g. Opportunity Fund).

•

Improve communication and outreach: Interviewees discussed the need for improving outreach to communities not represented well in CRWD’s work, including expanding outreach efforts, hiring more staff dedicated to outreach and education, advancing diversity and hiring from underrepresented communities, expanding opportunities for youth stewardship (e.g., Youth Farm), collaboration with organizations (such as Fresh Water Society master water stewards, Conservation Corps, Urban Boat Builders), and using arts as an engagement tool. Other suggestions focused on enhancing the brand recognition of the CRWD, including using social media for visibility and credibility. One group suggested specific strategies such as internship and partnership programs (e.g., Kitty Anderson program at the Science Museum, and Frogtown Farm) to promote this field amongst students of color who may otherwise not be exposed to this field. 11

DRAFT

•

Collecting and sharing data: A few interviewees discussed the need to collect data including helping communities to collect data, centralizing the data in a storm water database, to allow for more robust tracking and sharing.

•

New building: A few interviewees the opportunity to use the new building to bring visibility to the work of the CRWD and its outreach efforts. As one interviewee noted, “[the new office will be] a much more dynamic space, designed with so many more elements that explain and illustrate water resources and stormwater management. It will help visitors to understand.”

•

Maintenance: Interviewees also discussed the need to allocate more resources to doing inspection of previously installed projects, as well as budgeting resources to maintain those projects.

•

Partnerships: Interviewees discussed the need to diversify partners or consultants in the work that the CRWD does, highlighting the need to target young people and bring them in to the field. They also stressed the importance of maintaining and developing new relationships with large-scale partners, individual residents, etc. Others mentioned educational institutions and other public entities for partnership in research.

•

Clear strategy and prioritization: Interviewees also discussed the need for the CRWD to have a clear strategy for the work they do. They also discussed the need to move towards a unified sense of priorities and to develop a priority plan.

DRAFT

CAC vision In addition to responding to the same questions discussed in all of the other interviews and focus groups, the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) brainstormed a vision for the future as a result of the CRWD’s work in its next strategic plan. Their individual brainstormed ideas are included below in regular type, and their collective vision themes are included in boldface type. Enhanced public recognition • • •

High positive visibility of CRWD among residents and organizations All of St. Paul + Falcon Heights + Roseville loves the CRWD Strong brand/image and broad name recognition

Water quality outcomes • • • • • • •

People swimming in Como Lake safely At least one unimpaired water body (Como, McCarrons, etc.) Water leaves CRWD better and healthier than when it arrives Cleaner water in the sewer drains Increased water quality and clarity for Como A big impact on Ford Plant Development with high visibility Happy wildlife

Recognized leadership • •

Establish leadership beyond Minnesota . . . doing similar things in other organizations An organization recognized for its innovation and leadership

Fully engaged public in water quality activities • • •

Residents managing their run-off (in a CRWD style) Alternatives to turf (ex. Low mow, bee lawns) Every drain is adopted

Equity, diversity in outreach •

10 BMPs on the East Side of St. Paul (Trout Brook area)

Organizational health • • • • •

Maximize skills of CAC members to support CRWD projects Succession plan for staff is in place Secure, diverse funding sources Have a crisis communication plan Increased diversity of CRWD staff and CAC

DRAFT

(Ungrouped) Strong sustainable partnerships with commitments to water quality Continuing successful CRWD projects and activities The better for CRWD the better for St. Paul/Roseville and the world Make peace with Ma Nature Stormwater is seen as a utility (resource that can be reused; grey water, etc.)

DRAFT

May 15, 2019 III. Permit Applications A.-B. Permit Close Outs (Hosch) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

May 7, 2019 CRWD Board of Managers Elizabeth Hosch Permit Closeouts

Background Construction activity is complete for permits #12-003 Cretin Derham Hall ballfields and 17-017 Dickerman Park. Issues Cretin Derham Hall ballfields #12-003 This permit was issued for the construction of new synthetic turf athletic fields on the Cretin Derham Hall campus along Hartford at Hamline in St. Paul. Stormwater requirements were met with permeable turf sand filtration and an underground rate control structure. The site is stable and the stormwater treatment practices have been confirmed functional. $6,000 surety is available for return. Dickerman Park #17-017 This permit was issued for the construction of a new park along University from Fairview to Wheeler in St. Paul. Stormwater requirements were met with impervious surface disconnection, one biofiltration basin, and pervious pavers. The site is stable and the stormwater treatment practices have been confirmed functional. No surety was required for this public project. Action Requested Approve $6,000 surety return and Certificate of Completion for permit #12-003 Cretin Derham Hall ballfields. Approve Certificate of Completion for permit #17-017, Dickerman Park. W:\07 Programs\Permitting\Board Memos\2019-05-15 Permit Closeout Board Memo.docx

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

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Permit 18-022 Rivoli Phase III

Gary Findell SmaRT Homes, LLP 5400 Maint Street NE, #203 Fridley, MN 55421

Consultant: Joel Cooper James R. Hill, Inc. 2500 W. County Road 42 Burnsville, MN 55337

Description: 26 new houses and associated infrastructure Stormwater Management: One sedimentation basin and one filtration basin. District Rule: Includes phases I and II for impervious and required volume calculations. — C, D, F Disturbed Area: 5.5 Acres Impervious Area: 2.14 Acres

VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION: Approve variance of 1,466 cf from the volume reduction requirement of Rule C.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 5 Conditions: 1. Receipt of $10,700 surety. 2. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County and copies of all other related maintenance agreements. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 4. Revise plant schedule per attached permit report dated May 1, 2019. 5. Revise plans to increase filtration media depth per attached permit report dated May 1, 2019.

Minnehaha

Permit Location Permit Report 18-022

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 05/15/2019

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #: Review date: Project Name: Applicant: Purpose: Location: Applicable Rules: Variance Recommendation:

18‐022 May 1, 2019 Rivoli Phase III Gary Findell Dayton Bluff’s Neighborhood Housing Services 651‐262‐9636 26 houses and associated infrastructure. Permanent stormwater management consists of a sedimentation pond and filtration basin. 660 Rivoli Street, St. Paul, MN C, D, and F

Approve variance of 1,466 cf from the volume reduction requirement of Rule C.

Recommendation: Approve with 5 Conditions EXHIBITS: 1. Civil Plans (24 Sheets), by James R. Hill Inc., dated 4/17/19, rcvd. 4/19/19. 2. Stormwater Report, by James R. Hill Inc., dated 4/17/19, rcvd. 4/19/19. 3. Specifications for Site Grading, Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer, and Street Construction (375 Pages), by James R. Hill Inc., dated 9/18, rcvd. 10/29/18. 4. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report, by Braun Intertec, dated 4/29/05, rcvd. 1/3/19. 5. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, by Braun Intertec, dated 5/26/05, rcvd. 1/3/19. 6. Response Action Plan and Construction Contingency Plan Implementation Report, by Braun Intertec, dated 11/25/09, rcvd. 1/3/19. 7. Rivoli Additions H&H Modeling Memo, by Barr, date 12/18/18, rcvd. 1/3/19. 8. Landscape and Tree Removal Plan, by Dayton Bluff’s Neighborhood Housing Services, dated 4/18/19, rcvd. 4/19/19. 9. Fire Truck Turning Exhibit A, by James R. Hill Inc., dated 4/17/19, rcvd. 4/19/19. 10. Vactor Truck Turning Exhibit B, by James R. Hill Inc., dated 4/17/19, rcvd. 4/19/19. 11. Sanitary Sewer Cross Section Exhibit C, by James R. Hill Inc., dated 4/17/19, rcvd. 4/19/19. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2018\18-022, Village on Rivoli\18-022 Permit Report_R4c.doc Page 1 of 6

Previous CRWD permit 16‐017 Rivoli Bluff Development “Phase I” and unpermitted “Phase II” have been developed but have not satisfied volume and rate control requirements since permanent stormwater management was not installed for Phase I and not proposed for Phase II. The applicant has requested a variance from the volume requirement and TSS removal stating that, “capturing and routing all proposed impervious surfaces areas to the BMP is unfeasible” and that “the provided volume of the filtration basin, which exceeds the required volume, is a feasible solution and adequate for volume reduction and water quality requirements”. 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 used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well‐defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system. The entire existing and proposed site drains to the TBI. 3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1‐inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious is 93,193 square feet. This includes Phases I, II, and III as referenced in the History & Considerations section above. b. Volume retention required: 93,193 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 8,543 ft3 Table 1. Proposed volume retention through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse). Volume Volume Retention 1.1‐inch 2‐inch Retention BMP Provided below Runoff Runoff Required outlet (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) 8,543 None, filtration is proposed. 4. Alternative compliance has been requested due to contaminated soils and proximity to steep slope. a. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard. b. Filtration using sand media (55% credit) is proposed; filtration required: W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2018\18-022, Village on Rivoli\18-022 Permit Report_R4c.doc Page 2 of 6

8,543 ft3 x 1.82 credit factor = 15,548 ft3 Table 2. Proposed volume retention through filtration (i.e. sand, enhanced). Filtration Filtration Volume Volume 1.1‐inch 2‐inch Runoff BMP Provided below Required Runoff (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) outlet (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) Filtration 16,172 7,745 14,082 Basin 15,548 Total 14,082 cf i. Filtration volume and facility size has been calculated using the appropriate hydrologic soil group classification and design filtration rate. ii. The filtration area is capable of filtering the required volume within 48 hours. iii. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to filtration areas. c. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard at an offsite location or through the use of qualified banking credits. d. The applicant has not submitted money to be contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund. e. The project is not linear. 5. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis, but a variance has been requested. The proposed design achieves 87% TSS removal for the overall site, but the area draining to the treatment system achieves 94% TSS removal. 6. A maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County has not been submitted. 7. Adequate maintenance access is provided for surface system. A site‐specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices has been submitted. RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100‐year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2018\18-022, Village on Rivoli\18-022 Permit Report_R4c.doc Page 3 of 6

 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 wetlands located on the property. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapper indicates a wetland in the location of the filtration basin. However, this area is a manmade basin created without the intent of being a wetland and is not regulated under CRWD’s Rule E. RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land‐disturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual. Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. 2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition. 3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Disturbed area is 5.5 acres; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted. RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard  Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4. Findings 1. The filtration basin proposed for the project will be located approximately 60 feet from the Trout Brook alignment. 2. Overflow from the proposed filtration and sedimentation basins (greater than the 100‐year event) will be directed toward and may enter Trout Brook if inlets are present. 3. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are proposed. The existing condition may drain to Trout Brook, but a new outlet from the site will be plumbed directly into storm sewer with existing connection to Trout Brook. 4. Prohibited discharges are not proposed. RULE I: VARIANCES

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2018\18-022, Village on Rivoli\18-022 Permit Report_R4c.doc Page 4 of 6

Standard  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. Findings 1. The applicant has submitted a written request for a variance stating the exceptional conditions of the site. The requested variance is from the volume retention and water quality standards. a. The site will be using filtration for stormwater treatment because of contaminated soils and adjacent steep slopes. b. The filtration calculation requires effectively treating 2.002 inches of runoff over the new and reconstructed impervious surface. c. However, CRWD only allows 2 inches of runoff to qualify for filtration treatment credit. d. Regarding volume retention, the applicant exceeded (19,172 cf) the required retention volume (15,548 cf) but credit is limited because not all reconstructed impervious (sidewalk and street) can be directed to the surface filtration system. e. Regarding water quality, the applicant achieves the TSS standard for the area directed to the surface filtration system at 94%. TSS removal for the entire project, however, is more limited at 87% because not all reconstructed impervious (sidewalk and street) can be directed to the surface filtration system. 2. Approving the requested variance will not nullify the intent of the Rules or the overall Plan of the District in that: a. The variance condition exists through no fault of the applicant; b. The variance is not being requested for economic reasons; c. The applicant evaluated multiple options but was not able to achieve full compliance. d. The applicant has maximized the volume of the treatment system and will be able to capture the required volume during large rain events; and e. Upcoming revisions to CRWD Rules will address this disconnect and the proposed configuration of this site would comply under those future Rules. Variance Recommendation: Approve variance of 1,466 cf from the volume reduction requirement of Rule C. Recommendation: Approve with 5 Conditions Conditions: 1. Receipt of $10,700 surety. Surety has decreased $100 since second submittal (dated 1/2/19) because paving and dimensional plan (dated 4/17/19) indicates a decrease in 716 sf of impervious cover. 2. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County, and copies of all other related maintenance agreements. W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2018\18-022, Village on Rivoli\18-022 Permit Report_R4c.doc Page 5 of 6

3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 4. Revise plant schedule on sheet L4.6 to specify appropriate plants for the filtration basin. The plants that have been specified refer to the emergent aquatic zone which requires sustained moisture from 0 – 18” in depth. These plants are not acceptable for long‐term filtration basin design as they will dry out in between rain events. Revise the species selection to the list on pg. 42‐45 of (Shaw & Schmidt 2003) in the table labeled Infiltration Basin as they will tolerate and thrive in the wet‐dry‐wet cycle as designed. 5. Revise plans to increase filtration media depth to at least 18", as recommended by the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Depth of filter media is calculated from the top of the filter media to the top of the choking stone around the drain tile. The description in the filtration/sedimentation basin 2P details on Sheets C4.5 and L4.6 correctly indicates 27” depth of filtration mix to bottom of basin and a minimum 18” depth to choker stone. However, based on the elevation of the bottom of the basin (121.0’) and the invert of the underdrain (199.5’), only 18” depth of filtration mix is provided with 9” above the choker stone.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2018\18-022, Village on Rivoli\18-022 Permit Report_R4c.doc Page 6 of 6

ST-7 SOIL-1

AET-9

ST-14 ST-13

ST-13

SOIL-2

ST-9

ST-8

AET-10

ST-12

x x

ST-10

ST-11

“

”

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Permit 19-010 Raymond Station

Brad Johnson Raymond Station LLC 2323 Charles Ave. St. Paul, MN 55114

Consultant: Keith Matte BKBM 6120 Earle Brown Drive Minneapolis, MN 55430

Description: Remove existing buildings and parking lots, construct new buildings and parking. Stormwater Management: One underground filtration system. District Rule: —C, D, F Disturbed Area: 1.23 Acres Impervious Area: 1.13 Acres

VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION: Approve variance of 1,457 cf from the volume reduction requirement of Rule C.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions: 1. Receipt of $5,700 surety. Surety has increased $100 since second submittal (dated 4/2/19) because paving and geometric plan (dated 4/19/19) indicates an increase in 718 sf of impervious cover. 2. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

Permit Location Permit Report 19-010

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 05/15/2019

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #: Review date: Project Name: Applicant: Purpose: Location: Applicable Rules: Variance Recommendation:

19‐010 May 6, 2019 Raymond Station Keith Matte BKBM Engineers 6120 Earle Brown Drive; Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 763.843.0446 kmatte@bkbm.com Redevelopment of buildings and parking. Stormwater management consists of an underground filtration system. 2250 University Avenue, St. Paul, MN C, D, and F

Approve variance of 1,457 cf from the volume reduction requirement of Rule C.

Recommendation: Approve with 3 Conditions EXHIBITS: 1. Civil Plans (Sheets C000, C100, C200, C300, C400, C500, C501, C502, C600), by BKBM Engineers, dated 4/19/19, rcvd. 4/18/19. 2. Hydrology Calculations, by BKBM Engineers, dated 4/18/19, rcvd. 4/18/19. 3. Maintenance Exhibit (Sheet EXB‐1), by BKBM Engineers, dated 3/20/19, rcvd. 3/21/19. 4. Operation & Maintenance Plan, by BKBM Engineers, not dated, rcvd. 3/21/19. 5. Geotechnical Evaluation Report (48 Pages), by Braun Intertec, dated 1/29/19, rcvd. 3/21/19. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: The applicant has requested a variance for the additional storage volume and TSS removal stating that, “the maximum amount of impervious surface area that we can feasibly route to the filtration tank is 40,576 square feet”. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-010 Raymond Station\19-010 Permit Report_R4b.doc Page 1 of 5

Standards  Proposed discharge rates for the 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year events shall not exceed existing rates.  Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.  Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long‐term viability of the infiltration area.  Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non‐point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal. Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well‐defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system. 3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1‐inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious is 49,270 square feet. b. Volume retention required: 49,270 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 4,516 ft3 Table 1. Proposed volume retention through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse). Volume Volume Retention 1.1‐inch 2‐inch Retention BMP Provided below Runoff Runoff Required outlet (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) 4,516 None, filtration is proposed. 4. Alternative compliance has been requested due to contaminated and poor soils. a. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard. b. Filtration using sand media (55% credit) is proposed; filtration required: 4,516 ft3 x 1.82 credit factor = 8,220 ft3 Table 2. Proposed volume retention through filtration (i.e. sand, enhanced). Filtration Filtration Volume 1.1‐inch 2‐inch Volume BMP Provided below Runoff Runoff Required outlet (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) Underground Filtration CMP 8,377 3,720 6,763 8,220 Total 6,763 cf i. Filtration volume and facility size has been calculated using the appropriate hydrologic soil group classification and design filtration rate.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-010 Raymond Station\19-010 Permit Report_R4b.doc Page 2 of 5

ii. The filtration area is capable of filtering the required volume within 48 hours. iii. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to filtration areas. c. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard at an offsite location or through the use of qualified banking credits. d. The applicant does not propose contribution to the Stormwater Impact Fund. e. The project is not linear. 5. Best management practices achieve 83% total suspended solids removal for the entire site and 90% for the area directed to the Underground Filtration CMP. A variance has been requested. 6. A maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County has not been submitted. 7. Adequate maintenance access is provided for the underground system. A site‐ specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices has been submitted. RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100‐year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard  Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.  A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required. Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property. RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land‐disturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual. Findings W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-010 Raymond Station\19-010 Permit Report_R4b.doc Page 3 of 5

1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. 2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition. 3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Total disturbed area is 1.23 acres; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted. RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard  Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4. Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not proposed. 2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed. RULE I: VARIANCES Standard  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. Findings 1. The applicant has submitted a written request for a variance stating the exceptional conditions of the site. The requested variance is from the volume retention and water quality standards. a. The site will be using filtration for stormwater treatment because of contaminated soils and adjacent steep slopes. b. The filtration calculation requires effectively treating 2.002 inches of runoff over the new and reconstructed impervious surface. c. However, CRWD only allows 2 inches of runoff to qualify for filtration treatment credit. d. Regarding volume retention, the applicant exceeded (8,377 cf) the required retention volume (8,220 cf) but credit is limited because not all reconstructed impervious (sidewalk and street) can be directed to the Underground Filtration CMP. e. Regarding water quality, the applicant achieves the TSS standard for the area directed to the Underground Filtration CMP. TSS removal for the entire project, however, is limited to 83% because not all reconstructed impervious (sidewalk and street) can be directed to the Underground Filtration CMP. 2. Approving the requested variance will not nullify the intent of the Rules or the overall Plan of the District in that: W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-010 Raymond Station\19-010 Permit Report_R4b.doc Page 4 of 5

a. The variance condition exists through no fault of the applicant; b. The variance is not being requested for economic reasons; c. The applicant evaluated multiple options but was not able to achieve full compliance. d. The applicant has maximized the volume of the treatment system and will be able to capture the required volume during large rain events; and e. Upcoming revisions to CRWD Rules will address this disconnect and the proposed configuration of this site would comply under those future Rules. Variance Recommendation: Approve variance of 1,457 cf from the volume reduction requirement of Rule C. Recommendation: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions: 1. Receipt of $5,700 surety. Surety has increased $100 since second submittal (dated 4/2/19) because paving and geometric plan (dated 4/19/19) indicates an increase in 718 sf of impervious cover. 2. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-010 Raymond Station\19-010 Permit Report_R4b.doc Page 5 of 5

“

Raymond Station

KEITH MATTE 04/19/2019 46674

04.19.2019 18513 FPS WH KAB

C200

G GRADING, DR DRAINAGE, AND EROSION OS CONTROL TR PLAN

DATE PROJECT # PHASE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY

REVISIONS

FOUNDATION NDA PERMIT SET 04.19.2019

SIGNED DATE LICENSE #

I hereby certify this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA

CONSULTANT

2250 University Ave Saint Paul, MN 55114 © URBANWORKS ARCHITECTURE LLC, 2019 901 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 145, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Permit 19-012 UST Second Year Housing

Nate Day Ryan Companies 533 S. 3rd Street Suite100 Minneapolis, MN 55415

Consultant: Daniel Elenbaas Kimley Horn 767 Eustis Street Suite 100 St. Paul, MN 55114

Description: Demolition of existing faculty residence building and surface lot. Redevelopment of second year student dormitory and associated infrastructure. Stormwater Management: District Rule: —C D F Disturbed Area: 1.854 Acres Impervious Area: 1.305 Acres

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 5 Conditions: 1. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Provide a site-specific maintenance plan for permanent stormwater management that includes items a.-e. on the May 6, 2019 permit report. 4. Revise plans to provide pretreatment of stormwater runoff before discharging to the infiltration system from the north storm sewer. The memorandum from Kimberly Horn dated 4/25/19 references two sump manholes; however, only one is shown in the plans (Structure 402). 5. Revise HydroCAD to correspond with plans for Pond 1P (66” perforated pipe): a. Diameter of round pipe storage with invert at 868.0’ is 18” in HydroCAD and 24” on Sheet C500 in plans. b. Model weir outlet as 5’ sharp-crested weir with a crest height of 3.8’ and 2 end contractions. A sharp-crested weir uses a higher discharge coefficient than the custom weir used in the submitted model. This coefficient will affect discharge rates and HWL in the infiltration system.

Cleveland

Permit Location

Permit Report 19-012

Summit Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 05/15/2019

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #: Review date: Project Name: Applicant: Purpose:

19‐012 May 6, 2019 UST Second Year Housing Daniel Elenbaas Kimberly Horn 767 Eustis Street Suite 100 St. Paul, MN 55114

Demolition of existing faculty residence building and surface lot. Construction of dormitory apartment building, parking lot, and associated utilities. Stormwater management consists of an underground infiltration system and a green roof.

Location: 75 Cleveland Ave N. St. Paul, MN Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 5 Conditions EXHIBITS: 1. Civil Plans (23 Sheets), by Kimberly Horn, dated 4/29/19, rcvd. 4/30/19. 2. Stormwater Management Plan (68 Pages), by Kimberly Horn, dated 4/25/19, rcvd. 4/30/19. 3. Draft Geotechnical Exploration Report, by AET, dated 2/12/19, rcvd. 4/30/19. 4. Vegetated Rood Assemblies Specifications, by Kimberly Horn, dated 5/1/19, rcvd. 4/30/19. 5. SWPPP, by Kimberly Horn, dated 4/29/19, rcvd. 4/30/19. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: Previous CRWD Permits within UST Campus: 09‐006, 10‐004, 17‐004, 19‐009

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-012 UST 2nd year housing\19-012 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 1 of 5

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 used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well‐defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system. 3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1‐inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious is 56,846 (58,913 sf – 2,067 sf green roof) square feet. b. Volume retention required: 56,846 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 5,211 ft3 W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-012 UST 2nd year housing\19-012 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 2 of 5

Table 1. Proposed volume retention through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse). Volume Volume Retention 1.1‐inch 2‐inch Retention BMP Provided below Runoff Runoff Required outlet (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) Underground Infiltration 5,402 7,542 13,713 5,211 Total 5,402 cf c. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. d. Infiltration volume and facility sizes have been calculated using the appropriate hydrologic soil group classification and design infiltration rate. e. The infiltration area is capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours. f. Stormwater runoff is not pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas. g. The Hantush groundwater mound spreadsheet predicts a mound depth of approximately 0.061’ at the house footprint on 80 and 84 Cleveland Ave N. MnTopo shows surface elevation of 878’ at house. Assuming 8 ft basement depth (870’) and groundwater at 864.2’ (per Soil Boring B‐6), there is sufficient separation and no anticipated impacts. 4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested. 5. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis. 6. A maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County has not been submitted. 7. Adequate maintenance access is provided for the underground system. A site‐ specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices has not been submitted. RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100‐year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard  Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.  A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required. W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-012 UST 2nd year housing\19-012 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 3 of 5

Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property. RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land‐disturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual. Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. 2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition. 3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Total disturbed area is 1.854 acres; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted. RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard  Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4. Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not proposed. 2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed. Recommendation: Approve with 5 Conditions Conditions: 1. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Provide a site‐specific maintenance plan for permanent stormwater management that includes the following: a. List all stormwater management practices (i.e. sumps and underground CMP infiltration system). b. Person(s) responsible for maintenance of stormwater devices. c. Frequency of inspection/ indicator that maintenance is needed. d. Description of inspection activities. e. Description of maintenance activities. 4. Revise plans to provide pretreatment of stormwater runoff before discharging to the infiltration system from the north storm sewer. The memorandum from Kimberly Horn dated 4/25/19 references two sump manholes; however, only one is shown in the plans (Structure 402). 5. Revise HydroCAD to correspond with plans for Pond 1P (66” perforated pipe): W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-012 UST 2nd year housing\19-012 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 4 of 5

a. Diameter of round pipe storage with invert at 868.0’ is 18” in HydroCAD and 24” on Sheet C500 in plans. b. Model weir outlet as 5’ sharp‐crested weir with a crest height of 3.8’ and 2 end contractions. A sharp‐crested weir uses a higher discharge coefficient than the custom weir used in the submitted model. This coefficient will affect discharge rates and HWL in the infiltration system.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-012 UST 2nd year housing\19-012 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 5 of 5

DLE

DLE PRELIMINARY SD PRICING 1

DATE

03/01/19

02/18/19

SITE PLAN REVIEW 2

DLE

DLE PERMIT AND PROCUREMENT SET #1

03/29/19

04/29/19

04/26/19

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET

PROPOSED

PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR

3:1

0.00%

3:1

1.70%

ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE @ <1-800-252-1166> AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS.

STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-76 HDPE: 0" - 10" PER AASHTO M-252 HDPE: 12" OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2306 PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM D-3034 STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-76, JOINTS PER ASTM C-361, C-990, AND C-443 HDPE PER ASTM 3212 PVC PER ASTM D-3034, JOINTS PER ASTM D-3212

CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS.

SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEP SLOPES. WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMINING OF EXISTING PAVEMENT.

CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL.

CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALIGNMENTS.

GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TO SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE.

ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED UTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.

10.

REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION.

ADA

1.6 9%

1.6 0%

NO PARKING

3.7 5%

1.76 %

NO PARKING

1.4 0%

NO PARKING

1. 75 %

2% 1.4

6% 0.7

2% 1.6

0.58%

5% 1.7

0.79%

1.0 5%

3.72%

CLEVLAND AVENU E

2.21%

ADA

2.8 3%

1.75%

4.88%

1.70%

1.80%

1.45%

1.75%

1.76%

2.95%

ADA

3.23 %

8% 1.8

PROPOSED UNDERGROUND TUNNEL

A AD

DROP-OFF

ADA

2.3 8%

ADA

1.20%

ADA

1.38 %

ADA

2% 3.7

3.24%

ADA

3.56%

MURRAY-HERRICK CAMPUS CENTER

1.1 8%

ADA

5.32%

CITY OF SAINT PAUL NOTES

O'SHAUGHNESSY EDUCATIONAL CENTER

IF THE PIPE INSTALLED HAS LESS THAN 2% SLOPE, LASER EQUIPMENT IS REQUIRED.

SEWER REPAIR PERMIT: PLUMBING CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN “REPAIR PERMITS” FROM PUBLIC WORKS FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS. CALL ST PAUL PW PERMIT DESK (651-266-6234) FOR INFORMATION ON OBTAINING THIS PERMIT.

SEWER REMOVAL/ABANDONMENT PERMIT: PLUMBING CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN “REMOVAL PERMITS” FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO CUT OFF EXISTING SEWER CONNECTIONS SERVICES TO THE PROPERTY. CALL ST PAUL PW PERMIT DESK (651-266-6234) FOR INFORMATION ON OBTAINING THIS PERMIT.

SEWER CONNECTION PERMIT: LICENSE HOUSE DRAIN CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN (SEWER CONNECTION PERMIT) TO CONSTRUCT NEW SANITARY AND STORM CONNECTION IN STREET FROM MAIN TO THE PROPERTY. CALL ST PAUL PW PERMIT DESK (651-266-6234) FOR INFORMATION ON OBTAINING THIS PERMIT.

ALL PRIMARY ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE STORM SEWER. MPC 4714.1101.1. THE PRIMARY ROOF DRAINAGE SHALL BE PIPED INTERNALLY TO THE UNDERGROUND AND THEN EXIT THE BUILDING UNDERGROUND TO CONNECT DIRECTLY TO THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM.

SECONDARY ROOF DRAINAGE SHALL DRAIN TO AN APPROVED PLACE OF DISPOSAL IN THE FORM OF SCUPPERS (IF THE ROOF IS LESS THAN 25 FEET) OR SECONDARY ROOF DRAINS (IF THE ROOF IS OVER 25 FEET) AND INSTALLED PER MPC 4714.1101 & 1102, AND MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE 1503.4 1-5. SECONDARY ROOF DRAINAGE CANNOT DRAIN ONTO THE SIDEWALK. MPC 4714.1101.1. MINNESOTA HAS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO ADDRESS SEASONAL CONDITIONS OF FREEZE AND THAW WHEN THE DISCHARGEfrom ROOF DRAINS COULD CREATE UNSAFE, ICY CONDITIONS ON SIDEWALKS. A PROPER POINT OF DISCHARGE THAT CAN BE APPROVED BY THIS AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION FOR SECONDARY ROOF DRAINAGE IS IN THE FORM OF SECONDARY ROOF DRAINS PIPED INTERNALLY, DOWN TO WITHIN 18 INCHES OF GRADE, THROUGH THE OUTSIDE WALL, ONTO A SPLASH BLOCK INSTALLED PER MPC 1101.5.3, AND LAID OVERPERMEABLE SOILS OF AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT WHERE SATURATION OF THE SOIL WILL NOT OCCUR OR TO AN AREA WHERE THE DISCHARGE WILL NOT CAUSE A NUISANCE.

NU E

MURRAY RESIDENCE HALL

11.

CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB AND GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE.

12.

INSTALL A MINIMUM OF <4" CLASS 5> AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER AND CONCRETE SIDEWALKS.

13.

UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RE-VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF <4" OF TOPSOIL>.

14.

ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

15.

GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2% . IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES.

16.

MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 0.5% GUTTER SLOPE TOWARDS LOW POINTS.

17.

CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 3" INSULATION BY 5' WIDE CENTERED ON STORM PIPE IF LESS THAN 4' OF COVER IN PAVEMENT AREAS AND LESS THAN 3' OF COVER IN LANDSCAPE AREAS.

18.

ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION <XXX.XX> OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION.

19.

ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS.

20.

ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE.

21.

MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS.

22.

CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER.

23.

CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY CAPITAL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT AT LEAST 24 HOURS BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER BMP'S.

NORTH

UNDERGROUND STORMWATER INFILTRATION SYSTEM 4 ROWS OF 140 LF 66" PERF. PIPE 0.4 AF SYSTEM VOLUME BTM. OF ROCK=867.20 BTM. OF PIPE = 867.70 HWL=872.97

5.32%

24,000 ± S.F. BFE=869.16 FFE= 878.83 2FE=890.83

GRADING PLAN

PROPOSED SECOND YEAR STUDENT HOUSING

1.48%

PROPOSED ADA SLOPE

SECOND YEAR HOUSING

1.70%

ADA

PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW

ISSUED FOR PERMIT - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED UNDERGROUND STORM SYSTEM / SNOW STORAGE AREA

1.87%

1.59%

0.91%

ADA

MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION

PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION

GRADING PLAN NOTES

PEACE GARDEN

% 1.67

PROPOSED FLUSH PAVEMENT ELEVATION

PHONE: 651-645-4197

10:1

0.0%

PROPOSED TOP OF CURB ELEVATION

WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM

ME:0.0 EOF:0.0

PROPOSED GUTTER ELEVATION

2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST, SUITE 238N, ST. PAUL, MN 55114

T/G:0.0

PROPOSED LOW POINT ELEVATION

RYAN COMPANIES

T:0.00

PROPOSED HIGH POINT ELEVATION

SHEET NUMBER

C500

SAINT PAUL

LP:0.0 G:0.00

ADA ROUTE

HP:0.0

100.00

PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION

ADA

925

PREPARED FOR

ST. MARY'S CHAPEL

REVISIONS

STORM MANHOLE

No.

STORM INLET

RESPONSE TO CITY COMMENT

STORM SEWER PIPE

A AD

This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

EXISTING

1.47%

K:\TWC_LDEV\ryan companies\ust student housing\3 Design\CAD\plansheets\C5-GRADING PLAN.dwg April 29, 2019 - 4:38pm

LEGEND

May 15, 2019 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of May 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander)

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, May 1, 2019, 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 595 Aldine Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I.

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

Managers Joe Collins Seitu Jones Shirley Reider Rick Sanders Mary Texer

Staff Present Britta Belden, CRWD Anna Eleria, CRWD Elizabeth Hosch, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD

Public Attendees Pat Cavanaugh, CAC

B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda. – Ms. Eleria requested the addition of action item V. D. Approve Consultant for Communications and Engagement Plan. Motion 19-062: Approve the Agenda of May 1, 2019 with the addition of Action Item D. Approve Consultant for Communications and Engagement Plan. Reider/Sanders Unanimously Approved II.

Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda

No comments were made. III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates A) Permit 18-022 Rivoli Phase III – Review Period Extension (Hosch)

Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #18-022 Rivoli Phase III – Review Period Extension. The applicant requested a second extension to the 60-day review period prior to the expiration. Additional time is still needed to resolve how the applicant will meet CRWD Rule requirements. Motion 19-063: Approve 60-day review period extension for permit 18-022 Rivoli Phase III to expire July 1, 2019.

Reider/Sanders Unanimously approved IV.

Special Reports No Special Report

Action Items A)

AR:

Approve Minutes of the April 17, 2019 Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander).

Motion 19-064: Approve the Meeting Minutes of the April 17, 2019 Regular Board Meeting. Jones/Reider Unanimously approved B)

AR:

Accept 2019 Quality Assurance Program Plan (Belden)

Ms. Belden shared with the Managers a review of the Quality Assurance and Program Plan (QAPP). Ms. Belden first presented to the Board of Managers on September 7, 2016. The QAPP is updated annually to reflect any changes that have been made to the CRWD monitoring program relating to staffing, monitoring stations, procedures and laboratory protocols. Manager Reider asked if CRWD is required to have a QAPP. Ms. Belden replied that it is for credibility, and also provides a framework followed by EPA. Ms. Belden added that the QAPP provides protocols that are used by staff and promotes efficiency, it also serves to help explain CRWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s monitoring program. President Collins found the information showed the detail of the monitoring information. Manager Sanders said he was impressed with the information. The Managers thanked Ms. Belden for her presentation. Motion 19-065:

Accept the 2019 Quality Assurance Program Plan.

Texer/Reider Unanimously approved C) AR: (Belden)

Approve MOA with Roseville for William Street Pond Maintenance Plan

Ms. Belden provided the Board of Managers with an update on the William Street Pond stormwater detention and sedimentation basin located in Roseville, MN. In 2011, the City of Roseville partnered with CRWD and implemented significant improvements to William Street Pond. The BMPs have been in operation for eight years. Long-term monitoring has shown that these improvements to the pond have decreased phosphorus loading to Lake McCarronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Maintenance is needed to sustain the longevity of the filters and ensure the practice is effectively removing phosphorus. In addition, regular monitoring and maintenance of the other infrastructure is required so that William Street Pond can properly function. CRWD staff have worked with the City of Roseville to develop a MOA for the monitoring

and maintenance of the William Street Pond IESF benches and other associated infrastructure. The MOA defines a framework for annual and long-term maintenance, inspection, and monitoring to be completed in coordination and cooperation between CRWD and the City of Roseville. Ms. Belden added that this was the first infiltration project with CRWD. Manager Sanders asked if CRWD is inspecting sites in the City of Roseville. Ms. Belden replied that yes, monitoring staff is inspecting sites. Motion 19-066:

Approve MOA with City of Roseville for William Street Pond Maintenance Plan.

Reider/Jones Unanimously approved D)

AR:

Approve Consultant for Communications and Engagement Plan (Bromelkamp)

Ms. Eleria reviewed that interviews were held on Monday for the Communications and Engagement Plan. The Committee agreed Tunheim was the best qualified candidate for the Communications and Engagement Plan. Manager Reider shared that she felt Tunheim shared meaningful ideas and reviewed new ideas. Ms. Cavanaugh shared that Tunheim not only talked about projects but were collaborating on the spot. Manager Reider reviewed that it was a good process and the committee feels good about the decision. Manager Reider acknowledged that Ms. Bromelkamp provided a lot of work in preparing for the committee review of consultants. Manager Jones asked how this will fit into other plans for the district. Ms. Eleria replied that the plan is expected to be finished by end of summer and be in line with the development plan. Ms. Eleria shared that a draft strategic plan will be available for review at the May 15th meeting. Ms. Eleria added that a scope of work and budget will be drafted and presented for approval. Motion 19-067:

Approve Consultant for Communications and Engagement Plan.

Reider/Jones Unanimously approved VI.

Unfinished Business A) 2020 Watershed Management Plan (Eleria)

Ms. Eleria provided the Managers with a review of the 2020 Watershed Management Plan. The first community meeting will take place at CRWD on Monday May 6th. Ms. Eleria will give a presentation, and a series of three questions will be addressed: â&#x20AC;˘ What are the valuable resources of your community? â&#x20AC;˘ How is your community affected by the health of lakes and rivers? â&#x20AC;˘ What future improvements would you lie to see for your community & environment? Discussions will be facilitated by CRWD staff. Ms. Eleria requested that one board manager attend each of the community events. A drawing will be held for tickets to the Bell Museum. Manager Sanders has shared the information with the Lake McCarrons neighborhood group and has been communicating with residents showing interest in attending.

B) Ford Redevelopment Site-Stormwater Design Charette (Fossum) Ms. Eleria shared with the Board that Mr. Fossum attended a meeting with the City of St. Paul regarding the stormwater design charette. CRWD would help with the design of a stormwater charette. Manager Jones asked if this is for the main water feature. Ms. Eleria replied yes, and this would be more technical and would have site conditions to work with. Mr. Fossum will be returning to the Board in the next month with more details. VII. A)

General Information

Board of Managers Updates

Mr. Sanders attended the NE youth lunches. Mr. Sanders suggested sponsoring a table in 2020 to help promote CRWD. Mr. Sanders was impressed with youth showing interest and asking questions about CRWD. Manager Texer asked about invites to the Watershed Management Plan. Ms. Eleria replied that she has invited county commissioners and sent a reminder. President Collins suggested having some walking tours with some elected officials to sites such as Como Lake. Manager Texer attended the GIS meeting last Wed April 24th. Manager Texer shared that there will be a discussion about GIS at the July Metro MAWD tour. VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, May 8, 2019 CAC Meeting, 7:00 PM B) Wednesday, May 15, 2019 Board Meeting, Manager Jones will be absent IX.

Adjournment

Motion 19-068: Adjournment of the May 1, 2019 Regular Board Meeting at 6:40 p.m. Reider/Texer Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander

Capitol Region Watershed District

Check Register For the Period From May 1, 2019 - May 31, 2019

Date 04/17/19 05/01/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19

Payee Design Within Reach Contract Zenman Productions Anthony Swichtenberg Applied Ecological Services, Inc. ASI Signage Innovations Barr Engineering Barr Engineering Barr Engineering Barr Engineering Barr Engineering Benefit Extras, LLC Brian Swedburg C Lanphear Design Cabela's Marketing Christine Baeumier City of St. Paul Park & Rec. Colonial Life Comcast - Business Computer Revolution Cretin-Durham Hall Digi-Key Ecoscapes, LLC Flux Casting Access Forrest J. Kelley Fresh Color Press Freshwater Society Gopher State One Gray Line Hallie Q. Brown Community Center HealthPartners Holiday Fleet In-Situ, Inc. John Peisert League of MN Cities Ins. Trust Lillie Suburban Newspapers, Inc. Limno Tech Marco - Minolta McCaren Designs, Inc. Menards MetLife Metro Conservation District Minnesota Polution Control Agency MN Management Analysis & Develop. Natasha Nicole Cardinal Nelson Cheese & Deli Northern Battery Outdoor Lab

Total 10,948.21 6,500.00 200.00 1,645.00 570.55 3,085.44 1,390.90 1,648.00 1,522.00 5,117.50 76.75 750.00 1,105.00 128.94 750.00 2,500.00 1,133.07 389.82 2,343.50 6,000.00 701.34 223.34 250.00 1,440.00 255.00 10,000.00 28.35 425.00 575.00 21,365.30 219.59 420.00 735.00 26,840.00 475.70 21,327.00 589.56 539.11 194.24 304.14 1,000.00 23,828.59 7,070.00 736.50 259.00 680.94 3,000.00

Page 1 of 2

Check # 19732 19733 19734 19735 19736 19737 19738 19739 19740 19741 19742 19743 19744 19745 19746 19747 19748 19749 19750 19751 19752 19753 19754 19755 19756 19757 19758 19759 19760 19761 19762 19763 19764 19765 19766 19767 19768 19769 19770 19771 19772 19773 19774 19775 19776 19777 19778

Description Outdoor Patio Furniture Final Invoice/Launch Tuition Deposit Reimbursement Project Mgmt. & Coordination Exterior Building Letters Aldine Support Professional Services Professional Services TBI Work Order #1 Professional Services Employee Benefits Well Sealing Reimbursement Design Work Sierra Jacket Review H2O Proposals Blooming St. Paul Awards Employee Benefits Business Internet Managed Services Surety Refund Router W/USB Heuchera Richardson Artist Stipend Office Cleaning Watershed Management Plan MWS Program Fee - 2018-2019 Emailed Tickets CAC Tour - Mid-Coach Room Charge/Watershed Mgmt. Employee Benefits Fuel for Vehiclese HydroVac Well Sealing Cost Share Property/Casualty Coverage Community Conversation Consultant Labor Copier Contract Monthly Horticulture Services Supplies Employee Benefits Children's Water Festival MN Clean Water Loan Consulting with Barbara Deming Well Sealing Cost Share Workshop/Meeting/Planning Batteries/Core Credit Spring Clean-Up

Capitol Region Watershed District

Check Register For the Period From May 1, 2019 - May 31, 2019

Date 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19 05/15/19

Payee Park Press, Inc. Ramsey County - Attorney Shirley Reider SRF Consulting, Inc. SRF Consulting, Inc. SRF Consulting, Inc. SRF Consulting, Inc. St. Paul Publishing Co. St. Paul Regional Water Services Staples Business Advantage TCB Marketing, Inc. Tech Sales Verizon Wireless Viking Industrial Center Walters Wenck Associates, Inc. Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Zenman Productions US Bank

Total 520.50 1,530.00 781.88 441.98 7,964.11 1,032.04 1,422.46 255.00 80.27 317.87 803.88 25,411.00 545.18 435.82 241.87 18,569.09 29.27 24.12 243.82 972.25 799.75 3,167.86

SUB-TOTAL: APRIL A/P

$236,877.40

APRIL PAYROLL/BENEFITS:

$136,694.45

APRIL TOTAL:

$373,571.85

Check # 19779 19780 19781 19782 19783 19784 19785 19786 19787 19788 19789 19790 19791 19792 19793 19794 19795 19796 19797 19798 19799 19800

Description Display Ad/May Issue Attorney Services Manager Per Diem/Expense Professional Services Water Resource Engineering Easement Acquisition Agent Easement Acquisition Agent Downtown St. Paul Voice Water & Sewer Office Supplies Hmong Time/Insight News Samplers & Velocity Sensors Wireless Service Gas Cylinder/Recalibrate/Replace Sensor Trash/Recycling Inspections/Permit Program Kittson Electrical Maryland Electrical Gas Service at Aldine Electrical Service Additional work/Project Page Monthly Credit Card Expense

APPROVED FOR PAYMENT:

5/15/2019

APRIL, 2019 RECEIPTS St. Thomas Iverson Center Permit #18020 Midway Mennards Permit #19004 Permit #19012 St. Thomas Iverson Center 4M Fund-General 4M Fund-Bonds

$13,100.00 500.00 20,800.00 500.00 2,000.00 400.00 7,837.61 5,030.20

APRIL RECEIPTS:

$50,167.81

Page 2 of 2

Surety Permit Fee Surety Permit Fee Permit Fee Surety April Interest April Interest-Bonds

Capitol Region Watershed District April 30, 2019 Comparison

April Check Register Totals April A/P

April Financial Statements

Difference

$236,877.40

April J.E. Dunn Construction

April Payroll/Benefits

136,694.45

APRIL SUB-TOTAL:

$373,571.85

Surety Refund

$344,769.34

($28,802.51)

($6,000.00)

Less Pre-Paid Benefits:

($22,802.51)

APRIL TOTAL:

$344,769.34

Pre-Paid Expenses: HealthPartners MetLife Colonial Life

21,365.30 304.14 1,133.07 $22,802.51

Surety Refund: Cretin-Durham Hall

$6,000.00

Page 1 of 1

$344,769.34

$0.00

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST RECAP FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2019 ‐ APRIL 30, 2019

TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: 200 ‐ Administration 201 ‐ Groundwater 207 ‐ Rulemaking/Rule Revisions 208 ‐ Permitting 210 ‐ Stewardship Grants 211 ‐ Monitoring & Data Collection 220 ‐ Education & Outreach 225 ‐ Technical Resources & Information Sharing 228 ‐ Future Trends: Research and Positioning 230 ‐ Geographic Informatin Systems (GIS) 240 ‐ Safety Program TOTAL PROGRAMS: 300 ‐ Administration 301 ‐ Shoreline & Streambank Maintenance 305 ‐ Como Lake Subwatershed 310 ‐ Lake McCarron's Subwatershed 313 ‐ Loeb Lake Subwatershed 315 ‐ Trout Brook Subwatershed 317 ‐ Crosby Lake Subwatershed 325 ‐ Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration 330 ‐ Mississippi River Subwatershed 370 ‐ Watershed Management Plan 390 ‐ Special Projects & Grants TOTAL PROJECTS: TOTAL OPERATING FUND: 405 ‐ Como Lake BMP's 410 ‐ Lake McCarron's BMP's 413 ‐ Loeb Lake BMP's 415 ‐ Trout Brook BMP's 417 ‐ Crosby Lake BMP's 425 ‐ Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration 430 ‐ Mississippi River Subwatersheds BMP's 440 ‐ Special Projects & Grants 450 ‐ Future Trends: Implementation TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 14960 ‐ Debt & Loan Service 15 TOTAL DEBT SERVICES:

2019 ANNUAL BUDGET 0.00 660,840.00 0.00 61,200.00 5,000.00 (289,200.00) $437,840.00 190,872.00 6,480.00 22,300.00 398,590.00 819,880.00 637,770.00 611,620.00 32,680.00 145,080.00 50,390.00 38,460.00 $2,954,122.00 98,328.00 8,000.00 102,410.00 201,700.00 ‐ 344,410.00 28,710.00 ‐ 256,120.00 242,180.00 87,320.00 $1,369,178.00 $4,761,140.00 1,172,200.00 742,320.00 82,980.00 110,000.00 ‐ 30,000.00 834,090.00 719,780.00 175,000.00 $3,866,370.00 1,059,503.00 $1,059,503.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ 93,648.91 3,275.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ 96,924.36 ‐ 2,276.46 766.64 30,798.37 7,964.97 46,860.37 32,226.91 436.44 1,569.88 1,581.61 391.24 $124,872.89 ‐ ‐ 32,271.35 2,266.01 ‐ 4,161.40 94.14 ‐ 4,747.30 23,955.35 ‐ $67,495.55 $289,292.80 465.95 8,835.71 1,905.07 28.35 ‐ ‐ 2,105.42 3,045.23 15,262.22 $31,647.95 23,828.59 23,828.59

TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

$9,687,013.00

$344,769.34

$2,442,492.19

$7,244,520.81

25.21%

Fund Balance FUND BALANCES @ 12/31/18 Operations 2,211,785.43 Capital Improvement 2,050,966.04 Debt Service 156,132.97 2,847,820.80 Building/Bond Proceeds TOTAL FUND BALANCE: $7,266,705.24

2019 Fund Transfers ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $0.00

Year‐to‐Date Revenue 32,861.51 37,382.38 ‐ ‐ $70,243.89

Year‐to‐Date Expenditures $986,791.41 187,142.31 804,525.47 464,033.00 $2,442,492.19

Fund Balance @ 04/30/19 1,257,855.53 1,901,206.11 (648,392.50) 2,383,787.80 $4,894,456.94

18970 ‐ General Administration 18 19970 ‐ General Administration 19 19795 ‐ Aldine Operating Expense 19976 ‐ Thomas Operations 19978 ‐ MAWD 00000 ‐ Administration Allocation

JOB COST #/NAME

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF BUDGET EXPENDITURES REMAINING 13,490.72 (13,490.72) 301,928.61 358,911.39 20,499.97 (20,499.97) 1,005.47 60,194.53 1,621.05 3,378.95 ‐ (289,200.00) $338,545.82 $99,294.18 ‐ 190,872.00 2,425.78 4,054.22 8,866.34 13,433.66 123,470.25 275,119.75 50,478.62 769,401.38 143,260.17 494,509.83 103,821.88 507,798.12 3,402.09 29,277.91 11,186.17 133,893.83 5,852.46 44,537.54 1,855.66 36,604.34 $454,619.42 $2,499,502.58 ‐ 98,328.00 ‐ 8,000.00 72,551.21 29,858.79 9,905.76 191,794.24 ‐ ‐ 31,510.19 312,899.81 4,545.77 24,164.23 ‐ ‐ 19,010.32 237,109.68 56,102.92 186,077.08 ‐ 87,320.00 $193,626.17 $1,175,551.83 $986,791.41 $3,774,348.59 24,523.61 1,147,676.39 121,127.14 621,192.86 3,291.42 79,688.58 133.70 109,866.30 ‐ ‐ ‐ 30,000.00 18,331.87 815,758.13 19,860.46 699,919.54 463,907.11 (288,907.11) $651,175.31 $3,215,194.69 804,525.47 254,977.53 $804,525.47 $254,977.53

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ 45.69% ‐‐‐ 1.64% 32.42% 0.00% 77.32% 0.00% 37.43% ‐‐‐ 30.98% 6.16% 22.46% 16.97% 10.41% 7.71% 11.61% 4.82% 15.39% 0.00% 0.00% 70.84% 4.91% ‐‐‐ 9.15% 15.83% ‐‐‐ 7.42% 23.17% ‐‐‐ 14.14% 20.73% 2.09% 16.32% 3.97% 0.12% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 2.20% 2.76% 265.09% 16.84% 75.93% 75.93%

Page 1 of 7

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2019 ‐ APRIL 30, 2019 2018 ANNUAL BUDGET 0.00 660,840.00 ‐ 61,200.00 5,000.00 (289,200.00) TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: $437,840.00 20000 ‐ Administration Allocation 190,872.00 18000 ‐ District Permit Program ‐ 19000 ‐ District Permit Program 202,640.00 14,150.00 19101 ‐ Permit Tracking & Database Management ‐ 18102 ‐ Construction Inspection 147,250.00 19102 ‐ Construction Inspection ‐ 18103 ‐ Permit Closure & Post Construction Inspection/Maintenance 34,550.00 19103 ‐ Permit Closure & Post Construction Inspection/Maintenance ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐ Permits 16120 ‐ Rules & Annual TAC Mtg. 16 ‐ ‐ 18120 ‐ Evaluate Rules/TAC Meetings 22,300.00 19120 ‐ Evaluate Rules/TAC Meetings 6,480.00 19130 ‐ Groundwater Protection ‐ Well Sealing ‐ 17143 ‐ Stewardship Grants ‐ 18143 ‐ Stewardship Grants 427,650.00 19143 ‐ Stewardship Grants 18144 ‐ Partner Grants ‐ 19144 ‐ Partner Grants 126,340.00 18145 ‐ Inspiring Communities Program 20,490.00 24,090.00 18146 ‐ Rain Garden Projects 213,310.00 16147 ‐ TWP Blvd. Rain Gardens ‐ 18148 ‐ MN Greencorps Member 8,000.00 19148 ‐ MN Greencorps Member ‐ 18200 ‐ Baseline Monitoring & Data Collection 331,880.00 19200 ‐ Baseline Monitoring & Data Collection 102,610.00 19205 ‐ Lake Monitoring & Data Collection ‐ 18210 ‐ Villa Park Monitoring & Data Collection 28,470.00 19210 ‐ Villa Park Monitoring & Data Collection 17,670.00 19215 ‐ Wetland Bio‐Monitoring 19220 ‐ WISKI Database Website 46,720.00 12,510.00 19225 ‐ Remote Data Access & Set Up ‐ 18230 ‐ BMP Monitoring 19230 ‐ BMP Monitoring 49,540.00 18970 ‐ General Administration 19970 ‐ General Administration 19975 ‐ Aldine Operations 19976 ‐ Thomas Operations 19978 ‐ MAWD 10000 ‐ Administration Allocation

JOB COST #/NAME

CURRENT MONTH YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING ‐ 13,490.72 (13,490.72) 93,648.91 301,928.61 358,911.39 3,275.45 20,499.97 (20,499.97) ‐ 1,005.47 60,194.53 ‐ 1,621.05 3,378.95 ‐ ‐ (289,200.00) $96,924.36 $338,545.82 $99,294.18 ‐ ‐ 190,872.00 ‐ 6,102.03 (6,102.03) 9,738.09 46,888.66 155,751.34 ‐ ‐ 14,150.00 ‐ 74.26 (74.26) 212.23 969.74 146,280.26 ‐ 296.99 (296.99) 167.06 1,602.55 32,947.45 20,680.99 67,536.02 (67,536.02) ‐ 88.77 (88.77) ‐ 44.83 (44.83) 766.64 8,732.74 13,567.26 2,276.46 2,425.78 4,054.22 ‐ 74.67 (74.67) ‐ 2,434.37 (2,434.37) 6,866.92 31,303.80 396,346.20 ‐ 1,267.11 (1,267.11) 410.57 2,516.57 123,823.43 ‐ ‐ 20,490.00 ‐ ‐ 24,090.00 377.13 10,739.35 202,570.65 ‐ 221.79 (221.79) 310.35 1,920.96 6,079.04 ‐ 19,154.43 (19,154.43) 43,924.19 106,329.32 225,550.68 292.82 752.38 101,857.62 ‐ 1,844.51 (1,844.51) 379.00 1,312.25 27,157.75 ‐ ‐ 17,670.00 10.97 59.89 46,660.11 701.34 4,291.95 8,218.05 ‐ 2,229.31 (2,229.31) 593.70 1,368.71 48,171.29

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ 45.69% ‐‐‐ 1.64% 32.42% 0.00% 77.32% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 23.14% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 0.66% ‐‐‐ 4.64% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 39.16% 37.43% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 7.32% ‐‐‐ 1.99% 0.00% 0.00% 5.03% ‐‐‐ 24.01% ‐‐‐ 32.04% 0.73% ‐‐‐ 4.61% 0.00% 0.13% 34.31% ‐‐‐ 2.76%

Page 2 of 7

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2019 ‐ APRIL 30, 2019 JOB COST #/NAME 15231 ‐ AHUG Exfiltration Monitoring 17232 ‐ Midway Office WH Monitoring 18250 ‐ General Ed & Outreach 19250 ‐ General Outreach & Communications 18251 ‐ General Communications 19255 ‐ Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 19260 ‐ Municipal Training 18262 ‐ Youth Outreach 19262 ‐ Youth Outreach 19263 ‐ Communications Training 18265 ‐ Sponsorships & Partnerships 19265 ‐ Sponsorships & Partnerships 18268 ‐ Adopt A Drain 19268 ‐ Adopt A Drain 17270 ‐ Website & Social Media 19270 ‐ Website & Social Media 18271 ‐ Master Water Stewards 19271 ‐ Master Water Stewards 17274 ‐ TWP Communications 19275 ‐ Events 16277 ‐ TWP ‐ Adopt a Drain 16278 ‐ TWP Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 18279 ‐ Social Media 19279 ‐ Social Media 19280 ‐ 595 Aldine Education & Outreach 18285 ‐ Awards & Recognition Programs 19285 ‐ Awards & Recognition Programs 17300 ‐ Local & Agency Plan Review & Tech Committee 18300 ‐ Plan Review & Tech Committee 19300 ‐ Plan Review & Tech Committee 18303 ‐ BMP Database Maintenance/Updates 19303 ‐ BMP Database Maintenance/Updates 18330 ‐ District Research Program 19330 ‐ District Research Program 19333 ‐ Public Art Program 18334 ‐ Public Art Program ‐ Aldine 19334 ‐ Public Art Program ‐ Aldine 19335 ‐ Diversity & Inclusion 19336 ‐ Climate Change Impacts 18370 ‐ GIS Program Development 19370 ‐ GIS Program Development 19390 ‐ Safety Training 19395 ‐ Safety Program Updates/Audits 19396 ‐ Safety Equipment TOTAL PROGRAMS:

2018 ANNUAL BUDGET 18,560.00 29,810.00 ‐ 270,690.00 ‐ 10,370.00 14,740.00 ‐ 10,640.00 10,990.00 ‐ 28,040.00 ‐ 21,360.00 ‐ 37,730.00 ‐ 30,410.00 6,980.00 35,720.00 5,370.00 6,370.00 ‐ 7,260.00 100,000.00 ‐ 14,950.00 ‐ ‐ 17,000.00 ‐ 15,680.00 ‐ 50,200.00 29,120.00 ‐ 25,960.00 20,000.00 19,800.00 ‐ 50,390.00 13,540.00 12,400.00 12,520.00 $2,954,122.00

CURRENT MONTH YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 75.79 3,479.79 15,080.21 882.56 2,437.63 27,372.37 ‐ 2,997.17 (2,997.17) 7,542.89 32,493.54 238,196.46 ‐ 798.54 (798.54) ‐ 31.09 10,338.91 ‐ 22.19 14,717.81 ‐ 66.42 (66.42) 229.56 1,504.50 9,135.50 ‐ ‐ 10,990.00 ‐ 684.36 (684.36) 3,585.03 11,515.93 16,524.07 ‐ 456.40 (456.40) 65.64 498.40 20,861.60 8,014.00 17,837.73 (17,837.73) 69.54 765.30 36,964.70 ‐ 780.78 (780.78) 10,425.01 13,469.77 16,940.23 ‐ 87.39 6,892.61 1,396.08 3,295.96 32,424.04 ‐ ‐ 5,370.00 97.86 314.64 6,055.36 44.36 (44.36) 42.51 87.15 7,172.85 758.79 8,082.60 91,917.40 ‐ 7,987.66 (7,987.66) ‐ ‐ 14,950.00 ‐ 562.83 (562.83) ‐ 179.29 (179.29) 25.37 1,010.48 15,989.52 ‐ 244.33 (244.33) 411.07 1,405.16 14,274.84 ‐ 53.28 (53.28) 313.29 652.69 49,547.31 865.59 4,097.86 25,022.14 391.00 4,080.96 (4,080.96) ‐ ‐ 25,960.00 ‐ 2,301.38 17,698.62 ‐ ‐ 19,800.00 ‐ 121.13 (121.13) 1,581.61 5,731.33 44,658.67 50.09 50.09 13,489.91 50.09 249.59 12,150.41 291.06 1,555.98 10,964.02 $124,872.89 454,619.42 $2,499,502.58

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 18.75% 8.18% ‐‐‐ 12.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.15% ‐‐‐ 14.14% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 41.07% ‐‐‐ 2.33% ‐‐‐ 2.03% ‐‐‐ 44.29% 1.25% 9.23% 0.00% 4.94% ‐‐‐ 1.20% 8.08% ‐‐‐ 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 5.94% ‐‐‐ 8.96% ‐‐‐ 1.30% 14.07% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 11.51% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 11.37% 0.37% 2.01% 12.43% 15.39%

Page 3 of 7

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2019 ‐ APRIL 30, 2019 JOB COST #/NAME 30000 ‐ Administration Allocation 19405 ‐ St. Paul Natural Resources Intern Program 18421 ‐ Como BMP Maintenance & Inspection 19421 ‐ Como BMP Maintenance & Inspection 19425 ‐ Curtis Pond Opti RTC O & M 18427 ‐ Como Lake Management Plan 16430 ‐ TWP Como Lake Project Development 19470 ‐ AIS Management 18476 ‐ Upper Villa Maintenance 16477 ‐ TWP ‐ Lake McCarron's Project Development 19477 ‐ TWP ‐ Lake McCarron's Management Plan 18550 ‐ Inspection & Annual Maintenance 19550 ‐ Inspection & Annual Maintenance 14552 ‐ TBI Easement Verification & Documentation 17554 ‐ TBI Hydraulic/Hydrolic Model Calibration & Update 19570 ‐ NPDES MS4 Stormwater Program 18575 ‐ Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination Program 19620 ‐ Green Infrastructure for Innovation Districts 17621 ‐ Snelling Midway Redevelopment 19621 ‐ Snelling Midway Redevelopment 18622 ‐ Ford Site Planning 18623 ‐ Ford Site Area C 18624 ‐ CCLRT BMP Maintenance 19624 ‐ Green Line BMP Maintenance 18531 ‐ Highland Ravine BMP Maintenance 19631 ‐ Highland Ravine Maintenance 18650 ‐ 2020 Watershed Management Plan 18655 ‐ Strategic Plan 19660 ‐ Special Grants ‐ Project Development

19703 ‐ Como Lake In‐Lake Management 16705 ‐ TWP Como BMP McMurray 16720 ‐ Willow Reserve Restoration Project 16752 ‐ TWP ‐ McCarrons BMP ‐ Parkview 19790 ‐ Loeb Lake Shoreline Restoration 16815 ‐ TBI Repairs ‐ St. 0+00 ‐ 28+49 19820 ‐ TBI Repair ‐ Station 28+65 ‐ 50+72 19850 ‐ Land Conservation Funding

2018 ANNUAL BUDGET 98,328.00 8,000.00 ‐ 26,070.00 9,500.00 42,920.00 23,920.00 39,300.00 30,000.00 ‐ 132,400.00 ‐ 100,500.00 216,000.00 ‐ 7,910.00 20,000.00 60,800.00 ‐ 29,750.00 119,200.00 10,000.00 ‐ 36,370.00 ‐ 28,710.00 242,180.00 ‐ 87,320.00 TOTAL PROJECTS: $1,369,178.00 TOTAL OPERATING FUND: $4,761,140.00 224,600.00 947,600.00 70,360.00 742,320.00 12,620.00 ‐ 110,000.00 30,000.00

CURRENT MONTH YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING ‐ ‐ 98,328.00 ‐ ‐ 8,000.00 ‐ 34.25 (34.25) 1,770.02 2,384.75 23,685.25 ‐ ‐ 9,500.00 30,501.33 67,311.01 (24,391.01) ‐ 2,821.20 21,098.80 ‐ 102.85 39,197.15 ‐ ‐ 30,000.00 ‐ 40.72 (40.72) 2,266.01 9,762.19 122,637.81 2,333.00 9,813.40 (9,813.40) 254.20 5,400.17 95,099.83 1,574.20 14,911.04 201,088.96 ‐ 160.81 (160.81) ‐ ‐ 7,910.00 ‐ 1,224.77 18,775.23 101.49 310.26 60,489.74 ‐ 643.24 (643.24) ‐ 50.69 29,699.31 1,068.15 12,316.66 106,883.34 1,492.39 1,585.06 8,414.94 ‐ 757.90 (757.90) 2,085.27 3,346.51 33,023.49 ‐ 100.97 (100.97) 94.14 4,444.80 24,265.20 16,885.35 48,543.02 193,636.98 7,070.00 7,559.90 (7,559.90) ‐ ‐ 87,320.00 $67,495.55 193,626.17 $1,175,551.83 $289,292.80 $986,791.41 $3,774,348.59 ‐ ‐ 224,600.00 465.95 24,523.61 923,076.39 1,905.07 3,291.42 67,068.58 8,835.71 121,127.14 621,192.86 ‐ ‐ 12,620.00 28.35 133.70 (133.70) ‐ ‐ 110,000.00 ‐ ‐ 30,000.00

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 9.15% 0.00% 156.83% 11.79% 0.26% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 7.37% ‐‐‐ 5.37% 6.90% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 6.12% 0.51% ‐‐‐ 0.17% 10.33% 15.85% ‐‐‐ 9.20% ‐‐‐ 15.48% 20.04% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 14.14% 20.73% 0.00% 2.59% 4.68% 16.32% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 0.00%

Page 4 of 7

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2019 ‐ APRIL 30, 2019 JOB COST #/NAME 16881 ‐ Green Line Redevelopment BMP's 16886 ‐ Lauderdale Subwatershed Stormwater Improvement Project 19890 ‐ Midway Peace Park 18910 ‐ Special Grants 19910 ‐ Special Grants 19913 ‐ CRWD Opportunity Fund 16917 ‐ Swede Hollow Construction 15918 ‐ Midway Stadium Redevelopment 16918 ‐ North Lake Como Restore 16920 ‐ TWP Grant Administration 17925 ‐ Highland Park Sr. High 17926 ‐ Adams Spanish Immersion 19935 ‐ NW University & Dale 19940 ‐ Zero Abuse Project 16950 ‐ New Office Facility TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 14960 ‐ Debt & Loan Service TOTAL DEBT SERVICES:

2018 ANNUAL BUDGET 603,090.00 51,000.00 180,000.00 ‐ 366,900.00 350,000.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,880.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 175,000.00 $3,866,370.00 1,059,503.00 $1,059,503.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 1,873.85 206.66 24.91 ‐ 2,960.53 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 84.70 ‐ 15,262.22 $31,647.95 23,828.59 23,828.59

TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

$9,687,013.00

$344,769.34

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 3,384.47 599,705.53 12,911.63 38,088.37 2,035.77 177,964.23 2,652.03 (2,652.03) 15,431.76 351,468.24 ‐ 350,000.00 605.68 (605.68) 122.17 (122.17) 40.72 (40.72) 488.64 2,391.36 ‐ 0.00 81.44 (81.44) 312.54 125.48 463,907.11 (288,907.11) $651,175.31 $3,215,194.69 804,525.47 254,977.53 $804,525.47 $254,977.53 $2,442,492.19

$7,244,520.81

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 0.56% 25.32% 1.13% ‐‐‐ 4.21% 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 16.97% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

265.09% 16.84% 75.93% 75.93% 25.21%

Page 5 of 7

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2019 ‐ APRIL 30, 2019 PERMIT NUMBER 9009 10009 10029 12003 12012 12023 13015 14017 14018 14027 15007 15013 15030 15040 16004 16007 16009 16016 16019 16020 16021 16023 16025 16028 16032 16033 17001 17003 17008 17009 17010 17013 17015 17017 17018 17020 17022 17023 17025 18001 18002 18004 18007 18008

PERMIT NAME Victoria Street Como Park HS I94 & 280 Cretin‐Derham Hall TIES Ford Site Demo Maryland Arkwright St. Paul Academy Frogtown Farms HealthPartners MOB Ramsey County Building Demo Jamestown Homes Farrington Estates Luther Seminary Xcel Pipeline 2016 Community School of Excellence Jackson Street Willow Reserve Habitat of Humanity Roselawn Cemetary Dorothy Day Place 2300 Territorial Apartments Linwood Lower School Snelling Midway Adams School SPJCC Addition AET Campus Expansion Horace Mann Elementary Como Park Sr. High School SPA Expansion Jackson Street Reconstruction Swede Hollow Great River Schools Wheelock Dale Victoria Dickerman Park Exchange Street Apartments Transfer Road Storage Regions Birth Center Weyerhaeuser Apts. Rice Park Revitalization Sylvan Park Improvements Menards Trnasload Terminal Como Paving 2018 Woodlawn Jefferson Vomela Beacon Bluff

PERMITTING BUDGET ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES

‐ 566.40 ‐ 74.26 654.24 129.94 18.57 852.40 ‐ ‐ 54.33 ‐ 36.22 559.58 ‐ ‐ 37.12 36.22 18.10 534.07 559.58 37.12 1,303.62 ‐ 270.06 571.58 37.12 54.33 570.42 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 18.57 499.22 571.58 489.34 508.30 249.46 18.57 ‐ ‐ 1.90 523.22

31.50 566.40 486.00 368.26 654.24 808.56 24.26 1,836.21 376.20 31.50 85.83 31.50 240.10 1,689.09 31.50 31.50 37.12 36.22 55.24 3,806.70 1,737.46 37.12 4,521.35 73.79 424.95 571.58 37.12 54.33 570.42 396.35 129.61 36.89 882.85 18.57 1,866.99 1,740.06 1,387.57 1,658.60 275.21 18.57 1,138.09 579.60 1.90 1,944.48

BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING

% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Page 6 of 7

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2019 ‐ APRIL 30, 2019 PERMIT NUMBER

PERMIT NAME

PERMITTING BUDGET

18009 18010 18011 18012 18013 18014 18015 18016 18017 18018 18019 18020 18022 18023 19001 19002 19003 19004 19005 19006 19007 19008 19009 19010 19011 19012 19013 19014

Seal Island at Como Zoo CRWD 595 Aldine Hendrickson Apartments Scheffer Community Center Beacon Bluff Opus Morning Star Met Council Villa Park Sanitary O'Gara's Mixed Use Cathedral Hill Payne Building Development Ford TCAP Railyard Excavation Albion Senior Community Rivoli Phase III Roseville Aldi Fairview Avenue TH94 Mill & Overlay Victoria Park Play Area Wheelock 4, Western to Rice Midway Peace Park McCarrons Hill Luther Seminary South Campus Island Station Redevelopment St. Thomas Iverson Center Raymond Station Summit Avenue Bridge Reconstruction UST 2nd Year Housing St. Paul Gateway Mixed Use 104 MRB

18000

Sub‐Total: Permits General Permitting

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ TOTAL PERMITS: $202,640.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES

BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING

% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED

506.10 64.97 866.92 586.54 499.22 468.94 72.44 54.33 ‐ 474.25 ‐ 151.55 ‐ 38.69 2.10 264.00 ‐ 8.70 ‐ 753.89 9.50 120.10 1,404.84 1,202.45 1,427.25 1,013.65 798.00 37.12

1,707.10 64.97 904.04 1,667.32 838.94 1,702.37 90.89 263.92 45.97 1,682.25 677.57 1,233.64 1,366.84 2,042.70 892.45 1,359.20 2,321.15 3,292.55 1,611.85 2,349.00 2,397.50 855.10 2,358.84 1,202.45 1,427.25 1,013.65 798.00 37.12

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

20,680.99 9,738.09 30,419.08

67,536.02 52,990.69 120,526.71

‐ ‐ $82,113.29

‐ ‐ 59.48%

Page 7 of 7

May 15, 2019 Board Meeting V. C) Approve Como Lake Management Plan (Belden) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

May 9, 2019 CRWD Board of Managers Britta Belden, Water Resource Project Manager Approve Como Lake Management Plan Update

Background The development of the Como Lake Management Plan has been underway since April 2018. The CRWD Board of Managers and the Citizen Advisory Committee have been involved throughout the development process by providing input and guidance on key deliverables along the way. In addition, two stakeholder groups were established to inform the development of the Como Lake Management Planâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the Agency Advisory Group (AAG) and the Public Advisory Group (PAG). The first meetings for both the AAG and the PAG and were focused on gathering input on Como Lake issues and goals. The second meetings for both groups focused on reviewing potential actions for in-lake management and watershed management to achieve total phosphorus (TP) load reductions in Como Lake. Using input from the Board, CAC, AAG, and PAG along with the latest lake management science, staff worked with LimnoTech to assemble a draft Como Lake Management Plan (CLMP) that included details of an adaptive management approach for improving Como Lake and meeting the goals identified during the input process. The draft CLMP also identified recommended actions for lake management, watershed management, and community engagement and provided an implementation plan that includes schedule, lead agency, costs, and financing. The draft CLMP was comprehensively reviewed with the AAG and PAG at their third and final meetings for which were held the end of March 2019. Questions and comments were received at each meeting. Both groups were given a 4-week comment period to submit other comments electronically. The draft CLMP was also reviewed by the CRWD Board, CAC, and staff. Issues Following the 4-week comment period, staff assembled all comments submitted on the draft CLMP. Each comment was addressed individually and edits to the draft were made where appropriate. With comments included and edits made, the draft CLMP has been updated to be in final draft form. Staff will review the major elements of the finalized CLMP with the Board. Requested Action Adopt the Como Lake Management Plan. enc:

Como Lake Management Plan (dated 5/15/2019)

\\crwd01-dc01\Company\06 Projects\Como Lake Projects\2018 Como Lake Management Plan\Board & CAC\Board Memo_CLMP_May 2019 Plan Adoption_5-1519.docx

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

Como Lake Management Plan

Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN May 15, 2019 Prepared by: LimnoTech

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations..................................................5 Executive Summary................................................................6 1 Introduction ........................................................................9 1.1 Overview and Purpose .................................................... 9 1.2 Como Lake Management Plan Framework ................... 11 1.2.1 Adaptive Management Approach........................ 11 1.3 Managing Como Lakeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;A Shared Responsibility .......... 13 1.3.1 Community Groups .............................................. 14 1.3.2 Agency Groups ..................................................... 14 1.3.3 Como Lake Management Plan Stakeholder Advisory Groups ..................................................... 15 2 Lake & Watershed Characterization ...................................18 2.1 Shallow Lake Ecology..................................................... 18 2.2 Como Lake Characterization ......................................... 19 2.2.1 Historical and Current Morphometry .................. 19 2.2.2 Water Quality in Como Lake ................................ 22 2.2.3 Lake Bottom Sediments ....................................... 26 2.2.4 Aquatic Vegetation .............................................. 26 2.2.5 Fisheries ............................................................... 28 2.2.6 Wildlife ................................................................. 30 2.3 Como Lake Watershed .................................................. 30 2.3.1 Watershed Boundaries ........................................ 30 2.3.2 Watershed Pollutant Sources & Pathways .......... 33 2.3.3 Watershed Characteristics................................... 34 2.3.4 Stormwater Runoff Monitoring & Quality ........... 35 2.3.5 Watershed Modeling & Pollutant Loads.............. 38 2.4 Como Lake Water Quality Standards & Regulations ..... 40 2.4.1 Internal TP Load Reduction Targets..................... 40 2.4.2 External Load Reduction Targets ......................... 41 2.5 Historical Management Actions .................................... 41 2.5.1 Historical Lake Management Actions .................. 41 2.5.2 Historical Watershed Management Actions........ 42 3 Issues and Goals ................................................................44 3.1 Identification of Issues of Concern................................ 44 3.2 Goals and Measurable Objectives ................................. 45 3.2.1 Selected Goals and Measurable Objectives ........ 46 4 Recommended Management Actions ................................48

Page | 1

4.1 Lake Management Actions ............................................ 48 4.1.1 Evaluation of Possible Lake Management Actions ................................................................................ 48 4.1.2 Recommended Lake and Shoreline Management Actions.................................................................... 49 4.2 Watershed Management Actions ................................. 52 4.2.1 Watershed Phosphorus Management Actions .... 53 4.2.2 Other Non-point Source Pollutant Management Actions.................................................................... 58 4.3 Community Actions ....................................................... 59 4.3.1 Recreation............................................................ 59 4.3.2 Education & Outreach ......................................... 60 4.3.3 Partnerships ......................................................... 62 4.4 Recommended Actions Summary ................................. 62 5 Implementation ................................................................66 5.1 Short-term Implementation Plan .................................. 66 5.2 Estimated Implementation Costs .................................. 69 5.3 Financing ....................................................................... 70 6 References ........................................................................72 Appendix A: Stakeholder Input Summary .............................74 Appendix B: All Possible In-Lake Management Actions.......... 86 Appendix C: Identified Potential Structural BMP Projects ...... 88

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Como Regional Park, Como Lake, and the Como Lake watershed in St. Paul, MN. ................................................ 10 Figure 2. Adaptive Lake Management Planning Cycle............... 12 Figure 3. Bathymetry map of Como Lake showing depth contours and water quality (WQ) sampling stations (historical station labels shown in parentheses). .............. 21 Figure 4. Summer mean total phosphorus (TP), chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), and Secchi depth in Como Lake (1984-2018). ....... 25 Figure 5. Epilimnetic and hypolimnetic total phosphorus (TP) for the years 1984-2018. ......................................................... 25 Figure 6. Biovolume (% occurrence) surveys of aquatic macrophytes in Como Lake from May 31, 2018. The red areas represent curly-leaf pondweed (CLP)....................... 28 Figure 7. The Como Lake watershed (1,711 ac) includes areas of St. Paul, Falcon Heights, and Roseville............................... 31 Page | 2

Figure 8. The thirteen major subwatersheds (Como A-M) in the Como Lake watershed (HEI, 2018). .................................... 32 Figure 9. Watershed pollutant sources and pathways. ............. 33 Figure 10. Hydrologic soil groups in the Como Lake watershed. ........................................................................................... 36 Figure 11. Existing land use in the Como Lake watershed. ....... 37 Figure 12. Schematic of generalized flow routing for the Como B subwatershed. ................................................................... 39 Figure 13. Distribution of estimated 20-year cost of actions by category. ............................................................................ 69 Figure 14. Estimated 20-year costs for implementation of the Como Lake Management Plan. .......................................... 70

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Existing morphometric characteristics of Como Lake.. 20 Table 2. MPCA shallow lake eutrophication standards for the NCHF ecoregion. ................................................................ 23 Table 3. Growing season averages for total phosphorus (TP), chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), and Secchi depth in Como Lake for the period of record (1984-2018) and the last ten years (2008-2018)........................................................................ 24 Table 4. Total abundance of fish species surveyed through trap nets and gill nets in Como Lake. ........................................ 29 Table 5. Model subwatershed TP loads to Como Lake â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Baseline, current and reductions (HEI 2018)..................................... 39 Table 6. Como Lake TMDL Load Reduction Targets. ................. 40 Table 7. Como Lake watershed baseline TP load from year 2000, the TP load reduction target (60%), and allocated watershed load. Note: the baseline TP load and allocated load listed differ from the 2010 TMDL because a model recalibration was completed in 2018. ............................... 41 Table 8. Summary of notable historical lake management actions. ............................................................................... 42 Table 9. The total number of documented structural BMP project types that have been constructed in the Como watershed through year 2018 by CRWD and partners. ..... 42 Table 10. Major structural BMP projects constructed in the Como watershed since 2000 by CRWD and partners. ....... 43

Page | 3

Table 11. Issues Identified by Agency Advisory Group (AAG) and Public Advisory Group (PAG). ............................................ 45 Table 12. Watershed Total Phosphorus (TP) Load Reduction Plan to be implemented over the 20-year life of the management plan. ............................................................. 54 Table 13. Four categories of watershed TP load reduction methods. ............................................................................ 55 Table 14. Summary of Recommended Management Actions (L = Lake; W = Watershed; C = Community; Obj = Objective). . 64 Table 15. Short-term Implementation Plan (2019-2021). ......... 67

Page | 4

Acronyms and Abbreviations AAG BMP C CACN Chl-a CLMP CLP CLSMP CRWD DO EPA FIN FOC GIS L lbs/yr MNDNR MPCA NCHF P P8 PAG RCPR RCPW SPPR SPPW TCMA TMDL TP Âµg/L W WQS

Agency Advisory Group Best Management Practices Community Actions Como Active Citizen Network Chlorophyll-a Como Lake Management Plan Curly-leaf pondweed Como Lake Strategic Management Plan (2002) Capitol Region Watershed District Dissolved oxygen Environmental Protection Agency Fishing in the Neighborhood program Frequency of Occurrence Geographic information system Lake Actions Pounds per year Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency North Central Hardwood Forest Phosphorus P8 watershed model Public Advisory Group Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Ramsey County Public Works St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department St. Paul Public Works Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Total Maximum Daily Load Total phosphorus Micrograms per liter Watershed Actions Water Quality Standards

Page | 5

Executive Summary Como Lake, a 70.5 acre shallow urban lake located in St. Paul’s 348 acre Como Regional Park, is one of the most popular lakes in the region. Unfortunately, Como Lake has experienced poor water quality for decades due to excessive phosphorus and associated algal blooms. Algal growth has led to odor problems, reduced oxygen conditions in the lake, and winter fish kills. Phosphorus is the primary driver of water quality problems in Como Lake. Como Lake has consistently exceeded the State shallow lake water quality standard in this region for phosphorus (60 µg/L). The long-term mean total phosphorus (TP) concentration in Como Lake is 173 µg/L, which is three times the State standard. Previous studies and analyses have determined that a 60% reduction in watershed TP loads, and a 95% reduction in internal TP loads will be required to meet the State water quality standard. The characteristics of the watershed have significant influence on the amount of runoff and what pollutants are being delivered to the lake. Stormwater runoff carries excess pollutants like nutrients and sediment from the watershed to the lake, making the watershed a pollutant source. The Como Lake watershed (1,711 acres) includes portions of four cities (St. Paul, Roseville, and Falcon Heights) and has 13 major subwatersheds that generate runoff to an extensive network of storm sewer pipes that discharge directly to Como Lake through twenty-two storm sewer outlets. The watershed contributes a significant portion of TP to Como Lake in addition to other pollutants of concern including chloride, sediment, and trash. Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) is committed to improving water quality in Como Lake. In 2002, the Como Lake Strategic Management Plan was developed, which sought to reduce phosphorus in Como Lake through watershed management strategies. Through this plan, the implementation of several structural watershed best management practice (BMP) projects have reduced external phosphorus loading to the lake by approximately 20% since 2002. Despite these efforts, water quality in Como Lake remains poor. To better understand the major drivers of water quality in Como Lake, CRWD completed the Como Lake Water Quality Drivers Analysis Study in 2017 to identify the sources and mechanisms of internal phosphorus loading in the lake (LimnoTech 2017). Based on the extensive record of monitoring data, the study identified diffusive flux of sediment phosphorus and the invasive aquatic plant, curly-leaf pondweed, as the primary drivers of water quality in Como Lake. Understanding the sources and mechanisms of internal phosphorus loading in Como Lake was a critical step toward developing in-lake management strategies that would be most effective for improving water quality. CRWD recognized the need for an updated lake management plan that reflects current water quality issues and identifies strategies for additional watershed and in-lake management to improve water quality in Como Lake. In response, CRWD has developed a revised Como Lake Management Plan (CLMP) with the goal of utilizing a holistic, adaptive management approach for achieving Como Lake water quality goals. The CLMP identifies in-lake and watershed management strategies that are based on the latest science, technology, and community input to serve as a framework for meeting water quality goals. The life of the plan is defined as 20 years (2019-2039) to allow enough time for Como Lake to respond to in-lake and watershed management actions and achieve ecological balance. Como Lake has been degraded for several decades and it will take significant effort and time to improve water quality.

Page | 6

The CLMP takes an adaptive management approach for improving Como Lake and its watershed. Adaptive lake management planning is an iterative and flexible method for improving a resource over time by learning from management outcomes during the process. Management actions will be implemented and regularly monitored to evaluate progress at interim milestones (every three years) so that the direction of the plan can be modified, if needed, to achieve desired goals and objectives. Taking an adaptive management approach acknowledges that a lake is a dynamic living ecosystem that may not immediately or fully respond to management actions as predicted. An adaptive management approach accounts for the inherent uncertainty in the long-term response of Como Lake to management actions due to the complexity of issues contributing to Como Lake’s water quality. Therefore, it is unrealistic to plan long-term management actions with a high degree of specificity. In the CLMP, several actions are recommended for short-term implementation in the first three-years while several longterm actions are also provided for future consideration pending the Lake’s response to implementation activities in the near-term. Annual monitoring and assessment will continue in order to measure progress towards water quality improvement. As part of the adaptive management planning process, CRWD and partners will use this data to critically evaluate progress toward water quality goals at three-year intervals. This approach will not only allow CRWD to change direction, but also builds in flexibility to account for changing environmental conditions such as climate change and emerging technologies that may be suitable for Como Lake. Through this reassessment, CRWD will update the CLMP short-term implementation plan every three years. This update will describe the success of implemented actions and then define a new set of actions to be implemented, as needed, over the next three-year cycle in the CLMP. An important component of the CLMP development process was stakeholder engagement to establish goals and expectations for Como Lake. As part of the CLMP planning process, two stakeholder advisory groups were formed to ensure all interests and inputs were included in the development of the plan— the Agency Advisory Group (AAG) and the Public Advisory Group (PAG). Both groups met several times between 2018-2019 during the CLMP planning process to assist in identifying issues. Six major themes of issues were derived from the AAG and PAG. Those themes were then combined with the State water quality standards to define five overarching goals with measurable objectives for the CLMP. Management goals set a vision for Como Lake, and associated objectives provide a mechanism to measure progress towards meeting those goals. The five overarching management goals for Como Lake and its watershed include: •

Goal 1: Como Lake will be managed as an ecologically healthy, shallow lake.

•

Goal 2: Maintain healthy shoreline areas that can support a variety of wildlife and contribute to the ecological health of Como Lake.

•

Goal 3: Maintain a variety of year-round recreational opportunities that are appropriate for a shallow urban lake.

•

Goal 4: Achieve strong sustained community engagement and stewardship to improve and protect Como Lake.

•

Goal 5: Utilize the best science, partnerships, and resources to ensure successful implementation of the CLMP over the life of the plan (20 years).

Recommended management actions are actual projects, programs, events, or organized efforts that will work toward achieving each CLMP goal and measurable objective. The CLMP proposes a combination of lake (L), watershed (W), and community-based (C) management actions to be carried out over the life of

Page | 7

the plan to achieve each goal. Lake management actions will seek to control internal phosphorus loads and enhance ecological integrity. Watershed management actions will include structural and nonstructural BMPs that reduce phosphorus loads from stormwater runoff. Community-based management actions will work to help build stewardship of and pride in of Como Lake. The recommended CLMP management actions will be implemented over the life of the plan using the adaptive management framework. Recommended actions are categorized by Short-term, Ongoing, or Long-term. The Short-term Implementation Plan identifies the specific projects, programs, and actions to be carried out in the near-term. Ongoing actions are recommended to occur frequently or annually throughout the 20-year life of the plan. Actions listed as Long-term (3-20 years) are provided for future consideration pending the outcomes of Short-term actions toward meeting the CLMP goals. It will be challenging and costly to attain all of the goals and objectives of the CLMP. Due to the adaptive management approach being used for the CLMP, it is not possible to define a long-term (~20 year) project list with associated costs like would be done in a more typical management plan. However, the adaptive management approach will encourage cost-effective and timely decision-making. Regular updates to the implementation plan will incorporate stakeholder feedback and will include the improved details of Como Lakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response as well as costs and logistics. CRWD will seek funding to implement management actions in the CLMP through grants and outside cost-share funding. Where known cost-share opportunities are lacking, partnerships may be developed for cost and workload sharing. Costs and responsibility will be shared with partners whenever possible. CRWD is committed to improving water quality in Como Lake and looks forward to working with local partners to implement the CLMP.

Page | 8

1 Introduction 1.1 Overview and Purpose Como Lake, a 70.5 acre shallow urban lake located in St. Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 348 acre Como Regional Park, is one of the most popular lakes in the region (Figure 1). Unfortunately, Como Lake has experienced poor water quality for decades due to excessive phosphorus and associated algal blooms. Excessive algal growth has led to odor problems and reduced oxygen conditions in the lake, which has resulted in winter fish kills on numerous occasions. Water quality problems in Como Lake were first observed and documented in 1945 (Noonan 1998). Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) is committed to improving water quality in Como Lake. In 2002, CRWD adopted the Como Lake Strategic Management Plan (CLSMP) to define an implementation plan for improving Como Lake water quality largely through watershed management strategies (CRWD 2002). Water quality improvement strategies focused on reducing phosphorus inputs, which is the key nutrient of concern in Como Lake. Through this plan, the implementation of several structural watershed best management practice (BMP) projects have reduced external phosphorus loading to the lake by 20% since 2002. Despite these efforts, water quality in Como Lake remains poor. To better understand why water quality has not improved in Como Lake, CRWD completed the Como Lake Water Quality Drivers Analysis Study in 2017 to identify the sources and mechanisms of internal phosphorus loading in the lake (LimnoTech 2017). Based on the extensive record of monitoring data, the study identified diffusive flux of sediment phosphorus and the invasive aquatic plant curly-leaf pondweed as the primary drivers of water quality in Como Lake. Understanding the sources and mechanisms of internal phosphorus loading in Como Lake was a critical step toward developing management strategies that would be most effective for controlling internal loading and improving water quality. To continue improving Como Lake, CRWD recognized the need for an updated management plan to expand upon efforts completed under the 2002 CLSMP and to reflect current water quality issues and drivers identified in the Como Lake Water Quality Drivers Analysis Study. In response, CRWD has developed a revised Como Lake Management Plan (CLMP) with the goal of utilizing a holistic, adaptive management approach for achieving Como Lake water quality goals. Presented here, the CLMP identifies in-lake and watershed management strategies that are based on the latest science, technology, and community input to serve as a framework for meeting water quality goals. The life of the plan is defined as 20 years (2019-2039) to allow enough time for Como Lake to respond to in-lake and watershed management actions and achieve ecological balance. In addition, the CLMP is structured as an adaptive management plan (detailed in Section 1.2), so it will be adjusted every three years to account for the Lakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response to management. In subsequent sections, the CLMP provides detail on management roles, partnerships, and the CLMP development process. The CLMP also includes a characterization of Como Lake and the watershed, water quality standards and reduction goals, historical management activities, management goals and associated actions, implementation activities and schedule, and financing opportunities.

Page | 9

Figure 1. Como Regional Park, Como Lake, and the Como Lake watershed in St. Paul, MN. Page | 10

1.2 Como Lake Management Plan Framework Como Lake is a highly valued community resource that is managed by CRWD and local and state governmental partners. The water quality problems in Como Lake have persisted for decades, and as a result, it will take significant effort over the course of many years to achieve improvement goals. The primary purpose of the revised plan is to develop a holistic and adaptive lake management strategy that will be used as a framework for CRWD, local partners, and community stakeholders to improve Como Lake over time. CRWD’s approach to adaptive management of Como Lake is described below.

1.2.1 Adaptive Management Approach The CLMP is an adaptive management approach for improving Como Lake and its watershed. Adaptive lake management planning is an iterative and flexible method for improving a resource over time by learning from management outcomes during the process. Management actions will be implemented and regularly monitored to evaluate progress at interim milestones (every three years) so that the direction of the plan can be modified, if needed, to achieve desired goals and objectives. The adaptive lake management plan will be carried out over a twenty-year period (2019-2039) to allow enough time for the Lake to respond to in-lake and watershed management actions and achieve ecological balance. Taking an adaptive management approach acknowledges that a lake is a dynamic living ecosystem that may not respond immediately or fully to management actions as predicted. An adaptive management approach accounts for the uncertainty with implementing management actions and builds in a framework for addressing it. Based on the latest science and other case studies, we can estimate how Como Lake will respond to management actions in the near-term. However, there is inherent uncertainty in the long-term response of Como Lake to management actions due to the complexity of issues contributing to Como Lake’s water quality. Therefore, it is unrealistic to plan long-term management actions with a high degree of specificity. In the CLMP, several actions are recommended for short-term implementation in the first three years while several long-term actions are also provided to be considered in the future pending the Lake’s response to implementation activities in the nearterm. CRWD will update the CLMP short-term implementation plan every three years to define a new set of actions to be implemented over the next three-year cycle within the life of the plan.

Steps for Adaptive Management Figure 2 illustrates the six key steps of the adaptive management plan framework, which is a cyclical and iterative process to be implemented over the defined life of the plan. The steps of the framework include (in order) a condition analysis, goal setting, the evaluation of actions, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, reassessing, and then adaptively managing by starting the cycle over again at an interim milestone (every three years). For the CLMP, the first step in the planning process was to complete the ‘Condition Analysis’ of Como Lake to identify the drivers of water quality (Figure 2). In 2017, the Como Lake Water Quality Drivers Analysis Study (LimnoTech 2017) evaluated Como Lake’s long-term chemical, biological and physical data to determine the primary drivers of water quality under current conditions. In 2018, an existing P8 watershed model was recalibrated to include the most recent subwatershed delineations, changes in land use conditions, and the numerous structural BMPS that have been constructed since the year 2000 (HEI 2018). P8 is a model used to simulate pollutant loading from urban watersheds that also estimates pollutant removal from stormwater treatment structures (e.g. stormwater ponds). These studies analyzed and documented the latest scientific understanding of water quality issues in Como Lake and its watershed (Section 2).

Page | 11

Condition Analysis

Reassess & Adaptively Manage

Set Goals

Monitor & Evaluate

Evaluate Actions

Implement

Figure 2. Adaptive Lake Management Planning Cycle. The second step in the adaptive management planning process was to set goals for Como Lake (Figure 2). In addition to having a technical understanding of the Lake’s issues and drivers of water quality, a successful lake management plan requires an understanding of the regulatory requirements and the goals and vision of the community. To learn about the community’s concerns, CRWD held discussions for stakeholders to identify additional issues facing Como Lake from their perspective. This input was taken into consideration along with the regulatory requirements to develop management goals and objectives for the CLMP (Section 3), which serve as the basis for developing management actions to improve Como Lake. Management actions are actual projects, programs, events, or organized efforts that will work toward achieving the goals and objectives of the CLMP. The third step in the adaptive management planning process (Figure 2) sought to evaluate and define what these actions are and how they would work toward achieving the goals and objectives when implemented (Section 4). The CLMP lays out three major categories of management actions, which include the following: •

Lake Actions: Actions that will be implemented in Como Lake to target lake-specific processes and pollutants.

•

Watershed Actions: Actions that will be implemented in the Como Lake watershed to reduce pollutant loading to the lake.

•

Community Actions: Actions that will require community support, provide education and outreach, and promote additional recreational opportunities to enjoy the lake and surrounding area.

Page | 12

Once actions have been evaluated and defined, the next step in the adaptive management planning process is implementation of those actions (Section 5). The first three years following adoption of the CLMP will require intensive implementation of management actions across all three categories to realize improvements in water quality. Phosphorus is the primary nutrient of concern in Como Lake, so early implementation of management actions that reduce external and internal phosphorus loading will be critical in order to improve water quality in Como Lake. Given that goal attainment will be a long, intensive process, actions have been further characterized in terms of schedule for implementation: •

Short-term: Actions that are recommended to be implemented within the first three years of CLMP adoption.

•

Ongoing: Actions that are recommended to occur frequently or annually over the life of the plan.

•

Long-term: Actions that are recommended for consideration pending evolution of shortterm actions to meet goals.

The short-term, ongoing, and long-term management actions recommended in this plan provide a framework for what is needed to improve water quality in Como Lake. The details of how each action will be implemented will be further detailed in specific work plans that contain more prescriptive detail. Consequently, the CLMP describes what needs to occur, while additional work plans will be needed to describe how actions will be implemented. Following the implementation of management actions, the next step in the adaptive management process is to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the actions (Figure 2). In the CLMP, monitoring efforts are included as actions in Section 4. Monitoring data will measure and confirm progress toward achieving the CLMP goals and will also provide basis for adjusting individual actions or the implementation plan as needed to support continued improvement of Como Lake. The last step in the adaptive management process is to ‘Reassess & Adaptively Manage’ (Figure 2). The CLMP short-term implementation plan and monitoring data will be reviewed every three years by CRWD and partners to critically assess and document the Lake’s response to implemented actions (Section 5). This step in the adaptive management planning process provides an opportunity to evaluate the Lake’s response to initial actions, incorporate new lake and watershed management technologies and/or modify direction, if needed. This step allows for flexibility in planning and acknowledges that Como Lake is a complex living system that may not respond to actions as intended. It also accounts for changing environmental conditions, such as climate change, and makes room for future innovations that may be suitable for Como Lake. During the reassessment step, the CLMP short-term implementation plan will be updated for the next three years to define a new set of actions with will work toward achieving the CLMP goals and objectives. The cycle of the adaptive management planning process will be carried out over the twenty-year life of the plan (2019-2039) to ensure goals and objectives are met.

1.3 Managing Como Lake—A Shared Responsibility Como Lake has long been a beloved water resource in the region and has garnered prolonged and sustained stewardship. This stewardship is strongly supported by multiple segments of the Como Lake community. This takes many forms from individuals picking up trash around the Lake to a community group concerned with the condition of Como Lake petitioning the State of Minnesota to create the

Page | 13

Capitol Region Watershed District in 1998. Historically, there have been many groups/organizations within the community that have worked to improve Como Lake. A subset of those are described below.

1.3.1 Community Groups Community-based groups have played a very critical role in developing and implementing initiatives to improve Como Lake. Community groups have been especially effective in uniting residents in the Como Lake watershed to promote stewardship and communicate the shared responsibility of residents in Como Lake’s health. Prominent Como community groups include: District 10 Community Council—The District 10 Community Council (District 10) is a City of St. Paul Planning District that covers a large portion of the Como Lake watershed. This council and specifically its Environment Committee has been integral in the management and improvement of Como Lake for the last 25 years. In the late 1990s, District 10 having been concerned about Como Lake’s water quality and the lack of progress in improvement, petitioned the State of Minnesota to create the Capitol Region Watershed District to lead lake improvement efforts. District 10 has been instrumental in a number of key initiatives to improve Como Lake over the years, including rain barrel workshops, rain garden installations, shoreline restoration and many others. Como Active Citizens Network—The Como Active Citizens Network (CACN) is group of concerned Como neighbors who meet and discuss issues related to the health of Como Lake. They further turn these discussions into action by organizing community actions, such as leaf cleanups, to reduce phosphorus in the Como Lake watershed. More recently CACN has turned their attention to chloride (salt) and its potential to impact Como Lake. Other Groups—Other less formally-organized community groups beyond those listed above have participated in various aspects of work relative to Como Lake over the past several years, such as volunteer groups, school groups, church groups, and citizen volunteers. Activities have included leaf and trash clean-up events, raingarden maintenance, and wildlife observance.

1.3.2 Agency Groups A number of agencies have helped with monitoring, planning, programming, funding, and construction of various elements related to Como Lake for the past several decades. Major efforts have previously been undertaken by the following agencies: Ramsey County—Since 1984, Ramsey County has collected and analyzed water quality data for Como Lake. This extended record is integral to understanding the long-term trends and dynamics within Como Lake. It forms the basis for being able to understand what management strategies will work best in the lake. Additionally, Ramsey County has been a key partner in construction, operation and maintenance of watershed BMPs. City of St. Paul Parks & Recreation—The City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation (SPPR) Department manages the land within Como Regional Park and is a major partner to CRWD for the collaboration and support of stormwater and lake improvement projects. This includes the critical riparian area around the lake as well as several hundred acres of parkland that drain to Como Lake. In addition to land management, SPPR department provides extensive amounts of recreational programming on, around and near Como Lake. City of St. Paul Public Works—The City of St. Paul Public Works (SPPW)—Sewers manages much of the storm sewer infrastructure that delivers water from the Como watershed to Como Lake. SPPW—

Page | 14

Sewers has also been a key partner in implementing multiple stormwater BMPs in the Como Lake watershed. Other Agencies—Other agencies that have provided assistance in monitoring, planning, programming, funding, and construction include: City of Falcon Heights, City of Roseville, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, and Metropolitan Council.

1.3.3 Como Lake Management Plan Stakeholder Advisory Groups An important component of the CLMP is engagement with the public and local partners to establish goals and expectations for Como Lake and evaluate lake management strategies that will achieve those goals. As part of the CLMP planning process, two stakeholder advisory groups were formed to ensure interests and inputs were included in the development of the plan—the Agency Advisory Group (AAG) and the Public Advisory Group (PAG).

Agency Advisory Group (AAG) While CRWD is the lead agency of the CLMP, several local partners and state agencies participated in the AAG and provided valuable input during the planning process. AAG participants will continue to play vital roles during implementation of the CLMP. The AAG included participants from the following agencies: • • • • • • • • • •

City of St. Paul City of Roseville City of Falcon Heights Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Ramsey County Public Works Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation District Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Metropolitan Council

The first AAG meeting occurred on July 12, 2018, which outlined the CLMP purpose, process and schedule. The group also identified the major issues, goals, constraints and expectations for Como Lake from the agency perspective. The second AAG meeting occurred on November 8, 2018, which discussed the major issues identified in the first meeting as well as those described by stakeholders in the first PAG meeting. The AAG also reviewed a draft set of goals and objectives that would work towards the identified issues and provided feedback on the feasibility of a suite of potential in-lake and watershed management actions that would address the major issues in Como Lake. The third and final AAG meeting occurred on March 27, 2019 and focused on reviewing the Draft Como Lake Management Plan. AAG members asked questions and provided comment on the draft plan both at the meeting and through an online form during a 4-week comment period.

Public Advisory Group (PAG) Local community members and Como Lake users were invited to join the PAG and participate in an extensive stakeholder engagement process to help guide and inform the CLMP. Community members

Page | 15

were invited to participate in the PAG meetings through direct email, social media invitations, press releases, distribution of postcards, and recruitment events where CRWD staff spoke directly to users around Como Lake on July 20th and 26th, 2018. Invitation materials included web links to CRWD’s website and the Como Lake Management Plan website that included additional materials and information related to Como Lake and the planning process. The first PAG meeting was held on the evening of August 9, 2018 at the Como Lakeside Pavilion. The purpose of the first PAG meeting was to provide an update on the status of Como Lake and the planning process for the CLMP and give participants the opportunity to share with CRWD their concerns, hopes, and expectations for Como Lake. Participants were asked three questions and provided anonymous responses to the following questions: 1. What draws you to or excites you most about Como Lake? 2. What do you think are the major issues or concerns for Como Lake today? 3. Looking forward, what hopes do you have for a healthy Como Lake? Following the first PAG meeting, an online survey was created with the same three questions providing an opportunity for those not in attendance to give feedback. The online survey was advertised through email distribution, social media networks, CRWD’s website and the Como Lake Management Plan website. The online survey was available through September 7, 2018. Over 800 responses were received from 200+ respondents between the PAG meeting, the online survey, and the recruitment events. All of the input from the July recruitment events, August PAG meeting, and online survey was compiled into the Stakeholder Input Summary (Appendix A) to identify major themes and inform the development of management goals and objectives for the CLMP (Section 3). The second PAG meeting was held on the evening of December 6, 2018 at the Como Lakeside Pavilion where the following information was provided to all interested stakeholders: •

Summary of issues concerning Como Lake that were expressed at the first PAG meeting and how those issues shaped goals and objectives for lake management.

•

Summary of watershed modeling results with estimated phosphorus load reductions from existing and future BMPs.

•

Lake management actions under consideration (Appendix B) that would address excess phosphorus in the sediments, curly-leaf pondweed, and fisheries management.

Participants formed small groups for discussion and were asked to anonymously respond to three questions related to the presented potential lake management actions: 1. What do you like? 2. What do you dislike? 3. What is missing? By using open-ended questions, a wide range of comments could be received that focused less on generating “yes” or “no” responses to the proposed management strategies, and more on identifying the criteria by which the participants were evaluating them. Having the supporting information for why participants felt the way they did provides valuable feedback on participants’ desires and concerns so they could be best addressed during the development of the CLMP. Following the PAG meeting, the

Page | 16

public was given the opportunity to provide further feedback on the draft goals and measurable objectives through an online form. The third and final PAG meeting was held on March 28, 2019 at the CRWD office. The focus of this meeting was to review the Draft Como Lake Management Plan with the PAG and to answer questions and receive comments. The PAG was also invited to provide comment on the draft plan through an online form during a 4-week comment period. The draft plan and the online form were made available via email and the Como Lake Management Plan website.

Page | 17

2 Lake & Watershed Characterization 2.1 Shallow Lake Ecology Como Lake is a shallow urban lake with a maximum depth of 15.5 feet and over 97% littoral area. In Minnesota, shallow lakes are characterized as having aquatic plants and water depths generally less than 15 feet (MDNR 2017a). Clear, shallow lakes with low nutrient concentrations are typically dominated by submersed aquatic plants. Shallow lakes with excessive nutrient loading often transition to a turbid state dominated by algae that no longer supports a healthy aquatic plant community (Wetzel 2001; Scheffer 2004; MSU 2010). Shallow lakes may oscillate between the clear and turbid states over time depending on environmental factors, but typically seek a state of equilibrium in one of the two states. Currently, Como Lake exists as a stable turbid lake. Eutrophication describes the condition of a waterbody that has been overly enriched with nutrients (i.e. phosphorus and/or nitrogen) leading to the excessive growth of algae. Lakes will accumulate phosphorus in lake bottom sediments or in aquatic vegetation, which can be released into the water column under certain conditions. Phosphorus that is recycling within a lake ecosystem through biological, chemical and physical processes is referred to as internal loading. There are four primary sources of internal phosphorus loading in shallow lakes: 1. Diffusive sediment flux of dissolved phosphorus: Through complex reduction-oxidation chemical reactions, and typically under low oxygen conditions, dissolved phosphorus can release from the sediments into the water column. 2. Aquatic plant senescence: Upon senescence of aquatic plants, or plant die-off and decay, phosphorus bound in cellular structures is released into the water column. 3. Wind-driven sediment resuspension: Strong wind forces can cause sediment disturbance which can physically release dissolved phosphorus from sediment. 4. Bioturbation: Sediment disturbance by fish behavior (e.g. foraging, nest-building) can physically release dissolved phosphorus from sediments. These four internal loading sources result in dissolved phosphorus becoming available for algae to consume and grow. The Como Lake Water Quality Drivers Analysis Study determined that diffusive sediment flux of phosphorus and aquatic plant senescence, particularly curly-leaf pondweed (CLP), are the primary sources of internal phosphorus loads in Como Lake, so management efforts should focus on reducing these sources (LimnoTech 2017). Diffusive flux of phosphorus from the sediments differentially impacts water quality in shallow lakes compared to deep lakes because of differences in water mixing regimes between the two types of lakes. Deep lakes develop a vertical temperature gradient (i.e. stratification) where well-mixed surface waters (epiliminion) are warmer than the colder, denser bottom waters (hypolimnion). The zone of transition between the epilimnion and the hypolimnion is referred to as the thermocline. This thermal stratification is usually stable in deep lakes until forces such as wind cause the stratified layers to mix completely. This mixing event is referred to as â&#x20AC;&#x153;turnoverâ&#x20AC;? and typically occurs in spring and fall. Shallow lakes, in contrast, can also develop a thermocline, but it tends to be weak and easily disrupted by wind causing the entire lake to mix several times a year. Because of the frequent mixing in shallow lakes like Como Lake, phosphorus that diffuses from the sediments becomes available to surface algae during optimal growth conditions (i.e. extended sunlight and high temperatures) leading to summer algal Page | 18

blooms. In contrast, diffusive flux of sediment phosphorus in deep lakes will be sequestered to the bottom waters, and mostly unavailable to surface algae until the lake mixes in spring or fall. Consequently, diffusive flux of phosphorus from sediments in shallow lakes can be a significant driver of water quality. Due to the timing of its decay, CLP can be a significant source of phosphorus to lakes. CLP is an invasive aquatic plant that tends to die-off and decay in late June in the Upper Midwest, which results in a large release of phosphorus that becomes available for algal uptake. This early season pulse of phosphorus occurs when light and temperature conditions are optimal for algae growth, which can lead to algal blooms. In contrast, most native aquatic plants die-off in late summer when daylight is shorter and daily maximum temperature is lower. Not only is CLP a source of phosphorus, it also causes significant ecological damage to shallow lakes in the Upper Midwest (Section 2.2.4). Reversal of the turbid, algal-dominated state to a clearer, native aquatic plant-dominated shallow lake is challenging and costly. Once phosphorus is reduced to the extent that algal blooms are no longer persistent and CLP is reduced significantly, the water in Como Lake will be clear enough for light penetration that can support an abundant, diverse, native aquatic plant community. Aquatic plants are critical for a shallow lake and serve many important ecological functions including habitat for fish and zooplankton, sediment stabilization, and nutrient uptake. Given that the majority of Como Lake is less than 5 feet deep, it is highly likely that native vegetation will colonize much of the shallow areas once the water is clearer and the CLP is not the dominant aquatic plant species. Consequently, management of the aquatic plant community in Como Lake will require ongoing maintenance in order to enhance ecological function while also balancing community needs for the Lake.

2.2 Como Lake Characterization Como Lake is a 70.5 acre shallow lake located in St. Paul’s 348 acre Como Regional Park and is one of the most popular lakes in CRWD. Como Regional Park is one of the most frequently visited parks in the Twin Cities Regional Parks System with approximately 5.4 million visitors in 2017 (Metropolitan Council 2018). The lake is frequented by residents and visitors who come for various forms of outdoor recreation, including running/walking, fishing, and boating. Non-motorized, car top carried boats and electric trolling motors are allowed on the lake for fishing and recreation purposes. The lake does not offer swimming opportunities and does not have a public boat launch.

2.2.1 Historical and Current Morphometry Como Lake was formed in an ice-block depression and rests on glacial till with a mix of soils. Throughout recorded history, Como Lake has been altered from its original shape and depth. Recent sediment borings indicate that Como Lake may have been shallower and could have been a wetland (CRWD 2002). In 1847, survey records indicate that the Lake was approximately 120 acres, compared to its 70.5 acres today. In 1895, the City of St. Paul dredged Como Lake to increase its depth from five to fifteen feet to reduce “swampiness” (CRWD 2002). The assumption is that “swampiness” at that time indicates conditions representative of wetlands. Como Lake continually diminished in size in the early 1900s, and notably, was drained by officials in 1923 to preserve the Lake by sealing the bottom. Following the draining, pumps and a dam were installed to increase water levels (CRWD 2002). In addition, the surrounding storm sewer drainage system have developed considerably, transforming Como Lake’s contributing watershed to be significantly larger than the pre-settlement condition. Currently, Como Lake has a large watershed to lake area ratio of 24:2, which indicates that the watershed strongly influences the lake through runoff from the surrounding area. Como Lake is

Page | 19

characterized as a shallow lake and has a maximum depth of 15.5 feet and mean depth of 6.5 feet and (Table 1; Figure 3). The littoral area, where the depth of the lake is shallow enough to allow sunlight to penetrate to the lake bottom, occupies over 97% of the lake area. The Como Lake hydraulic residence time, or the total length of time water entering the lake remains in the lake, is approximately 8 months. Table 1. Existing morphometric characteristics of Como Lake. Surface Area (acres)

Maximum Depth (ft)

Littoral Zone (%)

Volume (acre-ft)

Watershed Area (acres)

Watershed Area : Lake Area Ratio

70.5

15.5

97%

469

1,711

24:2

Page | 20

Figure 3. Bathymetry map of Como Lake showing depth contours and water quality (WQ) sampling stations (historical station labels shown in parentheses). Page | 21

2.2.2 Water Quality in Como Lake Como Lake has experienced water quality problems associated with frequent algal blooms and occasional fish kills for decades. Poor water quality was first recorded in 1945. Excessive nutrient loading, particularly phosphorus, is the primary cause of Como Lake’s water quality problems. Consequently, Como Lake was listed on the State’s 303(d) list of impaired waters for nutrients in 2002 and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was developed in 2010 (EOR 2010). Additional detail on the Como Lake nutrient TMDL is provided in Section 2.4. Excessive nutrients like phosphorus leads to nuisance algal blooms, so reducing and controlling phosphorus in Como Lake is a top management priority. Since phosphorus is the primary nutrient of concern and the major driver of water quality in Como Lake, the CLMP gives considerable discussion elsewhere in this report on the sources, impacts, and management of phosphorus. However, phosphorus is not the only pollutant of concern in Como Lake. Other pollutants of concern include chloride, sediment, trash, and mercury. Chloride has emerged as a pollutant of concern to Como Lake as a result of winter deicing practices. Chloride, or road salt, is applied to streets in the Como Lake watershed during the winter months and flushes into the lake through snowmelt runoff and spring rainfall. Year-round monitoring has shown an increase in chloride concentrations in Como Lake overtime because, once in dissolved form, chloride cannot be removed from water and accumulates over time. As chloride accumulates in the lake, it can become toxic to freshwater aquatic life (plants, fish, macroinvertebrates). In addition, chloride can influence the thermal dynamics of a lake and can interfere with lake mixing (MPCA 2016b). In 2014, Como Lake was listed as impaired for chloride by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) because seasonal average chloride concentrations in the lake were not meeting the state standard of 230 µg/L (MN Statute 7050.0222). However, the impairment listing of Como Lake for chloride is not unique to the Twin Cities metro area. Road salt application has had a significant regional effect with several other metro lakes also listed as impaired. In 2016, the MPCA finalized the Twin Cities Metro Area (TCMA) Chloride TMDL to address 39 waterbodies in the 7-county metropolitan area that exceed chloride levels considered safe for freshwater ecosystems (MPCA 2016). That same year, the MPCA released the TCMA Chloride Management Plan to provide a framework for implementation of the TMDL (MPCA 2016). Management actions for chloride reduction in the CLMP are based on the MPCA (2016) framework. Sediment (silt, sand, clay) entering Como Lake from the watershed is also problematic because it accumulates in the lake, subsequently reducing lake volume, creating sediment deltas, and burying aquatic habitat on the lake bottom. Excess sediment can also damage fish gills and inhibit food foraging on the lake bottom for many fish species. In addition, other pollutants such as phosphorus and heavy metals can be transported to the Lake while chemically bound to sediment particles. Como Lake does not currently exceed criteria for turbidity from sediment, but given the correlation to other pollutants of concern and impacts on water quality, the CLMP contains actions that address excess sediment loading. Lastly, Como Lake was added to the MPCA’s list of impaired waterbodies for mercury in 1998. Atmospheric deposition of mercury from power plant emissions is uniform across the state of Minnesota and has led to mercury impairment of water and fish in many waterbodies across the state (MPCA 2007). Consequently, the state of Minnesota developed the Minnesota Statewide Mercury TMDL in 2007, which was approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mercury emission reduction goals are being addressed at state and regional scales and are being addressed through the Implementation Plan for Minnesota’s Statewide Mercury TMDL (MPCA 2009); therefore, it is not considered in this management plan.

Page | 22

Water Quality Monitoring Starting in 1984, water quality samples are collected in Como Lake every two weeks throughout the growing season (May through October) by Ramsey County Public Works (RCPW). These water quality samples are collected from the surface and bottom waters at the deepest spot in the Lake. Samples are analyzed by RCPW for the following parameters: total phosphorus (TP), soluble reactive phosphorus, chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), nitrate, ammonium, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, turbidity, and chloride. Secchi depth is also measured during each sampling event along with depth profiles of dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, pH, and conductivity. Phytoplankton and zooplankton samples are also taken from the lake surface waters. In addition, chloride is measured bi-weekly during the winter ice-covered period at the deepest point in the lake. In 2017, CRWD began measuring continuous DO with sensors at three monitoring locations in the Lake (Figure 3) to measure anoxia near the sediment surface. The sensors were generally deployed from May through October in 2017 and 2018 in order to measure temporal and spatial patterns in anoxia. Quantification of the spatial extent and temporal extent of anoxia in the Lake facilitates estimation of the diffusive flux of phosphorus from the sediments.

Water Quality Standards Como Lake is regulated by the shallow lake eutrophication standards for the North Central Hardwood Forest (NCHF) Ecoregion (MN Statute 7050.0222). Eutrophication is the condition where a waterbody has been overly enriched with nutrients leading to excessive algal blooms. In most Minnesota lakes, algae are phosphorus limited. Chl-a is a measurement of algal biomass. The biological response to more phosphorus is higher algal production, and therefore, higher concentration of Chl-a. Secchi depth is a measure of water clarity and can be used as a proxy for estimating the amount of algae in a lake. Consequently, the MPCA developed numeric eutrophication standards for both shallow and deep lakes in Minnesota that integrates all three parameters. For shallow lakes, the State standards specify that the growing season (June-September) average TP concentration must be less than 60 µg/L, Chl-a must be less than 20 µg/L, and Secchi Depth (measure of water clarity) must be greater than 1 meter (Table 2). Table 2. MPCA shallow lake eutrophication standards for the NCHF ecoregion. Eutrophication Standards for Como Lake TP (µg/L)

Chl-a (µg/L)

Secchi depth (m)

≤ 60

≤ 20

> 1.0

For impairment determination of a lake, Minnesota assesses TP, Chl-a, and Secchi data collected during the summer season with summer-average calculations limited to the upper 3 meters of the water column. A lake is considered impaired under MPCA standards if it exceeds the standard for TP concentration and either the Secchi disk depth or Chl-a concentration. Como Lake has annually exceeded shallow lake eutrophication standards for TP and Chl-a, but has met the standards for Secchi depth on occasion (Figure 4). Reduction in TP is critical for reducing Chl-a for regulatory purposes and for improving water quality Como Lake.

Page | 23

Water Quality Trends Table 3 shows the long-term average (1984-2018) TP, Chl-a and Secchi depth for Como Lake’s growing season (May – September). It should be noted that the MPCA defines the growing season for impairment determination as June 1 through September 30 (MN Statute 7050.0150). CRWD defines the summer growing season as May through September, which is representative of the start of the growing season relative to typical ice out and the period of data collection in Como Lake. Impairment determination, however, follows the MPCA definition for the growing season. The long-term mean TP is nearly three times greater than the water quality standard, while the mean Chl-a standard is 1.7 times the water quality standard. Table 3 also lists the growing season averages for the past 10 years (20082018), which are consistent with the long-term average, confirming that poor water quality in Como Lake has persisted for decades with little sign in improvement. Table 3. Growing season averages for total phosphorus (TP), chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), and Secchi depth in Como Lake for the period of record (1984-2018) and the last ten years (2008-2018). Parameters

TP (µg/L)

Chl-a (µg/L)

Secchi depth (m)

Period of Record (1984-2018) Growing Season Average (May - Sept)

174

34.2

1.4

10-year (2008-2018) Growing Season Average (May - Sept)

168

32.8

1.0

Figure 4 shows the mean annual TP, Chl-a, and Secchi depth for the same period of record (1984-2018). Mean TP and the biological response variables (Chl-a and Secchi depth) show considerable inter-annual variability in the period of record (1984-2018). As Noonan (1998) noted, these parameters exhibit a cyclical pattern over time in response to variability in annual nutrient loading and management actions. Chl-a and Secchi depth are highly correlated to TP, so annual patterns are expected to be similar among these parameters. Long-term trends in epilimnetic (surface waters) and hypolimnetic (bottom waters) TP are shown in Figure 5. Mean epilimnetic TP far exceeds the shallow lake TP standard, which applies to the epilimnion. Hypolimnetic TP is considerably higher than epilimnetic TP in all years and is likely the result of significant internal phosphorus loading from the bottom sediments (LimnoTech 2017). There is considerable inter-annual variability in epilimnnetic and hypolimnetic TP. These trends are a function of higher precipitation in some years leading to more phosphorus loading from the watershed as well as higher diffusive flux of sediment phosphorus in some years. Diffusive flux of sediment phosphorus is controlled primarily by the spatial and temporal extent of anoxia which also varies among years. In some years, a peak in the hypolimnetic TP appears to also cause a peak in epilimnetic TP (e.g. 2001 and 2012). However, this direct influence is challenging to disentangle from additional external phosphorus loading that occurs within the same year as well. A more detailed discussion on phosphorus trends and drivers can be found in LimnoTech (2017).

Page | 24

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

450

1 350

Secchi Disk Depth (m)

300

250 3 200

150

100 5

Total Phosphorus and Chlorophyll-a Concentrations (µg/L)

400

0 Secchi

Chl-a

Secchi standard (1 m)

TP standard (60 µg/L)

Chl-a standard (20 µg/L)

Figure 4. Summer mean total phosphorus (TP), chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), and Secchi depth in Como Lake (1984-2018).

Figure 5. Epilimnetic and hypolimnetic total phosphorus (TP) for the years 1984-2018.

Page | 25

Drivers of Water Quality Based on an extensive analysis of the long-term chemical, biological and physical data, the Como Lake Water Quality Drivers Analysis Study was completed in 2017 (LimnoTech 2017). The results of that study confirmed that external and internal phosphorus loading are the primary drivers of water quality in Como Lake. Diffusive flux of sediment phosphorus and release of phosphorus from senescence of curlyleaf pondweed (CLP) are the major internal loading mechanisms in Como Lake. An imbalanced fishery (i.e. forage fish/planktivorous dominated fishery) is also a contributing factor to poor water quality in Como Lake. Achieving water quality goals (see Section 3) in Como Lake will require a substantial reduction in external phosphorus loading through watershed BMPs. Reduction in internal loading will require either removal or inactivation of phosphorus in the sediments and considerable reduction in CLP density.

2.2.3 Lake Bottom Sediments Diffusive flux of phosphorus from the lake sediments is a significant source of phosphorus and a primary driver of water quality problems in Como Lake. Under anoxic conditions, phosphorus can be released into the overlying water, which then becomes available for algal growth. Unless diffusive flux of phosphorus from the Lake sediments is significantly reduced, water quality improvements will not be possible in Como Lake (LimnoTech 2017). The Como Lake Water Quality Drivers Analysis Study (LimnoTech 2017) found hypoxic to anoxic conditions in Como Lake that can persist throughout the summer growing season. Data analysis indicated that DO is rapidly depleted at the deepest monitoring station following a mixing event, which suggests high rates of sediment or hypolimnetic oxygen demand. High oxygen demand is usually indicative of large amounts of organic matter, which would be expected in a highly productive lake such as Como Lake. In addition, these summer anoxic patterns were prevalent in historical data (1991-1993) at the shallow monitoring stations. To better understand DO patterns at the deepest and shallow stations, CRWD installed continuous DO sensors and loggers to monitor DO conditions throughout the summer growing season. These data confirmed that Como Lake exhibits hypoxic and anoxic conditions throughout the summer at multiple depths for extended durations. The consequence of this is that anoxic conditions drive phosphorus release from the sediments. Based on data available at the time, LimnoTech (2017) estimated internal phosphorus loads to be in the range of 293-819 lbs P/year with the high range of variability due to the uncertainty in the temporal and spatial extent of anoxia in Como Lake. The continuous DO data collected by CRWD in 2017 and 2018 helped to constrain these estimates resulting in approximately 369-371 lbs P/year from diffusive sediment flux. An updated water quality model for Como Lake will be needed to confirm annual internal loading and the 2010 TMDL reduction goals (Section 2.4). This model should include the revised subwatershed model results, recent monitoring data, and rates of sediment phosphorus flux measured from intact sediment cores.

2.2.4 Aquatic Vegetation Aquatic plant surveys have been conducted periodically in Como Lake since 2005. Since 2013, multiple surveys per summer were conducted where in prior years, only a single annual survey was conducted. In recent years, CLP was the dominant, abundant plant observed especially in late Spring/early Summer. An example is shown in Figure 6, which shows the biovolume of aquatic vegetation (i.e. % occurrence) on May 31, 2018. The red areas indicate 100% coverage by aquatic vegetation, which was dominated by CLP.

Page | 26

CLP (Potamogeton crispus) is an invasive aquatic plant that is incredibly problematic for lake managers and nearly impossible to eradicate once it has become established. It is capable of growing under ice and often outcompetes native vegetation to quickly become the dominant aquatic plant species. In this region, it tends to die off and decay in mid- to late-June, which releases phosphorus back into the water column during optimal algal growth conditions (i.e. high midsummer temperature and sunlight). As a result, it can fuel summer algae blooms in Como Lake. CLP was first observed in Como Lake in the early 1990s and now dominates the aquatic plant community. Of the native aquatic plant community in Como Lake, the following species are present: Canadian waterweed (Eleodea canadensis; a.k.a. American waterweed or pondweed), sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus)(leafy pondweed (Potamogeton foliusus), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) Flatstem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis), and filamentous algae (Spirogyra/Cladophora species). Muskgrass (Chara species), greater duckweed (Spirodela polyriza), lesser duckweed (Lemna minor) and wild celery (Valisneria Americana) have also been observed but typically in low density. In general, the density of the native pondweeds, duckweeds, coontail and filamentous algae tends to increase following CLP die-off in mid- to late-June. Aquatic plants serve important functions in shallow lakes which includes habitat for fish and zooplankton, nutrient uptake, and stabilization of sediments. Another feature of shallow lakes is that sunlight can penetrate through the water column thereby supporting growth of aquatic vegetation. In algal-dominated shallow lakes, the lack of water clarity typically limits growth of aquatic plants. Following implementation of actions that reduce phosphorus, associated growth of algae, and the density of CLP, Como Lake should exhibit clearer water than it does currently. Under these new conditions, the native aquatic vegetation community can be expected to proliferate. While establishment of a native macrophyte community is a goal for Como Lake (see Section 3), some native species can also grow to nuisance conditions (e.g. coontail, Chara species, waterweed) and will need to be managed accordingly to prevent overabundance. As a result, ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the aquatic plant community in Como Lake will be necessary. Aquatic plants, including CLP, have historically been mechanically harvested in Como Lake for recreational purposes to maintain paddling lanes or clear areas near the fishing piers. CLP is a rooted submerged aquatic plant that propagates via rhizomes and buds called turions, which can spread quickly. The rooted portions are not collected during mechanical harvesting so the plant will return each year and the data reflect that pattern. Additional management actions such as herbicide treatments will be required to reduce CLP density in Como Lake. Once density is reduced, management of the native aquatic plant community using mechanical harvesting may be required. These conditions will be evaluated and maintained accordingly as part of the adaptive management process. Management strategies that target long-term reductions in CLP should be a top priority for management of the aquatic plant community in Como Lake. Long-term monitoring will be necessary to monitor abundance of CLP and establishment of native plant species following the implementation of CLP management activities.

Page | 27

Figure 6. Biovolume (% occurrence) surveys of aquatic macrophytes in Como Lake from May 31, 2018. The red areas represent curly-leaf pondweed (CLP).

2.2.5 Fisheries Fish surveys have been conducted in Como Lake periodically since 1976, primarily by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) with some supplemental sampling sponsored by CRWD. Fisheries management for Como Lake began in the 1980s. Frequent winter fish kills prompted the installation of an aeration device in October 1985. At that time, the fish community was dominated by omnivores and rough fish, which included goldfish, black bullhead, and common carp. Bullhead and carp can significantly impact water quality by resuspending sediments through feeding behavior which releases dissolved phosphorus into the water column. Rotenone was applied to the lake in 1985 to kill the existing rough fish community, then restocked with bluegill, walleye and largemouth bass as part of a biomanipulation strategy to improve water quality (Noonan 1998). Biomanipulation intends to create changes in the lake ecosystem through manipulation of the fish community. Often this technique is employed in an effort to shift a lake from a turbid, algal dominated state to a clear, macrophyte dominated state using the fish community. The goal of this strategy is to increase the zooplankton community capacity to significantly graze on algae. As Noonan (1998) reported, Como Lake responded positively to the biomanipulation and shifted to a clearer water state for a brief duration. However, Page | 28

external and internal phosphorus loads persisted, so the lake shifted back to a turbid state. Biomanipulation can produce a positive response, but typically requires ongoing maintenance and must be used in conjunction with other nutrient reduction and control strategies for sustained improvements in water quality. Currently, Como Lake is stocked by the MNDNR through their Fishing in the Neighborhood (FIN) Program (MNDNR 2017b), which aims to increase angling opportunities in urban lakes. The species stocked historically by the MNDNR include bluegill, channel catfish, largemouth bass, walleye and yellow perch. On October 1, 2018, MNDNR stocked Como Lake with 293 lbs of walleye in an effort to increase the population of top predators. Total annual fish abundance measured during surveys since 2001 is shown in Table 4. Total fish abundance was highest in 2001 and 2006 and lowest in 2014. Prior to recent walleye stocking, the fish community has been dominated by black crappie followed by black bullheads or bluegill sunfish since 2006. The fish community in Como Lake has few top predators (e.g. walleye, northern pike), and is dominated by planktivorous forage fish (e.g. sunfish, black crappie) due to combination of low predation pressure, historical stocking practices, and likely recreational fishing pressure (LimnoTech 2017). As a result, cascading effects on the zooplankton community have been observed (LimnoTech 2017). The term trophic cascade refers to the process where changes in the upper trophic levels impacts lower trophic levels, ultimately affecting algal density. The zooplankton community in Como Lake is dominated by small-bodied zooplankton, which is a result of predation pressure by planktivorous fish preferentially consuming large-bodied zooplankton like Daphnia. The consequence of this is that small-bodied zooplankton are less efficient grazers than large-bodied zooplankton so the existing zooplankton community in Como Lake is not effectively reducing algal density. Table 4. Total abundance of fish species surveyed through trap nets and gill nets in Como Lake. Number of Fish Caught Per Survey Effort Per Year Black Bullhead Black Crappie Bluegill Sunfish Brown Bullhead Channel Catfish Common Carp Golden Shiner Green Sunfish Hybrid Sunfish Largemouth bass Northern Pike Pumpkinseed Walleye White Sucker Yellow Bullhead Yellow Perch Total / Survey

2001 71 162 4 1 1 0 690 0 1 0 104 0 0 13 81 8 1136

2006 603 47 329 0 0 0 12 6 4 0 65 17 20 1 31 5 1140

2011 71 271 236 0 18 0 2 0 9 1 49 29 5 3 33 14 741

2014 14 121 6 0 3 0 18 0 0 0 15 4 6 0 0 13 200

2015 190 233 2 1 10 1 6 0 2 0 20 0 19 3 12 1 500

2016 155 258 106 0 3 0 4 0 11 0 7 3 2 0 0 3 552

Page | 29

2.2.6 Wildlife Como Lake supports a variety of wildlife and serves as a habitat sanctuary amidst a densely urbanized area. Throughout the year, several species of mammals, reptiles, birds and pollinators can be observed at Como Lake. The presence, diversity, and abundance of wildlife can be an indicator of Como Lakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ecological integrity. Future efforts should work toward documenting these species over time to assist in assessing the ecological health of Como Lake. One effort toward assessing wildlife at Como Lake was a turtle study conducted in 2011 by the Como Community Council and District 10. The study evaluated turtle populations in Como Lake by species type. From May 1, 2011 through August 23, 2011, volunteers observed 2052 Painted Turtles and 47 Snapping Turtles basking in and around the lake (District 10 2011). In May, June and July 2011, Como Zoo personnel and volunteers set traps to capture turtles to record characteristics. During that time, 118 Painted Turtles and 32 Snapping Turtles were caught, measured, sexed and released. Although only two species were identified during the study, Como Lake appeared to have a robust turtle population as of 2011.

2.3 Como Lake Watershed The Como Lake watershed has a total area of 1,711 acres and includes portions of the cities of St. Paul, Roseville, and Falcon Heights (Figure 7). Runoff from 13 major subwatersheds (Figure 8) drains off the land to an extensive network of storm sewer pipes that discharge directly to Como Lake through twentytwo storm sewer outlets.

2.3.1 Watershed Boundaries The Como Lake watershed includes the total area of land draining to the lake (1,711 acres). The watershed boundary was determined using GIS mapping and takes into consideration the local topography and drainage networks surrounding Como Lake. Thirteen major subwatersheds within the Como Lake watershed were also defined (Figure 8). A subwatershed is a localized drainage area within a greater watershed that drains to the lake. The Como Lake subwatershed delineations (Como A-M) were determined using GIS and are based on 1) topography, 2) storm sewer discharge points (outfalls) to Como Lake, and 3) the subsurface storm sewer network extending upstream of the discharge point. The storm sewer networks in the Como watershed are complex, particularly in the Como B subwatershed. Under normal flow conditions, all of Como B subwatershed discharges through one outfall to Como Lake. Under high flow conditions, overflow from the Como B subwatershed main pipe is routed to four separate outfall pipes that discharge directly to Como Lake.

Page | 30

Figure 7. The Como Lake watershed (1,711 ac) includes areas of St. Paul, Falcon Heights, and Roseville.

Page | 31

Figure 8. The thirteen major subwatersheds (Como A-M) in the Como Lake watershed (HEI, 2018).

Page | 32

2.3.2 Watershed Pollutant Sources & Pathways Stormwater runoff carries excess pollutants like nutrients and sediment from the watershed to the lake, making the watershed a pollutant “source”. The characteristics of the watershed have significant influence on the amount of runoff and what pollutants are being delivered to the lake. Phosphorus is the primary pollutant of concern from the Como Lake watershed. Figure 9 illustrates watershed processes and pollutant pathways typical to the Como Lake watershed, including: A) Pollutant Sources: Includes trash, leaves, grass clippings, soil, animal waste, fertilizers, automobile fluids, road salt, and other chemicals—anything present on the landscape that can be flushed into a storm drain by rain or snowmelt. B) Runoff: Occurs when rain or snowmelt flows off the landscape, picking up pollutants and other material on its path. In urban environments, impervious surfaces like roofs, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, and roads prevent water from soaking into the ground as it naturally would, causing stormwater runoff to generate and flow into storm drains. C) Stormwater Flows to Lake: Sewers function as underground streams to collect and convey stormwater— they prevent localized flooding by moving runoff from the landscape downstream. Storm sewers flow into Como Lake, and as a result transfer runoff carrying pollutants from the landscape directly to the lake.

Figure 9. Watershed pollutant sources and pathways.

Page | 33

2.3.3 Watershed Characteristics The landscapes of all 13 major subwatersheds within the Como watershed are directly connected to the lake. Understanding the characteristics of each Como Lake subwatershed is important for managing runoff to Como Lake because each behave differently depending on their topography, soil types, vegetation, land use, hydrology, impervious areas, and anthropogenic activities.

Topography The Como Lake watershed resides in a hilly post-glacial landscape. Over 10,000 years ago, glaciers left behind a rolling landscape typical in this region of Minnesota. Prior to urban development, the landscape consisted of isolated wetlands with small localized watersheds. While the topography in the Como watershed is relatively moderate, it still plays a major role in determining flow pathways and watershed connection to the lake.

Soil Types Soil types influence watershed flow pathways and infiltration rates. Following the retreat of the glaciers, the landscape was dominated by mixed glacial till soils. At present, soils in the Como Lake watershed are largely urban/unknown with some group A, A/D and B soil types due to soil disturbance related to urban development (Figure 10). Many areas in the watershed are not characterized and are likely dominated by fill brought in during urbanization and development of St. Paul. The majority of identified soils demonstrate a moderate potential for infiltration.

Vegetation The Como Lake watershed resides in the North Central Hardwoods Forest (NCHF) ecoregion. The NCHF ecoregion is characterized by temperate broadleaf and mixed forests. Prior to urban development, the Como Lake watershed was predominantly oak openings and barrens. The current vegetation regime is dominated by diverse temperate species typical of residential areas, street boulevards, and parkland areas.

Climate The climate classification for the Como Lake watershed is â&#x20AC;&#x153;Dfaâ&#x20AC;?, or Hot Summer Continental Climate. The average annual precipitation is 31.5 inches per year. June is typically the wettest month with an average of 4.8 inches per month. February is typically the driest month with an average of 0.8 inches per month. Snow occurrence is on average 49.2 inches per year (www.weatherbase.com).

Land Use Early development (early 1800s) of the Como Lake watershed primarily consisted of agricultural land use. As development pressure expanded north in St. Paul, land use changed from agricultural to urban as roads, homes, and businesses were built. Currently, the primary land use type in the Como Lake watershed is Single-Family residential (Figure 11). Secondary to residential, the watershed also includes large areas of parkland with Como Regional Park and the Como Golf Course. There are isolated areas of commercial, institutional, railway, and office areas, but they make up a small portion of the overall watershed land use. With dense urban development in the Como Lake watershed, a large portion of the watershed area consists of impervious surfaces (40%), which includes roads, parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, and rooftopsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;any type of hard surface that water cannot infiltrate through, which has significant impacts Page | 34

on the watershed hydrology. Additionally, golf courses can have a negative impact on water quality because of their use of fertilizers and other turf management methods. The Como Golf Course is responsibly managed to prevent these types of activities from impacting Como Lake. Fertilizer use is minimized, or not used at all, and the Como Golf Course has incorporated several BMPs to manage stormwater generated around or from the area.

Hydrology Prior to development, the Como Lake watershed was dominated by small isolated wetlands and depressions that collected runoff from localized areas. Because of this, the Como Lake watershed was much smaller in area than it is today and the majority of the runoff never reached the lake. With urban development and the loss of localized wetlands, the Como Lake watershed expanded by connecting far reaching areas of the region to the lake with artificial drainage networks, or storm sewers, effectively increasing the total amount of water reaching Como Lake. Currently, the drainage area of Como Lake is dominated by impervious surfaces and artificial drainage networks that collect and convey stormwater runoff as direct inputs to the lake. With 40% impervious surfaces in the watershed, runoff is generated during storm and snowmelt events and piped directly to the lake through 22 storm sewer outfalls. There are no stream or rivers flowing into the lake from the Como Lake watershed.

Anthropogenic Activities Human activities in the Como Lake watershed also have an impact on the lake because of the watershed connectivity. Activities like lawn maintenance, dog walking, sidewalk deicing, automotive maintenance, and trash management can all influence water quality as the remnants from these activities are flushed off the landscape into the lake.

2.3.4 Stormwater Runoff Monitoring & Quality To measure the volume and quality of stormwater entering Como Lake from the surrounding watershed, CRWD annually monitors three major subwatershed outlets (Como B, Como C, and Como D). Areavelocity sensors and automated water quality sampler stations are installed near the outfall locations to the lake. The stations continuously measure discharge and take flow-paced samples during storm events. Samples are analyzed for a suite of water quality parameters, including nutrients, metals, solids, and bacteria. From this data, total annual discharge volumes and pollutant loads can be calculated to better understand watershed phosphorus contributions to Como Lake.

Page | 35

Figure 10. Hydrologic soil groups in the Como Lake watershed.

Page | 36

Figure 11. Existing land use in the Como Lake watershed.

Page | 37

2.3.5 Watershed Modeling & Pollutant Loads To fully calculate the phosphorus load contribution to Como Lake from the surrounding watershed, the P8 Model was utilized in addition to monitoring. The P8 Model is specific to urban watershed and considers all of the factors that drive the hydrology and pollutant sources unique to the Como Lake watershed, such as those described above. The modeling also takes into account structural and nonstructural BMPs in the watershed and their estimated annual load reduction capacity. The original P8 modeling of the Como Lake watershed was completed in 2000 for the TMDL and the 2002 CLSMP. Since then, there have been changes in land use and other model input parameters in the Como Lake watershed. In addition, technology improvements (i.e. improved GIS layers) have resulted in a greater capability to fine-tune the watershed model. To ensure that the best estimates of watershed loads were utilized in the CLMP, a P8 model recalibration was completed fall 2018 (HEI 2018). The model recalibration includes the most recent land use conditions and considers the numerous structural BMPS that have been constructed since the year 2000. From the P8 model recalibration, updated TP load estimates were determined from the Como Lake watershed for year 2018. Table 5 provides a summary of the Como subwatershed model calibration outputs for TP loads to Como Lake. The table includes subwatershed name (Como A-M), subwatershed area, baseline TP load (year 2000), and current TP load (year 2018). “Baseline TP Load (Year 2000)” refers to modeled Como subwatershed TP loads in the year 2000 and only includes watershed BMPs that were installed before the year 2000. The “Current TP Load (Year 2018)” refers to present-day modeled TP loads and includes load reductions achieved through BMPs installed since the year 2000. Table 4 also lists TP load reductions achieved since 2000 by BMPs (Baseline TP Load - Current TP Load = TP Reduction (lbs)) and the percent TP load reduction achieved (Current) for each subwatershed since baseline conditions. The subwatersheds of Como B (Como B2-B5) are grayed in Table 5 to reflect the complex drainage system that changes outfall location depending on the flow condition. Figure 12 is a schematic of generalized flow routing in the Como B subwatershed to help illustrate how overflow is routed through four separate outfalls during certain flow conditions. Under normal flow conditions, all of Como B subwatershed discharges through one outfall to Como Lake. Under high flow conditions, overflow from the Como B subwatershed main pipe is routed to four separate outfall pipes that discharge directly to Como Lake. It is important to understand the Como B subwatershed flow routing during overflow events because the model outputs for TP loads are directly affected. For the model recalibration effort, the Como B subwatershed flow routing was factored into the watershed loading calculations. The newly modeled TP load reduction estimates show that from 2000 through 2018, a 20% reduction in watershed TP load has been achieved through BMPs, or 143 lbs/year (Table 5).

Page | 38

Table 5. Model subwatershed TP loads to Como Lake â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Baseline, current and reductions (HEI 2018). Subwatershed

Subwatershed Area (Acres)

% of Total Como Watershed Area

Baseline TP Load (Year 2000) (lbs)

Current TP Load (Year 2018) (lbs)

TP Reduction (lbs)

TP Reduction %

Como A

36.6

11.2

Como Ba

1173.9

69%

388.8

294.1

94.7

24%

Como B2

51.3

11.5

0.5

Como B3

78.8

10.2

Como B4

177.4

10%

32.2

Como B5

814.8

48%

31.6

16.5

15.1

48%

Como C

80.8

20.9

18.1

2.8

13%

Como D

195.3

11%

98.3

92.5

5.8

Como E

72.2

41.3

Como F

44.5

25.6

15.6

39%

Como G

20.7

16.2

6.2

62%

Como H

17.8

10.5

9.5

0.9

Como I

11.7

6.3

3.2

3.1

49%

Como J

Como K

15.4

8.1

0% 0%

Como L

0.5

0.03%

Como M

16.9

9.4

732.1

589.1

142.9

20%

Total a

Overflow Subwatershed

Como B subwatershed has four overflow subwatersheds that discharge to separate outfalls during certain flow conditions. See Como B schematic for flow routing.

Figure 12. Schematic of generalized flow routing for the Como B subwatershed.

Page | 39

2.4 Como Lake Water Quality Standards & Regulations Como Lake is subject to federal nutrient loading regulations in order to protect water quality. The federal Clean Water Act mandates that a TMDL needs to be developed for impaired waters in order to determine the maximum amount of nutrient loading that a waterbody can receive from all sources and still maintain water quality standards. A TMDL is implemented by the MPCA on behalf of the EPA. In 2010, the 2002 CLSMP was reformatted to comply with TMDL requirements. The 2002 CLSMP and TMDL determined that a 60% reduction in external loads of TP, and a 95% reduction in internal loads of TP are required to meet State water quality standards. External TP loads are from watershed runoff being delivered to Como Lake through storm sewers. Internal TP loads refers to sources or mechanisms within the lake that recycle phosphorus. Annual masses of external and internal phosphorus loads were determined in the 2002 CLSMP and TMDL based on modeling from 2001. In 2018, recalibration of the model slightly changed the total masses (in lbs) of TP load reduction required, however, the 60% external TP load reduction and the 95% internal TP load reduction remain unchanged in this current plan because they were determined to remain valid for achieving Como Lake water quality standards (Table 5). Following the adoption of the CLMP, CRWD will work with the MPCA and EPA to update the Como TMDL based on the latest and more accurate estimates of internal and external loading in Como Lake. Table 6. Como Lake TMDL Load Reduction Targets. TP Source

Target Load Reduction (%)

Internal TP Load

95%

External TP Load

60%

2.4.1 Internal TP Load Reduction Targets To meet the 95% reduction in internal TP loads, multiple interrelated drivers of internal loading must be addressed. As described in Section 2.2, the primary drivers of internal loading in Como Lake are diffusive flux from bottom sediments, the presence of CLP, and an imbalanced fishery. Managing each of these sources individually but in consideration of the others will help in working toward a 95% reduction. Diffusive flux is the largest source of the internal TP load, so addressing the bottom sediments first with management will be a key first step to lead the way in being able to manage CLP and the fishery. While the 95% internal TP load reduction target has remained the same, the total annual internal TP load in lbs/year has likely changed since it was modeled for the 2010 TMDL based on the analysis of internal phosphorus sources completed in LimnoTech (2017). Load reductions calculated in the 2010 TMDL were based on the Wisconsin Lake Modeling Suite (WiLMS), which is a screening-level lake water quality model used to evaluate in-lake water quality (CRWD 2002; EOR 2010). This water quality model should be re-calibrated to include the revised P8 watershed load estimates and direct sediment core measurements of diffusive sediment P flux to confirm the internal load reduction required to meet the in-lake TP target of 60 Âľg/L.

Page | 40

2.4.2 External Load Reduction Targets To address watershed TP loads from the greater Como Lake watershed and meet the 60% TMDL load reduction target, it is best to approach management on a subwatershed-by-subwatershed basis so that higher contributing subwatersheds can be identified and prioritized for projects. In addition, the implementation of BMP projects in a fully developed watershed are largely dependent on opportunities presenting themselves. Thus, CRWD will also approach watershed management on a project-by-project basis in all Como subwatersheds as BMP project opportunities become available. This strategic approach will result in a cumulative watershed TP load reduction necessary for meeting Como Lake water quality goals. Significant watershed management has already occurred, so future work will build upon progress made to date. Through the Como Lake watershed model recalibration in 2018, the TP load contribution from each subwatershed were calculated to identify which subwatersheds were the lowest and highest contributors of TP to Como Lake. Implementing BMP projects in subwatersheds identified as high TP load contributors will be most effective toward meeting the 60% watershed load reduction target. Table 6 lists the cumulative baseline TP load (Year 2000) from all contributing subwatersheds to Como Lake, the total required load reduction (60% of the baseline TP load), and the total allocated load that will still meet state standards (40% of baseline TP load). Table 7. Como Lake watershed baseline TP load from year 2000, the TP load reduction target (60%), and allocated watershed load. Note: the baseline TP load and allocated load listed differ from the 2010 TMDL because a model recalibration was completed in 2018. Watershed TP Loads

Annual Load (lbs)

Baseline TP Load (Year 2000)

732

Required Watershed Load Reduction (60% of Baseline)

439

Allocated Load (40% of Baseline)

293

2.5 Historical Management Actions Como Lake has experienced poor water quality conditions for several decades. The first record of algae blooms, fish kills, and odor problems was reported in 1947. Since then, multiple efforts to reduce pollutant loading to the Lake, and actions to manage the Lake directly have been implemented. The following sections provide a summary of historical lake and watershed management actions.

2.5.1 Historical Lake Management Actions Several lake management actions have been implemented over time in effort to reduce algal and odor problems, reduce erosion, and manage aquatic vegetation. Table 8 shows a summary of notable lake management actions that have been implemented in Como Lake since the early 1980s.

Page | 41

Table 8. Summary of notable historical lake management actions. Years

Action

Purpose

1980s

Rotenone (fish pesticide) and copper sulfate (algaecide) addition

Kill and remove rough fish populations (common carp) and control excessive algal growth

1985-present

Floating Aerators

Winter aeration of waters with low or no dissolved oxygen to prevent fish kills

2001-2002

Dredging

Reduce accumulated sediment deltas on the southwest side of the lake

2003 (multiple projects since 2003)

Shoreline Restoration

Stabilize shoreline, reduce erosion, replaced non-native vegetation with native species, increased wildlife habitat, and improved aesthetics for visitors.

2003 - 2018

Mechanical Harvesting

Maintain aquatic vegetation growth for boating lanes

2.5.2 Historical Watershed Management Actions Since the adoption of the 2002 CLMSP, many structural BMP projects for reducing phosphorus loads from stormwater runoff have been constructed in the Como Lake watershed by CRWD and other partners. Structural BMPs are engineered systems that are designed to capture and treat stormwater runoff on the landscape such as a rain garden, an underground infiltration system, or a stormwater pond. In the Como Lake watershed, structural BMP projects that have been constructed through 2018 cumulatively treat 20% of the watershed runoff. Table 9 provides a summary of the documented BMPs by project type that have been constructed in the Como watershed through 2018. Table 9. The total number of documented structural BMP project types that have been constructed in the Como watershed through year 2018 by CRWD and partners. # BMP Projects BMP Type (through Year 2018) Raingardens 43 Stormwater Ponds 7 Pervious Pavement 3 Underground Infiltration 20 Native Buffer Plantings 3 Total 76

Page | 42

There have been a few notable structural BMP projects constructed in the Como watershed since 2000 by CRWD and partners. The most significant project was the Arlington-Pascal Stormwater Improvement Project that was constructed in 2006 in the Como B subwatershed with the goal of addressing localized flooding issues and reducing TP from stormwater flowing to Como Lake. This project was completed in partnership with multiple municipalities and included the construction of 8 raingardens, 8 underground infiltration trenches, a large underground infiltration system, and a regional stormwater pond. Table 10 lists all major BMP projects in the Como watershed, including the Arlington-Pascal Project. Table 10. Major structural BMP projects constructed in the Como watershed since 2000 by CRWD and partners. Sub Project Name Watershed Year Project Description Agency(s) Location Arlington-Pascal B 2006--2007 Installation of 8 rain gardens, 8 CRWD, St. Stormwater infiltration trenches, 1 large Paul, Falcon Improvement underground infiltration Heights, Project system treating runoff from a Roseville 217-acre residential area Como Golf Course Pond Como Regional Park Pool Rain Gardens Como Park Senior High School Stewardship Grant Residential Rain Gardens

2007-2008

2011

2017

All

2005-2018

Pond storage increased and native buffer installation 4 rain gardens treating runoff from pool parking lot Installation of a large underground infiltration system underneath the football field 21 residential rain gardens installed through CRWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Stewardship Grant program

CRWD, St. Paul St. Paul CRWD, St. Paul Public Schools CRWD, residents

In addition to structural BMPs, significant efforts have occurred over time to reduce Como watershed TP loads through non-structural projects or practices. Non-structural practices focus on source management, such as proper disposal of pet waste, leaf clean-up efforts, storm drain debris clearing, street sweeping, or education on best practices. Phosphorus reductions through non-structural practices have been achieved through participation and promotion from partners, including efforts from community groups such as District 10 and the Como Active Citizen Network (CACN). Notable efforts include annual neighborhood leaf clean-up events by CACN, participation in the Adopt-a-Drain program by District 10, and fall street sweeping by the City of St. Paul.

Page | 43

3 Issues and Goals Building on the issues identified in the Como Lake Water Quality Drivers Analysis Study (LimnoTech 2017) and the recalibrated P8 watershed modeling (HEI 2018), members of the AAG and PAG were also asked to provide input on issues facing Como Lake from their perspective. Once the issues were identified, CRWD worked with the AAG and PAG to develop management goals for Como Lake to provide direction on how and when to address the identified issues. This section discusses the issues of concern for Como Lake that were identified by stakeholders, the five goals that were established to address those issues, and the development of objectives for each goal.

3.1 Identification of Issues of Concern Identification of the primary issues with Como Lake and the surrounding watershed is key to developing a set of goals and measurable objectives. As discussed in Section 1.3, AAG members were asked to identify the major issues facing Como Lake and the surrounding watershed from the agency perspective. Additionally, the PAG and community members provided input on what draws them to Como Lake, the major issues facing Como Lake today, and their hopes for a healthy Como Lake. Opportunities to provide feedback included the first PAG meeting, conversations at the Lake, and an online survey, which resulted in nearly 800 comments from participants. The responses referenced the full experience of the area, challenges, and the breadth of social, environmental, and economic issues and opportunities. Table 11 lists the issues that were identified by both the AAG and the PAG and represent the causes of water quality problems in Como Lake (e.g. phosphorus loading) and associated effects (e.g. algae blooms) as well as others pertaining to user experience. Issues that were shared by both the AAG and the PAG include: • • • • • • • •

Phosphorus loading/pollution runoff (internal and external loading) Other pollutants chloride, sediment, trash Algae blooms Odor and aesthetics Invasive species (i.e. curly-leaf pondweed)/excessive aquatic vegetation/loss of plant diversity Imbalanced food web/loss of animal diversity/fisheries management Dense urban environment/population growth Balancing cost-effectiveness

Page | 44

Table 11. Issues Identified by Agency Advisory Group (AAG) and Public Advisory Group (PAG).

Agency Advisory Group Issues

Public Advisory Group Issues

Water quality: • Phosphorus loading • Hypoxia/anoxia • Algal blooms • Odor/aesthetics • Meeting TMDL reduction goals • Shallow urban lake • Other pollutant loading (e.g. chloride) • High summer water temperatures

Water quality: • Pollution from runoff • Algae blooms • Odor/aesthetics • Loss of plant and animal diversity • Invasive species/curly-leaf pondweed • Excessive aquatic plants/weeds

Watershed/Land Use: • Ultra-urban development • Stormwater inputs • Meeting TMDL reduction goals

Watershed/Land Use: • Overgrown vegetation (referring to shoreline plantings) • Overuse • Traffic/noise/light pollution* Other: • • • •

Cost-effective measures needed Bold actions needed Expectations versus Cost Instability in pavilion business* Uncertainty Too few non-summer Funding recreation opportunities Climate change • Under-involved community • Safety* • Population growth* • Lack of political will or willingness by the City to take action* • Impact of water quality on parkland and nearby trails. *Issues that will be addressed outside of the CLMP/by other agencies Other: • • • •

3.2 Goals and Measurable Objectives Management goals set a vision for Como Lake, and the associated objectives provide a mechanism to measure progress towards meeting those goals. Establishment of goals and measurable objectives is critically important to guide and identify management actions. To begin establishing the goals of the CLMP, input on Como Lake issues from the AAG, the PAG, and other stakeholders were qualitatively analyzed to identify major themes. The six themes emerged that served as the basis for development of goals and measurable objectives. The six major themes identified are: 1. A healthy lake where users are confident in interacting with the water.

Page | 45

2. A safe and accessible park that balances use of the area with a peaceful experience and healthy environment. 3. A diverse, healthy habitat that can support a variety of wildlife, including pollinators, birds, fish, and amphibians. 4. An active, engaged community that protects and cares for Como Lake. 5. Amenities that allow for various kinds of recreation throughout the year. 6. A stable venue that remains affordable and supports community vitality. These six major themes were combined with the State water quality standards required under the TMDL as well as consideration of what is achievable for an urban shallow lake ecosystem to define five overarching goals for the CLMP. For each of the five goals, measurable objectives were developed to define the criteria for meeting those goals. The draft goals and objectives statements were reviewed and commented on by the AAG and PAG members through an online survey. Comments were incorporated into the goals and measurable objectives and then finalized. Once goals and objectives were finalized, management actions were recommended for each objective. Management actions are actual projects, programs, events, or organized efforts that will work toward achieving each goal and measurable objective. The recommended management actions that were developed (Section 4) were further categorized into lake, watershed and community-related actions. These categories serve as the organizational framework for identification and implementation of actions as part of the CLMP.

3.2.1 Selected Goals and Measurable Objectives The following goals and objectives were selected for adaptive management of Como Lake and its watershed. The goals are intended to be broad in scope while the objectives are measurable and are intended to help track progress in meeting the stated goals. The goals and objectives are not listed in order of priority or occurrence. Goal 1: Como Lake will be managed as an ecologically healthy, shallow lake. An ecologically healthy, shallow lake is one where phosphorus levels are maintained at sufficiently low levels (60 µg/L or lower) to minimize algae nuisances, the rooted aquatic plant community is dominated by a diverse assemblage of native species, and a balanced aquatic food web is maintained. •

Objective 1A: Meet and maintain in-lake total phosphorus concentrations at ≤ 60 µg/L (summertime, surface water average).

•

Objective 1B: Reduce the internal phosphorus load by approximately 95%.

•

Objective 1C: Reduce the watershed phosphorus load by approximately 60%.

•

Objective 1D: Reduce other nonpoint source pollutants from entering Como Lake (e.g. chloride, trash, sediment).

•

Objective 1E: Reduce CLP to < 10% Frequency of Occurrence (FOC) during period of peak abundance (typically June).

•

Objective 1F: Establish and maintain native aquatic vegetation to exceed these criteria: species richness > 8 with at least 3 species having FOC > 20%.

Page | 46

•

Objective 1G: Establish and maintain a fishery with balanced populations of piscivorous, planktivorous, and benthivorous fish.

Goal 2: Maintain healthy shoreline areas that can support a variety of wildlife and contribute to the ecological health of Como Lake. •

Objective 2A: Maintain areas of native vegetation along the shoreline to capture surface runoff, minimize shoreline erosion, and promote wildlife habitat.

Goal 3: Maintain a variety of year-round recreational opportunities that are appropriate for a shallow urban lake. •

Objective 3A: Continue to provide fishing opportunities.

•

Objective 3B: Provide areas suitable for non-motorized boating.

Goal 4: Achieve strong sustained community engagement and stewardship to improve and protect Como Lake. •

Objective 4A: Engage and support existing groups and community members that have worked to improve and protect Como Lake.

•

Objective 4B: Engage new groups and citizens in efforts aimed at improving and protecting Como Lake.

•

Objective 4C: Increase citizen knowledge and understanding of Como Lake.

Goal 5: Utilize the best science, partnerships, and resources to ensure successful implementation of the CLMP over the life of the plan (20 years). •

Objective 5A: Provide a structured adaptive management approach to effectively and efficiently adjust management actions through the life of the plan.

•

Objective 5B: Engage multiple partners and utilize funding sources to implement the CLMP.

Page | 47

4 Recommended Management Actions Shallow urban lakes often have numerous water quality issues and Como Lake is no different. Como Lake has been in poor health for decades, so it will take significant effort and time to achieve water quality goals. Through holistic, adaptive management, a combination of watershed and in-lake management actions will be required to improve water quality in Como Lake. Recommended management actions are actual projects, programs, events, or organized efforts that will work toward achieving each goal and measurable objective in the CLMP (Section 3). The recommended management actions describe what needs to occur to achieve the goals and objectives, but do not provide instruction on how each action should be carried out. Instead, many of the actions listed will require a standalone work plan that details how the action will be implemented, estimated costs, timeline, and expected outcome. A combination of lake, watershed, and community-based management actions to be carried out over the life of the plan will be required to achieve each goals and objective. Lake management actions will seek to control internal phosphorus and other symptoms of a turbid shallow lake. Watershed management actions will include structural and non-structural BMPs that effectively reduce phosphorus loads from stormwater runoff. Community-based management actions will work to help build stewardship of and pride in of Como Lake. The following sections describe the recommended lake, watershed, and community-based actions. Letters have been assigned to each category throughout this plan, such that “L” indicates lake management actions, “W” indicates watershed management actions, and “C” indicates communitybased management actions.

4.1 Lake Management Actions While some lake management actions have been implemented in Como Lake before, more work in the Lake is needed to meet current goals for a healthy shallow lake. Due to the complexity of issues facing Como Lake, there is not one single action that will improve water quality in the Lake. Instead, a comprehensive management approach that implements several actions in the short-term, and over time, will be required to meet management goals and ultimately achieve a healthy Como Lake.

4.1.1 Evaluation of Possible Lake Management Actions A matrix of possible lake management actions was developed as part of the evaluation process (Appendix B). The compiled actions have been applied elsewhere with outcomes and expectations welldocumented (Holdren et al. 2001; Cooke et al. 2005; Osgood and Gibbons 2017; Osgood et al. 2017). Possible actions were listed based on their ability to address the primary issues in Como Lake. Selection criteria was based on suitability for a shallow lake, reliability of success, expected duration (i.e. period of action effectiveness), relative cost and return on investment, and pros and cons of each management action. The matrix of possible in-lake management actions was shared with the AAG and PAG. Both groups provided valuable feedback that was incorporated in the selection of recommended management actions.

Page | 48

4.1.2 Recommended Lake and Shoreline Management Actions This section describes lake management actions that are designed to address issues related to four specific categories: in-lake phosphorus management, aquatic vegetation management, fisheries management, and shoreline management.

In-lake Phosphorus Management Phosphorus is the primary driver of water quality in Como Lake (LimnoTech 2017). The TMDL has indicated that internal phosphorus loads must be reduced by 95% to meet State shallow lake water quality goals. Lake management actions that reduce diffusive flux of phosphorus from the sediments must occur in the early implementation of the CLMP in order to improve water quality in Como Lake. This section contains recommended actions specifically related to in-lake phosphorus management. L1. Update lake water quality model. Previous studies have indicated a range of internal phosphorus loading rates depending on method of calculation and assumptions inherent in those calculations. It is highly recommended that the Como Lake water quality model be updated with the revised subwatershed loads developed in 2018, direct sediment core P flux measurements collected in 2016, and recent observed monitoring data. The lake water quality (WiLMS; Section 2.4.1) model should be re-calibrated to validate load reduction targets calculated in the 2010 TMDL and to estimate phosphorus load reduction from alum treatment(s). The revised water quality model should be used to update the 2010 TMDL, which needs to incorporate new data collected and the updated watershed model since the TMDL was adopted. L2. Alum application to inactivate sediment phosphorus. Apply alum to inactivate mobile sediment phosphorus and mitigate internal phosphorus loading. The alum dose should be based on water column TP and phosphorus fractions from sediment cores (i.e. iron-bound phosphorus, loosely-bound phosphorus, and labile organic phosphorus). It is highly recommended that an alum application be applied as soon as possible pending available resources. Ideally, the initial alum application should be applied in late spring before the period of high summer internal loading. However, alum could also be applied in fall. It is generally advised to avoid applying alum during an algal bloom because it can interfere with the alum settling to the sediments. Alum can be applied within a couple of weeks following an herbicide treatment for CLP control (see action L5 below). Depending on Como Lakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s response to alum in the first three-year interval of the adaptive management plan, additional supplemental alum application strategies may be needed to meet management objectives, which has been included as an action below (L4). In-lake phosphorus reduction in response to the initial alum application will need to be monitored through ongoing water quality sampling throughout the first three years of the adaptive management plan. In addition, external phosphorus loading will continue to be significant in the near-term, so additional alum applications may be needed to intercept water column phosphorus concentrations from external sources. When applied appropriately, alum poses little risk to aquatic life. In poorly buffered waters, the addition of alum can cause increases or decreases in pH. Below a pH of 6, free aluminum can persist, while above a pH of 9 other hydroxides could form, both of which can be toxic to wildlife. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the alkalinity (a measure of the chemical buffering capacity) of the lake water prior to application. The appropriate alum dose should be based on

Page | 49

calculations that includes the phosphorus concentrations in both the water and sediment as well as the alkalinity to minimize adverse impacts. It should be noted that dredging Como Lake sediment was carefully considered as a lake management action. At this time, dredging of Como Lake sediments is not recommended due to the uncertainty in costs, which are estimated to be an order of magnitude more expensive than alum. Adding to the uncertainty in costs for dredging is the potential for special disposal requirements of lake sediments, an issue that would be driven by contaminated sediments. L3. Continue bi-weekly in-lake water quality sampling. Continue bi-weekly in-lake water quality sampling to measure progress. At a minimum, measured parameters should include epilimnetic and hypolimnetic TP, soluble reactive phosphorus, Chl-a, and turbidity. While the limiting nutrient in Como Lake is typically phosphorus, total nitrogen, ammonium and nitrate should be frequently monitored in the epilimnion and hypolimnion as well to continue to monitor as this nitrogen also influences algal production. Bi-weekly surface measurements of Secchi depth should be collected with the above parameters along with DO and temperature profiles. Continuous DO monitoring should be maintained to measure indirect influence of implemented actions on anoxia. L4. Supplemental alum applications. The expectation is that in-lake phosphorus concentration will decrease following an initial alum application to inactivate sediment phosphorus. However, given the long-term record of external phosphorus loading and burial of phosphorus in the sediments, a maintenance application may be required within a few years of the initial application. This condition will be assessed through ongoing monitoring activities and will be evaluated annually as part of the adaptive management plan.

Aquatic Vegetation Management The aquatic vegetation community in Como Lake is dominated by CLP with low diversity of other native macrophytes. Mechanical harvesting has historically been implemented in Como Lake to control CLP with a focus on clearing areas for recreation (i.e. near fishing piers and paddling lanes). This management technique only targets the upper portion of CLP with the root system largely unaffected allowing the CLP to propagate each year. There are no documented cases of CLP eradication to-date, so maintenance will be an ongoing challenge with current control strategies. Given the abundance of CLP in the Lake, an aggressive management strategy in the first three years (or more) of CLMP implementation will be required to get CLP under control. Once CLP is under control, management efforts can focus on establishment of a diverse, native aquatic plant community. The following management actions pertain to the aquatic plant community. L5. Herbicide treatment to control curly-leaf pondweed. CLP is extremely difficult to control, but herbicide treatment has demonstrated the greatest success to date for reducing CLP density. Even with herbicide treatment, eradication is highly unlikely once it has been established in a lake. Therefore, ongoing management of CLP using herbicides will be required. When appropriately applied, herbicide treatments have shown the greatest success with management of CLP to date. Ongoing research at the University of Minnesotaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Aquatic Invasive Species Research Center have shown that herbicide treatments are very effective at reducing CLP abundance. Herbicides are widely used as a CLP management tool by MNDNR (including many Twin Cities Metro Area Lakes) and Wisconsin DNR. It is highly recommended that low-dose, large-scale (â&#x2030;Ľ 30 acres) herbicide treatments are applied in early May annually for the first 3-5 years of implementation.

Page | 50

A pre-herbicide treatment delineation of CLP will need to be conducted 2-4 weeks before a planned herbicide treatment. The expectation is that a large portion of the lake area can be treated per year with similar large-scale treatments in other areas annually for the first 3-5 years of implementation. However, depending on pre-treatment delineation, repeated treatments in the same area may be required. It is expected that abundance of CLP will be reduced considerably if large-scale herbicide treatments occur annually for the first few years of implementation. L6. Develop and implement lake vegetation management plan. Collaborate with MNDNR to develop and implement a long-term lake vegetation management plan (LVMP) to establish and maintain a healthy and diverse, native aquatic plant community. The plan should also consider strategies to keep CLP under control following initial herbicide treatments, which may also require periodic, small-scale herbicide treatments. Mechanical harvesting of native vegetation may also be required to prevent nuisance growth conditions following CLP control (see Section 2.2.4). These elements need to be included in the lake vegetation management plan. L7. Conduct annual aquatic vegetation surveys. Conduct point-intercept surveys to measure aquatic vegetation species abundance and density 2-3 weeks following herbicide treatment (June) and late-season (late-July or early-August).

Fisheries Management Recent studies have found that Como Lake has an imbalanced fishery. That is, the Lake is dominated by planktivorous fish with few top predators. Planktivorous fish tend to preferentially feed on large-bodied zooplankton, which reduces their overall capacity to graze on phytoplankton. A more balanced fishery in Como Lake will have an abundance of top predators (i.e. walleye and northern pike) that can limit overpopulation of planktivorous fish that exert predation pressure on the zooplankton community. With less predation pressure on the zooplankton community, they will more effectively graze on algae which will contribute to improved water quality and overall ecological health of Como Lake. The following actions are recommended to address the imbalanced fishery in Como Lake. L8. Develop long-term targets for balanced fishery. Collaborate with MNDNR to develop and implement a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Como Lake Fisheries Management Planâ&#x20AC;? that defines long-term targets for a diverse, ecologically balanced fishery that can also support and sustain recreational fishing for the community. Attainment of long-term targets will be achieved through stocking practices and potentially through catch-and-release practices to maintain a community of top predators. These approaches should be evaluated as part of the Como Lake Fisheries Management Plan. The Como Lake Fisheries Management Plan should be regularly updated and assessed as part of the ongoing adaptive management of Como Lake. L9. Conduct fish surveys. Complete regular fish surveys every 2-3 years or as needed to determine species abundance and diversity, and to measure progress of efforts to meet and sustain long-term targets for a balanced fishery. The MNDNR typically conducts fish surveys in Como Lake every five years. Depending on the MNDNR survey rotation, supplemental fish surveys may be needed in the early years of the adaptive management plan.

Shoreline Management Since the 2002 CLSMP, several shoreline stabilization projects have been implemented. However, there are areas along the shore that need additional stabilization and/or may provide opportunities to meet additional management goals and objectives (e.g. reduce trash loading or provide additional fishing

Page | 51

locations). The actions below are recommended to assess and document current shoreline conditions and develop plans for management based on those conditions. L10. Conduct shoreline assessment. A shoreline assessment is the first step in development of a Shoreline Management Plan (discussed below), which should be completed early in the implementation of the CLMP. In collaboration with the City of St. Paul, a shoreline assessment should be conducted to identify the following: •

Erosional areas (current and susceptible).

•

Existing shoreline vegetation composition (density, diversity of native and non-native species).

•

Quality of wildlife habitat (species types, availability, and needs).

•

Areas where the shoreline vegetation buffers widths could be expanded to maximize capture of surface runoff.

L11. Develop and implement shoreline management plan. In collaboration with the City of St. Paul, develop and implement a “Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan” that emphasizes native plant diversity, wildlife habitat, shoreline stabilization, and capture of surface runoff. Using information obtained in the shoreline assessment, the shoreline management plan should incorporate steps to implement priority actions, which include: •

Implement shoreline vegetation improvement and/or reinforcement to stabilize erosional areas and promote wildlife habitat.

•

Maintain areas of shoreline vegetation that allow for visual and physical access to Como Lake from the shoreline through vegetation.

•

Where needed and feasible, replace nuisance non-native vegetation with native vegetation.

L12. Engage volunteers and local partners in shoreline management. Identify opportunities to engage volunteers and local partners to assist with shoreline vegetation management projects based on specifications in the Shoreline Management Plan (e.g. Adopt a Shoreline Volunteer Program).

4.2 Watershed Management Actions To achieve Como Lake water quality goals, TP loads being transported to the Lake from the watershed through stormwater runoff must be addressed in addition to the internal phosphorus load. To address TP loads from the Como Lake watershed, it is best to approach management on a subwatershed-bysubwatershed basis so that higher contributing subwatersheds can be identified and prioritized for projects. In addition, the implementation of BMP projects in a fully developed watershed are largely dependent on opportunities presenting themselves. Thus, CRWD will also approach watershed management on a project-by-project basis in all Como Lake subwatersheds as BMP project opportunities become available. This strategic approach will result in a cumulative watershed TP load reduction necessary for meeting Como Lake water quality goals. This section identifies future watershed management actions for achieving Como Lake water quality goals.

Page | 52

4.2.1 Watershed Phosphorus Management Actions To meet the long-term 60% phosphorus watershed load reduction goals over the life of the plan, a Como Watershed TP Load Reduction Plan (Table 12) was developed based on subwatershed modeling load estimates. From the loading estimates in Table 12, subwatersheds needing TP management to meet the load reduction goals were identified and prioritized. Four categories of TP load reduction methods were defined, including both potential structural and non-structural BMPs to be implemented in the future: 1) Potential Structural â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Identified, 2) Potential Structural â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Unidentified, 3) Future Permit BMPs, and 4) Potential Non-Structural. Definitions of each of these four categories are listed in Table 12. It is important to note that in a highly developed urban watershed, finding opportunities to implement watershed management actions are limited and are dependent on opportunities presenting themselves through the initiation of other projects (e.g. street reconstruction or building redevelopment, land use changes, landscape redesign, partnerships, funding sources, and the planning of non-structural activities). Under each category of TP load reduction methods from the Watershed TP Load Reduction Plan (Table 12), the following watershed management actions were identified to address watershed TP loading and to meet the 60% watershed load reduction goal by subwatershed. Achieving each of the watershed management actions presented here will rely heavily on partnerships with municipalities, residents, and businesses in the Como Lake watershed. Partnerships will allow for collaboration when opportunities arise so multiple interests can be fulfilled on a project.

Page | 53

Como Lake Management Plan DRAFT

March 7, 2019

Table 12. Watershed Total Phosphorus (TP) Load Reduction Plan to be implemented over the 20-year life of the management plan. Subwatershed Como A Baseline TP Load (Year 2000) (lbs) Existing Practices (Year 2018) Potential Structural - Identifieda TP Load Potential Structural - Unidentifiedb Reductions (lbs) Future Permit BMPsc Potential Non-Structural d Reduction Subtotal Total Target TP Load (lbs) Total Target Reduction (%) a

11.2 0.0 0.0 ? 0.0 0.8 0.8 10.4 7%

Como B 474.3 110.3 130.8 ? 45.4 28.4 314.9 159.4 66%

Como C

Como D

20.9 2.8 8.9 ? 0.0 2.0 13.8 7.1 66%

98.3 5.8 47.1 ? 33.3 3.8 90.0 8.3 92%

Como E 41.3 0.0 31.8 ? 0.0 1.9 33.8 7.5 82%

Como F 25.6 10.0 1.2 ? 0.6 1.6 13.4 12.2 52%

Como G 16.2 10.0 0.0 ? 1.7 0.6 12.3 3.9 76%

Como H 10.5 1.0 2.6 ? 0.0 0.9 4.5 6.0 43%

Como I 6.3 3.1 0.0 ? 0.0 0.7 3.8 2.5 61%

Como J 10.0 0.0 2.5 ? 0.0 1.4 3.9 6.1 39%

Como K 8.1 0.0 2.0 ? 0.0 1.1 3.1 5.0 39%

Como L 0.0 0.0 0.0 ? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%

Como M 9.4 0.0 2.4 ? 0.0 1.6 3.9 5.5 42%

All 732.1 143.0 229.3 0.0 81.0 44.9 498.3 233.8 68%

Projects evaluated in existing feasibility studies

Unforseen or unplanned future opportunities. E.g. curb cut rain gardens, innovative practices

Estimated future redevelopment projects subject to CRWD rules

Reduction estimates based on enhanced street sweeping studies. Actual practices may vary.

Page | 54

Como Lake Management Plan DRAFT

May 15, 2019

Table 13. Four categories of watershed TP load reduction methods. TP Load Reduction Method 1. Potential Structural – Identified

2. Potential Structural – Unidentified

3. Future Permit BMPs

4. Potential Non-Structural

Description Potential projects identified in existing feasibility studies

Unforeseen or unplanned future structural BMP opportunities in the Como watershed Future potential redevelopment projects in the Como subwatershed that could be subject to CRWD’s permitting rules

TP load reduction estimate for nonstructural BMP practices

Project Examples

Assumptions for Determining TP Load Reduction

See Appendix C for a list of identified projects from feasibility studies by subwatershed

Estimated using TP load reduction targets (lbs/year) for each project as identified in feasibility studies

Curb cut rain gardens or the development of innovative BMP practices; future feasibility studies

Could not be estimated, currently unknown. Listed as question marks (?) and will be filled in as it becomes available

BMPs installed in the Como watershed as redevelopment occurs

All parcels ≥1 acre identified (parkland and existing structural BMPs exempted). Of those parcels, 50% (or 35 parcels) assumed to be developed over the next 20 years. Of those 35 parcels, each were assumed to have 70% impervious area and a structural BMP installed with a removal rate of 1.6 lbs/acre

Street sweeping, storm drain maintenance, community leaf cleanups

An average TP load reduction estimate from enhanced street sweeping studies were used as a representative value for load reduction by nonstructural practices. Rates calculated using representative value and total directly connected impervious fraction

Page | 55

Como Lake Management Plan DRAFT

May 15, 2019

Potential Structural – Identified Several feasibility studies have been completed by CRWD and other partners in effort to identify locations or opportunities for potential structural BMP projects in the Como watershed. Appendix C lists all potential BMP projects identified in existing feasibility studies in each Como subwatershed (B-M). The BMP type and the estimated TP load reduction target (lbs/year) of each project are also listed Appendix C. The total estimated TP load reduction target (lbs/year) for each subwatershed was summed and the total was placed in the Watershed TP Load Reduction Plan (Table 12) to subtract from the baseline load. The majority of the potential structural projects listed in Appendix C were identified as part of the Como Park Stormwater Inventory and Watershed Analysis (HEI 2016) and the Como Regional Park Stormwater Master Plan (HEI 2017). The following action is recommended to achieve implementation of the potential structural projects that have been identified in feasibility studies through 2018: W1. Implement potential structural projects identified in feasibility studies. Collaborate with partners to implement identified projects (Appendix C) in existing feasibility studies. Based on the calculated estimations, TP Load reductions from ‘Potential Structural-Identified’ have the potential to be significant with 229 lbs/year, or 31% of the total watershed TP load (Table 12).

Potential Structural – Unidentified The ‘Potential Structural-Unidentified’ method accounts for load reductions achieved through unforeseen or unplanned future structural BMP opportunities. This category also accounts for TP load reductions gained by future innovative structural BMPs discovered through research. In addition, feasibility studies that identify potential structural BMP opportunities in the Como watershed will continue to be developed in the future. The TP load reductions to be achieved by potential unidentified structural practices in the Watershed TP Load Reduction Plan (Table 12) could not be estimated because they are currently unknown. Therefore, the load reduction estimates are accounted for in the Watershed TP Load Reduction Plan as question marks (?) and will be filled in as opportunities come available. The following actions are recommended to achieve load reductions from unidentified structural BMPs: W2. Seek out and implement potential structural BMP project opportunities in the Como Lake watershed not currently identified. Collaborate with partners to identify new opportunities as they become available and strategically implement in key locations, such as the placement of curb cut boulevard raingardens during a street reconstruction project. W3. Support research to seek out innovative stormwater management practices. Research and development on innovative stormwater practices is ongoing and continues to evolve. Encourage and provide support to research seeking to develop new and innovative stormwater practices. W4. Complete a feasibility study for a runoff treatment facility to treat watershed runoff flowing to Como Lake. The feasibility study should explore the effectiveness of alum treatment facilities, spent lime, and other innovative technologies. This potential future action depends upon progress to reduce external/watershed loads and response of the Lake to in-lake management actions. The feasibility of existing practices (e.g. spent lime filters) and/or new innovative treatments should be considered at that time as well.

Future Permit BMPs CRWD implements a set of Board adopted rules through the Permitting Program that regulate development and redevelopment projects to ensure that stormwater runoff from construction sites Page | 56

Como Lake Management Plan DRAFT

May 15, 2019

does not adversely affect District water resources. According to CRWD’s Water Quality and Stormwater Management Rules (CRWD 2015), a permit is required for any land development project that disturbs one acre of land or greater, or 10,000 square feet in area and adjacent to a water body (Rule C). For development projects that meet the criteria for Rule C, permittees are required to fulfill three standards pertaining to stormwater management on their site as part of the project: 1) Rate Control—runoff rates cannot exceed existing runoff rates; 2) Volume Reduction—stormwater runoff volume reduction must be achieved onsite in the amount of 1.1 inches of runoff from the total impervious surfaces; and 3) Water Quality—effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% pollutant removal from the runoff generated by 2.5 inch rainfall or annually. Any future development or redevelopment project within the Como watershed will present an opportunity to enact CRWD’s Rule C which will assist in working toward TP load reduction goals. The following actions are recommended to achieve load reductions from future permit BMPs: W5. Implement CRWD permitting rules as they apply. Enact Rule C—Stormwater as future development or redevelopment projects occur in the Como watershed. TP load reductions from ‘Future Permit BMPs’ have the potential to be significant with 81 lbs/year, or 11% of the total watershed TP load.

Potential Non-Structural Non-structural practices in the Como Lake watershed are an effective method for reducing TP loading in stormwater flowing to the lake. Non-structural practices focus on source management, such as proper disposal of pet waste, leaf clean-up efforts, storm drain debris clearing, or street sweeping. The success of non-structural practices for reducing watershed TP are reliant on participation from both municipal and community partners. It is also important to invest in research that aims to understand the effectiveness of non-structural practices so efforts can be better coordinated. Potential non-structural practices were included in the Watershed TP Load Reduction Plan (Table 12) and target TP load reductions by subwatershed were estimated. Based on the calculations, TP load reductions from potential non-structural practices are estimated to be 45 lbs/year, or 6% of the total watershed TP load. The following actions are recommended to assist in achieving load reductions from non-structural practices: W6. Support research on the effectiveness of non-structural practices. Support research that aims to better understand the benefits of leaf removal and street sweeping as TP load reduction strategies. W7. Enhance spring and fall street sweeping efforts in the Como watershed. Coordinate efforts with municipal partners to evaluate and implement a “Como Watershed Street Sweeping Plan” that prioritizes streets for sweeping based on subwatershed load reduction potential, tree species type (leaf phosphorus content, typical leaf drop timing), source potential, and logistics. W8. Support the community in implementing non-structural practices in the Como watershed. Support and promote community efforts for leaf removal, storm drain cleanup, and other TP reduction strategies, e.g. Adopt-a-Drain, leaf disposal assistance, supplies, education/outreach, or event coordination. W9. Provide educational opportunities to Como area residents on non-structural practices. Promote best practices to residents through education and outreach in partnership with CACN, District 10, and other groups.

Page | 57

Como Lake Management Plan DRAFT

May 15, 2019

4.2.2 Other Non-point Source Pollutant Management Actions While phosphorus is the primary pollutant of concern to Como Lake, there are additional non-point source pollutants that affect water quality and overall lake health. The most significant non-point source pollutants in addition to phosphorus are chloride, trash, sediment, and other pollutants contained in stormwater runoff. The implications of each of these pollutants to Como Lake and strategies for reducing them from the watershed are listed below.

Chloride Addressing chloride issues are complex due to the need to balance public safety on icy roads with the negative water quality implications. The following actions are recommended to assist in managing chloride in the Como Lake watershed: W10. Promote best winter deicing practices to the community. Promote best winter salt use and deicing practices to residents and business owners through education and outreach in the Como Lake watershed. W11. Collaborate with agency partners to promote best deicing practices and support innovations in deicing methods. Continue to work with local partners to promote best practices for snow removal and deicing to reduce road salt application on streets and roads in the Como Lake watershed. Support research on innovative deicing methods and technologies that are more efficient, less impactful on water quality, and promote cost-savings. W12. Evaluate and implement options for regulating deicing practices for private applicators. Explore options for requiring private road salt applicators to become an MPCA Certified Applicator by taking the MPCAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Smart Salting Training classes. W13. Routinely monitor and analyze chloride concentrations in Como Lake and at storm sewer outlets. Continue to perform routine sampling (April-October) of chloride in the lake and at key storm sewer outlets discharging to the lake and report upon results. Routine sampling of chloride should occur in the winter months (November-March) during ice-on periods.

Trash Trash entering Como Lake from watershed runoff is problematic because it can have negative impacts the aquatic ecosystem and the overall lake aesthetics. The reduction of trash in Como Lake can be achieved through a combination of prevention in the watershed and direct removal from the lake. The following actions are recommended to assist in preventing and removing trash in the watershed and Como Lake: W14. Improve trash management within the immediate vicinity of Como Lake. Coordinate with the City of St Paul to develop and implement an improved Trash Management Plan to reduce litter within the immediate vicinity of Como Lake and explore innovative BMP technologies aimed at capturing trash before it reaches the Lake. W15. Coordinate with community groups to develop a plan for reducing trash from the watershed. Include strategies that focus on trash prevention, removal, and best practices through educational opportunities and organized neighborhood trash clean ups. W16. Implement an annual trash removal event in and around the lake. Coordinate volunteers and community groups to assist in removing trash in the lake and along the shoreline.

Page | 58

Como Lake Management Plan DRAFT

May 15, 2019

W17. Maintain stormwater BMPs in the watershed to ensure performance for removing trash from stormwater. BMPs will need to be inspected regularly to determine when maintenance is required. Maintenance will include regular clean outs of pre-treatment devices and the BMPs.

Sediment Strategies for managing sediment from the watershed are the same as those proposed for watershed TP reduction through structural and permit BMPs (see Actions W1, W5, W17). Since structural BMPs are receiving stormwater runoff from the watershed, they are able to capture the majority of the other entrained pollutants in addition to TP. Action W18 under â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Watershed Monitoringâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is recommended for observing reductions in sediment from the Como watershed from BMP projects.

Watershed Monitoring Monitoring watershed runoff is critical for quantifying watershed pollutant loads and serves as a way to observe pollutant reductions over time as projects are implemented. Since 2007, CRWD has been monitoring the outlets of three major Como subwatersheds for flow and pollutants during rain and snowmelt events. The data has been used to validate the watershed P8 model and understand more about the pollutants entering Como Lake. CRWD is committed to continuing subwatershed monitoring into the future. The following action is recommended to continue monitoring and assessing subwatershed loads in the Como watershed: W18. Monitor and assess subwatershed loads to Como Lake. Monitor discharge, phosphorus, sediment, and other pollutants at key storm sewer outlets discharging to the lake and estimate subwatershed loads. Monitoring data should be used to confirm load estimates from watershed model. Monitoring should prioritize subwatersheds with minimal or highly variable observed data, subwatersheds identified as high TP load contributors from the model, and subwatersheds where BMP implementation has occurred to evaluate progress on watershed load reduction from existing and future watershed BMPs. The lake and watershed models will need to be updated in the future if observed watershed loads deviate significantly from predicted.

4.3 Community Actions While the previous two sections of the CLMP discuss actions in the lake and watershed, communitybased actions are equally as important to the success of the CLMP. These actions work to help build stewardship of and pride in Como Lake from both individuals and groups within the community. Upon successful implementation of the CLMP, visitors to Como Lake will be able to more confidently interact with Como Lake. That interaction can take the form of fishing, boating, walking around the lake, sitting near the lake, etc. This category of actions is grouped into 3 sub-categories: Recreation actions, Education & Outreach actions, and Partnership actions.

4.3.1 Recreation Recreation is the most significant way people interact with Como Lake. Como Regional Park brings many visitors to Como Lake in all seasons. These visitors recreate in many ways such as: walking/running, bird watching, photography, kayaking, stand-up paddle boarding, fishing, and others. One of the most significant values the community has expressed about Como Lake is related to recreation in and around the Lake, which was identified through the PAG engagement process. As such, it is important that management actions in the CLMP facilitate, improve and celebrate recreational activities at Como Lake.

Page | 59

Como Lake Management Plan DRAFT

May 15, 2019

The following actions are recommended to assist in promoting and maintaining recreational activities on Como Lake: C1. Enhance and maintain existing fishing areas. Enhance and maintain existing fishing areas around Como Lake, i.e. Pavilion dock, fishing pier, Duck Point, and Compass Point. C2. Identify locations for additional designated fishing areas. In conjunction with the shoreline assessment (Action L11), identify potential locations for additional designated fishing areas and establish stable, designated, shore-fishing sites for individuals or small groups. C3. Host annual community fishing event. Coordinate with MNDNR’s Fishing in the Neighborhood Program to host an event that is focused on teaching youth and the community how to fish, how to identify fish species, and the basics of fish ecology. C4. Provide access for non-motorized boating. Continue to provide and maintain designated access points for non-motorized boats. C5. Maintain clear channels for non-motorized boating. Using mechanical harvesting, maintain clear channels for non-motorized boating, particularly in heavily vegetated areas near the Pavilion and fishing pier. Efforts to maintain clear channels for non-motorized boating will need to be carefully evaluated on an annual basis to ensure that management actions do not interfere with progress towards Goal 1, Objective 1F. C6. Develop and implement on-the-water educational opportunities for people recreating on Como Lake. Create on-the-water educational opportunities for people recreating on Como Lake, such as a “Como Lake Water Trail” that includes interpretive installations in the lake. C7. Work with the City of St. Paul to provide year-round water-related recreational activities to bring people to Como Lake. Every season brings recreational opportunities to Como Lake, including non-motorized boating and fishing in the summer to ice skating, cross-country skiing, and ice fishing in the winter. Develop strategies for promoting and supporting recreational activities for all seasons.

4.3.2 Education & Outreach Public support through sustained community engagement and stewardship is critical for the improvement and projection of Como Lake. Having committed community groups and members that can help further the initiatives of the CLMP and support the work of CRWD and its partners is essential for success. Information, education and understanding of Como Lake, its issues, and the work to improve it form the foundation that supports stewardship. Outreach to the many different communities and user groups provides an opportunity to increase the number and diversity of the people working to improve Como Lake. The following actions are recommended to achieve education and outreach objectives: C8. Conduct annual educational workshops or events on watershed and lake protection. CRWD will coordinate and host at least one annual workshop or event that supports current Como Lake initiatives for existing community groups as well as new audiences. C9. Develop and install a Como Lake Water Quality Kiosk. A kiosk will be developed, installed and maintained at an outdoor location near the Pavilion, and will serve as the primary information hub for Como Lake. The kiosk will communicate information relevant to Como Lake’s water quality and on-going improvement efforts, e.g. science, information, updates, realtime data, available activities, maps.

Page | 60

Como Lake Management Plan DRAFT

May 15, 2019

C10. Develop and install new educational signage around Como Lake. Signage will be installed at key locations to enhance user experience and understanding of the lake’s ecosystem, its history, shoreline improvement efforts, and other lake improvement projects. Identify at least two additional languages in which to display or print educational information. C11. Develop educational resources about Como Lake for school groups and community groups. Educational resources will be developed that can be offered to school groups or others for use in learning more about Como Lake’s history, water quality ecosystem, and lake improvement efforts. C12. Incorporate art and other media as an alternative communication method of Como Lake’s water quality. Art and other media can help engage citizens who might not otherwise be engaged in the work to improve Como Lake’s water quality. This work will need to be coordinated with the City of St. Paul to ensure that it is complimentary to other park programming and art installations. C13. Provide regular updates on Como Lake to the community. CRWD will coordinate and submit regular updates (e.g. blogposts, social media content, press releases, and/or reports) on Como Lake water quality, current projects, or other relevant information to Como Active Citizen Network (CACN), District 10, and other community groups and members to distribute to their networks. C14. Regularly participate in meetings of existing community groups. CRWD will regularly participate in meetings of existing community groups to stay updated on community group initiatives and to provide updates on Como Lake water quality improvement efforts. C15. Support an existing community group(s) in their hosting of at least one event each year. Events hosted by existing community groups offer an excellent opportunity to communicate information on Como Lake to citizens of the District. These events, although not necessarily water focused, can be an opportunity for CRWD to engage citizens who might not otherwise have exposure to information about Como Lake. C16. Provide resources (informational and/or supplies) for volunteer groups in the Como Lake watershed to support their initiatives (e.g. Master Water Stewards, CACN, neighborhood teams). C17. Identify and partner with new community institutions in Como Lake improvement efforts. New institutions in the community may include schools, faith groups, cultural groups, or businesses. Provide new institutions with opportunities to engage with Como Lake and participate in water quality improvement efforts. C18. Target outreach to recreational users of Como Lake and Como Park. Engage with various individuals or user groups utilizing Como Lake and Como Park, e.g. walkers, runners, bikers, dog owners, boaters, anglers, skiers, birders, etc. C19. Provide a Como Lake comprehensive online resource to allow the public to access information and updates about Como Lake. CRWD will continue to host a website that includes a wealth of information on Como Lake, including its history, current water quality conditions, monitoring data, watershed information, and community resources. A comprehensive online location for this information will help educate and inform the community about Como Lake.

Page | 61

Como Lake Management Plan DRAFT

May 15, 2019

C20. Document history, personal stories, and values linked to Como Lake. Coordinate and develop programming to research, document, and share the history, stories, and value of Como Lake. C21. Develop and launch a citizen science campaign with Como area residents, schools, and community groups. Citizen science offers an excellent opportunity to engage community groups and individuals in helping collect critical data to help guide management decisions for Como Lake. Additionally, it provides a meaningful way for individuals to observe and learn more about Como Lake.

4.3.3 Partnerships No one agency can implement the CLMP and improve Como Lake alone. Partnerships are a key component to addressing the many issues facing Como Lake and meeting long-term goals for improvement. Several agencies and community groups have done significant work relative to Lake and/or watershed improvement projects and programs. Continued partnering and coordination between these agencies and groups will remain a key component to most efficiently and effectively implement the CLMP. New partners will also be important to ensure efforts can be linked to all segments of the Como Lake community. Partnerships can also include funding arrangements that most cost-effectively implement the CLMP. The following actions are recommended to support partnerships: C22. Partner with agencies and community groups to complete the actions in the Como Lake Management Plan. Partnerships and cooperative efforts are integral to successful implementation of the CLMP since improving the lake is dependent on multiple partners. C23. Conduct annual meeting with agency partners. Coordinate and host an annual meeting with agency partners (e.g. “Como Lake Agency Management Team”) to report upon progress, projects, results, and next steps. This group will be able to regularly document progress towards meeting goals and serve as the mechanism for implementing the Adaptive Management Approach. C24. Regularly evaluate potential opportunities for outside funding/financing sources to implement the CLMP including grants, cost-sharing, in-kind contributions, and loans.

4.4 Recommended Actions Summary In total, fifty-four actions have been recommended for lake, watershed, and community to meet the goals of the CLMP. A summary table of all fifty-four recommended actions can be found below (Table 14). In addition to listing all of the actions, Table 14 indicates which goals and objectives each action achieves. The timing of each action has also been identified as short-term (0-3 years), ongoing, or longterm (3-20 years). Because of uncertainty in how the Lake will respond and the need for management to be flexible beyond the first three years of plan adoption, the schedule for implementing the recommended actions have been temporarily structured using the following time period definitions: •

Short-term (0-3 years): Actions that are recommended to be implemented within the first three years of CLMP adoption.

•

Ongoing: Actions that are recommended to occur frequently (in some cases annually) over the life of the plan. Some ongoing actions may be efforts that are currently occurring from previously established programming.

Page | 62

Como Lake Management Plan DRAFT

â&#x20AC;˘

May 15, 2019

Long-term (3-20 years): Actions that are recommended for consideration pending evolution of the short-term actions to meet goals. Long-term actions will be evaluated every three years as future options for the short-term implementation plan.

The time period definition listed for each action in Table 14 will change every three years along with the update of the Short-Term Implementation Plan.

Page | 63

Como Lake Management Plan DRAFT

May 15, 2019

Table 14. Summary of Recommended Management Actions (L = Lake; W = Watershed; C = Community; Obj = Objective). Category

Action #

Short-term (0-3 years)

Ongoing

Long-term (3-20 years)

Associated Goal/Obj

Lake (L) L1 L2 L3 L4

Update lake water quality model Alum application to inactivate sediment phosphorus

Aquatic Vegetation

L5 L6 L7

Herbicide treatment to control curly-leaf pondweed Develop and implement lake vegetation management plan

Fisheries

L8 L9

Develop long-term targets for balanced fishery

Shoreline

L10 L11 L12

Conduct shoreline assessment Develop and implement shoreline management plan

Phosphorus Management

1A, 1B, 1C 1A, 1B 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D 1A, 1b

Continue bi-weekly in-lake water quality sampling Supplemental alum applications

1E 1E, 1F 1E, 1F

Conduct annual aquatic vegetation surveys Conduct fish surveys

1G 1G

Engage volunteers and local partners in shoreline management

2A 2A 2A

Watershed (W) Implement potential structural projects identified in feasibility studies

Seek out and implement potential structural BMP project opportunities in the Como Lake watershed not currently identified

W2 Support research to seek out innovative stormwater management practices

W3 Phosphorus Management

W5 W6

1A, 1C, 5A

Implement CRWD permitting rules as they apply Support research on the effectiveness of non-structural practices

1A, 1C 1C, 1D 1A, 1C, 1D, 5B

Support the community in implementing non-structural practices in the Como watershed Provide educational opportunities to Como area residents on nonstructural practices

1C, 1D, 4A, 4B 1C, 1D, 4A, 4B, 4C

W10

Promote best winter deicing practices to the community

1D, 4A, 4B, 4C

W11

Collaborate with agency partners to promote best deicing practices and support innovations in deicing methods

Enhance spring and fall street sweeping efforts in the Como watershed

W8 W9

W14 W15

1D, 4C, 5B Evaluate and implement options for regulating deicing practices for private applicators

W12 Routinely monitor and analyze chloride concentrations in Como Lake and storm sewer outlets

W13 Trash Management

1A, 1C, 1D, 5B 1A, 1C, 1D, 5B

Complete a feasibility study for a runoff treatment facility to treat watershed runoff flowing to Como Lake.

Chloride Management

1A, 1C, 1D, 5B

Improve trash management within the immediate vicinity of Como Lake

1D, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5B 1D, 5A 1D, 5B

Coordinate with community groups to develop a plan for reducing trash from the watershed

Page | 64

1D, 4A, 4B, 4C

Como Lake Management Plan DRAFT