February 10, 2016 cac packet

Citizen Advisory Committee 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 10, 2016 – Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, Saint Paul, MN 55108 Agenda

Materials Enclosed

7:00

I)

Welcome, Announcements and Updates – Introductions

7:05

II)

Public Comment for issues not on the Agenda (3 minutes per person)

7:08

III)

Approval of the Agenda

7:09

IV)

Approval of Minutes A) Approval of the January 13, 2016 Minutes

7:10

V)

District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recommendations A) Community Capacity Assessment, Mae Davenport, University of Minnesota B) Technical Report: Eustis Street Regional Modeling, Nathan Campeau, Barr Engineering

8:20

VI)

CAC Initiatives A) 2016 Student Worker Update and Discussion B) 2016 Event, Mark Doneux

8:45

VII)

Project and Program Updates A) Snelling Midway Redevelopment Project B) CRWD Public Map Viewer Discussion C) Education Program Review D) CAC Project and Program Review Update

8:50

VIII) CAC Observer Update

8:55

IX)

Discussion A) New & Old Issues B) CAC Observer for February 17 and March 2, 2016 Board of Managers Meetings C) 2016 Meeting Schedule

9:00

X)

Adjourn

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Agendas\2016\January 13, 2016 CAC Agenda.docx

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

Draft

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, January 13, 2016 – 7:00 p.m.

CAC Members Present: David Arbeit Bill Barton Pat Cavanaugh Steve Duerre Mike MacDonald Kathryn Swanson Nicole Soderholm Michelle Ulrich Gwen Willems

Others Present: Mark Doneux, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD Nate Zwonitzer, CRWD Seitu Jones, CRWD Board Manager Joe Lewis, Houston Engineering

Members absent: Claudia Hochstein, absent w/notice Rick Sanders, absent w/notice Richard Weil, absent w/notice

Welcome, Announcements, and Updates Ms. Willems opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. with introductions. David Arbeit shared an article with the Board of Managers regarding a 44% tax levy increase at Coon Creek Watershed. Mr. Arbeit shared concerns about increasing taxes. Ms. Ulrich is an Attorney for Coon Creek watershed and shared that the levy is for new building. Ms. Willems noted that the increase per household equates to $10-$15 per household.

III. Approval of Agenda Ms. Willems asked for any additions or changes to the Agenda. Ms. Swanson requested adding Student Worker Program to the agenda.

CAC 16-001 Motion: To approve the CAC January 13, 2016 agenda with the addition of the Student Worker Program.

Swanson/Cavanaugh Unanimously approved IV. Approval of the December 9, 2015 Minutes No changes or corrections were noted.

CAC 16-002 Motion: To approve the December 9, 2015 Minutes.

1

Duerre/MacDonald Unanimously approved V. District Initiatives A)

Como Regional Park Stormwater Inventory (Zwonitzer)

Mr. Zwonitzer reviewed that in September, 2014, the CRWD Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of St. Paul to develop a stormwater management master plan for Como Regional Park. The MOU outlined shared goals of intentional management of stormwater as a resource, and protection of the water resources within Como Park. Subjects that must be addressed include an inventory of existing conditions (Phase 1), and development of a 10-20 year stormwater plan (Phase 2). In June, 2015, the CRWD Board approved an agreement with Houston Engineering (HEI) to complete Phase 1.

Mr. Zwonitzer introduced Mr. Joe Lewis with Houston Engineering. Mr. Lewis provided an update for the CAC on Phase 1. In order to develop a long-term stormwater plan for the park the first step would be to understand the existing conditions. The stormwater inventory and watershed assessment involved gathering stormwater data from a variety of sources including St. Paul Public Works, St. Paul Parks, and CRWD. Over 30 years of information was compiled and shared using GIS and online interactive maps until nearly all stormwater BMPs were accounted for. Watershed conditions and stormwater BMPs were entered into a stormwater model to calculate the following: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Annual stormwater volume and pollutant loads entering the park Annual stormwater volume and pollutant loads generated within the park Benefit of existing treatment facilities (BMPs) Current annual stormwater discharge to Como Lake

The inventory helps to explain the source of pollutants reaching Como Lake, the location and amount of existing treatment and to help prioritize future projects. With the inventory complete, CRWD plans to continue working with St. Paul to begin Phase 2; the development of a 10-20 year stormwater plan. This plan will address future development/redevelopment within the park and identify stormwater treatment goals and opportunities.

The Committee discussed the findings of the inventory. Additional discussions will take place with the City of St. Paul on future plans regarding the road development and coordinating efforts with stormwater treatment practices.

VI. CAC Initiatives A) 2015 Watershed Awards Program Review, Mark Doneux Administrator Doneux requested feedback from members of the CAC on the Awards Ceremony. Manager Jones thanked the members of the CAC for taking the lead. Overall the CAC had positive feedback on the event. The location was great and the length of the program was just right. Ms. Cavanaugh suggested more displays around the room showing work with schools and partnerships.

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

2

B) Student Service Learning, Katheryn Swanson Ms. Swanson announced that she is expecting and will need to step back on her involvement with the Service Learning Program. Ms. Willems asked if any CAC members would be able and willing to lead the program.

Mr. Barton and Mr. MacDonald offered to take on one student worker.

VII. Project and Program Updates A) Upper Villa Stormwater Improvement Project Administrator Doneux provided an update to the CAC on the Upper Villa Stormwater Improvement Project.

The project was started on November 2nd and construction has wrapped up for the season. Administrator Doneux noted that the field will not be sodded. Additional conversations are planned to take place with the City of Roseville about sodding in the fall of 2016 and using a temporary field surface for the 2016 season.

B) 2016 Partner Grants Administrator Doneux reviewed that at the October 21, 2015 Board Meeting the Managers commented and approved the 2016 Partner Grant Application form and distribution list. Board Managers, Jones and Reider were appointed to the Partner Grant Review Committee and the Board requested two CAC members be appointed at the November 12, 2015 CAC meeting. The District received 20 Partner Grant applications during the application period of October 22 – December 8, 2015 totaling $271,763 in requests. The 2016 Partner Grants budget is $75,000. Staff reviewed all applications and made preliminary recommendations for the Partner Grant Review Committee to review and adjust. On December 30th, the Partner Grant Review Committee of Manager Jones, Manager Reider, CAC members, Mike MacDonald and Steve Duerre reviewed 2016 CRWD Partner Grant applications.

C) CRWD Public Map Viewer Mr. Zwonitzer shared with the members of the CAC a demonstration of the GIS interactive maps. The mapping system helps to identify points for the next phase of a development and set goals. Administrator Doneux encouraged the CAC to review and test the system. A link can be found on the CRWD website.

The BMP data base is used to track BMP’s, permits, grant and capital projects. Members of the CAC were very pleased with the system.

VIII. CAC Observer Update Ms. Cavanaugh attended the January 6, 2016 Board of Managers meeting. Ms. Cavanaugh reviewed that Ms. Van Patten provided an update to the Board of Managers on the Master Water Stewards program.

Administrator Doneux discussed with the Managers how the first meeting of the month has been shorter and feels that including discussion topics that need additional time would make good use of the meeting.

Managers Jones provided an update on the Annual Meeting held on December 16, 2015. The Managers approved the 2016 budget and discussed strategies for the levy.

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

3

Discussion A) New & Old Issues Ms. Cavanaugh noted that she will attend Governor Dayton’s Water Summit.

B) CAC Observer for the Board of Managers Meetings.

No members identified.

C) 2015 Meeting Schedule The February 10, 2016 CAC meeting will include a review of the Education Program, Community Capacity Assessment and an update on the service learning project.

Adjourn – CAC 16-003 Motion: To adjourn the January 13, 2016 CAC Meeting.

Cavanaugh/MacDonald Unanimously approved The meeting was adjourned at 9:11 PM. Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Minutes\2016\January 13, 2016 Draft Minutes.doc

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

4

February 10, 2016 V. District Initiatives A) Community Capacity Assessment update DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 4, 2016 Citizen Advisory Committee Lindsay VanPatten, Interim Education and Outreach Coordinator Community Capacity Assessment Final Report

Background In 2013, CRWD Board of Managers approved a partnership with Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization to study individual actions and public decision making within the framework of a community’s actual abilities – its capacity – to engage in clean water behaviors. This joint watershed assessment is led by Professor Mae Davenport of University of Minnesota Department of Forest Resources and Research Assistant Vanessa Perry, MS. Below are the primary research questions of the study:  What are drivers of and constraints to community capacity to engage in stormwater management in the watersheds?  What are community member values, beliefs and norms associated with water and water resource management?  What are community member perceptions of existing water programs?  What water programming is most likely to influence future conservation behavior among community members?

In CRWD, stakeholder interviews were conducted with business and community leaders along the Green Line and on Saint Paul’s East Side in 2014. Ms. Davenport presented a summary of interview results to the CAC at the December 10, 2014 meeting.

Updates In 2015, the final stages of data gathering were completed through focus groups and a mail survey.

Enclosed is a draft copy of A Community Capacity Assessment for Stormwater Management in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Ms. Davenport will present a summary of the study and findings to the CAC. Paper copies of the enclosure will not be available at the meeting unless requested. If you’d like a paper copy of the report for the meeting, please contact Lindsay.

Request Action No action requested. For review and comment only. enc: (digital only) A Community Capacity Assessment for Stormwater Management in the Twin Cities Metro Area_DRAFT W:\07 Programs\Edu-Outreach\Comm Capacity Assess\CAC Memo Comm Capacity Update 2-10-16.docx

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

A COMMUNITY CAPACITY ASSESSMENT FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE TWIN CITIES METRO AREA A Social Science-Based Assessment

January 2016 Authors: Mae A. Davenport, PhD Vanessa Perry, MS Amit Pradhananga, PhD Jennifer Shepard

A Community Capacity Assessment of Stormwater Management in the Twin Cities Metro Area A final technical report prepared for Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization by Mae A. Davenport, PhD Associate Professor, Department of Forest Resources Director, Center for Changing Landscapes Vanessa Perry, MS Graduate Research Assistant Amit Pradhananga, PhD Research Associate Jennifer Shepard Graduate Research Assistant

College of Food, Agriculture and Natural Resource Sciences University of Minnesota 115 Green Hall 1530 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55108-6112 www.forestry.umn.edu

January 31, 2016

ii

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge and thank our Twin Cities metro area watershed organization partners, Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, Mississippi Watershed Management Organization, and Capitol Region Watershed District, for their collaboration and invaluable assistance with study design, participant recruitment, and project outreach. The authors extend gratitude to Sarah Fellows, Bree Duever, Laura Dorle, Alexandria Felix, and Alyssa Prokott, current and former students at the University of Minnesota, for their assistance with data collection, management, and analysis. We received critical input and feedback from the Project Advisory Team made up of dedicated community actors from each of the watersheds. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the 268 survey respondents and 75 interview and focus group participants who shared with us their insights on their communities and their perspectives on community engagement in water resource protection and management.

Funding for this project was provided by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD), Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO). This work also was supported by grants from USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Hatch project 229912) and United States Geological Survey (Cooperative Agreement Number 2013MN352B).

The report’s contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the funders. Cover photos: Right photo provided by the Capitol Region Watershed District; left photo created by Vanessa Perry.

The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

i

Table of Contents Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................ i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... v Project Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Goals ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Study Design and Methods ........................................................................................................................... 3 Key Informant Interviews.......................................................................................................................... 5 Focus Groups............................................................................................................................................. 5 Qualitative Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 6 Resident Mail Survey ................................................................................................................................ 6 Project Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Interview Findings ................................................................................................................................... 11 Interview Participant Profile ............................................................................................................... 11 Community Narratives ........................................................................................................................ 12 Water Narratives................................................................................................................................. 18 Community-Stormwater Interaction Narratives ................................................................................. 21 Stormwater Program Evaluations ........................................................................................................... 28 Evaluation of the Central Corridor Green Line Green stormwater management projects ................ 28 Evaluation of the Living Streets Program ............................................................................................ 29 Focus Group Findings .............................................................................................................................. 31 Survey Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 34 Survey Respondent Profile .................................................................................................................. 35 Divergences: Unique Respondent Attributes by Watershed Area ..................................................... 38 Confluences: Common Respondent Attributes Across Watersheds .................................................. 39 Discussion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 46 References .................................................................................................................................................. 50 Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 52 Appendix A. Participant Recruitment Flier ............................................................................................. 53 Appendix B. Interview Contact Script ..................................................................................................... 55 Appendix C. Interview Guides ................................................................................................................. 58 I.

Mississippi Watershed Management Organization .................................................................... 59 ii

II.

Capitol Region Watershed District .............................................................................................. 64

III.

Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District......................................................................... 69

Appendix D. Interview Consent Form ..................................................................................................... 74 Appendix E. Interview Background Information Form ........................................................................... 77 Appendix F. Focus Group Consent Form................................................................................................. 79 Appendix G. Focus Group Agenda .......................................................................................................... 82 Appendix H. Focus Group Background Information Form ...................................................................... 84 Appendix I. Survey Questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 86 Appendix J. Survey Cover Letter ............................................................................................................. 95 Appendix K. Survey Reminder Letter ...................................................................................................... 97 Appendix L. Survey Replacement Cover Letter....................................................................................... 99 Appendix M: Survey Findings ................................................................................................................ 101

iii

List of Tables Table 1. Issue Scoping and Assessment Focus .............................................................................................. 4 Table 2. PAT Membership and Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 4 Table 3. Interviewee socio-demographic characteristics ........................................................................... 12 Table 4. Community .................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 5. Water............................................................................................................................................. 21 Table 6. Community-stormwater interactions ........................................................................................... 27 Table 7. Focus group participant socio-demographic characteristics ........................................................ 32 Table 8. Internal challenges and opportunities associated with community engagement........................ 33 Table 9. External challenges and opportunities associated with community engagement ....................... 34 Table 10. Survey response rate by watershed ............................................................................................ 34 Table 11.Survey respondents' socio-demographic characteristics............................................................. 36 Table 12. Survey respondents' housing/property characteristics .............................................................. 37 Table 13. Survey area residents’ socio-demographic and housing characteristics .................................... 38

List of Figures Figure 1. Study sites within Mississippi Watershed Management Organization ......................................... 8 Figure 2. Study sites within the Capitol Region Watershed District ............................................................. 9 Figure 3. Study sites within the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District ...................................... 10 Figure 4. Differences and commonalities between adopters and non-adopters of clean water actions .. 44 Figure 5. Differences and commonalities between respondents with varying levels of civic engagement.. .................................................................................................................................................................... 45

iv

Executive Summary University of Minnesota researchers in collaboration with Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Organization investigated community capacity and conservation behaviors associated with stormwater management from the perspectives of diverse community members who live and work in the watersheds. The project applied a participatory, community-based research approach using both qualitative data, gathered through key informant interviews and focus groups, and quantitative data, collected in self-administered surveys.

Four primary research questions drove this project: • What are drivers of and constraints to community capacity to engage in stormwater management in the watersheds?

• What are community member values, beliefs and norms associated with water and water resource management?

• What are community member perceptions of existing water programs?

• What water programming is most likely to influence future conservation behavior among community members?

More than 300 community members participated in the project as research subjects, and 27 community members served on the project advisory team. Interview findings present rich and wide-ranging narratives on community, water, and community-stormwater interactions. Focus group findings reveal a series of opportunities and challenges watershed organizations face in inspiring community engagement. The resident survey examined a wide breadth of topics and findings establish areas of convergence and divergence between watershed subgroups, levels of clean water action, and levels of civic engagement. The survey inquired about important neighborhood qualities, engagement in community issues, beliefs and concerns about water, and engagement in clean water action.

Based on study findings, we identified a series of strategies for building community capacity and engaging communities in stormwater management. Strategies are organized and presented by four overarching recommendations: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Tap into existing community assets Connect with community issues and link to community identities Remove community-water barriers Emotivate in water programming

v

Project Background Despite advances in biophysical science, technology and engineering, stormwater management continues to be a major challenge to planners and managers in urban settings. Stormwater management requires not only technical solutions like the design and installation of stormwater management infrastructure, but also the commitment and action of diverse stakeholders, from residents and landowners to business owners and local government officials. Thus, water resource and land use professionals are increasingly seeking guidance from social scientists and outreach and communication specialists to better understand and influence people and their behaviors. Conservation behavior has the potential to significantly advance stormwater management initiatives, or if lacking, to considerably impede their success. This project uses a community capacity assessment to understand the drivers and constraints to public- and private-sphere conservation behavior associated with stormwater management in urban watersheds. For this study, conservation behavior is broadly defined and encompasses private-sphere actions like land and water use conservation (e.g., rain garden installation and the maintenance of streamside buffers), as well as public-sphere actions like conservation citizenship (e.g., attending a watershed planning meeting or being willing to pay a fee for water resource protection) and conservation advocacy (e.g., participating in a volunteer event or joining a watershed organization).

A growing emphasis on integrated problem-solving exists in Minnesota water resource management (WRM). This approach recognizes the need for cross-scale awareness, interdisciplinary science and transboundary solutions to water resource impairments. However, while ecological monitoring and protection technology have evolved significantly at this new scale, comprehensive assessments of the human, social and governance dimensions of WRM continue to lag significantly behind. As Braden et al.

(2009) argue, “In the context of water, the ‘management’ required to balance human needs with ecosystem requirements is not simply a matter of better understanding flows or contaminants, or optimizing engineered systems; it also requires understanding [the] …economic, cultural, and social determinants of water use” (pg. 4). Water and community experts agree that a greater understanding of the capacity of individuals and entire communities to engage in sustainable watershed management and to adapt to changing social-ecological conditions is needed for more resilient and longer-lasting water resource protection (Braden et al., 2009; Tarlock, 2003; Bradshaw, 2003; Sabatier et al., 2005; Morton, 2008). Adaptive responses to water quality, quantity and timing problems in urban watersheds depend on both individual and collective action. Without the coordinated efforts of residents, property/business owners, organizations, local governments and entire communities, these problems persist and are amplified at watershed scales.

1

Project Goals This project is an assessment of community capacity for stormwater management in RamseyWashington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD), Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO) in Minnesota’s Twin Cities metropolitan area. Data were gathered through multiple social science research methods to answer four overarching research questions: • What are drivers of and constraints to community capacity to engage in stormwater management in the watersheds?

• What are community member values, beliefs and norms associated with water and water resource management?

• What are community member perceptions of existing water programs?

• What water programming is most likely to influence future conservation behavior among community members?

Project findings are drawn from (1) key informant interviews with residents, property/business owners, community advocates and formal decision-makers who are active in the watersheds; (2) a series of focus groups with decision makers and interest groups in the watersheds; and (3) a mail survey of watershed residents in select neighborhoods. Ultimately, this project will inform and enhance water resource projects and programs and to provide strategic direction to water managers and other natural resource professionals for building community capacity to engage in stormwater management.

2

Study Design and Methods University of Minnesota researchers in collaboration with Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (hereafter Partners) investigated community capacity and conservation behaviors associated with stormwater management from the perspectives of diverse community members who live and work in the watersheds (Figures 1-3). The project applied a participatory, community-based research approach using both qualitative data gathered through key informant interviews and focus groups, and quantitative data collected in self-administered surveys.

UMN personnel and Partners collaborated on project planning, local coordination, and a stakeholder inventory for participant recruitment. The stakeholder inventory identified a range and diversity of community groups (e.g., neighborhood associations, non-profit organizations), property/business owners, and decision makers (e.g., local government officials and water resource professionals) who are active in the watersheds and who have insight on community capacity to respond to problems or stressors. UMN personnel met with project Partners to scope and prioritize key issues and audiences for assessment across the study watersheds (Table 1). Project Partners were interested in reaching audiences with which they had few connections. CRWD managers identified business and commercial property owners along the Metro Transit Central Corridor Green Line light rail as a prime audience for future programming. Managers sought insight on how best to engage these property owners and managers in stormwater management practices. CRWD also requested a program evaluation component to learn how business owners perceive the Central Corridor’s stormwater infrastructure installations, including rain gardens, tree trenches, and pervious pavers. RWMWD had questions about how to engage large landowners in water issues and conservation actions. RWMWD also requested a program evaluation of a Living Streets project, in which a series of stormwater infrastructure features were installed in a residential neighborhood. MWMO expressed the need to understand how to engage racially and ethnically diverse community members and recent immigrants in particular communities, including North Minneapolis, Fridley and Colombia Heights.

A project advisory team (PAT) was assembled representing the three watersheds at the onset of the project (Table 2). The team provided insight and guidance in study design and the stakeholder inventory.

The team reviewed the survey questionnaire, and provided input on research findings and outreach strategies. The PAT was comprised of a range of stakeholders representing local government, community organizations, and community activists. Project personnel with support from Partners facilitated two meetings with PAT members for project planning and local coordination.

3

Table 1. Issue Scoping and Assessment Focus Issue/Opportunity Stakeholders CRWD Non-point source Business and pollution commercial property owners along the Green Line corridor Lack of opportunities Organizations that for community serve racial and member actions ethnic minority toward clean water communities along the Green Line Central Corridor RWMWD Stormwater runoff & Large landowners non-point source pollution Stormwater runoff & non-point source pollution MWMO

Stormwater runoff & non-point source pollution Stormwater runoff & non-point source pollution

Assessment Questions Assessment Audiences What are perspectives on stormwater BMPs? How to best engage and inspire business owners in conservation actions?

How to best engage community members in interactive dialogue around clean water?

Living Streets Program Implementation: participants and non-participants New immigrant community members in the watershed and near areas Community members of North Minneapolis, Fridley, and Colombia Heights

Table 2. PAT Membership and Stakeholders CRWD RWMWD PAT members 14 6 Stakeholders 40 15 phase I, 113 phase II

4

How to best engage landowners in water resource issues and conservation actions?

How to best design Living Streets Program that resonates with and engages property owners?

How to best engage the new immigrant community in water resource issues and conservation actions?

How to best engage community members of North Minneapolis, Fridley, and Colombia Heights in water resource issues and conservation actions?

MWMO 7 33

Faith centers/places of worship and commercial/business owners Property owners in neighborhoods where Living Streets initiatives have been implemented

Key Informant Interviews UMN personnel developed a project description flier (Appendix A), contact script (Appendix B) and interview guides (Appendix C) to facilitate community member participation. All of these materials were reviewed by project partners. The interview guide was piloted by project personnel and refined based on input from pilot participants. The project was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) as designated by University policy. The IRB process is designed to protect human subjects involved in research from harm and ensure the ethical practice of research by University personnel. IRB review determined the study was not at risk of causing harm and therefore was exempt from further review.

In coordination with PAT members and Partners, UMN personnel identified an initial list of prospective interview and focus group participants. Researchers employed “snowball sampling� to identify additional potential stakeholders. Snowball sampling, or chain referral sampling, invites participants to identify other members of their community who they believe have important knowledge about their community or community action. Participants made referrals based on publicly available knowledge (Mack et al., 2005). In the two evaluation studies, additional participant recruitment strategies were used. In CRWD, to reach businesses located along the Green Line Central corridor, project personnel approached business owners in person. In RWMWD, flyering houses located in the residential area where the Living Streets program was used to specifically recruit individuals living within the program implementation area.

Sixty semi-structured interviews were conducted with 64 individuals; in four instances a pair of individuals was interviewed together. Twenty interviews were conducted in each watershed.

Participants included representatives from community-based organizations, business owners, property managers, and local residents. Most of the interviews occurred in the individual’s home or place of business, although some opted to meet at public establishments (e.g., community center, local coffee shop, etc.). Participants were offered $50.00 as an incentive to participate. Each individual signed a consent form (Appendix D) prior to the start of the interview and the interviewer emphasized that participation was voluntary and that every reasonable effort would be made to ensure confidentiality.

The interviewer also answered any questions the interviewee had prior to beginning the interview.

Following the interview, participants were asked to complete a participant background information form (Appendix E). This information was used to help understand the sample profile and is only reported at the aggregate level. No personally identifying information is linked to the interview data.

Focus Groups Three focus group sessions were administered in October and November 2015 with project Partners, PAT members, and select community interest groups. The aim of the focus groups was to reflect on preliminary study findings and to further explore institutional constraints to community engagement from the perspectives of water resource professionals, community leaders and community actors. The first focus group session was held with project Partner staff that had been most closely working and advising researchers on the study. The next two focus group sessions were held with project advisory 5

team members who had been somewhat involved in advising researchers and recruiting interview participants. Potential participants in these sessions were contacted using a set script similar to the one used in the interview process which explains the intent of the project and the focus groups. Each participant was asked to complete a consent form (Appendix F) prior to the start of the focus group. An agenda (Appendix G) was set for the events to guide the proceedings with assistance from other members of the research team. The focus group included a brief presentation summarizing findings to date, as well as time for discussion on the issue of stormwater attitudes and decision making.

Participants were also asked to complete a background information form (Appendix H) prior to the conclusion of the event.

Researchers attempted to conduct a third focus group with community members who had not been previously involved in any aspect of the study. Researchers worked with Partners to identify communities of focus. Partners asked that focus groups be held in the North Minneapolis and Fridley/Columbia Heights areas to reengage these communities beyond the interviewee pool.

Researchers worked with PAT members to recruit individuals, contacted previous interviewees in the communities for recommendations, and distributed flyers advertising the focus groups in the communities at local libraries. Unfortunately, there was not a sufficient response to move forward with the focus groups and they were canceled.

Qualitative Data Analysis Qualitative data were analyzed using open coding consistent with adapted grounded theory procedures (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin and Strass, 2008) and focused coding to highlight responses with direct bearing on the research or interview questions. Analysis was performed using QSR International’s Nvivo 10.0 software to manage, code, and organize the data. The coding schema development and analytic processes included periodic checks for consistency and applicability with a team of researchers familiar with the study.

The goal of the analysis was not to statistically represent the beliefs of the broader watershed population. Thus, findings may not be generalizable at this scale. While the study findings only represent the beliefs and opinions of the study participants, wide-ranging and diverse perspectives were captured.

Study participants have different backgrounds, experiences, and connections to community and water.

Importantly, this study documented the perspectives of members of historically excluded groups and People of Color. While study findings should not be generalized to all urban watershed populations, we believe the study provides important insight and lessons about community members and community engagement in similar sociocultural contexts.

Resident Mail Survey The resident study was conducted through a self-administered survey of a random sample of residents in select neighborhoods within MWMO, RWMWD, and CRWD boundaries. A stratified, proportional sample of 1000 residents from selected census tracts within the three study watersheds was purchased 6

from Survey Sampling International (SSI). The sample included residents from census tracts within the cities of Minneapolis, Fridley and Columbia Heights (MWMO), St. Paul (CRWD) and Roseville (RWMWD) (Figures 1-3). Census tracts were selected in areas of highest interest for project Partners. The surveys were administered from August 2015 through January 2016.

Survey instruments were designed based on an extensive literature review and feedback from Partners and the project advisory teams (PAT). The survey questionnaire included a variety of fixed-choice and scale questions. Several questions were adapted from survey instruments used in previous studies of attitudes, beliefs, and values of conservation behaviors (Blasczyk, Your views on local water resources, 2010; Brehm, Eisenhauer & Krannich, 2006; Harland, Staats, & Wilke, 2007; Prokopy et al., 2009; Schultz, 2001; Schwartz, 1977; Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1998; Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Seekamp, Davenport, & Brehm, Lower Kaskaskia River Watershed Resident Survey, 2009). Each questionnaire was labeled with a unique identification number to track responses for subsequent mailings.

An adapted Dillman's (2009) Tailored Design Method was used to increase response rates. The survey was administered in three waves: (1) the questionnaire (Appendix I) with a cover letter (Appendix J), self-addressed, business reply envelope and a cash incentive ($2 bill); (2) a replacement questionnaire with a reminder letter (Appendix K) and envelope; and (3) a third replacement questionnaire with cover letter (Appendix L) and envelope. Important to note: findings described in this report are based on questionnaires received after the first two waves of mailing.

Returned questionnaires were logged into a respondent database. Response data were numerically coded and entered into a database using Microsoft Excel 2010. Basic descriptive statistics were conducted to determine frequency distributions and central tendency of individual variables. Inferential statistics also were conducted to test for significant differences across the three study watersheds (i.e., MWMO, CRWD and RWMWD). Statistical analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS release 21.0).

Respondent watershed subgroups (i.e., CRWD respondents, MWMO respondents, and RWMWD respondents were compared for differences in their sociodemographic (survey questions 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27) and housing characteristics (survey questions 8, 21 and 22), social influences on decisions about getting involved in their community (survey question 2 and 3), perspectives on their neighborhood (survey questions 4 and 5), perspectives on water resources (survey questions 9, 10 and 14), concern about water issues (survey question 15), familiarity with and current use of clean water actions (survey question 16), familiarity with and participation in community activities (survey question 17) and likelihood of future clean water actions (survey question 19).

Comparisons also were conducted between subgroups by levels of clean water action (i.e., high action versus low action) and levels of civic engagement (i.e., high engagement versus low engagement). These subgroups were compared for statistical differences in their socio-demographic and housing characteristics, social norms of civic action, water resource and neighborhood beliefs, and concern about water issues.

7

0 0.5 1

ÂŻ

2

3

4 Miles

Mississippi Watershed Management Organization County boundaries Survey census tracts Interview sites

Figure 1. Study sites within Mississippi Watershed Management Organization 8

0 0.5 1

ÂŻ

2

3

4

Capitol Region Watershed District

Miles

County boundaries Survey census tracts Interview sites

Figure 2. Study sites within the Capitol Region Watershed District

9

0 0.5 1

ÂŻ

2

3

4

Capitol Region Watershed District

Miles

County boundaries Survey census tracts Interview sites

Figure 3. Study sites within the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District 10

Project Findings Project findings are organized in 3 sections: interview findings, focus group findings, and survey findings.

Interview findings are further organized into four sub-sections including participant profile, community narratives, water narratives, and community-stormwater interaction narratives. Survey findings are organized in 3 sub-sections: survey respondent profile, divergences: unique respondent attributes by watershed area, and confluences: common respondent attributes across watersheds.

Interview Findings The three study watersheds, MWMO, CRWD, and RWMWO, are distinct in geographic location within the Twin Cities metro area, socioeconomics, and water resource amenities. Despite these differences, several common themes and shared opportunities for community-water engagement in stormwater management emerged in the analysis. At the same time, multiple barriers and constraints to community-water engagement were revealed. The topics, community narratives, and supporting themes and descriptors are presented in this section. First, we describe the interview participant profile.

Interview Participant Profile Participants represented diverse sociodemographic characteristics (Table 3). Ages ranged from 20-78.

Both longtime and new community members were represented. About 40% of participants were female.

Most participants identified as White/Caucasian, but the sample included participants who identified as African American, Egyptian, Somali, Sudanese, Asian, Hmong, Chinese, Mexican, Latino and Ojibwa.

11

Table 3. Interviewee sociodemographic characteristics

No. of interviewees Age (min/max) Age (median) Years in community (min/max) Years in community (median) Gender

Self-identified race/ethnicity

TOTAL

MWMO

CRWD

RWMWD

64

21

21

22

20-78

32-71

29-63

20-78

50

55

43

51

0-64

0-64

0-45

6-44

21

21

17

21

26 female 38 male

9 female 12 male

10 females 11 males

7 female 15 males

White/Caucasian (13) EuropeanAmerican (2) Egyptian (2) Somali Chicana Latino N/A

White/Caucasian (6) White/Caucasian African-American (20) (3) Hmong Black (2) Mexican African/Somali African/Sudanese American Indian/ Mixed Ojibwa Asian Chinese Human N/A

Community Narratives Participants were asked about how they define community, community strengths and concerns, and examples of times the community came together to address an opportunity or challenge. Five broad community topics were discussed (Table 4): Community character Several narratives around community character emerged with different emphases by watershed area.

Participants from each watershed area described communities that are socially connected and closeknit. For example, a MWMO participant acknowledged, “The people, you know. There are so many people that care and want to get involved and want to help and connect with others and make it a better place to live.” Similarly, another MWMO participant described community members as committed to solving problems: “People are involved in community actions in one sort or another. They are willing to take on a problem and work on it for five years if that is what it takes.”

12

In somewhat of a contrast, RWMWD participants expressed concern about increased social fragmentation in communities. One participant explained, “I’ve heard that from all the neighbors on the street that nobody really talks to each other.” Another interviewee described it as a changing social environment: I think community itself is not the same as it used to be. Not everybody knows their neighbor, so the changing interaction of a neighborhood, people are more inclined to spend time inside, we don’t know our neighbors as well. So yeah, collaboration is a little harder to do when you resist [meeting neighbors].

Social fragmentation was viewed as a barrier to community engagement in water issues: “I guess the barrier would be that people just aren’t really talking to each other about it in this community so [change] would all mostly have to come from an outside source. The fact that we are not really talking in the first place [is a barrier].”

Participants also characterized diversity as a strength and asset to their communities. Diversity of viewpoints, cultures, businesses, and amenities was believed to increase quality of life and enhance community resilience. One participant credited diversity for making the community more vital: “I really like the diversity, I think that is great. The diversity of people and the diversity of businesses, small and large, it gives it a feeling, especially with the light rail coming through now, it gives it a feeling of being a dynamic kind of place.”

A few participants expressed frustration about change in their communities. These participants suggested that gentrification, or the influx of a new “class” of residents drawn to the communities because of revitalization, has disrupted the community. A MWMO participant explained, “You get one class of people who come and do all the dirty work, and then you get another class of people who come and reap the rewards of creating a revitalized community.” Concern for this form of community disruption was echoed by another MWMO participant: Sometimes, someone with lots of sense of commitment will move in, and after a year or two, they just don’t fit here. They just don’t feel comfortable. They move on. We think that is good. Rather than stay here on some sort of sense of social do-gooderism, but they are really uncomfortable. They make room for someone who does come and stay longer.

A CRWD participant lamented a community project that had negative outcomes for area youth: I grew up there. They had the raggediest, and I’m gonna be blunt, they had the most shitty field ever, rocks in it and everything. But, we would be out there playing catch.

We’d be out there tackling each other, doing all kinds of stuff. Well guess what? They replaced it. It looks beautiful. But nobody can go on it. So are you taking away from the community or are you giving to the community? Now I see a bunch of white kids out 13

there playing soccer. It disgusts me. And it’s not about the racial thing, it’s about people; [they] call themselves giving back, but they’re taking away from us.

RWMWD participants told a somewhat different story about changing community character. Some participants acknowledged community members’ concern about diversification of residents. Another participant likened local resistance to community change to being in a “rut.”

This is how life is … we are in our rut. We are in our groove. We found our place; we are not all that excited about doing something new, or different, or out of the ordinary. We like this life we’ve carved out for ourselves. It’s maybe just another facet of the apathy I was talking about earlier, but that’s the challenge. To try and present a new way of thinking or a new way of doing things to make it attractive, to sufficiently motivate people to actually think in a new way or do something in a new way. That can be a very real challenge.

Community organizations Across all three watershed areas, participants identified existing community-based organizations including non-profit organizations, schools, and religious organizations as assets, because these organizations know the communities, are trusted, and have positive impacts on community members.

One CRWD participant noted the importance of local neighborhood associations: “The Frogtown Neighborhood Association, they really have their finger on the pulse of community probably more than anybody, because that is their role to kind of be a voice for the community and to assess what people are thinking, I mean that is kind of what they do, and so I would think they would be the most logical place to tap in to.” A RWMWD participant praised the service role of area faith or religious organizations: “[One role of the church is] to be active in looking beyond the walls of the immediate church community to the community at large, and say, ‘What can we do? How can we be of service?’

How can we, in one way or another, make a difference in the quality of life that’s going on out there.”

Community networks In two of the watershed areas – CRWD and MWMO – strong informal and inter-organizational networks were identified as community assets. Participants described collaboration between community organizations as a strength. For example, a MWMO participant noted that local neighborhood organizations support each other: “All of the North Side neighborhood organizations are invited… we try to get together once a month and talk about common issues and support each other’s initiatives. We have some issues in common, and even if we don’t, we want to support the other neighborhoods that do.”

Other participants spoke of emphasized the role of informal networks among community members as central to neighborhood identity and a culture of community support. A MWMO participant explained, “When [community members] are faced with issues, these things that go beyond them, and go beyond the little problems that they have, they stick together very well.” A CRWD participant noted the importance of informal networks for helping new immigrants adjust to the community: “[The] 14

mentoring [of new immigrants] has to be very informal, there is no way for it to be anything but very informal. So yeah, as you mingle with them you give tips here and there, things like that. That’s okay to them.”

Community governance Participants shared varying perspectives on community governance. For example, some CRWD participants spoke of the challenges they and others have faced in dealing with government regulations.

A participant described a feeling of discrimination in how recent immigrant or black business owners are treated: I think that, when you’re talking about immigrants and people of color, especially black business owners, it’s maybe not aggressively dislike, but it definitely is that [business owners] are wary and gun shy, [because they] have run into ridiculous challenges that they feel like, it’s just because of who I am. Just because of the neighborhood I am from.

Another CRWD interviewee described how past government projects, and the impacts to the community, are potentially influencing current community perspectives. The participant had referred to the construction of Highway 94 through the Rondo neighborhood earlier in the interview.

Well, again, the history of this community has not been a positive one with large infrastructure investment. So there has been, and still continues to be, a nonsupportive attitude towards the rail. I don’t know that people always see their own self-interest in these investments. And in fact, the project has had more of a negative effect to them, in their experience with their living and working. So I think we are still waiting to see how it plays out.

One participant from CRWD, but who works across the Twin Cities metro, described the challenges for people interested in water issues of participating in decision making: I would say that most of the people who are aware of water resources, their biggest concern is a lack of ability to be a part of the decision making process. [They] really feel like there needs to a process by which they can impact the decision making, because if they could impact the decision making in general, [they] want to encourage decisions that are going to ensure that there is water that is clean and available.

Participants from RWMWD also described an inability to influence decision making, as well as frustration with community leadership and follow through. One individual described their disappointment with a promised community project that hadn’t happened: The city promised the youth a community center but the business [like the area it how it is]. It’s frustrating because there are not facilities for youth sports, and there is nowhere for the kids to go. I just got a nasty-gram in the mail because my kid’s 15

basketball hoop was too close to the street, and it’s like, well, you’re supposed to build a community center. It was approved, and then you don’t. Now, my kid doesn’t have anywhere to play, and now he plays in the street. Somebody complains, now I’m supposed to move my basketball hoop. That’s frustrating to the point where I actually might do something about it, but I think the focus is from a political standpoint kind of short-sighted.

Another RWMWD interviewee who had participated in multiple community initiatives described a prominent government leader thusly, “He just put people down. He didn’t even listen. He wasn’t respectful. He was just miserable. He told people to sit down and shut up. I was intimidated by him.”

Community issues and priorities Several community issues emerged in the discussions that seemed to take precedence over environmental and water issues including education, housing, immigration, and economics. A MWMO participant said, “You know, there are so many priorities in this community. I don’t know that [water] is a priority to them or how much they think about it. We were talking earlier about immigration, about education and health care, and there seems to be so many things that sort of are solo on the top of the list."

The need for community revitalization and concerns about education, safe and affordable housing, healthcare, and social inequities were emphasized in MWMO and CRWD. One MWMO participant observed, “Revitalization in this neighborhood looks like better quality education, more job opportunities, safer housing, all of those kind of inequities that have made it difficult for people to thrive in this kind of a space.” Another MWMO participant acknowledged foreclosures as a persistent problem: “[In] our zip code we’ve had the highest number of foreclosure in the whole State of Minnesota.”

Concern about safety and crime emerged as a prominent narrative among a few RWMWD participants.

One participant observed, “I think up the block there are some rental properties and some people moved in that have some kids that I don’t think they necessarily watch or care what kind of trouble…they are out after curfew, that kind of stuff.”

16

Table 4. Community Topics Narratives Community Socially connected, close-knit character communities Engaged community members Strength in diversity Greenspace and nature centers Changing character

Communitybased organizations

Trusted and legitimate Community-centered mission Service-oriented mission

Community networks

Community governance

Active, accessible informal networks Inaccessible formal networks Active organization-based networks Networks lacking altogether Weak government relations

Regulatory complexity

Strong leaders High priority community issues

Weak leaders Education Housing Immigration Economics Healthcare Safety and crime

Themes and Descriptors Intergenerational ties, social networks, strong religious institutions Racial and ethnic diversity, new immigrants As an amenity As a need Concern about gentrification Concern about diversification Increasing social fragmentation Resistance to change Cultural understanding Positive community outcomes Schools reach youth Religious institutions serve the community

Low trust, inaccessible planning processes Historic tensions Limited community representation Uncertainty about roles, jurisdictions, authority Hardships on businesses, perceived discrimination In the community, for community needs

Safe and affordable

MWMO*

CRWD

RWMWD

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

*An “X� in the cell denotes that at least one reference to this issue was made by a study participant affiliated with that watershed. It is important to note, that these cells represent common areas of emphasis or diverging areas of emphasis rather than any agreement or disagreement on whether the issue is important or relevant.

17

X

X

X

Water Narratives Participants were asked what comes to mind when they think about water in their community, how they use water, how water is important to them, and if they have or their community has concerns about water. Four general water topics were discussed (Table 5): Clean water abundance When asked about natural resources and water, several distinct narratives emerged that reflected different worldviews, uses, cultural backgrounds, and risk perceptions. Across the watershed areas, participants noted that water is not a high priority community issue. One reason for this perspective may be the clean water abundance narrative. Participants in each area noted that water quantity and quality for various uses is not a problem. One RWMWD participant appreciated the community’s drinking water: “Well it’s clean you know it doesn’t have odors or a funny taste to it, to me it’s not very strong chemical wise”.

Participants also suggested that for many new immigrants, having clean and abundant tap water is a new experience and a luxury. One MWMO participant explained, “if you’re in Central or South America and in Mexico as well, you don’t let the tap run. Here it’s not as big of a concern. In their home countries, water was considerably more precious than it is here.” Similarly, another participant linked resource scarcity in new immigrants’ countries of origin to perceived resource abundance in Minnesota: I think in this community, the community that comes from fairly disadvantaged countries, that these sorts of things were a part of the main stay while they were there. I mean, and it wasn’t necessarily because it was conservation, it was because there was no resources. So you had limited resources, and what we have here, we have a bounty of resources, but we’re trying to limit…we’re trying to increase our understanding so that we limit the impact that we have on those resources.

One MWMO participant also acknowledged disparities in water infrastructure and sanitation in developing countries, as well as limited public awareness of water issues that may contribute to an abundance perspective.

When I think about water, what comes to mind is living in America, comparing to situations in the developing world, is huge blessings because we have good infrastructure here, separation between sanitary sewer and stormwater and organizations who care about the source of water, and how it is connected to our health. And I see, unfortunately, clear evidence where I came from where people have less awareness and education about water issues...So I think it's a blessing, living in America when it comes to water issues.

18

Community-water barriers Several participants in the CRWD and MWMO identified community-water barriers that limited access to water for recreation or other uses or impaired views of water. Participants believed opportunities exist to make water resources less of a liability and more of a community asset. A MWMO participant offered an example, “… Ryan Lake, it looked like a jungle, and nobody wanted to be there. Now, we need to make it more of an amenity, and people with gather.” Another MWMO participant noted disparities in water resource amenities and management in different communities: I wish that our community was a rich in the kind of water resources [like] when you think of South Minneapolis, I think there is four, or five, or six interesting lakes and channels right off of the bat. The creek, the Minnehaha Creek, which runs through there is much more celebrated and much more taken care of. The Basset Creek kind of just meanders around and goes underground and back up. There have been some attempts to clean it up here and there. There are groups that, once a year, clean it up right where the ridge is and so on. I still think some of our water resources are second cousins to other parts of the city.

Cultured relationships with water A MWMO participant acknowledged institutionally driven cultural barriers to water including limited swimming programming and access in African American communities.

So, historically in the African American community, a lot of kids don’t know how to swim. You also look at again, one of these things, like access to community pools and beaches. Ones that are supervised where you could get swimming lessons and things are pretty limited. There is also some recent drownings and stuff where there has been some movements to change some of that. So those are the kinds of things that I think are relevant and important to me as far as water goes. It’s just straight access, both for fun, but also just as a skill and an ability and everything else.

When asked about community engagement in water, a MWMO participant described cultural differences in leisure and recreation styles: There are other barriers, some of it is a cultural barrier, and some of it is, they don’t have the leverage. I wouldn’t say they don’t have the leverage, but they don’t have the mindset to really go to the lakes and relax and enjoy and have fun. I mean, those things, it’s a cultural thing. It’s very rare in Somalia that a family goes for vacation.

For recent immigrants, adjusting to life in a new community and a different natural environment is also a constraint to outdoor recreation. One participant explained, The new immigrant community, a lot of them don’t have a long history of being involved with the outdoors. And a lot of them are also, you know, struggling with becoming 19

acclimated making a living, learning English, whatever their issues are. They don’t have a lot of time for that kind of thing…

Notably, a few participants expressed a strong cultural identity associated with water within their communities. For example, a CRWD participant described water’s spiritual and intergenerational values to the community: We believe that the water has a spirit. So, it’s water spirits that we talk to when we have a ceremony. That is who you are talking to. We are saying to the river that we wish for you to be here and continue to flow for the next seven generations and then the next seven generations after that.

Water as a community issue Many participants expressed confidence in water resource conditions or admitted uncertainty about water problems. For those who did express concern, drinking water, flooding, groundwater contamination from superfund sites, and fish contamination were the most pressing issues. Concerns appeared to vary by community. For example, concern about fish contamination was a prominent narrative among some CRWD participants: “When I used to fish we would fish in Cedar Lake, and we actually ate the fish because it was really clean lake, but I wouldn’t eat any other fish. I wouldn’t go anywhere else and eat the fish.”

20

Table 5. Water Topics Clean water abundance

Community-water barriers

Narratives For drinking For fish consumption, gardening For recreation Access Lack of surface water Viewscapes

Cultured relationships with water

Cultural constraints and disconnects

Cultural connections Water as a community issue

Low priority relative to other pressing community issues Concern about drinking water Concern about fish contamination Concern about superfund sites Concern about flooding and property damage

Themes and Descriptors Observed disparities in new immigrants’ countries of origin

MWMO*

CRWD

X

X

RWMWD

X X Limited opportunities to access water, social inequities Limited views, low scenic quality Outdoor or water-based recreation and leisure not part of cultural norms Constraint of adjusting to new natural and social environment for new immigrants Identity Spirituality

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

For consumption Groundwater contamination

X

X X X

*An “X” in the cell denotes that at least one reference to this issue was made by a study participant affiliated with that watershed. It is important to note, that these cells represent common areas of emphasis or diverging areas of emphasis rather than any agreement or disagreement on whether the issue is important or relevant.

Community-Stormwater Interaction Narratives Participants were asked about their understanding of stormwater issues, any problems they had observed with stormwater, who should be responsible for addressing stormwater issues, and what practices they had adopted related to water protection or stormwater management. Three overarching community-stormwater topics were discussed (Table 6):

21

X

Community-stormwater linkages Several participants across the three watershed areas made an explicit link between stormwater management and community values. Investing in community infrastructure and green space maintenance was viewed as being good for residents and businesses alike.

I think that they are worth the investment over time, and I think that fact this makes a big contribution, not only to our community, but the larger City of Minneapolis that we preserve and invest in this community, an inner-city community with beautiful infrastructure and beautiful buildings. We preserve it for the group that is coming after us. That is part of why I like to invest in it. It’s important to do it.

For some participants stormwater management practices add aesthetic value to the neighborhood “I’d love to, just for aesthetic reasons … have a rain garden on the boulevard.” Similarly, certain property maintenance practices were seen as a homeowner’s responsibility: “I don’t think it’s good to let your property go. I think you have a community responsibility to maintain your stuff because a crappy house makes everyone else’s house go down.”

Other participants noted that stormwater management projects that include interpretation and education programming contribute to a community’s identity.

The first things that came out to my head was Maplewood Mall. You’ve seen the rain garden display. That is something that I want here that helps advocate water quality and water savings. It teaches something. It teaches people certain things. That is one of the things that I would like to have here. We are more than a shopping center. We are a community.

Community image was important to several participants. One participant described the effort of a business and environment committee to add green infrastructure to make an intersection and a neighborhood more welcoming: “The intersection here that the city and county did all of the infrastructure and left us with loads of concrete. So now, our business and environment committee are putting their head together and saying that we need to green this up. We need to make it more friendly.“ One MWMO participant described the community’s image to outsiders as being counter to the “green” values held by residents: We are one of the greenest parts of the city, because we are green as far as we use public transit, you know there is a lot of people who walk and bike often, not only just out of choice but out of necessity at times. But we often aren’t treated in the same way that other parts of the city are, as in eco-friendly or whatever else kinds of things. Those are values that are here.

22

Community engagement in stormwater issues Three prominent narratives emerged around community engagement in stormwater issues. Participants from each watershed area identified barriers associated with stormwater information. For some the problem was a matter of not knowing where to get information or distrust in information sources. For others language and heuristics used in stormwater information and communication programming was a barrier. Though limited multilingual translation was a problem, several participants noted that even the heuristics, symbols and images used in communication and messaging efforts were not culturally relevant or inclusive. A CRWD participant acknowledged that many families do not understand the environmental symbols used in environmental programs: "A lot of people don't know those symbols and that's why it doesn't make sense, I mean my parents didn't know what the toxic symbol meant."

Similarly, several participants spoke about the challenge of translating and conveying complex environmental processes or conservation practices to recent immigrants. One participant noted that certain concepts like recycling and composting do not exist in some cultures or languages: In the Hmong community, there is really no scientific word out there for composting.

You don't really have a word for composting. That was one of the challenges the students [working with the Hmong community] came on to. Students actually had to describe recycling. I don't think that they actually used the word recycling.

In some cases even simple nuances or contexts in messaging can be a problem. Idioms, acronyms and images used be culturally exclusive. For example, one CRWD participant observed, “Sometimes in America, there is a certain phrase that make sense for people who live here, and they explain things.

Like, ‘whatever floats your boats,’ stuff like that. It’s not going to register with someone [with a different background].” Similarly, another CRWD participant noted, A lot of things that I see are like pictures or graphics of nice water and green places and trees, but it’s nothing that hits them or that they understand. [You] need to put pictures that they like or they can relate to, like pictures of their own gardens or home gardening or things that they do or see every day.

A second narrative that has bearing on community engagement in stormwater management is frustration with land use planning processes and decisions. For example a RWMWD participant recalled a public meeting about installing sidewalks in the neighborhood and felt that resident input was not used in the decision: “I went to several meetings, we all did, and said why do we need sidewalks? We do not want them. There was only one couple that wanted them down on the end for their little boys, they said. But we didn’t want them, but they didn’t listen to us. They had already set in their minds they were going to put in sidewalks.” Not feeling represented or heard in local decision making was a common theme among participants in all three watershed areas and appeared to be a source of distrust in government. Some participants asserted that new immigrants feel especially alienated from decision making processes. One CRWD participant explained, “We feel like those structures were not meant for us and yet, we know that those are the places the decisions are coming from. So how do we just encourage in our 23

communities to [identify] those people who can actually bring our voices, to be able to impact those broad scale changes that have to happen.”

Similarly, a CRWD participant observed that Hmong community members and others who are new to the U.S. feel powerless and don’t know where to start when it comes to engaging in decision making processes: I think Hmong people in general, and I think for refugees or immigrants, people [who] are new to this country, they don’t feel like they have any power so they kind of feel like, okay, we’ll just let things go and just live. We don’t want to get involved, we don’t want to interfere. Not they don’t care about anything, it’s just maybe they don’t feel like they know the right people to help them in case they run into obstacles. I think they don’t know where or how to look for solutions.

Despite these barriers, several participants from each of the watersheds identified many partnership opportunities for engaging community members in stormwater management issues.

According to participants, strong community-based organizations such as schools, religious institutions and non-profits could be valuable assets to watershed managers’ efforts to engage the community.

For example, a CRWD participant with ties to a community-based organization that supports local businesses said, I think working with groups like us … is just a smart way to go. And, the more that we buy into it, the more that we are educated in it—know where to send people and understand it enough to send people at the right times or provide the information—the better we are. Because in many cases, we are sometimes the first folks that are getting introduced to a business. Or when they are ready to expand and make some exterior/interior changes, because we do lending, we’re engaged, and those are key moments…

When describing a previous collaboration with a technical group working in the community, CRWD participant stressed the advantages of pairing an established local organization with outside technical expertise: It was smart … to utilize relationships that had already been built, because I can go in anywhere, I have complete access, I've known these folks for so long, we have people here who have known these businesses for ten to fifteen years. They trust us; we have not done them any harm. So when we bring someone new, and say, “Hey, this is a good idea. Why don't you listen to what they have to say,” they trust us.

24

A few participants expressed enthusiasm for existing programs and partnerships that link water issues to community needs. One MWMO participant praised a small grant program: I am very thrilled by how [watershed managers] take a look at what the community needs are. They offer small grants for community to develop activities like education or even art, support some kind of art that has to do with water management on site. I really love that they participate in that way.

Stormwater management practices Many different narratives emerged when participants were asked about stormwater management practices.

Several MWMO participants described their community as having a high awareness of environmental issues and willingness to do “little things” that might make an impact: “I’m not planning on making any big decisions, but yeah, using a rain barrel as an example. And I think a garden has a better impact than regular grass, so some of those kind of things. I’m not planning on putting in a bunch of asphalt just for kicks.” Still participants from each watershed characterized their community members as having limited stormwater understanding. They noted misperceptions, apathy, and low self-efficacy as constraints to action.

When asked “who” should be responsible for addressing the stormwater issues, participants responses varied, ranging from a specific personal sense of responsibility, to a more general “everyone’s responsible.” Still, watershed area participants expressed or acknowledged uncertainty as to who is responsible, what roles different entities play and what triggers action.

Social pressures appeared to be a prominent stormwater management practice narrative in the RWMWD. Participants suggested that neighborhood norms and conflict avoidance in property management decisions have a strong influence on residents. A participant asserted, “We wouldn’t decide to do anything that was going to make the neighbors mad, or by any means be totally different from the rest of the neighbors.”

A predominating narrative across each watershed area was the economics of stormwater management practices. Economics were described a primary driver and constraint to action. Participants contemplated the financial costs and benefits of stormwater management practice installation and maintenance. Business owners represented most prominently in CRWD interviews spoke positively about the energy efficiencies of “green” building improvements. For one participant, sustainable business practices help to set green businesses apart from competitors, but those differences need to be made explicit to customers: My competitors aren’t going to say, “Well, we waste your money by wasting electricity, and we contaminate the environment by using chemicals, and we don’t change our filters because it saves us money, and we don’t really care what the air is like that you 25

breath, we care about the economics.” No one is ever going to talk about that stuff. I have to be the one that talks about it when customers come and I say, “This is how we manage our building, and so as you look at our competition, see what they do.”

Still, several CRWD participants acknowledged businesses are driven by the “bottom line” and so any property improvements must be cost effective. For many business owners, macro level economic conditions can be a barrier to adopting new stormwater management practices: “We’re trying to survive an economic downturn … that has been here since 2008. So we are six years into finding ways to deliver the same product, quality of product to our customers with flat or decreasing rental rates. …We have to survive or we won’t be contributing to the stormwater management. If we can do it from an economic standpoint that is a good thing.”

26

Table 6. Community-stormwater interactions Topics Narratives Community-stormwater Community values linkages Community-water identity development potential Community engagement in stormwater issues

Stormwater information barriers Frustration with land use planning processes, decisions Many partnership opportunities

Stormwater management practices

General environmental awareness and behaviors Limited stormwater understanding

Stormwater issue relevance Diffusion, dismissal, or uncertainty around responsibility for stormwater problems and solutions Social pressures in property management Perceived economics of practices

Themes and Descriptors Community aesthetics Neighborhood property values Community self-identity Community image among outsiders Information sources unknown or untrusted Language and heuristic barriers Not feeling represented Not being heard Strong community-based organizations exist Success in strong partnerships with water managers High awareness Incremental behavior change Misperceptions or incomplete knowledge Apathy Low perceived ability, selfefficacy Focus on point source polluters, superfunds, drinking water, flooding Who, what roles, when they act

Neighborhood norms, conflict avoidance Financial costs Financial benefits Business energy efficiencies

MWMO* X

CRWD X

RWMWD X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X X

*An “X� in the cell denotes that at least one reference to this issue was made by a study participant affiliated with that watershed. It is important to note, that these cells represent common areas of emphasis or diverging areas of emphasis rather than any agreement or disagreement on whether the issue is important or relevant.

27

X

X X

Stormwater Program Evaluations Evaluation of the Central Corridor Green Line Stormwater Management Projects CRWD participants were asked to consider stormwater management projects installed along University Avenue. Participants, many of whom were business owners or property managers in the area, were asked if they were familiar with the project, what they think of the project, and how to get more community members involved. Participants were read a short description of the project: Capitol Region Watershed District has installed several gardens and a tree trench system along University Avenue that receive polluted rainwater from the street and allow it to soak into the ground instead of flowing to the Mississippi River. The plants in the gardens and trees in the tree trench prevent water pollution and add beauty and plant life to University Avenue. This project has been implemented in neighborhoods throughout the Green Line route, as have educational signs explaining the purpose of the gardens and tree trenches.

When participants were asked about their familiarity with the green infrastructure projects installed along the Green Line in the Central Corridor, common responses were “I haven’t heard of that” or “I don’t know what that is.” A participant who was aware of the projects reflected on community member awareness: “I think a lot of people don’t know it’s there, sadly.” Another participant echoed this sentiment: “I think if you were to ask anyone else along here, they probably wouldn’t know about why they put the trees here other than the visual.” One participant recalled that a project had been installed near their business but admitted to not knowing much about it: “It was just something that was done and got installed. I was not involved with anything. But I’m responsible to watch that and keep it clean.”

Confusion and concern about project maintenance emerged as a prominent narrative. One participant expressed uncertainty about maintenance expectations. Another participant who had a rain garden project installed nearby their business said, “I think they are going to put me on training soon. They talked briefly about it, but I suppose if there is something else I should know about, maybe I should start thinking about that, now that I’m in charge of it.” Another expressed concern about what would happen if projects were not maintained: “If you don’t have [maintenance of tree trenches and rain gardens], and people just throw their trash and things like that into it, I think it would just defeat the purpose. I think if you have something like that in place, I would say maintenance in place also at the same time is important.”

Those study participants who expressed awareness and understanding of the project, valued the aesthetics and “green” aspects of the project. For example, one participant observed, “It improves the visual image, I think a lot of people feel, when the trees are starting to bloom, it looks really nice outside and I think it makes business more welcoming.” Another participant echoed that sentiment: “I think it’s nice for the community. It’s nice, it’s pretty the way they planted it. It’s a nice idea overall for the community.” Water quality benefits seemed less prominent among participants. However, a few participants voiced strong support for outcomes including reduced water pollution and flooding.

28

One participant called for more projects: “Would it improve [water quality]? Yes. Would it trap polluted water? Then they should do more of it.” Another participant suggested that community-wide benefits like reduced flooding should be better communicated: “I think if people actually knew how much water [the rain gardens and tree trenches were] collecting, and keeping off of University Ave, I think people would be really happy. Because I haven’t seen any flooding issues along the corridor at all. Whereas we used to get a little bit more of that before the train was built” (Table 7).

Table 7. Capitol Corridor Green Infrastructure Evaluation Topics Narratives Community members Project awareness generally unaware Ongoing maintenance

Project outcomes

Responsibilities unclear or perceived as unfair

Many individuals recognize the positive impacts

Themes and Descriptors Of green infrastructure improvements Of the rules and responsibilities involved Regular maintenance and repairs Sidewalk maintenance Raingarden, tree upkeep Aesthetic improvements Greening of the corridor Positive impacts on water resources Identified as place making efforts Support for further implementation projects

Evaluation of the Living Streets Program Several participants expressed frustration in the planning process and voiced dismay over not feeling their concerns or opposition was considered or properly addressed in decision making: We got to look at what the residents want. And residents didn’t get exactly what they want. Most of the ones I’ve talked to are not real happy about it. But, we fought it and it’s…unfortunately government dictates to us, we don’t dictate to government anymore.

It’s unfortunate.

One participant suggested that community leaders were intimidating to residents in public meetings.

Another participant described not having a choice in design decisions: [The streets here are] narrower than the average street in St. Paul. …There [were] not very many people in the neighborhood that [were] pleased with that, but we didn’t have a choice. They told us this is the way it is, and we had to pay for a third of the whole project.

29

The community appeared fairly divided about the outcomes. While some lamented the sidewalks and narrow streets, others appreciated the changes: I really like it. It really made the neighborhood look nice. The kids can use the sidewalks, and I don’t have to be nervous. Not that there is much traffic back here anyways.

There’s not the big potholes in the street. I just think overall it made our neighborhood look, appearance-wise, much nicer.

One prominent narrative was concerns about safety. Participants expressed apprehension about the narrow streets and effects on two-way traffic and emergency vehicle access: They can’t make the street twice as small as it was before. You’ve got too many cars going up and down these streets. You’ve got one plow coming down this street and you are pretty much done for. There is just no way. You can’t get a plow and a car coming down the street at the same time.

Another interview commented, “I really and seriously am worried that there are times when a fire truck wouldn’t be able to get down the street. Some of the people across the street sometimes don’t park real close to the curb. There isn’t really much space if the snow is there.”

Some participants were critical of the lack of maintenance, or watering of trees and sod. One participant blamed the city and another blamed residents: “[the trees the city planted are] stuck, deformed, or dead. They didn’t take care of them. They didn’t water them. They didn’t do any maintenance up there. They didn’t cut the grass.” Another participant observed: “They sent out a notification with the sod saying that when they were done, it was our responsibility and stuff to take care of it. They did water it. They had a truck come down the street. Quite a bit of the people didn’t do anything to try to help it. A lot of it died. “ A few participants acknowledged seeing improvements in stormwater management because of the Living Streets Program. Participants recalled seeing new gutters full of water and minimal surface level pooling of water after rain events: “I really like the gutters. And we do notice that there’s a lot of water in them after it rains. So I know they’re doing their job, as far as collecting that rain water.” Similarly, another participant noted, “You never see any water pool anymore, where it did before and things. I think overall it was a pretty good project” (Table 8).

30

Table 8. Living Streets Program Neighborhood Evaluation Topics Narratives Themes and Descriptors Mixed positive and negative perceptions of city Project viewed as a city involvement Watershed role project, not a watershed Very little knowledge of the watershed project involvement in the project Decision made without community input Some felt unrepresented Many did not want sidewalks and unheard in the process Many did not want narrowed roads Perceive that the project changes the community Satisfaction with for the worse planning process Like the new sidewalks Those who saw outcomes Like the additional green areas as positive, viewed process See the project as positive for property values as neutral or positive Like park updates Dangerous and slippery Sidewalks viewed as positive and negative Good for kids and families Slows traffic down (or better or worse) Community divided Dangerous about outcomes Road narrowing viewed as Makes parking more difficult positive and negative Cheaper Neutral on road width Drivers ending up in them Rain gardens Children playing in them General safety Fire trucks can’t pass concerns Conflicts between drivers in opposite directions Narrower roads Snow plowing concerns Regular maintenance and repairs Ongoing Responsibilities unclear or Sidewalk maintenance and snow removal maintenance perceived as unfair Raingarden, tree upkeep Perceived as beneficial by those with previous knowledge Stormwater Water benefits generally improvements viewed as positive Those just introduced to benefits also perceived benefits

Focus Group Findings Three focus group sessions were conducted with project partners, project advisory team (PAT) members, and representatives of select sub-groups in the community. The intent of the focus groups was to triangulate methods and further explore stormwater decision making and water resource issues from a resource professional perspective, as well as gather additional input regarding the motivations of community member’s stormwater decision making. The sessions were designed to offer opportunities for involvement for individuals in decreasing levels of previous involvement with the study. The first 31

focus group session included partner watershed organization staff whose roles and responsibilities are directly tied to community engagement. The next two focus group sessions included PAT members and other community representatives. Data presented here were drawn from idea listing exercises conducted with participants, as well as background information collected in a short questionnaire. The focus group engaged participants in discussions about two primary topics: • Constraints and opportunities for promoting water and stormwater programing in the Twin Cities metro area • Critical issues associated with perceptions, attitudes, values, and norms of residents in the Twin Cities metro area related to water and stormwater Table 9. Focus group participant socio-demographic characteristics Focus Group Participant Characteristics No. of participants

11

Age (min/max)

26 - 64

Age (median) Gender

46 9 female 2 male

Reported race/ethnicity

White (8) Asian (1) Hispanic/Latino (1) American Indian or Alaska Native and White (1)

Participants identified several opportunities for and challenges to engaging their communities in stormwater management. Emergent themes were categorized as internal challenges and opportunities (i.e., driven by conditions and forces internal to watershed organizations) or external challenges and opportunities (i.e., driven by conditions and forces external to watershed organizations). Participants across all focus group sessions noted the challenges and opportunities that exist for watershed districts and resource managers. The structure of watershed districts was described with funding, prioritization of work load, and evaluation and measurement as notable challenges. Funding, as well as working with other management agencies, also was seen as an opportunity for organizations to explore intermediate results in long term projects. Developing effective messaging to reach diverse audiences and forging meaningful partnerships with community stakeholders also emerged as opportunity areas. Participants listed strategies for creative outreach and messaging, including working with artist, use of technology and social media, and storytelling. Adapting messaging to unique audiences with different understanding and values for water resources was viewed as both a challenge and an opportunity.

While developing partnerships with schools, religious institutions, and other trusted organizations was generally viewed as an opportunity, identify best partners and taking the time to build relationships was noted as a challenge (Table 10).

32

Table 10. Internal challenges and opportunities associated with community engagement Categories

Themes and descriptors

Opportunity* Challenge

Organizational Bureaucracy and Management

Seeking and dedicating funds and resources to engaging X communities Lack of funding for outreach and infrastructure Heavy workloads and prioritizing competing tasks Valuing intermediate results for projects with long X implementation timeframes Working with other management agencies with similar X goals Evaluation and measuring effectiveness Internal procedural barriers to action (e.g., red tape) Effective Social media outreach X Messaging and Connecting youth with technology to explore the outdoors X Outreach Connecting to communities on topics they are already X interested in (non-water issues) Adapting messaging to different audiences’ understanding X of the issues Developing materials in appropriate languages and cultural X context Working with artists and visual materials to communicate X Storytelling and field trips to reach audiences X Developing Working with schools to engage youth in STEM education X Meaningful and community outreach programs Partnerships with Providing job and internship opportunities for diverse X Existing youth Community Working with local businesses and property owners X Stakeholders Identifying and building relationship with trusted X community organizations Working with faith-based groups and organizations X Engaging communities that do not have strong formal or informal networks Working closely with the Master Water Stewards program X *An “X� in the cell denotes that at least one reference to this issue was made by a study participant.

Focus group participants also identified many challenges and opportunities to community engagement in stormwater management based primarily in external conditions and forces. For example, participants described land use changes that could diminish best management practice effectiveness, such as increased impervious surfaces from roads, builds, and parking lots. Yet, comprehensive planning processes, new development, and redevelopment were all seen as important opportunities for the promotion or installation of green infrastructure projects. Participants acknowledged multiple community-water access issues including physical, financial, and cultural barriers. Finally, participants 33

X X X X X X

X X X

X X

X

listed characteristics of other management agencies that may influence community engagement in stormwater management. A historic lack of trust in government and a lack of diversity in some communities were seen as distinct challenges for engagement (Table 11).

Table 11. External challenges and opportunities associated with community engagement Theme

Item Identified by Participants

Opportunity*

Challenge

Landscape Characteristics and Changes

Land use changes impacting existing natural X systems New development and redevelopment as X chances to incorporate green infrastructure Comprehensive planning cycles X Changes in natural systems (e.g., invasive X species, weather) Appropriateness of green infrastructure on X different land types Access to Water Water pricing not reflecting actual value X Physical barriers to water resources X X Cultural and educational barriers to X X engagement in water issues Other Managers Little diversity represented in government and X natural resource management *An “X� in the cell denotes that at least one reference to this issue was made by a study participant.

Survey Findings Survey findings are drawn from analysis of 268 completed and returned surveys out of 1,000 surveys distributed proportionately across the three study areas. The survey response rate as of the time of reporting was 32% overall (adjusted for 158 surveys returned undeliverable) (Table 12). RWMWD had a significantly higher response rate than MWMO or CRWD. Survey findings are organized into 3 sub-sections that respond to 8 unique research questions. Complete statistics for all survey questions in aggregate, as well as statistics for select watershed comparisons, are presented in tabular form in Appendix M. Table 12. Survey response rate by watershed Watershed No. of completed surveys Response rate MWMO 71 25.7% CRWD 70 26.4% RWMWD 127 42.6% Total 268 31.9% MWMO = Mississippi Watershed Management Organization CRWD = Capitol Region Watershed District RWMWD = Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District

34

Survey Respondent Profile Who are respondents and what are their housing arrangements?

Respondents were asked a series of questions about their socio-demographic background and housing arrangements. Across the three watersheds, sociodemographic and housing profiles were similar in terms of gender, formal education levels, years living in the community, and housing’s proximity to water (Table 13). Overall, about half of the respondents were female (52%), median age was 58, more than half had attained a college bachelor’s degree (56%), and about half reported an annual household income of less than $50,000 (49%) (Table 13). More than one-third of respondents (37%) reported that they make decisions about the property where they live (Table 14).A vast majority of respondents (93%) reported that the property where they live does not touch a stream, lake, or river (Table 14).

Comparing survey respondent sociodemographic profiles with census profiles provides insight into how the study sample might differ from area residents. According to census statistics (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) between 50% (Minneapolis) and 53% (Roseville) of residents in the study areas are female.

Between 40% (Roseville) and 51% (St. Paul) of residents in the study areas have an annual household income of less than $50,000. While study respondents are older than residents in the study area (median = 31 to 42), the study specifically targeted adult (age 18 or older) residents. Compared to census statistics, the study sample also represents a higher proportion of residents who have attained at least a bachelor’s degree (Table 13).

Other sociodemographic and housing data varied by watershed. Altogether the majority of respondents reported being white (79% overall), however, a significantly higher proportion of RWMWD respondents (88%) were white than MWMO (79%) or CRWD (63%) respondents. Significant differences were found among watershed respondents in age and housing arrangements as well. Respondents in RWMWD (mean = 61) were significantly older than respondents in MWMO (54) or CRWD (mean = 50) (Appendix M, Table 1). The RWMWD respondent group (95%) also had a higher proportion of homeowners than MWMO (75%) or CRWD (47%) respondent groups and fewer renters (Appendix M, Table 2).

35

Table 13.Survey respondents' sociodemographic characteristics Socio-demographic characteristics MWMO CRWD N % N % Gender Male 33 48.5 26 40.6 Female 35 51.5 38 59.4 Race White 60 78.9 49 62.8 Other Race 16 21.1 29 37.2 Hispanic 1 1.4 3 4.3 Black 5 7.0 14 20.0 Asian 5 7.0 4 5.7 American Indian or Alaska 2 2.8 2 2.9 Native Middle Eastern or North 0 0.0 2 2.9 African Native Hawaiian or Other 0 0.0 2 2.9 Pacific Islander Other (e.g., Creole, Italian) 3 4.2 2 2.9 Age Mean 54.2 - 50.3 Median 55 - 53.5 Minimum 25 24 Maximum 86 93 Years lived Mean 15 17 in Median 8 10 0 0 community Minimum Maximum 60 70 Education Did not finish high school 3 4.3 2 3.1 Completed high school 10 14.3 7 10.8 Some college but no degree 11 15.7 10 15.4 Associate degree or vocational 17 24.3 6 9.2 degree College bachelor's degree 15 21.4 19 29.2 Some graduate work 1 1.4 3 4.6 Completed graduate degree 13 18.6 18 27.7 (Masters or Ph.D.) Income Under $10,000 5 8.1 5 8.6 $10,000- $24,999 11 17.7 9 15.5 $25,000 - $34,999 5 8.1 9 15.5 $35,000 - $49,999 10 16.1 8 13.8 $50,000 - $74,999 9 14.5 11 19.0 $75,000 - $99,999 13 21.0 7 12.1 $100,000 - $149,999 8 12.9 6 10.3 $150,000 or more 1 1.6 3 5.2 MWMO = Mississippi Watershed Management Organization CRWD = Capitol Region Watershed District RWMWD = Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District

36

RWMWD N % 62 52.1 57 47.9 115 87.8 16 12.2 5 3.9 2 1.6 3 2.4 1 0.8

Total N % 121 48.2 130 51.8 224 78.6 61 21.4 9 3.4 21 7.8 12 4.5 5 1.9

2

1.6

4

1.5

1

0.8

3

1.1

2 61 63 25 90 19 15 1 65 1 15 15 18

1.6 0.8 12.1 12.1 14.5

7 56.6 58 24 93 17 12 0 70 6 32 36 41

2.6 2.3 12.4 13.9 15.8

37 6 32

29.8 4.8 25.8

71 10 63

27.4 3.9 24.3

4 15 12 18 19 16 18 7

3.7 13.8 11.0 16.5 17.4 14.7 16.5 6.4

14 35 26 36 39 36 32 11

6.1 15.3 11.4 15.7 17.0 15.7 14.0 4.8

Table 14. Survey respondents' housing/property characteristics Housing/property characteristics MWMO N % Housing I own my own home 50 70.4 arrangement I rent 17 23.9 I am the landlord 0 0.0 Other (e.g., condo, mobile 4 5.6 home) Decisions about I make the decisions 30 42.3 property A family member makes the 2 2.8 decisions A family member and I make 22 31.0 decisions together I leave it up to my renter 1 1.4 I leave it up to the 6 8.5 landowner/property owner I work together with the renter/landowner to make the 3 4.2 decisions Some decisions are up to me; others are up to the property 1 1.4 owner Other (e.g., homeowners 6 8.5 association) Property touches Yes 4 5.7 a stream, lake, or No 66 94.3 river MWMO = Mississippi Watershed Management Organization CRWD = Capitol Region Watershed District RWMWD = Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District

37

CRWD N % 31 44.9 35 50.7 1 1.4

RWMWD N % 107 85.6 6 4.8 0 0 .0

Total N % 188 70.9 58 21.9 1 0.4

2

2.9

12

9.6

18

6.8

20

29.0

49

39.2

0

0.0

3

2.4

19

27.5

45

36.0

1

1.4

0

0.0

17

24.6

5

4.0

28 10.6

4

5.8

3

2.4

10

3.8

7

10.1

7

5.6

15

5.7

1

1.4

13

10.4

20

7.5

1

1.5

13

10.3

18

6.9

65

98.5

113

89.7

99 37.4 5

1.9

86 32.5 2

0.8

244 93.1

Table 15. Survey area residents’ sociodemographic and housing characteristics Socio-demographic and housing MWMO CRWD RWMWD characteristics Columbia Minneapolis Fridley Heights St. Paul Roseville Gender Male 50.3% 49.5% 48.5% 48.9% 47.1% Female 49.7% 50.5% 51.5% 51.1% 52.9% a Race White 66.7% 78.5% 42.8% 62.7% 83.6% Other Race 33.3% 21.5% 27.2% 37.3% 16.4% Age Median 31.4 37.1 36.9 30.9 42.1 Education Less than high school 10.7% 9.4% 16.0% 13.7% 6.4% High school 17.0% 30.7% 29.0% 22.3% 20.5% Some college or Associate 30.1% 35.2% 35.6% 29.7% 30.0% degree Bachelor’s degree or higher 42.1% 24.6% 19.5% 34.3% 43.1% Household Median 50,767 54,509 48,857 48,258 62,464 income Under $10,000 10.7% 4.8% 4.4% 10.2% 5.0% $10,000- $24,999 16.5% 13.1% 21.2% 17.6% 14.0% $25,000 - $34,999 9.1% 9.8% 10.6% 10.6% 8.0% $35,000 - $49,999 13.0% 17.2% 14.9% 12.9% 13.2% $50,000 - $74,999 16.3% 23.3% 19.8% 17.4% 17.8% $75,000 - $99,999 11.5% 13.6% 12.7% 12.0% 13.8% $100,000 - $149,999 12.9% 12.9% 13.0% 11.4% 18.2% $150,000 or more 10.0% 5.4% 3.5% 7.8% 10.2% Housing Owner occupied 49.2% 65.4% 68.3% 51.3% 67.2% tenure Renter occupied 50.8% 34.6% 31.7% 48.7% 32.8% a

Percent among those reporting one race; excludes Hispanic/Latino origin Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

Divergences: Unique Respondent Attributes by Watershed Area Though the three watershed study areas are geographically and hydrologically distinct, this study revealed that when it comes to community and water, survey respondents share many beliefs, norms, and behaviors across the watersheds. However, this section highlights the few respondent attributes that varied statistically by watershed. In instances where survey responses show no statistically significant differences by watershed, any observable differences in respondent attributes (e.g., variations in means or frequencies) are likely to be chance differences. In contrast, this section reports on differences in respondent attributes that, based on statistical testing, are more likely to be actual differences between watershed respondent groups than they are to be merely chance differences. Thus, these findings highlight areas where the need for watershed- and community-tailored or customized programs and projects is greatest.

What are important differences between watershed respondents?

Watershed respondents were compared for differences in their sociodemographic and property characteristics, social influences on decisions about getting involved in their community, perspectives on 38

their neighborhood, perspectives on water resources, concern about water issues, familiarity with and current use of clean water actions, familiarity with and participation in community activities, and likelihood of future clean water actions.

First, some notable differences emerged in respondents’ reported social influences on their decisions about getting involved in their community, and perceptions of neighborhood qualities. Respondents in MWMO were influenced to a greater extent by business owners/leaders in their community, by county government and by local media than CRWD or RWMWD respondents (Appendix M, Table 3).

Respondents in MWMO were influenced by their neighbors to a greater extent than RWMWD respondents. Respondents in MWMO and CRWD were influenced by neighborhood associations to a greater extent than RWMWD respondents. CRWD respondents placed greater importance on access to public transportation than MWMO and RWMWD respondents (Appendix M, Table 3).

Important differences also were identified in respondents’ familiarity with clean water actions and in their participation in community activities and water projects. Respondents were asked about 11 actions aimed at preventing stormwater runoff. While responses to 8 of the 11 actions were consistent across watershed respondent groups, responses to 3 of the actions varied significantly. A greater proportion of RWMWD respondents indicated that they had heard about clean water actions including “planting native plants or shrubs in their yard” (70%), “rain gutters to direct water to lawn, flower bed or garden” (75%), and “picking up after your pet and putting waste in trash” (79%) than MWMO and CRWD respondents. A greater proportion of MWMO (13%) and CRWD (15%) respondents indicated that they had attended a meeting, public hearing, or community discussion unrelated to the watershed district/organization about water in the last 12 months than RWMWD respondents (4%) (Appendix M, Table 4). On a 5-point scale from very unlikely (-2) to very likely (+2), RWMWD respondents (mean = 0.24) overall reported being less likely to volunteer for clean water projects in the future than did the other watershed respondents (mean ≥ 0.14) (Appendix M, Table 3).

Confluences: Common Respondent Attributes Across Watersheds How do respondents define their communities and view their neighborhoods?

Survey respondents were asked to identify what comes to mind first when they think of their community. Several choices were provided including neighborhood, county, ethnic group, and city. A majority of respondents (55%) defined their community as their neighborhood. More than one-quarter of the respondents (27%) also define their community as their city (Appendix M, Table 5).

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of several neighborhood qualities on a 5-point scale from very unimportant (-2) to very important (+2). Respondents also were asked to rate a series of statements about their neighborhood on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2). Water appears to be highly valued amenity for respondents. A vast majority of respondents rated clean drinking water (98%), clean streams, rivers and lakes (96%), access to basic services (94%) and good relationships among neighbors (96%) as important (Appendix M, Table 6). Most respondents 39

expressed optimism that residents are able to make a difference in their neighborhoods. A majority of respondents agreed that people like them are able to make an impact and make their neighborhood a better place to live (64%) and that their neighborhood has residents who are committed to local issues (59%) (Appendix M, Table 7). However, only a third of respondents (33%) agreed that their neighborhood has strong leadership. A majority of respondents (70%) were neutral or disagreed that local leaders adequately represent the diverse groups living in their neighborhood (Appendix M, Table 7).

How engaged are respondents in their communities and who influences their civic action?

Respondents were asked to indicate if they have heard about and participated in a list of 8 different community activities in the past 12 months. While more than half of the respondents had heard about neighborhood meetings (51%), only 27% of respondents have participated in neighborhood meetings in the past 12 months (Appendix M, Table 8). Less than one-quarter of respondents had heard about opportunities to talk with others about water problems (23%) and only 17% had talked to others about water problems in the last 12 months. A majority of respondents had not heard about (85%) or participated in (95%) a watershed district/organization program or event (Appendix XX, Table 8).

Respondents rated the extent to which individuals or groups influence their decisions about getting involved in their community on a 4-point scale from not at all (1) to a lot (4). Overall, respondents rated family (mean = 2.90) and neighbors (mean = 2.71) as most likely to influence their decisions about getting involved in their community (Appendix M, Table 9). Respondents were also asked to list the three most trusted sources of information regarding community issues. The three most trusted sources of information regarding community issues were neighbors (39%), city government (39%) and family (30%). On average, faith leaders and state government agencies were the least influential in respondents’ decisions to get involved in their community (Appendix M, Table 10). About half of respondents (51%) agreed that they generally do what people who are important to them want them to do. However, a majority of respondents either disagreed or were impartial that people who are important to them expect them to attend meetings, hearings or community discussions (62%) (Appendix M, Table 11).

What are respondents’ beliefs and concerns about water resources?

Respondents were asked to report what first comes to mind when they think of water. Respondents were also asked to report how they use water in or near their neighborhood. A majority of respondents (69%) reported that the first thing they think about when thinking about water is drinking water (Appendix M, Table 12). Most respondents reported using water for drinking (95%), watering plants/lawn (78%) and experiencing scenic beauty (63%) (Appendix M, Table 13).

Respondents reported their familiarity with water issues in their neighborhood on a 4-point scale from not at all familiar (1) to very familiar (4). Respondents were also asked to rate the quality of water in the stream, lake or river closest to them on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to very good (5). Over onethird of respondents (35%) reported that they are not at all familiar with water issues around their 40

neighborhood (Appendix M, Table 14). Over one-third of respondents (37%) rated the quality of water in the stream, lake or river closest to them as good to very good (Appendix M, Table 15).

Respondents were also asked to rate four statements regarding their beliefs about water pollution on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2). An overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that water pollution can affect human health (99%). Over three-fourths of respondents (79%) also agreed that water in Minnesota needs better protection (Appendix M, Table 16).

Respondents identified who they think should be responsible for protecting water in their neighborhood. Most respondents believed that it was the city government’s (89%) and residents’ (83%) responsibility to protect water in their neighborhood. Respondents also believed that it was watershed district/organization’s (76%), local neighborhood organization’s (55%) and federal government’s (55%) responsibility to protect water in their neighborhood (Appendix M, Table 17). Respondents were asked to identify the most important information sources about water issues. Overall, the three most important information sources were local media, city government and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Appendix M, Table 18).

Respondents were asked to indicate if they had heard of any water problems around their neighborhood in the past 3 years. Respondents were asked about the extent to which they were concerned about 13 water issues in their neighborhood. Less than one-third of respondents (29%) indicated that they had heard of water problems around their neighborhood in the past 3 years (Appendix M, Table 19). Of those who had heard of water problems, 45% identified storm drain issues, and 42% reported problems with algae. About 20% reported problems with unsafe drinking water and lake water levels (Appendix M, Table 20). About three-fourths of respondents (75%) reported that they were somewhat to very concerned about water pollution in general. A majority of respondents were also somewhat to very concerned about “water that is not healthy for fish” (69%), sanitary sewer issues (66%), aquatic invasive species (65%), and storm drain issues (69%). A majority of respondents were either not concerned or neutral about flooding in their neighborhood (69%) and flooding at their residence (71%) (Appendix M, Table 21).

How engaged are respondents in clean water actions?

Respondents were asked to indicate if they have heard about and use 11 different clean water actions on their properties. A vast majority of respondents reported that they had heard (86%) of “keeping grass clippings and leaves out of streets” and currently use (85%) the clean water action. Similarly, a majority of respondents reported that they had heard (87%) of “minimizing use of fertilizers/ pesticides on lawns and gardens” and currently use (74%) the action. A majority of respondents had heard about rain gardens (70%) and rain barrel or cistern to store water (75%). However, only 18% currently use rain gardens and 15% use rain barrels on their property (Appendix M, Table 22).

41

How likely are respondents to be engaged in clean water actions in the future?

Respondents were asked the extent to which they were likely to take 7 different clean water actions in the next 12 months on a 5-point scale from very unlikely (-2) to very likely (+2). Almost three-quarters of respondents (74%) reported they were likely to change something they do at home to protect water.

However, less than half of the respondents (40%) reported they were likely to encourage others to get involved in clean water activities. A majority of respondents reported they were either impartial or unlikely to work with other neighborhood residents to protect water (61%) or to volunteer for clean water projects (69%) (Appendix M, Table 23).

What might inspire clean water action and community engagement in the future?

Respondents were asked to indicate the conditions that would make them more likely to use clean water actions and get involved in community activities. A majority of respondents indicated that they would be more likely to use clean water actions if they knew more about how to use the actions (59%) and if they knew why the actions helped clean water (58%). Respondents were also more likely to use clean water actions if they had financial assistance to help them use the actions (44%) and if they knew that the city/county encouraged the actions (43%) (Appendix M, Table 24).

Respondents were more likely to get involved in community activities if they knew why the activities helped the community (49%) and if they knew more about how to get involved (47%). Respondents were also likely to get involved if they could talk to others who have been involved (28%) (Appendix M, Table 25).

To examine the factors that influence respondents’ clean water actions and engagement in community activities, subgroup comparisons were conducted between respondents with varying levels of clean water action (i.e., high action, low action) and levels of civic engagement (i.e., high engagement, low engagement). Respondent subgroups were compared for differences in their socio-demographic and housing characteristics, social norms of civic action, water resource and neighborhood beliefs, and concern about water issues.

Some notable differences emerged between high clean water action (HA) respondents (respondents who have used 6 or more of the 11 clean water actions) and low clean water action (LA) respondents (respondents who have used 5 or fewer of the 11 clean water actions) in social norms of civic action, beliefs about their neighborhood and concern about water issues. HA respondents (mean = 0.30) agreed to a greater extent than LA respondents (mean = -0.06) that people who are important to them expect them to be involved in community issues. HA respondents agreed to a greater extent than LA respondents that their neighborhood has residents who are committed to local issues (HA mean = 0.77, LA mean = 0.48) and that residents in their neighborhood work together to solve local issues (HA mean = 0.38, LA mean = 0.06). HA respondents were also significantly more concerned about stormwater runoff than LA respondents (mean = 0.53) (Appendix M, Table 27).

Differences also were identified between respondents with high level of civic engagement (HCE) (respondents who have participated in 1 or more of the 8 listed community activities in the last 12 42

months) and low level of civic engagement (LCE) (respondents who have not participated in any of the 8 listed community activities in the last 12 months) in social norms of civic action, importance of neighborhood qualities and beliefs about their neighborhood.

HCE respondents agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents that people who are important to them expect them to be involved in community issues (HCE mean = 0.50, LCE mean = -0.16). HCE respondents also agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents that people who are important to them attend meetings, hearings, or community discussions (HCE mean = 0.57, LCE mean = -0.09). HCE respondents also placed greater importance on several neighborhood qualities than LCE respondents, including good relationships with neighbors (HCE mean = 1.73, LCE mean = 1.40), opportunities to be involved in community projects (HCE mean = 0.82, LCE mean = 0.36), a welcoming place for people of all backgrounds and perspectives (HCE mean = 1.42, LCE mean = 0.92), access to good schools (HCE mean = 1.62, LCE mean = 1.19), and opportunities to express their culture and traditions (HCE mean = 0.76, LCE mean = 0.45) (Appendix M, Table 29).

HCE respondents agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents that their neighborhood has residents who are committed to local issues (HCE mean = 0.97, LCE mean = 0.31) and that residents in their neighborhood work together to solve local issues (HCE mean = 0.59, LCE mean = -0.09). HCE respondents also agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents that their neighborhood has strong leadership (HCE mean = 0.38, LCE mean = -0.25) and that local leaders adequately represent the diverse groups living in their neighborhood (HCE mean = 0.24, LCE mean = -0.18). HCE respondents (mean = 0.95) agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents (mean = 0.48) that people like them are able to make an impact and make their neighborhood a better place to live. HCE respondents (mean = 0.45) agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents (mean = 0.02) that their local government does a good job of listening to residents about problems. HCE respondents (mean = 0.70) agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents (mean = 0.28) that their neighborhood has become a better place to be in the past 5 years. Lastly, HCE respondents (mean = 0.39) agreed to a greater extent than LCE respondents (mean = 0.02) that they are generally trusting of government agencies (Appendix M, Table 29).

43

High action (n = 132)

•

44%

• High action target audience

53 – 66%

72%

•

Higher social norms of civic action More likely to believe that residents are committed and work together to address local issues Higher concern about stormwater runoff

Low action (n = 127)

• • • • •

Sociodemographics Housing arrangements Importance of neighborhood qualities Beliefs about water pollution

•

•

Lower social norms of civic action Less likely to believe that residents are committed and work together to address local issues Lower concern about stormwater runoff

Figure 4. Differences and commonalities between adopters and non-adopters of clean water actions

44

32%

15 – 28%

15%

Low action target audience

Low CE (n = 127)

High CE (n = 115)

55 – 62%

• •

High CE Target audience

65 – 100%

• 40 – 79%

Higher social norms of civic action Neighborhood qualities (e.g., relationships, involvement in community projects, expression of culture and traditions) are more important More likely to believe that their neighborhood has the commitment, leadership, and ability to address local issues

• • • •

Sociodemographics Housing arrangements Beliefs about water pollution

•

•

Lower social norms of civic action Neighborhood qualities (e.g., relationships, involvement in community projects, expression of culture and traditions) are less important Less likely to believe that their neighborhood has the commitment, leadership, and ability to address local issues

Figure 5. Differences and commonalities between respondents with varying levels of civic engagement

45

31 – 34%

3 – 19%

10 - 37%

Low CE Target audience

Discussion and Recommendations This project’s aim was to provide a science-based assessment of community capacity to manage stormwater. Project partners expressed concern in particular about stormwater management inaction in their communities and sought insight into drivers and constraints to community action. Partners also initiated the study to learn more about communities that they had not effectively engaged in water issues. A multiple methods design, including a resident survey, interviews with diverse community members, and focus groups with community and water leaders, enabled both depth and breadth in understanding community capacities and constraints to stormwater management. The data illuminate convergent and divergent worldviews and relationships with water. A concerted effort was made to reach historically excluded community groups and to document diverse ways of knowing and engaging with water.

Above all, we see this report as providing strategic guidance to water managers as they negotiate their way up the ladder of community participation (Arnstein 1969) from informing to empowering actors in stormwater management. We learned that multiple barriers and constraints to civic, public-sphere action (e.g., participating in planning processes) and individual, private-sphere action (e.g., adopting stormwater management practices) exist. Some barriers are physical and institutional, others are psychological and cultural. Yet, this project also illuminates the rich and varied resources communities have to offer in stormwater management initiatives. Below we identify several stormwater management opportunity areas and present strategies for empowering community members and communities.

1. Tap into existing community assets Each community represented in this project has a suite of resources used to influence members, address problems, and achieve goals. The most prominent and perhaps accessible resource is the existing, trusted, community-based organization. A variety of organizations exist with different missions and distinct structures, but a common thread linking organizations to communities is service and a keen understanding of community needs. Watershed managers would do well to treat these communitybased organizations as “monitoring stations,” where they can sample community stories of success and failure and explore community assets and needs. Community monitoring stations also serve as entry points to present and deliberate water problems and opportunities within the community. One clear message from community members is that communities lack leadership not leaders. Leadership in environmental planning, water restoration and protection, and stormwater management is limited but community leaders abound. Still, participants lamented a lack of representation and diversity among formal decision leaders in local governments. A second message from community members is that the conventional structures and processes local governments use to facilitate public participation will not lead to meaningful community engagement in stormwater issues beyond what has already been accomplished through those processes. Multiple informal and organization-based networks exist with community-relevant communication pathways and culturally connected dialogue. We recommend that watershed managers avoid reinventing the network. Rather, managers will find promise in getting to know and understand existing social and cultural networks through basic network analysis—asking what 46

are network membership attributes (i.e., who is and isn’t represented), how do members interaction (e.g., awareness-raising, support, assistance), and what flows within the network (e.g., beliefs, information, resources). As organizations and networks are better understood, people and groups serving as nodes of information or influence will emerge who can be great allies in connecting water issues to community issues.

2. Connect with community issues and link to community identities While watershed organizations have a very sophisticated and science-based approach to identifying and articulating water quality goals, these goals and related management objectives do not clearly resonate with community members for many reasons. First, water does not rise to the top of the list of community concerns. Though clean drinking water is a priority, many more pressing or distressing issues were identified with a higher sense of urgency: education, housing, immigration, economics, safety.

Second, the scale of a watershed organization, a watershed, is relatively meaningless to community members. In fact, many better known geo-political boundaries (e.g., municipalities, counties) have little bearing on the community boundaries members perceive that encompass their day-to-day social interactions, such as neighborhoods, ethnic groups, business associations, and school systems. Third, human and social connections to water, and therefore goals and measures of success for positive water interactions, have little to do with the metrics managers use in watershed management, even more integrated approaches to watershed management. Community members in the study watersheds emphasize clean drinking and cooking water, healthy fisheries for fish consumption, and reduced flooding as community needs. Still, opportunities for several community-centric values and identities that intersect with stormwater management goals are noteworthy. Skill-building activities, formal training programs, and various other forms of community-based water education represent potential areas of mutual value and benefit. Community members were keen on improving neighborhood aesthetics and developing a more welcoming atmosphere. Projects like Living Streets and the Central Corridor green infrastructure, if paired with meaningful community engagement, have the potential to enhance community image and pride, as well as draw attention to overlooked water resources.

Community-centric greenspaces that link members and visitors to water physically, visually, and culturally hold great promise. Many participants expressed hope that communities could reconnect with water and leverage water as a prominent feature of their community’s identity: as a source of pride, a safe and nurturing gathering place, a sustainable economic resource, and an inspiration for communitybuilding and collective action.

3. Remove community-water barriers An important first step to community engagement in stormwater management, for many community members is removing community-water barriers. The project revealed several physical, institutional, psychological and cultural conditions and forces that impede water engagement. For example, the world of water management, including water systems, water threats, and water responsibilities, is largely unfamiliar to most community members. This finding is likely not surprising to water resource professionals. However, many participants perceive water-related community values including physical interactions with water, social and psychological benefits from water environments, and political influence in water-associated decisions, are inaccessible to community members and in particular, 47

certain historically excluded groups including recent immigrants, People of Color, and low income populations. Addressing language and heuristic barriers, offering public transportation, and providing child care in water programming, as well as attending to water safety and safe water environments are prudent strategies for better connecting the community to water. However, an even bolder and more durable strategy is to connect water to the community. For example, what role can water managers play in rethinking and redesigning how community members interact with water and interact with each other in the context of water. How can water projects and programs be a stepping stone toward community empowerment? How can water become a central feature of community pride and attachment?

4. Emotivate in water programming Finally, we recommend that all projects and programs aimed at educating community members about stormwater management practices be revisited and redesigned with a central emphasis on emotivation rather than education. Emotivation, is the act of appealing to an individual’s emotions, basic values and beliefs, sense of responsibility, and personal ethics of behavior. We do not intend to discount the value of problem awareness or subject matter knowledge. However, learning that motivates, that leads to empowerment and behavior change happens through personal, transformative experiences, social modeling and persuasion, and confidence building. Emotivation requires a significant shift in program objectives. Managers may have traditionally asked themselves, “What do people need to know to get engaged in stormwater management practices?” We argue that the more important question is “What do people need to feel to get engaged?” Concerned? Responsible? Empowered? Supported?

Stormwater management projects and programs that appeal to the hearts and minds of their audiences will not only educate but also inspire people to learn, to act, and to talk to their friends and neighbors about why learning and acting are necessary. The survey showed a significant gap in the likelihood of individual action (e.g., stormwater management practices) and civic action (e.g., talking to others about stormwater actions). In other words, while residents may try a practice, they are far less likely talk to others about their experiences. The survey also indicated that while financial support for practices is an incentive, understanding how and why practices work is a bigger incentive. Though this may not be particularly new insight to water educators, policy makers may find these data useful in program funding decisions.

One important caveat to this recommendation, however, is the need to address the economics of practices when attempting to engage business owners and property managers in stormwater management. Several business owners interviewed in this project were averse to new regulations or practices with uncertain financial outcomes. Many stormwater practices were viewed as requiring major investment with little or uncertain return, despite the promise of energy conservation or broadening appeal to eco-sensitive markets. Financial assistance and technical support, however, appear to be motivators for business owners and property manager to take clean water actions.

Managers should address the “everyone is responsible, so no one is responsible” nature of the stormwater runoff problem by making the problem and its solutions personal and relevant to community members. It is human nature to filter or reinterpret information to protect one’s ego or to support one’s current behaviors. Tactics such as psychological distancing (i.e., thinking the problem is far 48

away or unlikely to occur), optimism bias (i.e., wishful thinking—it’s really not that bad), and guilty bias (i.e., avoiding the problem altogether because of feeling both responsible and helpless) and other cognitive biases are believed to curb concern and impede behavior change (Scannell and Gifford 2013, Markowitz and Shariff 2012). Thus, while a general information campaign may be effective for those who are willing and able to objectively and carefully process information about something they currently know or care little about (e.g., stormwater runoff), most people will need to connect to the issue in different more personally meaningful ways.

49

References Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216-224.

Braden, J., Brown, D., Dozier, J., Gober, P., Hughes, S., Maidment, D., Schneider, S., Schultz, W., Shortle, J., Swallow, S., Werner, C. 2009. Social science in a water observing system. Water Resources Research, 45, W11301, [online].

Bradshaw, B. 2003. Questioning the credibility and capacity of community-based resource management.

The Canadian Geographer, 47(2), 137-150.

Brehm, J.M., Eisenhauer, B.W. & Krannich, R.S. (2006). Community attachments asa predictors of local environmental concern: the case for multiple dimensions of attachment. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(2), 24.

Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. 2008. Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2007). Situational and personality factors as direct or personal norm mediated predictors of pro-environmental behavior: Questions derived from norm-activation theory. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 323–334.

Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K.M., Guest, G. & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. Family Health International: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Markowitz, E.M. & Shariff, A.F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nature Climate Change, 2, 243-247.

Morton, M. 2008. The role of civic structure in achieving performance-based watershed management.

Society and Natural Resources, 21, 751–766.

Prokopy, L., Genskow, K., Asher, J., Baumgart-Getz, A., Bonnell, J., Broussard, S., … others. (2009).

Designing a regional system of social indicators to evaluate nonpoint source water projects. Journal of Extension, 47(2), 8.

Sabatier, P.A., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., and Matlock, M. 2005. Collaborative approaches to watershed management. In P.A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz, and M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management, (pp. 3-21). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Scannell, L. & Gifford, R. (2013). Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 60-85.

Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327–339.

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative Influences on Altruism1. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221–279.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). A brief inventory of values. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 984–1001.

50

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern.

Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322–348 Tarlock, A. D. 2003. The potential role of local governments in watershed management, Pace Environmental Law Review, 20 (1): 149-176.

51

Appendices

52

Appendix A. Participant Recruitment Flier

53

COMMUNITY CAPACITY FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE TWIN CITIES METRO AREA In partnership with the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District and the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization, researchers at the Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, are gathering community data through interviews, focus groups and a resident mail survey in the Twin Cities Metro Area. The project will investigate: 1. Community-based drivers and constraints associated with stormwater management; 2. Diverse community member values, beliefs, norms and behaviors related to water resources and stormwater management; 3. Community member perceptions of existing water resource programs; and 4. The effectiveness of water resource programming in engaging Metro Area communities.

Results and recommendations for enhancing community engagement in stormwater management will be shared with interested organizations and groups through a summary report and interactive presentations. Ultimately, this project will inform water resource communication, education, outreach and civic engagement programs in the Metro Area and other urban watersheds.

Project Timeline: November 2013 – October 2015 Comments or questions?

Please contact

University Of Minnesota Department of Forest Resources perry497@umn.edu

Principal Investigator: Mae Davenport, PhD Department of Forest Resources University of Minnesota mdaven@umn.edu 612-624-2721 Field personnel: Vanessa Perry Research Associate 54

Appendix B. Interview Contact Script

55

Hello [name], My name is [X]. I am a [position] conducting research on communities and water resources for Mae Davenport, Associate Professor in the Department of Forest Resources at the University of Minnesota. This study involves community residents, local leaders and natural resource professionals in the [Ramsey-Washington Metro, Capitol Region, or Mississippi Watershed Management Organization] watershed. One goal of this study is to identify different resources communities need and strategies they can use to enhance their ability to respond to water resource problems. To do this, we’ll be conducting interviews with local residents and professionals in the watershed.

I am hoping you would be able to assist me by participating in the study and sharing your perspectives with me. We are also offering an optional $50 gift for your participation. The interview takes about one hour. Would you be willing to participate?

If yes: “Thank you. I am available on ______ (days of week, times, have alternates ready) is there a time that would work best for you? [Set date, time, location (get directions)]. I would like to send you a confirmation email with date, time and location information. The email will include all of my contact information, in case you have any questions or concerns. Do you have an email address I can send the confirmation to? a. If yes, take it down or confirm we have the correct email address for them. “Thank you. I look forward to meeting with you on ___(agreed upon date)___.” b. If no, “Is __(phone # you contact them with)___ the best way for me to get a hold of you? In case you need to get a hold of me with questions or concerns, my phone number is ______.” I look forward to meeting with you on ___(agreed upon date)___.

If no: “Ok, thank you for your time. Good bye.”

If they seem unsure: “Just to be clear, participation is completely voluntary and if you decide to participate you can withdraw at any time. Your identity will remain confidential and we won’t include any information that would make it possible to identify you in the final report. We’re only talking to a limited number of key representatives, so capturing your perspective is important. Can I ask what you concerns about participating are?” [Try to address their concerns] If they want to know why they are being asked to participate: “We’re interviewing a variety of stakeholders in the watershed to try to get diverse perspectives and a range of experiences.

We’ve been conducting a stakeholder inventory in your community and your name came up as 56

someone who would be a good person to talk to. Since we are only able to conduct a limited number of interviews, capturing your perspective is important.”

If they want to know how the information will be used: “We are trying to better understand people’s perspectives on water resources, water conservation practices, and programs to determine what influences communities to engage in water resource management. We’ll be putting together a final report that describes how participants view these issues to share with community leaders, educators and resource professionals. Your information will be kept confidential and there will not be any identifying information in the report.”

If they want to know what the study is for: “This project is aimed at informing communication and outreach programs associated with metro stormwater conservation. Participant input is critical to making these programs work for both water resource protection and for citizens.”

If they want to know who is supervising the research: “Mae Davenport is the supervisor for this study. She is an assistant professor in the Department of Forest Resources at the U of M. If you would like to contact her directly I can give you her phone number [612-624-2721] or email address [mdaven@umn.edu].”

If they ask about IRB: The research project was reviewed by the IRB/Human Subjects Committee at the University of Minnesota and given exempt status.

57

Appendix C. Interview Guides

58

I.

Mississippi Watershed Management Organization

59

ID#: _______ Date: ______________ Metro Community Capacity for Stormwater Management Interview Guide FINAL (Updated June 2, 2014) FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS First, I have some general questions about you and your community. Many people have different definitions of community ranging from a geographic area to a community that is based in social relationships. So, before I ask you questions about your community, I would like to know how you define it.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

When you think of “your community,” what comes to mind? a. How would you describe your connection to the community?

How would you describe the [x] community to someone who is new to the community?

What would you say are the best things about [working in/being a member of] the community?

Do you have any concerns about the community? Please explain. a. What challenges do you face in working in this community?

Can you describe any situations in which the community came together to respond to a problem or opportunity? Please explain. a. How did the community respond? b. What things led to success (or failure) of the community action?

FOR PROPERTY OWNERS/MANAGERS ONLY Next, I have a few questions that relate to you as a property owner and/or property manager in this area.

6.

7.

8.

What are the most important things to consider when making decisions about your [household/business/organization]’s property?

When decisions are made, do those decisions take into account potential impacts on a. Other community members? b. The natural environment? c. Local streams, lakes and wetlands?

Do you consult with others when making decisions about the property? a. Who are your most trusted contacts? What makes them trustworthy?

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS We are focusing our research project on community connections to water in this watershed (refer to the watershed map]. Next, I have some general questions about water in this local area.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

When you think of water in this local area, what comes to mind?

How do you use water in this area?

What about water is important to you?

Do you have any concerns about water in this area? Please explain.

Have you ever talked to anyone about water or water resource issues before? Please explain.

60

14.

15.

16.

17.

a. If you had a question or concern about water in this area, who would you go to?

What about water is important to your community?

Do you think the community is concerned about water in this area? Please explain.

Have you worked together with other community members to protect water (or the environment)? Please explain.

Do you think the community is working to protect water? Please explain. a. How could water resource professionals increase your community’s interest and engagement in water resource protection?

As you may know, there is increasing concern about water in the [X] watershed. One issue local resource professionals are particularly concerned about is stormwater runoff.

18.

First of all, how familiar are you with stormwater runoff?

19.

Many people have different things in mind when they think about stormwater runoff.

When you think about stormwater runoff, what comes to mind?

Now, I’d like to read a definition of stormwater runoff to you and show you a diagram (Figure 1) that will provide some background to the next set of questions. Stormwater runoff is water that flows over ground and in stormwater sewers after a rain event or snowmelt. When water flows over surfaces like streets, sidewalks, parking lots and rooftops, it can pick up trash, leaves, dirt, chemicals and other pollutants. If untreated, stormwater can lead to poor water quality in streams, lakes and wetlands.

20.

21.

Have you observed any problems with rainwater, snowmelt or stormwater runoff in the area? Please explain.

Who do you think should be responsible for addressing these types of water resource problems in this area?

FOR PROPERTY OWNERS/MANAGERS ONLY

22.

23.

24.

25.

How important is managing rainwater, snowmelt or stormwater runoff on [your/this] property?

Are you concerned about water on [your/this] property?

Do you do things on [your/the] property that help to manage stormwater or address other water problems? Please describe those for me. a. How long have you done this? b. What first motivated you to do this? c. Is it working? How do you know? Please explain. d. Do you plan to continue doing this over the next five years? Please explain.

Are there other things you have been considering? (if yes, ask a-c for each, if no, skip) a. What have you heard about this? b. What factors have kept you from doing this? c. Would you do this if things were different? Please explain.

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS A few final wrap-up questions: 61

26.

27.

28.

What do you see as the 3 biggest barriers to improving your community’s engagement in water issues?

What do you see as the 3 most promising opportunities to improving community’s engagement in water issues?

Is there anything else you would like to share with me about the community or water in this area?

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS

29.

I would like to get some recommendations from you as we proceed with this project.

What other community representatives (e.g., from government, organizations or interest groups) could give us an important point of view on community assets and needs or water resources in this area? (Those with similar or very different perspectives than you.)

30.

What makes them a key representative (organizations they are involved in, how are they involved in water resources in this area)?

We would like to identify representatives willing to provide input, receive information and serve as community connections for the duration of this project. Would you be interested? _____ Yes _____ No

31.

62

Figure 1. Stormwater runoff

63

II.

Capitol Region Watershed District

64

ID#: _______ Date: ______________ Metro Community Capacity for Stormwater Management Interview Guide FINAL (Updated June 2, 2014) FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS First, I have some general questions about you and your community. Many people have different definitions of community ranging from a geographic area to a community that is based in social relationships. So, before I ask you questions about your community, I would like to know how you define it.

32.

When you think of “your community,” what comes to mind? a. How would you describe your connection to the community?

33.

How would you describe the [x] community to someone who is new to the community?

34.

What would you say are the best things about [working in/being a member of] the community?

35.

Do you have any concerns about the community? Please explain. a. What challenges do you face in working in this community?

36.

Can you describe any situations in which the community came together to respond to a problem or opportunity? Please explain. a. How did the community respond? b. What things led to success (or failure) of the community action?

FOR PROPERTY OWNERS/MANAGERS ONLY Next, I have a few questions that relate to you as a property owner and/or property manager in this area.

37.

What are the most important things to consider when making decisions about your [household/business/organization]’s property?

38.

When decisions are made, do those decisions take into account potential impacts on a. Other community members? b. The natural environment? c. Local streams, lakes and wetlands?

39.

Do you consult with others when making decisions about the property? a. Who are your most trusted contacts? What makes them trustworthy?

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS We are focusing our research project on community connections to water in this watershed (refer to the watershed map]. Next, I have some general questions about water in this local area.

40.

When you think of water in this local area, what comes to mind?

41.

How do you use water in this area?

42.

What about water is important to you?

43.

Do you have any concerns about water in this area? Please explain.

44.

Have you ever talked to anyone about water or water resource issues before? Please explain. a. If you had a question or concern about water in this area, who would you go to?

45.

What about water is important to your community?

65

46.

47.

48.

Do you think the community is concerned about water in this area? Please explain.

Have you worked together with other community members to protect water (or the environment)? Please explain.

Do you think the community is working to protect water? Please explain. a. How could water resource professionals increase your community’s interest and engagement in water resource protection?

As you may know, there is increasing concern about water in the [X] watershed. One issue local resource professionals are particularly concerned about is stormwater runoff.

49.

First of all, how familiar are you with stormwater runoff?

50.

Many people have different things in mind when they think about stormwater runoff. When you think about stormwater runoff, what comes to mind?

Now, I’d like to read a definition of stormwater runoff to you and show you a diagram (Figure 1) that will provide some background to the next set of questions. Stormwater runoff is water that flows over ground and in stormwater sewers after a rain event or snowmelt. When water flows over surfaces like streets, sidewalks, parking lots and rooftops, it can pick up trash, leaves, dirt, chemicals and other pollutants. If untreated, stormwater can lead to poor water quality in streams, lakes and wetlands.

51.

Have you observed any problems with rainwater, snowmelt or stormwater runoff in the area?

Please explain.

52.

Who do you think should be responsible for addressing these types of water resource problems in this area?

FOR PROPERTY OWNERS/MANAGERS ONLY 53.

How important is managing rainwater, snowmelt or stormwater runoff on [your/this] property?

54.

Are you concerned about water on [your/this] property?

55.

Do you do things on [your/the] property that help to manage stormwater or address other water problems? Please describe those for me. e. How long have you done this? f. What first motivated you to do this? g. Is it working? How do you know? Please explain. h. Do you plan to continue doing this over the next five years? Please explain.

56.

Are there other things you have been considering? (if yes, ask a-c for each, if no, skip) d. What have you heard about this? e. What factors have kept you from doing this? f. Would you do this if things were different? Please explain.

PROGRAM/PROJECT EVALUATION QUESTIONS 57.

Are you familiar with the clean water gardens and the tree trench system that has been installed along University Ave by Capitol Region Watershed? a. [If yes,] what have you know about the program? i. How would you describe the project to a friend? ii. How did you first hear about the project?

66

iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii.

What first motivated you to get involved with the project?

What were your initial impressions of the project?

What do you think of the project now?

What value have you gotten out of the project thus far? Please explain.

In your opinion, what might improve the project for you?

What do you think would improve the project for other community members?

Next, I would like to read you a short description of the project to get more input from you on it.

Capitol Region Watershed District has installed several gardens and a tree trench system along University Avenue that receive polluted rainwater from the street and allow it to soak into the ground instead of flowing to the Mississippi River. The plants in the gardens and trees in the tree trench prevent water pollution and add beauty and plant life to University Avenue. This project has been implemented in neighborhoods throughout the Green Line route, as have educational signs explaining the purpose of the gardens and tree trenches.

58.

59.

60.

61.

Do you think the [X program/project], as I just described it, is a good idea? Please explain.

Do you think this program could have effects on… a. The health of water resources in the area? Please explain. b. Others in the [x] community? Please explain.

On a scale of 1-5, one being “not at all likely” and five being “extremely likely” how likely are you to [continue to] participate in this program in the future? Please explain.

Program leaders would like to continue to get more participation from community members in the program. What would you suggest they do to increase participation in [X program/project]?

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS A few final wrap-up questions: 62.

What do you see as the 3 biggest barriers to improving your community’s engagement in water issues?

63.

What do you see as the 3 most promising opportunities to improving community’s engagement in water issues?

64.

Is there anything else you would like to share with me about the community or water in this area?

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS 65.

I would like to get some recommendations from you as we proceed with this project. What other community representatives (e.g., from government, organizations or interest groups) could give us an important point of view on community assets and needs or water resources in this area? (Those with similar or very different perspectives than you.)

66.

What makes them a key representative (organizations they are involved in, how are they involved in water resources in this area)?

We would like to identify representatives willing to provide input, receive information and serve as community connections for the duration of this project. Would you be interested? _____ Yes _____ No 67

67.

Figure 1. Stormwater runoff (www.lexingtonky.gov)

68

III.

Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District

69

ID#: _______ Date: ______________ Metro Community Capacity for Stormwater Management Interview Guide FINAL (Updated June 2, 2014) FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS First, I have some general questions about you and your community. Many people have different definitions of community ranging from a geographic area to a community that is based in social relationships. So, before I ask you questions about your community, I would like to know how you define it.

68.

When you think of “your community,” what comes to mind? a. How would you describe your connection to the community?

69.

How would you describe the [x] community to someone who is new to the community?

70.

What would you say are the best things about [working in/being a member of] the community?

71.

Do you have any concerns about the community? Please explain. a. What challenges do you face in working in this community?

72.

Can you describe any situations in which the community came together to respond to a problem or opportunity? Please explain. a. How did the community respond? b. What things led to success (or failure) of the community action?

FOR PROPERTY OWNERS/MANAGERS ONLY Next, I have a few questions that relate to you as a property owner and/or property manager in this area.

73.

What are the most important things to consider when making decisions about your [household/business/organization]’s property?

74.

When decisions are made, do those decisions take into account potential impacts on a. Other community members? b. The natural environment? c. Local streams, lakes and wetlands?

75.

Do you consult with others when making decisions about the property? a. Who are your most trusted contacts? What makes them trustworthy?

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS We are focusing our research project on community connections to water in this watershed (refer to the watershed map]. Next, I have some general questions about water in this local area.

76.

When you think of water in this local area, what comes to mind?

77.

How do you use water in this area?

78.

What about water is important to you?

79.

Do you have any concerns about water in this area? Please explain.

80.

Have you ever talked to anyone about water or water resource issues before? Please explain. a. If you had a question or concern about water in this area, who would you go to?

81.

What about water is important to your community?

82.

Do you think the community is concerned about water in this area? Please explain.

70

83.

84.

Have you worked together with other community members to protect water (or the environment)? Please explain.

Do you think the community is working to protect water? Please explain. a. How could water resource professionals increase your community’s interest and engagement in water resource protection?

As you may know, there is increasing concern about water in the [X] watershed. One issue local resource professionals are particularly concerned about is stormwater runoff.

85.

First of all, how familiar are you with stormwater runoff?

86.

Many people have different things in mind when they think about stormwater runoff. When you think about stormwater runoff, what comes to mind?

Now, I’d like to read a definition of stormwater runoff to you and show you a diagram (Figure 1) that will provide some background to the next set of questions. Stormwater runoff is water that flows over ground and in stormwater sewers after a rain event or snowmelt. When water flows over surfaces like streets, sidewalks, parking lots and rooftops, it can pick up trash, leaves, dirt, chemicals and other pollutants. If untreated, stormwater can lead to poor water quality in streams, lakes and wetlands.

87.

Have you observed any problems with rainwater, snowmelt or stormwater runoff in the area?

Please explain.

88.

Who do you think should be responsible for addressing these types of water resource problems in this area?

FOR PROPERTY OWNERS/MANAGERS ONLY 89.

How important is managing rainwater, snowmelt or stormwater runoff on [your/this] property?

90.

Are you concerned about water on [your/this] property?

91.

Do you do things on [your/the] property that help to manage stormwater or address other water problems? Please describe those for me. i. How long have you done this? j. What first motivated you to do this? k. Is it working? How do you know? Please explain. l. Do you plan to continue doing this over the next five years? Please explain.

92.

Are there other things you have been considering? (if yes, ask a-c for each, if no, skip) g. What have you heard about this? h. What factors have kept you from doing this? i. Would you do this if things were different? Please explain.

PROGRAM/PROJECT EVALUATION QUESTIONS 93.

Have you heard of the Living Streets program? b. [If yes,] what have you heard about the program? c. How did you first hear about the program?

94.

Do you live in an area where Living Streets improvements have been implemented? a. [If yes] What were your initial impressions of the program? b. What do you think of the program now? c. How would you describe the impact of the program on the neighborhood?

71

95.

96.

97.

d. Did you choose to have improvements (rain garden, trees planted) on your property? i. [if, yes] What first motivated you to get involved with Living Streets? ii. [If no] Would you consider improvements on your property in the future? e. What value have you gotten out of the program thus far? Please explain. f. In your opinion, what might improve the program for you? g. What do you think would improve the program for other community members?

Do you think this program could have effects on… c. The health of water resources in the area? Please explain. d. Others in the [x] community? Please explain.

On a scale of 1-5, one being “not at all likely” and five being “extremely likely”, if you were to move, how likely would you be to purchase a home in an area where Living Streets had been implemented or where implementation was planned?

Program leaders would like to continue to get more participation from community members in other neighborhoods. What suggestions would you have to increase the success of Living Streets in other areas?

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS A few final wrap-up questions: 98.

What do you see as the 3 biggest barriers to improving your community’s engagement in water issues?

99.

What do you see as the 3 most promising opportunities to improving community’s engagement in water issues?

100. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about the community or water in this area?

FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS 101.

I would like to get some recommendations from you as we proceed with this project. What other community representatives (e.g., from government, organizations or interest groups) could give us an important point of view on community assets and needs or water resources in this area? (Those with similar or very different perspectives than you.)

102.

What makes them a key representative (organizations they are involved in, how are they involved in water resources in this area)?

We would like to identify representatives willing to provide input, receive information and serve as community connections for the duration of this project. Would you be interested? _____ Yes _____ No

103.

72

Figure 1. Stormwater runoff (www.lexingtonky.gov)

73

Appendix D. Interview Consent Form

74

Community Capacity for Stormwater Management in the Twin Cities Metro Area Study Consent Form You are invited to participate in a research study that explores community capacity to engage in water issues in the metro area. You were selected as a possible participant for an interview because you current living or working in the metro area. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study. This study is being conducted by: Mae Davenport, Associate Professor at Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota.

Background Information The purpose of this study is to better understand community resources for water resource protection and to build community capacity for engaging in water resource management.

Procedures: If you agree to be in this study, we would ask you to do the following things: Participate in an interview, lasting approximately 60 minutes. The interview will be audio recorded and transcribed.

Risks and Benefits of being in the Study Risks associated with this study are minimal, responses are confidential and names will not be linked to any information in any publications. Benefits of participation include increased awareness of watershed and community issues. Study results will be made available to the public and all participants will have access to them.

Compensation: A gift or cash, valued at $50, will be offered for participation in an interview.

Confidentiality: The records of this study will be kept private. In any sort of report we might publish, we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a subject. Research records will be stored securely and only researchers will have access to the records. Your responses to the interview questions will be audio recorded, transcribed and kept for three years in a locked office. Afterward, these tapes will be destroyed. Only those directly involved with the project will have access to the audio tape of the interview notes.

Voluntary Nature of the Study: Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with the University of Minnesota. If you decide to participate, you are free to not answer any question or withdraw at any time without affecting those relationships.

Contacts and Questions: The researcher conducting this study is: Mae Davenport. You may ask any questions you have now. If you have questions later, you are encouraged to contact her at address: 115 Green Hall
 1530 Cleveland Ave. North, St. Paul, MN 55108-6112, phone: 612-624-2721, email: mdaven@umn.edu.

75

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher, you are encouraged to contact the Research Subjects’ Advocate Line, D528 Mayo, 420 Delaware St. Southeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455; (612) 625-1650.

You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records.

Statement of Consent: I have read the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. I consent to participate in the study.

“I agree______ I disagree______ to have my responses audio recorded” “I agree______ I disagree______ that Mae Davenport may quote me anonymously in her papers”

Signature:_________________________________________________Date: __________________

Signature of Investigator:_____________________________________Date: __________________

76

Appendix E. Interview Background Information Form

77

ID#: _______ Date: ______________

Community Capacity Assessment for Stormwater Management in the Twin Cities Participant Demographic Information Age:

Highest level of formal education:

Years lived in community:

Occupation:

Gender:

Race/Ethnicity:

Community groups/organizations:

78

Appendix F. Focus Group Consent Form

79

FOCUS GROUP CONSENT FORM Thank you for participating in this project! We are seeking resource professionals’ insight on the opportunities and challenges associated with water and stormwater management in the Twin Cities Metro Area. You were selected as a possible participant because of your experience and expertise in resource management in this area. Study findings will be used to improve communication between local resource professionals, community partners, and local decision makers to better design and improve water and stormwater management. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study.

The focus group lasts approximately two hours. You will be asked questions about your perspectives on water and stormwater management and best strategies to engage the public in programing. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the project at any time. Your decision will not affect your current or future relations with the University of Minnesota.

Risks associated with this study are minimal, responses are confidential and names will not be linked to any information in any publications. Benefits of participation include increased awareness of agricultural and water resource issues. Study results will be made available to the public and all participants will have access to them.

If you agree to participate in this project, all reasonable efforts will be made to maintain confidentiality.

Since the focus group session takes place in a group setting and others are privy to your responses, the research team cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. However, your name will not be associated with the data collected. Only those directly involved with the project will have access to the focus group notes.

Contacts and Questions: The researcher conducting this study is: Mae Davenport. You may ask any questions you have now. If you have questions later, you are encouraged to contact her at address: 115 Green Hall 1530 Cleveland Ave. North, St. Paul, MN 55108-6112, phone: 612-624-2721, email: mdaven@umn.edu.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher, you are encouraged to contact the Research Subjects’ Advocate Line, D-528 Mayo, 420 Delaware St. Southeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455; (612) 625-1650.

You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records.

Statement of Consent: 80

I have read the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. I consent to participate in the study.

“I agree______ I disagree______ to have my responses audio-recorded” “I agree______ I disagree______ that Mae Davenport may quote me anonymously in her papers”

Signature:_________________________________________________Date: __________________

Signature of Investigator: _____________________________________Date: __________________

81

Appendix G. Focus Group Agenda

82

Metro Stormwater Focus Group Agenda Focus Group Objectives: (1) Present and receive feedback on study findings to date, (2) Identify constraints and opportunities for promoting water and stormwater programing in the Twin Cities Metro Area and (3) Increase awareness and understanding of critical issues associated with perceptions, attitudes, values, and norms of residents in the Twin Cities Metro area related to water and stormwater.

Agenda and Questions:

1. Welcome and agenda 2. Introductions and ice-breaker 3. Interview data presentation and discussion 4. Survey data presentation and discussion 5. Break (10min) 6. Idea listing 7. Idea prioritization, open discussion 8. Wrap Up

83

Appendix H. Focus Group Background Information Form

84

Metro Stormwater Focus Group Background Information Form We would like to know more about your background. This information will only be used as group data and will remain completely confidential.

1. Are you ______ female ______ male?

2. What is your year of birth? ____________ 3. What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? (Check one) [ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

8th grade or less Some high school High school graduate or GED Some college, business or trade school College graduate Some graduate school Masters, doctoral or professional degree

4. In what ethnicity(s) and race(s) would you place yourself? (Check all that apply) Ethnicity [ ] Hispanic or Latino [ ] Not Hispanic or Latino Race [ ] American Indian or Alaska Native [ ] Asian [ ] Black or African American [ ] Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander [ ] White 5. What is your occupation? ______________________________________________ 6. With what organization/agency are you employed? __________________________________________ 7. How many years have you been employed by this organization/agency? ________________

85

Appendix I. Survey Questionnaire

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

Appendix J. Survey Cover Letter

95

[Date]

[First Name] [Last Name] [Street Address] [City] [State] [Zip code]

Clean Water, Community and You: Neighborhood Resident Survey Information and Consent Form Dear [First Name] [Last Name], Will you please help us with a study about clean water in your neighborhood?

The study is being conducted by the University of Minnesota and is funded by local watershed organizations including Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. You are a resident in one of these watershed areas and we want to know what you think about water.

We will use study findings to help water managers and community leaders get residents involved in water issues. We really appreciate you taking the time to help us with this study. It should take you only about 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. We are only contacting a random sample of residents in this neighborhood; so it is important that we hear from you! ***We have enclosed a small cash gift to thank you in advance for your help with this study.*** This survey is voluntary and completely confidential. The risks of participating in this study are minimal.

There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this study. You are free to withdraw at any time.

Completion of this survey indicates your voluntary consent to participate. Your decision to participate will not affect your current or future relationship with the University of Minnesota. The ID # on the front page of your survey is used to help us track mailings, ensuring that your name is never affiliated with your responses. Please answer the questions as completely as possible. Once you have completed the questionnaire, fold it in thirds and mail it back in the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid envelope.

We would be happy to answer any questions or listen to any comments you may have about this study.

Please feel free to contact me at 612-624-2721 or mdaven@umn.edu. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher(s), you are encouraged to contact the Research Subjects' Advocate Line, D-528 Mayo, 420 Delaware Street S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55455; telephone (612) 625-1650.

I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Mae Davenport Associate Professor

96

Appendix K. Survey Reminder Letter

97

[Date] [First Name] [Last Name] [Street Address] [City] [State] [Zip code]

Clean Water, Community and You: Neighborhood Resident Survey Information and Consent Form Dear [First Name] [Last Name], Will you please help us with a study about clean water in your neighborhood?

I am hoping that you will be able to give about 15 minutes of your time to complete a questionnaire about your views on your community and its water. If you have already returned your questionnaire, thank you for your response. We sincerely appreciate your input!

If you have not yet responded, I am writing again because of the importance of your participation to the study and its intended outcomes. The study is being conducted by the University of Minnesota and is funded by local watershed organizations including Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. You are a resident in one of these watershed areas and we want to know what you think about water. We will use study findings to help water managers and community leaders get residents involved in water issues. We really appreciate you taking the time to help us with this study. It should take you only about 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. We are only contacting a random sample of residents in this neighborhood; so it is important that we hear from you!

This survey is voluntary and completely confidential. The risks of participating in this study are minimal.

There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this study. You are free to withdraw at any time.

Completion of this survey indicates your voluntary consent to participate. Your decision to participate will not affect your current or future relationship with the University of Minnesota. The ID # on the front page of your survey is used to help us track mailings, ensuring that your name is never affiliated with your responses. Please answer the questions as completely as possible. Once you have completed the questionnaire, fold it in thirds and mail it back in the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid envelope.

We would be happy to answer any questions or listen to any comments you may have about this study.

Please feel free to contact me at 612-624-2721 or mdaven@umn.edu or Amit Pradhananga at prad0047@umn.edu. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher(s), you are encouraged to contact the Research Subjects' Advocate Line, D-528 Mayo, 420 Delaware Street S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55455; telephone (612) 625-1650.

I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Mae Davenport Associate Professor 98

Appendix L. Survey Replacement Cover Letter

99

[Date] [First Name] [Last Name] [Street Address] [City] [State] [Zip code]

Clean Water, Community and You: Neighborhood Resident Survey Information and Consent Form Dear [First Name] [Last Name], Will you please help us with a study about clean water in your neighborhood?

I am hoping that you will be able to give about 15 minutes of your time to complete a questionnaire about your views on your community and its water. If you have already returned your questionnaire, thank you for your response. We sincerely appreciate your input!

If you have not yet responded, I am writing again because of the importance of your participation to the study and its intended outcomes. The study is being conducted by the University of Minnesota and is funded by local watershed organizations including Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. You are a resident in one of these watershed areas and we want to know what you think about water. We will use study findings to help water managers and community leaders get residents involved in water issues. We really appreciate you taking the time to help us with this study. It should take you only about 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. We are only contacting a random sample of residents in this neighborhood; so it is important that we hear from you!

This survey is voluntary and completely confidential. The risks of participating in this study are minimal.

There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this study. You are free to withdraw at any time.

Completion of this survey indicates your voluntary consent to participate. Your decision to participate will not affect your current or future relationship with the University of Minnesota. The ID # on the front page of your survey is used to help us track mailings, ensuring that your name is never affiliated with your responses. Please answer the questions as completely as possible. Once you have completed the questionnaire, fold it in thirds and mail it back in the enclosed self-addressed, postage-paid envelope.

We would be happy to answer any questions or listen to any comments you may have about this study.

Please feel free to contact me at 612-624-2721 or mdaven@umn.edu or Amit Pradhananga at prad0047@umn.edu. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher(s), you are encouraged to contact the Research Subjects' Advocate Line, D-528 Mayo, 420 Delaware Street S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55455; telephone (612) 625-1650.

I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Mae Davenport Associate Professor 100

Appendix M: Survey Findings

101

Table 1. Differences among watershed respondents in age Watershed N Mean SD F# MWMOa 63 54.2 17.86 CRWDa 54 50.3 19.25 7.550** b RWMWD 114 61.0 16.71 #

F-statistic for testing differences in means. **Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01. a, b, c Each superscript letter denotes no significant difference among watersheds at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05 based on a least significant difference (LSD) post-hoc test.

Table 2. Differences among watershed respondents in race and housing arrangement Watershed χ2 MWMO CRWD RWMWD Race White 78.9% 62.8% 87.8% Other Race 21.1% 37.2% 12.2% 18.122** 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Housing arrangement I own my own home 74.6% 47.0% 94.7% I rent 25.4% 53.0% 5.3% 52.823** 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2

χ Chi-square statistic for testing differences in proportion **Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01.

102

Table 3. Differences among watershed respondents in their social influences, perceptions of neighborhood qualities and likelihood of future clean water action Survey item Watershed N Mean SD F# Influence of individuals/groups in decisions about getting involved in community (4-point scale from not at all (1) to a lot (4)) Business owners/leaders in my community MWMOa 67 2.63 0.97 b CRWD 68 2.10 0.98 11.435** RWMWDb 115 1.95 0.89 My neighbors MWMOa 67 3.01 0.95 ab CRWD 70 2.76 1.04 5.587** RWMWDb 122 2.52 0.95 a My county government MWMO 67 2.43 0.96 CRWDb 67 2.04 0.96 4.266* RWMWDb 116 2.03 0.93 Neighborhood associations MWMOa 65 2.43 1.00 CRWDa 66 2.39 1.05 3.997* b RWMWD 115 2.04 1.02 Local media MWMOa 65 2.34 0.80 CRWDb 66 2.02 0.97 3.472* b RWMWD 115 1.99 0.89 Importance of qualities of a neighborhood (5-point scale from very unimportant (-2) to very important (+2)) Access to public transportation MWMOa 71 0.96 1.25 CRWDb 67 1.42 0.86 8.740** a RWMWD 124 0.69 1.24 Opportunities to earn an adequate income MWMOa 71 1.55 0.82 ab CRWD 67 1.36 1.05 3.146* RWMWDb 121 1.17 1.13 Opportunities to gather/harvest plants or to fish MWMOa 70 0.47 1.28 ab CRWD 68 0.34 1.23 3.124* RWMWDb 124 0.02 1.29 Likelihood of taking clean water actions in the next 12 months (5-point scale from very unlikely (-2) to very likely (+2)) Attend a community discussion, meeting or public MWMOa 67 0.31 1.21 hearing about water 4.395* CRWDab 67 0.07 1.27 b RWMWD 118 -0.22 1.16 a Volunteer for clean water projects MWMO 67 0.15 1.16 CRWDa 66 0.14 1.23 3.628* RWMWDb 119 -0.24 1.07 #

F-statistic for testing differences in means. Items are listed in descending order by F-statistic. *Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05; **statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01. a, b, c Each superscript letter denotes no significant difference among watersheds at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05 based on a least significant difference (LSD) post-hoc test.

SD = Standard deviation

103

Table 4. Differences among watershed respondents in familiarity with clean water actions and participation in community activities Watershed Survey item Response MWMO CRWD RWMWD χ2 Heard about these clean water actions?

Native plants or shrubs in my yard Yes 70.1% 59.1% 80.3% No 29.9% 40.9% 19.7% 9.797** 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Rain gutters or direct water to lawn, flower Yes 74.6% 65.2% 82.0% bed or garden No 25.4% 34.8% 18.0% 6.637* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Picking up after your pet and putting waste Yes 79.4% 82.8% 92.9% in trash No 20.6% 17.2% 7.1% 7.554* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Participated in the community activity in the past 12 months?

Attended a meeting, public hearing or Yes 12.7% 14.5% 3.9% community discussion unrelated to the No 87.3% 85.5% 96.1% 6.270* watershed district/organization about water 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2

χ Chi-square statistic for testing differences in proportion *Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05; **statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01.

Table 5. Respondents’ perception of their community N Percent My neighborhood 144 55.2 My city 71 27.2 My close friends and family 19 7.3 My county 9 3.4 Other (e.g., church, condo association) 9 3.4 Organization/groups 6 2.3 My workplace 2 0.8 My ethnic group 1 0.4 My school system 0 0.0 Source: Question 1; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey

104

Somewhat unimportant

Neither important nor unimportant

Somewhat important

Very important

Clean drinking water Clean streams, rivers and lakes Access to basic services (e.g., health care, trasportation) Good relationships among neighbors Access to natural areas/views Opportunities for outdoor recreation Access to good schools Opportunities to earn an adequate income A welcoming place for people of all backgrounds and perspectives Strong family ties Access to public transportation Opportunities to communicate in my primary language Opportunities to express my culture and traditions Opportunities to be involved in community projects Opportunities to gather/harvest plants or to fish Opportunities to serve in leadership roles

Very unimportantb

Table 6. Respondents’ perceived importance of the qualities of a neighborhood

1.5 1.1

0.0 0.8

0.4 1.9

8.0 14.4

90.2 81.7

0.75

1.9

0.4

3.4

23.8

70.6

1.56

0.68

.8

1.5

1.9

33.0

62.9

264

1.55

0.81

1.9

0.8

6.8

21.6

68.9

264

1.47

0.85

2.3

1.1

6.4

28.0

62.1

265

1.36

1.07

4.2

2.3

14.0

12.8

66.8

259

1.32

1.04

4.2

2.3

10.8

22.4

60.2

262

1.13

1.04

3.4

4.2

15.3

30.5

46.6

258 262

1.02 0.95

1.10 1.19

3.9 7.6

5.8 3.8

18.6 16.0

27.5 31.3

44.2 41.2

258

0.85

1.22

7.8

2.7

28.3

19.4

41.9

261

0.57

1.11

6.5

8.0

29.1

34.9

21.5

262

0.56

0.94

2.7

9.9

29.4

44.7

13.4

262

0.23

1.28

14.9

11.1

28.2

28.2

17.6

261

0.08

1.10

12.3

10.3

44.4

23.4

9.6

N 264 263

Mean* 1.85 1.75

SDa 0.56 0.64

265

1.61

264

Source: Questions 4a-4p; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a 5 point scale from Very unimportant (-2) to Very important (2) a SD=Standard deviation b Percent

105

Mean*

SDa

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

People like me are able to make an impact and make our neighborhood a better place to live.

My neighborhood has residents who are committed to local issues.

My neighborhood has become a better place to be in the past 5 years (or since moving here if less than 5 years).

My local government (e.g., city, county) does a good job of listening to residents about problems.

Residents in my neighborhood work together to solve local issues.

I am generally trusting of government agencies.

My neighborhood has strong leadership.

Local leaders adequately represent the diverse groups living in my neighborhood.

N

Strongly disagreeb

Table 7. Respondents’ perceptions about their neighborhood

264

0.72

0.95

3.0

5.7

27.7

43.9

19.7

264

0.64

1.01

3.4

8.3

29.5

38.3

20.5

263

0.48

1.15

7.2

10.3

31.2

30.0

21.3

262

0.27

1.15

9.9

13.7

29.0

34.4

13.0

263

0.24

1.15

10.6

13.3

28.9

35.7

11.4

263

0.24

1.17

9.5

19.0

20.9

39.2

11.4

263

0.04

1.16

12.5

15.6

38.8

21.7

11.4

263

0.02

0.98

9.1

14.4

46.8

24.3

5.3

Source: Questions 5a-5h; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a 5 point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2) a SD=Standard deviation b Percent

Table 8. Respondents’ familiarity with and participation in community activities in the past 12 months Heard about the Participated opportunity N Yes a No N Yes No Attending neighborhood meetings 252 51.2 48.8 238 26.5 73.5 Volunteering for neighborhood projects 249 46.6 53.4 229 22.7 77.3 Obtaining additional information about neighborhood 247 38.5 61.5 226 23.0 77.0 issues Talking with others about water problems 252 23.0 77.0 221 17.2 82.8 Helping organize community programs 245 25.7 74.3 221 9.5 90.5 Attending a meeting, public hearing or community discussion unrelated to the watershed 251 18.3 81.7 220 9.1 90.9 district/organization about water Working with neighborhood residents to protect water 251 9.2 90.8 216 7.4 92.6 (unrelated to the watershed district/organization) Participating in watershed district/organization program 250 14.8 85.2 220 5.0 95.0 or event Source: Question 17; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey a Percent

106

Table 9. Individuals or groups that influence respondents’ decisions about getting involved in their community Don't Not at N Mean* SDa Slightly Moderately A lot know/Not allb applicable My family 263 2.90 1.13 18.3 12.9 26.6 39.5 2.7 My neighbors 260 2.71 0.99 14.2 24.2 36.9 24.2 0.4 My city government 258 2.45 0.95 17.8 33.7 32.6 14.7 1.2 Community non-profit 257 2.31 0.98 22.2 36.6 24.5 13.6 3.1 organizations Neighborhood 257 2.24 1.04 29.6 26.5 26.8 12.8 4.3 associations Environmental 253 2.19 0.99 29.2 30.8 26.5 10.7 2.8 organizations Business owners/leaders in my 256 2.17 0.97 29.3 32.0 26.6 9.8 2.3 community My county government 256 2.14 0.96 30.5 30.9 28.1 8.2 2.3 Elders in my 257 2.14 1.00 31.9 27.2 26.5 9.3 5.1 community Local media 256 2.09 0.90 30.5 30.9 30.5 4.3 3.9 Faith leaders in my 257 2.07 1.06 40.1 21.0 24.9 10.9 3.1 community State government 257 2.00 0.90 35.0 32.3 25.7 4.7 2.3 agencies Source: Questions 2a-2m; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a 4-point scale from not at all (0) to a lot (4) a SD=Standard deviation b Percent

Table 10. Respondents' most trusted sources of information regarding community issues N Percent* My neighbors 104 38.8% My city government 104 38.8% My family 80 29.9% Local media 78 29.1% Environmental organizations 59 22.0% My county government 41 15.3% Community non-profit organizations 40 14.9% Neighborhood associations 37 13.8% Faith leaders in my community 36 13.4% Business owners/leaders in my community 30 11.2% State government agencies 24 9.0% Other (e.g., Minnesota Public Radio, newspaper) 24 9.0% Elders in my community 16 6.0% My watershed district or organization 14 5.2% *Percent of all survey respondents (N = 268)

107

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor disagree

N

Mean*

SDa

Strongly b disagree

I generally want to do what people who are important to me want me to do.

People who are important are important to me attend meetings, hearings or community discussions.

People who are important to me expect me to be involved in community issues.

Somewhat disagree

Table 11. Respondents’ perceived social norms of civic action

265

0.34

1.12

9.4

265

0.22

1.12 10.2 13.6 30.2 36.2

9.8

265

0.14

1.07

8.7

9.8

10.9 28.3 38.9 12.5

13.2 38.5 29.8

Source: Questions 3a-3c; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a 5 point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (2) a SD=Standard deviation b Percent

Table 12. Respondents’ perceptions about what comes to mind first when they think of water N Percent Drinking water 181 68.8 Streams, rivers or lakes 56 21.3 Groundwater 13 4.9 Rain water/snowmelt 13 4.9 Source: Question 6; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey

Table 13. Respondents’ uses of water in or near their neighborhoods N Percent* Drinking water 255 95.1 Watering plants/lawn 209 78.0 Experiencing scenic beauty 170 63.4 Place to observe wildlife (e.g., birding) 151 56.3 Setting for picnicking and family gatherings 103 38.4 Swimming in pools 74 27.6 Swimming in lakes or streams 67 25.0 Canoeing/kayaking/other boating 49 18.3 Fishing for sport 37 13.8 Source: Question 7; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey *Percent of all survey respondents (N = 268)

Table 14. Respondents’ familiarity with water issues around their neighborhood Response N Percent Not at all familiar 91 34.6 Slightly familiar 94 35.7 Moderately familiar 68 25.9 Very familiar 10 3.8 Source: Question 9; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey

108

Table 15. Respondents’ perception of the quality of water in the stream, lake, or river water closest to them Response N Percent Very poor 9 3.4 Poor 20 7.6 Fair 91 34.7 Good 74 28.2 Very good 22 8.4 Don't know 46 17.6 Source: Question 10; Clean Water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey

SD a

Somewhat disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

267

1.93

0.35

0.4

0

0.4

5.2

94.0

264

1.18

0.87

0.4

3.4

17.4

35.2

43.6

265

0.58

0.93

3.0

8.3

30.2

44.9

13.6

263

-0.94

1.01

37.3

27.0

30.0

3.4

2.3

N Water pollution can affect human health.

Water in Minnesota needs better protection.

Water in my neighborhood is adequately protected.

Protecting water in my neighborhood is a lost cause.

Neither agree nor disagree

Mean*

Strongly disagreeb

Table 16. Respondents’ beliefs about water pollution

Source: Question 14; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a 5 point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2) a SD=Standard deviation b Percent

Table 17. Respondents’ beliefs about responsibility for water resource protection in their neighborhood N Percent a My city government 239 89.2 Residents 221 82.5 I should be 214 79.9 My watershed district/organization 203 75.7 My county government 202 75.4 Local business owners 199 74.3 State government 189 70.5 Local neighborhood organizations 148 55.2 Federal government 148 55.2 Source: Question19; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey a Percent of all survey respondents (N = 268)

109

Table 18. Respondents’ most important sources of information about water issues N Percent Local media (e.g., newspaper, television) 156 58.2% My city government 114 42.5% MN Department of Natural Resources 82 30.6% Neighbors 80 29.9% Internet 59 22.0% My watershed district/organization 51 19.0% MN Pollution Control Agency 51 19.0% My family 47 17.5% MN Department of Health 42 15.7% Other environmental organizations 38 14.2% My county government 31 11.6% Federal government agencies 8 3.0% Source: Question 13; Clean Water, Community and You

Table 19. Respondents’ reported experience with water problems around their neighborhood in the past 3 years N Percent Yes 76 29.1 No 185 70.9 Source: Question 12; Clean water, Community and You-Neighborhood Resident Survey

Table 20. Water problems identified by respondents who have heard of water problems in their neighborhood in the past 3 years N Percent Storm drain issues 34 44.7 Algae 32 42.1 Aquatic invasive species 20 26.3 Sanitary sewer issues 16 21.1 Unsafe drinking water 15 19.7 Lake water levels 15 19.7 Flooding 14 18.4 Stream pollution 12 15.8 Water damage to streets or sidewalks 12 15.8 Salt or chloride levels 9 11.8 Industrial/commercial spills or contamination 8 10.5 Don't know 3 3.9 Source: Question 12b; Clean Water, Community and You

110

Somewhat concerned

Very concerned

SDa 1.00 1.14 1.12 1.11 1.08 1.09 1.17 1.06 1.12 1.29 1.16 1.31 1.36

Neither concerned nor unconcerned

Mean * 0.94 0.86 0.82 0.81 0.79 0.75 0.73 0.70 0.68 0.66 0.66 -0.25 -0.37

Somewhat unconcerned

Water pollution in general Water that is not healthy for fish Sanitary sewer issues Aquatic invasive species Storm drain issues Overuse of water for lawns Loss of scenic views Stormwater runoff Lake water levels dropping Water that is not safe for drinking Water that is not safe for swimming Flooding in my neighborhood Flooding at my residence

N 263 262 263 262 262 263 262 261 263 263 262 264 262

Very unconcerned b

Table 21. Respondents’ concerns around water issues in their neighborhood

3.0 5.3 4.9 5.0 5.7 4.6 6.9 4.6 5.3 8.4 7.3 23.5 27.5

6.5 7.3 7.2 6.5 5.3 8.0 7.3 7.7 8.7 11.0 6.9 20.1 22.5

15.2 18.3 21.7 23.7 20.2 23.6 22.5 24.1 25.5 21.7 25.6 25.0 21.4

43.7 34.0 33.5 32.4 42.0 35.7 32.4 39.8 33.8 24.0 33.6 20.8 16.4

31.6 35.1 32.7 32.4 26.7 28.1 30.9 23.8 26.6 35.0 26.7 10.6 12.2

Source: Question 15; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a five-point scale from very unconcerned (-2) to very concerned (+2). a SD=Standard deviation b Percent

111

Table 22. Respondents’ familiarity with and use of clean water actions Heard about the action N Yesa No Keeping grass clippings and leaves out of the 258 86.0 14.0 street Minimizing use of fertilizers/pesticides on lawn 257 86.8 13.2 and gardens Using less tap water in my house or on my lawn 256 79.7 20.3 Minimizing the use of sidewalk salt and deicers 257 79.4 20.6 Clearing storm drains of leaves, sand and litter 257 81.7 18.3 Native plants or shrubs in my yard 255 72.2 27.8 Picking up after your pet and putting in the 240 86.7 13.3 trash Rain gutters to direct water to lawn, flower bed 255 75.7 24.3 or garden Rain garden 253 70.4 29.6 Rain barrel or cistern to store water 260 75.0 25.0 Pervious/permeable pavement 253 40.7 59.3

Action used on property N Yes No 246

84.6

15.4

242

74.4

25.6

246 241 241 246

70.7 66.8 64.3 53.7

29.3 33.2 35.7 46.3

254

48.8

8.3

245

48.2

51.8

242 249 229

17.8 14.5 5.7

82.2 85.5 94.3

No pet 42.9

Source: Question 16; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey a Percent

Very likely

Somewhat likely

Neither likely nor unlikely

Somewhat unlikely

Mean*

SDa

257

0.95

1.00

3.9

3.1

19.5 41.2 32.3

253

0.17

1.12

11.1

11.5

37.5 28.9 11.1

254

0.13

1.13

11.4

13.4

36.6 28.3 10.2

255

0.08

1.19

14.9

12.2

32.9 29.8 10.2

252

0.00

1.22

15.9

15.9

31.0 27.0 10.3

254

-0.02

1.12

15.0

11.0

43.7 22.0

8.3

252

-0.04

1.15

15.1

13.9

39.7 22.6

8.7

N Change something I do at home to protect water Encourage others to get involved in clean water activities Work with other neighborhood residents to protect water Talk to neighbors about clean water activities Attend a community discussion, meeting, or public hearing about water Participate in a clean water stewardship program Volunteer for clean water projects

Very unlikelyb

Table 23. Respondents’ likelihood of taking clean water actions in the next 12 months

Source: Question18; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey *Responses based on a 5 point scale from very unlikely (-2) to very likely (+2) a SD=Standard deviation b Percent

112

Table 24. Conditions that make it more likely that respondents would use clean water actions N Percent * Knew more about how to use the actions 159 59.3 Knew why the actions helped clean water 154 57.5 Had financial assistance to help me use the actions 117 43.7 Know that the city/county encouraged the actions 116 43.3 Could be assured the actions are safe for your family 105 39.2 Had help with the physical labor needed to use the actions 89 33.2 Could attend a community meeting to learn more about the actions 80 29.9 Could talk to others who use the actions 75 28.0 Nothing would make me more likely to do these actions 22 8.2 Source: Question 16b; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey *Percent of all survey respondents (N = 268)

Table 25. Conditions that make it more likely that respondents would get involved in community activities N Percent a Knew why the activities helped the community 131 48.9 Knew more about how to get involved 126 47.0 Knew that the city/county encouraged the activities 94 35.1 Could talk to others who have been involved 76 28.4 Had financial assistance to get involved 56 20.9 Had transportation to the activities 30 11.2 Could have access to childcare during the activities 22 8.2 Nothing would make me more likely to do get involved in community activities 54 20.1 Source: Question 17b; Clean Water, Community and You- Neighborhood Resident Survey a Percent of all survey respondents (N = 268)

Table 26. Number of respondents by adoption of clean water actions Levels of clean water actiona N Percent High action 132 51.0 Low action 127 49.0 259 100.0 a

Based on an index of survey questions 16a through 16k. High action = respondents who have used 6 or more of the 11 clean water actions, low action = respondents who have used 5 or fewer of the 11 clean water actions

113

Table 27. Differences between adopters of clean water actions and non-adopters in their social norms, beliefs about their neighborhood, and concern about water issues Survey item N Mean SD t# Social norm (5-point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2)) People who are important to me expect me to be Adoptersa 132 0.30 0.96 -2.640** involved in community issues.

Non-adopters 125 -0.06 1.17 Beliefs about their neighborhood (5-point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2)) My neighborhood has residents who are committed to Adopters 132 0.77 0.95 -2.302* local issues.

Non-adopters 124 0.48 1.06 Residents in my neighborhood work together to solve Adopters 132 0.38 1.13 -2.236* local issues.

Non-adopters 123 0.06 1.17 Concern about water issues (5-point scale from very unconcerned (-2) to very concerned (+2)) Stormwater runoff Adopters 130 0.89 0.95 -2.691** Non-adopters 124 0.53 1.13 a

Based on an index of survey questions 16a through 16k. Adopters = respondents who have used 6 or more of the 11 clean water actions, non-adopters = respondents who have used 5 or fewer clean water actions # T-test statistic for testing differences in means. Items are reported in descending order by t-statistic. *Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05; **statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01.

SD = Standard deviation

Table 28. Number of respondents by levels of civic engagement Levels of civic engagementa N Percent High 115 47.5 Low 127 52.5 242 100.0 a

Based on an index of survey questions 17a through 17h. High = respondents who have participated in 1 or more of the 8 community activities in the past 12 months, low = respondents who have not participated in any of the 8 community activities in the past 12 months.

114

Table 29. Differences between respondents with varying levels of civic engagement in their social norms, perceptions of neighborhood qualities and beliefs about their neighborhood Survey item Levels of civic N Mean SD t# a engagement Social norm (5-point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2)) People who are important to me expect me to be High 115 0.50 0.96 -4.975** involved in community issues Low 125 -0.16 1.07 People who are important to me attend meetings, High 115 0.57 1.02 -4.692** hearings or community discussions.

Low 125 -0.09 1.13 Importance of neighborhood qualities (5-point scale from very unimportant (-2) to very important (+2)) Good relationships with neighbors High 115 1.73 0.52 -3.921** Low 124 1.40 0.74 Opportunities to be involved in community projects High 114 0.82 0.86 -3.812** Low 124 0.36 0.97 A welcoming place for people of all backgrounds and High 114 1.42 0.82 -3.811** perspectives Low 124 0.92 1.17 Access to good schools High 115 1.62 0.79 -3.183** Low 125 1.19 1.22 Opportunities to express my culture and traditions High 113 0.76 1.02 -2.167* Low 124 0.45 1.16 Beliefs about their neighborhood (5-point scale from strongly disagree (-2) to strongly agree (+2)) My neighborhood has residents who are committed to High 115 0.97 0.97 -5.435** local issues.

Low 124 0.31 0.93 Residents in my neighborhood work together to solve High 114 0.59 1.14 -4.642** local issues.

Low 124 -0.09 1.11 My neighborhood has strong leadership.

High 114 0.38 1.20 -4.217** Low 124 -0.25 1.09 People like me are able to make an impact and make our High 115 0.95 0.96 -3.819** neighborhood a better place to live.

Low 124 0.48 0.91 Local leaders adequately represent the diverse groups High 114 0.24 1.02 -3.257** living in my neighborhood.

Low 124 -0.18 0.94 My local government (e.g., city, county) does a good job High 113 0.45 1.14 -2.914** of listening to residents about problems.

Low 124 0.02 1.15 My neighborhood has become a better place to be in the High 114 0.70 1.09 -2.816** past 5 years (or since moving here if less than 5 years) Low 124 0.28 1.20 I am generally trusting of government agencies.

High 114 0.39 1.09 -2.493* Low 124 0.02 1.24 a

Based on an index of survey questions 17a through 17h. High = respondents who have participated in 1 or more of the 8 community activities in the past 12 months, low = respondents who have not participated in any of the 8 community activities in the past 12 months. # T-test statistic for testing differences in means. *Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05; **statistically significant at p ≤ 0.01. Items are reported in descending order by t-statistic.

SD = Standard deviation

115

February 10, 2016 V. District Initiatives - B) Eustis Street Regional Modeling Project (Eleria)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 4, 2016 CRWD Citizen Advisory Committee Members Anna Eleria, Water Resource Project Manager Eustis Street Regional Modeling Project

Background Last summer, CRWD, in partnership with City of Lauderdale and Ramsey County, began evaluating opportunities for managing stormwater runoff in a portion of the City of Lauderdale. Originally the focus of the project was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing green infrastructure practices along Eustis Street south of Larpenteur Avenue and within an adjacent County-held drainage easement.

Based on further discussions with project partners and a private property owner during this evaluation, localized flooding issues were raised and the project scope was expanded to a regional analysis of the hydrologic and water quality concerns within approximately 150 acres. It also includes identification of potential flood mitigation and water quality improvement options in the study area.

Update Barr Engineering has completed the enclosed draft Eustis Street Regional Modeling Project Report. They have estimated the 10- and 100-year flow rates and pollutant loading for the subwatershed and the current pollutant removal efficiencies of several dry and wet ponds and evaluated alternatives to mitigate flooding and improve water quality. CRWD and Barr Engineering staff will present the scope of work and results of the project to the CAC and seek input on the findings and recommendations. A hard copy of the draft report is available upon request.

Action Requested Review and comment on the Eustis Street Regional Modeling Project

enc:

Draft Eustis Street Regional Modeling Report

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Board Memos\CAC Memo Eustis Street Regional Modeling 02-10-16.docx

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

R

AF

T

Technical Report: Eustis Street Regional Modeling

D

Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN Barr Engineering Co.

December 2015

Technical Report: Eustis Street Regional Modeling

R

AF

Barr Engineering Co.

T

BY CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Lauderdale, Minnesota

D

December 2015

Technical Report: Eustis Street Regional Modeling December 2015

Contents 1.1

Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Background and Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3

Study Area...................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Hydraulic and Hydrologic Modeling ................................................................................................................................ 5 Field survey of stormsewer network .................................................................................................................... 5

2.2

Delineation of Subwatersheds and Field Review............................................................................................ 5

2.3

Hydrologic Modeling................................................................................................................................................. 5

3.0

3.2

5.0

Land Use and Imperviousness ............................................................................................................... 5

2.3.2

Soils and Infiltration ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.3.3

Watershed Width and Slope .................................................................................................................. 6

2.3.4

Rainfall ............................................................................................................................................................. 6

Hydraulic Modeling .................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.4.1

Stormsewer and Stormsewer Inlets ..................................................................................................... 9

2.4.2

Open-channels and Overflow Conduits ............................................................................................ 9

Water Quality Modeling......................................................................................................................................................10 3.1

4.0

2.3.1

AF

2.4

T

2.1

R

2.0

Background ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1

D

1.0

Hydrologic Modeling...............................................................................................................................................10 Hydraulic and Particulate Modeling ..................................................................................................................10

Modeling Results ...................................................................................................................................................................11 4.1

Hydraulic Results .......................................................................................................................................................11

4.2

Water Quality Results ..............................................................................................................................................15

Potential Watershed Improvements ..............................................................................................................................21 5.1

Flood Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................................21 5.1.1

Earthen Berm in Ravine ..........................................................................................................................23

5.1.2

Expansion of Wet Pond (CB99013) ....................................................................................................24

5.1.3

Expansion of Dry Pond and Sheet Pile Wall (CB99027) .............................................................25

5.1.4

Expansion of Dry Pond and Earthen Berm (CB99027) ...............................................................26

i W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

5.2

5.1.5

Expansion of Storage at Confluence (CB99029) ...........................................................................27

5.1.6

Combined Flood Mitigation Alternative ..........................................................................................27

Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................................................33 5.2.1

Redevelopment of Wet Pond (CB99013) ........................................................................................33

5.2.2

Conversion of Dry Pond to Wet Pond (CB99027) ........................................................................33

5.2.3

Conversion of Dry Pond to Wet Pond with IESF (CB99027) ....................................................34

5.2.4

Residential Rain Gardens .......................................................................................................................35

5.2.5

BMP Cost and Cost-Benefit ..................................................................................................................37

Recommendation ..................................................................................................................................................................39

7.0

References ................................................................................................................................................................................42

D

R

AF

T

6.0

ii W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

List of Tables Directly connected impervious fraction by surface type and land use.......................................... 7

Table 2

Horton infiltration parameters by hydrologic soil group .................................................................... 7

Table 3

Selected Atlas 14 design event inundation elevations.......................................................................11

Table 4

Comparison of peak outflow rates. ............................................................................................................12

Table 5

Average annual TSS and TP load reduction ...........................................................................................15

Table 6

Storage and peak flow comparison at the proposed earthen berm. ...........................................24

Table 7

Storage and peak flow comparison at the proposed expanded wet pond. ..............................25

Table 8

Storage and peak flow comparison at the proposed expanded dry pond and sheet pile wall. .........................................................................................................................................................................26

Table 9

Storage and peak flow comparison at the proposed expanded dry pond and earthen berm. ......................................................................................................................................................................27

Table 10

Flood mitigation alternative hydraulic summary. .................................................................................29

Table 11

Flood mitigation alternative capital costs and annualized costs. ..................................................32

Table 12

Annual TSS and TP reduction at proposed redeveloped wet pond. ............................................33

Table 13

Annual TSS and TP reduction provided by conversion of dry pond to wet pond. .................34

Table 14

Annual TSS and TP reduction provided by conversion of dry pond to wet pond with IESF and earthen berm. ...................................................................................................................................35

Table 15

Residential rain garden sizing. .....................................................................................................................35

Table 16

Annual water load, TSS, and TP reduction provided by residential rain gardens. ..................35

Table 17

Water quality BMP capital cost, annualized cost, and cost-benefit. .............................................38

Table 18

Proposed alternative capital cost, annualized cost, and cost-benefit. .........................................41

D

R

AF

T

Table 1

List of Figures

Figure 1

Concrete swales located near 1568 Eustis Street (junction of swales, north-west swale, east-west swale)................................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2

Eustis Street study area..................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3

Eustis Street hydrology ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 4

Design event inundation area ......................................................................................................................13

Figure 5

10-year design event pipe capacity ...........................................................................................................14

Figure 6

Areal TSS loading ..............................................................................................................................................16

Figure 7

Areal TP loading ................................................................................................................................................17

Figure 8

Water quality treatment .................................................................................................................................18 iii

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

TSS load reduction............................................................................................................................................19

Figure 10

TP Load reduction .............................................................................................................................................20

Figure 11

Rating curve for combined outflow from the 24-inch and 36-inch outlet pipes at the confluence of the concrete swales. ............................................................................................................22

Figure 12

Existing condition outflow hydrograph from the confluence of the concrete swales...........22

Figure 13

Flood Mitigation Alternative. ........................................................................................................................30

Figure 14

Existing condition compared to combined flood mitigation alternative for 10-year design event. .......................................................................................................................................................31

Figure 15

Existing condition compared to combined flood mitigation alternative for 100-year design event. .......................................................................................................................................................31

Figure 16

Residential Rain Gardens ...............................................................................................................................36

Figure 17

Profile: Dry Pond Expansion and Conversion to Wet Pond..............................................................39

D

R

AF

T

Figure 9

iv W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

1.0 1.1

Background

Purpose

The purpose of this technical report is to summarize regional modeling efforts to determine the 10- and 100-year flow rates and pollutant loading for the watershed tributary to the concrete swales near 1568 Eustis Street in Lauderdale, Minnesota. 10- and 100-year flows were evaluated by creating a hydraulic and hydrologic model of the 148-acre drainage area to the concrete swales, and localized flooding was evaluated. Additionally, a water quality model of the drainage area was created to assess the total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) removal efficiency of several dry and wet ponds tributary to the concrete swales.

The developed water quantity and water quality models were used to evaluate the impact of several flood mitigation alternatives and water quality projects throughout the study area. Water quality improvement projects evaluated were targeted at portions of the study area which were identified as having little or no

T

water quality treatment. Flood mitigation alternatives were evaluated with the goal of protecting the apartment complex immediately northeast of the concrete swales during the 10- and 100-year design

AF

storm events, and minimizing inundation of the apartment complex parking lot during the 10-year event.

Flood inundation and water quality modeling methodology and modeling results are outlined in Sections 1.0 through 4.0 of this report. Flood mitigation alternatives and water quality improvement projects evaluated are discussed in Section 5.0.

1.2

Background and Scope

R

At the request of City of Lauderdale, Ramsey County, and the property owner of 1568 Eustis Street, Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) has determined the capacity and potential flooding concerns of a concrete swale drainage system located in the city of Lauderdale near 1568 Eustis Street (Figure 1).

D

The swale system (Figure 2) consists of two concrete swales which drain to the 36-inch and 24-inch outlet pipes shown in Figure 1. The north-south swale and east-west swale are roughly 125 and 220 feet long, respectively. Both swales are, on average, four feet wide, and have a maximum depth of six to nine inches.

The total drainage area to the east-west swale is 129 acres. The drainage area to the north-south swale is 15 acres, and direct drainage area to the confluence of both swales (subwatershed CB99029 in Figure 2) is 4 acres, leading to a total drainage area of 148 acres.

City staff and the landowner (Aspen Waste Management) state that the parking lot adjacent to the concrete swales (shown in Figure 2) frequently floods, requiring tenants of a nearby apartment complex to avoid the low area in the southwest portion of the parking lot during heavy rainfall events (see signage in Figure 1). To evaluate the hydraulic performance of the concrete swale drainage system and assess the extent of localized flooding, a hydraulic and hydrologic model of the total 148-acre drainage area (Figure 2) was created using XP-SWMM version 2014.

1 W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

Figure 1

Concrete swales located near 1568 Eustis Street (junction of swales, north-west swale, east-west swale)

T

The stormsewer network in the 148-acre drainage area to the concrete swale system was digitized from stormsewer alignments and as-builts received from Ramsey County and the Cities of Falcon Heights and

AF

Lauderdale. The as-builts and alignments had complete data coverage of Larpenteur Avenue West through the project area, as well as small portions of Eustis Street, Carl Street, Pleasant Street, and Coffman Street. All other stormsewer in the watershed (an estimated 60-70% of stormsewer in the drainage area), was generated from field inspection surveys conducted by CRWD and Barr Engineering Co (Barr) staff. Final stormsewer data, created by combining available data from as-builts and alignments with data collected during field inspection surveys, was used to evaluate the hydraulic performance and flood

R

inundation throughout the 148-acre drainage area.

Additionally, water quality performance of several ponds upstream of the east-west concrete swale was evaluated using the P8 (Program for Predicting Pollution Particle Passage through Pits, Puddles, and

D

Ponds) Urban Catchment Model. Data from the final XP-SWMM model; as well as pond outlet information and bathymetry data from field investigations; and as-builts were used to create device and watershed modeling parameters used in the P8 model. Below is a summary of tasks performed to complete the water quality model and hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of the concrete swale drainage system: 1.

Create modeled stormsewer network by combining data from as-builts and alignments with data collected during field survey inspections.

2.

Delineate and field-verify subwatersheds to the location of localized flooding and nearby storm sewer inlets.

3.

Develop an XP-SWMM model of the study area to assess the hydraulic performance of the concrete swale system and evaluate localized flooding.

4.

Develop a P8 model to evaluate TSS and TP loading within the drainage area, as well as assess the TSS and TP removal efficiency of four (4) dry and wet ponds.

2

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

1.3

Study Area

The study area includes all potential sources of direct drainage to the concrete swales near 1568 Eustis Street. This area is generally bounded to the North, East, South, and West by Ione Street, North Cleveland Avenue, West Hoyt Avenue, and Eustis Street, respectively. The extent of the 148-acre drainage area,

D

R

AF

T

subwatershed divides, and the location of localized flooding is shown in Figure 2.

3 W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-12-14 14:21 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621162 Eustis St Strmwater\Maps\Figures\Figure 2 - Study Area.mxd User: MBM

Fulham Ave

CB99019

Wet pond east of Carl St (CB99013) nt ce Vin ve A

CB99008

D

Fulham St

St

N Bra nston

N Fulham St

Saint Paul N Gr antham St

N Brompton St

Ave

N Eustis St

Folw e ll

Northrop

t

Av e

ston S N Bran

N Eustis St

CB99009

Dry pond south of CB99011 Idaho Ave (CB99027) CB99010

Concrete swale system near 1568 Eustis Street Lauderdale, MN mo

Larpenteur MH153 Ave W

MH147

CB99001

CB99002

CB99003 Dry pond north of Folwell Ave (CB99004)

CB99012

Co

CB143A

SD130A

CB99013

CB99027

MH141

W He ndon

Ave

CBMH102

CB99004

; !

Ave

N

CB99007

0

CB99006

W Hoyt Ave

Feet 250 500

750

1 inch = 500 feet W Dudley Ave

W Bufo rd Ave USGS, AEX, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

N Raymond Ave

30

CB99018

Idaho Ave

CB99028 CB99029

7 6 4 5

7 6 4 5

SD144A

T

CB99020 CB99021 CB99026

MH136

30

N Hythe St

CB99017

MH123

MH128

N Chelmsford St

© ¨

SD149

Coffman Ave

127 CB1536 CB105B SD1552 CB99024

MH118A

Larpenteur Ave W MH113A

CB143A

SD132

AF

CB112

Carl St

of Larpenteur (CB99014)

AP115 CB99014

CB99016

Eustis St

128

© Wet pond north ¨

CB99015

CB99022

CB99025

Lake St N

Ione St

Stormsewer

Burton Ave

CB99023

Subwatershed Boundary

R

t

CB101

Pleasant St N

Carl S

MH1540

Municipal Boundary

Falcon Heights

Lauderdale

Figure 2 EUSTIS STREET STUDY AREA Eustis Street Regional Modeling CRWD

2.0 2.1

Hydraulic and Hydrologic Modeling

Field survey of stormsewer network

As discussed in Section 1.2, the as-builts and alignments from Ramsey County and the Cities of Lauderdale and Falcon Heights covered roughly 30 percent of the total stormsewer located within the 148-acre drainage area. The remaining stormsewer was digitized from field surveys conducted by CRWD and Barr staff (two surveys completed June 25, 2015 and July 1, 2015). During field surveys, staff measured relative depths to inverts and pipe sizes using a laser-sight depth meter, which allowed the survey to be performed without entry into the structures. Relative depths were later compared to LiDAR data at the horizontal location where each data-point was collected to determine the elevation of the pipe inverts.

Measured inverts and pipe sizes aligned well with available as-built data. The final modeled stormsewer network (Figure 2) is the combination of as-built and collected field survey data.

Delineation of Subwatersheds and Field Review

T

2.2

Barr delineated subwatersheds throughout the 148-acre drainage area to catch basin clusters and storage

AF

areas (low areas, ponds, etc.) using the data sources outlined below:

High resolution (1-meter grid resolution) LiDAR data for Ramsey County collected in 2011.

•

As-builts of stormsewer received from Ramsey County and the Cities of Falcon Heights and Lauderdale.

•

Stormsewer data collected during two field surveys conducted by CRWD and Barr staff.

R

•

Divides were field-verified during stormsewer field surveys. Figure 2 shows the final subwatershed divides used in XP-SWMM and P8 modeling efforts. A total of 49 subwatersheds were defined within the study

2.3

D

area, ranging in area from 0.1 to 13 acres, with an average area of three (3) acres.

Hydrologic Modeling

The XP-SWMM model was developed using similar hydrologic parameters as those used in the 2012 XP-SWMM Trout Brook Interceptor (TBI) model for the CRWD. Calibration parameters used in the TBI 2012 study pertaining to various Horton infiltration parameters and impervious depression storage were not applied to this project area, as drainage to the concrete swale is not ultimately tributary to the TBI. The following sub-sections outline hydrologic modeling methodology and assumptions developed for the XP-SWMM model.

2.3.1

Land Use and Imperviousness

The same methodology used in the 2012 XP-SWMM TBI model to define land use and related imperviousness was used in this study to calculate total impervious area, directly connected impervious area, and impervious depression storage for each of the 49 subwatersheds in the study area. A vector-

5 W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

based impervious dataset received from CRWD (Figure 3), delineating impervious area surface type, was used to calculate the total impervious area for each subwatershed. To calculate the directly connected impervious area, the impervious dataset was intersected with the 2010 Metropolitan Council land use data (also provided by CRWD). Directly connected impervious fractions for each impervious surface type and land use combination (Table 1) were applied and used to calculate the fraction of total impervious which is directly-connected. Impervious depression storage of 0.06-inches and impervious Manning’s roughness of 0.015 was assumed, consistent with the hydrologic parameters used in the 2012 XP-SWMM TBI model.

2.3.2

Soils and Infiltration

Soil and infiltration assumptions were designed to match assumptions made for the 2012 XP-SWMM TBI model. The infiltration modeling parameters were based on Horton infiltration, and infiltration modeling parameters for pervious areas were defined by hydrologic soil group (Table 2). Final infiltration parameters were determined by calculating the area of each hydrologic soil group in each subwatershed from a vector-based file received from CRWD (Figure 3).

Watershed Width and Slope

T

2.3.3

Watershed width is a parameter used in XP-SWMM to define subwatershed time of concentration, as

AF

described in the SWMM user’s manual, Storm Water Management Model; Version 4 User’s Manual, U.S. EPA 1988. Matching the methodology outlined in the 2012 XP-SWMM TBI model, watershed width was calculated by dividing the area of each subwatershed by the longest flow-path length within the subwatershed (Figure 3). Slope was calculated using the same 30-meter slope grid dataset used in the 2012 XP-SWMM TBI model. The average slope of each subwatershed was calculated from this dataset

2.3.4

Rainfall

R

using zonal average data processing techniques.

The Atlas 14 100-year, 24-hour and 10-year, 24-hour events were modeled using the National Resources

D

Conservation Service (NRCS) MSE3 rainfall distribution. Atlas 14 depths were developed from the centroid of the watershed area. The 10- and 100-year cumulative depths modeled were 4.24 and 7.43 inches, respectively.

6 W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

Table 1

Directly connected impervious fraction by surface type and land use Impervious Surface Type Tennis Structure Road Driveway Court Directly Connected Impervious Fraction Downtown & Others All All All Urban 100 80 0 100 100

Parking Lot

All

All

Commercial

100

100

Industrial

100

100

100

100

0

100

100

100

100

Institutional

100

100

100

50

0

100

100

100

50

Residential Low Density

100

100

0

0

0

100

100

0

0

Residential High Density

100

100

100

50

0

Parks and Open Space

100

100

Undeveloped

100

100

Water

N/A

N/A

Roads

100

100

Downtown & Urban 100

Horton Infiltration Parameters Description Initial Infiltration Rate Saturated Infiltration Rate Infiltration Decay Constant

Others 75

100

100

50

0

100

100

25

25

100

75

0

100

100

0

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

100

0

100

100

100

100

AF

100

50

Horton infiltration parameters by hydrologic soil group

D

Table 2

Sidewalk

50

R

Land Use Type

T

Alley

Parameter fo fc

Unit in/hr in/hr

A 5 0.38

k

sec-1

0.00115

Hydrologic Coil Group B C 3 2 0.23 0.1 0.00115

0.00115

D 1 0.03 0.00115

7 W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-07-27 13:04 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621162 Eustis St Strmwater\Maps\Figures\Figure 3 - Hydrology .mxd User: mbm

Impervious Surface Parking Lot Roads Structure Alley

Soil Type A B

D

R

AF

T

C D WATER

Subwatershed Boundaries Longest Flow Path

; !

N

0

Feet 250 500

750

1 inch = 500 feet

Figure 3 EUSTIS STREET HYDROLOGY Eustis Street Regional Modeling CRWD Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

2.4

Hydraulic Modeling

Hydrographs generated from hydrologic modeling of subwatersheds within the project area were routed to stormsewer inlets or to the location of flooding via overland conveyances. Where inlet control and stormsewer surcharging were possible; storage, overflow conduits, and hydraulic control structures were included to accurately account for all potential sources of overland flow to the location of flooding.

2.4.1

Stormsewer and Stormsewer Inlets

As discussed in Section 2.1, stormsewer throughout the 148-acre drainage area was digitized from as-builts, alignments, and data from two field surveys. To ensure consistency throughout the model, hydraulic parameters were generated based on methodology and data sources outlined in Section 3.3 of the 2012 TBI model report. A typical reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) Manning’s roughness value of 0.013 was assumed, and entrance and exit losses assigned to each individual pipe segment were referenced from the Wurbs and James 2002 Water Resources Engineering textbook. Flared end section (FES) inlets were modeled as having grooved ends, projecting from the surrounding surface. Complex riser-outlet

T

structures on two ponds were modeled based on measured dimensions from field surveys and received as-builts. Riser inlets were modeled as a weir and orifice in series. Modeling the outlet in this fashion ensures that weir flow is correctly controlling at low depths over the riser, and orifice flow becomes 2012 XP-SWMM TBI model.

2.4.2

AF

controlling as depth increases. Weir and orifice discharge coefficients were modeled consistent with the

Open-channels and Overflow Conduits

Open-channels and overflow conduits were modeled within the project area to convey overland flow and

R

surcharged flow from the stormsewer. Road overflows were modeled using one of two typical section geometries (modeled in XP-SWMM as natural sections). One typical road overflow type was based on the dimensions of Larpenteur Avenue West, and one was created to be typical of area-residential roads. Street flow Manning’s roughness was assumed to be 0.013. Overland flow is conveyed to wet and dry ponds in

D

several areas via rocky and earthen ditch channels. Ditch channels were modeled as trapezoidal sections in XP-SWMM based on field observation notes related to channel width, typical channel depth, and sideslope. Manning’s roughness values applied to ditch channels were based on field notes related to the material composition of the ditch (e.g., large stones and cobbles, weedy earthen channel, etc.). Assumed values were then based on published roughness values listed in Bedient, Huber and Vieux 2008 Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis.

9

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

3.0 3.1

Water Quality Modeling

Hydrologic Modeling

Many of the hydrologic parameters used in the P8 sediment transport model were calculated using the same methodology outlined in Section 2.0 (e.g., directly connected impervious fractions, pervious and impervious depression storage, etc.). The only hydrologic parameter calculated that was unique to the P8 water quality model was pervious Curve Number. Because P8 is designed for long-term simulation of sediment transport, hydrologic modeling is simplified by using the SCS Curve Number Method. Curve Numbers for pervious surfaces were taken from the USDA’s 1986 Technical Release 55 (TR-55) Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Pervious surfaces were assumed to be grass covered and in “good” conditions. Pervious Curve Number values were then based on soil type, with values of 39, 61, 74, and 80 being assigned to A, B, C, and D hydrologic soil groups, respectively. Continuous simulation was performed for a period of 30 years (1984 through 2013) using precipitation and daily average temperature

3.2

T

data pulled from the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport.

Hydraulic and Particulate Modeling

AF

The XP-SWMM model (discussed in Section 2.0) was used to generate all hydraulic data used in the P8 model. Ponds with simple outlet structures (i.e., flared end sections) were modeled as “pond” type devices with the outlet pipe diameter matching the size in the existing XP-SWMM model. Ponds with complex-riser outlet structure were modeled as “general devices”, which allows for the modeling of a user-defined rating curve. Rating curves for general devices were pulled directly from the XP-SWMM model. Because P8 models sediment settling, the bathymetric volume of each pond must be entered into

R

the model to allow for the correct calculation particulate settling and associated pollutant removal. Pond bathymetry of the two wet ponds in the study area were developed from received bathymetric as-builts, or calculated using an average depth measured in the field. Particulate properties (e.g., setline velocity,

D

particle size fractions, event-mean contaminant concentrations, etc.) were assumed to match the NURP 50 percent (NURP50) P8 particle file. NURP50 particulate properties are assumed to be typical of urban stormwater, and are based on data collected under the EPA’s Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP, Athayde, 1983).

10

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

4.0 4.1

Modeling Results

Hydraulic Results

The extent of localized flooding was evaluated by modeling the Atlas 14 10- and 100-year, 24-hour events using the XP-SWMM model described in Section 2.0. As outlined in Section 2.3.4, the cumulative depths of the 10- and 100-year Atlas 14 design events are 4.24 and 7.43 inches, respectively. Inundation elevations of selected subwatersheds are outlined below in Table 3. Additionally, inundation areas developed from the Atlas 14 design events are shown in Figure 4.

Table 3

Selected Atlas 14 design event inundation elevations

Subwatershed

Description

Atlas 14 Design Events, Max Elev. (ft)

Storage Overflow Elev.1

10-yr, 24-hr

100-yr, 24-hr

Wet pond east of Idaho Ave.

941.5

942.1

942.7

CB99027

Dry pond southwest of wet pond.

913.0

914.1

914.9

2

899.2

900.9

CB99029

Concrete swales and parking lot.

T

CB99013

899.8

Storage overflow elevations are taken from 2011 Ramsey County LiDAR and have not been ground surveyed 2 The overflow elevation for the concrete swale system is the low elevation along the south retaining wall adjacent to the east-west swale.

AF

1

As shown in Table 3 and Figure 4, inundation of the parking lot near 1568 Eustis Street occurs during both the 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour events. Flooding of this parking lot has been reported to occur during moderately intense rainfall events, and the model confirms that frequent flooding of the parking lot is likely, given that the model suggests that most of the parking lot area inundates during the 10-year,

R

24-hour event. Modeling of the 100-year, 24-hour event shows that capacity issues at the concrete swale drainage system shown in Figure 1 may cause the apartment complex to the northeast to be impacted by flood inundation during that rainfall event. Survey of low-entry to the apartment complex should be

D

collected to determine if the apartment is impacted based on the 100-year event MWSE. The maximum water surface elevation (MWSE) within many storage subwatersheds coincides with the peak inflow rate. This suggests peak inundation elevations are driven by outflow capacity issues. Figure 5 shows where pipe capacity issues exist during the modeled 10-year, 24-hour Atlas 14 event. Pipes displayed in red were found to be under-sized to convey the 10-year design event. In this analysis, a pipe was considered to be undersized if the 10-year elevation at the upstream node was either greater than the upstream node rim elevation or greater than the upstream node overflow elevation (when the upstream node represented a storage area). Capacity issues exist throughout the model area, but are particularly prevalent in the vicinity of the parking lot near 1568 Eustis Street.

In the City of Lauderdale’s 2008 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), peak outflow rates for a 100year, 24-hour design rainfall event are reported for several large drainage areas within the Cities of Lauderdale and Falcon Heights. Reported peak outflow rates are compared to equivalent subwatersheds from the updated modeling results presented in this technical report below in Table 4.

11

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

Comparison of peak outflow rates.

Precipitation Frequency Estimate 100-year, 24-hour cumulative rainfall depth (in) Subwatershed Description

Subwatershed ID Peak Outflow Rate (cfs) Subwatershed Description

2015 Eustis Street Regional Modeling Atlas 14

5.9

7.43

Dry pond immediately northeast of east-west concrete swale SA-3 CB99027 46 218 Outflow from confluence of concrete swales SA-4 CB99029 95 246

AF

Subwatershed ID Peak Outflow Rate (cfs)

2008 Lauderdale SWMP TP-40

T

Table 4

Peak outflow rates reported in this updated modeling effort are much greater than those reported in the 2008 SWMP. A major reason for the difference in peak outflow rates is that the updated modeling presented in this technical report utilized precipitation frequency estimates published in NOAA Atlas 14 Volume 8 (Atlas 14), whereas the 2008 SWMP modeling effort used precipitation frequency estimates published by the U.S. Weather Bureau’s Technical Paper No. 40 (TP-40). As shown in Table 4, the

R

cumulative depth of the 100-year, 24-hour Atlas 14 event is about 1.5 inches (~25%) greater than the TP40 design event. The additional rainfall volume generated by the Atlas 14 rainfall event causes the storage

D

areas summarized in Table 4 to overflow, increasing the peak outflow rate from both areas.

12

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-07-27 13:17 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621162 Eustis St Strmwater\Maps\Figures\Figure 4 - Inundation Area.mxd User: mbm

10-yr Inundation Area

100-yr Inundation Area

Subwatershed Boundaries Stormsewer

CB101

CB99022

AP115 CB99014

CB143A

T

CB99023

CB99015

SD132

MH118A

CB99016

MH141

MH136

CB143A

SD130A

CB99027

CB99008

CB99011

CB99012

MH153

MH147

; !

CB99001

N

CB99002

CB99003

0 CB99004

CB99009

D

CB99028 CB99029

SD149

SD144A

R

MH123 CB112 MH113A CB1536 CB105B SD1552 CB99017 CB99018 CB99024 CB99020 CB99019 CB99021 CB99026 CB99013 CB99025

MH128

AF

MH1540

Feet 250 500

750

1 inch = 500 feet

CBMH102 CB99007

CB99010

CB99006

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

Figure 4 DESIGN EVENT INUNDATION AREA Eustis Street Regional Modeling CRWD

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-07-31 14:53 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621162 Eustis St Strmwater\Maps\Figures\Figure 5 - Pipe Capacity.mxd User: mbm

Pipe Capacity: 10-yr, 24 hr Under Capacity Over Capacity

D

R

AF

T

Subwatershed Boundaries

; !

N

0

Feet 250 500

750

1 inch = 500 feet

Figure 5 10-YEAR DESIGN EVENT PIPE CAPACITY Eustis Street Regional Modeling CRWD

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

4.2

Water Quality Results

Annual areal watershed loading of TSS and TP for each subwatershed is shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. As can be seen, TSS loading ranges from 15 to over 500 pounds per acre per year (lbs/ac/yr), while TP loading ranges from less than 0.1 to 1.7 lbs/ac/yr. Areal loading rates of TSS and TP follow similar trends, with more-developed areas along Larpenteur Avenue West and Eustis Street producing higher TSS and TP loads than less-developed subwatersheds. As demonstrated in Figure 8, a majority (86 percent) of the subwatershed area is routed through either a wet pond or dry pond, or multiple water quality treatment features in series. A small, highly developed portion of the drainage area located near the intersection of Larpenteur Avenue West and Eustis Street does not receive any water quality treatment.

Average annual percent TSS and TP reduction at four water quality treatment features is shown in Figures 9 and 10, and is summarized below in Table 5. As demonstrated, TSS and TP removal is greater in the wet ponds within the drainage area than within the dry ponds because the constant storage volume within wet ponds (also referred as the dead storage volume) allows for particle settling throughout the course of a runoff event. A small amount of particle settling occurs in the temporarily stored volume

T

within dry ponds during a runoff event, but because stored water volume is filled and completely drained throughout the course of an event, the potential for particle settling is much lower in dry ponds than in

AF

wet ponds.

Wet ponds designed to meet NURP design criteria should remove 80 percent of TSS and 60 percent of TP on an average-annual basis. The wet pond in subwatershed CB99014 is close to meeting these design criteria, and thus is likely appropriately-sized for the small drainage area it receives. P8 modeling of the wet pond in subwatershed CB99013 indicates that the pond may be undersized for the large drainage area (114 acres) it receives.

R

As can be seen in Table 5, wet ponds remove significantly more TSS and TP load than dry ponds. As stormwater moves through the permanent pool of a wet pond, suspended sediment and associated phosphorus settles out of the water column. The same process occurs in dry ponds, but because a stored

D

volume of water only exists in the pond during a portion of the storm event, the potential for particle settling is significantly reduced. The TSS and TP removal performance of the two dry ponds could be improved by altering the outlet configuration to convert these features to wet ponds or by excavating additional storage to create a wet pool. It may similarly be possible to improve the performance of the wet pond in subwatershed CB99013 by altering the outlet to store more water (i.e., increase the pond’s permanent pool). If conversion to wet ponds or alteration of outlets is pursued, hydraulic analysis should be performed to insure that maximum water surface elevations do not increase.

Table 5

Average annual TSS and TP load reduction

15

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-07-31 14:59 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621162 Eustis St Strmwater\Maps\Figures\Figure 6 - TSS Load.mxd User: mbm

Watershed TSS Load (lbs/ac/yr) 0 - 40

40 - 80 80 - 120 120 - 160 160 - 200 200 - 240 240 - 280

D

R

AF

T

280 - 320 320 - 360 >360

Subwatershed Boundaries

; !

N

0

Feet 250 500

750

1 inch = 500 feet

Figure 6 AREAL TSS LOADING Eustis Street Regional Modeling CRWD

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-07-27 13:29 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621162 Eustis St Strmwater\Maps\Figures\Figure 7 - TP Load.mxd User: mbm

Watershed TP Load (lbs/ac/yr) 0 - 0.15 0.15 - 0.30 0.30 - 0.45 0.45 - 0.60 0.60 - 0.75 0.75 - 0.90 0.90 - 1.05

1.20 - 1.35 >1.35

Subwatershed Boundaries

; !

N

0

Feet 250 500

750

1 inch = 500 feet

D

R

AF

T

1.05 -1.20

Figure 7 AREAL TP LOADING Eustis Street Regional Modeling CRWD Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-07-27 13:47 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621162 Eustis St Strmwater\Maps\Figures\Figure 8 - Tributary to WQ.mxd User: mbm

Tributary to WQ Feature Untreated Tributary to CB99004 Tributary to CB99014 Tributary to CB99013 Tributary to CB99027

Subwatershed Boundaries

; !

N

0

Feet 250 500

750

1 inch = 500 feet CB99004

D

CB99027

R

CB99013

AF

T

CB99014

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

Figure 8 WATER QUALITY TREATMENT Eustis Street Regional Modeling CRWD

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-07-27 13:44 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621162 Eustis St Strmwater\Maps\Figures\Figure 9 - Percent Reduction TSS.mxd User: mbm

TSS Reduction (%) No Treatment 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60%

T

CB99014

>80%

; !

N

CB99004

0

Feet 250 500

750

1 inch = 500 feet

D

CB99027

70-80%

Subwatershed Boundaries

R

CB99013

AF

CB101

60-70%

Figure 9 TSS LOAD REDUCTION Eustis Street Regional Modeling CRWD Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-07-27 13:49 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621162 Eustis St Strmwater\Maps\Figures\Figure 10 - Percent Reduction TP.mxd User: mbm

TP Reduction (%) No Treatment 0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60%

70-80% >80%

; !

N

CB99004

0

Feet 250 500

750

1 inch = 500 feet

D

CB99027

60-70%

Subwatershed Boundaries

R

CB99013

AF

T

CB99014

Figure 10 TP LOAD REDUCTION Eustis Street Regional Modeling CRWD Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

5.0 5.1

Potential Watershed Improvements

Flood Mitigation

Based on results from the uncalibrated XP-SWMM model (see Section 4.1), the apartment complex immediately northeast of the concrete swales near 1568 Eustis Street appears to be impacted by flooding during the Atlas 14 100-year, 24-hour design event. As discussed in Section 4.1, survey of low-entry to the apartment complex is required to determine if the apartment is impacted based on the 100-year event.

Additionally, modeling in XP-SWMM indicates that parking lot near 1568 Eustis Street is partially inundated during the 10-year and 100-year design events (see Figure 4). To address localized flooding issues in the vicinity of the concrete swales, Barr evaluated several flood mitigation alternatives with the goal of (a) protecting the apartment complex during the 10- and 100-year, 24-hour design events, and (b) protecting the parking lot during the 10-year, 24-hour design event.

T

A rating curve developed for the combined outflow from the confluence of the concrete swales (Figure 1) is shown in Figure 11. Total outflow from the confluence is the sum of outflow from the 24-inch and

AF

36-inch outlet pipes at Eustis Street, as well as flow which overtops the concrete headwall and flows towards Eustis Street (overflow). In addition to the rating curve, Figure 11 also indicates at what elevation and flow rate the parking lot and apartment complex become potentially impacted, and shows the elevation and flow rate at which flow begins to overtop the headwall. As indicated in Figure 11, to protect the apartment complex, inflow to the confluence of the concrete swales must be restricted to less than 97 cfs. To protect the parking lot, inflow to the confluence must be restricted to less than 70 cfs. The existing

R

conditions outflow hydrographs from the concrete swale system for the 10- and 100-year design events are shown in Figure 12. As shown in Figure 12, to protect the apartment complex during the 100-year design event, peak 100-year outflow must be reduced by 149 cfs (61%), and to protect the parking lot

D

during the 10-year event, peak 10-year outflow must be reduced by 22 cfs (23%).

21

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

500

Overflow Apartment Impacted

400

Parking Lot Impacted

350

Rating Curve

300 250 200 150 100 50

898 ft, 70.7 cfs

0 894

896

897

898 899 Elevation (NAVD 88, ft)

899.8 ft, 99.6 cfs 900

901

902

903

Rating curve for combined outflow from the 24-inch and 36-inch outlet pipes at the confluence of the concrete swales.

AF

Figure 11

895

899.5 ft, 96.6 cfs

T

Total outflow from confluence (cfs)

450

250

100-year design event

200

R

Parking Lot Impacted Apartment Impacted Overflow

150

D

Total outflow from confluence (cfs)

10-year design event

100

50

0 0:00

Figure 12

3:00

6:00

9:00

12:00 Time (hh:mm)

15:00

18:00

21:00

0:00

Existing condition outflow hydrograph from the confluence of the concrete swales.

22

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

After evaluating several design alternatives, Barr determined that to meet the stated flood mitigation design goals, several existing storage areas throughout the watershed will need to be significantly expanded to further attenuate flow. Specifically, the proposed flood mitigation alternative requires: a) construction of an earthen berm in the ravine immediately upstream of the existing wet pond (CB99013); b) expansion of live storage in the existing wet pond (CB99013); c)

expansion of live storage in the existing dry pond (CB99027); and

d) expansion of live storage near the confluence of the concrete swales (CB99029).

Meeting the stated flood mitigation design goal requires the cumulative storage and flow attenuation provided by the four individual projects (“a” through “d”). The four individual storage projects (Figure 13) are described in greater detail in the following subsections.

Earthen Berm in Ravine

T

5.1.1

Over half of the total project drainage area (75 acres) drains to stormsewer along Larpenteur Avenue West

AF

between Fulham Street and Cleveland Avenue North. Flow collected by this stormsewer network discharges from a 36-inch flared end section (FES) into a ravine located in the northeast portion of the CB99013 subwatershed (see Figure 2), which ultimately discharges to the existing wet pond in CB99013.

The ravine is primarily contained in land owned by the University of Minnesota and the wet pond is owned and maintained by the City of Lauderdale. In large rain events, the peak flow rate from the existing ravine overwhelms the outlet from the existing wet pond, causing the pond to overflow. To reduce peak attenuate flow.

R

flow rates through the ravine, an earthen berm could be constructed to provide additional storage and

D

The earthen berm proposed as part of the flood mitigation alternative has a maximum elevation of 961 feet (NAVD88), which provides one (1) foot of freeboard during the 100-year event. Barr estimates that 18,500 cubic feet of suitable fill material would be required to construct the berm. To maximize flow attenuation during smaller rainfall events, Barr modeled a two-stage outlet.

The proposed two-stage outlet consists of a 4-foot diameter riser structure with an 18-inch orifice located at the existing thalweg (bottom) elevation of the ravine. The height of the proposed 4-foot diameter riser (958.3 feet, NAVD88) was set to be just higher than the 10-year MWSE, which results in events up to the 10-year event being completely controlled by the 18-inch orifice at the thalweg, with events greater than the 10-year event discharging into the 4-foot diameter riser. The orifice and 4-foot diameter riser discharge to a 24-inch pipe, which has sufficient capacity to pass events as large as the 100-year design storm while maintaining 1-foot of freeboard to the top elevation of the berm. Table 6 compares the maximum storage volume and peak flow rate from the proposed earthen berm to existing conditions and shows that the storage provided by the earthen berm reduces peak flow rate to the wet pond

23

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

downstream by 30 percent during the 100-year design event, and nearly 20 percent during the 10-year event.

While this alternative does not achieve the study’s flood mitigation goals without a combination of other alternatives (Section 5.1.6), Table 10 shows the flood mitigation benefit achieved at the east-west swale by implementing this alternative alone.

Storage and peak flow comparison at the proposed earthen berm.

Max Storage (ac-ft) 10-year 100-year Existing Condition Flood Mitigation Alt. Difference (%)

5.1.2

-2.36 --

Peak Flow (cfs) 10-year 100-year

-3.29 --

59.7 40.4 -32%

Expansion of Wet Pond (CB99013)

75.6 62.1 -18%

T

Table 6

The existing wet pond in subwatershed CB99013 (Figure 2), owned and maintained by the City of Lauderdale, has a tributary drainage area of 113 acres (over 75 percent of the entire study area). Even with

AF

the flow attenuation provided by the proposed earthen berm, the wet pond will need to be expanded to prevent overflow events and reduce peak flow rate to downstream storage areas (i.e., the existing dry pond in subwatershed CB99027 and the confluence of the concrete swales).

Barr modeled an increase in the live storage (i.e., available storage above the permanent pool) in the existing wet pond by widening the pond and raising the elevation of the hiking trail along the south side

R

of the pond. By grading the pond from the existing overflow elevation (941.5 feet, NAVD88) to the existing pond bottom elevation (931.66 feet, NAVD88), live storage can be increased by nearly 12,500 cubic feet (0.3 acre-feet). By raising the elevation of the hiking trail along the south side of the pond to

D

945.5 feet (NAVD88), live storage can be increased by an additional 4 acre-feet. Barr estimates that raising the elevation of the hiking trail would require over 4,000 cubic feet of fill material.

In addition to increasing the volume of the wet pond, Barr modeled a two-stage outlet (similar to the outlet proposed for the earthen berm) to maximize flow attenuation. The two-stage outlet modeled consists of a 5-foot diameter riser structure with a 27-inch orifice at the existing permanent pool elevation (934.84 feet, NAVD88). The height of the riser, 940.5 feet (NAVD88), was set to be just higher than the 2-year design event (meaning events as large as the 2-year event would be controlled by the 27-inch orifice). The orifice and riser discharge to a 30-inch outlet pipe, which has sufficient capacity to pass the 100-year design event while maintaining 1-foot of freeboard to the proposed top of the hiking trail.

Table 7 compares the maximum storage volume and peak flow rate from the proposed, expanded wet pond to existing conditions and shows that increasing live storage in the wet pond reduces peak outflow rate during the 10-year and 100-year events.

24

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

While this alternative does not achieve the study’s flood mitigation goals without a combination of other alternatives (Section 5.1.6), Table 10 shows the flood mitigation benefit achieved at the east-west swale by implementing this alternative alone.

Table 7

1

Storage and peak flow comparison at the proposed expanded wet pond.

Max Storage (ac-ft) Peak Flow (cfs) 10-year 100-year 10-year 100-year Existing Condition 4.39 4.88 93.6 180.7 Flood Mitigation Alt.1 4.73 7.24 65.6 97.5 Difference (%) +8% +48% -30% -46% Reflects the combined hydraulic impact of the four projects discussed in Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.5.

5.1.3

Expansion of Dry Pond and Sheet Pile Wall (CB99027)

In addition to the proposed earthen berm in the ravine and expansion of the existing wet pond, the dry pond owned by Luther Seminary in subwatershed CB99027 (Figure 2) would need to be expanded to

T

provide additional storage and flow attenuation. The dry pond receives flow from the upstream ravine and wet pond, as well as a portion of the housing development between Larpenteur Avenue West and Idaho

AF

Avenue (128 acres, 87 percent of the total study area).

Barr modeled an increase in live storage in the dry pond by widening the pond and constructing a sheet pile wall to increase the overflow elevation by 6.5 feet. By grading the pond from the existing overflow elevation (913 feet, NAVD 88) to the existing pond bottom elevation (904.35-feet, NAVD 88), available storage can be increased by over 130,500 cubic feet (3.0 acre-feet). By constructing a sheet pile wall along the west face of the pond at an elevation of 919.6-feet, storage can be increased by an additional 6.3

R

acre-feet. Barr estimates that nearly 5,000 square feet of sheet pile would be required to construct the proposed sheet pile wall.

D

Similar to the proposed earthen berm and expanded wet pond, Barr modeled a two-stage outlet. The modeled two-stage outlet consists of a 5-foot diameter riser structure with a 24-inch orifice at the existing pond bottom elevation. The elevation of the riser (910.6 feet, NAVD88) was established to be just higher than the 2-year event MWSE (ensuring events as large as the 2-year event are controlled by the 24-inch orifice). The orifice and riser discharge to a 30-inch outlet pipe which has sufficient capacity to pass the 100-year event with 1-foot of freeboard below the proposed sheet pile wall top elevation. As shown in Figure 13, the proposed 30-inch outlet pipe requires that all stormsewer infrastructure downstream be increased from 24-inch (existing) to 30-inch. Table 8 compares the maximum storage volume and peak flow rate from the proposed, expanded dry pond to existing conditions. As can be seen, increasing storage in the dry pond significantly reduces peak outflow rate during the 10-year and 100-year event.

While this alternative does not achieve the study’s flood mitigation goals without a combination of other alternatives (Section 5.1.6), Table 10 shows the flood mitigation benefit achieved at the east-west swale by implementing this alternative alone.

25

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

While a wetland delineation has not been performed for the dry pond, Barr staff observed wet soils and other indications that wetlands may exist in this location. Before any design work that would involve excavation in the dry pond, Barr recommends performing a wetland delineation to determine what areas of the dry pond may be wetlands, if any, to aid in the design to mitigate or prevent wetland impacts.

Table 8

1

Storage and peak flow comparison at the proposed expanded dry pond and sheet pile wall.

Max Storage (ac-ft) Peak Flow (cfs) 10-year 100-year 10-year 100-year Existing Condition 3.04 3.89 92.2 217.7 Flood Mitigation Alt.1 4.70 11.75 58.6 79.4 Difference (%) +55% +202% -36% -64% Reflects the combined hydraulic impact of the four projects discussed in Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.5.

5.1.4

Expansion of Dry Pond and Earthen Berm (CB99027)

T

The 10-year flood mitigation goal can be achieved by expanding storage of the dry pond in subwatershed CB99027 (Figure 2). As discussed in Section 5.1.3, nearly 90 percent of the total study area (128 acres) drains through the dry pond owned by Luther Seminary. To meet the 10-year flood mitigation goal,

AF

storage in the pond will need to be increased to prevent overflow and reduce peak flows during the 10 year event.

Barr modeled an increase in live storage in the dry pond by widening the pond and constructing an earthen berm to increase the overflow elevation by 2.5 feet. By grading the pond from the existing overflow elevation (913 feet, NAVD 88) to the existing pond bottom elevation (904.35-feet, NAVD 88),

R

available storage can be increased by over 130,500 cubic feet (3.0 acre-feet). By constructing an earthen berm along the west face of the pond at an elevation of 915.5-feet, storage can be increased by an additional 2.3 acre-feet. Barr estimates that constructing the earthen berm would require nearly

D

1,900 cubic feet of fill material.

Barr designed this flood mitigation alternative to meet the 10-year flood mitigation goal (i.e., protect the apartment complex parking lot during the 10-year design event) using the existing outlet (24-inch FES) and based on the existing downstream and upstream stormwater infrastructure. The elevation of the earthen berm (915.5 feet, NAVD 88) was based on the elevation required to completely retain the 10-year design event. In addition to constructing an earthen berm and converting the dry pond into a wet pond, Barr recommends constructing an iron-enhanced sand filter (IESF) bench to enhance dissolved phosphorus removal. The water quality components of this design are discussed further in Section 5.2.3.

Table 9 compares the maximum storage volume and peak flow rate from the proposed, expanded dry pond to existing conditions. As can be seen, increasing storage in the dry pond significantly reduces peak outflow rate during the 10-year event, but has less significant impact on peak outflow during the 100-year event.

26

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

This alternative does not achieve the study’s flood mitigation goals without further flood mitigation improvements upstream or downstream in the watershed. Table 10 shows the flood mitigation benefit achieved at the east-west swale by implementing this alternative alone.

While a wetland delineation has not been performed for the dry pond, Barr staff observed wet soils and other indications that wetlands may exist in this location. Before any design work that would involve excavation in the dry pond, Barr recommends performing a wetland delineation to determine what areas of the dry pond may be wetlands, if any, to aid in the design to mitigate or prevent wetland impacts.

Table 9

Storage and peak flow comparison at the proposed expanded dry pond and earthen berm.

Expansion of Storage at Confluence (CB99029)

AF

5.1.5

Peak Flow (cfs) 10-year 100-year 92.2 217.7 42.6 169.3 -54% -22%

T

Existing Condition Flood Mitigation Alt. Difference (%)

Max Storage (ac-ft) 10-year 100-year 3.04 3.89 8.86 10.76 +191% +176%

Based on the existing conditions XP-SWMM model, if it were possible to increase storage in the existing wet and dry pond sufficiently to completely eliminate outflow from these areas, the parking lot would still become partially inundated during the 10-year design event based solely on inflow from the northwestern portion of the study area (the “untreated” area shown in Figure 8). For this reason, Barr modeled an increase in storage in the existing concrete and grass swale area (owned by Waste Management) to

R

attenuate flows from the northwestern portion of the watershed (see Figure 13). By grading from the edge of the parking lot to the pipe invert elevation at the confluence (894.5 feet, NAVD88), it is possible to increase storage in this area by nearly 0.5 acre-feet. Barr determined that this volume is sufficient to

D

prevent the peak flow from the northwestern portion of the watershed from impacting the parking lot, in combination with other flood mitigation alternatives (Section 5.1.6).

While this alternative does not achieve the study’s flood mitigation goals without a combination of other alternatives (Section 5.1.6), Table 10 shows the flood mitigation benefit achieved at the east-west swale by implementing this alternative alone.

5.1.6

Combined Flood Mitigation Alternative

The impact of each of flood mitigation alternatives discussed in Sections 5.1.1 through 5.1.5 on maximum water surface elevation (MWSE) and outflow at the confluence of the swales is summarized in Table 10.

The maximum outflow and MWSE allowed achieving the stated flood mitigation design goals of (a) protecting the apartment complex during the 10- and 100-year, 24-hour design events, and (b) protecting the parking lot during the 10-year, 24-hour design event are shown as the “Protection Goal” targets in this table. As can be seen, none of the individual flood mitigation alternatives described in Sections 5.1.1 through 5.1.5 meet the 10-year or 100-year design goals. However, when the alternatives

27

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

presented in Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.4 are considered in combination (see “Combined Flood Mitigation Alternative� in Table 10), both the 10- and 100-year design goals are met. The alternative discussed in Section 5.1.4 (expansion of dry pond and earthen berm) meets the 10-year design goal of

D

R

AF

T

protecting the parking lot, but not the 100-year design goal of protecting the apartment complex.

28

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

1

Model Scenario Protection Goal1 Existing Conditions Alt. 1. Earthen Berm in Ravine Alt. 2. Expansion of Wet Pond Alt. 3A. Expansion of Dry Pond and Sheet Pile Wall Alt. 3B. Expansion of Dry Pond and Earthen Berm Atl 4. Expansion of Storage at Confluence Combined Flood Mitigation Alternative: Alternatives 1, 2, 3A, and 4

Peak Flow (cfs) 10-year 100-year 70.73 96.60 92.37 245.88 74.01 184.76 92.09 159.36

MWSE at Confluence (ft, NAVD88)2 10-year 100-year 898 899.5 899.16 900.86 898.11 900.55 899.14 900.40

71.07

108.42

898.01

900.01

63.53

184.62

897.78

900.55

91.42

245.42

899.09

900.86

64.89

93.14

897.84

899.21

Maximum allowed outflow and MWSE to meet the stated design protection goals (protect the parking lot during the 10-year event; protect the apartment complex during the 100-year event).

MWSE at the confluence of the concrete swales near 1568 Eustis Street.

AF

2

Flood mitigation alternative hydraulic summary.

T

Table 10

The resulting 10- and 100-year event hydrographs from the combination of the four storage options discussed in Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.5 (“combined flood mitigation alternative”) and the alternative discussed in Section 5.1.4 (“expansion of dry pond and earthen berm”) are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15, respectively. The figures show that the combined attenuation from the four storage

R

projects protects the apartment during the 100-year event and the parking lot during the 10- and 100year events, and that the alternative discussed in Section 5.1.4 protects the parking lot during the 10-year design event. Table 11 summarizes the planning level capital cost and annualized cost of the five storage

D

projects discussed in Sections 5.1.1 through 5.1.5. The capital costs include estimated construction and engineering costs, as well as a 30 percent contingency to reflect construction elements not identified at the conceptual level.

29

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-12-17 11:25 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621162 Eustis St Strmwater\Maps\Figures\Figure 13 - Flood Mitigation Alternative.mxd User: MBM

Proposed Stormstructure Proposed Stormsewer

Existing Stormstructure Existing Stormsewer Sheet Pile Structure Earthen Berm

Alt. 1: Earthen Berm in Ravine

Excavation Contours

T

Subwatershed Boundaries

; !

N

0

Feet 200

1 inch = 200 feet

D

CB99029

CB99027

Alt. 2: Expansion of Wet Pond (CB99013)

R

CB99028

AF

CB99013

Expansion of Storage at Confluence (CB99029)

Alt. 3A: Expansion of Dry Pond and Sheet Pile Wall (CB99027) Alt. 3B: Expansion of Dry Pond and Earthen Berm (CB99027)

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

Figure 13 FLOOD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES Eustis Street Regional Modeling CRWD

400

250

10-year design event

Existing Condition Combined flood mitigation alternative Conversion of dry pond to wet pond with IESF and earthen berm Parking Lot Impacted Apartment Impacted Overflow

Flow (cfs)

200

150

100

50

0

250

9:00

12:00 Time

15:00

18:00

21:00

0:00

Existing condition compared to combined flood mitigation alternative for 10-year design event.

100-year design event

Existing Condition Combined flood mitigation alternative conversion of dry pond to wet pond with IESF and earthen berm Parking Lot Impacted Apartment Impacted Overflow

R

200

150

D

Flow (cfs)

6:00

AF

Figure 14

3:00

T

0:00

100

50

0 0:00

Figure 15

3:00

6:00

9:00

12:00 Time

15:00

18:00

21:00

0:00

Existing condition compared to combined flood mitigation alternative for 100-year design event.

31

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

Flood mitigation alternative capital costs and annualized costs.

Alt. 3A. Subwatershed CB99027

Expansion of Dry Pond and Sheet Pile Wall

Alt 2. Subwatershed CB99013

Expansion of Wet Pond Construction of Earthen Berm in Ravine

Alt 4. Subwatershed CB99029

Alt. 3B. Subwatershed CB99027

Total Capital Cost

50

50 50

Expansion of Storage at Confluence of Swales

50

Expansion of Dry Pond and Earthen Dam

Total Capital Cost -20%

+40%

$603,000

$482,000

$844,000

$119,000

$95,000

Annualized Capital Cost1

Annual O&M Costs

Total Annual Cost

$28,100

$21,100

$49,200

$166,000

$5,500

$4,100

$9,700

$122,000

$98,000

$171,000

$5,700

$4,300

$10,000

$26,000

$21,000

$36,000

$1,200

$900

$2,100

R

Alt. 1. North ravine in CB99013

Life Cycle (years)

T

Project

TOTAL

$870,000

$696,000

$1,217,000

$40,500

$30,400

$71,000

50

50

$280,000

$224,000

$393,000

$13,000

$9,800

D

Combined Flood Mitigation Option

Location

AF

Table 11

32 W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

5.2

Water Quality

Using the uncalibrated water quality model (see Section 3.0), Barr evaluated the water quality impacts of several potential best management practices (BMPs) through the study area. Individual BMPs are discussed and evaluated in the following subsections.

5.2.1

Redevelopment of Wet Pond (CB99013)

Analysis of the existing wet detention pond in subwatershed CB99013 (Section 4.2) showed that the pond does not meet the NURP annual pollutant removal criteria of 80 percent TSS removal and 60 percent TP removal. Due to the large drainage area to this pond, Barr determined that it is not possible to achieve the NURP removal criteria through excavation and expansion of the pond alone. For this reason, Barr recommends that the water quality performance of the feature be improved by expanding and deepening the pond and installing an iron-enhanced sand filter (IESF).

By grading the pond from the existing overflow elevation (941.5-feet, NAVD 88) to 1.8 feet below the existing pond bottom elevation (929.84 feet, NAVD88), live storage can be increased by nearly 30,500

T

cubic feet (0.7 acre-feet). Based on this proposed grading, Barr determined that an IESF bench could be constructed along the west and north edge of the proposed pond, creating a total IESF area of 1,280-feet.

AF

To maintain a drawdown time of 48-hours, the IESF bench would be constructed at an elevation of 934.22 feet NAVD88 (0.6 feet lower than the existing normal water level of the pond). Pollutant removal from the proposed redevelopment of the wet pond is compared to existing conditions in Table 12. As can be seen, pollutant removal provided by the expanded pond storage and infiltration bench is much closer to NURP removal criteria.

Annual TSS and TP reduction at proposed redeveloped wet pond.

Description Existing Condition CB99013 Proposed Expansion and FeEnhanced Filtration Bench

D

Pond ID

R

Table 12

Difference

5.2.2

Load Reduction (lbs/yr) TSS TP 6,690 12.2

Load Reduction (%) TSS TP 69% 37%

7,479

16.5

77%

50%

789

4.3

+8%

+13%

Conversion of Dry Pond to Wet Pond (CB99027)

Analysis of the water quality performance of the dry pond in subwatershed CB99027 showed that the pond is providing limited pollutant load removal (13 percent removal of TSS and two percent removal of TP, see Table 5). To improve the water quality performance of this feature, Barr recommends expanding storage in the pond, and converting the dry pond into a wet pond. By grading the pond from the existing overflow elevation (913 feet, NAVD88) to three feet below the existing pond bottom elevation (901.35 feet, NAVD88), storage in the pond can be increased by nearly 200,000 cubic feet (4.45 acre-feet).

Maintaining the same outlet structure (FES at an elevation of 904.35 feet NAVD88), this expansion would provide nearly 1.5 acre-feet of permanent pool volume.

33

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

Pollutant removal from the proposed wet pond in subwatershed CB99027 is compared to the existing dry pond in Table 13. Expanding available storage and deepening the pond to create a permanent pool increases TSS and TP removal by 3,521- and 8.7-pounds per year, respectively.

While a wetland delineation has not been performed for the dry pond, Barr staff observed wet soils and other indications that wetlands may exist in this location. Before any design work that would involve excavation in the dry pond, Barr recommends performing a wetland delineation to determine what areas of the dry pond may be wetlands, if any, to aid in the design to mitigate or prevent wetland impacts.

Annual TSS and TP reduction provided by conversion of dry pond to wet pond.

Pond ID CB99013

Load Reduction (lbs/yr) TSS TP

Load Reduction (%) TSS TP

692

0.5

13%

2%

3,521 2,830

9.2 8.7

65% +52%

32% +31%

Conversion of Dry Pond to Wet Pond with IESF (CB99027)

AF

5.2.3

Description Dry Pond (existing condition) Proposed Wet Pond Difference

T

Table 13

As discussed in Section 5.2.2, converting the dry pond in subwatershed CB99027 into a wet pond improves pollutant removal significantly. To further improve the water quality performance of this proposed design, Barr evaluated the impact of expanding the storage in this area by constructing an IESF bench on two sides of the proposed wet pond. Note that the excavation required to convert the dry pond

R

into a wet pond is described above in Section 5.2.2.

Based on the proposed excavation and grading, Barr determined that an IESF bench could be constructed along the north and south edge of the proposed pond, creating a total IESF area of 1,500 square feet. To

D

maintain a drawdown time of 48-hours, the IESF bench would be constructed at an elevation of 904.44 feet NAVD88 (0.5 feet lower than the existing normal water level of the pond). Pollutant removal from the proposed wet pond and IESF in CB99027 is compared to existing conditions in Table 14. As can be seen, pollutant removal provided by the expanded pond storage and infiltration bench is much closer to NURP removal criteria.

34

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

Table 14

Annual TSS and TP reduction provided by conversion of dry pond to wet pond with IESF and earthen berm.

Pond ID CB99013

5.2.4

Load Reduction (lbs/yr) TSS TP 692 0.5

Description Existing Condition

Load Reduction (%) TSS TP 13% 2%

Conversion of Dry Pond to Wet Pond w/ IESF and Earthen Berm

4,038

15.9

75%

56%

Difference

3,346

15.4

+62%

+54%

Residential Rain Gardens

Barr evaluated the potential to add water quality treatment BMPs in the untreated northwest portion of the study area (see Figure 8). Based on the likely available greenspace in this area and the steep gradient

T

along Eustis Street between Larpenteur Avenue W and Como Avenue, there is limited potential to add water quality treatment features in this portion of the watershed. Along Carl Street, two residences were identified as having sufficient available yard area to construct raingardens to treat runoff from adjacent

AF

streets (see Figure 16). The two raingardens were sized based on Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS), and water quality performance of the two features was analyzed using the MPCA’s MIDS Calculator. The rain gardens were modeled as infiltrating features and a saturated infiltration rate typical of Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) B soils was assumed. Information related to rain garden sizing and pollutant removal from the proposed rain gardens at 1707 Carl Street and 1701

Table 15

R

Carl Street are shown in Table 15 and Table 16, respectively.

Residential rain garden sizing.

D

Subwatershed Location 1707 Carl Street CB99022 1701 Carl Street Table 16

Tributary Area (ac) Total Area Impervious Area 0.90 0.18 1.04 0.21

Treatment Volume (cf) 713 829

Top Area (sf) 749 857

Annual water load, TSS, and TP reduction provided by residential rain gardens.

Pollutant Load Reduction (lbs/yr) Subwatershed CB99022

Average Depth (ft) 1.2 1.2

Location 1707 Carl Street 1701 Carl Street

Water Load Reduction (cf/yr) 713 829

TSS 84 97

TP 0.46 0.53

Pollutant Load Reduction (%) TSS 75% 75%

TP 75% 75%

35

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.3, 2015-12-14 14:56 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621162 Eustis St Strmwater\Maps\Figures\Figure 16 - Residential Rain Gardens.mxd User: MBM

> !

Ione St

T Pleasant St N

; !

N

0

Feet 125

t

> !

R

1701 Carl Street Drainage Area = 1.04 acres Total Volume = 830 cf

1 inch = 125 feet

D

Carl S

7 6 4 5 30

Larpenteur Ave W

Figure 16

Carl St

Eustis St

AF

127

© ¨

Stormsewer

Subwatershed Boundary

1707 Carl Street Drainage Area = 0.90 acres Total Volume = 713 cf

> !

Rain Garden Location

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community

RESIDENTIAL RAIN GARDENS Eustis Street Regional Modeling CRWD

250

5.2.5

BMP Cost and Cost-Benefit

Planning level capital cost, annualized cost, and cost-benefit of each of the BMPs evaluated in Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.4 are compared below in Table 17. The capital costs include estimated construction and engineering costs, as well as a 30 percent contingency to reflect construction elements not identified at the conceptual level. As noted in Table 17, the cost-benefit analysis of water and pollutant load reduction is based on the net reduction from each proposed options. For example, if a feature is being expanded or converted, the load reduction considered in the cost-benefit analysis is the increase in load reduction

D

R

AF

T

from the existing to the proposed condition.

37

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

Total Capital Cost -20%

+40%

1707 Carl St. Rain Garden

$21,000

$16,000

1701 Carl St. Rain Garden

$24,000

Subwatershed CB99027

Conversion of dry pond to wet pond

Subwatershed CB99027

Subwatershed CB99013

$2,100

$126,200

$25

$4,500

$2,400

$124,300

$24

$4,500

$20,000

N/A

$7

$2,300

$12,200

$28,300

$0

$8

$1,838

$5,200

$12,100

N/A

$15

$2,800

Annual O&M Costs

Total Annual Cost

$29,000

$1,300

$700

$19,000

$33,000

$1,500

$900

$245,000

$196,000

$343,000

$11,400

Conversion of dry pond to wet pond w/ IESF

$347,000

$278,000

$486,000

$16,200

Expansion of Wet Pond w/ Fe-Enhanced Filtration

$149,000

$119,000

$208,000

$6,900

Project

R

Northwest portion of study area.

$/cf /year

Annual Cost per Pound TSS Reduced $/lb/year

Annualized Capital Cost1

$8,600

AF

Total Capital Cost

Location

Annual Cost per Volume Reduced

Cost benefit analysis is based on the net increase in water and pollutant load removal from the existing to the proposed condition.

D

1

Water quality BMP capital cost, annualized cost, and cost-benefit.

T

Table 17

38 W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

Annual Cost per Pound TP Reduced $/lb/year

6.0

Recommendation

Based on the flood mitigation and water quality alternatives presented in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, Barr has identified that a combination of alternatives targeted at the existing dry pond in subwatershed CB99027 would be most cost-efficient in achieving flood mitigation goals and producing water quality benefits.

Specifically, Barr recommends that the flood mitigation alternative outlined in Section 5.1.4 (expansion of dry pond and earthen berm) be combined with the water quality alternative presented in Section 5.2.3 (conversion of dry pond to wet pond with IESF).

By grading the pond from the existing overflow elevation (913 feet, NAVD88) to three feet below the existing pond bottom elevation (901.35 feet, NAVD88), storage in the pond can be increased by nearly 200,000 cubic feet (4.45 acre-feet). Maintaining the same outlet structure (FES at an elevation of 904.35 feet NAVD88), this expansion would provide nearly 1.5 acre-feet of permanent pool volume. Constructing an earthen berm along the west face of the pond at an elevation of 915.5 feet NAVD88 and expanding the storage area as shown on Figure 13 increases live storage by an additional 2.3 acre-feet, and ensures that

T

the 10-year design event is completely contained without overtopping the berm.

In additional to the proposed excavation and earthen berm, Barr recommends that an IESF be constructed

AF

along the north and south edge of the proposed pond to provide a total filter area of 1,500 square feet.

To maintain a drawdown time of 48-hours, the IESF bench would be constructed at an elevation of 904.44 feet NAVD88 (0.5 feet lower than the existing normal water level of the pond). A schematic of the proposed berm, pond excavation, and IESF is shown in Figure 17.

925

R

Outlet (Existing 24" FES) Existing Berm and Pond Surface Proposed Berm and Pond Grading Proposed Normal Pool IESF Elevation

D

Elevation (feet, NAVD88)

920

915

910

905

900 0

Figure 17

50

100

150 200 Profile Length (ft)

250

300

350

Profile: Dry Pond Expansion and Conversion to Wet Pond

39

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

Planning level capital cost, annualized cost, and cost-benefit of the combine flood mitigation and water quality alternative is shown in Table 18. In addition to the water quality cost-benefit analysis shown in Table 18, the proposed alternative has the additional benefit of meeting the 10-year event protection goal (i.e., protecting the parking lot during the 10-year, 24-hour design event). The hydraulic impact of the proposed alternative is identical to the hydraulic impact of the alternative discussed in Section 5.1.4 (expansion of dry pond and earthen berm) as outlined in Table 9 and Table 10. As noted in Table 10, the proposed alternative does not meet the protection goal for the 100-year event (i.e., protect the apartment complex during the 100-year design event). As discussed in Section 5.1.6, only the combination of the four flood mitigation alternatives discussed in Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, and 5.1.5 was shown to meet the 100-year event protection goal.

In addition to the flood mitigation and water quality improvements at the dry pond, Barr recommends pursuing the installation of a rain garden at either 1701 or 1707 Carl Street. The two proposed gardens would treat essentially the same drainage area, so there is no need to install rain gardens at both

T

locations. Table 18 displays the cost benefit information for this alternative.

As next steps, Barr recommends:

Performing soil borings on top of the existing berm and in the proposed excavation area to

AF

•

determine the infiltration capacity of the soils and the geotechnical stability of the berm.

•

Performing a wetland delineation of the dry pond to determine the permitting feasibility of excavating the dry pond for an IESF and permanent pool.

Contact the homeowners and pursue a rain garden installation at EITHER 1701 or 1707 Carl Street.

D

R

•

40

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

Subwatershed CB99027

Conversion of Dry Pond to Wet Pond w/ Earthen Berm and IESF 1707 Carl St. Rain Garden 1701 Carl St. Rain Garden

Total Capital Cost -20%

+40%

$509,000

$407,000

$21,000 $24,000

$/cf /year

$41,500

N/A

$12

$2,694

$700

$2,100

$126,200

$25

$4,500

$1,500

$900

$2,400

$124,300

$24

$4,500

Annualized Capital Cost1

Annual O&M Costs

Total Annual Cost

$712,000

$23,700

$17,800

$16,000

$29,000

$1,300

$19,000

$33,000

Annual Cost per Volume Reduced

D

R

Northwest portion of study area

Project

Total Capital Cost

Annual Cost per Pound TSS Reduced $/lb/year

T

Location

Proposed alternative capital cost, annualized cost, and cost-benefit.

AF

Table 18

41 W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.docx

Annual Cost per Pound TP Reduced $/lb/year

7.0 References Athayde. 1983. United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP).

Bedient, Huber and Vieux. 2008. Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis.

Lauderdale, City of. 2008. Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP).

United States Department of Agriculture. 1986. Technical Release 55 (TR-55) Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds.

United States Department of Agriculture. 1961. Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States. Technical Paper No. 40.

Manual.

D

R

AF

Wurbs and James. 2002. Water Resources Engineering.

T

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Storm Water Management Model; Version 4 User’s

42

W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Feasibility Study\Report\Third Draft\EustisRegionalModeling_Report_122115.d

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee 2016 Agenda Plan CAC Meeting Date January 13, 2016

District Initiatives - Trout Brook 5 Year Inspection and CIP - BMP Database Review - Education Program Review - Community Capacity Assessment -Strategic Communications Plan -Stewardship Grants Program Update

CAC Initiatives -Stewardship Awards Recap -2016 CAC Meeting Plan Discuss 2015 “Event�

May 11, 2016

- 2015 Permit Program Review - Lake and Stormwater Report -Upper Villa Update

- Election of Officers - Student Worker Program -Awards Program -Event Planning -CAC Tour Planning -Student Worker

June 8, 2016

Summer Tour

July 13, 2016

-Master Water Stewards

August 10, 2016

-Review and Comment on 2017 Budget

February 10, 2016 March 9, 2016

April 13, 2016

September 14, 2016 October 12, 2016

-Special and Partner Grant Committees

November 9, 2016

December 14, 2016

2017 Reappointment Recommendations

Updated: February 4, 2016 Pervious Parking Lot Eustis Street Feasibility Study Lafayette Park W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Agendas\2016\2016 CAC Agenda Plan 1-5-16.doc

- Event Planning

-Event Planning Update -Master Water Stewards -Student Worker Update -2016 Awards Program Adoption -Student Worker Program Approval - Fall Fresh Water Society Event -Awards Program -Student Worker Program Update - Awards Program - Awards Program - Student Worker Updates - Moos Family Lecture Series - Awards Program - Student Worker Update