1 of 28

Planning Grant for Stormwater, Wastewater, and Community Resiliency from the MPCA
2-part project

RCWD Climate Change & Floodplain Resiliency Project

2 of 28

Planning Grant for Stormwater, Wastewater, and Community Resiliency from the MPCA
2-part project

RCWD Climate Change & Floodplain Resiliency Project

3 of 28

Core Directive: Foster collaboration among stakeholders that advance the implementation of priority actions

The Community Resilience Building Workshop is trusted by over 100 communities. It employs a

unique community-driven process.

Community Resilience Building Workshops

4 of 28

Core Directive: Foster collaboration among stakeholders that advance the implementation of priority actions

The Community Resilience Building Workshop is trusted by over 100 communities. It employs a

unique community-driven process.

Community Resilience Building Workshops

5 of 28

Core Directive: Foster collaboration among stakeholders that advance the implementation of priority actions

The Community Resilience Building Workshop is trusted by over 100 communities. It employs a

unique community-driven process.

Community Resilience Building Workshops

6 of 28

Community Resilience Building Workshops

Rice Creek�Watershed District

City of Hugo

City of�Lino Lakes

City of New Brighton

City of Roseville

City of White Bear Lake

Ramsey County

Washington County

Anoka County

Met�Council

Core Team

Organize workshops

Engage stakeholders- send workshops invites

Prepare materials for workshop

Help facilitate groups at workshop

7 of 28

Community Resilience Building Workshops

Determine weather, natural, and climate-related hazards

ID features, locations, ownership, etc.

ID existing and future vulnerabilities and strengths

Develop and prioritize actions

The next step was doing the workshops. There was 2 workshops with a total of 55 participants. In the workshops participants were asked to come up with a list of climate-related hazards they thought were relevant to RCWD, then to rank which hazards they felt were most pressing to address from most pressing to least pressing:

Flooding and extreme precipitation
Drought
Extreme heat
Warming winters

We asked participants to ID infrastructural, societal, and environmental features across the watershed that may be vulnerable to climate hazards, particularly flooding and increased precipitation. These “features” could be buildings, roads, community centers, parks, wetlands, etc. They identified who “owns” that feature (is it city land, who’s responsible for it), and listed out the vulnerabilities, and strengths of that feature (vulnerability would be a road that floods, and strength would be a wetland that could hold water and protect against flooding). Then they were asked to develop actions and strategies for these features (what can we do to fix the vulnerability or protect the strength), prioritize these actions, and come up with an urgency level (what do we need to do now and what can maybe wait until later, and how long would these actions take).

Then in the 2^nd workshop participants were asked to consider what specific strategies/actions could be pursued to protect said features from those hazards. So, actions such as installing more stormwater storage ponds, restoring wetlands, increasing green spaces in urban environments, enhancing or even moving vulnerable roads, all the way to increasing emergency communications in certain areas, etc., etc. We also prioritized these actions and came up with an urgency level (what do we need to do now and what can maybe wait until later, and how long would these actions take).

8 of 28

Workshop Activities: Risk Matrix

9 of 28

Increase stormwater management systems in parking lots

Increase buffer areas around lakes and streams

Integrate public art and creative educational campaigns to reach a variety of audiences

Increase and support urban green space developments and tree canopies

Make changes to turf grass ordinances to allow alternatives such as native plants

10 of 28

Results

Developed a Community Resilience Action Plan

Positioned RCWD for funding to implement the plan

Increased community awareness of climate-related issues in RCWD.

Support. Other city and county climate change initiatives and projects.

Once the workshops were completed, a final report was created by Freshwater. Which was shared across the District, with the core team, workshop participants, and available on RCWD’s website and by request.

One big thing that comes from completing this process and developing a plan, is that RCWD and its partners will be well-positioned for possible state and federal funding to implement the plan and the actions listed in it.

Increased community awareness of climate-related issues in the watershed district and vulnerable areas.

We can also use this report to support or supplement other cities and counties doing similar planning initiatives. Many of our city and county partners are already establishing climate change initiatives and resiliency actions. It’d be a way to collaborate and come together for the same issue.

Overall, this process made our communities more aware of climate change issues in the watershed, brought together many city/county partners, and set the district up for success in implementing projects and programs to become more resilient in the face of climate change.

11 of 28

Up Next…

12 of 28

Floodplain Resiliency Project

Project Purpose:

Utilize the existing District-Wide model to assess future conditions climate change hydrology,
Identify vulnerable locations and communities related to higher rainfall total and intensities and,
Identify capital improvement projects reduce the risk to increasingly vulnerable areas
Funding: MPCA Grant

MPCA Understanding environmental justice in Minnesota

13 of 28

District-Wide Model

Completed in 2011
Updated Annually
“Model” 🡪 11 H&H models
Focus on the Public Drainage System
NOAA Atlas 14 Rainfall depths

2-year: 2.8”
10-year: 4.2”
100-year: 7.2”
100-year Snowmelt: 7.2”

14 of 28

Future Climate Hydrology

NOT a climatology study
Utilized EPA and other �available resources
19% Increase in Rainfall Depth

15 of 28

Future Climate Hydrology

250-year 🡪 100-year

16 of 28

District-Wide Model

19% Increase, equivalent to 1.4” across the 185 sq. mi. watershed
13,800 additional acre-feet of runoff volume

17 of 28

Future Climate Hydrology �Change to Lake Levels

18 of 28

Long Lake = Increase of 1.3’

19 of 28

20 of 28

Potential Capital Improvement Projects

Proactive instead of Reactive
Storage on a Regional Scale
Optimal Locations
Areas that don’t change the general function of the land by storing more water

21 of 28

Potential CIP Screening

GIS Screening

Public Parcels
NWI
CPI

22 of 28

Potential CIP Screening

Manual Screening

Site size
Drainage Area
Location
Existing Floodplain

23 of 28

CIP Screening

7 Primary �Project Locations

22 Secondary Project locations

24 of 28

Concept Design Example

25 of 28

Potential CIP

26 of 28

CIP Locations

Site 2 – Jones Lake; RCD 5 / RCD 2 Main Trunk, New Brighton, MN
Site 3 – South Hansen Park; RCD 2 Main Trunk, New Brighton, MN
Site 7 – JD 2 Main Trunk; Forest Lake, MN

27 of 28

Outcomes

Value in having a District Wide Model
Identifying vulnerable areas and potential CIP sites prior to site loss due to development
Similar vulnerable areas compared to Future Land Use study
Locations with greatest risk related to future climate hydrology: JD2, Middle Rice Creek, Long Lake
Three CIP sites identified that provide greatest opportunity for reducing negative impacts of climate change risk
Having concept designs = access to multiple funding sources for implementation

28 of 28

Questions?

Kendra Sommerfeld, Rice Creek Watershed District

Bret Zimmerman PE, Houston Engineering, Inc.