July 13, 2016 Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
July 13, 2016

1.         CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Citizens Advisory Committee was called to order at 6:34 p.m. in the Community Room at the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District offices.

2.         CAC MEMBERS PRESENT
Peter Rechelbacher, Bill Bushnell, Brian Girard, Jerry Ciardelli, Joseph Lutz, Neil Weber, Val McGruder, Steve Mohn, Chris Dovolis, Colin Cox, Jacqueline Di Giacomo.    

MANAGERS PRESENT
Bill Olson

OTHERS PRESENT
MCWD staff – Darren Lochner, Brett Eidem, Becky Christopher, Roma Rowland

3.         APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved.

4.         APPROVAL OF JUNE 8, 2016 MINUTES
4.1        June 8, 2016 minutes
Ciardelli moved to approve minutes, seconded by Weber. Motion carried, none opposed.

5.         REPORT FROM STAFF
Lochner presented on the 10th annual Minnehaha Creek Clean Up and urged CAC members to join. Staff were preparing the last minute items, and even if CAC cannot be available for an entire shift of volunteering, they should at least stop by to experience the event. He also passed around a behind-the-scenes diagram of the Eco Education tent and all of the nonprofits and agencies that will exhibit at the event. This is an increase of the number of tables from previous years. Similarly, each exhibitor must have an interactive activity, not just handing out brochures. The exhibitor tent is at Lake Hiawatha. CAC is also encouraged to promote the clean up through all other venues for the last push to get more volunteers.

Bushnell asked about some of the vendors. Green Stick Army is an environmental stewardship group that does clean up events, however Lochner did not have more information on that specific group. MCWD tries to stay away from politically-natured organizations and tries to stay partisan. Lochner said there’s close to 2,000 volunteers, but that the event could always use more. The Master Water Stewards program will have 30 volunteers in addition to recruiting other stewards from other watersheds.

Upcoming Events:
Turf grass and winter maintenance workshops have been scheduled and are on the MCWD website (http://minnehahacreek.org/education) as one-day training for certification.\
13-Sep-16         Winter Roads Maintenance Workshop   
15-Sep-16         Winter Parking Lots and Sidewalk Maintenance Workshop          
11-Oct-16          Winter Parking Lots and Sidewalk Maintenance Workshop          
13-Oct-16          Winter Roads Maintenance Workshop   
20-Oct-16          Winter Parking Lots and Sidewalk Maintenance Workshop          

These trainings take on a regional approach and include other watershed districts as co-organizers. Certification shows citizens that maintenance businesses know the proper procedures for applying salt at different temps, and about how the salts affect water quality. The City of Minneapolis is also looking to hire certified contractors (as opposed to not-certified contractors) for their winter maintenance. These trainings are geared towards schools, churches, and other parking lot contractors.

Bushnell suggested that cities should require their contractors to attend these types of trainings. Weber mentioned that the State workhouse and Lino Lakes prisons have work release and could also benefit from these trainings. Lochner acknowledged that oftentimes this industry has seasonal staff change and highlighted how this training is a good educational opportunity, because the company may be certified however their employees may not be individually trained and certified.

Other upcoming events:
Sunday, July 24, Minnehaha Creek Clean-Up.   
Locations include Lake Hiawatha (Headquarters), St. Louis Park and Minnetonka http://www.minnehahacreek.org/events/2016-minnehaha-creek-cleanup-register-today

Tuesday, July 26, 6-7:30pm, Rain Barrel Workshop, Wood Lake Nature Center.  In partnership with the Friends of the Mississippi River Cost: $35 to construct a rain barrel from reused soda barrels.
http://fmr.org/events/2016/07/26/make-take-rain-barrel-workshop-just-35

Wednesday, August 3, 5-9pm, NEMO Workshop on the Water, Al & Alma’s, Mound
N.b. The majority of the spots are being held for mayors and councilmembers. Lochner thought there may be some room for CAC members, but told members to stay tuned. Christopher said that this event would be revisiting much of the comprehensive plan that the program may be a repeat of what CAC has already heard. However, this would be a much better networking opportunity for CAC members. The program will showcase a lot of the MCWD projects highlighting the work within local communities.

Thursday, September 22, Clean Water Summit, Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, Chanhassen
http://www.arboretum.umn.edu/2016cleanwatersummit.aspx

6.         REPORT FROM CAC MEMBERS
Ciardelli attended another meeting with the Friends of Bass Lake on July 12th. They continue to push St. Louis Park regarding the lake/drainage pond issues. He was interested in hearing more about the Wolfe Point Condominium cost-share project for review later in the evening as this project flows into Bass Lake and should be on CAC member’s minds when reviewing the project.

Girard shared an article on Clear Waters Lakeshore newspaper. He wanted a discussion on the cleanup and how the cleanup is a financial burden for the District. Girard wants to think about ways to incorporate other entities other than focusing just on the creek. He suggested involving lake associations, where everyone bands together for a massive cleanup and the District serves as the organizational component with other agencies to partner. He would love a larger discussion on this topic at a future CAC meeting. He made the point that, especially after July 4th, people go along Big Island to clean up the mess from the partiers. Bushnell responded saying there seems to be a lot of interest in the media in clean up events. Girard suggested homeowners and other interested lakeshore businesses, dive groups and lake associations could provide barges and boats to drop people off at various locations for cleanup.

Rechelbacher shared a Star Tribune article “More Minnesota lakes, rivers listed as impaired” (http://www.startribune.com/more-minnesota-lakes-rivers-listed-as-impaired/386560251/ ) which references the lakes and streams study and stated that there are 4,600 streams lakes and segments that are impaired in Minnesota. He asked whether the MCWD are aware of the impaired lakes within the District. Christopher responded that the 2016 impaired water list is out, and that the District partners with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and that and the MPCA relies on the District’s data to make these impaired wetland reports. Christopher said that, for nutrients, there are 25-30 wetlands impaired. There are separate sets of impaired-categories which related to fish, biotic integrity, chlorides, E.coli, etc. The District’s new assessment tool, e-Grade, would provide more comprehensive information regarding impairments. Rechelbacher mentioned that some of the lakes referenced in the Star Tribune article have even been taken off the list. Ciardelli asked whether MPCA cites lake bays or judges the entire lake, but staff did not know if MPCA made this distinction.

Girard shared that his fuel pump and fuel cooler on his boat needed to be replaced, and that the mechanic informed him that zebra mussels are getting into boat motors and causing issues. He thought this information would be important to share to residents showing how zebra mussel infestations have a direct cost to residents- boat repair and maintenance. When people find out they’re damaging their boats there will be a consequence. Vendors and mechanics advise to replace the entire fuel pump cooler case, because of zebra mussels inside the engine. Even the ribs of small aluminum watercraft can be infected and not caught during visual inspections. Larvae can splash into the boat and grow under the ribs. Mohn suggested that boats traveling outside of Lake Minnetonka would actually transmit mussels elsewhere and that some AIS inspection stations are actually decontaminating boat components to troubleshoot this issue. It was mentioned that the same issue of miniscule zebra mussel larvae could also infest and have similar issues with boat trailers.

7.         REPORT FROM BOARD OF MANAGERS LIAISON
Olson was pleased to report that the budget and levy have almost merged and he commended the staff saying he’s never seen this kind of hard work from staff before. Most of the District’s work can get done even with lowering costs by over $2M.

The Board is also working on the Six Mile Creek focal geography. Because Six Mile is considered the headwaters of the entire District, the whole system can be positively influenced and changed. Staff is taking a huge look at this subwatershed, using money and partnering with the University of Minnesota on a carp study, having tagged over 200 fish with radio tags. Olson provided some examples saying that 100kg of carp per hectare is sustainable on a lake. Pierson Lake is under 100kg, Wasserman Lake was at 400kg (4x more fish than sustainable) and Halsted has 1000-11000, which is 11 times more carp than sustainable. It was suggested that by putting predator fish where carp spawn will help as they eat the eggs. These predators are sunnies and crappies. The U of M also studied years where lakes were drier and froze to the bottom in areas to see how this impacted carp. The art of the process is to stock the lakes with predator fish and monitor them long term. If the lake freezes to the bottom, then these predatory fish should be introduced in the spring time. The University is currently coming up with a recommendation for treatment and study. The City of Victoria is thrilled with this work. Olson said this kind of work can get federal grants and increased interest by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Secondly, by having a focal geography it opens the District up for other exciting possibilities. In Victoria, Lennar is building an extension on their development. Lennar was going to go have to go to Wright County to buy the wetland credits to mitigate their expansion in Victoria. MCWD staff worked with Lennar to restore the wetland right next door to their development, buying the buffers needed from Lennar. Lennar instead invested money on restoration within the District as opposed to spending that money outside the District in wetland credits.

The District will develop a brochure to be shared with residents about these types of partnerships and the focal geography, and how boardwalks and trails within Victoria will all be connected through the Districts projects.

Cox asked where Staff and Board found extra money to balance the budget. Staff responded saying they questioned every line item on the budget. All programs were asked to bring forward reductions. $2.5M carryover was because of projects that weren’t done, and cuts were made strategically so they didn’t impact services. Lochner will send a reminder the week of each Joint Committee meeting to see what CAC members might want to join those budget meetings. The next Joint Committee meetings will discuss the budget on July 21st and August 4th.

8.         NEW BUSINESS
8.1          MCWD Comprehensive Plan Update – Christopher
Christopher said that the topic for this meeting was plan drafting and that updates would be presented later on. This is the final stage of the comprehensive plan.

Christopher presented the following agenda asking the CAC to voice their feedback as to what they thought the District’s role was with these various management topics:
Long term maintenance of BMPs
Wetland banking
Chloride management
Bacteria mgmt.
Climate change adaptation
AIS
Groundwater
Ag/state buffer law

She was not only asking the CAC what they felt the District should be doing, but was also asking other committees. The district already revised the vision, mission and goals and is currently addressing the budget-levy gap, and these two large projects are what prompted this specific part of the plan. The CAC’s feedback will inform district’s strategic planning process and comprehensive plan and any new initiatives would be evaluated against current priorities and may be longer-term.

In considering the District’s roles, Christopher asked: How high of a priority is this topic? What role might the District play (should District lead, partner, or other)? What ways should the District be involved (monitoring, research, education, training, regulation, technical assistance, direct management, granting organization, advocacy)

Long-term Maintenance of BMPs
Through the District’s rules, the District requires best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented and managed for stormwater as part of development and redevelopment. There’s limited capacity to follow-through and most of the time the District can only focus on active construction sites and not post-construction. Maintenance is a burden for the District to monitor and enforce. Could the District develop a programmatic approach? Could it inventory what isn’t being maintained? Is there a clear responsible party? By answering these questions, the District could then work with the cities to address this maintenance. The District could then charge back the maintenance cost to the responsible party or even have an incentive program.

There is Board and community interest in MCWD coordinating this issue, and move more short-term, starting with the inventory of outstanding stormwater maintenance projects. The District could then expand its inspection and enforcement, but this is limited to staff time and would potentially affect other priorities. There could be other opportunity for education and outreach for HOAs so that they understand obligations.

Rechelbacher said that there’s a lack of maintenance for stormwater ponds and some HOAs are no longer in existence in some cases. He also stated that some lakes or wetlands are/have been used as stormwater ponds. There needs to be a way to monitor it for maintenance even after a HOA has been dissolved. The district should have an oversight of these systems. Some cities just do visual inspections of ponds and don’t actually test the sediment therein. Rechelbacher supported the inventory and monitoring of these BMPs. Dovolis asked about periodic maintenance, and where the funding comes from for this, and whether there is an escrow fund set up at the time of development. Christopher responded saying that MCWD does require a declaration that developers are required to clean it out and inspect them, however there may not be any oversight as to whether there is funding in place to maintain them into the future. The escrow funds are released once the project is completed and not held for future maintenance. Christopher asked whether there might be a better way, saying many cities are moving towards other practices that are less maintenance and last longer.

Girard asked about state-installed stormwater ponds along interstates, and their process for maintenance and monitoring. The State is the responsible party for these ponds and the maintenance and monitoring is similar to how the District monitors its own ponds, however the State has a much larger staff to stay on top of them.

Christopher also explained that stormwater ponds are primarily for nutrient removal as developed by the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP). Water is slowed down so that contaminants settle out. There is usually a clay liner so that there isn’t absorption into the water table and to also retain contaminants. This also makes cleanout expensive. Dovolis made an analogy of condos building a pool needing to include maintenance funds in its development, saying the same should hold true for developers of stormwater ponds to ensure maintenance could be set up longer term. Olson suggested this could be done for newer development. These ponds cause a lot of runoff issues. If there are hot-spot priorities, found out through the District’s inventory, a city might be more amenable to focusing their resources on these areas. By inventorying and understanding those that are the worse it would help the District’s conversations with cities, developers, HOAs etc.

Christopher countered that the escrow account could be a challenge in instances where the developer develops the ponds, but who knows who is going to maintain the ponds later. The municipality in charge of approving their development plan could take the onus on monitoring the maintenance of new development. Dovolis asked whether the District conducted random spot checks to which Christopher responded that it does not conduct random spot checks. Dovolis asked whether MCWD could do spot checks saying that if developers and HOAs knew the District was doing spot checks that might incentive the maintenance of their ponds.

The CAC agrees this is a top priority for the District.

Wetland Banking
Currently there aren’t any banks established in the District. Developers are buying credits outside of the District while MCWD loses wetlands. District rules do allow for the MCWD to own and create banks, however the District hasn’t pursued this. The original philosophy was that wetland restoration should be devoted to restoration and not to mitigate wetland loss elsewhere. The District could consider the establishment of banks when pursuing wetland restoration projects, and promote the creation of private banks (similar to what the District did with the Mader wetland). In this capacity, MCWD provides education, permitting, and assistance for a landowner to do this on their own. MCWD would then sell the wetland credits to future developers.

Hennepin County developed a strategic plan and they also want to get more banks in the county, exploring tax forfeit and other county lands for these banks.

The District hasn’t had a bank since a project with the City of Wayzata (offsetting the District’s other projects). These aren’t publicly available credits.

It would be a two- to three-year process for implementing a new wetland bank. Rechelbacher mentioned he wanted to establish a bank on his new property however it was going to take too long and too restricted to work with BWSR, so he went with the CRP.

The CAC suggested the District help homeowners and landowners navigate BWSR’s regulations and barriers for private wetland banks.

Chloride Management
There are impairments and the TMDL was approved last month that addressed known impairments and addressed protection strategies. Chloride, unlike some other pollutants, doesn’t go away.

The District, as well as other entities (MPCA, cities, counties, and MnDOT), is currently monitoring, doing education and outreach, training and workshops etc. to help address chloride issues. Christopher suggested a potential role: stay the course but also expand education outreach, incentivize innovative practices, cost-share funding for equipment upgrades, research (target with joint watershed research grant) and support legislation. There has been some legislation introduced for private applicators that are certified that could have some additional protection and limit their liability. District will keep an eye on New Hampshire’s model of this type of legislation which would prevent over-salting out of the fear of lawsuits, especially as private applicators are more of the problem than state and city agencies.

There are acute and chronic standards for levels of chloride impairment, however staff couldn’t recall the exact measurements for these standards.

Smith Partners is involved in drafting a model ordinance for cities (where cities and watershed districts have served as an advisory committee for its development) to promote better practices for salt application. Having new policies in place would also protect the cities and districts against lawsuits. The Road Salt Symposium also had a presentation on the legal issues where they also developed a model ordinance.

Bacteria Management
Again, like Chloride, there are bacterial impairments. This is a trickier pollutant to manage as it grows and changes and harder to track the source. Currently, the District monitors the data where impairments are found, conducts infiltration/filtration projects, and provides education. Pet waste and waterfowl are big contributors, whereas septic tank issues don’t seem to be major factors.

Christopher suggested the District’s potential role: expand education, monitoring and research. Currently, monitoring is limited. Research could be furthered through a Joint Watershed Research Grant in future years to identify bacteria sources.

Bushnell asked about whether the DNR could take the onus with wildlife management. Promote good vegetative practices to prevent geese from congregating. Cities do monitor their beaches and have pet ordinances for pet waste. Girard shared that Orono has an ordinance that owners need to pick up waste even in their own yard.

Weber mentioned that parks like Purgatory Park don’t have any trash cans to throw away pet waste, yet they provide bags. The reason they don’t have trash cans is because the Park or City have to pick it up, and they are limited in their resources for picking up this trash. He suggested trash cans could make it easier to pick up waste and that the District could help educate the cities to help make it easier on the citizen on the bacterial and nutrient components of pet waste. Similarly, the District could possibly grant funding to provide receptacles for cities.

CAC is in agreement that more education and cities should be involved in this issue.

Climate Change Adaptation
There are increased extreme rain events. Flood control is central to the District’s purpose. The District does its own capital projects for infiltration and flood storage. Permitting requirements also ensure there aren’t floodplain impacts. MCWD also is involved in education by using the NOAA study in order to work with the cities of Victoria and Minneapolis to assess their vulnerability and building capacity to build community adaptation. The District also provides technical assistance, data, modeling for flood events.

Potential role: Continue to integrate District and City goals and investments, expand technical and planning assistance. By integrating and coordinating investments with cities, MCWD can address multiple issues in its work throughout the District. The District has a district-wide model for vulnerability, but each city needs to be mapped individually to look at its own infrastructure.

AIS
AIS impacts the ecosystems as well as recreation. This is a fairly new program to the District. It was added to the District’s plan and includes a broad range of activities including monitoring, research, education outreach, prevention management and grants, and some lobbying. MCWD works with many other partners (DNR, LMCD, counties, cities, MPRB, Three Rivers Park District, U of M, USGS, etc.) to inform and partner with on all of these activities. Christopher suggested the District’s potential role: Discontinue some pilot programs in 2017 due to lack of partner interest and focus on monitoring, education outreach, and research on existing AIS. There will still be some prevention programs such as watercraft inspection programs, but MCWD should narrow the scope of its AIS program.

Bushnell thought that the prevention programs should be left to other entities. DNR and LMCD can get their own volunteers because they have vested interest in their local waters. Mohn expressed concerns that AIS is a low priority for the DNR. The entire CAC agreed monitoring and education is most important, and that education of the regulatory agencies because nothing will be successful until it is state-wide. Girard shared that harvesters cut the weeds and they are supposed to take these clippings with them off-site. Olson said that this is mainly to keep channels open, “mowing the lawn,” as opposed to actual AIS monitoring or treatment.  

The District is maintaining its roving inspectors matching funds as well as funding for rapid response.

Groundwater
The District wishes to look at groundwater-surface water interactions, recharge, and contamination. This issue doesn’t just follow District boundaries, but the District does rely on larger entities. The District is required to address ground water however, its role is promoting infiltration through the stormwater rule, capital projects, cost-share grants, education and outreach to promote recharge. Similarly, the District is also to limit infiltration where it is not appropriate. Other entities involved are counties, Met Council, cities, DNR, and the Department of Health.

Potential role: Expand promotion of sustainable groundwater use/capture-reuse, research and monitoring. MCWD doesn’t do a whole lot of promotion of sustainable ground water use/reuse but that could be a possibility. It could be promoted through education, cost-share funding or through capital projects. There was a study a couple years ago with the U of M to see how surface and groundwater interact along the creek, but more could be done.

Bushnell sees the District’s role as more relating to surface water, and the DNR should stick to ground water.

Agriculture/State Buffer Law
The intention of the buffer law was to protect water resources from agricultural runoff. This is not an area where the District has had targeted programming because this isn’t a significant portion of the watershed. MCWD is largely developed/developing. The District could choose to assume enforcement authority for the buffer law. Past actions were some grant programs to incentivize some buffers (Agricultural BMP Grant Program; Habitat Restoration Cost Share Grant)

Potential role: revisit the grant programs of the past, provide technical assistance, and coordinate with cities to evaluate exemption potential.

Bushnell mentioned that all public waters are included in the buffer law, which means the District would need to address all the homeowners and cities on the lakes and wetlands. Bushnell said that the District shouldn’t get involved in the enforcement of the law, but that enforcement should be left to the other organizations. Bushnell said there should be a large educational component to how the buffer actually works. The buffer law will be discussed by the Board at the July 14th meeting. There is little incentive for watershed districts to take on the enforcement of the buffer law, including the MCWD.

Public or private beaches, paths, and stairs are exempt as well as existing buildings and structures. The intent is Ag land and open soil. SWCDs are those responsible for identifying compliance issues and reporting to enforcing authority, and the SWCDs could elect to be enforcing agency. It would be labor intensive and if the District isn’t effective at enforcing the law there could be funding implications.

Christopher recommends against being the enforcing agency. The District isn’t really obligated to do much, but the onus will be on the county and BWSR.

Girard wonders if there could be a study as to the types of vegetation associated with the buffer and types of surfaces (clay, sand, concrete). MCWD could provide the education component and marketing component to provide a positive influence to the benefits of the buffer law.

NEXT STEPS
This discussion will continue at future meetings of advisory committees, NEMO workshop, council presentations, and local subwatershed meetings with a draft plan distributed for comment in January 2017.

No CAC members in attendance will attend tomorrow’s Board Workshop which will discuss the buffer law, however Lochner will send out an email to the CAC to encourage other CAC members to join tomorrows Board meeting. Bushnell would like to have CAC members at these BWSR discussions.

8.2          Cost Share Project Review – Eidem

BUDGET UPDATE
Cost Share 2016 Budget:                                         $600,000
Amount Approved in 2016:                                      $130,115.65
June Cost Share Requested Amount:                       $27,776.50

Staff recommended funding for 1 non-homeowner and 3 homeowner cost share projects. Staff reviewed 15 homeowner projects that met the application deadline. A subcommittee of the CAC met and went through the applications prior to the full CAC meeting, recommending funding for the following projects, which is outlined in the project descriptions below. The rest of the projects that MCWD identified needing more information will require follow up and further project development, and will hopefully be brought back to the CAC in August or September. There are only a few to discuss tonight from the 15 applications because Eidem did not have enough time to do back and forth correspondence with the applicant and application. The projects tonight were those that had enough information, others have been sent back by staff and subcommittee to have further ideas fleshed out.

Project #1- Wolfe Pointe Condominiums- 4820 Park Commons Dr., St. Louis Park
This is a time sensitive non-homeowner project that staff and the CAC sub-committee see as a highly visible opportunity to capture a large amount of polluted runoff. Wolfe Pointe Condos were constructed before the District had strong stormwater rules in place, and currently drains directly to Wolfe Lake, and eventually to Lake Calhoun. The project site is directly between the Excelsior & Grand shopping area, and a large city owned parcel that has the St. Louis Park rec center, trails around the lake, and a large outdoor amphitheater.  The proposed project is to capture the main parking lot and what else drains into it, in a nearly 4,000 sf raingarden. This will be visible from the nearby trail, and from further away. This would be over 1.5 lbs. of phosphorus removal, and over 3,000 lbs. of suspended solids and 75,000 cf of storage, annually. This would all otherwise drain to Wolfe Lake, which is rather small and not even tested for water quality. While it is not a waterbody the District focuses to improve, it is a substantial improvement and is in such a visible location that both staff and the sub-committee feel it is a valuable project to be a part of. The city is in support of the project and signage explaining the benefits of the project. Educational signage at property, sidewalk and the parking lot and the City of St. Louis Park is happy to partner on this even though part of the rain garden would be on their property. Water quality improvement would improve Wolfe Lake which drains into Bass Lake and onwards to Calhoun. Outreach component is strong. This captures one acre of runoff.

The total cost of the project is $39,317. After looking into the cost estimate, there are some very high costs with the large number of mature plantings. For this, the CAC and staff feel it will limit funding only a portion, comparative to what the cost of plugs would cost. Staff recommends funding the project at 50%, not to exceed $16,368. Basin, excavation, rip rap and pretreatment funded at 50% level. This isn’t a large priority waterbody, so pulled back funding for the mature plants. The City is not paying any portion and will not take on maintenance—the HOA will need to take on the maintenance. This is one of the largest cost-share rain gardens the CAC has seen.

Girard motioned to approve the CAC subcommittee’s funding recommendation, seconded by Mohn. All in favor, none opposed.

Eidem said the city is looking to promote this project for what private organizations can do.

Project #2- Arun Hejmadi- 5030 40th Ave S, Minneapolis
Arun is a strong advocate for clean water. So much so that he is attempting to create a blooming alleys initiative on his block in Minneapolis, East of Nokomis and S of the creek. Arun wants to lead the outreach, and have these demonstration projects already installed on his property before asking his neighbors to adopt similar techniques. Arun has worked with Earth Wizards to develop a site plan that can capture all of the runoff from his property for a 2 inch storm event. This includes such practices as two front yard raingardens, a permeable paver strip capturing his detached garage and driveway runoff, a large 500 gallon cistern, as well as transitioning a large portion of his yard to no mow grasses. Arun is going well above and beyond the norm of what MCWD hopes for outreach to be built from these projects, as he has already set up an informational meeting for his alley to come learn about blooming alleys and the benefits of them. He has reached out to all neighborhood and state forms of media to try and help promote his initiative. He has created a Facebook page to use as a blog to keep people updated on his progress and what others can do.

This will be a pretty expensive project, with a total cost estimate of $26,000. The subcommittee focused on what they felt were the most important BMPs to fund as a phase 1 of the project. This was the 2 front yard raingardens and the permeable paver strip. The total cost of these BMPS is about $14,000. Staff and CAC subcommittee recommends 75% funding of these 3 BMPs, not to exceed $5,000.

Ciardelli motioned to approve the CAC subcommittee’s funding recommendation, seconded by Girard. All were in favor, none opposed.

Project #3- Zane and Rachel Black- 8100 Victoria Dr, Victoria
Zane and Rachel have lived in their house in Victoria for a couple years now, and have noticed just how much exposure their front yard gets on such a busy street. The project site is located just two blocks off of Highway 5 and Victoria Dr., which is the intersection of ‘downtown’ Victoria. They have learned more about runoff from their street and property over the last couple years and want to do something that betters the environment as well as promote clean water to others. They have developed an outreach plan, including messaging in their yard as well as working with the Victoria library to set up educational opportunities open to the public to learn more on the subject. They are working on joining efforts with past Master Water Stewards in the area to help with the outreach. There proposed project would capture nearly all of their property’s runoff, but would need to be a phased construction. This includes four raingardens, permeable paver section of driveway and walkway, as well as three new rain barrels.

The homeowners are doing all of the labor themselves, with a project cost of $6,952. Staff and the CAC want to have the homeowners focus on the most visible and highest water quality improvement projects for the first phase. Staff and the CAC subcommittee recommend 75% funding of the front yard raingarden, the permeable paver section, and the rain barrels, not to exceed the homeowner cap of $2,500.

Weber motioned to approve the CAC subcommittee’s funding recommendation, seconded by Mohn. All in favor, none opposed.

Project #4- Stephanie Lee- 2535 Grand Ave S, Minneapolis
Stephanie has a very unique proposal with a strong outreach plan. She is proposing capturing nearly all of her roof runoff in sub irrigated planters (SIPs), which would then overflow to a raingarden in the backyard. She will have two SIPs in the front yard, which will capture the roof runoff in a storage tank that self-irrigates the planter box above it is connected to. In the back, where larger sections of roof runoff drain, there will be a three cell system all interconnected, which will feed the planters, with an overflow to the 150 sf raingarden. The project will capture 1,654sf of roof runoff. These planters are all self-fed, with the storage area beneath the soil filled with rock. They are a great demonstration for how to garden with a disability, as everything is higher and easier to access. Her outreach is well developed, proposing to reach out to Whitter Elementary, offering her house and project as an educational tool. She already has a lending library, where she will place educational materials about stormwater management. She has a strong social media presence, with over 2,000 Facebook, 1,600 Google +, and 1,400 Twitter followers that she would educate on her project, a how to guide, and would be happy to mention/promote other MCWD activities. Also willing to create a video demonstrating the project that the District could use to help promote similar projects.

The total project cost is $4,775. Staff and CAC subcommittee recommend 50% funding, not to exceed $2,387.50.

Weber motioned to approve the CAC subcommittee’s funding recommendation, seconded by Girard. All in favor, none opposed.

Project #5- Jillian Kaster- 4640 Longfellow Ave, Minneapolis
Jillian is working with a current year Master Water Steward, Curtis Wilson, to capture runoff from both her roof and part of her neighbor’s roof. In times of large rain, the neighbor’s runoff flows very quickly into her front yard. The proposed design will capture 1,000 sf of roof runoff in two raingardens in the front yard. Staff and CAC had a few questions on the design at the sub-committee that have now been answered. The excavated soil from the raingardens will be used as a berm to slow the flow and divert the neighbor’s roof runoff into the raingarden through two small inlets. The property is located across the street from Hiawatha Golf Course, and 1 block form Minnehaha Parkway in a highly visible location. The MWS will be leading outreach efforts, which include organizing help on planting day, as well as a celebration after the gardens are installed which will be inviting others from the neighborhood with education on the project and its benefits. They are also working with Minneapolis Community Education program to offer a workshop or students from nearby Green Central Elementary School.

The total project cost for materials, design help and labor is $3,042. Staff recommends 50% funding, not to exceed $1,521.

Girard motioned to approve the CAC subcommittee’s funding recommendation, seconded by Weber. All were in favor, none opposed.

9        Old Business
9.1       Review list of agenda topics for upcoming CAC meetings
Lochner mentioned the research and monitoring department will be giving an overview of their annual monitoring report at the next Board meeting, and could be presented at the next CAC. Lochner will check with them to see if the dates work.

Girard suggested a discussion of a District-wide clean up.

10.        SPECIAL ITEMS TO ADDRESS BY CAC/STAFF BEFORE NEXT MEETING
Metro Blooms is doing a tour of the alleys around Lake Nokomis.

11.        ADJOURNMENT
Girard motioned to adjourn the CAC meeting at 9:35 p.m. Mohn seconded the motion. Motion carried, none opposed.

Next meeting date is August 10, 2016

Minutes or Agenda?: 
Minutes