The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWK - February 23, 20211685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV City Council Workshop Tuesday, February 23, 2021 Senior Center 1. Call to Order — 6:00 p.m. 2. Update of the Lower Rum River WMO 4th Generation Draft Plan — Engineering 3. Update of the Rum River One Watershed One Plan — Engineering 4. Review Proposal/21-28, Intersection Study/Nightingale St. NW & Veterans Memorial Blvd. NW/21-29, Intersection Study/Crosstown Blvd. NW & Crosstown Dr. NW — Engineering 5. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Density — Planning 6. Daycare Facilities within Religious Institution - Planning 7. Other Topics 8. Adjournment All members of the Andover City Council will participate in the February 23, 2021 Special City Council meeting by telephone or video conference rather than by being personally present at the City Council's regular meeting place at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, MN 55304. City Staff will be present at City Hall for the meeting. Members of the public can physically attend, although there is very limited seating in the Andover Senior Center as appropriate social distancing will be done by the City Staff and visitors. 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERM&GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator / Finance Dire David D. Berkowitz, City Engineer/Director of Pu is orks1 FROM: Todd J. Haas, LRRWMO Member SUBJECT: Discuss LRRWMO 4th Generation Watershed Management Plan — Engineering DATE: February 23, 2021 INTRODUCTION The Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) is currently in the process of finishing their 4th Generation Watershed Management Plan in accordance with state rules for surface water management. Cities within the management area and other agencies are given a 60 -day review period to provide comments on the proposed plan. DISCUSSION Every 10 years, watersheds districts, watershed management organization and Cities are required to update their Watershed Management Plans. The purposes of the water management programs required by state statue (Sections 10313.205 to 103B.255) are as follows: • Protect, preserve, and use natural surface water and groundwater storage and retention systems. • Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems. • Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface water and groundwater quality. • Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface water and groundwater management. • Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems. • Promote groundwater recharge. • Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities. • Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface water and groundwater. As required by state statue the LRRWMO is currently in the process of finishing up the draft plan. Once the plan has been approved by the MN Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), the member Cities (Anoka, Ramsey and Andover) will be required to update their local water resource management plans within 2 years of the completion of the LRRWMO and/or the Coon Creek Watershed District approved plan. The LRRWMO 4t1i Generation Plan is due to be completed by December of 2021. As of right now it appears that the LRRWMO will meet that deadline date. Mayor and Council Members February 23, 2021 Page 2 of 2 The proposed WMO plan consists of the following contents: • Executive Summary: This describes the administration and cooperative roles, programs and projects by the LRRWMO for the various sections of the plan. • Section 1 (Introduction). This section summarizes the location and history of the LRRWMO as well as its purposes, authorities and management structure. • Section 2 (Land and Water Resource Inventory): This section contains information such as climate, precipitation, topography, drainage, land use, geology, groundwater, surface waters, natural areas, habitat, rare species, recreation, and pollutant sources. • Section 3 (Issues Assessment): This section summaries the priority issues identified by the LRRWMO during the development of the plan. • Section 4 (Goals and Policies): This section has established goals to address the water and natural resource management issues described in Section 3. • Section 5 (Implementation): This section summaries the activities the WMO plans to perform over the next 10 years. The implementation program includes administrative activities, programs, studies and projects necessary to pursue WMO goals. Methods for prioritizing and funding programs, projects and capital improvements are also discussed in this section. • Section 6 (References): This is currently being drafted by the engineering consultant. • Appendix A (Joint Powers Agreement): Establishes the LRRWMO to plan, control, and provide for the development of the WMO. • Appendix B (Grading, Stormwater Management and Erosion/Sediment Control Permit Application) • Appendix C (Application for MN Wetland Conservation Act Decisions and Procedure Requirements As far as to how the LRRWMO ensures that the member cities are complying with LRRWMO plan, a permit is required for any disturbance over 1 acre. The WMO reviews the grading, drainage and erosion control plans to ensure that the stormwater design requirements (which includes infiltration) are being met and erosion control measures are in place to minimize erosion to water resources such as wetlands, streams, rivers and lakes. As far as how wetlands are regulated, the LRRWMO is the designated Local Governmental Unit (LGU) for all 3 cities (Anoka, Ramsey and Andover) which is responsible for overseeing the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). All delineations and impacts to wetlands must be approved by the WMO. ACTION REQUIRED This item is for information and discussion purposes only. After input is provide from the City Council, staff will prepare the formal response to the draft LRRWMO 4th Generation Watershed Management Plan. Respectfully submitted, --h�AVIPZ-- Todd J. Haas Attachments: Map of the Metro area identifying Watershed District and WMO's; Draft WMO Plan Metro Water Management Authorities Anoka Conservation District Carver Soil & Water :onservation District Camden Ramsey Conservation District Washington Conservation _ L District 1. CARVER COUNTY Eaggan.v-�Vi__ �hts GG°ea Den. Young - .h COWER MINNESOTA IIn erq ove c�a ��„_ ' d- America Benton Dahlgren RIVER fa T --- I nd Apple Valley Rosemount _- - Louisville IBLACKi RICHFIELD- _ Nininger Fast] BLOOMINGTON .- Francisco '.DO G _ . anck .-Sen co Sand Cr Empire \0 V Credit Lakeville VERM _ ILLION _ JordanQO\� St. Ing River _ 6ake arefian RIVER Lawrence SQ-' - Vermillion Farmington Bene SCOTT - Plaine New Markel 1 e Blakeley Belle Plaine Helena Cedar l- Eureka Castle Rock Hampton Do NORTH ,. Organization Type _CANNON Greenvale R'''lllI'''VER yvaterto if Watershed District * Joint Powers WMO Scott Dakota Soil &Water N dr County Soil & Water Conservation Cities/Townships District Conservation Bin0 SWCDs District Nesourrceesii wiw�w Updated August 2016 Watershed Management Plan 2021-2030 Prepared for the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization February 2021 - 60 Day Review Draft Watershed Management Plan 2021-2030 Prepared for the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization February 2021 - 60 Day Review Draft Watershed Management Plan February 2021 DRAFT Contents ExecutiveSummary ....................................................................................................................................................................... ES -1 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 The Role of Watershed Management Organizations...................................................................................1-1 1.2 LRRWMO Location and History ............................................................................................................................1-2 1.2.1 Location and Boundaries....................................................................................................................................1-2 1.2.2 History ........................................................................................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Management Structure, Power, and Duties.....................................................................................................1-3 2 Land and Water Resource Inventory ........................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Climate and Precipitation........................................................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Precipitation -Frequency Data (Atlas 14).......................................................................................................2-2 2.1.2 Climate Trends and Future Precipitation.....................................................................................................2-3 2.2 Topography and Drainage......................................................................................................................................2-5 2.3 Land Use.........................................................................................................................................................................2-7 2.4 Soils...............................................................................................................................................................................2-10 2.5 Geology.......................................................................................................................................................................2-13 2.5.1 Surficial Geology.................................................................................................................................................2-13 2.5.2 Bedrock Geology................................................................................................................................................2-13 2.6 Groundwater..............................................................................................................................................................2-14 2.6.1 Groundwater Recharge....................................................................................................................................2-15 2.6.2 Drinking Water Supply, Wellhead Protection, and Pollution Prevention.....................................2-16 2.6.4 Groundwater Monitoring................................................................................................................................2-20 2.6.5 Groundwater Quality.........................................................................................................................................2-20 2.7 Surface Water Resource Data.............................................................................................................................2-20 2.7.1 LRRWMO Priority Waters ............................................... ................................................................................. 2-24 2.7.2 Wetlands................................................................................................................................................................2-24 2.7.3 Surface Water Monitoring and Modeling.................................................................................................2-26 2.7.4 Water Quality and Impaired Waters...........................................................................................................2-31 2.7.4.1 Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS)...................................................2-33 2.7.5 Stormwater Systems..........................................................................................................................................2-33 P 2.7.6 Flooding and Floodplain Management.....................................................................................................2-34 2.7.7 Shorelands an Shoreland Management....................................................................................................2-37 2.8 Natural Areas, Habitat, and Rare Features.....................................................................................................2-37 2.9 Open Space and Recreation Areas...................................................................................................................2-40 2.9.1 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River District...........................................................................................2-40 2.9.2 Mississippi National River and Recreational Area(MNRRA).............................................................2-41 2.10 Potential Pollutant Sources..................................................................................................................................2-43 3 Issues Assessment...........................................................................................................................................................3-1 Implementation Plan Structure.............................................................................................................................5-1 3.1 Issue Identification and Prioritization.................................................................................................................3-1 Prioritization and Targeting....................................................................................................................................5-1 3.2 Resource Issues...........................................................................................................................................................3-3 Implementation Categories....................................................................................................................................5-3 3.2.1 Stormwater Runoff Management...................................................................................................................3-3 Administration........................................................................................................................................................5-3 3.2.2 Surface Water Quality..........................................................................................................................................3-3 Engineering, Permitting, and Planning ..... .................................................................................................... 3.2.3 Flood risk and water quantity issues.............................................................................................................3-5 LRRWMO Permit Program.......................................................................................................................5-3 3.2.4 Erosion and Sedimentation...............................................................................................................................3-6 3.2.5 Wetlands, Shoreland, and Natural Areas.....................................................................................................3-6 3.2.6 Groundwater Contamination and Supply....................................................................................................3-7 4.1 Goals................................................................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Strategies and Policies..............................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2.1 Strategies and Policies: Cooperation.............................................................................................................4-1 4.2.2 Strategies and Policies: Education..................................................................................................................4-2 4.2.3 Strategies and Policies: Regulation................................................................................................................4-3 4.2.4 Strategies and Policies: Operations................................................................................................................4-5 5 Implementation Program.............................................................................................................................................5-1 5.1 Implementation Plan Structure.............................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Prioritization and Targeting....................................................................................................................................5-1 5.3 Implementation Categories....................................................................................................................................5-3 5.3.1 Administration........................................................................................................................................................5-3 5.3.2 Engineering, Permitting, and Planning ..... .................................................................................................... 5-3 5.3.2.1 LRRWMO Permit Program.......................................................................................................................5-3 5.3.3 Education Program...............................................................................................................................................5-4 5.3.4 Monitoring Program............................................................................................................................................5-4 5.3.5 Projects and Capital Improvements...............................................................................................................5-5 5.3.6 Grant Programs......................................................................................................................................................5-5 5.4 Funding Mechanisms................................................................................................................................................5-7 5.4.1 LRRWMO General Fund ......................................................................................................................................5-7 5.4.2 LRRWMO Improvement Fund..........................................................................................................................5-7 5.4.3 LRRWMO Permit Application Fees and Escrow.........................................................................................5-7 5.4.4 Ad Valorem Taxing Authority...........................................................................................................................5-7 5.4.5 Member City Funding..........................................................................................................................................5-7 5.4.6 Grand Funding and Partner Cost-share........................................................................................................5-8 5.5 Plan Reporting and Assessment...........................................................................................................................5-8 5.5.1 Annual Reporting..................................................................................................................................................5-8 5.5.2 Progress Assessment...........................................................................................................................................5-9 5.6 Plan Amendments and Updates...........................................................................................................................5-9 5.7 Local Controls and Water Management Plans.............................................................................................5-10 5.7.1 Local Water Management Plans...................................................................................................................5-11 6 References..............................................................................................................................................................................1 List of Tables Table 2-1 Climate and Precipitation Data................................................................................................................. 2-2 Table 2-2 Selected Rainfall Events Used for Design Purposes.........................................................................2-3 2-4 Table 3-3 MDNR Level 8 Watersheds within the LRRWMO..............................................................................2-5 2-6 Table 3-4 Existing Land Use (2016).............................................................................................................................2-7 Table 3-5 Bedrock geology characteristics............................................................................................................2-14 Table 3-6 Major Public Waters within the LRRWMO.........................................................................................2-22 Table 3-7 Anoka Conservation District (ACD) surface water monitoring in LRRWMO .........................2-26 Table 2-8 Impaired Waters within the LRRWMO.................................................................................................2-32 2-19 Table 2-9 State water quality standards applicable to LRRWMO Priority Waterbodies ......................2-32 Table 2-10 Pollutants Commonly Found in Stormwater.....................................................................................2-44 Table 3-1 Summary of Priority Issues and Resources.......................................................................................... 3-2 Table 4-1 LRRWMO goal statements and associated metrics..........................................................................4-2 Table 4-2 LRRWMO Education Policies.....................................................................................................................4-3 Table 4-3 LRRWMO Regulation Policies...................................................................................................................4-4 Table 4-4 LRRWMO Operations Policies...................................................................................................................4-6 Table 5-1 LRRWMO 2021-2030 Implementation Plan........................................................................................5-6 Table 5-2 Local Water Plan Status.............................................................................................................................5-12 List of Figures Figure1-1 Location of the LRRWMO.........................................................................................................................ES-5 Figure 2-1 Trends in Average Annual Precipitation (Twin Cities Region) ...................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-2 Topography and drainage patterns........................................................................................................ 2-6 Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use (2018).............................................................................................................................2-8 Figure 2-4 Estimated Future Land Use (2040)..........................................................................................................2-9 Figure2-5 Hydrologic Soil Groups..............................................................................................................................2-12 Figure 2-6 Sensitivity of the water table to pollution..........................................................................................2-18 Figure 2-7 Drinking waters supply management areas .................................... .................................................. 2-19 Figure 2-8 Public waters and ditches within the LRRWMO...............................................................................2-23 Figure 2-9 National Wetland Inventory .....................................................................................................................2-25 Figure2-10 Monitoring Locations.................................................................................................................................2-28 Figure 2-11 HSPF Estimated Total Phosphorus Loading......................................................................................2-29 Figure 2-12 HSPF Estimated Sediment Loading.......................................................................................................2-30 Figure2-13 FEMA Floodplains........................................................................................................................................2-36 Figure 2-14 Sites of Biodiversity Significance............................................................................................................2-39 Figure 2-15 Open Spaces and Recreational Areas..................................................................................................2-42 Figure 2-16 Potential Pollutant Sources......................................................................................................................2-45 iv List of Appendices, Attachments, or Exhibits Appendix A Joint Powers Agreement Appendix B Grading, Stormwater Management and Erosion/Sediment Control Permit Application Appendix C Application for Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Decisions and Procedure Requirements Appendix D Plan Development Gaps Analysis Appendix E LRRWMO Stormwater Management Performance Standards Appendix F LRRWMO Wetland Protection Standards Certifications I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Sterling G. Williams Jr. PE #:47642 date Date Acronyms ACD Anoka Conservation District AIS Aquatic Invasive Species APM Aquatic Plan Management BMP Best Management Practice BWSR Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources CAMP Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program CCWD Coon Creek Watershed District CIP Capital Improvement Program CLMP Citizen Lake Monitoring Program CWA Clean Water Act DWSMA Drinking Water Supply Management Area ECWMC Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAW Functional Assessment of Wetlands FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FIS Flood Insurance Study FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act 1WC Joint Water Commission LA Load Allocation LGU Local Governmental Unit LID Low Impact Development LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LOMA Letter of Map Amendment MCES Metropolitan Council Environmental Services MCM Minimum Control Measure MCWD Minnehaha Creek Watershed District MCSC Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition MNDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MDH Minnesota Department of Health MGS Minnesota Geological Survey MIDS Minimal Impact Design Standards MLCCS Minnesota Land Cover Classification System MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation MnRAM Minnesota Routine Assessment Method MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MRCC Midwestern Regional Climate Center MRCCA Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area A MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MSP Minnesota/St. Paul International Airport NAPP National Aerial Photography Program NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NHIS Natural Heritage Information System NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRMP Natural Resources Management Plan NURP National Urban Runoff Program NWI National Wetland Inventory OHWL Ordinary High Water Level P8 Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage through Pits, Puddles and Ponds PWI Public Waters Inventory RR1 W1 P Rum River One Watershed One Plan SCS Soil Conservation Service SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Dataset SSTS Subsurface Sewage Treatment System SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District SWMP Surface Water Management Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program TAC Technical Advisory Committee TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TP Total Phosphorus TSS Total Suspended Solids URRWMO Upper Rum River Watershed Management Organization USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VIC Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup WCA Wetland Conservation Act WHPP Wellhead Protection Plan WLA Waste Load Allocation WMO Watershed Management Organization WOMP Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program WRAPS Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant viii Executive Summary The Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) Watershed Management Plan (Plan) provides a framework for the protection, restoration, and management activities of the LRRWMO over a 10 year period. The Plan provides resource data and background information, prioritizes natural resource management issues, establishes measurable goals, and details policies, regulations, and implementation activities intended to achieve those goals. The Plan implementation program describes the administrative and cooperative roles, programs, and projects carried out by the LRRWMO. The Plan is organized into five major sections, summarized as follows: Section 1 - Introduction Section 1 of this Plan summarizes the LRRWMO's location and history, purpose, and management structure. Like all watershed management organizations (WMOs), the LRRWMO is a special purpose unit of local government that manages water resources on a watershed basis. The LRRWMO'sjurisdiction covers approximately 57 square miles in Anoka County and includes the City of Anoka, the City of Ramsey, and a portion of the City of Andover. The LRRWMO was formed in 1985. This watershed water management plan replaces the 2011 LRRWMO Water Management Plan (2011 Plan). The purposes of the LRRWMO, consistent with Minnesota Statutes 1038.201, include: • Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems; • Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems; • Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality; • Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management; • Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems; • Promote groundwater recharge; • Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and • Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and groundwater. The Board of Commissioners of the LRRWMO consists of three commissioners and three alternates appointed by the member cities. The powers of the Board are detailed in the most current iteration of the LRRWMO Joint Powers Association (JPA, see Appendix A). Section 2 - Land and Water Resources Inventory Section 2 of this Plan contains information on the presence and condition of natural resources within the watershed, as well as the impact of human development. Information is provided as text, tables, and maps; topics presented include: • Climate and precipitation • Topography and drainage • Land use ES -1 • Soils • Geology • Groundwater • Surface water resources • Natural areas, habitat and rare features • Open space and recreational areas • Potential pollutant sources The Rum River is the defining hydrologic feature of the LRRWMO, although many other lakes, ponds, streams, and wetlands are presented within the watershed. Information about the waters and other resources in the watershed is important as is affects and resource management priorities and decisions of the LRRWMO, its member cities, and other partners. Section 3 — Issues Assessment This section of the Plan presents and discusses the priority issues to be addressed by the LRRWMO over the life of this Plan. As part of Plan development, the Board solicited input on issues relevant to the Lower Rum River watershed through a variety of stakeholder engagement and data review activities, including: • Public kickoff meeting hosted on June 26, 2019 • Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) issue identification meeting on August 28, 2019 • Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) issue identification meeting on October 29, 2019 • Analysis of potential 2011 Plan gaps (Gaps Analysis, see Appendix D) • Review of responses to the Plan notification letter With consideration for the stakeholder engagement and data review activities, the Board identified the following as the most relevant issues including: • Adverse impacts from stormwater runoff • Degraded water quality of lakes, streams, and rivers Additional water and natural resource issues that were identified as important: • Flood risk and water quantity issues • Excessive erosion and sedimentation • Integrity of wetlands, shoreland, and natural areas • Groundwater contamination In addition to natural resource issues, organizational and/or administrative issues were also identified during Plan development, these include: • Efficacy and efficiency of the LRRWMO permit program • Limited funding and capacity • Opportunities for increased education and engagement ES -2 The priority issues areas and associated specific issues identified by the Board are described in greate detail in Section 3 and are summarized in Table 3-1. Many of the priority resource issues are interrelated. Thus, many of the goals, policies, and activities included in this Plan address multiple resource issues. Section 4 - Goals and Policies Section 4 describes the goals and policies for water and natural resource management within the LRRWMO. LRRWMO goals are aligned with the broad statutory purposes listed in Minnesota Statues 103B.201 but are more specific in their application to LRRWMO resources. LRRWMO goals are presented in Table 4-1. Goals are grouped according to issue area (see Section 3) although many of the goals address multiple issues. Where appropriate, goals contain measurable quantities to evaluate progress (see Section 5.5.2). The Plan establishes the following key water quality goals: • Maintain or improve existing water quality in non -impaired priority LRRWMO waters: o Grass (Sunfish) Lake (TP= 14 ug/L, Chi a = 5.8 ug/L, SD = 1.3 m) o Rogers Lake (TP= 59 ug/L, Chi a = 19.7 ug/L, SD = 1.1 m) o Round Lake (TP= 31 ug/L, Chi a = 7.9 ug/L, SD = 2.9 m) • Reduce phosphorus loading to the Rum River by 800 lbs/year through implementation of the LRRWMO permit program, and by 100 lbs/year through non-structural and structural improvements (e.g., streambank stabilization) • Reduce sediment loading from streambank erosion along the Rum River by approximately 75 tons/year through streambank stabilization and restoration actions over an estimated 500 feet. • Manage stormwater runoff with practices that mimic natural hydrology by retaining a volume equivalent to 1.0 inches over new and redeveloped or existing impervious surfaces The LRRWMO has also adopted policies to support the achievement of LRRWMO and partner goals. These policies include requirements for member cities, as well as performance standards for projects implemented within the LRRWMO. Policies are subdivided into the following strategies: • Regulation • Education • Cooperation • Operations Generally, these strategies include all of the LRRWMO's activities, and are described in greater detail in Section 4.2. Section 5 - Implementation Program Individual LRRWMO implementation activities are described in Section 5. Estimated costs, year(s) of implementation, partners, and priority level of each activity are presented in Table 5-1. For assessment ES -3 and reporting purposes, the LRRWMO cross-references all activities in the implementation plan to applicable LRRWMO goals (see Table 4-1). The LRRWMO implementation plan includes the continuation of ongoing activities as well as new activities to address emerging issues and changing priorities. Activities included in Table 5-1 are categorized as: • Administration • Engineering, Permitting, and Planning • Education Programs • Monitoring Programs • Projects and Capital Improvements A significant portion of the LRRWMO resources are invested in the continued implementation of the LRRWMO project review permitting programs (see Section 5.3.2.1). The LRRWMO stormwater performance standards (see Appendix E) have contributed to pollutant reductions of 175 lbs/year of total phosphorus and 18 tons of sediment per year through over 40 LRRWMO-reviewed projects reviewed in 2019 and 2020. The 10 -year implementation schedule (Table 5-1) includes planned capital improvements planned in cooperated with Anoka Conservation District (ACD) and funded by anticipated watershed -based implementation funding (WBIF). Section 5 describes the funding mechanisms used and available to the LRRWMO, self-assessment and reporting practices, and procedures for amending this Plan. Section 5 also details requirements for City local water management plans consistent with Minnesota Statutes 1036.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410.0160. E$-4 I Introduction The Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) Watershed Management Plan (Plan) provides guidance for managing the water and natural resources within thejurisdiction of the LRRWMO. This section summarizes the location and history of the LRRWMO, as well as its purposes, authorities, and management structure. 1.1 The Role of Watershed Management Organizations Like all watershed management organizations (WMOs), the LRRWMO is a special purpose unit of local government that manages water resources on a watershed basis. Watershed management organization boundaries generally follow natural watershed divides, rather than political boundaries. Thus, they may include several municipalities and counties. Recognizing that water does not follow political boundaries, the State of Minnesota established the Watershed Act (Minnesota Statutes 103D) in 1955, which provided for the creation of watershed districts anywhere in the state. In 1982, the Minnesota Legislature enacted the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act (Minnesota Statutes 1036.201 —1036.255). This act required the formation of a WMO, and the development and implementation of a watershed management plan, for each of the watersheds in the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area. WMOs can be organized as joint powers agreement organizations among municipalities (e.g., LRRWMO), as watershed districts (e.g., Coon Creek Watershed District — CCWD), or under county government. Per Minnesota Statutes 1036.201, the purposes of WMO water management programs are as follows: 1. Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems; 2. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems; 3. Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality; 4. Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management; 5. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems; 6. Promote groundwater recharge; 7. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and 8. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and groundwater. 1.2 LRRWMO Location and History 1.2.1 Location and Boundaries The Lower Rum River watershed is located entirely within Anoka County, in the northwest portion of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA). Figure 1-1 shows the location and boundaries of the LRRWMO and other local units of government. The LRRWMO is adjacent to the following watershed management authorities: • Upper Rum River WMO (URRWMO) —along northern boundary • Coon Creek Watershed District (CCWD) —along eastern boundary • Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC) — along southern boundary (across Mississippi River) • Sherburne County Soil and Water Conservation District (Sherburne SWCD) — along western boundary The jurisdictional boundary of the LRRWMO includes all or part of three cities: • Andover • Anoka Ramsey The limits of Anoka County form the jurisdictional boundary of the LRRWMO to the north and to the west. This boundary does not follow hydrologic divides (i.e., water flows in and out of the LRRWMO across the county boundary). The Mississippi River forms the southern boundary of the LRRWMO, while the eastern boundary generally follows the watershed divide separating the Rum River watershed from the watershed of Coon Creek. The total drainage area of the LRRWMO is 56.9 square miles (36,400 acres). Most of the LRRWMO watershed drains towards the Rum River and its tributaries, although some areas are directly tributary to the Mississippi River. The LRRWMO is moderately developed with generally suburban land use (see Figure 2-3). A legal description for of the boundaries of the LRRWMO is included in Appendix A. 1.2.2 History The LRRWMO was formed by a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) signed by the Cities of Andover, Anoka, Coon Rapids, and Ramsey in the Summer of 1985. The LRRWMO was formed for the purpose of preparing a water management plan to meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Sections 473.875 to 473.883, the Metropolitan Water Management Act (MWMA). The powers and duties of the LRRWMO are outlined in the JPA. The JPA was revised in 1995 to include recent changes in state statutes, Minnesota Rules 8410 Rules, and the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The JPA was again revised and approved in 2007 to address cost- sharing for WMO projects. 1-2 At its inception, the LRRWMO included a portion of the City of Coon Rapids — this area was transferred to the Coon Creek Watershed District via a 2014 revision to the JPA and legal boundary. The most current JPA and legal description are included in Appendix A. The LRRWMO adopted its first watershed management Plan in 19XX. Second- and third -generation watershed management plans were adopted in XXXX and 2011, respectively. This document, adopted by the LRRWMO in 2021, is the fourth-generation LRRWMO Plan. 1.3 Management Structure, Power, and Duties The Board of Commissioners of the LRRWMO consists of three commissioners and three alternates appointed by the member cities. Each of the three member cities appoints one commissioner and one alternate. Alternate commissioners are voting Board members when the primary commissioner is absent. The JPA gives each member city the responsibility to determine the eligibility or qualifications of its representative (commissioner) on the Board. As identified in the JPA, the Board has the authority to employ persons as it deems necessary, conduct studies, fund improvements, and operate and maintain improvements constructed by the Board. Procedures have been established to finance capital improvement projects in such a manner that costs can be equitably distributed to benefited members for projects of benefit to more than one member. Where only one member community is benefited, that community will be responsible for the entire cost. The powers and duties of the LRRWMO, as enacted by the Board, are listed in Section VI of the JPA and include, briefly: 1. Have the powers and duties set in the JPA and prescribed by law as it relates to flood control, water quality, groundwater recharge, water conservation, construction of facilities, and other duties set forth in Minnesota Statutes 1038 2. Employ persons or contract with consultants as necessary to accomplish its duties and powers (any such persons or consultants shall be considered LRRWMO staff) 3. Contract for space, materials, and supplies to carry on its activities with a member city or elsewhere 4. Acquire necessary personal property to carry out its powers and duties 5. Develop an overall plan (watershed management plan) containing a capital improvement program that shall meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103B 6. Make necessary surveys or use other information and develop projects to accomplish the purposes for which the LRRWMO is organized. 7. Enter into contracts or cooperate with governmental agencies, private/public organizations, or individuals to accomplish the purposes for which the LRRWMO is organized. 8. Order any member city to construct, clean, repair, or otherwise alter any ditch, drain, storm sewer, of watercourse in the LRRWMO as necessary to implement the Plan 1-3 9. Order any member city to acquire, operated, construct, or maintain dikes, dams, and reservoirs as necessary to implement the Plan 10. Regulate, conserve and control the use of stormwater, surface water and groundwater within LRRWMO. 11. Contract for or purchase insurance, as needed. 12. Establish and maintain devices for acquiring and recording hydrological and water quality data within the watershed. 13. Enter upon lands to make surveys and investigations to accomplish the LRRWMO's purposes. 14. Provide any member city with technical data or other information to assist the city in preparing its local watershed management plan. 15. Provide legal and technical assistance in connection with litigation or other proceedings between one or more of its members and any other unit of government relating to drainage or water quality within the LRRWMO. 16. Accumulate reserve funds and invest funds not currently needed for LRRWMO operations. 17. Collect money from the LRRWMO member cities, Anoka County, and from any other approved by the majority of its Commissioners 18. Accept gifts, apply for, and use grants or loans of money or other property. 19. Make contracts, employ staff or consultants, incur expenses and make expenditures. 20. Obtain an annual audit of the BCWMC books and accounts. 21. Make its books, reports, and records available for and open to inspection by its member cities. 22. Recommend changes to thejoint powers agreement to its member cities. 23. Exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to the implementation of the purposes and powers set forth in the joint powers agreement and state law. 24. Cooperate with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (MDNR) in obtaining protected waters permits and complying with Minnesota law regarding protected waters. 25. Member cities may conduct separate or concurrent studies on any matter under study by the LRRWMO. 26. Establish a procedure for establishing citizen or technical advisory committees and to provide other means for public participation. 1-4 Figure 1-t Location of the LRRWMO Figure Pending IN 2 Land and Water Resource Inventory This section summarizes the land and water resources located within the LRRWMO. It contains information on climate and precipitation, topography and drainage, land use, soils, geology, groundwater, surface waters, natural areas, habitat, and rare species, recreation, and potential pollutant sources. Land and water resource information is important because it describes the condition of the watershed and how those conditions impact decisions about infrastructure, development, and resource management. 2.1 Climate and Precipitation The climate of the seven county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is a humid continental climate, characterized by moderate precipitation (normally sufficient for crops), wide daily temperature variations, large seasonal variations in temperature, warm humid summers, and cold winters with moderate snowfall Climate data is often presented according to 30 -year "climate normal' periods, the most recent spanning the period from 1981-2010. Several of the wettest years on record have been observed since 2010. Deviation from climate normal and data since 2010 are discussed in Section 2.1.2. Climate data presented in this section is based on the 10 -year period from 2010 through 2019, unless otherwise noted. The mean annual temperature in the LRRWMO is 43.6°F, as measured at Andover 1 N station (2010-2019). Mean monthly temperatures vary from 12.4°F in January to 71.9°F in July (2010-2019). For the 1981-2010 climate normal period, the average frost -free period (growing season) is approximately 157 days. Table 2-1 summarizes monthly precipitation data near the City of Anoka based on the Minnesota Climatology Working Group gridded precipitation dataset for the most recent complete climate normal period (1981-2010) and 10 year period (2010-2019). Average total annual precipitation is 34.3 inches (2010-2019). The mean monthly precipitation varies from 4.4 inches in July to 0.7 inches in February (2010-2019). From May to September, the growing season months, the average rainfall (2010-2019) is 22.0 inches, or about 65% of the average annual precipitation. Snowfall averaged 59.4 inches annually at the Cedar, MN station during the 1981-2010 climate normal period. Additional information about local and regional climate is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) State Climatology office and NOAA at: • Minnesota State Climatology Office: httt3s-//www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/index.htrnI • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC): https //www ncdc noaa ciovlcdo-web/ M Table 2-1 Climate and Precipitation Data Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group gridded precipitation dataset (precipitation); NOAA normal summaries, Cedar, MN station (1981-2010 temperature); NWS, Andover 1N station (2010-2019 temperature) 2.1.1 Precipitation -Frequency Data (Atlas 14) The amount, rate, and type of precipitation are important in determining flood levels and stormwater runoff rates. While average weather poses little risk to human health and property, extreme precipitation events may result in flooding that threatens infrastructure and public safety. NOAA published Atlas 14, Volume 8, in 2013. Atlas 14 is the primary source of information regarding rainfall amounts and frequency in Minnesota. Atlas 14 provides estimates of precipitation depth (i.e., total rainfall in inches) and intensity (i.e., depth of rainfall over a specified period) for durations from 5 minutes up to 60 days. Atlas 14 supersedes publications Technical Paper 40 (TP -40) and Technical Paper 49 (TP -49) issued by the National Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service) in 1961 and 1964, respectively. Atlas 14 improvements in precipitation estimates include denser data networks, longer (and more recent) periods of record, application of regional frequency analysis, and new techniques in spatial interpolation and mapping. Comparison of precipitation depths between TP -40 and Atlas 14 indicates increased precipitation depths for more extreme (i.e., less frequent) events. Table 2-2 lists selected rainfall events for the District. Runoff from spring snowmelt is not provided in Atlas 14 and current regional snowmelt runoff data is not available (Minnesota Stormwater Manual, 2019). However, snowmelt and rainstorms occurring during snowmelt in early spring are significant in this region. The volumes of runoff generated, although they 2-2 L10-2019 Mean Temperature (F) 124 r0 Precipitation (inches) 0.60 2010-2019 Precipitation (inches) 0.83 January 139 February 19.2 15.2 1.15 0.71 March 31.4 30.4 1.41 1.71 April 46.4 42.9 3.30 2.75 May 58.1 56.9 5.23 3.60 June 66.3 66.9 4.72 4.36 July 70.9 71.9 4.88 3.92 August 68.6 68.8 3.98 4.22 September 60.2 61.2 3.18 3.50 October 47.7 47.1 2.85 2.57 November 32.2 31.3 1.50 1.77 December 18 19A 1.51 1.07 Total 44.4 43.6 31.01 34.31 Source: Minnesota Climatology Working Group gridded precipitation dataset (precipitation); NOAA normal summaries, Cedar, MN station (1981-2010 temperature); NWS, Andover 1N station (2010-2019 temperature) 2.1.1 Precipitation -Frequency Data (Atlas 14) The amount, rate, and type of precipitation are important in determining flood levels and stormwater runoff rates. While average weather poses little risk to human health and property, extreme precipitation events may result in flooding that threatens infrastructure and public safety. NOAA published Atlas 14, Volume 8, in 2013. Atlas 14 is the primary source of information regarding rainfall amounts and frequency in Minnesota. Atlas 14 provides estimates of precipitation depth (i.e., total rainfall in inches) and intensity (i.e., depth of rainfall over a specified period) for durations from 5 minutes up to 60 days. Atlas 14 supersedes publications Technical Paper 40 (TP -40) and Technical Paper 49 (TP -49) issued by the National Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service) in 1961 and 1964, respectively. Atlas 14 improvements in precipitation estimates include denser data networks, longer (and more recent) periods of record, application of regional frequency analysis, and new techniques in spatial interpolation and mapping. Comparison of precipitation depths between TP -40 and Atlas 14 indicates increased precipitation depths for more extreme (i.e., less frequent) events. Table 2-2 lists selected rainfall events for the District. Runoff from spring snowmelt is not provided in Atlas 14 and current regional snowmelt runoff data is not available (Minnesota Stormwater Manual, 2019). However, snowmelt and rainstorms occurring during snowmelt in early spring are significant in this region. The volumes of runoff generated, although they 2-2 occur over a long period, can have significant impacts where the contributing drainage area to a lake or pond is large and the outlet is small. Table 2-2 Selected Rainfall Events Used for Design Purposes 2 -year 24 hour 2.80 5 -year 24 hour 3.49 10 -year 24 hour 4.18 25 -year `c 24 hour 5.29 50 -year 24 hour 6.29 100 -year 24 hour 7.40 10 -year 10 day 6.62 100 -year 10 day 9.95 Source: NOAA Atlas 14- Volume 8. Station: Saint Paul - Station 21-7377 These depths reflect the 50% exceedance limit. 2.1.2 Climate Trends and Future Precipitation There are typically wide variations in climate conditions in the District. However, climatologists have found four significant recent climate trends in the Upper Midwest (NOAA, 2013): • Warmer winters—decline in severity and frequency of severe cold; warming periods leading to mid -winter snowmelt • Higher minimum temperatures • Higher dew points • Changes in precipitation trends - more rainfall is coming from heavy thunderstorm events and increased snowfall According to NOAA's 2013 assessment of climate trends for the Midwest, annual and summer precipitation amounts in the Midwest are trending upward, as is the frequency of high intensity storms. Annual precipitation at the University of Minnesota -Saint Paul averaged 35.9 inches from 2010-2019, a 3.7 inch increase over the 1981-2010 climate normal. Annual precipitation exceeded the 1981-2010 climate normal average (32.2 inches) in 7 of 8 years since 2010. Higher intensity precipitation events typically produce more runoff than lower intensity events with similar total precipitation amounts; higher rainfall intensities are more likely to overwhelm the capacity of the land surface to infiltrate and attenuate runoff. Climate normal data available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources indicates annual precipitation is increasing within the Minneapolis -Saint Paul metropolitan area by approximately 0.31 inches per decade (see Figure 2-1). 2-3 Precipitation Trends over 30 -Year Climate Normal Periods 35 34 33 Average annual precipitation is increasing at approximately 0.31 32 inchesperdecade. 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 1901-1930 1911-1940 1921-1950 1931-1960 1941-1970 1951-1980 1961-1990 1971-2000 1981-2010 Figure 2-1 Trends in Average Annual Precipitation (Twin Cities Region) The study of long-term extreme weather trends found that precipitation amounts are predicted to increase significantly over what is historically used in floodplain assessments and infrastructure design. Recent work completed by the University of Minnesota (Moore et al., 2016) provides information useful to consider long-term extreme weather trends in the region. A range of estimates for the mid -21 st century 100 -year 24-hour rainfall event were identified. The lower estimate for the mid -21st century 100 -year, 24-hour rainfall estimate was approximately 7.3 inches, which is similar to the current mean 100 -year rainfall depth published in Atlas 14 (7.8 inches). The middle estimate is 10.2 inches, which is similar to the upper limits of the Atlas 14 90 -percent confidence limits for the 100 -year rainfall depth (10.4 inches). Upper estimates of mid -21st century 100 -year 24-hour rainfall exceed the 90 -percent confidence limits of Atlas 14. Additional information about climate change is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/climate change info/index.html 2-4 2.2 Topography and Drainage The topography of the watershed is gently rolling to flat. There are many shallow lakes, ponds, and wetlands in the watershed owing in part to a surficial water table that is generally close to the ground surface (see Section 0). The local topographic gradient slopes from the northwest and northeast portions of the watershed towards the Rum River, and from the northeast to the southwest towards the Mississippi River. High ground in the northwest and northeast portions of the watershed reach heights of approximately 920 feet MSL. The minimum elevation of approximately 830 feet occurs the downstream boundary with the Mississippi River. LiDAR elevation data collected in 2011 by the MDNR is presented in Figure 2-2. The LRRWMO includes portions of 13 MDNR level 8 watersheds. MDNR level 8 watersheds located within the LRRWMO are shown in Figure 2-2 and summarized in Table 3-3. The Plan name refers to the name assigned to each level 8 watershed for LRRWMO resource management purposes; the HUC12 name assigned to each level 8 watershed is also noted. These watershed divides are generally consistent with those used for water quality modeling document in the Rum River WRAPS study (see Section 2.7.4.1). Table 3-3 MDNR Level 8 Watersheds within the LRRWMO Plan Watershed LRRWMO ID 19'r HUC12 Name Mississippi Direct 5,437 2004100 City of Anoka - Mississippi River Itasca Lake 1,373 2004101 Coon Rapids Dam 250 2005600 Coon Rapids Dam - Mississippi River Lower Coon Creek 183 2005800 Lower Coon Creek Trott Brook 4,993 2105200 Trott Brook Trott Brook North 1,313 2109400 Ford Brook 733 2109300 Ford Brook City of St Francis -Rum River 164 2109500 City of St. Francis -Rum River Lower Cedar Creek 547 2109700 Lower Cedar Creek Ward Lake -Lower Cedar Creek 3,739 2109900 Rum River North 4,432 2110000 Rum River Rum River South 11,418 2110100 Sunfish Lake 1,677 2110101 Source: MNDR level 8 watersheds (area reflects area within LRRWMO legal boundary) 2-5 io.nn=" IIFY OF ST. aANCIS-RUM RIvFR I \ -RUM RIVER o... c.o.. t0—Eli LNUWER 1 DA" It y CEDAR CR EI( CREEK r,r W R LAtOwr KE lF- CEO AR CRI 1 h jwl nor". iv M SUNFISH I - LAKE _ R M RIVt: 5E),I�li)I • / t Champlin County Boundary call, 6athel -..i Municipal Boundary �M�,/ River W ( Watershed Boundary Iaevation (m) High (315 m) Low (250 m) Foix,mphy Sou¢c USG5 Niumnol 11,-Ima Da.1 I. hone Dual. i TOPOGRAPHY AN DRAINAGE PATTER 2021 LRRWMO Water Management Plar 2.3 Land Use The Lower Rum River Watershed, in south-central Anoka County, is on the northern edge of the metropolitan area. Land use within the watershed (2016 data provided by the Metropolitan Council) is summarized in Table 3-4 and Figure 2-3. The development that has occurred within the LRRWMO boundary has generally consisted of from agricultural to rural residential land use. Agricultural land use now occupies less than 10% of the watershed, while single family residential land use occupies approximately 40% of the watershed. A significant portion (about 33%) of the watershed remains undeveloped. Continued development of open space for residential, commercial, and other uses is anticipated over the next twenty years; additional information is available in the 2040 comprehensive plans for the cities of Andover, Anoka, and Ramsey. Estimated 2040 land use available from the Metropolitan Council is presented in Figure 2-4. The development of open space for residential or other land uses typically increases the amount of impervious surfaces (i.e., surfaces through which water cannot infiltrate), increasing the volume of stormwater runoff and associated pollutant loading. Thus, the continued implementation of stormwater performance standards for development (see Appendix E) continue to be an important means of mitigating future water quality and water quantity issues (see Section 5.3.2.1). Table 3-4 Existing Land Use (2016) Source: Check with Eddie 2-7 Agricultural or Farmstead 2,976 8.2% Commercial or Retail 478 1.3% Golf Course 466 1.3% Industrial and Utility 1,006 2.8% Institutional 669 1.8% Mixed Use 168 0.5% Open Water 1,425 3.9% Park Recreational, or Preserve 2,955 8.1% Residential, Single Family 13,582 37.3% Residential, Multifamily 183 0.5% Transportation (Highway, Rail) 389 1.1% Undeveloped 12,019 33.0% Other 78 0.2% Total 36,394 100.0% Source: Check with Eddie 2-7 OCounty Boundary r ._ _,j Municipal Boundary Ir ^� River Future Land Use Agricultural f • Rural or large-Lot _ Residential r� �' r — • Single Family Residential r - Multifamily Residential T , - Commercial ' — Industrial • lll��••rr1 - - Institutional - l - Mixed Use Multi-Optional -Development - I - Park and Recreation a Lim-,• - Open Space or 0 — N Restrictive Use { (: r,• y � Rights-of-Way ( f Ii r, Roads) Railway (mc LRT) l f Open waml -- ( (bru S�u.�e aeNrr��r�rl l•Irlrriw�l lurid Vv /wrnl rM1ra Mrlrnlnlrl��n Arne f 11 Melrrip�lllun (wm�I ln.M f .f I 1 ' o.am r] L500 SOW � i � � Coun ll.r P••I. .Lvni ti 1 1 CI I•Irrl m I SRR _`rte 2.4 Soils Soil composition and slope are important factors affecting the rate and volume of stormwater runoff. The shape and stability of aggregates of soil particles—expressed as soil structure—influence the permeability, infiltration rate, and erodibility (i.e., potential for erosion) of soils. Slope is important in determining stormwater runoff rates and susceptibility to erosion. Soils present within the watershed generally belong to the following associations, as described in the Anoka County Soil Survey (There are two general soil associations in the watershed (Source: Anoka County Soil Survey), a description of each association follows. The Hubbard-Nymore association is a nearly -level to gently sloping outwash plain which covers most of the watershed. The association is dissected by well-defined drainageways. Because it is sandy throughout, the association is well suited for urban development, in fact, most of the area covered by this soil is already developed. The Zimmerman-Isanti-Lino association is level to undulating and dominated by fine sands. This association generally covers the City of Andover northeast of Round Lake. The sandplain has a naturally occurring high water table. Most of this association is urbanized, although the high water table has limited uses in some areas. Soil infiltration capacity affects the amount of direct runoff resulting from rainfall. Higher infiltration rates result in lower potential for runoff, as more precipitation is able to enter the soil. Conversely, soils with low infiltration rates produce high runoff volumes and high peak discharge rates, as most or all of the rainfall moves as overland flow. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS – formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has established four general hydrologic soil groups (HSGs). These groups are: Hydrologic Soil Group A—(Low runoff potential): Group A soils have a high infiltration rate and are typically composed of more than 90% sand and gravel. Hydrologic Soil Group B—(Moderately low runoff potential): Group B soils have a moderate infiltration rate and are typically composed of 50-90% sand. Hydrologic Soil Group C—(Moderately high runoff potential): Group C soils have a slow infiltration rate and are composed of less than 50% sand. Hydrologic Soil Group D—(High runoff potential): Group D soils have a very slow infiltration rate and are composed of more than 40% clay. These soils have a combination of high swelling potential, a permanently high water table, and a clay layer at or near the surface. Dual HSGs (types A/D, B/D, and C/D) are soils that are considered D soils primarily because of a high water table. However, if the soil were drained it would be classified into a different group. The second group listed for dual HSG soils is for an undrained condition. For the purpose of evaluating infiltration 2-10 capacity, dual HSGs are usually considered as D soils. The most current soils data within the watershed are based on the Soil Survey Geographic dataset (SSURGO) from the NRCS and are presented in Figure 2-5. Portions of the watershed are not rated with respect to HSG. The "Not Rated/Not Available" classification is typically assigned to areas where development has altered the existing soil, or data were unavailable prior to development. Development may increase the potential for high volumes of runoff. As land is developed for urban use, much of the soil is covered with impervious surfaces, and soils in the remaining areas are significantly disturbed and altered. Development often results in consolidation of the soil and tends to reduce infiltration capacity of otherwise permeable soils, resulting in significantly greater amounts of runoff. Grading, plantings, and tended lawns tend to dominate the pervious landscape in urbanized areas and may become more important factors in runoff generation than the original soil type. Figure 2-5 provides general guidance about the infiltration capacity of soils. Site specific data such as geologic borings, piezometers, and other engineering studies are necessary to evaluate soil infiltration capacity for individual project sites. 2-11 0 HYDROLOGIC SOILGROUPS 2021 LRRWMO Watershed Management Plan 2.5 Geology 2.5.1 Surficial Geology The geology of the watershed includes consolidated bedrock formations overlain by unconsolidated glacial sediments (also known as quaternary deposits). Unconsolidated glacial sediments are from glacial deposits left from the quaternary geologic period and modified by post -glacial erosion and soil formation processes. Most of the quaternary deposits in the watershed were deposited approximately 12,000 to 20,000 years ago by the Des Moines lobe (Grantsburg sublobe) of the Wisconsin Glaciation (the most recent local glacial episode) (Meyer and Swanson, 1992). The Grantsburg Sublobe deposited a silty till that was reworked by glacial meltwater over much of the watershed into sand plain, sandy lacustrine and valley train deposits. These glacial deposits, along with older, buried glacial deposits, range from 100 to 250 feet in thickness within the watershed. The watershed is almost entirely located within the Anoka sand plain, a flat, sandy lake plain and terraces along the Mississippi River. This is a highly permeable sand layer with generally high water table. More information about the surficial geology of the LRRWMO is available from the Anoka County Geologic Atlas at: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/116119 2.5.2 Bedrock Geology Consolidated bedrock formations (bedrock deposits) are much older and lie below the glacial deposits. They include overlapping sequence of sandstones, limestones, dolostones, and shales. Most bedrock units in the watershed were deposited during the Paleozoic era marine environments about 450 to 530 million years ago. The uppermost layer of bedrock varies with location but is generally belongs to the St. Lawrence formation or Tunnel City group (formerly Franconia formation). Buried bedrock valleys that cut down to the Wonewoc sandstone and Eau Claire formation occur in the north and southeast portions of the watershed (reference geologic atlas). The Eau Claire Formation acts as a confining unit between the overlying Wonewoc sandstones and the underlying Mt. Simon Sandstone -Hinckley Sandstone aquifer. 2-13 Table 3.5 Bedrock geology characteristics Geolog Mscrpton =De Water -Bearing Characteristics May yield small supplies for Glacial Drift 100-250 Till, sand, gravel, lake deposits domestic use St. Lawrence 40-50 Dolomitic siltstone and Confining bed with little yield Formation sandstone Tunnel City May yield small supplies for 140-180 Fine to very fine grain Group limited use Wonewoc Fine to coarse grain, A significant aquifer within the Sandstone 50-60 moderately sorted sandstone LRRWMO watershed Eau Claire Fine grained sandstone, 75-80 Confining bed with little yield Sandstone siltstone and shale Mount Simon A significant aquifer in the Twin Sandstone 125-200 Medium to coarse grain Cities metropolitan area Source: Anoka County Geologic Atlas More information about the bedrock geology of the LRRWMO is available from the Anoka County Geologic Atlas at: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/l 1299/116119 2.6 Groundwater The glacial and bedrock deposits form layered sequence of aquifers and confining unit. An aquifer is a geologic formation capable of supplying sufficient quantities of water to a well. A confining unit is a geologic deposit that impedes the flow of water between aquifers (see also the Anoka County Geologic Atlas (Setterholm, 2013)). The uppermost aquifers in the LRRWMO are glacial deposits. Glacial aquifers (also known as surficial aquifers) include the water table and buried glacial aquifers, which are primarily used for domestic purposes. Glacial aquifers are variable in location and yield. Groundwater quality in glacial aquifers is often correlated to the quality of the water that is infiltrating at the surface. The regional groundwater flow within the surficial aquifers and glacial drift is generally to the south, except near the Rum River where ground water tends to flow toward these surface waters. The Rum River is predominately a discharge area for groundwater. Areas not near the Rum River are predominately groundwater recharge areas (see Section 2.6.1). Most high-capacity wells draw water from bedrock aquifers. The bedrock aquifers within the District include the following: • Tunnel City-wonewoc Aquifer (formerly Franconia-Ironton-Galeville Aquifer) — This aquifer includes three hydrogeologically connected layers. Groundwater flow in this aquifer is generally from towards the Mississippi River. Within this aquifer, the hydraulic conductivity is variable. This 2-14 aquifer generally has moderate to low yield; wells completed within this aquifer may be capable of producing up to several hundred gallons of water per minute. Many wells within the LRRWMO utilize this source (MDNR, 2016), including some municipal wells. • Mt. Simon -Hinckley Aquifer — This aquifer underlies all of Anoka County and is composed of fine- and coarse-grained sandstone. Groundwater flow is generally south towards a cone of depression formed by pumping in Hennepin County. The aquifer has moderate to high yield, low vulnerability to contamination, and is used in the watershed for municipal drinking water supplies. The MDNR has placed restrictions on the placement of wells within the Mt. Simon in the Metropolitan Area. The Metropolitan Council completed the Regional Water Supply, Enhanced Groundwater Recharge, and Stormwater Capture and Reuse Study for the Northwest Metro Study Area in 2018. Groundwater modeling performed as part of the study estimates future impacts to local aquifers from continued development of groundwater sources, including up to 30 feet of decline in the Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifer by 2040 that may limit the availability of groundwater resources in the future. Users of groundwater meeting certain use criteria are required to obtain a water appropriations permit from the MDNR; more information is available from: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/Watermqmt section/appropriations/index html Additional information about the aquifers within the watershed is available from the following sources: • Regional Hydrogeologic Assessment (RHA) of the Anoka Sand Plain (MDNR, 1993), available at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/programs/qw section/mapping/platesum/rha asp html • Anoka County Geologic Atlas, Part B — Hydrogeology (MDNR, 2016), available at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/Waters/procirams/(iw section/mapping/platesum/anokcga html • Metropolitan Council Water Supply Planning, available at: https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater- Water/Planning/Water-Supply-Planning aspx 2.6.1 Groundwater Recharge Recharge to groundwater occurs throughout the watershed. The local surfiicial geologic characteristics affect the rate, volume, and distribution of recharge. Water infiltrates most rapidly into sandy deposits and flows easily through sandy materials; clay deposits tend to slow and impede infiltration and subsurface flows. Relative to natural conditions, impervious surfaces (e.g., buildings, streets, parking lots) in developed areas have reduced the amount of open space and decreased the amount of land available to infiltrate runoff and recharge groundwater. Surficial aquifers usually have higher static water levels than deeper aquifers, indicating that water flows downward into the aquifer system and that surficial aquifers help recharge deeper aquifer systems. Deeper bedrock aquifers are recharged through bedrock valleys, leakage through confining layers, fractures in tills and confining layers, improperly constructed wells, and other areas where good hydraulic connections and unforeseen flowpaths exist with upper aquifer units. 2-15 Groundwater recharge reaches the water table (i.e., quaternary or surficial aquifer) at a fast rate through sandy geologic deposits. The location of the watershed within the Anoka sand plain creates the potential for high infiltration rates throughout the LRRWMO and associated groundwater contamination from pollutants carried from the ground surface. The sensitivity of the surficial aquifer to contamination was assessed as part of the MDNR's 1993 Regional Hydrogeologic Assessment (RHA) and is presented in Figure 2-6. Management of stormwater runoff in the watershed must consider and the ease with which contaminants will enter the system and be transported through it. 2.6.2 Drinking Water Supply, Wellhead Protection, and Pollution Prevention Residents within the LRRWMO obtain their drinking water from municipal groundwater wells and private domestic wells. Approximately 50% of the cities of Andover and Ramsey, and all of Anoka, are served by municipal systems. Most private wells are located in the surficial aquifer, which is sensitive to contamination within the watershed (see Figure 2-6). Municipal wells within the LRRWMO tap the Mt. Simon aquifer, Tunnel City-Wonewoc aquifer, and as well as the surficial aquifer. In 1989 the state of Minnesota instituted the Minnesota Groundwater Protection Act, which identified the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) as responsible for the protection of groundwater quality. Through its wellhead protection program, the MDH administers and enforces the Minnesota Water Well Code, which regulates activities such as well abandonment and installation of new wells. The MDH also administers the Wellhead Protection Program, which is aimed at preventing contaminants from entering the recharge zones of public well supplies. In 1997, the Wellhead Protection Program rules (Minnesota Rules 4720.5100 to 4720.5590) went into effect. Some public water suppliers are required to prepare wellhead protection plans (WHPPs), including the Cities of Andover, Anoka, and Ramsey. Through these wellhead protection plans, public water suppliers delineate drinking water supply management areas (DWSMA) for groundwater wells, assess the water supply's susceptibility to contamination from activities on the land surface, and establish management programs, such as identification and sealing of abandoned wells and education/public awareness programs. The DWSMA represents the boundaries of the recharge area to the well and is the area to be protected and managed by the wellhead protection plan. DWSMAs located within the LRRWMO are presented in Figure 2-7. The LRRWMO and its cities rely on infiltration practices to improve water quality and reduce stormwater volumes. Thus, the LRRWMO will continue to consider the possible impacts of infiltrated stormwater on groundwater quality. The MDH and MPGA also provide guidance for evaluating infiltration projects in areas with vulnerable groundwater supplies; the guidance considers the presence of wellhead protection areas, aquifer characteristics, land use, and other factors. This guidance is available from the MPCA website: httr)s://stormwater,pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Stormwater and wellhead protection The LRRWMO is located within the source water protection area of the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. These cities draw drinking water from the Mississippi River approximately 16 miles downstream from the LRRWMO. Source water protection planning for these cities is being coordinated by the Minnesota Rural Water Association (MRWA). The cities of Andover, Anoka, and Ramsey are members of the MRWA. The LRRWMO, through its policies, regulations, and implementation actions will continue to promote the protection and improvement of water drinking supplies downstream of the LRRWMO. Additional information regarding groundwater resource protection and management is available from the following sources: • 2020 Anoka County Water Resources Report, available at: https://www.a nokacounty.us/Docu mentCenter/View/5631 /Water-Resou rces-Report-2020 • Metropolitan Council Water Supply Planning, available at: https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater- Water/Planning/Water-Supply-Planning.asox 2-17 2.6.4 Groundwater Monitoring Limited groundwater monitoring data is available within the watershed. The MPCA also implements a groundwater quality monitoring program; the program focuses on quaternary aquifers located throughout the state, including those used by private and municipal wells within the LRRWMO. Groundwater quality monitoring locations within the LRRWMO are presented in Figure 2-10. Groundwater quality monitoring information and data is available online from the MPCA at: httIDS7//WWW.12ca.state.mn.us/water/ciroundwater-monitoring The MDNR also coordinates an observation well network and collects static groundwater -level data to assess groundwater resources, determine long term trends, interpret impacts of pumping and climate, plan for water conservation, and evaluate water conflicts. The observation well network includes one well located within the LRRWMO (see Figure 2-10). More information is available from the MDNR at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/cqm/program.htm] 2.6.5 Groundwater Quality Long-term data for analyzing groundwater quality trends in the LRRWMO is limited. MDH tests water quality of several municipal drinking supply wells in Anoka County, but often only after treatment. Water quality testing for residential wells is available through Anoka County. Few studies have been completed, including the 1993 report "Effects of agricultural and residential land use on ground -water quality, Anoka Sand Plain Aquifer, east -central Minnesota" (LISGS, 1993). Groundwater quality and data is available online from the MPCA at: htti2s://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater-monitoring Groundwater contamination has also been confirmed at landfill sites (e.g. the Anoka -Ramsey Landfill in Ramsey and the Waste Disposal Engineering Landfill in Andover) (Anoka County, 2020). Other potential sources of groundwater contamination in the watershed include: commercial and industrial waste disposal, landfills, leaking petroleum tanks, unsealed wells, non-compliant subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), fertilizer/pesticide applications, animal waste, and road salt application (see also Section 2.10). Emerging contaminants include pharmaceuticals, industrial effluents, personal care products, fire retardants, and other items that are washed down drains and not able to be processed by municipal wastewater treatment plants or septic systems. 2.7 Surface Water Resource Data The LRRWMO is located upstream of the confluence of the Rum River and the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River forms much of the south and west boundary of the LRRWMO and is a major regional resource serving power generation, recreation, navigation, and ecological functions. Additionally, the Rum River is a significant regional resource serving recreational and ecological functions. Development within the cities of Andover, Anoka, and Ramsey has resulted in alterations to the natural hydrologic system. To facilitate development, natural drainages have been diverted or piped, wetlands had been drained or filled, and stormwater infrastructure was constructed. Still, many natural hydrologic features remain in the watershed. 2-20 The natural and altered hydrologic features present in the watershed are divided into the subwatersheds (MDNR level 8) presented in Figure 2-2. Surface waters classified by the MDNR as public waters are presented in Figure 2-8. The MDNR designates certain water resources as public waters to indicate those lakes, wetlands, and watercourses over which the MDNR has regulatory jurisdiction. By statute the definition of public waters includes both "public waters" and "public waters wetlands." The collection of public waters and public waters wetlands designated by the MDNR is generally referred to as the public waters inventory, or PWI. Public waters are all water basins (i.e., lakes, ponds, wetlands) and watercourses (i.e., streams, rivers) that meet the criteria set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.005, Subd. 15 that are identified on public water inventory maps and lists authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.201. The regulatory boundary of public waters and public water wetlands is called the ordinary high water level (OHWL). For watercourses, the OHW is generally the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. A MDNR permit is required for work within designated public waters. Additionally, shoreland development requirements may exist for public waters with shoreland classifications. Table 3-6 summarizes the public waters located within the watershed. PWI maps and lists are available on the MDNR's website: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermamt section/pwi/maps.html. 2-21 Table 3-6 Major Public Waters within the LRRWMO Source: MDNR Public Waters Inventory (1) Length within the LRRWMO (2) Approximately 15 acres of Round Lake is located within the LRRWMO 2-22 • Natural Ward Lake 02-008593 -- p 883.7 Environment Recreational Round Lake 02-0089 352 — p 866.4 X Development Rogers Lake 02-0104 452 -- p Natural 883.9 X Environment Natural Lake Itasca 02-0110 122 -- P 871.4 Environment Natural Jeglens Marsh 02-0111 89 __ p 870.5 Environment Grass Lake Natural (Sunfish Lake) 02-0113 36 _ W Environment 861.6 X Unnamed 02-0114 131 -- p Natural Environment Rum River 109010 — 13.8 _ Scenic or Varies X Recreation River Trott Brook 109012 -- 6.4 -- -- Varies Ford Brook 109013 — 1.2 — — Varies Cedar Creek 109015 -- 0.9 — -- Varies Source: MDNR Public Waters Inventory (1) Length within the LRRWMO (2) Approximately 15 acres of Round Lake is located within the LRRWMO 2-22 �F IAD�C,44 4v yyI 1 1 int•. �raX••• l 'S `:a= l J �P¢1 ps.• — -. 11 1 a BARR m' Q m County Boundary / _ i Municipal Boundary Public Water Inventory Basin Publ r Water Inventory Watercourse' Ditch Owned By P 1, Anoka County' Ditch Owned By LRRWMO° I M$W. nmwM pePa alNoturvl Rewurtn rt Public .,, (PWJ Bo[norW Wafertourse Oelireanan 1010 Anota CWnry QPPAA[fPti G/$ � llmu.nneuM 101E/1pM 2.7.1 LRRWMO Priority Waters There are many public waters within the LRRWMO (see Figure 2-8); the LRRMWO lacks the capacity to monitor and manage all of these resources. Therefore, the LRRWMO has classified the following public waters as LRRWMO priority waters: • Round Lake • Grass Lake (Sunfish Lake) • Rogers Lake • Rum River These waters have been classified as priority waters due to a combination of recreational use and value, ecological function and quality, and local priorities. As priority waters, the LRRWMO has established measurable goals for these resources (see Section 4.1) and identified implementation activities (see Table 5-1) to manage these resources. The LRRWMO also cooperates with the Anoka Conservation District (ACD), MPCA, and others to monitor the water quality of these resources. Omission of a waterbody from the LRRWMO priority waters list does not prevent or prohibit the LRRWMO from taking action to manage these waterbodies, if need should arise. 2.7.2 Wetlands Wetlands in the LRRWMO are important community and ecological assets. Wetlands provide recreational value, runoff storage and retention, nutrient and sediment reduction, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat benefits. To protect these valuable resources, the LRRWMO and its member cities cooperate to manage wetlands to achieve no net loss of acreage, functions, and value. Within the watershed, the LRRWMO serves as the Local Government Unit (LGU) responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) (except for on Minnesota Department of Transportation projects). The LRRWMO's wetland permitting role is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.3.2.1. More information about WCA guidance is provided at the BWSR website: https://bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands-regulation-minnesota The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) maintains an inventory of wetlands known as the National Wetland Inventory (NWI). Wetlands identified in the NWI are presented in Figure 2-9. The NWI is periodically updated and was last updated for the area of the LRRWMO in 2013. The City of Ramsey has completed a detailed wetlands inventory (284 wetlands), including functions and values assessment (using MnRAM 3.0 methodology). Additional detail is available in the Ramsey Surface Water Management Plan (2018). Wetlands within the cities of Andover and Anoka are inventoried on an individual basis as part of development proposals. The LRRWMO requires functional values of wetlands to be assessed on a case by case basis, by each municipality, for any wetland impacts proposed in the watershed, including projects requiring an LRRWMO permit (see Section 5.3.2.1.). The LRRWMO requires the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM), version 3.2 or the most current version, is to be used to identify the functional value of wetlands within the watershed. Information about wetland functional assessment is available from BWSR are: www.bwsr.state.mn-us/tyetlands/mnram/index.html. 2-24 - '_ 41ani Gike ' �`, �' )"( ��,�" � L ,.{• t e �, :�. �.�y,. bye p.' M t. - — { SCAPI H1Vtq�f _ i -' i i � r ® ! i n f� G SOW S seat 'L County Boundary o:n e.o,:.�„ xon�oi e I _. i Municipal Boundary National Wetlands Inventory Freshwater Emergent K _ Wetland Freshwater Forested/ K Shrub Wetland ' _ K Riverine k. K Freshwater Pond a K Lake wedanes I - i i -...1.ma'aawl 1nmy. us. r,:h and Wadll/e semen. - '_ 41ani Gike ' �`, �' )"( ��,�" � L ,.{• t e �, :�. �.�y,. bye p.' M t. - — { SCAPI H1Vtq�f _ i -' i i � r ® ! i n f� G SOW S seat 2.7.3 Surface Water Monitoring and Modeling Surface water quality data exists for many of the water bodies within the watershed. Several agencies have instituted programs based on particular needs, including: • Anoka Conservation District (ACD) • Metropolitan Council • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Monitoring parameters vary by monitoring program, but may include: • Water chemistry (e.g., phosphorus, total suspended solids, chloride) • Biological data (e.g., indices of biological integrity, macroinvertebrates, fish inventories) • Hydrologic data (e.g., flow, water level) Monitoring locations within the watershed are presented in Figure 2-10. Much of the historical monitoring data for the watershed is available from the MPCA's Environmental Data Access (EDA) database at: hftps://www.pca.state.mn.us/eda-surface-water-data The Anoka Conservation District presently monitors water chemistry, biological, and physical parameters in several LRRWMO waterbodies (see Table 3-7). The ACD monitors the water quality of Round Lake and the Rum River annually, while Grass (Sunfish) Lake water quality is monitored every two years. The ACD also sponsors biomonitoring of invertebrates of the Rum River is done in the spring and fall of each year. The ACD also performs targeted monitoring studies to address specific water quality and quantity issues. Additional detail regarding the ACD monitoring programs, methods, and results are available from the ACD website at: htti)S71LWWW.anokaswcd.org/technical-support html Table 3-7 Anoka Conservation District (ACD) surface water monitoring in LRRWMO WaIfforal Chloro- Trans- Total Resource Nameosph- Lephyll-a rus Suspend parency Solids i0 gicat =SOMEONE Source: ACD 2019 Water Almanac; the table does not include all monitored parameters (1) Round Lake and Rum River are monitored annually, Grass (Sunfish) Lake is monitored every 2 years 2-26 Historical lake level data for Grass (Sunfish) Lake, Rogers Lake, Round Lake, and Lake Itasca is also available from the MDNR's Lakefinder website at: httos://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/index.html Data collected for the Mississippi River in the Twin Cities Metro Area has been summarized by the MPCA and is available at: httos://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/watersheds/mississippi-river-twin-cities Water quality modeling performed in support of the Rum River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies Report (MPCA, 2017, see Section 2.7.4.1) includes most of the area of the LRRWMO. An HSPF model was used to estimate unit area pollutant loading estimates (e.g., lbs of total phosphorus/acre/year) at approximately the HUC12 subwtershed level. Estimates of total phosphorus loading and sediment loading are presented in Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-12, respectively. Additional information about water quality analyses performed in the larger Rum River watershed is available from the MPCA at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/watersheds/rum-river 2-27 I r.. 9 t;. , y, V �, � - ,r`jO•t � � l — 3 m Q County Boundary �,.__I Municipal Boundary ^, River Surface Water Monitoring Station • Biological Discharge • lake O Stream 1;1 USGS oom Saarte..—. rouar�an Caned Agen[ Sur/ v Warw R.— Mx Fh.wnmenmioam A¢ax AttrsxM 9/30/2020 O 0 2500 iIXq v reel 80 S v S� Sf pPl R1Vtq I RUM RIVER c� 4wor•r Sediment Loading Itislacm/year e„I emna less than 60 1 60 to 80 —] 80 to 100 J1 100 to 120 f� 120 to 140 - Mrs then 140 LACounty Boundary .._. i t.._j MUNcipal Boundary WRAPS Mrl prouded b/MPCA MPCA 11 11/101O Il.iin Wkr o aO s,000 ekme D 2.7.4 Water Quality and Impaired Waters The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to adopt water quality standards to protect the nation's waters. Water quality standards establish criteria that must be met to support its designated use(s). The criteria differ depending on the waterbody's classification as a wetland, shallow lake, deep lake, or river. Per the CWA, the state of Minnesota must identify and establish priority rankings for impaired waters that do not meet the water quality standards. The list of impaired waters, sometimes called the 303(d) list, is maintained by the MPCA and updated every 2 years. For impaired waterbodies, the CWA requires an assessment that addresses the causes and sources of the impairment. This process is known as a total maximum daily load (TMDL) analysis. A TMDL is a threshold calculation of the amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. A TMDL establishes the pollutant loading capacity for a waterbody and develops an allocation scheme amongst the various contributors, which include point sources, nonpoint sources and natural background, as well as a margin of safety. As a part of the allocation scheme, a waste load allocation (WLA) is developed to determine allowable pollutant loadings from individual point sources (including loads from storm sewer networks in MS4 communities), and a load allocation (LA) establishes allowable pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources and natural background levels in a waterbody. Within the LRRWMO, Cedar Creek, Trott Brook, the Rum River, and the Mississippi River are listed on the 2020 MPCA impaired waters 303(d) list for a variety of impairments (see Table 2-8). Completed TMDLs and associated implementation plans may contain actionable steps for the cities within the LRRWMO to address these impairments. The LRRWMO coordinates with its member cities, ACD, and other partners to identify activities to address these impairments, where appropriate. Current impaired waters listings are available from the MCPA website: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/min nesotas-impai red -waters -list Select state water quality standards for LRRWMO priority waterbodies are presented in Table 2-9. Water quality standards vary according to lake depth and location (the LRRWMO is located in the North Central Hardwood Forest, or NCHF, ego -region and central river nutrient region). Note that the LRRWMO has more stringent water quality goals for priority waterbodies (see Section 4.1) 2-31 Table 2-8 Impaired Waters within the LRRWMO Waterbody Impaired Use Pollutant or Stressor Year Listed TIVIDL Study Target TIVIDL Study Approved Cedar Creek Aquatic E. Coli 2016 Completion 2018 -- Recreation Dissolved Oxygen 2016 -- 20171 Fishes bioassessments, 2016 2027 Trott Brook Aquatic Life Invertebrate bioassessments 2016 2027 -- Rum River Aquatic Life Mercury in fish tissue 1998 -- 20071 Aquatic Mercury in fish tissue 1998 -- 20071 PCB in fish tissue 2002 2020 -- Consumption Mississippi River Nutrients/ Aquatic Life 2016 2018 -- Eutrophication Aquatic Fecal coliform 2006 2024 -- Recreation Source: 2020 (draft) MPCA Impaired Waters 303(d) List. PCB = Polychlorinated Biphenyl (1) Addressed by the Final Rum River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (MPCA, 2017) (2) Addressed by the Minnesota Statewide Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load (MPCA, 2007, as revised) Table 2-9 State water quality standards applicable to LRRWMO Priority Waterbodles Source: Minnesota Rules 7050 for NCHF eco -region; note that water quality standards for additional parameters are also applicable to District water resources (1) Standards for total phosphorus, chlorophyll -a, and Secchi Disk Depth are summer average (June — September) (2) The 230 mg/L chloride standard is the chronic standard, where two or more exceedances within a three year period are considered an impairment (as opposed to the acute standard which deems one exceedance over 860 an impairment). 2-32 2.7.4.1 Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) The LRRWMO is within the area included in the MPCA's Rum River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies report (Rum River WRAPS, 2017). In support of this study, the MPCA and its partners conducted intensive watershed monitoring in the Rum River Watershed in 2013 and 2014 to determine the overall health of water resources, identify impaired waters, and to identify waters in need of additional protection. This data was combined with other available data collected in the previous 10 years for the purpose of waterbody health assessment. This information is documented in the MPCA's Rum River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report (October, 2016) and the MPCA's Rum River Watershed Stressor Identification Study (August, 2016). As part of the WRAPS analysis, the MPCA performed water quality modeling of the watershed to estimate phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment loading throughout the watershed (including the LRRWMO). Relative to the greater Rum River watershed, the watersheds in the LRRWMO contribute lower phosphorus, moderate nitrogen, and greater sediment loads (MPCA, 2017). The analysis included in the WRAPS is performed at spatial resolution that is too coarse to be used to target specific projects. Generally, however, the WRAPS identifies strategies to be implemented within the Lower Rum River watershed to reduce pollutant loading and protect or improve water quality. The LRRWMO has considered these strategies in developing and prioritizing its implementation program (see Section 5) More information about the MPCA's water quality analysis of the Rum River watershed is available at: httl2s7//www.pca.state.mn.us/water/watersheds/rum-rive 2.7.5 Stormwater Systems The area within the LRRWMO includes a mix of urban, suburban, and rural land use (see Section 2.3). In developed areas, pre -settlement drainage patterns have been significantly altered as part of development activity, resulting in networks of stormwater management infrastructure designed to collect stormwater and convey it downstream. The stormwater system includes pipes, ponds, lakes, wetlands, ditches, streams, swales, and other drainageways. Ultimately, all stormwater in the LRRWMO is routed to the Mississippi River, either directly or via the Rum River. Various units of government and private entities have jurisdiction over different parts of the stormwater system within the watershed. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) is responsible for maintaining the stormwater systems within their rights-of-way, such U.S. highways (e.g., Highway 10), and state highways (e.g., Highway 47). Anoka County is responsible for maintaining at least part of the stormwater systems within their rights-of-way, such as county roads and county state aid highways. Each city within the LRRWMO has jurisdiction and maintenance responsibility over its own stormwater management systems. These systems include lateral (also called primary) stormwater systems (i.e., street gutters, pipes, and ditches) and outflow (also called main, trunk, or secondary) conveyors, which collect flows from city lateral systems and move the water downstream. Cities generally design lateral stormwater systems with capacity to convey runoff from S- or 10 -year frequency storms without significant flooding and protecting public health and safety for storms up to the 100 -year frequency interval (these design 2-33 levels are sometimes referred to as "level of service' and "level of protection"). City stormwater management systems are described in greater detail in each City's local water management plan. Each city within the LRRWMO must obtain Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit coverage from the MPCA. The MS4 Stormwater Program is designed to reduce the amount of sediment and pollution that enters surface water and groundwater from storm sewer systems. As a requirement of the permit, each city must develop and maintain a stormwater pollution prevention program (SWPPP) which outlines programs and practices to minimize pollutant loading and water quality impacts resulting from stormwater management. The SWPPP contains six areas of focus, known as minimum control measures, including: • Public Education and Outreach • Public Participation/Involvement • Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination • Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control • Post -Construction Stormwater Management • Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping For Municipal Operations Each MS4 permittee submits a report to the MPGA annually documenting the implementation of its SWPPP. The LRRWMO is not required to obtain MS4 permit coverage because it does not own stormwater management infrastructure. The MPCA periodically updates the MS4 General Permit. More information is available from the MPCA at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/municipal-stormwater-ms4 Owners of private stormwater systems in the LRRWMO are generally responsible for maintaining their facilities. Maintenance requirements for private systems are documented in agreements with each city developed during project permitting. 2.7.6 Flooding and Floodplain Management Floodplains are lowland areas adjacent to lakes, wetlands, and rivers that are susceptible to inundation of water during a flood. For regulatory purposes, the term "floodplain" refers to the area inundated during a flood or storm event with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any year (i.e., a 100 -year event). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) performs flood insurance studies (FIS) and develops Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) to identify areas prone to flooding during 100 -year storm events. The water level corresponding to the 100 -year flood event is referred to as the Base Flood Elevation (or BFE) and is the basis for the mapped floodplain extent. Figure 2-13 presents floodplains delineated by FEMA. Each of the cities within the District has a FIS. The FIS, together with a city's floodplain ordinance, allow the city to take part in the national flood insurance program (NFIP). Homeowners within FEMA -designated floodplains are required to purchase flood insurance. NFIP is implemented independently of the District and are described herein for informational purposes. FEMA -established floodplains and 100 -year flood levels are available from FEMA at: https://msc.fema.aov/portal/home 2-34 In addition to flooding adjacent to waterbodies, excessive runoff can overwhelm storm sewer infrastructure, resulting in more localized, and nuisance flooding issues (e.g., standing water in streets, flooding in backyard swales). The LRRWMO member cities have prepared local water management plans containing more detailed information regarding localized flooding issues and management actions. In the LRRWMO, flooding problems in the watershed are mostly confined to those areas identified on FEMA floodplain maps. The LRRWMO permit program includes stormwater volume and rate control requirements to limit negative flooding impacts. The permit requirements also include criteria for minimum building elevations relative to the 100 -year flood levels. 2-35 FEMA FLOODPLAINS 2021 LRRWMO Watershed Management Plan FIGURE � 1'� 2.7.7 Shorelands an Shoreland Management Protection and management of shoreland areas is key to maintaining the beneficial uses of surface waters in the LRRWMO. Stable, vegetated shoreland areas preserve filter pollutants, slow runoff, and create habitat. The LRRWMO member cities implement shoreland protections through standalone shoreland ordinances and/or zoning requirements. The MDNR has established minimum shoreland protection requirements based on lake classifications (see Table 3-6): • Natural Environment Lakes (NE) — Usually have less than 15 total acres, less than 60 acres per mile of shoreline, and less than three dwellings per mile of shoreline. They have some winterkill of fish; may have shallow, swampy shoreline; and are less than 15 -feet deep. • Recreational Development Lakes (RD) — Usually have between 60 and 225 acres of water per mile of shoreline, between 3 and 25 dwellings per mile of shoreline and are more than 15 -feet deep. • General Development Lakes (GD) — Usually have more than 225 acres of water per mile of shoreline, between 3 and 25 dwellings per mile of shoreline and are more than 15 -feet deep. The MDNR lake shoreline classification system is intended to help local governments appropriately regulate development in shoreland areas adjacent to each lake. The LRRWMO member cities also maintain "Wild and Scenic River Ordinances" that serve similar purposes to shoreland ordinances specific to the Rum River. More information about the management of Wild and Scenic Rivers is available from the MDNR at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermqmt section/wild scenic/index html The cities of Ramsey and Anoka also maintain local controls to regulative development activity within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area (MRCCA), a 72 -mile stretch of the Mississippi River including the LRRWMO. MRCCA protections established by the MDNR are implemented through local governments. More information about the MRCCA and associated critical area regulations is available at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt section/critical area/index html 2.8 Natural Areas, Habitat, and Rare Features The Rum River and adjacent lands provide habitat for many species. White-tailed deer, gray and fox squirrels, cottontail rabbits, snowshoe hares, beavers, minks, muskrats, raccoons, loons, great blue herons, songbirds, and waterfowl are a few of the animals found along the Rum River. Smallmouth Bass, Northern Pike, and Walleyes can be found in the Rum River. Through its Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program (NHNRP), the MDNR collects, manages, and interprets information about rare natural features, native plants and plant communities, and nongame animals, including endangered, threatened, and special concern species. As part of the NHNRP, the MDNR maintains the Natural Heritage Information System (NNIS) as a statewide database of these resources. The MDNR limits publication of spatial attributes and locations of these items to protect rare features or species from damage or collection. 2-37 The Lower Rum River Watershed provides habitat for a significant number of Blanding's turtles (Emydoideo blondingiq, a state threatened species. In addition to Blanding's turtles, several other state threatened species of reptiles, birds, and rare plants have been identified and listed in the NHIS Rare Features Data. Additional information about rare, threatened, and endangered species is available from the NHNRP at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/nhnrp/index.html None of the lakes in the LRRWMO are MDNR-managed fisheries. The MDNR and its partners have periodically performed fishery surveys of the Mississippi River and Rum River. The Lower Rum has been periodically managed as a smallmouth bass and walleye fishery by the MDNR, but is not consistently stocked. More information is available from the MDNR at: his //www.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/eastmetro/rivers/rum.htm] The MDNR's Minnesota County Biological Survey for Anoka County (1994, with Ramsey County) identified pre -settlement vegetation. Prior to settlement, the LRRWMO was covered primarily by oak forest interrupted by tall grass prairie. River bottom forests occurred near the confluence of the Mississippi River and Rum River in Anoka. Portions of wet prairie occurred throughout the watershed, most heavily concentrated within Andover in the northeast. In 2007, the City of Anoka established the Anoka Nature Preserve (ANP). The preserve includes over 200 acres of forested oak savanna, meadow and grassland, wetland backwaters, and includes a mile of Rum River shoreline. The ANP is protected by a conservation easement, the ANP is cooperatively managed by the Anoka SWCD and City of Anoka. Anoka SWCD has also established a conservation area at the confluence of the Rum River and Cedar Creek. The area is preserved for nature -based outdoor recreation such as hiking, bird watching, fishing, and hunting by permit. Minnesota County Biological Survey also identifies sites of biodiversity significance. Sites of moderate biodiversity significance occur along portions of the Rum River within the ANP and Mississippi River. Additional areas of biodiversity that do not meet MDNR threshold criteria are present throughout much of the watershed (see Figure 2-14). Additional information is available from the Minnesota Biological Survey at: httos://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mbs/index.html 2-38 Elk River E API H1Vfs i - I 1 9 Q County Boundary Municipal Boundary ^/ River Native plant Community' MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance' Site Below Minimum Biodiversity Significance Threshold Site With Moderate K Biodiversity Signlicance W. Sourav 1. MDNR NaOe Plonl C.. -i. , Mmnewlo Dole,., 0 Yoluml Re... Oiaivae of fmlogimland WaterRtt rn- BmloqlralSurwy.2020 S MBS SSM o/ 9mCiw liry Sgp., M.E—,. Deportment a/N.E—I Reroueus- Dinrmnif Ecolryiwland Water Rnsr"o BioloOi�a(Suru y. 1. O 0 2.500 SAO, Eeel 2.9 Open Space and Recreation Areas Approximately 8% of the watershed is occupied by park, open space, or preserve land uses. Open space and recreational areas are presented in Figure 2-15 and include regional and municipal parks located, as well as conservation areas like the Anoka Nature Preserve and Rum River/Cedar Creek conservation area (see Section 2.8). These areas provide opportunities for residents and people who recreate in the watershed to appreciate and connect with local water and natural resources. Major county parks located within the watershed include: • Rum River Central Regional Park • Rum River South County Park (Anoka County) • Mississippi River West Regional Park (Anoka County) Popular recreational opportunities within the District include activities like boating, fishing, hiking, walking, biking, and others. There are several public water access points within the watershed, including those on Round Lake, the Rum River, and the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River and Rum River are also State Canoe Routes operated by the MDNR Division of Trails and Waterways. The Rum River is also designated as a Regional Trail. The Anoka County Parks and Recreation Department has a listing and maps of trail systems throughout the county. Parks and other open spaces may also provide stormwater management opportunities for the District and its partners. In addition to providing physical space for BMPs, these spaces are often in an ideal location situated between the non -point pollutant source (e.g., urban development) and the receiving water (e.g., lakes, ponds, wetlands). Implementing BMPs in parks and other areas frequented by the public can further enhance demonstration and education benefits. 2.9.1 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River District The Rum River is classified by the MDNR as a wild, scenic, and recreational river dating back to 1978. This designation covers the stretch of the Rum River in Mille Lacs, Sherburne, Isanti, and Anoka Counties. Minnesota's Wild and Scenic Rivers Program seeks to protect rivers which have outstanding natural, scenic, geographic, historic, cultural, and recreational values. Each wild and scenic river has a management plan that outlines the rules and goals for that river applicable within a specific area (see Figure 2-15). These rules are administered through local zoning ordinances to protect the rivers from water and visual pollution, erosion, over -development, and degradation. Additional information is available from the MDNR at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt section/wild scenic/index.html 2.9.2 Mississippi National River and Recreational Area (MNRRA) The Mississippi National River and Recreational Area (MNRRA) is a 72 -mile corridor of the Mississippi River that stretches through the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area (see Figure 2-15). The MNRRA was established by the federal government Congress to develop policies and programs for: • the preservation and enhancement of the environmental values of the area • enhanced public outdoor recreation opportunities in the area • the conservation and protection of the scenic, historical, cultural, natural, and scientific values of the area • the commercial use of the area and its natural resources, consistent with the protection of the values for which the area was established The extent of the MNRRA coincides with the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) Program. The MRCCA Program is ajoint state, regional and local government program that provides coordinated land planning and regulation within the MNRRA. Within this area, management plans, ordinances, and zoning regulations limit development activity. Regulations are administered by local government units, including the Cities of Anoka and Ramsey. More information is available from the MDNR at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt section/critical area/index html 2-41 2.10 Potential Pollutant Sources The sources of water pollution in the LRRWMO are many and varied. Potential pollutant sources in the watershed include permitted pollutant sources, potentially contaminated sites, leaking above- and below - ground storage tanks, unsealed wells, and non -point sources. The MPCA maintains a database of potential environmental hazards, which includes permitted sites (air, industrial stormwater, construction stormwater, wastewater discharge), hazardous waste generating sites, leak sites, petroleum brownfields, tank sites, unpermitted dump sites, and sites enrolled in the Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) program. This information is available online through the MPCA's What's In My Neighborhood program. Sites identified in this database are presented in Figure 2-16. The presence of potentially contaminated or hazardous waste sites should be considered as sites are redeveloped and BMPs are implemented. The presence of soil contamination at many of these sites, if not removed, may limit or prevent infiltration as a stormwater management option. More information about potential pollutant sources is available from the MPCA website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index pho/data/wimn-whats-in-my-neighborhood/whats-in-my-neighborhoo d.html In addition to point sources of pollution, stormwater runoff can be a significant source of some pollutants (see Table 2-10). Each city within the LRRWMO is required to maintain Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit coverage from the MPCA. As a requirement of the permit, MS4 permittees must develop and maintain a stormwater pollution prevention program (SWPPP) which outlines programs and practices to minimize pollutant loading and water quality impacts resulting from stormwater management. More information is available from the MPCA at: httos Z/www.i3ca.state.mn.us/water/municipal- stormwater-ms4 2-43 Table 2-10 Pollutants Commonly Found in Stormwater 4"., Nutrients: Nitrogen, Phosphorus Decomposing grass clippings, Algal growth, reduced clarity, other leaves and other organics, animal problems associated with waste, fertilizers, failing septic eutrophication (oxygen deficit, release systems, atmospheric deposition of nutrients and metals from sediments) Sediments: Suspended and Construction sites, other disturbed Increased turbidity, reduced clarity, Deposited and/or non -vegetated lands, lower dissolved oxygen, deposition of eroding streambanks and sediments, smothering of aquatic shorelines, road sanding habitat including spawning sites, and benthic toxicity Organic Materials Leaves, grass clippings Algal growth, reduced clarity, other problems associated with eutrophication (oxygen deficit, release of nutrients and metals from sediments) Pathogens: Bacteria, Viruses Domestic and wild animal waste, Human health risks via drinking water failing septic systems supplies, contaminated swimming beaches Hydrocarbons: Oil and Grease, Tar -based pavement sealant, Toxicity of water column and PAHs (Naphthalenes, Pyrenes) industrial processes, automobile sediment, bioaccumulation in aquatic wear, emissions and fluid leaks, species and throughout food chain waste oil. Metals: Lead, Copper, Cadmium, Industrial processes, normal wear Toxicity of water column and Zinc, Mercury, Chromium, of auto brake linings and tires, sediment, bioaccumulation in aquatic Aluminum, others automobile emissions & fluid species and through the food chain, leaks, metal roofs fish kill Pesticides: PCBs, Synthetic Pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, Toxicity of water column and Chemicals fungicides, rodenticides, etc.), sediment, bioaccumulation in aquatic industrial processes species and through the food chain, fish kill Chlorides Road salting and uncovered salt Toxicity of water column and sediment storage Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Tar based pavement sealant Carcinogenic to humans (PAH's) Trash and Debris Litter washed through storm drain Degradation of the beauty of surface networks waters, threat to wildlife Based on Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual (Barr Engineering Co, 2001). 2-44 3 Issues Assessment This section summarizes the priority issues identified by the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) during development of this Plan. Many of the priority issues to be addressed during the lift of this Plan are similar to those described in the Third Generation Plan and reflect the statutory responsibilities of WMOs (see Section 1). 3.1 Issue Identification and Prioritization As part of Plan development, the Board of Managers solicited input on issues relevant to the Lower Rum River watershed through a variety of stakeholder engagement and data review activities. These include: • Public kickoff meeting hosted on June 26, 2019 • Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) issue identification meeting on August 28, 2019 • Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) issue identification meeting on October 29, 2019 • Analysis of potential 2011 Plan gaps (Gaps Analysis, see Appendix D) • Review of responses to the Plan notification letter The LRRWMO Board of Managers participated in a workshop on November 21, 2019 to review issues identified through the activities listed above and discuss their priority to be addressing in the 2021-2030 Watershed Management Plan. The Board generally concurred that those issues addressed in the 2011 Plan remain of high priority, with the most relevant issues including: • Adverse impacts from stormwater runoff • Degraded water quality of lakes, streams, and rivers Additional water and natural resource issues that were identified as important for the LRRWMO to address in this Plan include: • Flood risk and water quantity issues • Excessive erosion and sedimentation • Integrity of wetlands, shoreland, and natural areas • Groundwater contamination In addition to natural resource issues, organizational and/or administrative issues were also identified during Plan development; these include: • Efficacy and efficiency of the LRRWMO permit program • Limited funding and capacity • Opportunities for increased education and engagement The priority issues areas and associated specific issues identified by the Board of Managers are summarized in Table 3-1 and discussed in greater detail in the following sections. Note that many of the resource issues identified above are interrelated (e.g., erosion and sedimentation leads to degraded water 3-1 quality). Thus, many of the goals, policies, and activities included in this Plan address multiple resource issues. Table 3-1 Summary of Priority Issues and Resources Issue WAFPrior Level "Walic Issues Issue ID • Untreated discharges to the Rum River SW -1 Stormwater • Maintenance of aging municipal infrastructure SW -2 Management Level 1 • Maintenance of private infrastructure SW -3 • Adequacy of stormwater regulatory controls SW -4 • Chloride loading in stormwater WQ-1 • Sediment and other pollutant loading to the Rum River WQ-2 and Mississippi River Surface Water Quality Level 1 • Protecting water quality in priority waterbodies WQ-3 • Cedar Creek impairment due to E. coli WQ-4 • Trott Brook impairment due to dissolved oxygen, fish WQ-5 bioassessments, and invertebrate bioassessments • Nuisance flooding identified by cities FL -1 Flood Risk and Water Quantity Level 2 • Addressing impacts of climate change FL -2 • Adequacy of floodplain regulatory controls FL -3 • Nuisance flooding identified by cities ES -1 Erosion and Sedimentation Level 2 • Addressing impacts of climate change ES -2 • Adequacy of erosion and sedimentation controls ES -3 • Need for education regarding wetland buffers and NA -1 Wetlands, protection Sand Level 2 Natural NaturAr Areas , Lack of buffers along Rum River NA -2 • Coordination with partners on future AIS issues NA -3 Groundwater • Need for education addressing drinking water quality GW -1 Contamination and Level 2 and groundwater conservation Supply • Coordination with partners on groundwater planning GW -2 Regulatory Program Organiz- • Adequacy of regulatory program to protect resources RP -1 Efficacy ation • Efficiency and coordination of permit program RP -2 Funding and Organiz- • Limited funding and staff capacity to implement Capacity ation projects and programs FC -1 • Need for additional education addressing specific topics ED -1 Education and Organiz- Engagement ation • Opportunity for engaging schools and youth groups ED -2 • Opportunity to engage CAC in ongoing roles ED -3 Note: Issue ID is used to correlate specific issues to goals and/or implementation actions 3-2 3.2 Resource Issues 3.2.1 Stormwater Runoff Management Over time, much of the naturally vegetated, wetland -rich landscape of the Lower Rum River watershed has been converted to residential and other developed land uses (see Section 2.3). Development and the associated increase in impervious surface (i.e., surfaces through which water cannot infiltrate) results in increased stormwater runoff rates and volumes. Imperviousness and land disturbance (e.g., construction) result in increased amounts of nutrients, chloride, sediment, and other pollutants carried in stormwater runoff (i.e., loading). Increased stormwater runoff rates and volumes resulting from impervious area also contribute to erosion, threaten existing infrastructure, and increase flood risk. During Plan development, the CAC identified direct (i.e., untreated) stormwater discharges to the Rum River as a concern. Development also limit the natural ability of the landscape to mitigate the negative environmental impacts of stormwater runoff by reducing infiltration and retention. Infiltration or retention of stormwater runoff is the most effective means of limiting the impacts of urbanization, as these methods reduce the total volume of runoff to the downstream receiving waterbodies. In areas of concentrated development, existing structures, utilities, and land ownership further restrict the opportunities for the LRRWMO and cities to implement cost-effective stormwater best management practices (BMPs). Redevelopment provides an opportunity to retrofit stormwater BMPs in areas that may not currently receive adequate treatment. Further development and urbanization of the LRRWMO is anticipated into the future (see Section 2.3), emphasizing the need for systems to mitigate the negative impacts of stormwater runoff, including regulation, education, and projects (e.g., best management practices, or BMPs). Each of the Cities within the LRRWMO maintains a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (M54) permit that details measures that the cities use to mitigate the negative impacts of stormwater runoff (see Section 2.7.5). In addition, the LRRWMO implements performance standards to mitigate the impacts of development of stormwater runoff. Private developers, cities, the LRRWMO, and other partners have constructed BMPs to improve the quality and reduce the volume of stormwater runoff. Proper operation and maintenance of these BMPs is necessary to achieve the intended benefits. As stormwater management infrastructure continues to age, maintenance, repair, and eventual replacement of infrastructure may place additional financial burden on cities and owners of private infrastructure. 3.2.2 Surface Water Quality The lakes, streams, and rivers within the LRRWMO are valued resources that provide recreational and ecological benefits. Protecting the water quality of these resources by reducing pollutant loading is key to ensuring these benefits. The sources of water pollution in the LRRWMO are many and varied. Potential pollutant sources in the watershed include permitted sources, potentially contaminated sites, leaking above- and below -ground storage tanks, unsealed wells, and non -point sources such as stormwater runoff (see Section 3.2.1). For 3-3 many waterbodies in the LRRWMO, stormwater runoff is a major contributor of pollutants. Pollutants in stormwater runoff include phosphorus and other nutrients, sediment, chlorides, oil, grease, chemicals (including hydrocarbons), metals, litter (e.g., plastics, Styrofoam), and pathogens which can severely reduce water quality. Nutrient and sediment loading to waterbodies from stormwater runoff can far exceed what would be expected from an undeveloped watershed. Chloride loading from runoff carrying road salt applied to roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, and other developed areas throughout the winter months is also a significant pollutant source. In District lakes and wetlands, phosphorous is the pollutant of most concern. As total phosphorus (TP) loads increase, it is likely that water quality degradation will accelerate, resulting in unpleasant consequences such as profuse algae growth or algal blooms (reflected in high chlorophyll -o concentrations). Algal blooms, overabundant aquatic plants, and nuisance/exotic species, such as Eurasian watermilfoil, purple loosestrife, and curly -leaf pondweed, will flourish and interfere with ecological function as well as recreational use and the aesthetics of waterbodies. Sediment is also a pollutant of concern. Sediment contributes to poor water clarity that affects vegetation growth and deposits onto stream and lake beds, impacting aquatic habitat. It is also a substrate to which phosphorus and other pollutants bind. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the state regulatory agency primarily tasked with protecting and improving water quality in Minnesota. In administering the CWA in Minnesota, the MPGA also maintains a list of impaired waters (see Section 0). The MPCA performs Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies and watershed restoration and protection strategy (WRAPS) to address impaired waters. Both TMDLs and WRAPSs may result in implementation plans to address water quality issues of the affected waterbodies. Often pollutant loading from tributary watersheds must often be reduced to control or reverse water quality degradation in impaired water bodies. TMDL and/or WRAPS implementation presents an opportunity for the LRRMWO to coordinate water quality improvement efforts between cities and other partners. Regular water quality monitoring performed by the ACD, MPCA, and other partners is necessary to identify water quality issues and trends (see Section 2.7.3). Specific water quality issues identified within the LRRWMO include: • Cedar Creek is impaired for aquatic recreation due to E. coli • Trott Brook is impaired for aquatic life due to dissolved oxygen, fish bioassessments, and invertebrate bioassessments • Protection of good water quality conditions observed in LRRWMO priority lakes • Sediment and other pollutant loading to the Rum River and Mississippi River Addressing water quality issues in the Rum River and Mississippi River is challenging because of the size and location of the LRRWMO within the respective watersheds of these resources. While the LRRWMO focuses on reducing the pollutant loading to the Rum River and Mississippi River within its jurisdiction, the benefits of its actions may not be observable in river water quality data. 3-4 3.2.3 Flood risk and water quantity issues In a natural, undeveloped setting, pervious ground cover allows water, including stormwater runoff, to infiltrate the soil. Land development and increased impervious areas alter natural drainage patterns and increase the rate and volume of stormwater runoff. The additional volume of runoff can increase water levels in ponds, lakes, streams, and wetlands, which increases the potential for erosion and flooding. It also causes large, flashy flows in storm sewers, which increases the potential for flooding and property damage. Increased precipitation also results in high water tables and increased groundwater flow to springs, potentially threatening the stability and capacity of downstream structures. Managing the risk of flooding is a focus of the LRRWMO and its cities due to the potential threat to public health and safety, infrastructure, and the environment. In addition to property damage, flooding may cause other impacts that are harder to quantify, including the following: • Flooding of roads making them impassable to emergency vehicles and residents • Shoreline erosion • Destruction or alteration of riparian habitats • Restricted recreational use of waterbodies, trails, and adjacent lands • More strain on budgets and personnel for repairing flood -damaged facilities and controlling public use of facilities during flooding events The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified areas prone to flooding during 100 -year flood events to assist cities and residents in managing flood risk. FEMA -mapped floodplains within the LRRWMO are generally limited to areas surrounding lakes, ponds, and streams and may not reflect localized flood risk related to stormwater conveyance systems (see Figure X). During plan development, member cities were polled and did not identify significant flood risk issues for which LRRWMO assistance is requested. Minor local flooding issues (e.g., temporary street flooding) are described in the local water management plans of Andover, Anoka, and Ramsey. While there are few existing flood risk issues, precipitation patterns are trending towards larger, more intense storms (see Section 2.1.2). NOAA's 2013 assessment of climate trends for the Midwest found that precipitation amounts are predicted to increase significantly over what is historically used in floodplain assessments and infrastructure design. Median estimates of mid -211 century 24-hour precipitation events with a 1% chance of occurring in a given year (i.e., 100 -year event) exceed 10 inches, a significant increase over current design values (7.44" 100 -year Atlas 14 event). Understanding the hydrologic response of the watershed to large precipitation events is critical to identifying areas of flood risk and evaluating strategies to reduce flood risk or damages. The CAC identified flood risk and water quality impacts (e.g., increased erosion) resulting from increased precipitation as high priority to be addressed in the LRRWMO Plan. 3-5 Existing development in portions of the LRRWMO limits the available physical space for capital improvements to address local flooding issues. Appropriate rate and volume control applied throughout the watershed are necessary to minimize future flooding issues. The LRRWMO's regulatory program includes criteria intended to limit adverse impacts to floodplains and minimize flooding. The negative impacts of flooding may be further minimized by thoughtful management of the floodplain achieved through education and other activities. 3.2.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Sediment is a major contributor to water pollution. Stormwater runoff from streets, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces carries suspended sediment consisting of fine particles of soil, dust, and dirt. Abundant amounts of suspended sediment are carried by stormwater runoff from actively eroding areas, including unstable or degraded stream and lake shorelines. Although erosion and sedimentation are natural processes, they are often accelerated by human activities, including development and other land use changes. Loss of vegetation limits the ability of the landscape to intercept rainfall and slow stormwater runoff, limiting the opportunity for runoff to infiltrate into the soil. Land development may also result in the grading and filling of natural depressions that previously provided temporary storage of rainfall and opportunities for infiltration and sediment removal. Increased precipitation volumes and intensities can also result in increased stormwater runoff, further accelerating upland erosion and contributed to higher flows in downstream resources, accelerating streambank erosion. Erosion along the Rum River was specifically identified as an issue by the TAC and CAC during Plan development, Regardless of its source, sediment deposition decreases water depth, degrades water quality, smothers fish and wildlife habitat, and degrades aesthetics. Sediment deposition can also wholly or partially block culverts, manholes, storm sewers, etc., increasing flood risk. Sediment deposition in detention ponds and wetlands also reduces the storage volume capacity, resulting in higher flood levels and/or reducing the amount of water quality treatment provided. Erosion also results in channelization of stormwater flow, increasing the rate of stormwater runoff and further accelerating erosion. As erosion and sedimentation increase, the stormwater management systems (e.g., ponds, pipes) require more frequent maintenance, repair, and/or modification to ensure they will function as designed. The LRRWMO implements a permit program and associated performance standards to limit the opportunity for excessive erosion and sedimentation. In addition, owners and operators of construction sites disturbing 1 or more acres of land must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater Permit from the MPCA. A key permit requirement is the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with appropriate best management practices (BMPs) that address erosion and sediment control. 3.2.5 Wetlands, Shoreland, and Natural Areas Healthy wetland systems, shoreland areas, riparian areas, and natural spaces are critical components of the hydrologic system and positively affect soil health, groundwater, surface water quality and quantity, 3-6 wildlife, fisheries, aesthetics, and recreation. Development of the watershed for residential, commercial, and land uses (see Section 2.3) has resulted in the loss of wetlands and natural vegetation. However, many wetlands, areas of biological significant, and other natural areas remain (see Figure 2-9, Figure 2-14, and Figure 2-15). Most natural and semi -natural areas are located within city and regional parks and are protected from future development. Within the watershed, the LRRWMO protects wetland from further loss and degradation through administration of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and LRRWMO permit program (see Section 5.3.2.1.). Many of the hydrologic, water quality, and habitat benefits achieved by wetland and shoreland areas are dependent on the presence of buffers — upland, vegetated areas located adjacent to wetlands and shoreland areas. Establishing buffers in developed areas may be difficult, as existing structures may be located within the desired buffer area. Redevelopment offers an opportunity to establish adequate buffers in areas that are already developed. The LRRWMO requires buffers to be maintained around wetlands during construction, but does not require permanent wetland buffers. During Plan development, the TAC noted a need for continued wetland education. The development and preservation of buffers along the Rum River and Mississippi River are regulated by state shoreland requirements (see Section 2.9.1 and Section 2.9.2) and enforced by cities at the local level. The CAC cited lack of adequate vegetated buffers along portions of the Rum River as a specific concern. The LRRWMO assists member cities, as requested, in addressing buffer and shoreline issues on a case-by- case basis. The ecological functions, quality, and recreational benefits of natural resources may be negatively impacted by aquatic and terrestrial invasive species — non-native plants and animals that outcompete and displace native species. The MDNR established the Invasive Species Program in 1991. The program is designed to implement actions to prevent the spread of invasive species and reduce the impacts caused by invasive species to Minnesota's ecology, society, and economy. The MDNR provides technical support to counties, local governments, and their partners to develop AIS prevention strategies. The MDNR also maintains a list of waters infested with specific AIS — no LRRWMO waterbodies are listed as of 2020. The LRRWMO will continue to work with its member cities, Anoka County, and the MDNR to identify, track, and manage future AIS issues within the watershed. During Plan development, member cities were polled and did not identify known invasive species within the watershed. 3.2.6 Groundwater Contamination and Supply Maintaining clean, safe groundwater supplies is critical to human and environmental health and to the economic and social vitality of communities. Residents within the LRRWMO obtain their drinking water from municipal groundwater wells and private domestic wells. Most private wells are located in the surficial aquifer, which is sensitive to contamination within the watershed (see Figure 2-6). Potential sources of contamination include leaking underground storage tanks, unsealed wells, failing or non- performing subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), infiltration of contaminated surface water, and others (see Section 2.10). Owners of private wells may not be aware of water quality issues (which may 3-7 include elevated concentrations of nitrates, arsenic, and the presence of pesticides) due to the lack of any required testing. Prevention of groundwater contamination through best management practices is critical. Once contaminated, groundwater may remain contaminated for long periods of time. Groundwater clean-up is expensive and technically complex, even when feasible. Increased public awareness of the importance of drinking water protection on the public's general health and well-being is critical to promote practices that protect the quality of groundwater. While the LRRWMO promotes infiltration as a preferred method of stormwater treatment, it may have negative consequences in areas with vulnerable groundwater resources. To protect these resources, the LRRWMO requires that infiltration practices be implemented with consideration of guidance provided by the MPCA in its NPDES General Construction Stormwater permit (2018, as amended) and MIDS guidance (2013, as amended). During the development of this Plan, the ACD identified groundwater protection education and increased understanding of groundwater quality and quantity as specific issues of concern. The MDNR also cited groundwater conservation as a priority issue and suggested potential LRRWMO roles in relation to groundwater. The CAC further identified SSTS management as priority issues related to groundwater contamination. The LRRWMO considered TAC and CAC input in the development of the policies, goals, and implementation actions to address groundwater included in this Plan. 3.3 Organizational Issues 3.3.1 Efficacy of the LRRWMO Permit Program Since its inception, the LRRWMO permitting program has been the primary focal point of the LRRWMO's activities and means by which the LRRWMO pursues its goals. The program requires the review and approval of projects that disturb or alter an area of more than 1 acre. During Plan development, the TAC identified permit program efficiency as an issue. Member city staff met to discuss the efficacy of the permit program, consider potential updates to performance standards, and identify modifications to improve permitting efficiency. Concurrent with the development of this Plan, the LRRWMO is updating its permitting process to include separate permit applications for: • Wetland impacts • Stormwater management and erosion control The updated permit application also clarifies the sequence for review and coordination between member cities, the LRRWMO, and the LRRWMO engineer. The updates to the permit application and process should reduce city staff time spent coordination with applicants and ultimately reduce costs to implement the program. M During Plan development, the LRRWMO and city staff concurred that the current performance standards appropriately balance environmental protection with community development needs. The LRRWMO performance standards are generally aligned with the MPCA's NPDES construction stormwater general permit to further promote efficiency. 3.3.2 Funding and Capacity The extent to which the LRRWMO may implement projects and programs to pursue its goals is limited by the availability of funding and organizational capacity. The LRRWMO is funded by public dollars collected by its member cities and through grants from government agencies (which are also ultimately taxpayer - funded). The LRRWMO seeks spend its funds in a responsible manner that considers the relative benefits, per dollar, of its actions. The benefits of effective water and natural resource management actions are difficult to quantify— especially when achieved in the form of pollution prevention as is the focus of the LRRWMO permitting program. During Plan development, both the TAC and CAC cited funding limitations as barriers to implementing desirable resource protection projects and programs. Grant funding and BWSR's recently implemented watershed -based implementation funding (WBIF) may provide additional resources to achieve the LRRWMO goals. In addition, the LRRWMO leverages member city and partner staff, as appropriate, in collaborate actions. The LRRWMO continues to review its accomplishments and expenses to evaluate the value of its projects and programs, using best professional judgment and available data. 3.3.3 Education and Engagement Public education and engagement are important pathways to protect water and natural resources. Pollution prevention and other behaviors practiced by businesses and residents can cumulatively mitigate negative impacts to resources, limiting the need for expensive restoration action. Through education and engagement, the LRRWMO and its partners can empower local advocates for natural resource stewardship in their neighborhoods and communities. During Plan development, the TAC and CAC cited the need for increased education regarding specific environmental issues, including, but not limited to: • Chloride and salt application • Groundwater conservation • Buffers and shoreline management • Drinking water quality and well testing The CAC noted the opportunity for increased outreach to schools and youth groups to increase community capacity. The ACD also noted the importance of consistent and coordinated messaging to promote resident action. The LRRWMO's education and engagement efforts are limited by a lack of staff. Therefore, the LRRWMO performs its education and engagement duties primarily through its member cities and the ACD. The LRRWMO also maintains a website containing meeting minutes, contact information, and reports and 3-9 studies, including the watershed management plan. The LRRWMO website also contains links to other reference and educational material. More information is available at the LRRWMO website: http://www.irrwmo.orci/ 310 4 Goals and Policies The Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) has established goals to address the water and natural resource management issues described in Section 3. LRRWMO goals are aligned with the broad statutory purposes listed in Minnesota Statues 1036.201 but are more specific in their application to LRRWMO resources. The LRRWMO has also adopted policies to support the achievement of LRRWMO and partner goals. Goals and policies are described in this section. 4.1 Goals LRRWMO goals are presented in Table 4-1. Goals are generally grouped according to issue area (see Section 3) although many of the goals address multiple issues. Where appropriate, goals contain measurable quantities to evaluate progress (see Section 5.5.2). In some cases, measurable quantities are not included for reasons that may include: • Lack of baseline data (e.g., reduction in chloride loading from a currently unknown amount) • Variable or unknown opportunities for implementation (e.g., volume reduction associated with LRRWMO-permitted projects) Dependence upon partner action (e.g., LRRWMO support for actions related to groundwater and invasive species issues) Measures and/or outputs have been identified for each goal to assist in evaluating progress. [ei Table 41 LRRWMO goal statements and associated metrics Issue Area Priority Level Goal ID Goal Statement Measure/Output Minimize loading of nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants to downstream water Permitted projects: 150 over 10 years Stormwater Level 1 SW -A resources through the continued implementation of the LRRWMO rules and permit TP reduction: 800 lbs/year total; Management program TSS reduction: 80 tons/ ear total Manage stormwater runoff with practices that mimic natural hydrology by retaining Stormwater Level 1 SW -B a volume equivalent to 1.0 inches over new and redeveloped or existing impervious Permitted projects meeting volume retention Management surfaces goal: 150 over 10 years Stormwater Achieve intended water quality and quantity performance from stormwater Maintenance agreements submitted with Level 1 SW -C Management infrastructure through required inspection and maintenance SWPPPs; annual reports from cities Maintain or improve existing water quality in non -impaired priority LRRWMO Surface Water waters: Level 1 WQ-A - Grass (Sunfish) Lake (TP= 14 ug/L, Chi a = 5.8 ug/L, SD = 1.3 m) Water quality monitoring results Quality - Rogers Lake (TP= 59 ug/L, Chi a = 19.7 ug/L, SD = 1.1 m) - Round Lake P= 31 ug/L, Chi a = 7.9 u/L, SD = 2.9 m Surface Water Reduce phosphorus loading to the Rum River by 800 lbs/year through TP reduction: 900 lbs/year, at least 150 Level 1 WQ-B implementation of the LRRWMO permit program, and by 100 lbs/year through non- permitted projects and 2 capital Quality structural and structural improvements (e.., streambank stabilization) improvements/ restoration projects Surface Water Reduce bacteria loadingto the Mississippi River and Rum River through a g appropriate City official controls; Quality Level 1 WQ-C regulatory controls, vegetated buffers, and education an educations distributions (at least 1 per year) addressing topics Increase dissolved oxygen concentrations in Trott Brook to 75% above 5 mg/L Surface Water Level 1 WQ-D through education for riparian landowners and targeted pollution prevention Targeted education materials; Quality review of riparian restoration opportunities radices (to reduce P and organics) targeted wetland restoration opportunities. Surface Water Level 1 WQ-E Reduce chloride loading to downstream water resources City MS4 practices; educations distributions Quality (at least 1 per year) addressing topics Flood Risk and LRRWMO performance standards enforced Water Quantity Level 2 FL -A Maintain existing floodplain volume and function (i.e., not net loss) on permitted projects; city official controls Flood Risk and Minimize flood risk through the implementation of minimum building elevations, LRRWMO performance standards enforced Water Quantity Level 2 FL -B volume control, and rate control standards for new development and on permitted projects; redevelopment city official controls Flood Risk and Level FL -C Mitigate negative impacts of climate change by considering present and future Project review process; review of LRRWMO WaterQuantity climate and precipitation trends when evaluating flood risk and designing ro ects performance standards Table 4 1 LRRWMO goal statements and associated metrics TP Reduce sediment loading from streambank erosion along the Rum River by Erosion and 2+ projects totaling 500 feet of shoreline and Level 2 ES -A approximately 75 tons/year through streambank stabilization and restoration Sedimentation 75 tons/year TSS reduction actions over an estimated 500 feet. Wetlands, Cooperative opportunities; Work with partners to minimize the spread and negative impact of aquatic invasive Shorelands, and Level 2 NA -A education distribution (at least 1 per year) Natural Areas I species I addressing topics Wetlands, Minimize negative impacts to wetlands through continue administration of the Wetland permitting process and LRRWMO Level 2 NA -B Shorelands, and Wetland Conservation Act performance standards Groundwater Cooperative opportunities; Cooperate with partners to limit pollutant loading to groundwater through Contamination and Level 2 GW -A education distribution (at least 1 per year) education and regulation Supply addressing topics Regulatory Organiz- Improve regulatory efficiency and environmental benefits through periodic review Review of performance standards; RP -A Program Efficiency ational and u dates to the LRRWMO rules and ermit ro ram annual meeting with city staff Review of performance standards; Funding and Organiz- Evaluate the effectiveness of LRRWMO programs and activities and adjust priorities FCA annual meeting with city staff, Capacity ational using an adaptive management approach annual re ort/ ro ress assessment Increase the use of grant funding and cost -share opportunities to achieve LRRWMO Funding and Organiz- 5 grants/cost-share applications over 10 FC -B goals by pursuing at least 5 grant opportunities and/or cost -share projects over 10 Capacity ational years ears Funding and Organiz- Coordinate with cities and partners to most efficiently achieve LRRWMO goals FC -C TAC meetings (assume at least 1 per year) Capacity ational through shared expertise and resources Funding and Organiz- Work with partners to consider and incorporate recreational benefits in coordination FC -D Meetings with partners (assume 1 per year) Capacity ational with LRRWMO programs and projects ACD education coordinator actions; Education and Organiz- Increase public awareness and support for LRRWMO actions through education and ED -A city articles (4 per year); Engagement ational engagement CAC meetings (2 per ear) ACD education coordinator actions; Increase community capacity to engage in behaviors and practices to improve the Education and Organiz- city articles (4 per year); ED -B quality of water and natural resources through education and at least 1 volunteer Engagement ational CACmeetings (2 per year); opportunity per year Volunteero ortunities(1 per ear) a 4.2 Strategies and Policies The LRRWMO uses four primary strategies to implement this Plan and achieve its organizational goals and statutory obligations. These strategies include: • Regulation • Education • Cooperation • Operations Generally, these strategies include all of the LRRWMO's activities. Different strategies are emphasized for different target audiences of this Plan, as follows: These strategies are supplement by policies established by the LRRWMO. These policies apply to one or more target audiences and promote the achievement of LRRWMO goals. Policies and strategies are described in greater detail in the following the following sections. 4.2.1 Strategies and Policies: Cooperation The LRRWMO is one of many organizations with authorities and responsibilities for the management and protection of water and natural resources. These organizations may implement rules, permits, programs, and projects within, or applicable to, the LRRWMO'sjurisdiction. Coordination of planning, programs, and projects between the LRRWMO and existing and potential partner organizations is important to efficiently achieving shared goals while avoiding redundancy. Working with partners also allows sharing of knowledge, innovative methods, and new technologies. Organizations the LRRWMO may cooperate or partner with during Plan implementation include: • Anoka Conservation District: www.anokaswcd.oro/ • Anoka County Public Health and Environmental Services: wvvw.anokacounty.us/522/Public-Health- and-Environmental -Services • Metropolitan Council www.metrocouncil.ora 5-1 Target Audiences Residents, City Staff and Regulatory Businesses, Governments Developers Agencies Public Regulation X X X a m Education X X X m N Cooperation X X Operation X These strategies are supplement by policies established by the LRRWMO. These policies apply to one or more target audiences and promote the achievement of LRRWMO goals. Policies and strategies are described in greater detail in the following the following sections. 4.2.1 Strategies and Policies: Cooperation The LRRWMO is one of many organizations with authorities and responsibilities for the management and protection of water and natural resources. These organizations may implement rules, permits, programs, and projects within, or applicable to, the LRRWMO'sjurisdiction. Coordination of planning, programs, and projects between the LRRWMO and existing and potential partner organizations is important to efficiently achieving shared goals while avoiding redundancy. Working with partners also allows sharing of knowledge, innovative methods, and new technologies. Organizations the LRRWMO may cooperate or partner with during Plan implementation include: • Anoka Conservation District: www.anokaswcd.oro/ • Anoka County Public Health and Environmental Services: wvvw.anokacounty.us/522/Public-Health- and-Environmental -Services • Metropolitan Council www.metrocouncil.ora 5-1 • Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources www.bwsr.state.mn.us • Minnesota Department of Agriculture www.mda.state.mn.us • Minnesota Department of Health www.health.state.mn.us • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources www.dnr.state.mn.us • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency www.pca.state.mn.us • US Army Corps of Engineers www.mvp.usace.army.mi Generally, the content of this Plan is consistent with the guidance of cooperating agencies. Many of the potential partner organizations listed above were consulted during the development of this Plan through a Technical Advisory Committee (see Section 1). The implementation schedule (see Table 5-1) identifies potential partners for specific activities, where appropriate. The LRRWMO will continue to seek opportunities to leverage partnerships to more effectively and efficiently implement its programs and projects. The primary focus of the LRRWMO will be on water resource management issues that cross municipal boundaries (i.e., intercommunity issues). The LRRWMO is well-positioned to convene local stakeholders including city and county governments, residents, and property owners. Regular communication and coordination between member cities, the LRRWMO, and local stakeholders will occur throughout Plan implementation. Examples of this coordination may include stormwater BMPs implemented in cooperation with city parks, street reconstruction efforts, and other infrastructure programs. 4.2.2 Strategies and Policies: Education Education and public engagement are important strategies for protecting and improving water and natural resources. Through education, the LRRWMO can empower local advocates for watershed stewardship, effectively increasing the LRRWMO's capacity for action. Pollution prevention and other behaviors practiced by residents can limit degradation of natural resources. Effective communication and engagement are necessary to establish and develop relationships between the District and the communities in which the District and its partners serve. The LRRWMO has established several education and public engagement policies to foster responsible water quality management practices by educating residents, business owners, member communities, and developers. Education and public engagement policies are presented in Table 4-2. 5-2 Table 4-2 LRRWMO Education Policies 4.2.3 Strategies and Policies: Regulation The LRRWMO has adopted policies that leverage its own, and its member cities, regulatory authority with respect to water and natural resources. Implementation of some policies is delegated to the LRRWMO member cities. The LRRWMO will review the implementation of these policies with the member communities annually to assess applicability and compliance. The LRRWMO regulatory policies are presented in Table 4-3. 5-3 Ic cy Target Audience(s) Implementing Entity(-ies) 1 The LRRWMO will continue to work with the Anoka Conservation Residents, LRRWMO, District, member cities, notherpartners to develop and Developers, ACD, distribute educational materials to inform stakeholders regarding Business owners, Cities water and environmental and promote responsible environmental City staff, practices. City councils 2 The LRRWMO will continue to maintain its website as a primary Residents, LRRWMO, source of information and communication tool. Developers, ACD Business owners, City staff, City councils 3 The LRRWMO will leverage new technology platforms Residents, LRRWMO communication tools, as appropriate, to engage residents and Developers, other stakeholders. Business owners, 4 The LRRWMO will engage with member cities, developers, and Developers, project applicants to communicate permit requirements and City staff, LRRWMO, promote consistency and efficiency in program implementation. City councils Cities 5 The LRRWMO will work with ACD to solicit volunteers to participate Residents LRRWMO, in LRRWMO monitoring, outreach, and other Plan activities. ACD 4.2.3 Strategies and Policies: Regulation The LRRWMO has adopted policies that leverage its own, and its member cities, regulatory authority with respect to water and natural resources. Implementation of some policies is delegated to the LRRWMO member cities. The LRRWMO will review the implementation of these policies with the member communities annually to assess applicability and compliance. The LRRWMO regulatory policies are presented in Table 4-3. 5-3 Table 4-3 LRRWMO Regulation Policies No. 6 'MM""MIWTarget Policy The LRRWMO requires water quality treatment through volume Audience(s) Implementing Entity(-ies) Developers, LRRWMO reduction for development and redevelopment projects disturbing Cities at least 1 acre. Volume reduction must be consistent with the LRRWMO Stormwater Standards included in Appendix E. 7 The LRRWMO requires infiltration practices to be implemented in Developers, LRRWMO accordance with the guidance for determining the feasibility of Cities infiltration included in Appendix E and consistent with: • NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit (2013, as amended) • Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) Design Sequence Flow Chart (2013, as amended) • Minnesota Department of Health's Evaluating Proposed Stormwater Infiltration Projects in Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas (MDH, 2007) The LRRWMO recommends that infiltration practices be designed consistent with the guidance included in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Minnesota Stormwater Manual 8 The LRRWMO requires that stormwater management practices Developers LRRWMO constructed a condition of development or redevelopment shall be Cities placed in drainage and utility easements dedicated to the member city. 9 The LRRWMO will cooperate with member cities, the MPCA, and Cites LRRWMO other stakeholders in the preparation of total maximum daily load MS4s Cities (TMDL) studies for waterbodies on the MPCA's current or future Residents MPCA impaired waters 303(d) list. The LRRWMO will work to align TMDL implementation items into its Watershed Management Plan to achieve efficiency. The LRRWMO will work with the cities to evaluate funding options for the TMDL studies and implementation actions to address impaired waters. 10 For development and redevelopment projects triggering a Developers LRRWMO LRRWMO permit, the LRRWMO requires the establishment of Cities permanent, vegetated buffers adjacent to wetlands of at least 16.5 feet. The LRRWMO encourages member cities to adopt more stringent wetland buffer requirements for new development. 11 The LRRWMO will serve as the Local Government Unit (LGU) for Developers LRRWMO administering Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) within its member Cities cities (excluding MNDOT jurisdiction). 5-4 Table 4-3 LRRWMO Regulation Policies N7*W Policy Audience(s) Entity(-ies) 12 The LRRWMO requires the submission and implementation of Developers LRRWMO erosion and sediment control plans for land disturbance activities Cities of 1 acre or more in size (unless the project is for agricultural purposes, as defined by the Municipal Comprehensive Land Use Plans). These plans shall conform to the general criteria set outlined in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," Municipal Ordinances, and the NPDES Construction General permit. 13 Member cities shall continue managing erosion and sediment Developers Cities control permitting programs and ordinances as required by their NPDES MS4 permit and the NDPES Construction Stormwater General Permit. These programs must address: • Permitting and inspection of erosion controls • Erosion and sediment control at individual building sites • Requirements and procedures for reviewing, approving, and enforcing erosion control plans 14 The LRRWMO requires that member cities maintain floodplain Developers Cities ordinances that are consistent with the LRRWMO Stormwater Residents Standards (see Appendix E), including minimum building elevations (including basements) at least 2 feet above the 100 -year floodplain elevation. 15 The LRRWMO requires compensatory storage for impacts to Developers Cities floodplain storage (i.e., no net loss in floodplain storage) and Residents prohibits filling/encroachment of FEMA -delineated floodways. 16 The LRRWMO allows only land uses in the LRRWMO-established or Developers Cities FEMA -delineated floodplain that will not be damaged by Residents floodwaters and will not increase flooding. Allowable types of land use that are consistent with the floodplain include recreation areas, parking lots, temporary excavation and storage areas, public utility lines, agriculture, and other open spaces. 17 The LRRWMO requires member cities to maintain ordinances that Developers Cities are consistent with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 6120.5000 and Residents LRRWMO performance standards included in the LRRWMO Rules. Member cities must submit updates to floodplain ordinances to the LRRWMO for review. 4.2.4 Strategies and Policies: Operations The operations strategy refers to administrative and organizational roles of the LRRWMO and its member cities. These policies address ongoing programs (e.g., monitoring), reporting and assessment, funding, BMP maintenance, planning, and other activities associated with water resource management within the LRRWMO. The operations policies adopted by the LRRWMO are presented in Table 4-4. 5-5 Table 4-4 LRRWMO Operations Policies 5-6 Now The LRRWMO will continue to work with the Anoka Conservation Target Audience(s) Public Implementing Entity(-ies) LRRWMO 19 District, member cities, and other partners to perform water quality Cites ACD and water quantity monitoring of priority resources. MPCA 20 The LRRWMO will continue to engage the Anoka Conservation Public ACD District acting as the depository and coordinator for the collection Cites of water quality data to assure consistency and comparability of MPCA data. 21 The LRRWMO will assess priority water resources relative to Public LRRWMO applicable water quality standards annually, where declining trends Cities Cities and/or water quality standard exceedances are identified, the LRRWMO LRRWMO will work the appropriate member cities to evaluate the situation and develop resource specific water quality improvement or protection strategies. 18 The LRRWMO requires that each member city perform all duties Public Cities required as part of its NPDES MS4 stormwater permit. Cities 27 Member cities are responsible for maintenance of their public Public Cities drainage systems to ensure intended functions (excepting County Developers ditches and other public ditches for which the City is not the ditch Cities authority). 28 Owners of private stormwater facilities shall be responsible for Public Cities maintenance to ensure the intended function of those facilities, Developers LRRWMO except where documented maintenance agreements exist. Maintenance of private ditches and other stormwater facilities are subject to LRRWMO permit requirements, if applicable. 29 The LRRWMO recognizes Anoka County's jurisdiction over public Anoka County LRRWMO ditches in the LRRWMO (except for County Ditch 3/66 and Ditch 43 the responsibility of the City of Ramsey, per Joint Powers Agreement dated April 18, 2002). 31 The LRRWMO defers management authority of the Rum River Dam City of Anoka LRRWMO to the City of Anoka. The LRRWMO will collaborate on management decisions, as requested by the City of Anoka. 23 Member cities are required to develop local water management Public LRRWMO plans consistent with Minnesota Rules 8410. All local water Cities Cities management plans shall be consistent with the LRRWMO Plan and Rules. The LRRWMO shall review local water management plans. 32 The LRRWMO will work with member cities to periodically review Cities LRRWMO and update its permit program to improve consistency, efficiency, and ensure the intended benefits are achieved. 34 The LRRWMO will continue to track excess stormwater retention Developers LRRWMO volume (i.e., "banking") and seek opportunities for future banking Cities sites and projects. 22 The LRRWMO will collaborate with the URRWMO, Rum River 1 W1P Rum River 1 W1 LRRWMO Partnership, and other entities to provide guidance for upstream Partners projects and programs designed to address water quality, flooding, and ecological issues in the Rum River. 5-6 Table 4-4 LRRWMO Operations Policies 5-7 AsAudience(s) Target Implementing Entity(-ies) 26 The LRRWMO will collaborate with local and state agencies if/when MDNR LRRWMO these agencies develop a groundwater action plan in an effort to MDH gain a better understanding of groundwater -surface water Anoka County interaction and develop management strategies that consider the protection of both resources. The role of the LRRWMO may include: • Collaborate with local and state agencies to identify data gaps and attempt to fill those gaps through collection of groundwater level data and/or surface water flow data. • Coordinate with appropriate local and state agencies to develop a groundwater budget for the watershed. • Coordinate with appropriate local and state agencies to develop and utilize tools to assess surface water impacts and groundwater impacts of groundwater use 24 The LRRWMO will prepare an annual report consistent with the BWSR LRRWMO requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1038. The LRRWMO will Cities ACD submit the annual report to BWSR and make the annual report available on its website at www.Irrwmo.org 25 Member communities shall prepare and submit an annual status LRRWMO LRRWMO report to the LRRWMO by January 1 of each year reviewing the Cities Cities status of their local plans, the status of the implementation of their plans, and a review of the implementation of the policies outlined in the LRRWMO plan. Annual status reports shall be prepared using the LRRWMO template. 35 The LRRWMO will assess progress towards Plan goals and BWSR LRRWMO implementation at least every two years. As part of this assessment, ACD the LRRWMO will review its implementation program prioritization and consider City implementation programs. The LRRWMO will revise its implementation plan, if necessary, through the Plan amendment process. 30 The LRRWMO will continue to pursue external (i.e., non -city) -- LRRWMO sources of funding to support implementation of the LRRWMO ACD Plan, including grants, cost -share opportunities, and in-kind services. 33 For development and redevelopment proposals that are unable to Developers LRRWMO meet LRRWMO infiltration requirements, the LRRWMO requires contribution to a stormwater impact fund. The LRRWMO will review and update the contribution amount at least every two years based on expenses incurred by past projects. 5-7 5 Implementation Program The LRRWMO implementation program summarizes the activities the LRRWMO plans to perform over the next 10 years. The implementation program includes administrative activities, programs (e.g., monitoring, permitting), studies, and projects necessary to pursue LRRWMO goals. Methods for prioritizing and funding programs, projects, and capital improvements are also discussed in this section. The implementation of this plan will be through the LRRWMO, the member communities, Anoka Conservation District, or ajoint effort between the LRRWMO and other state, local or federal agencies. 5.1 Implementation Plan Structure The District's implementation plan is organized into the following major categories: • Administration • Programs, including: o Engineering, Permitting, and Planning o Education o Monitoring • Projects, including studies and Capital Improvements Proposed LRRWMO activities are presented in Table 5-1 according to the above categories. Table 5-1 includes the following planning -level information: • Activity category • Activity title • Priority level (see Section 5.2) • Goals addressed by the activity (see Table 4-1) • Potential partners • Estimated total cost over the 10 -year Plan life (planning level) • Proposed year(s) of implementation • Estimated annual cost 5.2 Prioritization and Targeting The LRRWMO acknowledges that limited funding and capacity may prevent the scheduled completion of all planned activities. To further guide implementation, activities presented in Table 5-1 are therefore identified as having "high" or "medium" priority with consideration for several factors. High Priority— high priority activities include those actions necessary for the LRRWMO to exist and operate and activities required by Minnesota Statute 1036 and Minnesota Rules 8410 (e.g., 5-1 plan development, annual reporting). High priority activities also include those that address level 1 priority issues of stormwater management and water quality (see Table 3-1). Medium Priority — medium priority activities include those that are not required by statute or rule and are not essential to addressing level 1 resource issues (see Table 3-1). Examples include non -water quality monitoring activities and coordination of a citizen advisory committee. This classification system is qualitative and intended to serve as a guide for annual work planning and budgeting. Activities in the annual work plan may be accelerated, delayed, delegated, or abandoned relative to the 10 -year implementation plan. For example, activities led by partners may be implemented earlier or later than planned due to changing partner priorities, funding, and schedules. Factors considered in the development of the annual work plan may include the following: • Annual budget commitments from previous years (i.e., ongoing responsibilities) • Available revenues, grants, and cost -share funding (e.g., from cities or agencies) • Activity priority • Feasibility • Risk (of performing or not performing the activity) • Results of monitoring or studies • Input from member cities, CAC, and other partners • Consideration of balance with other proposed projects and programs The implementation plan (Table 5-1) is a statement of intent by the LRRWMO. Final decisions on implementation activities rest with the Board of Managers to budget for and authorize via the annual work plan. During implementation, additional activities may be added to Table 5-1 via a Plan amendment (see Section 5.6). The programs and projects identified in Table 5-1 are also targeted, where applicable, to specific geographies, resources, and audiences within the watershed. Water quality monitoring and management activities are targeted to the following LRRWMO priority waters: • Rum River • Grass (Sunfish) Lake • Rogers Lake • Round Lake The LRRWMO plans to perform subwatershed analyses early in Plan implementation to estimate pollutant loading throughout the watershed (see Table 5-1). Spatial estimates of pollutant loading may be used to prioritize and target future water quality improvement projects. s-2 5.3 Implementation Categories 5.3.1 Administration The LRRWMO administration work includes ongoing activities that recur annually to satisfy Minnesota Rules for watershed management organizations and those that pertain to the organization, administration, and operation of the LRRWMO. This includes time and expenses for an administrator, recording secretary, and legal counsel. This category also includes activities related to annual work planning, reporting, and progress assessment, as well as activities performed in pursuit of external funding (e.g., grant) opportunities. 5.3.2 Engineering, Permitting, and Planning Engineering, permitting, and planning implementation activities include the implementation of the LRRWMO permit program. These activities also include review of local water management plans (see Section 5.7.1), periodic review and update to LRRWMO standards, coordination with partner planning efforts (e.g., Rum River 1 W1P), and updates and amendments to the LRRWMO Plan (this document). 5.3.2.1 LRRWMO Permit Program Since its inception, the LRRWMO permitting program has been the primary focal point of the LRRWMO's activities and the primary means of pollution prevention within the watershed. The LRRWMO requires project proposers to apply for and obtain a LRRMWO permit (see Appendix B and Appendix C) prior to performing activities that disturb one or more acre of land or have potential wetland impacts, regardless of size, that meet the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Prior to submitting an LRRWMO permit application, project proposers should coordinate with applicable City staff and confirm that all local requirements (i.e., City controls) are satisfied. The project proposer must then submit a: 1. Grading, Stormwater Management, and Erosion/Sediment Control Permit Application and/or 2. Permit Application for Wetland Conservation Act Decision The LRRWMO engineer reviews permit applications for compliance with LRRWMO stormwater and wetland performance standards (see Appendix E and Appendix F) and makes a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval to the LRRWMO Board. The Board may issue a permit based on the recommendation of the engineer. The procedures for permit review, approval, and enforcement are described in greater detail in Appendix B and Appendix C. The LRRWMO tracks the estimated stormwater volume reduction and estimated pollutant reductions achieved by these projects. From 2019 through 2020, the LRRWMO reviewed over 40 projects which provide and estimated 175 lbs/year total phosphorus reduction and 18 tons/year sediment reduction. The LRRWMO updated its permit application process concurrent with the development of this Plan. The LRRWMO will continue to periodically meet with City staff to evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of 5-3 LRRWMO performance standards and permit program. Placeholder activities for anticipated updates to performance standards and permit applications during the next 10 years are included in Table 5-1. 5.3.3 Education Program Education activities include those activities performed by LRRWMO and its contracted staff. These activities are generally identified in Table 5-1. The LRRWMO carries out much of its educational programming through the member cities and ACD. Member cities distribute articles and newsletters that address water and natural resource information, including, but not limited to: • Pollution prevention stewardship practices • Wetland protection • Invasive species prevention and management • Groundwater quality • Water conservation • Hazardous waste disposal • Reducing winter salt application • Small-scale BMP cost -share opportunities Consistent with Minnesota Rules 8410.0160, the LRRWMO maintains a website that contains the LRRWMO meeting information, Manager and staff contact information, regulatory (i.e., permit) program information, planning documents, annual reports, and links to additional information. The website is hosted and maintained by the ACD. The LRRWMO website is: http://www.Irrwmo.org[ The LRRWMO also supports education and public engagement activities through an ACD Education Coordinator. The ACD Education Coordinator prepares educational material for distribution by the LRRWMO, ACD, and member cities, represents LRRWMO interests at public events, solicits volunteers, and performs other engagement activities. As part of Plan development, the LRRWMO convened a citizen advisory committee (CAC). The LRRWMO plans to leverage the GAC in ongoing opportunities during Plan implementation. These opportunities may include monitoring data collection, public engagement at events, or input/review of LRRWMO activities. 5.3.4 Monitoring Program The LRRWMO monitors the water quality of the following priority water resources in order to assess trends and identify the need for potential management actions: • Rum River • Grass (Sunfish) Lake • Rogers Lake • Round Lake Water quality monitoring is performed by the ACD and/or Metropolitan Council through the Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP). Water quality of Grass (Sunfish) Lake is monitored annually, Round 5-4 Lake and Rogers Lake are monitored every three years. Lake level monitoring is performed annually on Grass (Sunfish) Lake, Round Lake, Rogers Lake, and Lake Itasca. Student volunteers also perform biological monitoring of the Rum River annually. Monitoring data is compiled by the ACD and available from the LRRWMO website: http://www.irrwmo.orciZmonitoring Hydrologic and water quality monitoring data is also supplemented by data collected by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), US Geological Survey (USGS) and others. 5.3.5 Projects and Capital Improvements Projects, studies, and capital improvements known at the time of Plan development are identified in Table 5-1. Several of these activities are likely to be implemented in cooperation with the ACD and/or member cities as partners. The LRRWMO anticipates leveraging watershed based implementation funding (WBIF) to support some of these projects. Specific project opportunities not yet identified are likely to arise during the life of this Plan. The LRRRWMO has attempted to include placeholder costs for these opportunities. The LRRWMO may perform Plan amendments (see Section 5.6), as needed, to incorporate future projects. 5.3.6 Grant Programs The LRRWMO financially supports the Anoka Conservation District cost -share grant program. The ACD cost share program provide up to 75% of material and other expenses for projects that address: • Shoreline Stabilization • Stormwater Treatment • Groundwater Conservation • Habitat Improvement and Management • Agricultural Projects and Practices Additional information is available from the ACD at: httos://www.anokaswcd.org/index.php/water- quality.html 5-5 Table 5-1 LRRWMO Implementation Schedule - Draft 2/17/2020 Catgory pctivlty Goals PHoft Partners Funding Source 10-yearsost Fsdmr Cost Year lPlanMrM leaell-peuntetl In 2021 dollars Addressed level 2022 2023 2024 00II 2026 131 202E 2029 2030 2031 General Adminstunlon All High ACD Geners"UM S 250,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 S 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 S 25,000 Administration Annual Report 14 Hih ACD Geneul Funtl $ 10,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 S 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 3.00 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ I'M Biennial progress mA. 14 High ACD General Fun $ 5,000 $ I.000 $ Low $ 1,000 $ 1,000 S 1,000 Grant review arta salutation 17 Medium ACD General Fun $ 10,000 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1.000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 General E Ineerl All High General Fund $ 50,000 S 5,000 S 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 S 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Permit Revlaw 1,2, 3,8,10. High aty Permittees $ 300,000 $ 30,o00 $ 30.000 $ 30.000 $ 30.00 $ 30.000 $ 30.000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30.000 11,13,16 Eng ulanhig Stommvater Plan Review 7,10,11,16 High General Fund $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Management Plan update 14 High General Fund $ 100,000 20,000 $ 50,000 $ 30,000 Review and Update Rules 6, 8,10,11. High DRY General Fund $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 14 15 Webule Adminlstration 19 High ACD General Fun $ 10,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 IS 1,000 $ 1,000 Eckunion Coordinator 5, 6, ]2,09,19, High ACD Ge WBlFund, $ 100,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10.00 $ 10,000 $ 10.00 $ 10,000 $ 10.00 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Eduotlon Ory Newsletters 5, 7, 9, M High ACO, City General Fund $ 20,000 1 $ 2,000 1 S 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 $ 2.00 1 $ 2000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 CACcoordlnatlon 20 1 Medium I Ory General Fund IS 15,0001$ 1,51M 1 $ 1,500 1 $ 1,500 1 $ 1,500 I S 1,500 1 $ 1,500 1 $ 1,500 1 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 lake WQMonitonng 1 High ACD, MFCA General Fun $ 2],000 $ 4,500 S 1,500 $ 1,500 S 4,500 S 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 4,500 5 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 4500 lake level MonitOrint 15 Medium I ACD General Fund 1$ 10,000 15 1.000 15 1,000 1 S 1,000 1 $ 1,000 I $ 1,000 15 1,000 I $ 1,000 15 1,0001S 1,000 $ 1,000 Monitoring lRum Rwer WO Monitoring 23 1 H h I ACD, MPCA I General Fun IS 20,000 1 $ 2,000 I $ 2,000 15 2000 15 2,000 1 $ ;000 1 $ 2,000 15 2,000 15 2,000 $ 70001S 000 u Strm blo monitorin 1,19, 20 Medium Schools (Sassari Fund $ 10,000 S 1,000 S LOBO 1$ 1,000 $ 1,000 S 1,00015 1.000 $ 1.00 $ 1,000$ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 Wetland! Monitoring I Medium ACD I General Fund 1 $ 10,000 1 S 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 S 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1.00 j Cort -share grant small project 3 5,17, 20 High ACD General Fund $ 50,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 51000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5.00 $ 51000 support Oty/ACD and Share projects 2, 3, 4, 5,1], WBIF (general (strumbank restoration) 18, 21 High City, ACD fund match) $ 500,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ ]5,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 Subwatershed Analyses (Mississippi River - Anoka; Rum IB High City. ACO WBIF(general 5 00.00 $ 25.00 $ 75.00 Pro)eCb/Programs River -Andover) fund match) Assessment of Trott Snook 5 Medium City, AMWBIF(general 5 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 ripadan opportunties fund!match) Insult curl <ut rainwater 2,17 Medium City, W81F (general ardens in dont areas TBD ACD fund match $ 80.00 $ 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Groundwater Planning 9 Medium MDNR, MDH, General Fund $ 10,000 $ LOW $ 1.00 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 S 1,000 $ 1.00 $ 1.00 Met Council Administration $ 275,000 $ 27.000 $ 28,000 $ 27,000 $ 28,000 $ 27,000 $ 28,000 $ 27,000 $ 18,000 $ 2],000 $ 28,000 Enginunng&Permitting 5 480,000 $ 35,000 $ 37,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 35,000 $ 41000 $ 55.000 S 85,000 $ ]5,000 Education & Outreach $ 145,000 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 $ 14 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 Monitedng $ ]],000 $ 9,So0 S 61500 $ 61500 $ 9,500 $ 6,500 $ 6,500 $ 9,500 $ 61500 $ 6,500 $ 9,500 Projetts $ 710,000 $ 81,000 $ 81,000 S 91.00 S 86,000 $ ]6.00 $ 26,000 $ 26,000 $ 81,000 $ 81,000 $ 81,000 Total $ 1,66),000 $ 167,0001$ 267,0001$ 174,000 $ 173,000 $ 1]1,000 $ 110,000 $ 118,000 $ 185,000 $ 214,000 $ 208,000 5.4 Funding Mechanisms 5.4.1 LRRWMO General Fund Through the LRRWMOjoint powers agreement, each member city contributes annually to the LRRWMO general fund. The annual contribution amount is split such that 50 percent of the total is apportioned based on the area within the LRRWMO and 50 percent is apportioned based on the taxable market value. The LRRWMO has used the general fund for administrative costs, monitoring, education, studies, and select projects, including the development of this Plan. The LRRWMO general fund may also be used to partially or completely fund capital improvements. 5.4.2 LRRWMO Improvement Fund The LRRWMOjoint powers agreement calls for the establishment of an improvement fund for each improvement project ordered by the Board not paid for out of the LRRWMO general fund. Project costs are to be apportioned to each member city in accordance with the currentjoint powers agreement. 5.4.3 LRRWMO Permit Application Fees and Escrow The LRRWMO charges permit application fees and escrow fees for projects triggering a Grading, Stormwater Management, and Erosion/Sediment Control permit and/or a permit for Minnesota WCA Decision and Procedure Requirements (see Section 5.3.2.1). These funds pay for LRRWMO engineer and administrative staff time associated with review and documentation of the permit applications. The balance of the escrow is returned to the permit applicant. See Appendix B and Appendix C for additional details. 5.4.4 Ad Valorem Taxing Authority Minnesota Statute 10313.251 allows WMOs to certify capital improvements to the county for payment, if those improvements are included in the WMO's watershed management plan. The county then issues bonds and levies an ad valorem tax on all taxable property in the WMO (or subwatershed unit of the WMO) to pay for the projects. This process requires sufficient lead time and coordination with the County, as formal County approval of any amendments to a WMO's plan and associated levy amounts is required. A WMO may also raise funds through direct ad valorem taxation (Minnesota Statutes 1038.241), but only if the WMO is specifically listed as a special taxing district in Minnesota Statutes 275.066. If a WMO is given taxing authority, the WMO may also accumulate funds to finance improvements as an alternative to issuing bonds (Minnesota Statutes 103B.241). The LRRWMO is not currently listed as a special taxing district per MS 275.066. Historically, the LRRWMO has not used this funding mechanism. 5.4.5 Member City Funding Funding mechanisms available to the member cities include: 5-7 • City General Funds • Special Assessments • Ad Valorem Taxes • Stormwater Utility • Development Fees • Tax Increment Financing Additional information about member city funding mechanisms is available in member city local water management plans. 5.4.6 Grand Funding and Partner Cost -share State Clean Water Fund (CWF) grants and other competitive grants provide an opportunity for the LRRWMO to offset the cost of large studies, non-structural projects, and capital improvements. The LRRWMO will continue to seek and apply for grants and loans to offset project costs whenever possible and cost effective. However, grant and loan programs change frequently as funding sources and priorities change, new grant and loans become available, and existing programs are terminated. In addition to competitive grants, BWSR's Watershed Based Implementation Funding (WBIF) is expected to become the primary mechanism through which BWSR distributes Clean Water Fund grants. The WBIF program will supply a steady but small source of grant funding allocated every 2 years. WBIF will be allocated within the metro by watershed, with the LRRWMO located within the "Rum River" WBIF watershed. Local units of government within the Rum River WBIF watershed shall determine the distribution of WBIF within its boundary. Coordination between the LRRWMO, its partners, and other organizations within the Rum River WBIF watershed is critical to promote effective and equitable use of WBIF grant funds. Additional information is available from BWSR at: https!//bwsr.state.mn.us/watershed- based-i mplementation-fund ing-pros ra m The LRRWMO has collaborated with the ACD and its member cities to successfully complete water and natural resources improvement projects through cost -share opportunities. Without cost-sharing, such projects may otherwise be cost -prohibitive. Noteworthy examples of effective cost -share partnerships include streambank stabilization projects along the Rum River implement in cooperation with the ACD. The LRRWMO may lead implementation of such projects or contribute financially to projects led by partners. Table 5-1 identifies potential partners for planned implementation activities, where appropriate. 5.5 Plan Reporting and Assessment 5.5.1 Annual Reporting The LRRWMO is responsible for evaluating progress towards achieving its goals and reporting annually to BWSR, per Minnesota Rules 8410.0150. Within the first 120 days of the calendar year, the District must submit to BWSR an activity report for the previous calendar year. Reporting requirements specified in Minnesota Rules 8410 will be followed. Generally, the LRRWMO's annual report includes: 5-8 • An assessment of the previous year's annual work plan that indicates whether the planned activities were performed, including the expenditures of each activity with respect to the approved budget (unless included in the audit report) • A work plan and budget for the current year specifying which activities will be undertaken • At a minimum of every 2 years, an evaluation of progress on goals and the implementation actions, including the capital improvement program, to determine if amendments to the implementation actions are necessary • A summary of significant trends of lake, stormwater, and climate monitoring data • The BWSR Level I Performance Review and Assistance Program (PRAP) review The LRRWMO annual report is typically prepared and submitted by the ACD on behalf of the LRRWMO. The annual report may be supplemented by additional reports (e.g., ACD Monitoring Report). Within 180 days of the calendar year, the LRRWMO must submit an audit report of the preceding year's activities. 5.5.2 Progress Assessment Biennially, the District will perform a more detailed evaluation to assess the level of progress achieved on each of the LRRWMO's adopted goals (see Section 4.1). The format of this evaluation is based on the organization of District goals, cross referenced to the most applicable implementation activities and the associated measurable outputs (Appendix G). Several of the LRRWMO's resource goals (e.g., water quality goals) have a clear, quantifiable metric to assess achievement or progress. In some cases, however, the scope of LRRWMO's goals is not captured by strictly quantitative metrics. Thus, the assessment of LRRWMO progress may include quantitative values and/or qualitative (narrative) discussion of progress towards each goal. The measurable outputs of the implementation activities most directly correlated with each goal will also be reported. This information may be used for annual work planning and potential amendments to the implementation schedule. This evaluation may allow the LRRWMO to focus efforts on goals that are lagging and prioritize (or de- emphasize) individual implementation activities. The LRRWMO anticipates that BWSR will perform a Level II PRAP review during the life of this Plan. The LRRWMO will incorporate the results of the Level II PRAP in the remaining implementation of this Plan and future Plan updates. 5.6 Plan Amendments and Updates This Plan will guide LRRWMO activities through 2030, or until superseded by adoption of a subsequent Plan. During this time, the LRRWMO may revise its Plan through an amendment procedure, as needed. Amendments to this Plan will follow the procedures described in this section and will proceed in accordance with the process provided in Minnesota Rules 8410.0140 and Minnesota Statutes 1036.231. Plan amendments may be proposed by any person to the Board of Managers, but only the Board of Managers may initiate the amendment process. All recommended plan amendments must be submitted 5-9 to the LRRWMO in writing, along with a statement of the problem and need, the rationale for the amendment, and an estimate of the cost. Amendments identified by LRRWMO contract staff and member city staff will similarly be presented to the Board of Managers for approval. The LRRWMO anticipates that only significant changes or additions to goals, issues, administrative procedures, or implementation (i.e., programs, projects, and capital improvements) will prompt and amendment to the Plan, although final discretion resides with the Board of Managers. Minnesota Rules 8410.0140 subp. 1a defines changes that do not require an amendment (e.g. reformatting/reorganization of the plan, clarification of existing plan goals or policies, and adjustment to how the District will carry out program activities within its discretion). Amendments to this Plan are subject to the review process provided in Minnesota Statutes 103B.231 subd. 11, except when the proposed amendments are determined to be minor -amendments by satisfying all of the following criteria: A. BWSR has either agreed that the amendments are minor or failed to act within five working days of the end of the 30 -day comment period specified in item B (unless an extension has been mutually agreed upon); B. The LRRWMO has sent copies of the amendments to the plan review authorities for review and comment allowing at least 30 days for receipt of comments, has identified that the minor amendment procedure is being followed, and has directed that comments be sent to the District board; C. No county board has filed an objection to the amendments with the LRRWMO and BWSR within the comment period specified in item B (unless an extension is mutually agreed upon); D. The LRRWMO has held a public meeting to explain the amendments and published a legal notice of the meeting twice, at least seven days and 14 days before the date of the meeting; or E. The amendments are not necessary to make the Plan consistent with an approved and adopted Anoka County groundwater plan. Draft and final amendments will be formatted and distributed consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Rules 8410.0140, subparts 4 and 5, respectively. Approximately 2 years prior to the expiration date of this Plan, the LRRWMO will begin the process of updating its Plan (unless a revised schedule is developed by BWSR in accordance with Minnesota Statutes section 1038.231, subdivision 3a). 5.7 Local Controls and Water Management Plans The member cities of the LRRWMO manage the impacts of development and redevelopment on water resources through their official controls (e.g., City code, ordinances), local water management plan (LWMP) and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. 5-10 Each member city is a regulated MS4 under the Clean Water Act and is required to be in compliance with the MS4 General Permit, issued by the State of Minnesota. The MS4 General Permit requires each regulated MS4 to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) that addresses how the MS4 will reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants entering waters from stormwater systems. Information regarding municipal stormwater responsibilities and the MS4 program is available from the MPCA at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/municii)al-stormwater-ms4 Member cities maintain local ordinances regulating stormwater management within their jurisdiction consistent with the LRRWMO Plan and performance Standards (see Appendix E and Appendix F). Future updates to City ordinances and official controls must be consistent with, or adopt by reference, this Plan and LRRWMO performance standards. If necessary due to future amendments to this Plan, Cities shall amend their official controls to be consistent with this Plan within 2 years of adoption of future amendments. 5.7.1 Local Water Management Plans The member cities are required to complete a local water management plan (LWMP) that conforms to Minnesota Statutes 1036.235, Minnesota Rules 8410.0160, and is consistent with the LRRWMO Plan (this document). Minnesota Rules 8410.0160 and Minnesota Statutes 1036.235 Subd. 2 include specific requirements for LWMP content, review, approval, and adoption. LWMPs must be adopted no more than two years prior to the adoption of a local comprehensive plan and extensions of local comprehensive plans due dates do not alter the LWMP schedule. The current status of City LWMPs is presented in Table 5-2. The policies, goals, and performance standards established in each city's LWMP must be consistent with the LRRWMO plan. The section of the LWMP covering assessment of problems must include those problems identified in the LRRWMO Plan that affect the city. The corrective action proposed must consider the individual and collaborative roles of the city and the LRRWMO and must be consistent with the LRRWMO Plan. In general, the LRRWMO expects the Cities to take the lead in addressing problem areas that are primarily local in nature (e.g., local nuisance flooding). LWMPs should identify problems and corrective actions that affect LRRWMO concerns stated in this Plan or require LRRWMO collaboration to address. Cities are responsible for maintaining stormwater infrastructure, the LRRWMO requires that LWMPs assess the need for periodic maintenance of public works, facilities, and natural conveyance systems. 5-11 Table 5-2 Local Water Plan Status LWMPs must be submitted to the LRRWMO for review and approval per the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1036.235. The LRRWMO will review the LWMP following the process and schedule described in Minnesota Statutes 1036.235. Upon LRRWMO approval of the local plan, the city must adopt and implement its plan within 120 days and amend its official controls within 180 days of plan approval. The city must notify the LRRWMO within 30 days of plan adoption and implementation and adoption of necessary official controls. If a city later wishes to amend its plan, it must submit the proposed amendment to the LRRWMO for review of consistency with the LRRWMO Plan following the procedure described in Minnesota Rules 8410.0160. Cities are encouraged to consult with the LRRWMO staff early on in their planning process. The LRRWMO will work closely with Cities as needed in local plan preparation, review, and implementation. 5-I2 6 References pending Appendix A Joint Powers Agreement AMENDED AND RESTATED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LOWER RUM RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOWER RUM RIVER WATERSHED PREFACE The Lower Rum River Watershed lying East of the Mississippi River is a watershed that is basically a direct tributary to the Mississippi River. It encompasses all or parts of the cities of Andover, Anoka and Ramsey (the "Member Cities'). Minnesota Laws of 1982, Chapter 509, now codified as Minnesota Statutes 2012, Sections 103B.201 through 10313.255 mandated that all watersheds within the seven county Metropolitan area must be governed by a watershed management organization. The watershed is authorized to organize under a joint powers agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 471.59 and 10313.211. If such an organization is not created, Anoka County shall petition for the establishment of a watershed district under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103D. All the cities in the Lower Rum River Watershed expressed a desire in 1985 to create a joint powers group rather than a watershed district and now desire to adopt an amended joint powers agreement to establish a watershed management organization, which will comply with the current law for management of the watershed. It is the belief of these three cities that a joint powers group will provide more efficient planning and administration of the Lower Rum River Watershed if the watershed is managed under a joint powers agreement. The goal is to leave as much control as possible with the three individual Member Cities. It has been determined by the three Member Cities that they desire to proceed under a Joint Powers Agreement rather than under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103D as a watershed district. Each party to this agreement has been fully advised that the watershed management organization being created shall have the powers and responsibilities set forth in the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 10313.201 through 10313.255 and as amended by this Agreement. It is further understood and agreed that it is the intent of this agreement to assign to the watershed management organization, which has operated since 1985, the additional powers and duties assigned by the Minnesota legislature. The management of water resources is a rapidly changing field and new laws and regulations are being adopted and amended frequently and it should not be necessary to amend this agreement every time the legislature enacts a new law. Each Member City further recognizes that this is a binding contract and failure to cooperate or to cant' out a Member City's responsibilities will result in a breach of this contract. The purpose of this organization shall be to assist the three Member Cities to preserve and use natural water storage and retention systems to: 438695v5 LW 105-1 I . Protect and preserve natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems; 2. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems; 3. Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface water and groundwater quality; 4. Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface water and groundwater management; 5. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems; 6. Promote groundwater recharge; 7. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; 8. Secure other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and groundwater; and 9. Promote and encourage cooperation among Member Cities in coordinating local surface water and groundwater plans and awareness of their neighbors' problems and to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. The Lower Rum River Watershed waters flow through many sub -watersheds directly to the Rum River and the Mississippi River. It is not anticipated that the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization will have many capital improvement projects; if it does, it is hereby expressed that the intent of this Agreement is to encourage that the solutions should be handled by agreements between the Member Cities. It is the intent of this Agreement to subject the Member Cities to a common set of policies and to comply in all respects with the provisions of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act. The purpose of this Preface is to clarify and establish for any court of review or any arbitrator or for the council members of the Member Cities the reasons and purpose for this joint and cooperative venture. The Member Cities realize that the success or failure of the Lower Rum River Watershed Organization created by this Agreement is dependent upon the sincere desire of each Member City to cooperate in the exercise of a joint power to solve joint problems. Each Member City hereby agrees to be bound by this agreement and pledges its cooperation. JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT The parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota, all of 2 438695v5 LW 105-1 which have lands that drain surface water within the Lower Rum River Watershed and all of which have power and responsibility to construct, reconstruct, extend and maintain storm water management facilities to improve water quality, to promote groundwater recharge, and to protect, promote and preserve water resources within the Watershed. This agreement is made pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes 2012, Sections 10313.201 through Section 10313.255 and Section 471.59. NAME I. The parties hereby create and establish the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization. GENERAL PURPOSE II. The general purpose of this agreement is to provide an organization that can investigate, study, plan and control the construction of facilities to drain or pond storm waters, to alleviate damage by flood waters; to improve the creek channels for drainage; to assist in planning for land use; to repair, improve, relocate, modify, consolidate or abandon, in whole or in part, drainage systems within the watershed area; to do whatever is necessary to assist in water conservation and the abatement of surface water and groundwater contamination and water pollution and the improvement of water quality; to promote ground water recharge; and to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities. In addition to the aforestated purposes, the organization hereby created shall serve as the watershed management organization for the Lower Rum River Watershed and shall carry out all of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B.201 through 10313.255. DEFINITIONS III. For the purposes of this Agreement, the terms used herein shall have the meanings as defined in this article. Subdivision 1. "Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization" or "LRRWMO" means the organization created by this agreement. It shall be a public agency of its members and a watershed management organization as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.211. Subdivision 2. "Board" means the Board of Commissioners of the LRRWMO, consisting of one Commissioner from each Member City or, in the absence of that Commissioner, that Member City's Alternate Commissioner. The Board shall be the governing body of the LRRWMO. Subdivision 3. "Council" means the governing body of a Member City. 3 438695v5 LW105-1 Subdivision 4. "Member City" means a city that enters into this agreement. Subdivision 5. "Lower Rum River Watershed" or "Watershed" means the area generally contained within a line drawn around the extremities of all terrain with surface drainage that is tributary to the Lower Rum River and the Mississippi River and within the mapped areas delineated on the map filed with the Board of Water and Soil Resources originally filed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.877, Subd. 2 and as now amended by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B, as such map has been amended with approval of the Board of Soil and Water Resources. MEMBERSHIP IV. The Member Cities of the LRRWMO shall be the City of Andover, the City of Anoka and the City of Ramsey. The LRRWMO may, with the ratification of the Councils of all Member Cities, invite other units of government within the Rum River Watershed to become parties to this Agreement, and in all respects thenceforth enjoy the full rights, duties, and obligations of this Agreement. No change in governmental boundaries, structure or organizational status shall affect the eligibility of the Member City to be represented on the LRRWMO, so long as such Member City continues to exist as a separate political subdivision. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. Subdivision 1. The governing body of the LRRWMO shall be its Board. Each Member City shall be entitled to appoint one representative on the Board, and one alternate who may sit when the representative is not in attendance and said representative or alternate representative shall be called a "Commissioner" and "Alternate Commissioner", respectively. Subdivision 2. The Council of each Member City shall determine the eligibility or qualification of its Commissioner and the terms of each Commissioner shall be as established by each individual Member City. Subdivision 3. The term of each Commissioner and Alternate Commissioner appointed by each Member City shall be as determined by each Member City and until their successors are selected and qualify. Any vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term of any Commissioner by the Council of the Member City that appointed said Commissioner. Each Member City agrees to publish a notice of vacancies resulting from the expiration of a Commissioner's or Alternate Commissioner's term or when a vacancy exists for any reason. Publication and notice shall be in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.227, Subds. 1 and 2. 4386950 LW105-1 Subdivision 4. Each Member City agrees that its representative Commissioner will not be removed from the Board prior to the expiration of the Commissioner's term, unless said Commissioner consents in writing or unless said Member City has presented the Commissioner with charges in writing and has held a public hearing after reasonable notice to the Commissioner. A Member City may remove a Commissioner or an Alternate Commissioner for just cause or for violation of a Code of Ethics of the Commission or a Member City, or for malfeasance, nonfeasance, or misfeasance. Said hearing shall be held by the Council of the Member City that appointed the Commissioner. A Commissioner who is an elected official of a Member City, and who is not reelected, may be removed by the appointing Member City at the Member City's discretion. Any decision by a Member City to remove a Commissioner may be appealed to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. A certified copy of the Member City Council's Resolution removing said Commissioner shall be filed with the Secretary of the Board and shall show compliance with the terms of this section. Subdivision 5. Each Member City shall within 30 days of appointment file with the Secretary of the Board a record of the appointment of its Commissioner and its Alternate Commissioner. The LRRWMO shall notify the Board of Water and Soil Resources of Commissioner appointments and vacancies within 30 days after receiving notice from the Member Cities. Member Cities shall fill all vacancies within 90 days after the vacancy occurs. Subdivision 6. Commissioners shall serve without compensation from the LRRWMO, but this shall not prevent a Member City from providing compensation for its Commissioner for serving on the Board, if such compensation is authorized by such Member City and by law. LRRWMO funds may be used to reimburse a Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner for expenses incurred in performing LRRWMO business if authorized by the Board. Subdivision 7. At the first meeting of the Board and in February of each year thereafter, the Board shall elect from its Commissioners a Chair, a Vice Chair, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such other officers as it deems necessary to conduct its meetings and affairs. At the organizational meeting or as soon thereafter as it may be reasonably done, the Board shall adopt rules and regulations governing its meetings. Such rules and regulations may be amended from time to time at either a regular or a special meeting of the Board provided that a ten-day prior notice of the proposed amendment has been furnished to each person to whom notice of the Board meetings is required to be sent. A majority vote of all eligible votes of the then existing Commissioners shall be sufficient to adopt any proposed amendment to such rules and regulations. The Board shall notify each Member City of the location and time of regular and special meetings called or established by the Board. A meeting shall be held at least annually, and all meetings shall be called and open to the public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D. 438695v5 LW105-1 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD VI. Subdivision 1. The LRRWMO, acting by its duly appointed Board of Commissioners, shall as it relates to flood control, water quality, ground water recharge and water conservation or in the construction of facilities and other duties as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B and in Rules and Regulations of the Board of Water and Soil Resources, have the powers and duties set out in this Article and as prescribed by law. Subdivision 2. It may employ such persons or contract with consultants as it deems necessary to accomplish its duties and powers, and any such persons or consultants shall be considered LRRWMO staff. Subdivision 3. It may contract for space and for material and supplies to carry on its activities either with a Member City or elsewhere. Subdivision 4. It may acquire necessary personal property to carry out its powers and its duties. Subdivision 5. It shall develop an overall plan containing a capital improvement program within a reasonable time after qualifying, and said plan shall meet all of the requirements as established in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B. Said overall plan shall establish a comprehensive goal for the development of the Lower Rum River Watershed and shall establish a proposed procedure for accomplishing the purposes of the LRRWMO as set forth in Article II. Subdivision 6. It shall make necessary surveys or utilize other reliable surveys and data and develop projects to accomplish the purposes for which the LRRWMO is organized. Subdivision 7. It may cooperate or contract with the State of Minnesota or any subdivision thereof or federal agency or private or public organization to accomplish the purposes for which it is organized. Subdivision 8. It may, if necessary to implement the plan, order any Member City or Member Cities to construct, clean, repair, alter, abandon, consolidate, reclaim or change the course or terminus of any ditch, drain, storm sewer, or water course, natural or artificial, within the Lower Rum River Watershed. The Member Cities further understand and agree that the LRRWMO in reviewing, ordering, or authorizing these projects will use the best management practices required to meet state and federal statutes and regulations. The LRRWMO will also consider the ability of the Member Cities to fund the enforcement of local controls and any ordered capital improvements. The LRRWMO shall incorporate financial review and anticipated sources of revenue as a part of the overall management plan and as a part of local water management plans. Subdivision 9. It may order any Member City or Member Cities to acquire, operate, construct or maintain dams, dikes, reservoirs and appurtenant works or other improvements 438695v5 LW I05-1 necessary to implement the overall plan. The Member Cities further understand and agree that the LRRWMO in reviewing, ordering, or authorizing these projects will use the best management practices required to meet state and federal statutes and regulations. The LRRWMO will also consider the ability of the Member Cities to fund the enforcement of local controls and any ordered capital improvements. The LRRWMO shall incorporate financial review and anticipated sources of revenue as a part of the overall management plan and as a part of local water management plans. Subdivision 10. It shall regulate, conserve and control the use of storm and surface water and groundwater within the Watershed necessary to implement the overall plan. Subdivision 11. It shall contract for or purchase such insurance as the Board deems necessary for the protection of the LRRWMO. Subdivision 12. It may establish and maintain devices for acquiring and recording hydrological and water quality data within the Watershed. Subdivision 13. It may enter upon lands, in a lawful manner, within or without the Watershed to make surveys and investigations to accomplish the purposes of the LRRWMO. The LRRWMO shall be liable for actual damages resulting therefrom but every person who claims damages shall serve the Chair or Secretary of the Board with a Notice of Claim as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.05. Subdivision 14. It shall provide any Member City with technical data or any other information of which the LRRWMO has knowledge that will assist the Member City in preparing land use classifications or local water management plans within the Watershed. Subdivision 15. It may provide legal and technical assistance in connection with litigation or other proceedings between one or more of its Member Cities and any other political subdivision, commission, board or agency relating to the planning or construction of facilities to drain or pond storm waters or relating to water quality within the Watershed. The use of LRRWMO funds for litigation shall be only upon a favorable vote of a majority of the eligible votes of the then existing Commissioners. Subdivision 16. It may accumulate reserve funds for the purposes herein mentioned and may invest funds of the LRRWMO not currently needed for its operations, in the manner and subject to the laws of Minnesota applicable to statutory cities. Subdivision 17. It may collect monies, subject to the provisions of this agreement, from its Member Cities, Anoka County and from any other source approved by a majority of its Commissioners. Subdivision 18. It may accept gifts, apply for and use grants or loans of money or other property from the United States, the State of Minnesota, a unit of government or other governmental unit or organization, or any person or entity for the purposes described herein; may 7 438695YS LW105-1 enter into any reasonable agreement required in connection therewith; may comply with any laws or regulations applicable thereto; and may hold, use, and dispose of such money or property in accordance with the terms of the gift, grant, loan or agreement relating thereto. Subdivision 19. It may make contracts, incur expenses and make expenditures necessary and incidental to the effectuation of these purposes and powers and may disburse therefor in the manner hereinafter provided. Subdivision 20. It shall cause to be made an annual audit by a certified public accountant or the state auditor of the books and accounts of the LRRWMO and shall make and file a report to its Member Cities at least once each year including the following information: a. the approved budget; b. a reporting of revenues; C. a reporting of expenditures; d. a financial audit report or section that includes a balance sheet, a classification of revenues and expenditures, an analysis of changes in final balances, and any additional statements considered necessary for full financial disclosure; and e. the status of all LRRWMO projects and work within the Watershed; Copies of said report shall be transmitted to the Clerk of each Member City Subdivision 21. Its books, reports and records shall be available for and open to inspection by its Member Cities at all reasonable times. Subdivision 22. It may recommend changes in this agreement to its Member Cities. Subdivision 23. It may exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to the implementation of the purposes and powers set forth herein and as outlined and authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 10313.201 through 10313.255. Subdivision 24. It shall cooperate with the State of Minnesota, the Commissioner of Natural Resources and the Director of the Division of Waters, Soils and Minerals of the Department of Natural Resources in complying with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103G. Subdivision 25. Each Member City reserves the right to conduct separate or concurrent studies on any matter under study by the LRRWMO. Subdivision 26. It shall establish a procedure for establishing citizen or technical advisory committees and provide other means of public participation. Subdivision 27. Where the LRRWMO is authorized or requested to review and make recommendations on any matter, the LRRWMO shall act on such matter within sixty (60) days of receipt of the matter referred. Failure of the LRRWMO to act within sixty (60) days shall constitute approval of the matter referred, unless the LRRWMO requests and receives from the 438695YS LW 105-1 referring unit of government an extension of time to act on the matter referred. Where the LRRWMO makes recommendation of any matter to a Member City, the Council of a Member City not acting in accordance with such recommendation shall submit a written statement of its reasons for doing otherwise to the LRRWMO within ten (10) days of its decision to act contrary to the LRRWMO's recommendation. The LRRWMO shall review the written statement and if determined insufficient by the LRRWMO, request written clarification within an additional ten (10) days. METHOD OF PROCEEDING VII. Subdivision 1. The procedures to be followed by the Board in carrying out the powers and duties set forth in Article VI, Subdivisions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, shall be as set forth in this Article. Subdivision 2. The Board has previously prepared the overall plan as required in Article VI, Subdivision 5. This plan shall be updated as required by state law. The Board shall proceed to implement said plan, and this implementation may be ordered by stages. Subdivision 3. No project that will channel or divert additional waters to subdistrict and subtrunks that cross municipal boundaries shall be commenced by any Member City prior to approval of the Board of the design of an adequate outlet or of adequate storage facilities. Subdivision 4. Ordering Improvements. All construction, reconstruction, extension or maintenance of outlets for the various subdistrict and subtrunks, including outlets, lift stations, dams, reservoirs, or other appurtenances of a surface water or storm sewer system that involve construction by, or assessment against, any Member City or against privately or publicly owned land within the Watershed shall follow the statutory procedures outlined in Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes except as herein modified. The Board shall secure from its engineers or some other competent person a report advising it in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and whether it shall best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended and the proposed allocation of costs between Member Cities. The Board shall then hold a public hearing on the proposed improvement after mailed notice to the Clerk of each Member City. The Board shall not be required to mail or publish notice except by said notice to the Clerk. Said notice shall be mailed not less than 45 days before the hearing, shall state the time and place of the hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated total cost and the estimated cost to each Member City. The Board may adjourn said hearing to obtain further information, may continue said hearing pending action of the Member Cities or may take such other action as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of the LRRWMO. 9 438695v5 LW105-I To order the improvement, in accordance with the powers and duties established in Article VI, Subdivisions 7, 8 and 9, a resolution setting forth the order for a capital improvement project shall require a favorable vote by two-thirds of all eligible votes of the then existing Commissioners. (In all cases other than for a capital improvement project, a majority vote of all eligible Commissioners shall be sufficient to order the work.) The order shall describe the improvement, shall allocate in percentages the cost between the Member Cities, shall designate the engineers to prepare plans and specifications, and shall designate the Member City that will contract for the improvement in accordance with Subdivision 7 of this Article. In determining how costs of a capital improvement shall be allocated among Member Cities, the Board shall consider whether the improvement benefits one or more subwatersheds rather than the Lower Rum River Watershed as a whole. After the Board has ordered an improvement it shall forward to all Member Cities an estimated time schedule for the construction of said improvement. The Board shall allow an adequate amount of time, and in no event less than 45 days, for each Member City to conduct hearings, in accordance with the provisions of the aforestated Chapter 429, or the charter requirements of any city, or to ascertain the method of financing that said Member City will utilize to pay its proportionate share of the costs of the improvement. Each Member City shall ascertain within a period of 90 days the method it shall use to pay its proportionate share of the costs. If the LRRWMO proposes to utilize Anoka County's bonding authority as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251, or if the LRRWMO proposes to certify all or any part of a capital improvement to Anoka County for payment, then and in that event all proceedings shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions set forth in said Section 103B.251. Subdivision 5. Any Member City being aggrieved by the determination of the Board as to the allocation of the costs of said improvement shall have 30 days after the Board resolution ordering the improvement to appeal said determination. Failure of a Member City to appeal the determination of the Board within such 30 -day period shall be deemed to be consent to and agreement with the cost allocation in the Board's resolution. An appeal shall be in writing and shall be addressed to the Board asking for arbitration. The determination of the Member City's appeal shall be referred to a board of arbitration. The board of arbitration shall consist of three persons; one to be appointed by the Board, one to be appointed by the appealing Member City, and the third to be appointed by the two so selected. In the event the two persons so selected do not appoint the third person within 15 days after their appointment, then the Chief Judge of the District Court of Anoka County shall have jurisdiction to appoint, upon application of either or both of the two earlier selected, the third person to the board of arbitration. The third person selected shall not be a resident of any Member City and if appointed by the Chief Judge said person shall be a registered professional engineer. The arbitrators' expenses and fees, together with the other expenses, not including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration shall be divided equally between the LRRWMO and the appealing Member City. Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 572B. Arbitration shall be non-binding unless the LRRWMO and the appealing Member City agree to binding arbitration. If the parties agree to binding arbitration the decision of the board of arbitration shall be final and the parties to the arbitration will be deemed to have consented to 10 438695v5 LW I05-1 and agreed with the decision. If these parties do not agree to binding arbitration, any party that does not agree with and consent to the decision of the board of arbitration must notify the Board in writing within 30 days of receipt of the decision of the board of arbitration that it does not consent to or agree with the decision. Failure to so notify the Board shall be deemed consent to and agreement with the decision of the board of arbitration. Unless the parties agree with.the decision of the board of arbitration, capital improvements can only be funded in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 10313.251, or secured from other sources. Subdivision 6. The Board shall not order and no engineer shall be authorized by the Board to prepare plans and specifications before the Board has adopted a resolution ordering the improvement. The Board may order the advertising for bids upon receipt of notice from each Member City that will be assessed that it has completed its hearing or determined its method of payment or upon expiration of 90 days after the mailing of the preliminary report to the Member City. Subdivision 7. Contracts for Improvements. All contracts that are to be let as a result of the Board's order to construct, repair, alter, reclaim or change the course or terminus of any ditch, drain, storm sewer, watercourse, or to acquire, operate, construct or maintain dams, dikes, reservoirs or their appurtenances or to carry out any of the other provisions of the plan as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, and for which two or more Member Cities shall be responsible for the costs, shall be let in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.041 of the Minnesota Statutes. The bidding and contracting of said work shall be let by any one of the Member Cities, as ordered by the Board, after compliance with the statutes. All contracts and bidding procedures shall comply with all the requirements of law applicable to contracts let by a statutory city in the State of Minnesota. The LRRWMO shall not have the authority to contract in its own name for any improvement work for which a special assessment will be levied against any private or public property under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 or under the provisions of any City charter. This section shall not preclude the LRRWMO from proceeding under Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. Subdivision 8. Contracts with Other Governmental Bodies. The LRRWMO may exercise the powers set forth in Article VI, Subdivision 7, but said contracts for a capital improvement shall require a favorable vote of two-thirds majority of the eligible votes of the then existing Commissioners. Subdivision 9. Supervision. All improvement contracts awarded under the provisions of Subdivision 7 of this Article shall be supervised by the Member City awarding said contract or said Member City may contract or appoint any qualified staff member or members of the LRRWMO to carry out said supervision, but each Member City agrees that the staff of the LRRWMO shall be authorized to observe and review the work in progress and the Member Cities agree to cooperate with the LRRWMO staff in accomplishing the purposes of the LRRWMO. Representatives of the LRRWMO shall have the right to enter upon the place or places where the improvement work is in progress for the purpose of making reasonable tests and inspections. The staff of the LRRWMO shall report, advise and recommend to the Board on 11 438695v5 LW105-1 the progress of said work. Subdivision 10. Land Acquisition. The LRRWMO shall not have the power of eminent domain. The Member Cities agree that any and all easements or interests in land that are necessary will be negotiated or condemned in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117 by the Member City wherein said lands are located, and each Member City agrees to acquire the necessary easements or right-of-way or partial or complete interest in land upon order of the Board to accomplish the purposes of this agreement. All reasonable costs of said acquisition shall be considered as a cost of the improvement. If a Member City determines it is in the best interests of that Member City to acquire additional lands, in conjunction with the taking of lands for storm and surface drainage or storage, for some other purposes, the costs of said acquisition will not be included in the improvement costs of the ordered project. The Board in determining the amount of the improvement costs to be assessed to each Member City may take into consideration the land use for which said additional lands are being acquired and may credit the acquiring Member City for said land acquisition to the extent that it benefits the other Member Cities. Any credits may be applied to the cost allocation of the improvement project under construction or the Board, if feasible and necessary, may defer said credits to a future project. If any Member City refuses to negotiate or condemn lands as ordered by the Board, any other Member City may negotiate or condemn outside its corporate limits in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 117. All Member Cities agree that they will not condemn or negotiate for land acquisition to pond or drain storm and surface waters within the corporate boundaries of another Member City within the Lower Rum River Watershed except upon order of the Board. The LRRWMO shall have authority to establish land acquisition policies as a part of the overall plan. Subdivision 11. Pollution Control and Water Quality. The LRRWMO shall have the authority and responsibility to protect and improve water quality in the Watershed as this is one of the main purposes set forth in the Surface Water Management Act. All Member Cities agree that they will refuse to allow the drainage of sanitary sewage or industrial wastes onto any lands or into any water course or storm sewer draining into the Ruin River or Mississippi River. The Board may investigate on its own initiative and shall investigate upon petition of any Member City all complaints relating to pollution of surface water or ground water draining to or affecting the Rum River or the Mississippi River or their tributaries. Upon a finding that the creek or surface waters or groundwater are being polluted, the Board shall order the Member City to abate this nuisance and each Member City agrees that it will take all reasonable action available to it under the law to alleviate the pollution and to assist in protecting and improving the water quality of surface water and groundwater in the Watershed. Subdivision 12. Local Water Management Plans. The LRRWMO shall have power and authority to review the Member Cities' local water management plans, capital improvements relating to surface water management programs and official controls required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.235 and/or by rules promulgated and adopted by the Board of Water and Soil Resources. 12 438695VS LW105-1 FINANCES VIII. Subdivision 1. The LRRWMO funds may be expended by the Board in accordance with this agreement and in accordance with the procedures as established by law and as may be determined by the Board. The Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or trust companies, authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 118 and 427 to receive deposits of public moneys and to act as depositories for the LRRWMO funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of LRRWMO funds without the signature of at least two Board members, one of whom shall be the Treasurer or Authorized Deputy Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be required to file with the Secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least $10,000 or such higher amount as shall be determined by the Board. The LRRWMO shall pay the premium on said bond. Subdivision 2. Each Member City agrees to contribute each year to a general fund, said fund to be used for general administration purposes including, but not limited to: salaries, rent, supplies, development of an overall plan, engineering and legal expenses, insurance, and bonds, and to purchase and maintain devices to measure hydrological and water quality data. Said funds may also be used for normal maintenance of the facilities, but any extraordinary maintenance or repair expense shall be treated as an improvement cost and processed in accordance with Subdivision 5 of this Article. The annual contribution by each Member City shall be based fifty percent (50%) on the net tax capacity of all property within the Watershed and fifty percent (50%) on the basis of the total area of each Member City within the boundaries of the Watershed each year to the total area in the Lower Rum River Watershed governed by this Agreement. Subdivision 3. (a) An improvement fund shall be established for each improvement project instituted under Article VII, Subdivision 4. In all cases in which capital improvements are to be paid in whole or in part by Member Cities, each Member City agrees to contribute to said fund its agreed-upon proportionate share of the engineering, legal and administrative costs as determined in accordance with Article VII, Subdivisions 4 and 5 as the amount to be assessed against each Member City as a cost of the improvement. The Board shall submit in writing a statement to each Member City, setting forth in detail the expenses incurred by the LRRWMO for each project. Each Member City further agrees to pay to or contract with the Member City awarding said contract for the improvement, its agreed-upon proportionate share of the cost of the improvement in accordance with the determination of the Board under Article VII, Subdivisions 4 and 5. The Member City awarding the contract shall submit in writing copies of the engineer's certificate authorizing payment during construction and the Member City being billed agrees to pay its proportionate share of said improvement costs within 30 days after receipt of the statement. The Member City awarding the contract shall advise other contributing Member Cities of the tentative time schedule of the work and the estimated times when the contributions shall be necessary. 13 438695v5 LW 105-1 (b) The LRRWMO and Anoka County may establish a maintenance fund to be used for normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole or in part with money provided by Anoka County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. The levy and collection of an ad valorem tax levy for maintenance shall be by Anoka County based upon a tax levy resolution adopted by a majority vote of all eligible Commissioners and remitted to the County on or before the date prescribed by law each year. If it is determined to levy for maintenance, the LRRWMO shall be required to follow the hearing process established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103D.915 and 103D.921. Mailed notice shall be sent to the Clerk of each Member City at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Subdivision 4. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall adopt a detailed budget for the ensuing year and decide upon the total amount necessary for the general fund. Budget approval shall require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes of the then existing Commissioners. The secretary of the Board shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the Clerk of each Member City together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each Member City. The Council of each Member City agrees to review the budget, and the Board shall upon notice from any Member City received prior to August 1, hear objections to the budget, and may, upon notice to all Member Cities and after a hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the Member Cities of any and all modifications or amendments. Each Member City agrees to provide the funds required by the budget and said determination shall be conclusive if no Member City enters objections in writing on or before August 1. If no objections are submitted to the Board, each Member City agrees to provide the funds approved by the Board, after the Board has conducted the aforementioned hearing. Modifications or amendments to the original budget require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible voters of then existing Commissioners. The schedule of payments by the Member Cities shall be determined by the Board in such a manner as to provide for an orderly collection of the funds needed. Upon notice and hearing, the Board by a favorable vote of a majority of all eligible votes of then existing Commissioners may adopt a supplemental budget requiring additional payments by the Member Cities within 60 days of its adoption but in no event shall the budget require any Member City to contribute in excess of one half of one percent of the net tax capacity of all taxable property within the Watershed and within the Member City's corporate boundaries in any one calendar year. Member Cities' attention is drawn to Minnesota Statutes, Section 10313.245, which authorizes a Watershed Management Tax District to be created within each Member City to pay the costs of planning and for the purpose of paying capital costs and/or normal and routine 14 438695v5 LW I05-1 maintenance of facilities. Subdivision 5. Cost Allocation. General costs of operating the LRRWMO shall be as set forth in Article VIII, Subdivision 2. Costs of capital projects to be paid by Member Cities will be determined in accordance with Articles VII, Subdivisions 4 and 5 and paid in accordance with Article VIII, Subdivision 3. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS IX. Subdivision 1. The LRRWMO shall not have the power to issue certificates, warrants or bonds. Subdivision 2. The LRRWMO shall not have the power of eminent domain and shall not own any interest in real property. All interests in lands shall be held in the name of the Member City wherein said lands are located. Subdivision 3. The LRRWMO shall not have the power to levy a special assessment upon any privately or publicly owned land. All such assessments shall be levied by the Member City wherein said lands are located. The LRRWMO shall have the power to require any Member City to contribute the costs allocated or assessed according to the other provisions of this agreement. Subdivision 4. Each Member City agrees that it will not directly or indirectly collect or divert any additional surface water to the Lower Rum River or the Mississippi River or their tributaries from any subdistrict or subtrunk without a permit from the Board. Permits may be granted by the Board for a Member City to proceed with the construction or reconstruction of improvements within the Member City's boundaries and at its sole cost upon a finding: (1) that there is an adequate outlet; (2) that said construction is in conformance with the overall plan; (3) that the construction will not adversely affect other Member Cities. Subdivision 5. Any Member City that is more than 60 days in default in contributing its share to the general fund shall have the vote of its Commissioner suspended pending the payment of its proportionate share. Any Member City that is more than 60 days in default in contributing its proportionate share of the cost of any improvement to the contracting Member City shall upon application of the contracting Member City have the vote of its Commissioner suspended, pending the payment of its proportionate share. Any Member City whose vote is under suspension shall not be considered as an eligible Member City as such membership affects the number of votes required to proceed on any matter under consideration by the Board. 15 4386950 LWI03-I Subdivision 6. Enforcement. Member Cities agree to be bound by the determination of the Commission and to agree to use their best efforts to carry out directives from the Commission; failure to respond may result in a legal action by the Commission to require the Member City to act under a court order. DURATION X. Subdivision 1. Each Member City agrees to be bound by the terms of this agreement until January 1, 2025, and it may be continued thereafter at the option of the Member Cities. Subdivision 2. This agreement may be terminated prior to January 1, 2025, by the unanimous consent of the Member Cities or if for any reason the LRRWMO is reduced to less than three Member Cities. If the agreement is to be terminated, a notice of the intent to dissolve the LRRWMO shall be sent to the Board of Water and Soil Resources and to Anoka County at least 90 days prior to the date of dissolution. Subdivision 3. In addition to the manner provided in Subdivision 2 for termination, any Member City may petition the Board to dissolve the agreement. Upon 30 days' notice in writing to the Clerk of each Member City and the Board of Water and Soil Resources and Anoka County, the Board shall hold a hearing and upon a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes of then existing Commissioners, the Board may by Resolution recommend that the LRRWMO be dissolved. Said Resolution shall be submitted to each Member City and if ratified by two-thirds of the Councils of all Member Cities within 60 days, said Board shall dissolve the LRRWMO allowing a reasonable time to complete work in progress and to dispose of personal property owned by the LRRWMO. DISSOLUTION XI. Upon dissolution of the LRRWMO, all property of the LRRWMO shall be sold and the proceeds thereof, together with monies on hand, shall be distributed to the eligible Member Cities. Such distribution of LRRWMO assets shall be made in proportion to the total contribution to the LRRWMO as required by the last annual budget. EFFECTIVE DATE XII. This agreement shall be in full force and effect upon the filing of a certified copy of the resolution approving said agreement by all three Member Cities, for the Lower Rum River Watershed area to be governed by this Agreement. Said resolution shall be filed with the City Manager of the City of Anoka, who shall notify all Member Cities in writing of its effective date. The effective date of the new amended Joint Powers Agreement shall be when approved by all the Member Cities and when the Mayor and other authorized City representatives have executed the amended agreement. 16 438695v5 LW105-1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental units, by action of their governing bodies, have caused this agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 10313.211 and 471.59. Approved by the City Council CITY OF ANDOVER 5PPi evnb�✓ 212o(Y By: "G%✓"�/ ✓G� Attest: I X46 �e0169 Approved by the City Council CITY OF ANOKA Dated: July 7, 2014 By: Attest: � Jf �j, 4�,/`�� 17 438695v5 LW105-1 Approved by the City Council CITY OF RAMSEY Iry 2J l 4 By: Atte 18 438695v5 LW 105-1 Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Boundary Description Revised November 2014 Beginning at an intersecting point on the east municipal boundary of the City of Andover and the centerline of Crosstown Boulevard; thence southwesterly along the centerline of Crosstown Boulevard to the centerline of 161st Avenue; thence westerly along the centerline of 161st Avenue to the west right of way line of Burlington Northern Railroad; thence southerly along the west right of way line of Burlington Northern Railroad to an intersecting point along the extension of the property line between Lot 44, and Lot 43, Block 4, Red Pine Fields; thence westerly along said extension line to the easterly right of way line of Vale Street; thence southwesterly and westerly along said right of way line of Vale Street to an intersecting point along the extension of the southwesterly right of way line of 159th Avenue; thence northwesterly along said extension line and southwesterly right of way line of 159th Avenue to the east plat line of Woodland Oaks; thence southerly along the said plat line to the southeast corner of Lot 5, Block 2, Woodland Oaks; thence westerly along south line of said Lot 5 to the southwest corner of said Lot 5; thence westerly to the southeast corner of Lot 12, Block 5, Woodland Oaks; thence westerly along south line of said Lot 12 to the southwest corner of said Lot 12; thence northerly along west line of said Lot 12 to the southeast corner of Lot 2, Block 5, Woodland Oaks; thence westerly along south line of said Lot 2 to the southwest comer of said Lot 2; thence westerly to the southeast corner of Lot 5, Block 4, Woodland Oaks; thence westerly along south line of said Lot 5 to the west plat line of Woodland Oaks; thence northerly along the west plat line of Woodland Oaks to the centerline of 161st Avenue; thence westerly along the centerline of 161 st Avenue to an intersecting point along the extension of the west right of way line of Hanson Boulevard; thence southerly along said extension line and west right of way line of Hanson Boulevard to the northeast corner of Woodland Crossings; thence westerly along the north plat line of Woodland Crossings to the southwest corner of Lot 3, Block 1, Nightingale Ridge; thence northerly along the west line of Lots 3, and 2, Black 1, Nightingale Ridge and extending to the north right of way of 159th Lane; thence westerly along the north right of way of 159th Lane to the east right of way of Nightingale Street; thence northerly along the east right of way of Nightingale Street to the centerline of 161 st Avenue; thence westerly along the centerline of 161 st Avenue to the centerline of Round Lake Boulevard; thence southerly along the centerline of Round Lake Boulevard to an intersecting point along the extension of the west plat line of Creekridge Estates; thence southerly along said extension line and west plat line of Creekridge Estates to the centerline of South P:\Mpls\23 MN\02\2302047\WoitFiles\LRR W MO_BoundaryDescription_REV ISED_Nov2014.doex 1 Coon Creek Boulevard; thence northwesterly along the centerline of South Coon Creek Boulevard to the east comer of Parcel (pin 293224420009) of Government Lot 4, Sec 29, T 32, R 24; thence southwesterly along the southeast line of said Parcel (pin 293224420009) to the south corner of said Parcel (pin 293224420009); thence northwesterly along the southwest line of said Parcel (pin 293224420009) to the north corner of Parcel (pin 293224420006) of Government Lot 4, Sec 29, T 32, R 24; thence southwesterly along the northwest line of said Parcel (pin 293224420006) to the north comer of Parcel (pin293224420066) of Government Lot 4, Sec 29, T 32, R 24; thence southerly along the west line of said Parcel (pin293224420066) to the southwest comer of said Parcel (pin 293224420066); thence westerly along the south line of Parcels (pin 293224420020) and (pin 293224420019) of Government Lot 4, Sec 29, T 32, R 24 and extending to the centerline of Round Lake Boulevard; thence southerly along the centerline of Round Lake Boulevard to an intersecting point along the extension of the north property line of Lot 1, Block 1 Woodland Pond 2nd Addition; thence easterly along said extension line and the north line of Lots 1, 7, 8, 14, Block 1, Woodland Pond 2nd Addition to the northwest comer of Lot 15, Block 1, Woodland 2nd Addition; thence southerly along the west line of said Lot 15 to the southwest corner of said Lot 15; thence southeasterly to the northeast corner of Lot 8, Block 1, Quickstrom Addition; thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 8 to the southeast corner of said Lot 8; thence westerly along the north line of Lots 13, and 14, Block 1, Quickstrom Addition to the northwest comer of Lot 14, Block 1, Quickstrom Addition; thence southerly to the southwest comer of said Lot 14; thence southwesterly to the northwest corner of Lot 6, Block 3, Quickstrom Addition; thence southerly along the west line of said Lot 3 to the south plat line of Quickstrom Addition; thence easterly along the south plat line of Quickstrom Addition to the west plat line of Woodland Creek 5th Addition; thence southerly along west plat line of Woodland Creek 5th Addition to the northwest corner of Lot 3, Block 3, Woodland Creek 5th Addition; thence easterly along the north line of said Lot 3 to the northeast corner of said Lot 3; thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 3 to the southeast comer of said Lot 3; thence southerly along the extension of the east line of said Lot 3 to the west right of way line of Orchid Street; thence southerly along and online with the west right of way line of Orchid Street to the southeast comer of Lot 5, Block 2, Woodland Creek; thence westerly along the south line of said Lot 5 to the northeast corner of Lot 6, Block 7, Northglen; thence southerly along the east line of said Lot 6 to the southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence westerly along the south line of said Lot 6 to the east right of way line of Quay Street; thence southerly along the east right of way line of Quay Street to the north right of way line of Bunker Lake Boulevard; thence easterly along the north right of way line of Bunker Lake Boulevard to an point along the centerline of Marigold Street; thence southeasterly to the northwest corner of Lot 10, Block 1, Woodland Terrace 2nd Addition; thence P:\Mpls\23 MN\02\2302047\Work Piles\LRRWMO_BoundaryDescription_REVISED_Nov2014.doex 2 southerly along the east line of Lots 10, 9, and 8, Block 1 of Woodland Terrace 2nd Addition to the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 4, Woodland Terrace; thence southerly along the east line of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 4, Woodland Terrace to the northeast corner of Lot 10, Block 4, Woodland Terrace; thence easterly along the north line of Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 4, Woodland Terrace to the northeast comer of Lot 15, Block 4, Woodland Terrace; thence southerly along the east line of Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, Block 4, Woodland Terrace to the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 6, Woodland Terrace 4th Addition; thence southerly along the east line of Lots 1, and 2, Block 6, Woodland Terrace 4th Addition to the northeast comer of Lot 4, Block 6, Woodland Terrace 4th Addition; thence westerly along the northerly line of said Lot 4 to the northwest comer of said Lot 4; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 4 to the southwest corner of said Lot 4; thence southerly to the northwest comer of Lot 12, Block 7, Woodland Terrace 4th Addition; thence southerly along the west line of said Lot 7 to the southwest comer of said Lot 7; thence westerly along the south line of Lot 11, Block 7, Woodland Terrace 4th Addition to the northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 7, Woodland Terrace 4th Addition; thence southerly along the easterly line of Lots 7, and 6, Block 7, Woodland Terrace 4th Addition to an intersecting point on the south municipal boundary line of the City of Andover, the north municipal boundary line of Coon Rapids, thence westerly along the northern municipal boundary of the City of Coon Rapids to the east municipal boundary of the City of Anoka, thence southerly along the east municipal boundary of the City of Anoka to the centerline of the Mississippi River, the boundary between Anoka and Hennepin Counties, thence northwesterly along the boundary between Anoka and Hennepin Counties to the west municipal boundary of the City of Ramsey, thence northerly along the west municipal boundary of the City of Ramsey to the north municipal boundary of the City of Ramsey, thence easterly along the north municipal boundary of the Cities of Ramsey and Andover to the point of beginning. P Np1s\23 MN\02\2302047\WorkFiles\LRRWMO_BoundaryDucription_REVISED NOV2014.dmx Appendix B Grading, Stormwater Management and Erosion/Sediment Control Permit Application r/JJJJ Lower I'I'1r� Rum River ......� WM0 Permit # GRADING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION/ SEDIMENT CONTROL PERMIT APPLICATION A $100.00 application fee and additional $700.00 escrow deposit must accompany this permit application. Permits are to be processed at the same time as the site plan, preliminary plat or other city land use or building application submitted to the city in which the work or project is located. The permit application and supporting documentation must be submitted to the LRRWMO by the THIRD THURSDAY OF THE MONTH TO BE ON THE FOLLOWING REGULARLY SCHEDULED MONTHLY LRRWMO MEETING AGENDA. A PERMIT NUMBER WILL NOT BE ASSIGNED UNTIL CITY AUTHORIZATION IS RECEIVED. Project Name: Address/Location: Project Descriptioi Name of Applicant (Site Owner or Property Owner) Address City, State, Zip Phone Fax Email Applicant's Contact Organization Name Address City, State, Zip Phone Fax Submittal Requirements Completed Grading, Stormwater Management and Erosion/ Sediment Control permit applications are to be submitted as per LRRWMO attachments G1(Permit Requirements) and G2 (Office Procedure) included with this application. Note that projects involving potential wetland impacts and/or involving a Wetland Replacement Plan require a separate permit application and are subject to additional requirements. PROJECT SUBMITTALS (check all that apply): �❑ GRADING PLAN: Including existing and proposed contours and boundaries of all wetlands and surface waters. ® STORM SEWER/ DRAINAGE PLAN: Including all permanent drainage features and all permanent water quality features. ® STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS: Design computations as required by the LRRWMO. . ® EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Including all temporary and permanent measures proposed to retain all sediment on site. OTHER Andover - Anoka - Ramsey • 2015 First Avenue • Anoka, MN 55303 • www.lrrwmo.org/ B-1 Lower Rum River ..,.w,. W M 0 START OF PROJECT: EST. COMPLETION APPROVAL DATE: DATE: By signing this Permit Application, the undersigned consents and agrees on behalf of the Applicant that 1. The permit application fee is non-refundable. Escrow deposits will be held by the LRRWMO until the project has been completed and all conditions of issuance of the permit are satisfied. The Applicant is responsible for all expenses incurred by the LRRWMO in the processing, administration and enforcement of the permit application and permit. The escrow deposit will be used to reimburse the LRRWMO for all expenses incurred by the LRRWMO in processing, administering and enforcing the permit application and permit, including engineering, legal and other consultant costs. If such expenses exceed the escrow deposit, the LRRWMO will bill the Applicant or Permittee for such excess amount and payment will be due within twenty (20) days of mailing the invoice. Timely payment of such invoices is a condition of all permits and work may be stopped on the project for failure to make payments when due. 2. The undersigned, its agents, principal, assigns and/or representatives (hereinafter "Permittee") shall abide by all the standard conditions and special terms and conditions of the LRRWMO. 3. Any work that violates the terms of the permit may result in the LRRWMO or the City in which the work is being done immediately causing the work on the project relating to the permit to cease and desist. All work on the project shall cease until the permit conditions are met and approved by the LRRWMO and/or the City in which the work is being done. 4. The Permittee agrees to be bound by the terms of the LRRWMO permit requirements, final permit, standard conditions, and special conditions required by the LRRWMO for approval of the permit. The undersigned has the authority to bind the permit holder, the owner of the property and/or any entity performing work on the property pursuant to the terms of LRRWMO permit, and shall be responsible for complying with terms of the LRRWMO permit. "I certify that I have thoroughly read and understand the above information." Signature of property owner or designated Date Signature of applicant if different from Date Agent (no agent without a letter of authority) property owner Print Signer's name Application Acknowledged by City: Print Signer's name Name of City Official City SIGNATURE OF LRRWMO CHAIRMAN: ** **NOTE: Subject to conditions recommended by Barr Engineering (see attached) PERMIT IS NOT VALID IF PROJECT HAS NOT STARTED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF APPROVAL Andover - Anoka - Ramsey • 2015 First Avenue • Anoka, MN 55303 • www.1rrwmo.oro/ B-2 uate Low 1 Rum R Rum River .,...,.. MID 0 LRRWMO Attachment G1 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS APPLICATION DEADLINE: Third Thursday of the month for consideration at the following regularly scheduled monthly LRRWMO board meeting on third Thursday of month. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: 1. Completed Permit Application Form (attached) 2. $100 Application Fee plus an escrow deposit of $700 (as described on Permit Application Form) 3. A Stormwater Management Plan and supporting computations as identified in Appendix E of the LRRWMO Watershed Management Plan. Submittals shall be provided in electronic (e.g., PDF) or other easily reproduced format and must be signed by a registered professional engineer in the State of Minnesota. One (1) hard copy of the submittal must be provided with the application for the LRRWMO files and one (1) hard copy to the LRRWMO engineer (Barr Engineering Co.). Andover - Anoka - Ramsey • 2015 First Avenue • Anoka, MN 55303 • www.trnvmo.orp/ B-3 I1 Lower Rum River WM0 LRRWMO Attachment G2 OFFICE PROCEDURE Procedure to Accept LRRWMO Permit: 1. Complete LRRWMO Permit Application and all supporting supplemental documents for review. Requires signature of acknowledgement on application form from City official prior to submittal to LRRWMO. For the appropriate City contact information refer to the LRRWMO website at www.Irrwmo.org/ NOTE: See "PROJECT SUBMITTALS" section of Application. 2. Submit Application, $100 application fee plus a $700 escrow deposit* payable to the Lower Rum River WMO, and one (1) set of the project submittals (hard copy) to: Shayna Forster Finance Department City of Anoka 2015 First Street N. Anoka, MN 55303 763-576-2773 SForsterPci.anoka.mn.us (This set of plans is for LRRWMO file copy.) *$700 escrow deposits: The LRRWMO costs related to the project will be charged to permit escrow fund. Funds remaining in the permit escrow account when the project is closed will be returned to the applicant. 3. Mail or email a copy of Application and one (1) set of the project submittals (hard copy) to: Bob Obermeyer Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 bobermever@barr.com 4. Agenda deadline is the third Thursday of each month to be on the following regularly scheduled LRRWMO monthly meeting. Procedure to Request Return of Permit Fund Balance: 1. When project reaches status of 100% completion (as contained in Quarterly Report), the respective City prepares a written request to LRRWMO for return of escrow deposit balance with copy to Anoka's Finance Department. The request must be submitted prior to the third Thursday of each month to meet the next month regular meeting agenda deadline. Andover- Anoka - Ramsey • 2015 First Avenue • Anoka, MN 55303 • www.1rrwmo.org1 B-4 Appendix C Application for Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Decisions and Procedure Requirements I1 Lower Rum River MID Permit # APPLICATION FOR MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT (WCA) DECISIONS AND PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS A $75.00 LRRWMO initial application fee and the appropriate escrow deposits (determined in accordance with Attachment W3) must accompany this permit application for any Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) decisions. These are separate and in addition to permit and escrow fees for Grading, Stormwater Management, and Erosion/Sediment Control permit application, if applicable. Permits are to be processed at the same time as the site plan, preliminary plat or other city land use or building application submitted to the city in which the work or project is located. Wetland permit processing takes longer than other permit processing. The permit application and supporting documentation should be submitted to the LRRWMO AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MONTHLY LRRWMO MEETING AT WHICH A DECISION IS REQUESTED. A PERMIT NUMBER WILL NOT BE ASSIGNED UNTIL CITY AUTHORIZATION IS RECEIVED. Project Name: Address/Location: Project Description/Purpose: Name of Applicant (Site Owner or Property Owner) Applicant's Contact Organization Name Address Address City, State, Zip City, State, Zip Fax Fax Submittal Requirements Complete applications are to be submitted as per LRRWMO attachments W1 (Permit Requirements), W2 (Office Procedure), and W3 (Fees, Deposit, and Sureties for Wetland Conservation Act) included with this application. Projects may also require a LRRWMO Grading, Stormwater Management, and Erosion/Sediment Control Permit (separate application and fee/escrow amounts) PROJECT SUBMITTALS (check all that apply): ® WETLAND BOUNDARY DELINEATION AND TYPE CONCURRENCE ® REQUEST FOR NO LOSS OR EXEMPTION UNDER THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT (WCA) ® WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN AND/OR SEQUENCING ® WETLAND BANKING PLAN ® OTHER Andover- Anoka - Ramsey • 2015 First Avenue • Anoka, MN 55303 • www.lrrwmo.org/ C-1 Lower Rum River WM0 START OF EST. COMPLETION APPROVAL PROJECT: DATE: DATE: By shining this Permit Application, the undersigned consents and agrees on behalf of the Applicant that: 1. The permit application fee is non-refundable. Escrow deposits will be held by the LRRWMO until the project has been completed and all conditions of issuance of the permit are satisfied. The Applicant is responsible for all expenses incurred by the LRRWMO in the processing, administration and enforcement of the permit application and permit. The escrow deposit will be used to reimburse the LRRWMO for all expenses incurred by the LRRWMO in processing, administering and enforcing the permit application and permit, including engineering, legal and other consultant costs. If such expenses exceed the escrow deposit, the LRRWMO will bill the Applicant or Permittee for such excess amount and payment will be due within twenty (20) days of mailing the invoice. Timely payment of such invoices is a condition of all permits and work may be stopped on the project for failure to make payments when due. 2. The undersigned, its agents, principal, assigns and/or representatives (hereinafter "Permittee") shall abide by all the standard conditions and special terms and conditions of the LRRWMO. 3. Any work that violates the terms of the permit may result in the LRRWMO or the City in which the work is being done immediately causing the work on the project relating to the permit to cease and desist. All work on the project shall cease until the permit conditions are met and approved by the LRRWMO and/or the City in which the work is being done. 4. The Permittee agrees to be bound by the terms of the LRRWMO permit requirements, final permit, standard conditions, and special conditions required by the LRRWMO for approval of the permit. The undersigned has the authority to bind the permit holder, the owner of the property and/or any entity performing work on the property pursuant to the terms of LRRWMO permit, and shall be responsible for complying with terms of the LRRWMO permit. "I certify that I have thoroughly read and understand the above information." Signature of property owner or designated Date Signature of applicant if different from Date Agent (no agent without a letter of authority) property owner Print Signer's name Print Signers name Application Acknowledged by City: Name of City Official City Date SIGNATURE OF LRRWMO CHAIRMAN: ** **NOTE., Subject to conditions as designated in the WCA Notice of Decision as recommended by the Technical Evaluation Panel and Barr Engineering (see attached) PERMIT IS NOT VALID IF PROJECT HAS NOT STARTED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF APPROVAL Andover - Anoka - Ramsey • 2015 First Avenue • Anoka, MN 55303 • www.lrfwmo.org/ C-2 Low 1 Rum R I Rum River MID LRRWMO Attachment W1 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS APPLICATION DEADLINE: Third Thursday of the month for consideration at the following regularly scheduled monthly LRRWMO board meeting on third Thursday of month. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: 1. Completed Permit Application Form (attached) 2. $75 LRRWMO initial application fee plus an escrow deposit determined in accordance with Attachment W3 for any Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) decisions. 3. Wetland Permitting Information a. The permit applicant is responsible for ensuring wetland applications are incomplete compliance with the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and applicable documentation is provided as listed on the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) website: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/. Permit applicants shall refer to the BWSR website for sample application forms and check lists. These forms will be used for reviewing wetland applications. Failure to provide a complete application will result in delays in permit review. b. When working near DNR public waters, applicants shall submit information indicating the OHW (ordinary high water) level and the wetland boundary according to the WCA of 1991. Availability of OHW information is available from the MDNR Area Hydrologist. When working in DNR Public Waters, an online Minnesota DNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) application may also be required by the DNR. SUBMITTAL NOTES: Permit applicants shall submit the attached Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota (Attachment W4). Failure to fully follow the application requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act will result in delays in permit review. • Applicants can expect a 60 -day review period provided all applicable materials have been submitted and reviews are completed within the growing season, if applicable. Andover - Anoka - Ramsey • 2015 First Avenue • Anoka, MN 55303 • www.1rrwmo.org/ C-3 r� Lower IRum River WM0 LRRWMO Attachment W2 OFFICE PROCEDURE Procedure to Accept LRRWMO Permit: 1. Complete LRRWMO Permit Application for Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Decisions and Procedure Requirements form. Requires signature of acknowledgement from City official prior to submittal to LRRWMO. For appropriate City contact information refer to the LRRWMO website at www.Irrwmo.org NOTE: See "PROJECT SUBMITTALS" section of Application 2. Submit Application, $75 initial application fee plus an escrow deposit* in accordance with LRRWMO Attachment W3 for Wetland Conservation Act applications, as applicable, payable to the Lower Rum River WMO, and one (1) set of plan submittals (hard copy) to: Shayna Forster Finance Department City of Anoka 2015 First Street N. Anoka, MN 55303 763-576-2773 SForster@ci.anoka.m n.us (This set of plans is for LRRWMO file copy) *escrow deposits: The LRRWMO costs related to the project will be charged to permit escrow fund. Funds remaining in the permit escrow account when the project is closed will be returned to the applicant. 3. Forward electronic copy of Application and associated submittals to: Karen Wold Barr Engineering Co. kwold@barr.com 4. Wetland permit decisions are usually made within 60 days from receipt of a complete application. Procedure to Request Return of Permit Fund Balance: 1. When project reaches status of 100% completion (as contained in Quarterly Report), the respective City prepares a written request to LRRWMO for return of escrow deposit balance with copy to Anoka's Finance Department. The request must be submitted prior to the third Thursday of each month to meet the next month regular meeting agenda deadline. Andover - Anoka - Ramsey • 2015 First Avenue • Anoka, MN 55303 • www.lrrwmo.org/ C-4 rm Lower Rum River WM0 LRRWMO ATTACHMENT W3 Fees, Deposit and Sureties for Wetland Conservation Act (MICA) Applications Updated April 2011 FEES Activity Fee Initial WCq Application Fee $75 Office and Field Review of Wetland Evaluation Area < 30 acres and less $1,000 Escrow Boundary Delineation or Type than 3 wetlands being evaluated Determination (Applicant is responsible for submitting a complete Wetland Evaluation Area < 100 acres and Delineation Report, according to BWSR < 6 wetlands being evaluated $1,500 Escrow guidance). Evaluation Area =/> 100 acres and/or =/> 6 wetlands being $2,000 Escrow evaluated Review of WCA exemptions and No Loss $1,000 Escrow requests. Review of Wetland Replacement Plans $1,000 Escrow plus (needed for all projects requiring $100/acre of wetland plus replacement for wetland impacts). $5,000/acre of wetland impact plus 000 for mitigation monitoring review Note: escrow amounts are cumulative if more than activity is being reviewed. Cash Surety Deposit for Performance For Wetland Replacement Plans: The Permittee or owner shall provide a cash surety (or an automatically renewable Letterof Credit from a bank approved by the Treasurer of the LRRWMO) in an amount determined by the LRRWMO, so that, if needed, a third party has the funds to create, manage, and monitor the wetland replacement area should the applicant fail to comply with the required creation of the wetland mitigation site. lithe Letter of Credit is not honored by the issuer, the LRRWMO may choose litigation to obtain the necessary funds or to obtain a court order to require the permittee or owner to create the wetland mitigation area. The LRRWMO will determine a cash surety (orletterof credit) amount in addition to the permit application fee and escrow deposit. Proposed MICA LRRWMO Surety Amount • The permit application, fee escrow deposit and cash surety deposit may be in one check payable to the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization. • Only actual work done by the LRRWMO or its consultants will be charged against the escrow deposit or performance security. • The performance surety may be waived if approved wetland banking credits are purchased for fulfilling the required mitigation provisions of the permit. Andover- Anoka - Ramsey • 2015 First Avenue • Anoka, MN 55303 • www.lmamo.org/ C -s Activity Performance Surety Amount Wetland Replacement $1 per sq. fl. of mitigation with a minimum of $s,000 unless a higher or lower amount is deemed necessary by the LRRWMO. $5, Creating a Wetland Bank $15 ,000 Activity Performance Surety Amount Wetland Replacement $1 per sq. fl. of mitigation with a minimum of $s,000 unless a higher or lower amount is deemed necessary by the LRRWMO. Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota This joint application form is the accepted means for initiating review of proposals that may affect a water resource (wetland, tributary, lake, etc.) in the State of Minnesota understate and federal regulatory programs. Applicants for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. Applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form (seethe paragraph on MPARS at the end of the joint application form instructions for additional information). This form is only applicable to the water resource aspects of proposed projects under state and federal regulatory programs; other local applications and approvals may be required. Depending on the nature of the project and the location and type of water resources impacted, multiple authorizations may be required as different regulatory programs have different types of jurisdiction over different types of resources. Regulatory Review Structure Federal The St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the federal agency that regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and regulates work in navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Applications are assigned to Corps project managers who are responsible for implementing the Corps regulatory program within a particular geographic area. State There are three state regulatory programs that regulate activities affecting water resources. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulates most activities affecting wetlands. It is administered by local government units (LGUs) which can be counties, townships, cities, watershed districts, watershed management organizations or state agencies (on state-owned land). The Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources issues permits for work in specially -designated public waters via the Public Waters Work Permit Program (DNR Public Waters Permits). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act certifies that discharges of dredged or fill material authorized by a federal permit or license comply with state water quality standards. One or more of these regulatory programs may be applicable to any one project. Required Information Prior to submitting an application, applicants are strongly encouraged to seek input from the Corps Project Manager and LGU staff to identify regulatory issues and required application materials for their proposed project. Project proponents can request a pre - application consultation with the Corps and LGU to discuss their proposed project by providing the information required in Sections 1 through 5 of this joint application form to facilitate a meaningful discussion about their project. Many LGUs provide a venue (such as regularly scheduled technical evaluation panel meetings) for potential applicants to discuss their projects with multiple agencies prior to submitting an application. Contact information is provided below. The following bullets outline the information generally required for several common types of determinations/authorizations. • For delineation approvals and/or jurisdictional determinations, submit Parts 1, 2 and 5, and Attachment A. • For activities involving CWA/WCA exemptions, WCA no -loss determinations, and activities not requiring mitigation, submit Parts 1 through 5, and Attachment B. • For activities requiring compensatory mitigation/replacement plan, submit Parts 1 thru 5, and Attachments C and D. • For local road authority activities that qualify for the state's local road wetland replacement program, submit Parts 1 through 5, and Attachments C, D (if applicable), and E to both the Corps and the LGU. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 1 of 11 Submission Instructions Send the completed joint application form and all required attachments to: U.S Army Corps of Engineers. Applications may be sent directly to the appropriate Corps Office. For a current listing of areas of responsibilities and contact information, visit the St. Paul District's website at: http://www.mvi).usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.asi)x and select "Minnesota" from the contact Information box. Alternatively, applications may be sent directly to the St. Paul District Headquarters and the Corps will forward them to the appropriate field office. Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Applicants do not need to submit the joint application form to the MPCA unless specifically requested. The MPCA will request a copy of the completed joint application form directly from an applicant when they determine an individual 401 water quality certification is required for a proposed project. Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit: Send to the appropriate Local Government Unit. If necessary, contact your county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) office or visit the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) web site (www.bwsr.state.mn.us) to determine the appropriate LGU. DNR Public Waters Permitting: In 2014 the DNR will begin using the Minnesota DNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) for submission of Public Waters permit applications (https://webappsll.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login). Applicants for Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. To avoid duplication and to streamline the application process among the various resource agencies, applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of thisjoint application form. The MPARS print/save function will provide the applicant with a copy of the Public Waters permit application which, at a minimum, will satisfy Parts one and two of this joint application. For certain types of activities, the MPARS application may also provide all of the necessary information required under Parts three and four of the joint application. However, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to make sure that the joint application contains all of the required information, including identification of all aquatic resources impacted by the project (see Part four of the joint application). After confirming that the MPARS application contains all of the required information in Parts one and two the Applicant may attach a copy to the joint application and fill in any missing information in the remainder of the joint application. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 2 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third parry) and has authorized them to act on their behalf, the agent's contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above): Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: PART TWO: Site Location Information County: City/Township: Parcel ID and/or Address: Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): Lat/Long (decimal degrees): Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways. Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: htto://www.mvp.usace army mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatOryDOCS/engform 4345 2012oct odf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact' Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Aquatic Resource ID (as noted on overhead view) Aquatic Resource Type (wetland, lake, tributary etc. ry ) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact Permanent (P) or Temporary p ry (T)1 Overall Size of Z Size of Impact Aquatic Resource a Existing Plant Community Type(s) in Impact Area < County, Major Watershed #, and Bank Service Area# of Impact Area' IIf impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the "T". For example, a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered "T (220)". 'Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 It (300 square feet). 'This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter "N/A". °Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3`a Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. 5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: PART FIVE: Applicant Signature ❑ Check here if you are requesting a pre -application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked. By signature below, I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. Signature: Date: I hereby authorize to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in support of this application. 1 The term "impact" as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 4 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District (Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply): ❑ Wetland Type Confirmation ❑ Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this request alone, the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review area (including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.). ❑ Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non-binding written indication from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. ❑ Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upon by the affected party for five years. An AID may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013). http://www.mvp.usace army mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance aspx Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment B Supporting Information for Applications Involving Exemptions, No Loss Determinations, and Activities Not Requiring Mitigation Complete this part if you maintain that the identified aquatic resource impacts in Part Four do not require wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation OR if you are seeking verification that the proposed water resource impacts are either exempt from replacement or are not under CWA/WCA jurisdiction. Identify the specific exemption or no -loss provision for which you believe your project or site qualifies: Provide a detailed explanation of how your project or site qualifies for the above. Be specific and provide and refer to attachments and exhibits that support your contention. Applicants should refer to rules (e.g. WCA rules), guidance documents (e.g. BWSR guidance, Corps guidance letters/public notices), and permit conditions (e.g. Corps General Permit conditions) to determine the necessary information to support the application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the WCA LGU and Corps Project Manager prior to submitting an application if they are unsure of what type of information to provide: Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 6 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment C Avoidance and Minimization Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management, and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project (buildings, roads, etc.), aquatic resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary: Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist. Clearly describe all on-site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and discuss at least two project alternatives that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites, and/or not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis: Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4): Off -Site Alternatives. An off-site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your proposal will require an individual permit (standard permit or letter of permission) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you may be required to provide an off-site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete application but must be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final decision. Applicants with questions about when an off-site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project Manager. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 7 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment D Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation Complete this part if your application involves wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation not associated with the local road wetland replacement program. Applicants should consult Corps mitigation guidelines and WCA rules for requirements. Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation via Wetland Banking. Complete this section if you are proposing to use credits from an existing wetland bank (with an account number in the State wetland banking system) for all or part of your replacement/compensatory mitigation requirements. Wetland Bank Major County Account# Watershed# Bank Credit Type Service Number of Credits (if applicable) Area # Applicants should attach documentation indicating that they have contacted the wetland bank account owner and reached at least a tentative agreement to utilize the identified credits for the project. This documentation could be a signed purchase agreement, signed application for withdrawal of credits or some other correspondence indicating an agreement between the applicant and the bank owner. However, applicants are advised not to enter into a binding agreement to purchase credits until the mitigation plan is approved by the Corps and LGU. Project -Specific Replacement/Permittee Responsible Mitigation. Complete this section if you are proposing to pursue actions (restoration, creation, preservation, etc.) to generate wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation credits for this proposed project. Corps Mitigation WCA Action Eligible Credit % Credits 1 Compensation Acres for Credit Requested Anticipateda Technique Bank Major County Service Watershed # Area # Refer to the name and subpart number in MN Rule 8420.0526. Refer to the technique listed in St. Paul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota. 3 I WCA and Corps crediting differs, then enter both numbers and distinguish which is Corps and which is WCA. Explain how each proposed action or technique will be completed (e.g. wetland hydrology will be restored by breaking the tile......) and how the proposal meets the crediting criteria associated with it. Applicants should refer to the Corps mitigation policy language, WCA rule language, and all associated Corps and WCA guidance related to the action or technique: Attach a site location map, soils map, recent aerial photograph, and any other maps to show the location and other relevant features of each wetland replacement/mitigation site. Discuss in detail existing vegetation, existing landscape features, land use (on and surrounding the site), existing soils, drainage systems (if present), and water sources and movement. Include a topographic map showing key features related to hydrology and water flow (inlets, outlets, ditches, pumps, etc.): Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 8 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: Attach a map of the existing aquatic resources, associated delineation report, and any documentation of regulatory review or approval. Discuss as necessary: For actions involving construction activities, attach construction plans and specifications with all relevant details. Discuss and provide documentation of a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the site to define existing conditions, predict project outcomes, identify specific project performance standards and avoid adverse offsite impacts. Plans and specifications should be prepared by a licensed engineer following standard engineering practices. Discuss anticipated construction sequence and timing: For projects involving vegetation restoration, provide a vegetation establishment plan that includes information on site preparation, seed mixes and plant materials, seeding/planting plan (attach seeding/planting zone map), planting/seeding methods, vegetation maintenance, and an anticipated schedule of activities: For projects involving construction or vegetation restoration, identify and discuss goals and specific outcomes that can be determined for credit allocation. Provide a proposed credit allocation table tied to outcomes: Provide a five-year monitoring plan to address project outcomes and credit allocation: Discuss and provide evidence of ownership or rights to conduct wetland replacement/mitigation on each site: Quantify all proposed wetland credits and compare to wetland impacts to identify a proposed wetland replacement ratio. Discuss how this replacement ratio is consistent with Corps and WCA requirements: By signature below, the applicant attests to the following (only required if application involves project-specific/permittee responsible replacement): • All proposed replacement wetlands were not: • Previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan or permit • Drained or filled under an exemption during the previous 10 years • Restored with financial assistance from public conservation programs • Restored using private funds, other than landowner funds, unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual or organization that funded the restoration and the individual or organization notifies the local government unit in writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement. • The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland. • An irrevocable bank letter of credit, performance bond, or other acceptable security will be provided to guarantee successful completion of the wetland replacement. • Within 30 days of either receiving approval of this application or beginning work on the project, I will record the Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants on the deed for the property on which the replacement wetland(s) will be located and submit proof of such recording to the LGU and the Corps. Applicant or Representative: Signature: Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Title: Date: Page 9 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: Attachment E Local Road Replacement Program Qualification Complete this part if you are a local road authority (county highway department, city transportation department, etc.) seeking verification that your project (or a portion of your project) qualifies for the MN Local Government Road Wetland Replacement Program (LGRWRP). If portions of your project are not eligible for the LGRWRP, then Attachment D should be completed and attached to your application. Discuss how your project is a repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement of a currently serviceable road to meet state/federal design or safety standards/requirements. Applicants should identify the specific road deficiencies and how the project will rectify them. Attach supporting documents and information as applicable: Provide a map, plan, and/or aerial photograph accurately depicting wetland boundaries within the project area. Attach associated delineation/determination report or otherwise explain the method(s) used to identify and delineate wetlands. Also attach and discuss any type of review or approval of wetland boundaries or other aspects of the project by a member or members of the local Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) or Corps of Engineers: In the table below, identify only the wetland impacts from Part 4 that the road authority has determined should qualify for the LGRWRP. Wetland Impact ID Type of Impact Size of Impact County, Major Watershed #, as noted on Existing Plant Community ( (fill, excavate, (square feet or Type(s) in Impact Area and Bank Service Area # of overhead view) drain) acres to 0.01) Impact IUse Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin P Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7. Discuss the feasibility of providing onsite compensatory mitigation/replacement for important site-specific wetland functions: Please note that under the MN Wetland Conservation Act, projects with less than 10,000 square feet of wetland impact are allowed to commence prior to submission of this notification so long as the notification is submitted within 30 days of the impact. The Clean Water Act has no such provision and requires that permits be obtained prior to any regulated discharges into water of the United States. To avoid potential unauthorized activities, road authorities must, at a minimum, provide a complete application to the Corps and receive a permit prior to commencing work. By signature below, the road authority attests that they have followed the process in MN Rules 8420.0544 and have determined that the wetland impacts identified in Part 4 are eligible for the MN Local Government Road Wetland Replacement Program. Road Authority Representative: Signature: Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Title: Date: Page 10 of 11 Technical Evaluation Panel Concurrence: Project Name and/or Number: TEP member: Representing: Concur with road authority's determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement program? ❑ Yes ❑ No Signature: Date: TEP member: Representing: Concur with road authority's determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement program? ❑ Yes ❑ No Signature: Date: TEP member: Representing: Concur with road authority's determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement program? ❑ Yes ❑ No Signature: Date: TEP member: Representing: Concur with road authority's determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement program? ❑ Yes ❑ No Signature: Date: Upon approval and signature by the TEP, application must be sent to: Wetland Bank Administration Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, MN 55155 Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 11 of 11 Appendix D Plan Development Gaps Analysis resourceful. naturally. B R engineering and environmental consultants Memorandum To: Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Board of Managers From: Greg Williams, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: LRRWMO 2021 Plan Update — Review of Existing Plans and Identification of Gaps Date: November 14, 2019 Project: 23021077.00-100-106 As part of the 2021 update to the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) Watershed Management Plan (Plan), Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) has reviewed the 3rd generation LRRWMO Plan (2011 Plan) relative to other documents to identify potential gaps, conflicts, and/or inconsistencies. Documents reviewed in addition to the 2011 Plan include: • City of Ramsey Surface Water Management Plan (October 2015, revised 2018) • City of Andover Third Generation Surface Water Management Plan (May 2015, revised 2018) • City of Anoka Local Surface Water Management Plan (July 2015) • Anoka County Community Health and Environmental Services Water Resources Report (2014) • Rum River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load (MPCA, 2017) • Rum River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Report (MPCA, July 2017) • Board of Water and Soil Resources Level II Performance Review (PRAP) • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Draft 2012 MS4 Permit • MPCA National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater Permit (2008) The following table identifies and organizes gaps by topic. Discussion of each gap includes a summary of how it is addressed in the 2011 LRRWMO Plan, the identified gap or inconsistency or issue, and a recommended action to address the gap in the 2021 Plan. This memorandum is intended as a resource for more detailed discussion with the LRRWMO Board of Managers during development and review of draft Plan sections. Decisions on the recommended actions included in this memorandum are not required at this time. Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com To: Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Board of Managers From: Greg Williams, Ban Engineering Co. Subject: LRRWMO 2021 Plan Update- Review of Existing Plans and Identification of Gaps Date: November 14, 2019 Pace: 2 nd 2011 Plan Status Identified Gap or Inconsistency Recommended Action for 2021 Impaired Waters The draft 2020 impaired waters 303(d) list has The Plan should be updated to include the been released and includes impairments not most current impairments. The Plan update The 2011 Plan notes the following impaired included in the 2011 Plan, including: should consider the Rum River TMDL and waters: incorporate appropriate implementation • Cedar Creek (E. coli) recommendations. • Rum River (Hg) • Trott Brook (dissolved oxygen, Fish IBI, • Rogers Lake (Nutrients) macroinvertebrate IBI) • Mississippi River (PCB, Hg) • Mississippi River (nutrients, fecal coliform) Also, Rogers Lake has been delisted. Water Quality Standards State water quality standards have been Include applicable water quality standards in updated since the 2011 Plan. the Plan update. Consider revising the action The 2011 Plan does not reference state water thresholds to MPCA standards or based on quality standards applicable to LRRWMO The "actions" triggered in Appendix F include trends, versus concentrations. Consider water resources. Appendix F includes water further monitoring but do not contain specific revision the "actions" to be more specific. quality action thresholds for select actions in the event of continued trends. waterbodies based on observed data. Water Quality Data and Studies Since the completion of the 2011 Plan, the Summary of relevant water quality data and MPCA has completed the Rum River analysis should be include in the Plan and The 2011 Plan identifies available water Watershed Restoration and Protection reference the MPCA documents. Possible quality programs and data sources. The 2011 Strategies (WRAPS) and Rum River Total implementation actions included in the TMDL Plan does not include water quality data Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Both of these may be included in the Plan. within the document. studies include the LRRWMO. To: Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Board of Managers From: Greg Williams, Barr Engineering Co. Subject LRRWMO 2021 Plan Update- Review of Existing Plans and Identification of Gaps Date: November 14, 2019 Paae: 3 Topic and 2011 Plan Status Identified Gap or Inconsistency Recommended Action for 2021 Upper Rum River Water Quality With the development of the Rum River One Consider ways for the LRRWMO to contribute Watershed One Plan, there may be technical assistance, funding, or other support The 2011 Plan notes total suspended solids opportunities for the LRRWMO to contribute for projects upstream of the LRRWMO and other water quality issues in the Rum to upstream projects that will achieve jurisdiction. River, but does not discuss upstream loading. cumulative water quality benefits in the Lower Rum River. Chloride Since the 2011 Plan, the MPCA has published Include more detailed discussion about the Twin Cities Metro Area Chloride chloride pollution and chloride reduction Section III.A.5 of the 2011 Plan notes that Management Plan which includes efforts in the Plan. Consider including chloride chloride concentrations in the Rum River recommended practices for chloride reduction elements in future permit program increase from upstream to downstream, but reduction. Although no waterbodies in the updates. are below standards. LRRWMO are impaired for chloride, portions of the watershed are identified in the "road density > 18%" area which is a critical area for implementation, per the MPCA. Subwatershed Assessments LRRWMO Cities have noted that they do not Incorporate watershed or subwatershed know where water quality improvement assessment into the Plan implementation The 2011 Plan does not identify priority areas projects are most needed within the program to identify locations where future for water quality improvement projects. The watershed and have requested direction from improvements should be concentrated. scale of current water quality modeling from the LRRWMO. MPCA is insufficient for targeting of projects. To: Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Board of Managers From: Greg Williams, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: LRRWMO 2021 Plan Update- Review of Existing Plans and Identification of Gaps Date: November 14, 2019 Pace: 4 Topic and r2021 Plan Water Quality Improvement Projects The Anoka Conservation District Consider adding placeholder actions to the recommended an increased emphasis on implementation plan for future water quality The 2011 Plan implementation program did water quality improvement projects in the improvements, even if the specific actions are not identify any capital improvement projects updated Plan. The availability of watershed not yet identified and will be identified by (Table 10). based funding may provide a consistent future analyses. funding source for such projects. Water Quality Project Maintenance The 2011 Plan does not explicitly discuss the The Plan update should include more detailed maintenance responsibilities for private discussion of the maintenance responsibilities The 2011 Plan notes maintenance stormwater infrastructure. for privately -owned stormwater infrastructure. responsibilities for municipal systems and county ditches. Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) The 2011 Plan does not include discussion of Consider including information about species AIS present with the LRRWMO or existing and abundance in local resources (if known) Section III.C.1 of the 2011 Plan notes The management authorities/efforts. as well as references to other management LRRWMO's interest in working with MDNR agencies and programs. and ACD to develop an AIS monitoring program. Groundwater Quality There are groundwater monitoring networks Consider adding links and references to and well -testing resources that are available additional groundwater resources (e.g., MPCA, Section II.D.3 of the 2011 Plan generally to residents that are not referenced in the MDNR) and discussion of available well - discusses susceptibility of groundwater to Plan. testing services from Anoka County. contamination within the LRRWMO To: Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Board of Managers from: Greg Williams. Barr Engineering Co. Subject: LRRWMO 2021 Plan Update - Review of Existing Plans and Identification of Gaps Date: November 14, 2019 Topic and 2011 Plan Status Identified Gap or Inconsistency Recommended Action for 2021 Climate Data Atlas 14 was published since the 2011 Plan. Update the climate data in the Plan to include Also, recent studies identify long-term climate the most recent climate normal period, Atlas Section ILA of the 2011 Plan includes climate trends that may be observed during and after 14 precipitation values, and expected climate data compiled through 2005. The permit the lift of this Plan. trends. program utilizes Atlas 14 values. Wetland Management LRRWMO standards do not include a Review the proposed wetland education permanent, post -construction wetland buffer actions from the 2011 Plan and update based The 2011 Plan Section V.8 includes requirement. The City of Anoka requires on continued need. Consider including post - discussion of possible wetland education permanent wetland buffers for new construction wetland buffer requirements for actions. The Plan references the current development. The TAC cited a need for new development. LRRWMO requirement for a 16.5 foot buffer continued wetland education. during construction. Permit Program The 2011 Plan has limited detail regarding Revise the Plan to include detailed discussion when LRRWMO permits are needed and the of LRRWMO permit program implementation Section VLA of the 2011 Plan requires that integration of the LRRWMO permitting and coordination with cities. Consider City official controls require LRRWMO process with City review/permitting activities. including implementation items related to permits for development activity, when review and improvement of the permit needed. program (see also TAC recommendations). Consistency with MPCA Permits The MPCA construction stormwater general Update the Plan to reference the most current permit was updated in 2018. The update version of the general permit and note that Section IV.C.10 requires the submission of generally includes the same water quality future updates to the permit are anticipated erosion and sediment control plans performance standards during the life of this Plan. conforming to MPCA construction stormwater general permit. To: Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Board of Managers From: Greg Williams, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: LRRWMO 2021 Plan Update— Review of Existing Plans and Identification of Gaps Date: November 14, 2019 Topic and 2011 Plan Status entified Gap or Inconsistency Recommended Action for 2021 Local Ordinances Local water management plans for Anoka and Review City plans and ordinances during Andover include floodplain policies that are update of LRRWMO policies to determine Section V.D.8 Section V.3 notes that "Cities potentially inconsistent with LRRWMO where revisions may be needed. Include must adopt standards at least as protective requirements for low floor elevations and no future LRRWMO review of local plans and as the LRRWMO standards in their local net loss of floodplain. ordinances as an implementation item. water plan and/or ordinances. Measurable Goals The BWSR Level II PRAP recommended a Revise the Plan goals to reflect the specific focus on measurable goals in the Plan update. goals of the organization and incorporate The goals in Section IV of the 2011 Plan are The 2011 Plan does not contain organization- measurable resource -specific goals, where based heavily on Minnesota Statute 103B specific or resource specific goals. appropriate (e.g., achieve 100 ug/L total and are generally not measurable phosphorus in the Rum River). Self-assessment and Reporting BWSR's most recent WMO Plan guidance Update the Plan to include discussion of the includes at least biennial review of WMO LRRWMO's self-assessment process, including Annual reporting to BWSR is identified in the progress towards Plan goals. at least biennial review of goals and 2011 Plan implementation program (Table 9). implementation program status. Advisory Committees The 2011 Plan does not identify ongoing Consider incorporating planned CAC and TAC actions for a citizen advisory committee (CAC) activities in the Plan update, including in the The 2011 Plan notes input from a Technical or TAC. The BWSR Level II PRAP identified the implementation program. Advisory Committee during Plan use of an advisory committee as an action development. item. To: Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Board of Managers From: Greg Williams, Barr Engineering Co. Subject: LRRWMO 2021 Plan Update - Review of Existing Plans and Identification of Gaps Date: November 14, 2019 Paae: 7 Appendix E LRRWMO Stormwater Management Performance Standards Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Stormwater Standards Date ofAdontion by LRRWMO March 15, 2018 Effective Date March 15, 2018 Background Stormwater is an all-inclusive tern that refers to any of the water running off the land's surface after a rainfall or snowmelt event. Prior to development, stormwater is a small component of the annual water balance. However, as development increases, the paving and compaction of pervious surfaces increase stormwater runoff. It is important to manage this water because of the impacts it can have on water quality, flooding, and groundwater recharge. The LRRWMO has goals of improving or maintaining water quality, preventing future flooding problems, and encouraging groundwater recharge. Therefore, the Lower Rum River WMO has minimum stormwater standards. These standards were developed by a Technical Advisory Committee including representation from each LRRWMO community, MN Department of Natural Resources, MN Pollution Control Agency, MN Board of Water and Soil Resources, Metropolitan Council, US Army Corps of Engineers, MN Department of Transportation, Anoka Conservation District, Anoka County Environmental Services, and the Builder's Association of the Twin Cities. Administration These stormwater standards will be administered by both the LRRWMO and member cities. The LRRWMO will apply these standards to their permitting program. Each city must adopt standards at least as protective as the LRRWMO standards in their local water plan and/or ordinances, and implement them. Auulicability LRRWMO Stormwater Standards apply to: Projects that disturb/alter one acre or more, or are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs/alters one acre or more. Definitions: A common plan of development or sale is defined as a contiguous area where multiple separate and distinct land disturbing activities may be taking place at different times, on different schedules, but under one proposed plan. One plan is broadly defined to include design, permit application, advertisement or physical demarcation indicating that land disturbing activities may occur. Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum. River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 (Revised April 018) E-1 Land disturbance is defined as activity that results in a change or alteration in the existing ground cover (both pervious and non -pervious) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, development, redevelopment, construction, reconstruction, clearing, grading, filling, stockpiling, excavation, and borrow pits. Road milling/overlay, demolition, and routine vegetation management activities will not be considered land disturbance. The following are exempt: • Road reconstruction that does not increase impervious area by more than one acre or alter drainage patterns (example: mill and overlay). Altering drainage patterns is defined as changing the ultimate discharge point of the water. • Utility construction/reconstruction within road right-of-way. • Agricultural operations >300 feet from the Rum River and not creating additional impervious surfaces. • Gardens. • Pole setting. • Emergency activities immediately necessary for the protection of life, property, or natural resources. • Whenever the LRRWMO Board determines: o The proposed project is not likely to impair attainment of the purpose and intent of these standards. o Off-site stormwater treatment is provided by an existing facility, achieving a level of control that is at least equal to the on-site requirements. Permit Application Materials Any project to which these standards are applicable must submit a completed LRRWMO permit application and all materials requested within that application. Permits from other entities, such as the city, US Army Corps of Engineers, MN DNR, MN Pollution Control Agency, or others may also be necessary. Permit Process and Reviews Projects must obtain approvals/permits from both the LRRWMO and the city. The LRRWMO permit application must be submitted to the LRRWMO, not the city. LRRWMO permit materials are available on the LRRWMO website. Questions can be directed to the LRRWMO representative or city staff liaison to the LRRWMO for the city where the project will occur. These contacts are listed on the website with the permitting materials. The city and LRRWMO will coordinate their permit reviews; duplication in the review process will be minimized by a review checklist that all reviewers use. Permit Lifespan Permits have a fixed lifespan of two years from the date of issuance. During this lifespan the requirements of the permit shall be fixed, and the project will not be subject to new LRRWMO stormwater standards enacted since the issuance of the original permit. Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 (Revised April 018) E-2 Permit Extensions Extensions to LRRWMO permits may be granted. When an extension is granted, the LRRWMO stormwater standards in effect at the time of the original permit issuance shall continue to apply. The procedure for extensions varies for platted and non -platted projects as follows: For platted projects. LRRWMO permit extensions shall automatically follow extensions granted by the City for that same project. The applicant is responsible for notifying the LRRWMO in writing if such an extension is granted by the city. In cases where a project must reapply to the City for a preliminary plat, either because of expiration of the original permit or changes to the project, the permitee must also reapply for a LRRWMO permit and will be subject to any new LRRWMO stormwater standards enacted since the issuance of the original permit. For non -platted projects, the applicant must apply to the LRRWMO for a permit extension before the end the two year permit life. Such requests will be considered by the LRRWMO Board on a case-by-case basis, and will only be granted if the proposed project has not changed since the issuance of the original permit. Satisfaction of Permit The LRRWMO stormwater treatment permit requirements shall be deemed satisfied when stormwater infrastructure has been built to meet LRRWMO permit requirements and required performance has been verified (other permit aspects, such as erosion control, may remain outstanding). Activities or construction consistent with the original permitted project plan occurring at a later date do not require a new LRRWMO permit nor are they subject to new LRRWMO stormwater treatment standards that may have been enacted since the issuance of the original permit. The following example serves to clarify how this provision would apply to a phased common plan of development. Consider an example where a common plan of development will be built in several phases, including grading, stormwater infrastructure, and several phases of building construction. A LRRWMO permit must be secured for the multi -phase common plan of development. Once stormwater infrastructure is constructed and found to be performing to the standards required by the permit, the stormwater standards for all phases of the common plan of development will be considered satisfied. Subsequent phases of construction will not be subject to additional LRRWMO stormwater standards, even in the event that the LRRWMO standards are changed. However, if later building construction occurs that is not consistent with the original common plan of development, then a new LRRWMO permit would be triggered and stormwater standards in effect at that time would apply. Storm Sewer Design Except as noted in this document (LRRWMO Stormwater Standards), the design of storm sewers shall he reviewed and approved by the municipality, not the LRRWMO. The LRRWMO must review and approve basin inlets and outlets. Stormwater Basin Sizing and Design Hydrologic and hydraulic design of stormwater basins shall be based upon: • For basins that are not landlocked —Available storage volume shall be based on 100 -year return period, 24 -hr. duration, Atlas 14 rainfall using the NRCS MSE -3 distribution with average soil moisture conditions (AMC 2). Rainfall amounts using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's update Precipitation Frequency Atlas for the Midwestern States (Atlas 14, Volume 8) can be found at www_dnr.=.us/climateinoaa atlas 14.html. Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 (Revised April 018) E-3 • For landlocked areas - Available storage volume shall be established by estimating the water surface elevation resulting from back-to-back 100 -year frequency rainfall events, or the 100 -year, 10 -day snowmelt, whichever provides the higher water surface elevation. In the snowmelt scenario, frozen soils shall be assumed (CN=100). Flood levels in landlocked basins are difficult to predict, as they depend upon the starting water elevation at the beginning of a storm event. The starting elevation of the waterbody prior to the runoff event shall be established by one of the following: Existing Ordinary High Water level established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, • Annual water balance calculation approved by the LRRWMO, • Local observation well records, as approved by the LRRWMO, or • The elevation of hydric soils, or the highest anticipated ground water table or elevation shown by a geotechnical study accepted by the LRRWMO. • Infiltration within the basin during frozen conditions will be allowed in the calculation of basin sizing. The infiltration rate used must be approved by the LRRWMO. • Ultimate development, based on the approved common plan of development and the city's future land use plan within the area tributary to the pond/waterbody, shall be assumed. • Modeling methodology acceptable to the LRRWMO. Methods currently approved by the LRRWMO include: USDA SCS, TR -55 and TR -20, HydroCAD, and EPA SWMM methodology. Precipitation Data Sources Rainfall amounts for hydrologic analyses should be based on: • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's updated Precipitation Frequency Atlas for the Midwestern States (Atlas 14, Volume 8). (Reference: www.dnr.state.mn,us/climate/nosa atlas 14.html). More recent updates of these documents should be used, if available. Low Floor Elevation The lowest floor elevation of all development, including basements, must be at least 3 feet above the highest anticipated ground water table, 2 feet above the designated or designed 100 -year flood elevation, or I foot above the emergency overflow, whichever is higher. This requirement may be waived if evidence that a lesser separation can be achieved is: • submitted and certified by a geotechnical engineer, reviewed and approved by the city engineer or other party designated by the city engineer, and • approved by the LRRWMO. If this process is pursued, the developer should consult with the LRRWMO Engineer before beginning study to discuss acceptable methodologies. Discharges to the Rum River The Rum River is classified as an Outstanding Resource Value Water. State Rules 7050.0180 prohibit new or expanded discharges. Determinations about discharges that may or may not impact Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 (Revised April 015) E-4 the Rum River are made by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and shall be addressed through MPCA regulatory processes. Water Oualitv Treatment of storm water to MPCA Stormwater guidelines is required prior to stormwater discharge to a lake, stream, or wetland and prior to discharge from the site as part of development. The stormwater treatment facilities shall provide at least an annual removal efficiency of sixty (60%) phosphorus and at least an annual removal efficiency of ninety percent (90%) total suspended solids. The onsite abstraction of runoff may be included in demonstrating compliance with the total suspended solids and total phosphorus removal requirements. Peak Flow Rate Control Post -development peak runoff rates shall not exceed existing rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm peak discharges. The Rational Method shall be the preferred methodology to calculate peak flow rates for the design of minor systems that do not require hydrograph routings. If a minor system requires the use of a hydrograph method for routing purposes, only methods pre -approved by the LRRWMO will be accepted. If the method is not currently approved by the City, documentation of the methodology used shall be submitted with the calculations. Hydrograph methods currently approved by the LRRWMO include: USDA SCS, TR -55 and TR -20, HydroCAD, and EPA SWMM. Volume Control A volume equal to one inch of runoff from all impervious surfaces on the site shall be infiltrated on- site. In cases of redevelopment, this volume control requirement applies only if >50% of the project area is disturbed. Project area is defined as the parcel(s) to which the permit would apply or the area encompassed by the common plan of development, whichever is greater. At a minimum, abstraction from I -inch of runoff from the on-site impervious surfaces shall be provided. Abstraction, through infiltration, shall not be allowed within a 1 -year travel zone of a public well as determined by the municipal well -head protection plan. Unless determined by the LRRWMO to be exempt or granted a waiver, the following shall be addressed for stormwater management of all sites: I . Stormwater volume management practices shall attempt the equivalent of retaining 1 -inch of runoff, while recognizing that meeting a full 1 -inch may not be practical. 2. These practices should utilize pervious area for the retention of runoff from impermeable surfaces to the maximum extent practical to provide treatment for both water quantity and quality. Use of an existing regional treatment facility with available treatment capacity for the required volume will be allowed as an exception to the infiltration requirements if the LRRWMO and the city where the project is occurring agree the facility has the capacity. For all ponds, infiltration through the pond bottom, draining dry within 48 hours, does count toward the required volume to infiltrate. Dead storage alone, without infiltration of that stored volume, does not count toward the required infiltration volume. Evaporation or transpiration from pond surfaces Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 (Revised April 018) E-5 may not be counted toward infiltration volume requirement because evaporation does not yield water quality benefits, achieve groundwater recharge goals, and because it is highly variable based upon climatological conditions. Infiltration Facility Desien and Construction The chapters on Infiltration in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual should be used as a reference in the design and construction of infiltration basins for the stormwater management. This includes, but is not limited to, soil borings, period of inundation, pretreatment, and protection during construction. Robust pretreatment to remove suspended solids is especially important to long term functioning of the practice. Infiltration rates used in design of infiltration practices shall be either those in the MN Stormwater Manual (see Table 1 below) or those measured on-site by a double -ring infiltrometer. A maximum infiltration rate of 3 in/hr is allowed. Rates used for design higher than those listed in Table 1 below shall be verified by post -construction testing. TABLE 1. Infiltration Rates for Hydrologic Soil Groups Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 (Revised April 018) E-6 Infiltration Hydrologic Corresponding Unified Soil Rate Soil Group Soil Textures Classification (in/hr) A Gravel, sand, sandy GW — Well -graded gravel or well- 1.6 gravel, silty gravel, graded gravel with sand loamy sand, sandy loam GP — Poorly graded gravel or poorly graded gravel with sand GM — Silty gravel or silty gravel with 0.8 sand SW — Will -graded sand or well -graded sand with gravel SP — Poorly graded sand or poorly graded sand with gravel B Loam, silt loam SM — Silty sand or silty sand with 0.6 gravel ML — Silt 0.3 OL — Organic silt or organic silt with sand or gravel or gravelly organic silt C Sandy clay loam GC — Clayey gravel or clayey gravel 0.2 with sand SC — Clayey sand or clayey sand with gravel Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 (Revised April 018) E-6 Hydrologic Soil Group Soil Textures Corresponding Unified Soil Classification Infiltration Rate (in/hr) D Clay, clay loam, silty CL — Lean clay or lean clay with sand 0.06 clay loam, sandy clay, or gravel or gravelly lean clay silty clay CH — Fat clay or fat clay with sand or gravel or gravelly fat clay OH — Organic clay or organic clay with sand or gravel or gravelly organic clay MH — Elastic silt or elastic silt with sand or gravel Source: Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Thirty guidance manuals and many other stormwater references were reviewed by the MPCA when it compiled the recommended infiltration rates. Sites Where Infiltration is Infeasible or Inappropriate The LRRWMO recognizes that infiltration may be infeasible or inappropriate in some instances, and will review these on a case-by-case basis. Reasons that infiltration may be infeasible or inappropriate include: • Physical limitations including soils, high water table, and available space limitations in the case of redevelopment. • Projects within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). Refer to MN Department of Health guidance entitled "Evaluating Proposed Stormwater Infiltration Projects in Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas" (http://www.healdi.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/stormwater.pdf) to determine if infiltration techniques are appropriate. • Storm water discharges from potential stormwater hotspots, such as fueling stations, vehicle service or washing areas, vehicle fleet storage areas, auto recycling or salvage, stockpiled snow from salted roadways, construction site inputs, manufacturing sites, public works storage areas, facilities that generate or store hazardous waste materials, and others as determined by the community or watershed management organization. • Utility locations. Contaminated soils. • Others as determined by the LRRWMO. In these scenarios, permittees must treat the required volume through the following techniques, in order of preference: 1. On site infiltration of the entire, or a portion of, the required volume. 2. On site filtration or off site infiltration within the LRRWMO. Excess volume reduction on any project may be banked for use on another off site project. The excess volume reduction bank will be administered by the LRRWMO. 3. Other non -volume control treatment on site. Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 (Revised April 018) E-7 4. Contribution to a stormwater impact fund held by the LRRWMO. This fund is used for projects that offset the volume reduction that permitted projects were unable to achieve. Such projects may occur throughout the LRRWMO, but funds are favored for use in the city where they originated. The LRRWMO determines the contribution amount necessary per acre of impervious surface. This amount is based upon actual expenditures of other projects to meet the same volume control standards. Stormwater Facilitv Maintenance Stormwater facility maintenance shall follow the recommendations of the MN Stormwater Manual, or for public agencies facility maintenance shall be in accordance with the provisions of their MS4 permit or approved Local Water Management Plan. An easement is required over the area inundated by the design high water level storm event (including elevations determined for land -locked basins) and additional area adequate to provide maintenance access. Where a private party is responsible for maintenance, a maintenance declaration and plan that runs in perpetuity and is approved by the LRRWMO must be placed on the property title. Performance Surety A performance surety shall be collected by either the LRRWMO or city, but not both, for stormwater practices. Practice performance must be measured after installation. The surety may be used to correct any deficiencies in performance, such as infiltration rate. Unused funds will be returned to the permittee one year after construction is completed and after the practice is performing satisfactorily. The performance surety will be waived for public projects. Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 (Revised April 018) E_8 Appendix F LRRWMO Wetland Protection Standards Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Wetland Protection Standards Rationale and Overview Wetlands serve a variety of beneficial functions. Wetlands within the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) maintain water quality, recharge groundwater, provide wildlife habitat, control rates and volumes of stormwater discharge, reduce flooding, provide open space, and contribute to the area's desirable aesthetics. The roles of greatest interest to the LRRWMO include protecting water quality in downstream recreational water bodies, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat. Major land use changes during development can have a detrimental effect on these functions. Therefore, regulating wetlands and the land uses around them are in the public interest. Applying these standards during major land use changes is in line with other local and state regulatory systems. The LRRWMO Wetland Protection Standards apply only to projects with land disturbance more than one acre. They focus on the area 16.5 -feet upland of the wetland boundary. This area must be protected from disturbance and erosion during the construction process. After construction, restrictions within this area are similar to restrictions cities impose within drainage and utility easements. This area is usually within the drainage and utility easement so in most cases this imposes no new restrictions after construction. These wetland standards also require that vegetation establishment at the conclusion of construction use native plant seeding in certain common spaces (outlots, city -owned property, etc.) near wetlands and developed ponding areas (stormwater management areas). Vegetation establishment is already required by cities; the LRRWMO is requiring the use of native plants in certain areas because of the benefits to water quality and wildlife. It applies only to common spaces that are disturbed during the construction process. The extent of native plant seeding should follow the guidance in these wetland protection standards. Native plant seeding is not required in all areas. There are no restrictions on modifying or removing it at a later date. These standards were developed by a Technical Advisory Committee including representation from each LRRWMO community, MN Department of Natural Resources, MN Pollution Control Agency, MN Board of Water and Soil Resources, Metropolitan Council, US Army Corps of Engineers, MN Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 G-1 Department of Transportation, Anoka Conservation District, Anoka County Environmental Services, and the Builder's Association of the Twin Cities. These standards will be implemented through the LRRWMO permitting process and each LRRWMO city must adopt standards at least as protective. Wetland Definition For the purpose of these standards, wetlands: • Are defined in MN Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision 19. • Include public waters wetlands defined in MN Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision 15a. Do not include any areas created for the purpose of stormwater management. Wetland Delineation Applicants for projects triggering these standards must delineate any wetlands, or portions of wetlands, within the project area. Wetland delineations shall be conducted using methodology approved by the MN Wetland Conservation Act (1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, along with any regional supplements, or other methodology approved by WCA in the future). Administration These wetland protection standards will be administered by both the LRRWMO and member cities. The LRRWMO will apply these standards to their permitting program. Each city must adopt standards at least as protective as the LRRWMO standards in their local water plan and/or ordinances, and implement them. Applicability LRRWMO Wetland Protection Standards apply to: • Projects that disturb/alter one acre or more, or are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs/alters one acre or more. The following are exempt: o Road reconstruction. o Utility construction/reconstruction within road right-of-way or drainage and utility easement. o Agricultural operations >300 feet from the Rum River and not creating additional impervious surfaces. o Gardens. o Pole setting. Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 G-2 o Emergency activities immediately necessary for the protection of life, property, or natural resources. o Whenever the LRRWMO Board determines the proposed project is not likely to impair attainment of the purpose and intent of these standards. Projects exempt from LRRWMO Wetland Protection Standards must still comply with any applicable local, state, or federal requirements. Note that projects involving wetland excavation, if land disturbance exceeds one acre, are subject to these standards. Definitions: A common plan of development or sale is defined as a contiguous area where multiple separate and distinct land disturbing activities may be taking place at different times, on different schedules, but under one proposed plan. One plan is broadly defined to include design, permit application, advertisement, or physical demarcation indicating that land disturbing activities may occur. Project area is defined as the parcel(s) to which the permit would apply or the area encompassed by the common plan of development, whichever is greater. Land disturbance is defined as activity that results in a change or alteration in the existing ground cover (both vegetative and non -vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, development, redevelopment, construction, reconstruction, clearing, grading, filling, stockpiling, excavation, and borrow pits. Road milling/overlay, demolition, and routine vegetation management activities will not be considered land disturbance. Permit Application Materials Any project to which these standards are applicable must submit a completed LRRWMO permit application and all materials requested within that application. LRRWMO permit materials are available on the LRRWMO website. Permits from other entities, such as the city, US Army Corps of Engineers, MN DNR, MN Pollution Control Agency, or others may also be necessary. Permit Process and Reviews Projects may require approvals/permits from both the LRRWMO and the city. The LRRWMO permit application must be submitted to the LRRWMO, not the city. LRRWMO permit materials are available on the LRRWMO website. Questions can be directed to the LRRWMO representative or Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 G-3 city staff liaison to the LRRWMO for the city where the project will occur. These contacts are listed on the LRRWMO website with the permitting materials. The city and LRRWMO will coordinate their permit reviews; duplication in the review process will be minimized by a review checklist that all reviewers use. Permit Lifespan Permits have a fixed lifespan of two years from the date of issuance. During this lifespan the requirements of the permit shall be fixed, and the project not subject to new LRRWMO wetland protection standards enacted since the issuance of the original permit. Permit Extensions Extensions to LRRWMO permits may be granted. When an extension is granted, the LRRWMO wetland protection standards in effect at the time of the original permit issuance shall continue to apply. The procedure for extensions varies for platted and non -platted projects as follows: For platted projects, LRRWMO permit extensions shall automatically follow extensions granted by the City for that same project. The applicant is responsible for notifying the LRRWMO in writing if such an extension is granted by the city. In cases where a project must reapply to the City for a preliminary plat, either because of expiration of the original permit or changes to the project, the permittee must also reapply for a LRRWMO permit and will be subject to any new LRRWMO wetland protection standards enacted since the issuance of the original permit. For non -platted projects, the applicant must apply to the LRRWMO for a permit extension before the end the two year permit life. Such requests will be considered by the LRRWMO Board on a case-by-case basis, and will only be granted if the proposed project has not changed since the issuance of the original permit. Stormwater Discharge into Wetlands Stormwater discharge into wetlands must comply with LRRWMO Stormwater Standards. Temporary Wetland Protections During Construction Areas within 16.5 feet of a wetland boundary must be protected from land grading and other disturbance during the construction process. The purpose is to prevent construction impacts to the wetland, such as erosion and vegetation removal. The area temporarily protected during construction: Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 G-4 • Must be no less than 16.5 -feet wide upland from the wetland boundary. • Must be present where ever land disturbance is occurring within 100 feet up -gradient of the wetland boundary. • Must not be graded or disturbed. • Must be demarcated by a properly installed heavy duty silt fence. Fiber logs or other continuous temporary erosion measures may be used if approved by the LRRWMO and/or the City. All erosion control measures must be installed and inspected prior to initiating any site disturbance activities. These materials must be in place throughout the construction process, including land grading and building. • May be accomplished by installation of erosion control around the perimeter of land disturbance used to satisfy LRRWMO, city, or state erosion control rules provided it is consistent with the other specifications listed in this section. • May be encroached upon for: o Activities associated with planting native vegetation or management to favor native vegetation. Encroachment for establishing turf grass is not allowed, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED BELOW: o The installation of stormwater conveyances, such as outfalls, or grading necessary for hydrologic safeguards, such as emergency overflows. If portions of a wetland are to be lawfully filled or drained during the construction process through a MN Wetland Conservation Act permit, the area of wetland protections shall be placed at that new wetland boundary. In this case it does not make sense to place the silt fence 16.5 feet from the new wetland boundary, because this would be within the area that is being filled or drained. Instead, the protections should be placed at the new wetland boundary. This applies only to the portion of the wetland edge where lawful wetland impact will occur during the construction process. The provisions listed above apply until construction (including grading and building) is complete, the site is stabilized, and vegetation has been established in the project area. Native Plant Seeding in Common Spaces at the Conclusion of Construction Within common spaces, areas adjacent to wetlands that are disturbed through the construction process and ponding areas (stormwater management areas) should be seeded with a MN Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) native seed mix which matches site conditions. Common spaces include outlots, areas transferred to city ownership, homeowners association common space, and similar. This seeding should be done as part of site stabilization following construction. Site preparation and seeding should be consistent with BWSR guidance. The extent of seeding around wetlands shall be reviewed by the LRRWMO Board and determined on a case by case basis. Decision making will be based on the following guidance: Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 G-5 • All areas that will be idle for one year or more and are within 100 feet of a wetland boundary should be seeded with the native plant mix. • Seeding all areas that will be idle for one year or more, even if more distant from the wetland, is encouraged for wildlife benefits, lower long-term maintenance, and aesthetics. Native plant seeding adjacent to stormwater management areas is also encouraged. • Areas where the city or land manager plans an active land use inconsistent with unmowed vegetation can be excluded from the native plant seeding requirement. For example, if an area is planned to be developed into a playground within one year, native plant seeding need not occur. • Seeding should only occur within the 16.5 -foot wide area around the wetland that was left undisturbed during construction if it is dominated by invasive or noxious weeds. In all other cases this area should remain undisturbed. The LRRWMO does not require this native plant seeding to be maintained. Native plants are favored in areas near wetlands and on idle lands because of their benefits to wildlife and water quality. However if the desired use or landscaping of the area changes, the vegetation may be replaced without any restrictions or penalties imposed by the LRRWMO. These provisions do not apply to private properties; they only apply to common spaces. Wetland Protections After Construction Following construction, site stabilization, and vegetation establishment certain activities shall be prohibited within 16.5 feet of the wetland edge. Activities prohibited include: • Structures, excluding fences. Fences are not allowed inside the wetland boundary. • Paving, except projects with a public purpose such as public trails. • Retaining walls. • Filling, dumping, or yard waste disposal. • Fertilization. • Septic systems. If portions of a wetland have been lawfully impacted (filled, drained, etc.) during the construction process through a MN Wetland Conservation Act permit, the 16.5 -foot area of wetland protections shall be measured from the new, post -impact wetland boundary. Relationship to Draina¢e and Utility Easement The LRRWMO wetland protections after construction are similar to restrictions cities impose within drainage and utility easements. In most cases the drainage and utility easement (defined by the designed or designated 100 year flood elevation) extends more than 16.5 feet from the Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization October 2011 G-6 • Fti�NDOVE& -, :- 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator / Finance Dire o David D. Berkowitz, City Engineer/Director of Pub ' orks FROM: Todd J. Haas, LRRWMO Member SUBJECT: Update of the Rum River One Watershed One Plan — Engineering DATE: February 23, 2021 9) This is an update of the Rum River One Watershed One Plan (1W1P) that is currently being prepared by the Policy Committee that has been established to provide input for the plan. I am a member on the Committee representing the Lower Rum River WMO. DISCUSSION Attached is information of what a 1 W 1 P and a map identifying the participating watersheds currently within the State of Minnesota. Some watersheds have already completed their plans, some are currently drafting their plan, and some have not started or have not organized yet. The purpose of the program is to partner with local governments (Conservation Districts, County Boards, Watershed Districts or Watershed Management Organizations) in developing and prioritizing targeted and measurable implementation goals. Plans created through 1W 1 P program are called comprehensive watershed management plans like what the Lower Rum River WMO is currently working on. The Rum River Watershed began this process in 2013. Throughout the next few years, the watershed (which covers an area from Mille lacs Lake to the Mississippi River) evaluated the health of the watershed to determine if there are impaired waters that do not meet minimum standards. Under Federal and State Laws, impaired waters must have a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study to determine reductions of pollutants needed to meet water quality standards. Before the Rum River Watershed is eligible to use Clean Water Funds, a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) needs to be created and approved by all 18 entities (Conservation Districts, County Boards, and Water Management Organizations) within the watershed. Once the plan is completed and approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) and JPA's are executed, the Rum River Watershed will be eligible to apply for Clean Water Funds that can be used to make improvements to the impairments to meet the state standards. As of right now, Trott Brook (lack of oxygen) in the City of Ramsey and Cedar Creek (bacteria) that discharges into the Rum River in the northwest part of the City of Andover are the only impairments within the Lower Rum River WMO. The Rum River 1 W 1 P is due to be completed by December of 2021. Mayor and Council Members February 23, 2021 Page 2 of 2 ACTION REQUIRED This item is for information and discussion purposes only. Respectfully submitted, Todd I Haas Attachments: Informatio,vfrom BWSR on What is One Watershed, One Plan; State of Participating Watersheds; Rum River WRAPS Report Summary✓ One Watershed `(1 WAT E R \/ ga� One Plan LEGACY LAND & t AMENDMENT What is One Watershed, One Plan? One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) is a program through the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) that supports partnerships of local governments in developing prioritized, targeted, and measurable implementation plans. Key principles are planning at the major watershed scale and aligning local plans with state strategies. Plans created through the 1W1P program are called comprehensive watershed management plans and are described in 1038.801. ■ The program is designed to foster collaboration between upstream and downstream neighbors to work where it's most important in the watershed, not limited to county or other jurisdictional boundaries. ■ Plans identify and prioritize resources and issues and set measurable goals. A targeted implementation schedule describes planned actions. Plans also describe programs and the future partnership that will implement the plan. Plans are comprehensive: they address water quality and quantity, groundwater, drinking water, habitat, recreation, and other issues. ■ Collaboration between local partners and Minnesota has a long history of water management by local governme it. One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) is the next step in the evolution of water planning. The program is built on three components: 1. State legislation: §1036.101 and §103B.801 2. Recommendations from the Local Government Roundtable (Association of Minnesota Counties, Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Minnesota Association o= Watershed Districts) 3. BWSR policy: Guiding Principles, Plan Content Requirements, and Operating Procedures state agencies creates opportunities for dialogue about water management goals and activities, and fosters the use of state data and strategies in local planning. Who is involved? Soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs), counties, and watershed districts are required participants. Participation is optional for local governments in the seven -county metropolitan area. Developing a plan involves an advisory committee (which includes state agencies and other interested or affected parties, who make recommendations to the policy committee) and a policy committee (which makes the final decisions on the plan). A steering team may facilitate the process, and groups may wish to hire consultants to help with technical analyses and plan writing. Local governments work together to leverage each other's strengths to develop watershed -based plans. Planning partnerships establish: ■ Agreement on the expectations, benefits, and outcomes for implementing the plan June 2018 www.bwsr.state.mn.us ■ Implementation activities that address the largest threats to water resources and that provide the greatest environmental benefit ■ An understanding of the procedures for substituting or replacing all or portions of existing water plans ■ An understanding of next steps for coordinated funding and implementation �s> State Counties Public,.`,_ ' Other `a partners Shared vision and goals Federal What goes into the plans? Comprehensive watershed management plans contain: ■ A narrative describing the watershed's land and water resources ■ A summary of the priority issues and resource concerns ■ Measurable goals for addressing each priority issue ■ A targeted implementation schedule outlining actions ■ A description of the program(s) that will be used to implement the actions in the schedule ■ A description of the ongoing partnership that will work together to implement the plan Ultimately, the One Watershed, One Plan program encourages planners to look beyond individual water management projects — plans include programs that address education, recreation, soil health, monitoring, and more. The program also encourages local governments to move beyond jurisdictional boundaries to build regional partnerships and to seek out diverse funding sources. Where can I find more information? Program information is available at http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/planning/1WlP/index.html. Key documents: ■ One Watershed, One Plan Operating Procedures (process, structure, roles) ■ One Watershed, One Plan Plan Content Requirements (required plan elements) ■ One Watershed, One Plan Guidebook (additional information, advice, and examples) June 2018 www.bwsr.state.mn.us One Watershed, One Plan Participating Watersheds Two Rivers Plus the Woods E Beltrami Buffalo - Red River Mustinka/ Bois de Sioux River Otte r,Tai I Lake of the Woods Itasca In Lake Cass T Carlton Ailkin Wing Snake River ngt Lower McLeod St. Croix Lake Lake Superior North Nemadji River rLegend 4 Pope Stone l Poni North -Ft de Terre Crow Ri River - `Lac Chippewa qui -• Parle KStart Lac qui Parle- Yellow Bank Lake of the Woods Itasca In Lake Cass T Carlton Ailkin Wing Snake River ngt Lower McLeod St. Croix Lake Lake Superior North Nemadji River rLegend 7 County Metro Area C31W1P Planning Boundaries Major Watersheds Approved Plan Start Year - 2017 Start Year - 2018 KStart Year - 2019 Start Year - 2020 LYo Redwood %Sueur annonYellow -fir a"eas n Medicine iver --Greater a River Mar Zumbro— — Winona/La Crescent ay I jsteeie L. n BW=. "Rive!i._sted Wi ona Hawk Creek - c_onon Le,Sueur-a Middle River -T--- — -- Root River Minnesota a so Ma ps;er 9 M11 •.� � F nbault , ?eet:on •- Missouri River Basin Watonwan River- Cedar River Des Moines 11 -ower Minnesota Shelf Rock River B W S R River River West & Winnebago Watershed *Not legal boundaries; intended for planning purposes through One Watershed, One Plan only. December 2020 Rum River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) Report Summary Minnesota has adopted a "watershed approach"to address the state's 80 .major" watersheds (denoted by 8 -digit hydrologic unit code or HUC). This approach looks at the drainage area as a whole instead of focusing on lakes and stream sections one at a time, thus increasing effectiveness and efficiency.This watershed approach incorporates the following activities into a 10 -year cycle: • Water quality monitoring and assessment • Watershed analysis • Civic engagement • Planning • Implementation • Measurement of results The Rum River near Highway 169, south of Onamia I helium River watershed process began in 2013. It was the first time watershed assessments incorporated biology (fish and macroinvertebrates) along with the traditional chemistry and flow for a comprehensive watershed health assessment. The watershed approach adds a protection component for water resources that currently meet standards rather than focusing entirely on restoration of impaired waters. Watershed characteristics • Size: 1,584 square miles. • Counties: Aitkin, Crow Wing, Morrison, Mille Lacs, Kanabec, Benton, Isanti, Chisago, Sherburne, and Anoka. • Ecoregions: Northern Lakes and Forests and North Central Hardwood Forests. • Land use: Predominantly forest/shrub. • There are 212 lakes (greater than 10 acres) and 233 stream segments. • The 8 -digit hydrologic unit code or HUC for the watershed is 07010207. Landuse in the Rum River Watershed • Open Water • Developed Forest/Shrub • Rangeland • Cropland Wetland Assessments: Are waters meeting standards and providing beneficial uses? During the first phase of the watershed approach - intensive watershed monitoring - the MPCA and local partners collect data about biology such as fish populations, chemistry such as pollutant levels, and flow to determine if lakes and streams are meeting water quality standards. Waters are "impaired" if they fail to meet standards. The map on page 2 shows the impairments for streams and lakes in the Rum River watershed. Under federal and state laws, impaired waters must have Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies to determine reductions of pollutants needed to meet water quality standards. In this first WRAPS cycle, the MPCA and local partners completed TMDL studies for six stream sections and ten lakes. wq-ws4-34b Impairments in the Rum River Watershed Impairments: • 10 lakes were found to be im- paired in the Watershed. • 11 stream sections were found to have impairments. • Bacteria: E.coli and/or fecal coliform can indicate sewage or manure in water and makes the water unsafe for swimming. • Dissolved Oxygen: • Bioloev (fish and/or macroinver- tebrates): The number and type of fish and bugs are indicators of water's health. cal impairments, agencies and local ients.The table below summarizes the d. sited nent �ades at) Lack of physical habitat Altered Hydrology (Stream flow changed) a stressor Not a stressor Main Stressor a stressor Not a stressor Main Stressor a stressor Main Stressor Main Stressor a stressor Not a stressor Main Stressor a stressor Main Stressor Main Stressor a stressor Main Stressor Main Stressor a stressor Not a stressor Main Stressor a stressor Not a stressor Main Stressor a stressor Main Stressor Main Stressor n Stressor Not a stressor Not a stressor Restoration and Protection Strategies The MPCA created this strategy map using HUC-12 subwatersheds —drainage areas within the larger HUC-8 Rum River watershed —to help identify pri- ority areas for targeting actions to improve water quality. Multiple sources of data, maps and analysis tools including HSPF were combined to create this map. The colors on the map indicate: Red — High priority restoration or protection (multiple benefits for restoration or protec- tion) Orange — Medium priority restoration or protection (water is Impaired) Light green — Protection/monitoring (water quality is good but declining or faces threats - fewer multiple benefits) Dark green — Protect (water quality is good and little need of action at this time) Other maps of individual pollutants, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, can be found in the full report. Next steps and measuring results Foreston Passel Saint Frands Nowthan- Ramsey Restoration and Protection Sttategy -enaa tea, Pten - rdmratuaam aae,.f � rawvae� lwt^ x^01 0 375 75 15 vmies L Cambri dge , isanti Bethel East Bethel Oak Grove The restoration and protection strategies listed in the WRAPS report will be the basis for developing local implementa- tion plans to restore and protect water resources.The report lays out goals, milestones and responsible entities to ad- dress protection and restoration priorities in the Rum River watershed.The targets are intended to provide guidance and "measuring sticks"to assess the watershed's health and success of actions taken. Water quality in some areas in Minnesota has declined over many decades. While restoration activities continue, new problems develop, such as converting land to intensive cropping that negatively impacts water quality.The perpetual challenge is to make improvements and keep up with new problems. Impacts from other factors such as climate change are still not completely understood. Consequently, it may take decades to fully restore impaired waters. Key conclusions of first cycle • The northern portion of the watershed near Mille Lacs Lake is currently fairly healthy but sensitive fisheries and associated macroinvertebrate communities will be negatively impacted by increased runoff and pollutant loads. Hence, protection efforts should be the primary emphasis in this portion of the watershed. The middle portion of the watershed has higher background levels of phosphorus and sediment and contain the majority of today's impaired waters. Restoration efforts (reducing dissolved phosphorus) is the primary focus in this area, with a secondary focus on protection of waters meeting standards. Buffer strips and utilizing low impact design standards are shown to reduce phosphorus and sediment throughout the watershed. Both protection and restoration efforts within the watershed will protect downstream lakes and Rum River reaches and the Rum River outlet into the Mississippi River at Anoka, part of the Minneapolis and St. Paul source water protection area. The Rum River is a State Wild & Scenic River and important to the public for fishing and recreation. The river is subject to land use change and increased drainage and protecting the corridor is both a short-term and long-term priority. West Branch Rum River Full report Full report as well as supporting documents can be found at www.pca.state.mn.us and search "Rum River". Anoka SWCD: Jamie Schurbon 763-434-2030 jamie.schurbon@anokaswcd.org Aitkin SWCD: Janet Smude 218-927-6565 smude.aitkinswcd@gmail.com Benton SWCD: Gerry Maceij 320-968-5300 gerry@soilandwater.org Chisago SWCD: CaseyThiel 651-674-2333 caseyl.thiel@mn.nacdnet.net Crow Wing SWCD: Sheila Boldt 218-828-6197 sheilaboldt@crowwingswcd.org Isanti SWCD:Tiffany Determan 763-689-3271 tiffany.determan@mn.nacdnet.net Isanti County: Darrick Wotachek 763-689-5165 darrick.wotachek@co.isanti.mn.us Kanabec SWCD: Deanna Pomije 320-679-3982 deanna.pomiie@mn.nacdnet.net Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe: Chad Weiss 320-532-7445 chad.weiss@millelacsband.com Mille Lacs SWCD: Susan Shaw 320-983-2160 susan.shaw@millelacsswcd.org MN DNR: Craig Wills 763-689-7100 craig.wills@state.mn.us Morrison SWCD: Helen Mclennan 320-616-2479 helen.mclennan@mn.nacdnet.net MPCA Project Manager: Bonnie Finnerty 218-316-3897 bonnie.finnerty@state.mn.us Sherburne SWCD: Dan Cibulka 763-567-5369 Daniel.cibulka@mn.nacdnet.net MillMINNESOTA POLLUTION The Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment CONTROL AGENCY is funding a large part of the MPCA'swatershed approach. www.pca.state.mn.us April 2017 )O 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City FROM: David D. Berkowitz, Director of Engineer 0 SUBJECT: Review Proposal/21-28, Intersection Study/Nightingale St. NW & Veterans Memorial Blvd. NW/21-29, Intersection Study/Crosstown Blvd. NW & Crosstown Dr. NW — Engineering DATE: February 23, 2021 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to review the proposal from Bolten & Menk, Inc. (BMI) to provide a study and exhibits for Projects 21-28, Intersection Study/Nightingale St. NW & Veterans Memorial Blvd. NW and 21-29, Intersection Study/Crosstown Blvd. NW & Crosstown Dr. NW. DISCUSSION At the January 26, 2021 City Council Workshop, the City Council directed staff to move forward with a detailed study to evaluate a roundabout at Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Nightingale Street and a roundabout at Crosstown Boulevard and Crosstown Drive. Staff discussed the study with BMI who prepared our roundabout grant application for Crosstown Boulevard and Nightingale and they provided the attached proposal for consideration. Please review the proposal for discussion at the meeting. BUDGETIMPACT The cost for the study would be funded by the Road & Bridge Fund and details provided in the study can be used in the final design if the project(s) move forward. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council is requested to review the proposal provided by BMI and direct staff on how to move forward. Respectfully submitted, David D. Berkowitz Attachment: BMI Proposal for Roundabout Analyses BOLTON & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. February 1, 2021 David D. Berkowitz, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 RE: Proposal for Roundabout Analyses Dear Mr. Berkowitz: 7533 Sunwood Drive NW Suite 206 Ramsey, MN 55303-5119 Ph: (763) 433-2851 Fax: (763) 427-0833 Bolton-Menk.com Bolton & Menk, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal for professional engineering services related to roundabout analyses at the following intersections: • Nightingale Street and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, and • Crosstown Boulevard and Crosstown Drive. The project includes analyzing traffic conditions to determine the applicability of using a roundabout as a means of traffic control, determining the footprint of a roundabout, and determining costs associated with roundabout construction at each of the two locations. WORK PLAN Our Work Plan includes all services required to deliver the project. The project consists of three general phases as described below: Data Collection During this phase of the project, we will create a base map of each area using aerial photography, LiDAR, half section maps and City GIS information. We will also complete traffic counts at each location. Analysis and Forecasting This phase of the project will consist of the following tasks: • Traffic forecasting and model calibration, • Operations analysis, • Safety analysis, and • Warrants analysis. In addition, we will perform a pedestrian hybrid beacon analysis for the Nightingale Street and Veterans Memorial Boulevard intersection. David D. Berkowitz, P.E. February 1, 2021 Page 2 Concepts, Estimates, Memorandums We will prepare concept level drawings as follows: • Nightingale Street and Veterans Memorial Boulevard — compact roundabout concept and pedestrian hybrid beacon concept. • Crosstown Boulevard and Crosstown Drive — compact roundabout concept and single lane roundabout concept. After the above concepts are prepared, we will complete cost estimates. For Nightingale Street, we will prepare estimates considering if the improvements are made concurrently with the HSIP project or as a stand-alone project. Memorandums will then be prepared detailing the findings of our analyses. The memorandums will include the cost estimates and concepts as attachments. SCHEDULE AND COMPENSATION Project Schedule We will begin our work immediately after authorization. We estimate approximately six weeks will be required to complete all tasks. Compensation We have prepared an estimate of time and included not -to -exceed fees associated with completing the tasks described in this letter. The estimate is attached to this letter for review and concurrence. If there are any questions related to this proposal, please call me at (651) 968-7760. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Kevin P. Kielb, P.E. Project Manager ATTACHMENTS Fee and Cost Spreadsheet ACCEPTED BY: David D. Berkowitz, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer DETAILED FEE ESTIMATE Nightingale Street and Veterans Memorial Boulevard 1.0 Base Map / Traffic Counts 1 1 8 2 12 $1,685 2.0 Forecasting / Calibration 4 4 $500 3.0 Operations Analysis 2 20 22 $3,180 4.0 Safety Analysis 0.5 2 2.5 $345 5.0 Warrants Analysis 2 2 $250 6.0 Compact Roundabout Concept 36 8 16 60 $8,292 7.0 pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Analysis & Concept 12 8 16 12 12 $1,500 8.0 Cost Estimates 8 4 $1,600 9.0 Study Memorandum of Findings 4 4 12 4 12 20 $3,040 Subtotal Nightingale Street & Veterans Memorial 5 7.5 84 20 8 22 0 146.5 $20,392 192.5 $26,984 Crosstown Boulevard and Crosstown Drive 1.0 Base Map /Traffic Counts 1 1 8 2 12 $1,685 2.0 Forecasting/ Calibration 4 4 $500 3.0 Operations Analysis 2 20 22 $3,180 4.0 Safety Analysis 0.5 2 2.5 $345 5.0 Warrants Analysis 2 2 $250 6.0 Compact Roundabout Concept 36 8 16 60 $8,292 7.0 Single Lane Roundabout Concept 28 8 16 52 $7,292 8.0 Cost Estimates 12 6 1s $2,400 9.0 Study Memorandum of Findings 4 4 12 20 $3,040 Subtotal Crosstown Boulevard and Crosstown Drive 5 7.5 104 20 16 40 0 192.5 $26,984 TOTAL FOR BOTH ANALYSES $47,376 C Aw6w �• 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City FROM: Joe Janish, Community Development SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Density — Planning DATE: February 23, 2021 ACTION REQUESTED Consider direction to staff in regards to Comprehensive Plan Amendment related to density. DISCUSSION The City of Andover received a comprehensive plan amendment request from a developer looking to develop the property south of Bunker Lake Blvd. at the intersection of Bunker Lake Blvd and 7d' Avenue. This property has been commonly referred to as the "Sonsteby" property. At this time the developer has submitted a Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this property. The developer is proposing 49 units over 8.3 acres and the net density (while still be worked out) is expected to be 5 to 6 units per acre. The developer has now proposed the development name of "Andover Village." .. ie. i_ -- -L�. .<< - 1 As our current Future Land Use map identifies the property as Urban Residential Medium (URM) with a density of 8 to 12 units per acre. As proposed the 5 to 6 units per acre does not meet the URM requirements and triggers the amendment request. The request is to drop the Future Land Use to Urban Residential Medium Low (URML) which allows for 4 to 8 units per acre. Proposed ANDOVER VILLAGE na Gross Residential Density Range by Land Use Lane Use Densdy Rance W..r.. R..lyrlYl .rrR MwIRg0.1 W nM/.R0 In Nun urM R..Ycpnnn RR RUY R.v6nW OOlel. w.p�Kn Net Residential Density Range by Land Use Land Use Density Rance I Net Deveopaoe Acres UAL, Ure R..mruY r — .y! -- U—W.WnW b.Yr•Le� l bJrlrrb pw.cn )!! I - L-11. R..... 11.1 Y.... lbl:rurR.RnrnnR _ VRML. U.9 W1.—rte.. - YRM.UTrr RsdnW ly. MbSl urn. wr .[n 11! '4r. Nl.nn urrw.nN4n M.M1 r. drM 2 Due to the density being above 3 units per acre staff is not necessarily concerned with our overall density within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) dropping below 3, however this site was expected to accommodate 60 units of "Affordable" housing. Therefore, we are looking to make up these units. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment will require the City of Andover to find 60 "affordable" units. Staff has included a modified Future Land Use map, "Potential Locations", to make up the 60 units. In order for an area to be considered "affordable" the density must be 8 units or higher. The Met Council will utilize the lowest number within the density range to calculate the potential of "affordable". On the attached map several sites are included as possibilities for increased density. These are labeled B through F with site A shown as the location of the proposed reduction of units, otherwise known as Andover Village. SITE A Location of reduction of units below 8 units per acre. This triggers the need to find a parcel(s)to make up for the 60 units of displaced "affordable units." fe "Loss" of 60 "Affordable" Units SITE B This is the property north of SITE A. Discussions with the developer on this site has indicated that they believe they have some ability to make up for a few units, however to adjust the future land use category to 20 to 25 units per acre would make it extremely difficult to address the increase of 60 more units. Currently the property is designated as 12 to 20 units, and is estimated at X acres. 91 SITE C This is the area in which the City of Andover owns several 4-plexes, and other owners have property as well. The area currently is guided with 8.8 acres of 4 to 8 units per acre. The area identified below is approximately 4 acres in size. If the property was increased to either 12 to 20 units or 20 to 25 units it would be possible to make up either an additional 8 units per acre or 16 units per acre depending on which future land use classification it would be converted to. SITE D This site is the area that was recently converted from Commercial to URML (4 to 8) units and is adjacent to the ballfields in Andover Station North. The property is owned by the City of Andover EDA. The site is 4.7 acres in size. An increase to a higher density could yield 4, 8, or 16 units per acre more. SITE E This is part of Anoka County property at the intersection of Bunker Lake Blvd. and Hanson Blvd. As drawn it is meant to represent 5 acres with a density of 12 to 20 units per acre. This would be the conversion from public to residential. SITE F This is commonly refered to as the "Holasek" site, located at the intersection of Hanson Blvd. and Crosstown Blvd. This is currently guided for 4 to 8 units per acre over 7 acres which would leave 6 acres of General Business. Depending on the level of density this particular site could pick up an additona 4, 8, ACTION REQUIRED Consider direction to staff in regards to Comprehensive Plan Amendment related to density. 7J"ishe11 u 'tt Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Possible Locations Map Current Future Land Use Map NDO: 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administra FROM: Joe Janish, Community Development' ector SUBJECT: Daycare Facilities within Religious Institution - Planning DATE: February 23, 2021 ACTION REQUESTED Consider discussion and direction to staff related to "Daycare Facilities" located in Religious Institutions. DISCUSSION Staff was approached by an individual that desires to open a Daycare Center within a Religious Institution in our community. As staff started to research this item it was discovered that if the daycare is not associated with the religious institution, then it would not be permitted. Staff has contacted some of our nearby neighbors and most allow for daycare facilities if the religious institution is legally conforming, strictly as a permitted accessory use. Staff would propose similar language to our code. Staff did have some discussions about requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), however the question became, what the city would review, and what would be the conditions. A CUP would also add additional time for individuals looking at providing more daycare facilities in our community. The advantages staff sees by allowing for a daycare facility is it will utilize what might be viewed as underutilized structures during the weekday, and may also allow for income for the religious institution, and also allow for additional daycare options for our residents. ACTION REQUESTED Consider discussion and direcction to staff related to "Daycare Facilities" located in Religious Institutions. Re ec fullymFtted, Joe Janish Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Conditional Use Permit 12-14-6; Staff Research 12-14-6: CONDITIONAL USES: A. General Provisions: 1. Conditional Use Permits may be granted or denied in any district by action of the City Council. 2. The Community Development Director shall maintain a record of all Conditional Use Permits issued including information on the use, locations, conditions imposed by the City Council, time limits, review dates, and such other information as may be appropriate. A copy of the Conditional Use Permit shall also be filed with the Building Official. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970; amd. 2003 Code) 3. Any change involving structural alteration, enlargement, intensification of use, or similar change not specifically permitted by the Conditional Use Permit shall require an amended Conditional Use Permit, and all procedures shall apply as if a new permit were being issued. 4. All uses existing at the time of adoption of this title (October 21, 1970) shall be considered as having a Conditional Use Permit which contains conditions which permit any land use and structures as they existed on said date, and any enlargements, structural alterations, or intensification of use shall be required to amend their Conditional Use Permit through the process provided in this section. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) B. Criteria For Granting Conditional Use Permits: 1. In granting a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and: a. The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. b. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land. c. The effect on values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. 2. If it shall determine by resolution that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and that said use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title and the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council may grant such permits. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970) C. Procedure: 2 1. Request For Conditional Use; Fee: The person applying for a Conditional Use Permit shall fill out and submit to the Community Development Director a request for Conditional Use Permit form together with a fee as set forth by ordinance. An additional fee as set forth by ordinance may be required for each meeting in excess of two (2), which is necessary because of incomplete information or changes in the petition. The Community Development Director shall refer the application to the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Amended Ord. 8,10-21- 1970; amd. 2003 Code) 2. A public hearing shall be held in accordance with section 12-14-8. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) 3. City Council Action: After a completed application has been submitted, the City Council shall follow the deadline for response as outlined in State Statute 15.99. (Amended Ord. 314,10-4-2005) 4. Amended Application: An Amended Conditional Use Permit application shall be administered in a manner similar to that required for a new conditional use permit; and the fee shall be as set forth by ordinance . Amended conditional use permits shall include reapplications for permits that have been denied, requests for changes in conditions, and as otherwise described in this title. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970; amd. 2003 Code) 5. Reapplication After Denial: No application for a Conditional Use Permit shall be resubmitted for a period of one year from the date of said order of denial. 6. Hearing May Be Held: When a Conditional Use Permit may be of general interest to the community or to more than the adjoining owners, the Planning and Zoning Commission may hold a public hearing, and the Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed with notice of said hearing published at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-2005) D. Time Limit On Implementing Conditional Use: If the City Council determines that no significant progress has been made in the first twelve (12) months after the approval of the Conditional Use Permit, the permit will be null and void. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970) Staff Research: Blaine: 29.083 - Accessory uses. (c) Commercial daycare accessory to a legal conforming church or school. (Ord. No. 94-1527, amended 7-21-1994) Coon Rapids: Daycare Permitted use 13 or more within hospital, religious intuition, school located in all residential districts. Ham Lake: Had not yet responded. Anoka: Had not yet responded. Ramsey: Based on intepretations of their code City Staff allows daycare's within churches. 0