Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Third Generation Watershed Management Plan CAC Meeting 2 - Implementation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Lawyer Creek Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project presented by: Lewis Soil Conservation District.
Advertisements

Marylands Approach to Success Stories Presented to the Region III States Meeting May 12, 2009 Presented by Jim George.
Stream Corridors Christine Hall Natural Resources Conservation Service North Jersey RC&D Slides 1-12.
Roger Williams Park Ponds Restoration Project. Project Update Concept Plans Developed for Structural and Non- Structural Best Management Practices Draft.
The Lake Allegan/Kalamazoo River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan Implementation by Jeff Spoelstra, Coordinator, Kalamazoo River Watershed Council.
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Third Generation Watershed Management Plan.
Implementing Committee Meeting May 15 th, 2014 New Braunfels MS4 program and the HCP 1.
Stream Monitoring in Loudoun County David Ward, Water Resources Engineer Department of Building and Development, Department of Building and Development,
Stormwater, Wellhead Protection and Drainage Issues Public Hearing.
Stormwater Management 1.Reducing pollutants in runoff Pesticides and chemicals Pet and animal wastes Automotive wastes Winter salts and deicers Grass.
NPDES Phase II Storm Water Regulations: WHAT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS NEED TO KNOW.
Stormwater Management For Developing Municipalities What Residents Can Do What Towns Can Do.
River-Friendly Program Goals Promote land stewardship Partner with people in the community Reduce nonpoint source pollution entering our local waterways.
Seattle Stormwater Runoff Remediation by Jimmy Mounivong.
Using Rainwater to Grow Livable Communities Sustainable Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs)
 8 Communities rest within the watershed, 6 public water supplies, 4 municipal waste systems, Turkey River considered high quality water resource  129,545.
Pine Valley Country Club Stream Restoration: Phase 2 Proposal Presented March 17, 2003 Greg Jennings, NC State Univ Barbara Doll, NC Sea Grant Dave Bidelspach,
Dean Marriott Environmental Services Director Janet Gillaspie Oregon ACWA Executive Director.
Incorporating the 9-Elements into a WMP Lindsey PhillipsMike Archer Source Water CoordinatorState Lakes Coordinator (402) (402)
City of Kimball Stormwater Re-use Project Protecting our Water Resources – a Forum Series for Policy Makers March 30, 2011.
Federal Realty Investment Trust (FRIT) Eastgate Shopping Center Chapel Hill, NC September 9, 2008.
Watershed Forestry Initiative Ellen Kohler Attorney & Policy Specialist Funded in part by Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Urban.
Nutrient Trading Framework in the Coosa Basin April 22, 2015.
Determining the effectiveness of best management practices to reduce nutrient loading from cattle grazed pastures in Utah Nicki Devanny Utah State University,
A Clear Blue Future How Greening our Cities can Address Water Pollution, Water Supply, and Climate Change in the 21 st Century June 13, 2010.
Northwest hydraulic consultants 2NDNATURE Geosyntec Consultants September 11, 2007 Urban Upland / Groundwater Source Category Group (UGSCG) Overview Presentation.
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions CAC Meeting #3 July 30, 2012.
Introduction to the Sustainable Sites Initiative Founded in 2005 as an interdisciplinary partnership between the American Society of Landscape Architects,
How do Wetlands Factor into New Infiltration Policies?
Morgan and Little Creeks Local Watershed Plan Totten Center, NC Botanical Garden 3 November 2004 Chapel Hill, NC
Golf Course Water Resources Best Management Practices TOOLBOX  Project Overview  Your Role in the Project April 2009.
Loudoun Watershed Watch “ Restoring Loudoun Streams” LCSA Water Forum Presented by: Darrell Schwalm Loudoun Watershed Watch Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy.
Clackamas River Basin Council Lower Columbia River Conservation and Recovery Plan Implementer’s Perspective August 19, 2013.
Nutrient Management in the Urban Landscape Rebecca Kluckhohn, P.E. Watershed Engineer West Metro Water Alliance Forum, May 18 th 2011 W W e n c k Engineers.
A combination of warm weather grasses, terrestrial and aquatic plants in and around the spring Stormwater Management Plan for College Springs Park Benjamin.
Steve Harrison, Environmental Manager Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control -Mosquito Control Section.
Municipal St rm Water Program. Storm Water Programs Industrial –bus maintenance yards Construction –addition of a gym Municipal.
West Metro Water Alliance A Path to Clean Water – Understanding TMDLs and Watershed Planning September 21, 2011 Diane Spector Wenck Associates, Inc.
New Stormwater Regulations “C.3” Provisions in effect Feb. 15, 2005.
Tar-Pamlico Watershed Assessment. Proposed Water Quality Improvement Projects Improvement project types Model scenarios Targeted projects Stakeholder.
Stormwater 101 Ohio Lake Erie Commission Best Local Land Use Practices Kirby Date, AICP.
Energy PUBLIC Running Water: Effective Stormwater Quality Practices Tracy Warner, Municipal Engineer for Ames, IA Josh Shields, Landscape Architect with.
Department of Public Works NPDES Low Impact Development and Green Streets Resolutions City Council August 17, 2015.
 Casey Lake, North St. Paul CE 5511 Urban Hydrology and Land Development Instructor: John S. Gulliver Presented by: Joshua Balzer Stephanie Hatten Maria.
Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Joint Advisory Group Meeting January 23, 2001.
Stormwater Retrofitting: The Art of Opportunity Prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection.
1 Questions Addressed What are the options for reducing pollutant inputs to Lake Tahoe? Pollutant Reduction Opportunities.
Created by The North Carolina School of Science and Math.The North Carolina School of Science and Math Copyright North Carolina Department of Public.
Timeline Impaired for turbidity on Minnesota’s list of impaired waters (2004) MPCA must complete a study to determine the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
BOOKER CREEK WATERSHED PLAN WATERSHED ASSESSMENT WETLAND ASSESSMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK.
Effective Post-Construction Stormwater Management Mike Novotney, P.E. (MD) Center for Watershed Protection Ronald Feldner, P.E. Ecological Solutions, Inc.
SFEP/EPA Proposal Background- prior NBWA grant EPA Funds and Process SFEP Process EPA Approval and Schedule NBWA Proposal-$1.5 Million Other Funds.
Lake Independence Phosphorus TMDL Critique Stephanie Koerner & Zach Tauer BBE 4535 Fall 2011.
Resourceful. naturally. Protecting Non-Impaired Resources West Metro Water Alliance September 21, 2011 Greg Wilson, Barr Engineering Company.
Gar Creek in Huntersville LID Requirements in Mecklenburg County What Is The Goal? Why Is It Necessary? Where Is It Required? How Does It Work?
HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Presentation John M. Carlock, AICP Deputy Executive Director, Physical Planning Hampton Roads.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Development Todd E. Hubmer PE WSB &
What is Stormwater? Direct result of rainfall Recharges groundwater by infiltration Produces “runoff” (excess rainfall after infiltration) May be concentrated.
Low Impact Development Practices. What is Low Impact Development (LID)? LID is an approach to land development (or re- development) that works with nature.
1. Wolfeboro’s Tool Kit Implemented tools for water quality protection Municipal Watershed District Ground Water Protection Overlay District Steep Slope.
Stormwater and our Local Watersheds Green Night in Roselle May 7, 2009.
TMDL Implementation: Now What?
Preventing and Reducing Pollution From MS4 Activities
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
City of Forest Lake MS4 Program
MIDS calculator Quantifies reductions in runoff volume for a given BMP or group of BMPs Quantifies reductions in phosphorus (P) and TSS runoff for a given.
Mulberry Watershed Management Plan
Anne Arundel County Maryland
Kickoff example Create a new file
Intro MIDS Calculator Use
Presentation transcript:

Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Third Generation Watershed Management Plan CAC Meeting 2 - Implementation

Meeting Purpose Review the proposed Implementation Plan activities ▫Development Rules and Standards ▫Monitoring Program ▫Education and Outreach Program ▫Capital Projects

Rules and Standards Rate of stormwater runoff cannot increase. Runoff must be treated to remove at least 60% of total phosphorus and 85% of sediment. The first ½ inch of runoff must be infiltrated on site, such as in rain gardens, bioinfiltration basins, swales, or capture and reuse. Wetlands and floodplains are protected.

New Development Requirements Current Rules apply to any development project on sites greater than 5 acres; single family residential threshold is 15 acres Proposed Rules apply to any development project on sites greater than one acre

Redevelopment Requirements Current Rules: meet water quality and infiltration requirements only for new impervious surface Proposed Rules: any redevelopment impacting more than 50% of the site must meet all the same rules as new development Proposed Rules: any redevelopment impacting less than 50% of the site must meet the same rules for the entire redeveloped area

Increased Infiltration Requirement Currently must infiltrate ½ inch of runoff within 48 hours Proposed new standard is one inch of runoff in 48 hours Exceptions for clay soils, areas with soil contamination, or wellhead protection areas Bioinfiltration swale, Brooklyn Center

Proposed New Infiltration Credit Get credit towards infiltration requirement Provide soil management in turfed areas on site Decompact soil to 12” in depth Amend top 8” with compost

Monitoring Program To quantify the current status of streams and lakes throughout the watersheds in comparison to state water quality standards. To quantify changes over time, or trends, in stream and lake water quality. To quantify the effectiveness of implemented BMPs throughout the watersheds for the protection of water quality. To document progress toward meeting pollutant load reduction requirements

Monitoring Sites SC-3 Shingle Creek at Brooklyn Blvd Sampled 2007 – Present SC-2 Sampled Approx. 11,000 acres drainage SC-0 Shingle Creek at 45 th Ave Sampled 2001 – Present Approx. 26,000 acre drainage USGS Station Shingle Creek at Queen Ave Sampled 1996 – Present

Water Quality Water quality in Shingle Creek is typical of urban streams in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Shingle and Bass Creeks are currently listed as impaired for chloride, DO and lack of fish and macroinvertebrates. Will be listed in 2014 for E. coli. Shingle Creek may also be considered in the future for TSS and nutrients (TP).

Longitudinal DO Surveys PalmerLakePalmerLake

Lake Monitoring

Volunteer monitoring through Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program ▫Proposed in Third Generation Plan: ▫More intensive water quality monitoring ▫Aquatic vegetation surveys ▫Sediment coring Schmidt Lake, Plymouth

Wetland Monitoring Wetland Health Evaluation Program ▫Adult volunteers monitor vegetation and macroinvertebrates (bugs) in wetlands

Macroinvertebrate/Fish Monitoring Commission monitors fish/bugs every 5 years River Watch Volunteer Monitoring ▫High school students ▫3 locations on Shingle Creek ▫1 location on Mattson Brook

Education and Outreach Programming Sponsor volunteer events Participate in education fairs Provide classroom education

New Program – “Green Yard” Still being conceptualized Individual stormwater management plan Reduce fertilizer and pesticide useIncrease composting Improve turf maintenance Use native vegetation

Other Education and Outreach What things would you like the Commissions to take on?

Projects

Intensive BMP Studies Planning for small BMPs Detailed analysis by subwatershed ID cost-effective BMPs on a neighborhood or site scale Stormwater Retrofit Protocol-Metro Conservation Districts

Capital Projects TMDLs identified several capital projects Cities incorporate projects into their own capital improvement program, street reconstruction program Commission can cost share in 25% of implementation cost up to $250,000 per project Commission partners to obtain grants for projects

Implem enting TMDLs Location and ReachActionResponsible Party Estimated Schedule Estimated Cost Lower Shingle Creek Reach 1Reaeration at wetland outletBrooklyn Center, SCWMO $50,000 Reach 1Stabilize streambanksBrooklyn Center, SCWMO $20,000 Reach 2Ecological stream restorationBrooklyn Center, SCWMOCompleted -- Reach 3Ecological stream restorationBrooklyn Center, SCWMOCompleted -- Reach 4 & 5Daylight streamPrivate developer Reach 6Ecological stream restoration on Golf CourseBrooklyn Center, SCWMO $100,000 Reach 6Ecological stream restorationMinneapolis, SCWMO $250,000 Reach 7Ecological stream restorationMinneapolis, SCWMO $1,500,000 Reach 8Ecological stream restorationMinneapolis, SCWMO $750,000 Reach 8Fish passage at Webber ParkMinneapolis, SCWMO $50,000 Upper Shingle Creek Reach 1Add reaeration structuresBrooklyn Park, SCWMO $50,000 Reach 2Thin trees, establish bufferBrooklyn Park $80,000 Reach 3Ecological stream restorationBrooklyn Park, SCWMO $700,000 Reach 4Ecological stream restorationBrooklyn Park, SCWMOCompleted -- Reach 5 & 6Enhance restorationBrooklyn Park $70,000 Reach 7 & 8Enhance restorationBrooklyn Park $50,000 Reach 7 & 8Restore balance of reach (Regent to Brooklyn Boulevard) Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, SCWMO $350,000 Reach 9 & 10Ecological stream restoration, fish bypassBrooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, SCWMO $350,000 Reach 11Ecological stream restorationBrooklyn Park, SCWMO $500,000 Reach 11Enhance off-line refugiaBrooklyn Park, SCWMO $30,000 Reach 12Ecological stream restorationBrooklyn Park, SCWMO $75,000 Bass Creek Reach 1Ecological stream restorationBrooklyn Park, SCWMO $300,000 Reach 1Monitor Cherokee WetlandSCWMO Monitoring budget Reach 2Ecological stream restorationBrooklyn Park, New Hope, SCWMO $300,000 Reach 3Periodic ditch maintenanceHennepin CountyAs needed $10,000 Reach 3Ecological stream restorationPlymouth, SCWMO $100,000 TOTAL One Time Cost $5,615,000 Ongoing Annual Cost (monitoring, education, reporting) $75,000

Watershed-wide Meeting

Thank You!