Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Assessment of the Reasonableness of the Proposed Watershed District Rules <br /> <br />The District initiated the rulemaking process January 5, 2005 and adopted a workplan and schedule <br />that would conclude with rule adoption at the end of2005. (See Appendix G) The workplan had two <br />phases, the first was to draft the Rules and the second was the formal adoption process dictated by MN <br />Statutes 103D.341. The District's philosophy was to provide multiple opportunities for stakeholder <br />input and to work closely with adjacent watershed districts to have as much consistency as possible <br />with our rules. <br /> <br />In April of 2005, the District, partnering with Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District <br />(RWMWD), completed Rulemaking Study Phase 1. (See Appendix H) The goal of the study was to <br />evaluate how stormwater BMP's could be incorporated on densely developed sites to achieve the <br />District's Development Review Criteria. The Rulemaking Study Phase I analyzed three previously <br />approved sites that did not fully meet District Development Review Criteria. The three sites were <br />evaluated in reference to District criteria for rate control, volume control, and water quality to <br />determine if: A) Is it possible to achieve the current District criteria, and if so what would the <br />stormwater BMP's be and how much would they cost; OR B) Ifit is determined that it is not possible <br />to meet the current development review criteria, then alternative attainable criteria should be developed <br />and the BMP's used and their associated costs should be detailed. The District retained four firms, <br />which each independently completed the analysis. By having multiple firms complete the study it <br />showed that multiple designs/approaches were available to achieve the District's criteria on densely <br />developed sites. The Rulemaking Study obtained multiple objectives towards Rulemaking including: <br /> <br />· Reevaluating the original Development Review Criteria <br />· Exploring potential alternative Development Review Criteria <br />· Providing examples of how previously noncompliant developments could be brought into <br />compliance <br />· Giving an indication ofthe costs of complying with various technical criteria <br />· Providing a valuable tool to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing our new rules <br /> <br />Based on the analysis completed during the Rulemaking Study Phase 1, the District developed and <br />adopted draft technical standards for Rules. (Appendix I) The draft technical standards for Rules were <br />simpler and easier to interpret than the original Development Review Criteria and in some cases were <br />less restrictive. Major changes were made to the volume control and water quality criteria. The <br />integrated resource management criterion was not included in the draft technical standards for Rules. <br /> <br />To further evaluate the draft technical criteria for Rules, the District completed the Rulemaking Study <br />Phase II in June 2005. (Appendix J) The second phase of the Rulemaking Study evaluated the same <br />three sites analyzed in the Phase 1 but utilized the draft technical standards for Rules. This second <br />phase of the Rulemaking Study in particular illustrated that the technical criteria for Rules were <br />practical, feasible from an engineering perspective and the costs were reasonable in reference to the <br />total project cost. Table 2 summarizes the findings of the Phase II Rulemaking Study from June of <br />2005. <br /> <br />CRWD - Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) for Watershed District Rules June 7, 2006 Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br />"Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region rVatershed District. " <br />