05-1069AMENDED 11%16/OS
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
l�
2 WHEREAS, the Capitol Region Watershed District (hereinafter, the "CRWD") was established
3 on September 24, 1998. Over 60 percent of the geographic area of the City of Saint Paul is
4 within the CRWD. The CRWD also includes small portions of the cities of Falcon Heights,
5 L.auderdale, Maplewood and Roseville; and
7 WHEREAS, the CRWD adopted a Watershed Management Plan on December 14, 2000. On
8 October 10, 2005, the City of Saint Paul was informed by the CRWD that it had completed a
9 draft of rules and technical standards which are intended to implement the goals and policies of
10 the CRWD's Watershed Management Plan and that the draft of these rules and standards was
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
ready for review within a 45-day time period that was set to end on November 29, 2005 and 4:30
p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the draft rules and standards proposed by CRWD on October 10, 2005 have been
reviewed by staff from the departments of public works, planning and economic development,
licenses, inspections and environmental protection and parks. Staff from all of these departments
report that they have identified a number of questions about the potential for unintended
consequences to City operations at a variety of levels if the draft rules and technical standards aze
adopted as proposed by the CRWD. Staff is of the opinion that the draft rules and standards have
the potential to impact, among a number of things, neighborhood street improvement projects,
residential housing improvement plans, private development potential and maintenance and
improvements of park and recreation services. Some of the questions identified by staff include
the following:
• How much will the cost of street repaving increase? Saint Paul Public Works staff
estimate that it will be roughly 25 percent.
• How much will the cost of private development on properties larger than one acre
increase? Saint Paul PED staff estimate that it will be ten percent or more, because the
four to eight percent estimates by the CRWD omit some of the costs?
• Can the CRWD supply additional information regarding the effectiveness of the proposed
engineering solutions to meet storm water infiltration rules?
• If the new rules go into effect in January 2006 as proposed by the CRWD, will the
CRWD deny pernuts for the Saint Paul street reconstruction program for 2006, since
most of the design work is already completed in preparation for bidding during the
winter?
• Why are the proposed CRWD standazds much higher than the existing state and national "
standazds under which the city currently operates? Is it true that the standards would be
the highest in Minnesota?
Council File # �5 � �U1Q
Green Sheet # �a U l� �
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
05 �Gt�q
2 • Can the proposed standazds work in an urban area where the percentage of impervious
3 surfaces is much higher than in suburban and rural areas? Does the CRWD intend that
4 buildings in the city should be much higher with more green space azound them?
5 • Does the CRWD recognize that most large redevelopments in the city occur with public
6 subsidies and that increased project costs for urban stormwater management will either
7 discourage redevelopment or will fall on city taxpayers?
8 • Does the CRWD need to involve itself in floodplain regulation, where the City is already
9 subject to regulation by the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and the DNR? Why are
10 the CRWD's proposed rules much stricter than the regulations of the federal and state
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
entities?
• What will be the long-range cost of maintaining and periodically reconstrucUng
underground stormwater storage and infiltration systems under streets and parking lots
throughout the city?
• How will stormwater volume be controlled where infiitration does not occur because of
the bedrock, as found in the downtown, or clay soils?
• Has the CRWD done studies on the relationship between improvements in water quality
in the Mississippi River and the public and private costs to the City and property owners
in the city?
20
21 WHEREAS, City staff believes that the November 29, 2005 deadline for the submission of
22 comments on the draft rules and technical standazds proposed by the CRWD does not provide
23 sufficient time for the City to submit meaningful comments regazding any technical, engineering,
24 or cost benefit analysis of the draft rules and technical standazds; NOW, THEREFORE,
25
26 BE TI' RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul respectfully requests that the CRWD consider
27 extending the deadline far receiving comments regarding its draft rules and technical standards
28 published on October 10, 2005 to a date beyond November 29, 2005 so that the City of Saint
29 Paul might submit thorough and meaningful comments regazding the proposed rules and
30 standards that both meet the mutually desirable goal of protecting water resources; AND,
31
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
� � �
2 BE TT F[JRT`HER RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul respectfully requests the CRWD to
3 delay adopting any rules and standards until such time as the CRWD and City can meet for the
4 purpose of finding mutually acceptable rules and standards that will facilitate the needs of both
5 the CRWD and the City of Saint Paul.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Citv Council requests the Capital Region
Watershed District to extend the comment period to December 15, 2005 and that the Citv
Administration prepaze comments for the Council's review bv December 14, 2005. In addition,
the Council requests the Administration propose a timeline for en�agin¢ the Capital Region
Watershed District in the develonment of final rules that would not unreasonablv delav final
adoption of the rules.
Requested by Department of:
BY:
Form Approved by City Attorney
Byc
by Mayor for Submission to Council
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
�p —ca,��;�
Contact Person & Phone:
Council Presidefrt Lantry
Must Be on Council /�gem
ContractType:
REf2ESOLUTION
Date Initial
14NOV-05
� '
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
ToW I# of SignaW re Pages _(Clip All Locafions for Signature)
�" �dL¢�
Green Sheet NO: 3028780
0 �onncil
1 cil De arhment Director
2 ' Clerk (.ti Clerk
3
4
5 I
Resolution requesting the CapiTal Region Watershed District to extend the comment period for Watershed District Rules.
idations: Apprrne (A) or Reject (R):
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Citil Service Commission
1. Has this person/firtn eeer worked under a contract tor this department�
Yes No
2. Has this persoNfirm eeer been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this persoNfifm possess a skill rrot normally possessed by any
curreM city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Probiem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): �
AdvanWqes IfApproved:
Disativanpges NApproved:
Disadvantages If NotApproved:
Total Amount of
Trensaction:
Funding Source:
Financiailnformation:
(EZplain)
Casi/Revenue Butlgeted:
Activity Number:
November 10, 2005 2:51 PM Page 1
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING &
ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMENT
Susan K'vnberly, Director
C;ITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. KeZly, Mayor
•
•
DATE: December 7, 2005
Q
�5��/ �X
15 WutFaurth Street TeZephone� 651-2666700
SainzPauI,MN55702 Facsimile:651-22&3220
TO: Saint Paul City Council
FROM: Larry Soderhol�D Plaiming Administrator
Bruce Elder, Public Works — Sewer Division
Larry Zangs, LTEP — Project Facilitator
RE: Capitol Region Watershed District's Proposed Rules: City Comments
On November 16, 2005, the Council adopted Resolution OS-1069, which asked the Capitol
Region Watershed District (CRWD) to extend the public comment period on its proposed rules
until December 15th and asked the City administration to prepare comments for the CounciPs
review on December 14�'. The depazhnents of Public Works, LIEP, PED, Parks and Recreation,
and the City Attomey's Office have worked together to prepare the comments the Council
reyuested. Public Works atso retained a consultant who has several yeazs of experience working
on watershed rules to advise the City staff. The administration's comments, dated December 7,
2005, are attached.
Kev Policv Issues
The City admnustration supports the mission of the watershed dishicts to improve the quality of
storxnwater flowing into wetlands, ponds, lakes, storm sewers and the river. Still, we haue a
number of concems about the proposed rules. Some of the key points in the attached comments
are as follows:
• The rules proposed by the CRWD--and now also by the Ramsey Washington Metro
Watershed District (RWMWD)--are tougher than current state and federal standards and
the standards in most other Misuiesota watershed districts; however, everyone in the clean
water field foresees tougher state and federal rules coming within the next few years.
• Tougher water quality standards will cost money, both for private development (including
HR A-subsidized development) and for public improvement projects.
• The greatest concem on the part of City staff is about street pauing proj ects, far which
Public Works estimates roughly a 20 percent increase in project costs.
• For many sites and projects, the proposed rules cannot be met (e.g., infiltration is
infeasible because of polluted soils, high bedrock, clay soils, lack of extra land on the
site) and altematives will have to be negotiated with the watershed districts case by case.
The permitting processes of the City and the watershed dishicts need to be coordinated to •
a�oid delays and confusion for applicants.
The Watershed Districts, as local govetnment uirits with appointed boards and ta�cing
authority, are single-purpose bodies that don't have to weigh their priorities against any
competing public objectives.
Pro�ress Since the Council Action on November 16�`
As the Council requested in November, the CRWD extended its public comment period to
December 15` and intends to delay adoption of rules until the municipalities have more
opportunity for discussion and input about the rules. The CRWD and the RWMWD haue
decided to work together on their rules in 2006. If these two districts, which cover most of Saint
Paul, have (nearly) idenfical rules, the risk of confusion and errors in permitting will be reduced.
The two watershed districts now intend to establish a Teciuucal Advisory Committee (TAC) to
advise the watershed districts on the list of issues that will come out of the public comments on
the proposed rules. They believe that the list of issues can be discussed in three ar four months.
City staff believe it will take longer.
As currently discussed, the TAC would be open to staff from affected municipalities, MnDOT,
and the MPCA. It would not have a fiuced, voting membership, or any official status, but the
watershed districts would like a core membetship that attends regularly so that TAC members
build up their expertise. Other municipal representatives would be invited as needed on .
partieuIar topics. From Saint Paul, TAC members xnight be assigned from Public Works, LIEP,
Parks and Rec, and PED, with liaison from the Ciry Attorney's Office. Over the next six months,
TAC participation could become a significant work item. Also, the Saint Paul Plaiiuing
Comxnission has asked, on its own, to have a TAC representative.
Next Steos
1. The administration will send the attached comments to the CRWD with copies to the
RWMWD, the Ramsey County Boazd, the League of Mimiesota Cities, and other
affected municipalities.
2. City departmental staffwill participate on the TAC.
3. The aduiiiustration will update the Council periodically regarding progress on the the
key policy issues idenfified above.
If you have questions, please call one of us—Larry Soderholm (651-266-6575), Bruce Elder
(651-266-6248), or Lazry Zangs (651-266-9109).
•
• Attachments:
Saint Paul's comments on the CRWD Rules (dated 12/7/OS)
Map of watershed district boundaries
CRWD Proposed Rules (dated 10/6/OS)
Planning Commission's letter to the CRWD (dated 12/2/OS)
cc: Mayor Kelly
Susan Kimberly
Bob Sandquist
Bob Bierscheid
Janeen Rosas
Anne Weber
Marcia Moermond
Lisa Veith
r1
LJ
• J
�
City of Saint Paul Comments on the Capital Region Watershed District Rules
Items to be Addressed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Final Draft 12/7/OS
At the recent meeting of the Capital Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board on November
16, 2005, the City of Saint Paul and other the cities within the watershed's jurisdiction requested
that the CRWD constitute a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), as per Section 103D337 of
the Minnesota Statutes. The cities indicated their interest in serving on this TAC. In making this
request, the cities also suggested that the TAC should begin its work by addressing a set of issues
related to the new draft rules proposed by the CRWD.
We view the TAC as the most constructive and effective forum for resolving these issues. The
joint efforts of our organizafions to resolve these issues through open and sincere participaiion in
the TAC could be the basis of a meaningful partnership between the City and the CRWD. The
result could be significant progress towazd protecting and improving water quality within our
jurisdicrions.
In the interest of clarifying its request and indicating the seriousness of its proposal, the City of
St. Paul wishes to forwazd a list of issues that should serve as the starting point for the work of
the TAC. In some cases, issues on this list aze specific and focused on individual sections of the
proposed rules. In other cases, the issues address the most fundamental aspects of the complex
relarionship beriveen the City and the CRWD.
We expect that, in some cases, issues can be resolved quickly. In other cases, the issues address
broad concerns. These items will require e�tensive discussion within the TAC and participation
by mulriple City deparhnents and decision-makers. We anticipate that at least six months will be
needed for the TAC to make substantive progress in resolving the issues.
In all cases, it is our strongly held belief that these issues must be addressed and significant
progress towazd resolution must be achieved before the proposed rules can be successfully
implemented. Please l�ow that it is our intent to work diligently towazd those ends. We urge the
watershed to delay the implementation of the draft rules until the TAC can achieve a meaningful
measure of progress.
Since the CRWD Boazd meeting, the CRWD and Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District
(RWM WD) staff have suggested a joint TAC with participation from both watersheds and many
of the cities within their jurisdicfions. We support this concept and look forward to productive
discussions.
In light of the scheduled end of the comment period on the draft rules on December 15, we ask
that the watershed respond quickly with a statement that they are wiiling to:
. establish a joint TAC with the CRWD and RWMWD,
• schedule a meeting to work out the details regarding the make-up and meeting schedule
of the TAC,
�
u
•
CRWD Rules - Items for the TAC DRAFT 92/7/OS page 1 of 8
• discuss and work toward resolurion of the issues listed below, and delay the
• implementarion of the draft rules unril the TAC can achieve a meaningful measure of
progress.
•
ISSUES RELATED TO PROCESS
1. Improving Study Data
There are a number of questions that have become appazent upon review of the study
information provided by the CRWD and comments made by CRWD staff. Many of these
questions aze related to cost inforxnation and conclusions about Best Management
Practices (BMPs) performance related to the Arlington-Pascal RSVP project. The TAC
should review, discuss, and agree on appropriate information presented in support of the
new rules.
2. Coordination with Esisting City Ordinances, Planning Documents, WCA Authority,
Building Permitting and Inspection Programs, Zoning, Plan Review, etc.
There appear to be numerous examples where elements of the draft rules overlap with
e�sting City ordinances, planning documents, Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)
authority, building permitting & inspection programs, zoning, plan review, and other
programs. There should be an effort to coordinate the rules with these existing programs
to avoid conflicts and identify opporiunities for synergy. To proceed without this
coordination would be unfair to the regulated parties and a waste of public resources. The
TAC should be an ideal forutn for this coordination.
3, Coordination with E�sfing Project Development Process
The City has processes and schedules for the development of public construction
projects. These processes include design, bidding, contract preparation, and construction.
These processes involve many people and multiple City departments. They are designed
to maximize the time for construction in a limited construction season.
The new CRWD rules will have an affect on these processes. Discussions should occur to
minimize the negative affects of the new rules on these processes. The schedule for
implementation of the new rules should be coordinated with these processes to minimize
the negative affects.
•
4. WCA Administration
It is inappropriate for the CRWD to state its intent to assume Local Govemmental Unit
(LGL� status for the administration of WCA in a formal, public document when that
intent may be in direct conflict with the intent of one or more of the cities within its
jurisdiction. There are a limited number of cities within the jurisdiction of the CRWD.
The watershed should check with each city, discuss and detenniue each city's intent
regarding WCA administration, and write a statement in the rules that is based on the
cities' intenrions. The TAC should be an appropriate forum for this discussion.
CRWD Rules - Items for the TAC DRAFT 12/7/05
page 2 of 8
5. Review & Decision-making Process
When a regulatory body assumes the responsibility of issuing binding permits for
development and redevelopment projects, it must aiso assume the responsibiliry for
timely and prompt review of and response to pernut applications. Cifies currentiy operate
under strict rules regarding the time allowed for consideration of applications and the
results if those rules aze not followed. The draft rules should adopt similaz rules with
schedules and procedures that match other permit review processes admiuistered by
cities.
The relarionship between the schedules set forth in Rule B. Secfions 3 and 4 is uncleaz
and confusing.
At the City level, the review and issuance of pernuts is typically a staff funcfion. The
CRWD Board should not be involved in the regulaz review and approval of permit
applications. Board involvement will slow the application process significantly. The rules
should be sufficiently clear and detailed that the staff can handle most pemrit
applications. Variances should be rare.
6. Ciarity, Ambiguity and Conflicts
Review by City staff has identified many places in the draft rules where terms are
unclear, provisions aze ambiguous, and elements conflict within the document. These
issues should be listed, discussed, and resolved by the TAC.
ISSUES RELATED TO SURFACE WA'I`ER MANAGEMENT FOR URBAN SETTINGS
7. Justificafion for the 1" Runoff Reduction Design Criteria
The Statement Of Need And Reasonableness (SONAR) does not specifically address the
justificarion for the P' runoff reduction design criteria in the draft rules. This should be
corrected. In particular, information should be provided to explain why this design
criterion is more stringent than the design criteria of most other current watershed district
rules and guidelines.
When the MPCA recently addressed volume control in the revision of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II MS4 General Permit, it stated
that the principal goals of volume control were to prevent:
"...the negative impacts of increased Storm Water discharge volumes that cause
increased depth and duration of inundation of Wetlands having the potential for a
significant adverse impact to a designated use of the Wetland, or changes in
stream morphology that ha�e the potential for a significant adverse impact to a
designated use of the streazns."
In light of the fact that the CRWD has virtually no streams and very few wetlands, it is
essential that the SONAR provide the justification for volume control.
The proposed voluxne control addresses runoff from relatively small storms. Uncontralled
runoff from such storms has negligible impact on lakes and sizeable rivers. Almost all of
•
•
�
CRWD Rules - Items for the TAC DR,qFT �Z/7/OS page 3 of 8
. the runoff within St. Paul is dischazged to lakes or the Mississippi River. T`he volume
control achieved by the proposed measures will have virtually no impact on these
receiving waters. In light of this fact, it is essential that the SONAR provide the
justification for volume control.
The TAC should assist with the prepazation and review of these revisions to the SONAR.
The TAC should also participate in a discussion about the appropriateness of the 1"
runoff reduction design criteria
8. Impact on Development and Redevelopment
Fostering new development and redevelopment within the core metropolitan azeas is
akeady a challenge. It can be predicted that the imposition of new watershed rules and
additional perxnitting requirements and cost will have a negative unpact on development
and redevelopment. While the CRWD's SONAR addresses cost and feasibility, it does
not address these predictable negative impacts. There is no indication, in the rules or the
SONAR, that the fact that most large redevelopment projects in St. Paul occur only with
significant public subsidies was considered during the development of the draft rules. The
TAC, with the participation of City staff and private developers, should consider these
impacts.
9. Rules for Street and Road Projects
Linear projects (including the construction and reconshuction of roads and streets)
present unique challenges in stormwater management. Siguficant regulatory problems
• arise when stormwater regulations designed for typical development and redevelopment
projects are imposed on linear projects. The experience of the NiPCA and Mn/DOT with
the NPDES Construction Activities Pem is an excellent example of this.
Rules specifically designed for linear projects should be drafted. These rules should be
developed by the TAC, with the participation of City staff.
10. Aesthefics in Dense Urban Development
The City has considerable experience with new development and redevelopment, projects
in areas where only a small percentage of the space on the site is available for
landscaping. On such projects, it appears that all of the green space will need to be used
to meet the infiltration and volume control requirements of the new rules. Based on the
SONAR, it does not appear that the implications of this fact were considered in the
development of the new rules. Many traditional elements of landscape design, such as
large shade trees may become almost impossible to implement on dense urban sites. Over
time, this could result in a significant change to the appeazance of St. Paul.
11. Boulevard trees
The City has a tradition of tree-lined residential streets and has also done significant tree
planting on commercial streets. On typical city blocks the proposed infiltration trenches
conflict with the City's tree planting program. The Arlington-Pascal demonstration
project, although only partially constructed at this point, was possible because there were
•
CRWD Rules - Items for the TAC DR.9FT 12/7/05 page 4 of 8
some curved sixeets with wide boulevard planting strips and the CRWD augmented the •
budget to move trees around.
12. Stormwater BMPs and Parks
Stormwater BMPs, such as ponds and infiltration measures, will often be significant
feahues in parks where they aze constructed. Tn passive pazks they may increase the
park's amenity. In neighborhood rec centers, they may take away field space and become
mudholes and safety hazards. The TAC should work to idenrify and resolve the
appropriate concerns and opporhxniries.
13. Wetland Rules
The draft rules include criteria for wetland management that aze among the most rigorous
and stringent in Minnesota. The implications of these criteria should be discussed and
reviewed thoroughly before the draft rules aze unplemented. The TAC, with the
participation of City staff, shouid be the forum for trus review.
14. Mosquito Control
With a large number of proposed small stormwater detention structures and the publids
concem about mosquitoes and West Nile virus, the Metropolitan Mosquito Control
District (MMCD) should be invited to participate in the Technical Advisory Comxnittee
and assist in reviewing the draft rules. MMCD's involvement will m;nimize unintended
consequences and allay the fears af the general public.
15. Pretreatment to Remove Solids •
The draft rules require pretreahnent to remove solids before discharging to infiltration
azeas, but no design standazds aze provided. This means that the designers and pernuttees
have no benchmark to use in preparing the design or pexmit application. Tlus is not
acceptable and should be discussed and resoived at the TAC.
16. Trout Brook Interceptor
Proposed Rule G covers connections to the Trout Brook Interceptor. There is no mention
of the Trout Brook Interceptor in the SONAR. If there aze to be new rules restricting new
and e�sting connecfions to the interceptor, the need and reasonableness of these rules
should be included in the SONAR. These should be based on quantitative data and
information. The TAC should assist with the prepazation and review of these revisions to
the SONAR.
The terms used in this secrion of the proposed rules are uncleaz. Through discussions at
the TAC, ambiguous elements of this section can be more cleazly defined.
17. Floodplain Management
The.City has specific responsibilities, as a participating member of the National Flood
Insurance Program, to ensure that development in the flood plain complies with FEMA
flood plain requirements. The proposed rules on flood plain management will have
significant impacts on the ability of the City to regutate land uses along the river and
comply with Federai and State flood protection requirements. These provisions should •
CRWD Rules - Items for the TAC DRAFT �2/7/OS page 5 of 8
� be carefuliy coordinated with the City's responsibilities and interests before the draft
rules are unplemented.
ISSUES RELAT`ED TO COSTS, U1VFUI�TDED MAi�'DATES, A1VD MAINTENANCE
18. Feasibility and Cost of Infiltration and Volume Control for Road Projects
The projects cited in the SONAR for the new rules did not include any linear projects.
This is a serious flaw in the study that must be addressed. As indicated above, linear
projects present unique and significant challenges in stormwater management. Specific
issues related to new road construction and the reconstruction of e�sting roads should be
considered before new rules aze implemented.
City staff must participate in the study, so that aspects of federal and state funding and
assessment procedures can be factored into the consideration of the implicafions of new
ruIes.
19. Feasibility and Cost of Infiltration and Volume Control for Other Public Projects
The projects cited in the SONAR far the new rules did not include any public projects.
This is a flaw that should be addressed. Public projects, such as puks and public
buildings, present unique design and funding challenges. Specific issues related to public
construction projects should be addressed before the new rules are implemented. The
TAC should address these issues.
• 20. Cost and Responsibility for Long-Term Maintenance and Performance Monitoring of
Infiltration BMPs
The SONAR does not address the cost and responsibility for the long-term maintenance
and performance monitoring of stormwater infiltration BMPs. This is a serious flaw in
the study that must be addressed. Long-term maintenance of these BMPs is essential to
their proper function and to keeping them from becoming eyesores and negative features
in neighborhoods. Monitoring the performance of infiltration BMPs will be essential in
determining whether they continue to function properly over time. The cost of proper
long-term inspection, maintenance, and performance monitoring of these BMPs will
exceed the capital cost of building them. This cost must be included in the SONAR for
the new rules. The TAC should address these issues. There should be a thorough
discussion about which organizations should be responsible for the long-term
maintenance and performance monitoring of infiltration BMPs.
21. Cost Sharing
It is always disturbing to see unfunded mandates unposed on cities by other
governmental entities. It is particularly troubling when the mandate is imposed by
another entity at the local level.
The CRWD was given both significant water quality responsibilities and taxing authority
by State statute. It is inappropriate for the CRWD to meet its responsibilities by nnposing
unfunded mandates on cities in its jurisdiction. Instead, a broad discussion regarding cost
•
CRWD Rules - Items for the TAC DRAFT 12/7/05 page 6 of 8
sharing and other responsibilities should be conducted befare the draft rules are •
implemented. Options to consider should include having the watershed:
• fund a significant portion of the capital costs of water quality measures and
BMPs on public projects
• handle public educarion and participation related to the design,
implementation, and maintenance of water quality measures and BMPs on
public projects
• assume responsibility for the long-term u�aintenance and performance of
water quality measures and BMPs on public projects.
The TAC is the appropriate forum for these discussions.
22. Maintenance Agreements
The draft rules call far the submittal of a maintenance agreement to be approved by the
CRWD. These agreements are to include methods, schedule, and responsible parties for
maintenance. For public projects, a Memorandum of Agreement or an approved Local
Water Management Plan is required. No gnidance or standards for these requirements are
provided. This leaves the permittee with no target for preparing these elements of their
permit submittals. It also leaves all discretion in the hands of the CRWD. The TAC, with
parkicipation of City staff, should assist with the prepazation and review of guidance and
standazds for maintenance agreements.
23. Responsibility for the Performance of Int"iltration BMPs •
Infiltrarion BMPs are relatively new elements of stormwater management. Their limited
track record is aimost entirely based on applications in suburban settings. In Miunesota,
there is very little history to support their successful implementation in highly urban
settings. When requiring a type of BMP that is not "hied & hue", the regulating agency
should beaz most of the responsibility for the successful performance of the BMPs after
installation. There appears to be no provision, in the draft rules, for the CRWD to
shoulder this responsibility. On the contrary, the rules appear to shift that burden entirely
to the permittees. This is not acceptable and should be discussed and resolved at the
TAC. Greater use ofpilot and demonstration projects may be appropriate.
ISSUES RELA'I'ED TO ROLES AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
24. Frequency of Variances and Procednres for Assuring Fairness
Because of the challenging and broad standazds set forth in the draft rules, it is expected
that a significant percentage of proposed projects will require variances from the
watershed dishict. Under most regulatory programs, variances aze rare occurrences, in
part, because they raise serious complicafions in their applicafion. When a project is
considered for a variance, the design standards aze no longer sh applied and there are
no clear reference points for the designer's work. The decision-maldng authority rests
solely with the watershed district. Resolving design questions raised during the variance
process can be very time-consnuuug and delay projects.
r1
LJ
CRWD Rules - Items for the TAC DRAFT 12/7/OS page 7 of 8
• These aze significant potential problems. The TAC could serve in resolving these
problems in several ways, including:
• The TAC could assist in revising the draft rules so that the rules clearly
address a range of foreseeable conditions (such as variable soil and bedrock
conditions) and provide design standards that can be applied without going to
the variance process.
• There sbould be an agreed target percentage for the number of projects that
require variances. If that percentage is exceeded, there should be a set
procedure to address the problem.
•`I'he TAC could seroe as a review and/or appeal body to assure the regulated
parties that their interests aze protected and that their variance requests are
addressed in a fair and tanely manner.
• Provide for appeals to some authority other than the watershed district board
that made the original decision.
25. Banking of Trading Water Quality Credits
CRWD staff has indicated that approaches to addressing projects that cannot meet the
standards in the draft rules will include having the permittee:
• build water quality BMPs at locations outside the proj ect area, and
• contribute funds for the construction of water quality BMPs outside the
project area by other entities.
If this is the case, guidelines for these alternatives should be written in conjunction with
• the draft rules. The TAC should assist with the prepazation and review of these
guidelines.
26. Performance Surety
It appears that there is no exception written in the draft rules for not requiring a
performance surety from a governmental agency conshucting a public project. It is
unusual and perhaps inappropriate for one governmental agency to require a performance
surety of another governmental agency. In the interest of streamlining the process and
minimizing the burden on permitted parties, methods of coordinating the surety
requirements of the City and the CRWD should be explared. The TAC should address
these issues related to the performance surety.
.
CRWD Rules - Items for the TAC DRAFT 92/7/05 page 8 of 8
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
ifWIW
�
�
�
£R
����
�MII-
>II��
�
�
Yl�it
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Y �
fM
��
T�'
�.
�.�
.
�
Capitol Region Watershed District Rules
Adopted X/XX/200X
General Policy Statemenf
The Capitol Region Watershed District (District) is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, established
under the Minnesota Watershed Law. The District is also a watershed management organization as defined
under the Minnesota Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, and is subject to the directives and
authorizations in that Act. Under the VJatershed Law and the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the
District exercises a series of powers to accomplish its statutory purposes. The District's general statutory
purpose is to conserve natural resources through development planning, flood control, and other conservation
projects, based upon sound scientific principles.
As required under the Metropolitan Surface VJater Management Act, the Disirict has adopted a Watershed
Management Pian, which contains the framework and guiding principles for the District in carrying out its
statutory purposes. It is the DisriicPs intent to unplement the Plan's goals and policies in these rules.
Land alteration afFects the rate, volume, and quality of surface water runoff which ultunately must be
accommodated by the e�sting surface water systems within the District. The watershed is 40.6 square miles and
highly urbanized.
Land alteration and urbanization has and can continue to degrade the quality of runoff entering the waterbodies
of the District due to non-point source pollution. Sedixnentation from ongoing erosion processes and
nstruction activities 'can reduce the hydraulic capacity of waterbodies and degrade water quality. Water
uality problems already exist in all of the lakes and other water resources of throughout the Disfrict. The
Mississippi River is the principle receiving water for all runoff from the District and is listed by the EPA as
"unpaired" for nutrients. Como Lake, a high priority water resource of the District, is also listed as impaired.
Projects that do not address the increased rate. or volume of stormwater runofffrom urban development can
aggravate e�sting flooding problems and contribute to new ones. Proj ects tl�at do not address the quality of
runoff can aggravate existing water quality problems and contribute to new ones. Projects which fill floodpla;n
or wetland azeas without compensatory storage can aggravate existing flooding by reducing flood storage and
hydraulic capacity of waterbodies, and can degade water quality by eliminating the filtering capacity of those
azeas.
In these rules the District seeks to protect the public health and welfare and the natural resources of the District
by providing reasonable regulation of the District's lands and waters to reduce the severity and frequency of
flooding and high water, to preserve floodplain and wetland storage capacity, to improve the chemical, physical
and biological quality of surface water, to reduce sedimentation, to preserve waterbodies' hydraulic and
navigational capacity, to preserve natural wetland and shoreland features, and to miuimize future public
expenditures to auoid or conect these problems.
Relationship of Capitol Region Watershed District to Municipalities
The District recognizes that the priuiary control and deteimuiation of appropriate land uses is the responsibility
•f the municipalities. Accordingly, the Disirict will coordinate permit application reviews involving land
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review I�ersion October 6, 2005 Page 1 of 14
development with the municipality where the land is located.
The District intends to be active in the regulatory process to ensure that water resources aze managed in
accordance with District goals and policies. The District intends to begin implemenring these rules effective �
February 1, 2006. All developments that do not have municipal approval on or before February 1, 2006 will
require a permit. Municipalities have the option of assuming a more active role in tiie permitting process after
adopfion of a local water management plan approved by the District by adopting and implementiug local
ordinances consistent with the approved plan.
The District will also review projects sponsored or undertaken by municipalities and other governmental units,
and will require permits of the contractor in accordance with these rules for governmental proj ects impacting
water resources of the District. These projects include but aze not limited to, land development, road, trail, and
utility construction.
The District desires to serve as technical advisor to the municipalities in their prepazation of local surface water
management plans and the review of individual development proposals prior to inveshnent of significant public
or private funds. To promote a coordinated review process between the District and the municipalities, the
District encourages the municipalities to involve the District early in the plauniug process.
Rule A: Definifions
For the purposes of these rules, the following words have the meanings set forth below.
References in these rules to specific secfions of the Minnesota Statutes include any amendments, revisions or
recodification of those sections. •
Best management practices (BMPs) - measures taken to m;n;m;�e negative effects on the environment as
documented in the Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Pianuiug Aandbook (NIBWSR,
1988) and Minuesota Stormwater Manual (MPCA, 2005).
Board of Managers — the boazd of managers of the Capitol Ragion VJatershed District.
Criteria - specific details, methods and specifications tUat apply to all pernuts and reviews and fliat guide
implementation of the District's goals and policies.
Development - any proposal to subdivide land, any land disturbing activity, redevelopment affecting land, or
creation of impervious surface, including but not limited to, road construction or reconstniction or improvement
and consirucfion or reconstruction of stormwater conveyance systems.
District - the Capitol Region Watershed District established under the Minnesota VJatershed Law, Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 103D.
Drainageway — ail water conveyance systems including but not limited to storm sewers, ditches, culverts, and
open channels.
Escavation - the displacement or removal of soil or other material.
��.�oo�?PI�'n - the azea adjoining a watercourse or natural or man-made water basin, including the area around •
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Yersion October 6, 2005 Page 2 of 14
2akes, mazshes and lowlands, that is inundated during a 100-yeaz flood.
� oodway - the chaunel of the watercourse, the bed of water basins, and those portions of the adjoining
odplains that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 100-yeaz flood may be camed without increasing
the 100-year flood elevation by more than 0.5 feet.
Floodway fringe - the area between the floodway and the boundary of the 100-yeaz flood.
Governmental project - projects sponsored or paid for by a govemmental agency.
Land Disturbance — aiteration of the existing surface material to the point of exposing the underlying soil
material or the placement of fill on a site.
Low floor - the lowest level of a structure, usually the basement or walk-out level.
Major drainageway - any drainageway having a tributary area of 200 acres or greater.
Municipal Approvai — obtaining, in writing, all necessary zoning, building, platting, planiwig,
grading/demolition permits and approvals for construction of the development.
Municipality = any tir�Capitol Re i n�atershed Dis'�ac�. -----
NURP - Nationwide Urban RunoffProgram.
Ordinary high water level (OII'W) - the elevation delineating the highest water level which has been
ntained for a sufficient period of tune to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water level is
ommonly that point whexe the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly
terrestrial. For Public Waters and Public Waters Wetlands the Minnesota DNR determines the OHW.
Parcel - any quantity of land capable of being described with such definiteness that its location and boundaries
may be established.
Person - any natural person, partnership, unincorporated association, corporation, limited liability company,
municipal corporafion, state agency, political subdivision of the State of Minnesota.
Public waters - all waters identified as public waters under Minnesota Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision
15.
Public waters wetlands - all wetlands identified as public waters wetlands under Minnesota Statutes section
103G.005, subdivision 15a. '
Standards - a preferred or desired level of quantity, quality, or value.
Subdivision, subdivide - the separation of an area, pazcel, or tract of land under single ownership into two or
more parcels, tracts, lots.
Trout Brook Interceptor — that portion of the Trout Brook Storm Sewer that is owned and operated by the
�strict.
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Yersion October 6, 2005 Page 3 of 14
Watercourse - a chauuel that has definable beds and banks capable of conducting confined runoff from
adjacent land.
Wetland - any azea identified as wetlands under Minnesota Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision 19. •
Rule B: Permit Procedural Requirements
1. Applicafion Required. Any person undertaking an activity for which a permit is required by these rules
shall, prior to commencing work, submit to the District a permit application, engineering design data and such
other information and e�ibits as may be reguired by these rules. All pemvt applications must beaz the original
signature of the landowner, or for governniental projects the selected contractor.
2. Forms. Permit applications must be submitted on the form provided by the District. Applicants may obtain
these forms at the District office. "''' '
3. Time For Applicafion. A complete permit application which includes all required e�ibits shall be received
by the District at least 21 full days prior to a regulazly scheduled meeting date of the Boazd of Managers. Late
submittals or submittals with incomplete exhibits wili be scheduled.to a subsequent meeting date.
4. Acfion By Board Of Managers. The Boazd of Managers shall act within sixry days of receipt of a complete
permit application. A complete permit application includes all reguired information, exhibits, fees and surety.
5. Issuance Of Permits. The Board of Managers will issue a permit only after applicant has satisfied all
requirements for the pernut, has paid all required District fees, and the District has received any required surety.
6. Permit Term. Permits are valid for an eighteen-month period from the date of issuance unless otherwise •
suspended or revoked. To e�end a permit, the permittee must apply to the District in writing, stating the
reasons for ea�tension. Any plan changes, and related project documents must also be included in the extension
application. The District must receive this application at least thu days prior to the permit's expiration date or
the extension will be treated as a new permit.
7. Permit Assignment. A permittee may assign a District pemut only upon consent by the Board of Managers
to the assignment.
8. Standard. The Boazd of Managers may grant the assignment of an issued permit if it finds the following
condifions have been met:
(a) The proposed assignee in wriiing agrees to assume all the terms, conditions and obligadons of the pemut
as originally issued to the permittee.
(b) The proposed assignee has the ability to satisfy the terms and conditions of the permit as originally
issued.
(c) The proposed assignee is not changing the project as originally permitted.
(d) T'here are no violations of the permit conditions as originally issued.
•
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Persion October 6, 2005 Page 4 of 14
(e) The Boazd of Managers has received from the proposed assignee any required surety to secure
performance of the assigned pexmit.
. Permit Fees: The District will charge the applicant pernuf fees in accordance with the following fee
schedule:
*An additional$500 fee will be chazged to applicant if the project involves a Wetland Replacement or Banking
Plan.
Procedure And Payxnent Of Fee. Applicant must submit the required permit fee to the District at the time it
submits its permit application.
Governmental Agencies Exempt. The fees described above will not be chazged to the. federal government, the
�ate of NTimiesota, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, or local governmental unit.
Any development that has beguu prior to the issuance of a permit will be subject to permit fees of twice the
amount listed above.
10. Performance Surety.
(a) Policy. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to conserve the District's water resources by assuring
compliance witii its rules. Cash surety will be used as a reunbursement source for staff/engineering
inspections.
Requiring a bond or other surety to secure performance of the pernrit conditions and the District rules is an
effecfive way to conserve the District's water resources.
(b) Performance Surety Requirement. A cash surety in an amount set forth below must be submitted to the
District with each pernut application for the activities described below:
Activity ICash Surety Amount
associated with
Management
�
CRYVD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 5 of 14
The surety amount will be calculated as follow:
{Acres of Development �$2,000) +(1.25 * Est. Construcfion Cost of Stormwater Facilities) = Surety
An applicant may submit a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit to the Dishict to secure
performance of permit conditions for activities for which the required surety amount as deternuned
above is in excess of $5,000. The performance bond or letter of credit must be submitted with the perxnit
application. The first $5,000 of the surety must be a cash surety. For amounts over $5,000, a cash
surety, perfoxmance bond or letter of credit is acceptable.
(c) Form and Contents of Performance Bond or Letter'of Credit.
(1) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must be in a form acceptable to the District
and from a surety licensed to do business in Minnesota.
(2) T'he performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must be in fauor of the District and
conditioned upon the performance of the party obtaining the performance bond or letter of credit of
the activifies authorized in the permit, and compliance with all applicable laws, including the
Dish rules, the terms and conditions of the permit and payment wben due of any fees or other
charges required by law, including the District`s rules. The performance bond or irrevocable letter of
credit must provide tUat if the performance bond conditions are not met, the District may make a
claim against the performance bond or letter of credit.
�
LJ
(d) Release of Performance Surety. T'he District will inspect the project to determine if it is constructed in
accordance with the terms of the permit and District rules. If the project is completed in accordance with the
terms of the permit and District rules and the pariy providing the performance surety does not have an
outstanding balance of money owed to the Dishict for the project, including but not limited to unpaid permit
fees, the District will release the performance bond or letter of credit, or return the cash surety if applicable.
11. Other Permits And Approvals. It is the permit applicanYs responsibility to secure all permits and
approvals that aze required by other govemmental authorifies, and provide the District proof that applicant has
submitted these permit applicafions.
Rule C: Storm-Water Management Plans
1. Policy. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
• Reduce runoff rates to levels that allow for stable conveyance of flow throughout the water resources of
the District.
• Require rate control practices on all development to preserve runoff rates at a level that will not cause
the degradation of water resources.
• Limit runoff volumes by utilizing site designs that limit impervious or incorporating volume control
practices such as infiltration.
• ��e`�bn3iec�i'vity of impervious.suifaces ioPthe stor�mavate�system.
• Require the use of effective nonpoint source pollution reduction BMPs in development projects.
• Protect and maintain downstream drainage systems to provide permanent and safe conveyance of
stormwater. Reduce the frequency and/or durafion of potential downstream flooding.
•
CRYVD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 6 of 14
• Reduce the total volume of stormwater to protect surface water quality and provide recharge to
groundwater.
•• Remave sediment, pollutants, and nutrients from stormwater to protect surface water quality.
2. Regulafion. A permit and stormwater management plan aze required under this rule for development of a
site.
3. Design Criferia For Stormwater Management Plans. Stormwater management plans must comply with
the following criteria:
•'�a�discliar`e rates for deyelo men#s uu�ustbe. for-the2 -i0
�- � P .,.., �: f- ..�_.� _ , > and 100 year
;stoim events.
• Developments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent �o;�`au�ieli of iunoff fram the
��peryiaus areas of the site. musfbe pretreated to remove solids before discharging to� `
;ir�f �tratiori areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration azea.
.:��:, :..
• Infilteation rates will be assumed based on soil type as listed below, unless onsite infiltration tests are
completed that indicate otherwise.
•
• Developments must incorporate effective non-point source pollufion reduction BMPs to achieve 90%
solid removal for the NURP water quality stortn (2.5" rainfall). For the 90% removal calculation
volume reduction will be considered.
• Where stormwater management facilities aze proposed, a maintenance agreement must be submitted and
approved by the District. ��ie agreement parties for
rna�n#enance. '�h�.ex�cut'�d�'�eeme�iY�m��4=k���u��nitt�d. for r�cording wi4h�fhe Cou�t�vvifliiri 10 days
o�th�issuanc�-date of tbe.permii.,�Public developments will require a maintenance agreement in the
form of a Memorandum of Agreement or an approved Local Water Management Plan that details the
methods, schedule and responsible parties for maintenance of stormwater management facilities for
pernutted development.
4. Required Exhibits. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two
sets, reduced to m�imum size of 11"x17."
•(a) Properiy lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
•(b) Delineation of the subwatershed contributing runoff from off=site, proposed and exisfing
subwatersheds on-site, emergency overflows, and drainageways.
•(c) Proposed and exisfing stormwater facilifies' locafion, alignment and elevation.
• •(d) Delineation of existing on-site wetland, mazshes, shoreland and/or floodplain areas.
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 7 of 14
.(e) Identification of existing and proposed normal, and ordinary high and 100-yeaz water elevations on-
site.
.(fl Identification of existing and proposed site contour elevations with at least a 2-foot contour interval. •
. (g) Construction plans and specifica.tions of all proposed stormwater management facilities, including
design details for outlet control structuces.
.(h) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for the 2-, 10- and 100-yeaz critical events, existing and
proposed conditions.
.(i) All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations completed to design the proposed
stormwater management facilifies.
•(j) Narrafive addressing incorporation of stormwater BMPs.
.(k) On-site soil boring indicating soil type
5. Exceptions.
(a) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to development less than 1 acre in size for all land uses,
unless such development : ,
(1) Is within the 100-yeaz floodplain and _greater than 1,000 sq. ft.
(2) Is within 300 feet of a public water or protected wetland and greater than 1,000 sq. ft."
(b) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to construction on individual lots within a residential
subdivision approved by the District, provided the acfivity complies with the original development plan.
(c) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to annually cultivated land used for faiming, reseazch, or
horticulture. •
Rule D: Flooding
1. Policy. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
Encourage water quantity controls to ensure no net increase in the impacts or potential for flooding on or
offthe sife and, wflere possible, address existing flooding problems.
Oppose floodplain filling for new residential developments
Encourage floodplain development only in a manner that is compatible with the dynaxnic nature of
floodplains.
2. Regulation. No person may alter or fill land below the 100-year flood elevation of any public water, public
water wetland or other weflands without first obtaining a permit from the District.
3. Criteria.
• A structure's lowest floor elevation must lie 2 feet above the 100-yeaz lugh water level of adjacent ponds
and water bodies.
•
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 8 of 14
• Placement of fill witt�in the 100-yr floodplain is prohibited, uniess compensatory storage is provided.
Compensatory storage must be provided on the development or immediately adjacent to the
development.
• Required Eghibits. The following e�ibits must accompany the permit applicafion. One set, full size; two
sets, reduced to masimum size of 11 x 17 .
•(a) Site plan showing properry lines, delineation of the work azea, existing elevation contours of the
work azea, ordinary high water elevation, and regional flood elevation.
• (b) Grading plan showing any proposed elevation changes.
•(c) Prelimivazy plat of any proposed land development.
•(d) Deteimination by a professional engineer or qualified hydrologist of the loca1100-yeaz flood
elevation before and after the project.
• (e) Computation of change in flood storage capacify resulting from proposed grading.
• (fl Erosion Control Plan.
•(g) Soil boring results if available.
����%etlacn�LVlan'�ge�n�e�t
1. Policy. It is the policy of the Boazd of Managers to:
• Manage wetlands to achieve no-net loss of acreage and values and where possible, strive to enhance the
functions and values of existing wetlands within the District.
� • Identify wefland restoration and creafion sites to enhance water quality and/or restore natural habitats.
• Interact with cifies in the administxation of the Wetland Conservation Act if desired by the cities.
2. Regulation. No person may fill, drain, excauate or otherwise alter the chazacter of a wefland without first
obtainiug a permit from the District.
3. Criteria.
Wetlands sha11 not be drained, filled wholly or in part, excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such
that there will be a decrease in the inberent (e�sting) funcfions and values of the wetland. Wetland 'vnpacts will
be evaluated based on the following principles in descending order of priority. Avoid the impact to the wetland,
miniu�ize the unpact to the wetland, replace the wefland that was impacted. Wetland impacts will be governed
by a Rule comparable to the Wetland Conservation Act, with fhe following exceptions:
l. The de minimis size wiil be zero.
2. Flexibility Sequencing will not be allowed.
3. Public Value Credits can not be used for replacement.
4. All other WCA non-temporary impact exemptions to weflands will not be allowed.
A 25-foot buffer of permanent nonirnpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is
required.
� Local Government Unit. The District intends to serve as the "local government unit" for admuustration of
'� �
Xules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 9 of 14
the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, unless a particulaz municipality in the District has elected to assume
that role in its jurisdictional azea. Notwithstanding the above, the District will continue to require wetland
alteration permits under this rule.
5. Required Exhibits. The following e�ibits_ must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two •
sets, reduced to ma�mum size of 11 "X17."
(a) Site pIan showing:
(1) Properiy lines and comers and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant.
(2) E�sting and proposed elevation contours with at least a 2-foot contour interval, including the
existing runout elevation and flow capacity of the wefland ouflet, and spoil disposal azeas.
(3) Area of the wefland porfion to be filled, drained, excavated or othercvise altered.
(b) Complete delineation of the e�sting weflaad(s), supported by the following'documentatioa:
(1) Identification of the delineafion method used in accordance with the 1987 Manual.
(2) Identification of presence or absence of normal circumstances or problem conditions.
(3) Basin classification using the Cowazdian method and Circulaz 39.
(4) VJetland data sheets, or a report, for each sampie site, referenced to the locarion shown on the
delineation map. In each data sheeUreport applicanY must provide the reasoning for satisfying, or not •
satisfying each of the technical criteria and why the azea is or is not a wetland.
(5) A delineation map showing the size, locations, configuration and boundaries of wetlands in
relation to identifiable physical characteristics, such as roads, fence lines, watenvays, or other
identifiable features.
(� The location of all sample sites and stakes/flags must be accurately shown on the delineation
map. Delineafions submitted by applicants will nonually be field-verified by District staff.
Applicants must leave stakes in the field to aid review of the site. Wetland delineations should be
performed during the normal growing season for this azea of the State of Minnesota (Nfay 1-
October 15). Delineations performed outside this time frame may or may not be permitted,
depending on potential wefland impact in relation to the entire development or project.
(c) A replacement plan, if required, outlining the steps followed for the sequencing process and including
documentation supporting the proposed mitigation plan.
(d) A wetland functions and values assessment comparison before and after project.
(e) An Erosion Control Pian.
•
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Yersion October 6, 2005 Page 10 of i4
6. Exceptions.
e E and ifs requirements will not apply to annually cultivated land used for fatming, reseazch, or
orticulture, unless the activity results in draining or filling the wetland.
Rule F: Erosion Control PIans
1. Policy. It is the policy of the Boazd of Managers to:
Prevent the export of sediment off site, which impacts surface water quality.
2. Regulation. A perxnit and an erosion control plan aze required for development on a site.
3. Design Criteria For Erosion Control Plans.
• Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.
4. Required Eahibits. The following eachibits must accompany the pemut application. One set, full size; rivo
sets, reduced to masimum size of 11"xl'1".
(a) An existing and proposed topographic map which cleazly indicates all hydrologic features and areas
• where grading will expose soils to erosive conditions. The Plan must also indicate the direction of a11 site
runoff.
(b) Tabulafion of the construction unplementation schedule.
(c) Name, address and phone nuxnber of party responsible for maintenance of all erosion control measures.
(d) Identification of all temporary erosion control measures which will remain in place until permanent
vegetation is in place. Examples include, but are not lisnited to: Seeding with perennial vegetation,
mulching, sodding, silt fence, erosion conirol matting, and hay bale filter barriers.
(e) Idenrification of all permanent erosion control measures such as outfall spillways and riprap shoreline
protection, and theu location.
(fl For projects over 1 acre of graded area, documentation that the project applicant has applied far a
National Pollutant Dis�hazge El'unination System (NPDES) general permit from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
(g) Tabulation of all earthwork cut-and-fill volumes and computation of any floodplain volutne and/or
wetland azea changes.
•
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 11 of 14
5. Egcepfions.
(a) Rule F and its requirements will not apply to development less than 1 acre in size for all land uses, �
unless such development:
(1) Is within the 100-yeaz floodplain and greater than 1,000 sq. ft.
(2) Is within 300 feet of a public water or protected wetland and greater than 1,000 sq. ft.
(b) Rule F and its requirements will not apply to annually culfivated land used for faiming, research, or
horticulture.
Rule G: Connections to Trout Brook
i. Policy. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
• Regulate new direct connections or replacement of existing connections to Trout Brook Interceptor so
that the connection is completed in a manner that does not compromise the integrity of the Trout Brook
Interceptor.
• Not allow new direct connecfions to Trout Brook Interceptor if the coanection will cause or exacerbate
conveyance problems in the system ,
2. Regulation. A permit and stormwater management plan is required under this rule for new d'uect connections
and replacement of e�sting connecfions to Trout Brook Interceptor.
3. Design Criteria For Connections to Trout Brook Interceptor. •
Connection plans must comply with the following criteria:
• New direct connections and replacement of exisling connections will be completed nsing a method that
is approved by the District.
. Peak flow rate, the total volume of flow, and the timing of the flow for new connections must be
managed fo not cause new wafer conveyance problems or exacerbafe existing water conveyance
problems in the Trout Brook Interceptor. Enlargement of existing connections is considered a new
connection.
4. Required Ezhibits. The following e�ibits must accompany the pernut application. One set, full size; two
sets, reduced to maxiuium size of 11 "x17."
(a) Property lines and delineation of lands identifying ownership.
(b) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities' location, alig211Tlent and elevation.
(c) Idenfification of existing and proposed site contour elevations with at least a 2-foot contour interval.
(d) Constru.ction plans and specifications of proposed connection, including design details, connection
method, and timing of connection.
•
CRYVD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 12 of 14
(e) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for the 2-, 10- and 100-yeaz critical events, existing and
proposed "conditions.
•(fl Narrative addressing incorporation of stormwater BMPs.
(g) On-site soil boring indicating soil type
Rule H: Enforcement
1. Violation of Rules is a Misdemeanor. Violation of these rules, a sfipulation agreement made, or pemut
issued by the Board of Managers under these rules, is a misdemeanor subject to a penalty as provided by law.
2. District Court Action. The District may exercise all powers confened upon it by Minnesota Statutes Chapter
103D in enforcing these rules, including criminal prosecution, injunction, or action to compel performance,
restoration or abatement.
3. Administrative Order. The District may issue a cease and desist order when it finds that a proposed or
initiated project presents a serious threat of soil erosion, sedimentation, or an adverse effect upon water quality
or quantity, or violates any rule of the Aistrict.
Rule J: Variances
� Variances Authorized. The Board of Managers may heaz xequests foz vaziances from the litesal provisions
these rules in instances when their strict enforcement would cause undue hazdship because of circumstances
imi que to the properiy under consideration. The Boazd of Managers may grant vaziances where it is
demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of these rules. �
2. Standard. In order to grant a variance the Board of Managers must detertnine that:
(a) Special conditions apply to the structure or land under consideration that do not apply generally to other
land or shuctures in the District.
(b) Because of the unique conditions of the property involved, undue hardship to the applicant would result,
as distinguished from mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the rules was carried out. Economic
considerations alone shall not constitute undue hazdship if any reasonable use of the property exists under
the terms of the District's rules.
(c) The proposed activity for which the variance is sought will not adversely affect the public health, safety,
welfare, will not create extraordinary public expense, will not adversely affect water quality, water control,
drainage in the District.
(d) The intent of the DistricYs rules is met.
3. Term. The term of a vaziance shall be concurrent with the associated permit.
•
CRYVD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 13 of 14
4. Violation. A violation of any condition set forth in a variance shall be a violation of the District rules, and
shall automarically teiminate the variance. .
W:\07 Progams�itutes\Proposed RuIe\CRWD draftRules 45-day review 10-6-OS.doc
•
.
•
CRWD Draft Rules - 45 Day Review Version October 6, 2005 Page 14 of l4
CITY O�' SAINT PAUL
Rnndy C Kelly, Mnyor
�
December 2, 2005
Mr. Mazk Doneux
Capitol Region Watershed District
1295 Bandana Blvd., Suite 108
Saint Paul, MN 55108
Dear Mr. Doneux:
•
PLANNING COMMISSION
George Johnson, Chair
25 FJesi Fau�th Stree! leiephone� 657-266-6700
SaintPaul,M_N55102 Fncs�m.ile:651-228-3220
Thank you for your presentation to the Saint Paul Planning Commission on November
18, 2005. You gave us an excellent overview o£ the work being done by the Capitol
Region Watershed District (CRWD). The Planning Commission supports the work you
are doing to make our city more aware of water pollution as a problem and how we are
going to have to change our design practices and our individual behaviors to improve
water resources for future generations.
I am writing today to give you the Planning Commission's comments on fhe CRWD's
proposed rules. As you know, City staff from several departments and Planning
Commissioners, too, have raised questions about the proposed rules. More dialog is
needed to achieve broader consensus about our water quality problems and the best ways
to address them. The Planning Commission is pleased that you intend to create a
Teclinical Advisory Committee (TAC) in cooperztion with ±he Ramsey-WzshLngr�n
Metro Watershed District to facilitate this type of dialog.
You have al�eady received the Saint Paul City CounciPs resolution that asks the City
staff to prepaze comments on the proposed rules together with a proposed timeline for
reconciling differences befween the City and the CRWD. The staff report wi11 be
discussed at the Cify Council on December 14, 2005. After the Council's meeting you
wi11 receive the City's official response to the proposed rules.
Although the City stafP s comments were not yet complete at the time of the Planning
Commission's review, the Commission received your briefmg and had iwo comrnittee
discussions of the proposed rules.. Without being specific here, the Planning
.
Mr. Mazlt Done�
December 2, 2005
Page 2
Commission's concems have to do with the following:
•
• Lacl< of ineasurable wafer quaIity goals for city outfalls to wetlands, lakes, creeks,
and the river;
• The one inch infiltration st�ndzrd;
o Potential effects on both downtown and urban village redevelopment as
delineated in the Cify's Comprehensive pian, and the need for participation in the
rule-making process by private sector deveIopers;
• Trade-offs in redevelopment betv✓een stormwater management, desig� quality,
housing affordability, and HRA subsidies;
+ Possible infringement on the City's auihority to make land use decisions;
• The CRWD's intent to become yet another jurisdiction regulating floodplains;
• For street p2ving projects, the wide disparity beiween the City Public Worlcs staff
and the CRWD on.the cost and technicai efficacy of ttte proposals;
• The effect of the proposed infiltration trenches on street trees and ouz ftadition of
free-lined boulevards;
• How to keep the permitting process as simple and efficient as possible for
applicants, which will require close coordination between the City and the CRVJD
and, probably, authority for CRWD staff approvals; and •
+ Clarification of City and CRWD roles and responsibilifies for on-going
maintenance and enforcement.
Despite these concems, the Planning Commission endorses the mission of the watershed
districts. Our metropo2itan area needs fo give greater priority 4o clean water, and national
and state policy wi11 require it. But changes can't always happen quickly when we're
dealing with the built environment and iru�astructure.
The Planning Commission recommends that the CRWD do four things:
l. Create the Technical Advisory Committee to work through the issues. The
composifion of the TAC should recognize that Sainf Pau1, geographically, has the
largest stake in the watershed rules. The Saint Paul Planning Commissionwould
like to be represented on the TAC.
2. Defer adoption of rules until the TAC has worked on the issues and developed
greater consensus.
3. Develap common rules and, to the extent possible, common �rocedures for the
CRWD and the RWMWD:
4. Consider making distinctions in the rules bettiveen urban, suburban and exurban
� setfings in oider to support Metropolitan Council's Regional Development
Framework.
•
•
Mr. Mark.DoneuY
December 2, 2005
Page 3
Thank you for your consideration oi our comments. 1he Planning Commission realizes
di2t the CRWD is forging new gro•und in an area that needs innovation and change. We
?ook forward to working with you to improve water quai_ity in the city.
Sincerely,
Cieorge Jo on�
Chair
cc: Mayor Randy Kelly
Members of the Saint Pau1 City Council
Bob Sandquist, Public Works
• 7aneen Rosas, LTEP
Susan F�mberly, PED
Bob Bierscheid, Parks and Rec
Cliff Aichinger, RWMWD
n
LJ