Metro Stormwater Full Technical Report Final

A COMMUNITY CAPACITY ASSESSMENT FOR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THREE TWIN
CITIES METRO AREA WATERSHEDS
A Social Science-Based Assessment
January 2016
Authors:
Mae A. Davenport, PhD
Vanessa Perry, MS
Amit Pradhananga, PhD
Jennifer Shepard

ii
A Community Capacity Assessment of Stormwater
Management in the Twin Cities Metro Area
A final technical report prepared for Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, Capitol
Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
by
Mae A. Davenport, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Forest Resources
Director, Center for Changing Landscapes
Vanessa Perry, MS
Graduate Research Assistant
Amit Pradhananga, PhD
Research Associate
Jennifer Shepard
Graduate Research Assistant
College of Food, Agriculture and Natural Resource Sciences
University of Minnesota
115 Green Hall
1530 Cleveland Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55108-6112
www.forestry.umn.edu
January 31, 2016

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank our Twin Cities metro area watershed organization
partners, Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, Mississippi Watershed Management
Organization, and Capitol Region Watershed District, for their collaboration and invaluable assistance
with study design, participant recruitment, and project outreach. The authors extend gratitude to Sarah
Fellows, Bree Duever, Laura Dorle, Alexandria Felix, Bjorn Olson, and Alyssa Prokott, current and former
students at the University of Minnesota, for their assistance with data collection, management, and
analysis. We received critical input and feedback from the Project Advisory Team made up of dedicated
community actors from each of the watersheds. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the 268 survey
respondents and 75 interview and focus group participants who shared with us their insights on their
communities and their perspectives on community engagement in water resource protection and
management.
Funding for this project was provided by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD),
Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
(MWMO). This work also was supported by grants from USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(Hatch project 229912) and United States Geological Survey (Cooperative Agreement Number
2013MN352B).
The report’s contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
views of the funders. Cover photos: Right photo provided by the Capitol Region Watershed District; left
photo created by Vanessa Perry.
The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access
to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion,
national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or
sexual orientation.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................i
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... v
1 Project Background...............................................................................................................................1
2 Project Goals.........................................................................................................................................2
3 Study Design and Methods...................................................................................................................3
3.1 Key Informant Interviews..............................................................................................................5
3.2 Focus Groups.................................................................................................................................5
3.3 Qualitative Data Analysis ..............................................................................................................6
3.4 Resident Mail Survey ....................................................................................................................7
4 Project Findings...................................................................................................................................12
4.1 Interview Findings.......................................................................................................................12
4.1.1 Interview Participant Profile ...............................................................................................12
4.1.2 Community Narratives........................................................................................................12
4.1.3 Water Narratives.................................................................................................................17
4.1.4 Community-Stormwater Interaction Narratives.................................................................22
4.2 Stormwater Program Evaluations...............................................................................................28
4.2.1 Evaluation of the Central Corridor Green Line Stormwater Management Projects...........28
4.2.2 Evaluation of the Living Streets Program............................................................................29
4.3 Focus Group Findings..................................................................................................................31
4.4 Survey Findings ...........................................................................................................................34
4.4.1 Survey Respondent Profile..................................................................................................35
4.4.2 Divergences: Unique Respondent Attributes by Watershed Area .....................................38
4.4.3 Confluences: Common Respondent Attributes Across Watersheds ..................................39
5 Discussion and Recommendations .....................................................................................................46
6 References ..........................................................................................................................................54
7 Appendices..........................................................................................................................................56
7.1 Appendix A. Participant Recruitment Flier .................................................................................57
7.2 Appendix B. Interview Contact Script .........................................................................................59

iii
7.3 Appendix C. Interview Guides.....................................................................................................62
I. Mississippi Watershed Management Organization....................................................................63
II. Capitol Region Watershed District..............................................................................................68
III. Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District.....................................................................73
7.4 Appendix D. Interview Consent Form.........................................................................................78
7.5 Appendix E. Interview Background Information Form ...............................................................81
7.6 Appendix F. Focus Group Consent Form.....................................................................................83
7.7 Appendix G. Focus Group Agenda ..............................................................................................86
7.8 Appendix H. Focus Group Background Information Form..........................................................88
7.9 Appendix I. Survey Questionnaire ..............................................................................................90
7.10 Appendix J. Survey Cover Letter .................................................................................................99
7.11 Appendix K. Survey Reminder Letter........................................................................................101
7.12 Appendix L. Survey Replacement Cover Letter.........................................................................103
7.13 Appendix M: Survey Findings....................................................................................................105

iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Issue scoping and assessment focus ...............................................................................................4
Table 2. PAT membership and stakeholders ................................................................................................4
Table 3. Interviewee sociodemographic characteristics.............................................................................13
Table 4. Community....................................................................................................................................18
Table 5. Water.............................................................................................................................................21
Table 6. Community-stormwater interactions ...........................................................................................27
Table 7. Central Corridor green infrastructure evaluation.........................................................................29
Table 8. Living Streets program neighborhood evaluation.........................................................................31
Table 9. Focus group participant sociodemographic characteristics..........................................................32
Table 10. Internal challenges and opportunities associated with community engagement......................33
Table 11. External challenges and opportunities associated with community engagement.....................34
Table 12. Survey response rate by watershed............................................................................................34
Table 13.Survey respondents' sociodemographic characteristics..............................................................36
Table 14. Survey respondents' housing/property characteristics ..............................................................37
Table 15. Survey area residents’ sociodemographic and housing characteristics .....................................38
Table 16. Watershed-specific recommendations.......................................................................................50
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Study sites within Mississippi Watershed Management Organization .........................................9
Figure 2. Study sites within the Capitol Region Watershed District...........................................................10
Figure 3. Study sites within the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District ......................................11
Figure 4. Differences and commonalities between high clean water action and low clean water action
respondents................................................................................................................................................44
Figure 5. Differences and commonalities between respondents with varying levels of civic engagement
....................................................................................................................................................................45

v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
University of Minnesota researchers in collaboration with Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed
District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Organization investigated
community capacity and conservation behaviors associated with stormwater management from the
perspectives of diverse community members who live and work in the watersheds. The project applied a
participatory, community-based research approach using both qualitative data, gathered through key
informant interviews and focus groups, and quantitative data, collected in self-administered surveys.
Four primary research questions drove this project:
• What are drivers of and constraints to community capacity to engage in stormwater
management in the watersheds?
• What are community member values, beliefs and norms associated with water and water
resource management?
• What are community member perceptions of existing water programs?
• What water programming is most likely to influence future conservation behavior among
community members?
More than 300 community members participated in the project as research subjects, and 27 community
members served on the project advisory team. Interview findings present rich and wide-ranging
narratives on community, water, and community-stormwater interactions. Focus group findings reveal a
series of opportunities and challenges watershed organizations face in inspiring community
engagement. The resident survey examined a wide breadth of topics and findings establish areas of
convergence and divergence between watershed subgroups, levels of clean water action, and levels of
civic engagement. The survey inquired about important neighborhood qualities, engagement in
community issues, beliefs and concerns about water, and engagement in clean water action.
Based on study findings, we identified a series of strategies for building community capacity and
engaging communities in stormwater management. Strategies are organized and presented by four
overarching recommendations:
1. Tap into existing community assets
2. Connect with community issues and link to community identities
3. Remove community-water barriers
4. Emotivate in water programming

1
1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Despite advances in biophysical science, technology and engineering, stormwater management
continues to be a major challenge to planners and managers in urban settings. Stormwater management
requires not only technical solutions like the design and installation of stormwater management
infrastructure, but also the commitment and action of diverse stakeholders, from residents and
landowners to business owners and local government officials. Thus, water resource and land use
professionals are increasingly seeking guidance from social scientists and outreach and communication
specialists to better understand and influence people and their behaviors. Conservation behavior has
the potential to significantly advance stormwater management initiatives, or if lacking, to considerably
impede their success. This project uses a community capacity assessment to understand the drivers and
constraints to public- and private-sphere conservation behavior associated with stormwater
management in urban watersheds. For this study, conservation behavior is broadly defined and
encompasses private-sphere actions like land and water use conservation (e.g., rain garden installation
and the maintenance of streamside buffers), as well as public-sphere actions like conservation
citizenship (e.g., attending a watershed planning meeting or being willing to pay a fee for water resource
protection) and conservation advocacy (e.g., participating in a volunteer event or joining a watershed
organization).
A growing emphasis on integrated problem-solving exists in Minnesota water resource management
(WRM). This approach recognizes the need for cross-scale awareness, interdisciplinary science and
transboundary solutions to water resource impairments. However, while ecological monitoring and
protection technology have evolved significantly at this new scale, comprehensive assessments of the
human, social and governance dimensions of WRM continue to lag significantly behind. As Braden et al.
(2009) argue, “In the context of water, the ‘management’ required to balance human needs with
ecosystem requirements is not simply a matter of better understanding flows or contaminants, or
optimizing engineered systems; it also requires understanding [the] …economic, cultural, and social
determinants of water use” (pg. 4). Water and community experts agree that a greater understanding of
the capacity of individuals and entire communities to engage in sustainable watershed management and
to adapt to changing social-ecological conditions is needed for more resilient and longer-lasting water
resource protection (Braden et al., 2009; Tarlock, 2003; Bradshaw, 2003; Sabatier et al., 2005; Morton,
2008). Adaptive responses to water quality, quantity and timing problems in urban watersheds depend
on both individual and collective action. Without the coordinated efforts of residents, property/business
owners, organizations, local governments and entire communities, these problems persist and are
amplified at watershed scales.

2
2 PROJECT GOALS
This project is an assessment of community capacity for stormwater management in Ramsey-
Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD), Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), and
Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO) in Minnesota’s Twin Cities metropolitan
area. Data were gathered through multiple social science research methods to answer four overarching
research questions:
• What are drivers of and constraints to community capacity to engage in stormwater
management in the watersheds?
• What are community member values, beliefs and norms associated with water and water
resource management?
• What are community member perceptions of existing water programs?
• What water programming is most likely to influence future conservation behavior among
community members?
Project findings are drawn from (1) key informant interviews with residents, property/business owners,
community advocates and formal decision-makers who are active in the watersheds; (2) a series of focus
groups with decision makers and interest groups in the watersheds; and (3) a mail survey of watershed
residents in select neighborhoods. Ultimately, this project will inform and enhance water resource
projects and programs and to provide strategic direction to water managers and other natural resource
professionals for building community capacity to engage in stormwater management.

3
3 STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
University of Minnesota researchers in collaboration with Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed
District, Capitol Region Watershed District, and Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
(hereafter Partners) investigated community capacity and conservation behaviors associated with
stormwater management from the perspectives of diverse community members who live and work in
the watersheds (Figures 1-3). The project applied a participatory, community-based research approach
using both qualitative data gathered through key informant interviews and focus groups, and
quantitative data collected in self-administered surveys.
UMN personnel and Partners collaborated on project planning, local coordination, and a stakeholder
inventory for participant recruitment. The stakeholder inventory identified a range and diversity of
community groups (e.g., neighborhood associations, non-profit organizations), property/business
owners, and decision makers (e.g., local government officials and water resource professionals) who are
active in the watersheds and who have insight on community capacity to respond to problems or
stressors. UMN personnel met with project Partners to scope and prioritize key issues and audiences for
assessment across the study watersheds (Table 1). Project Partners were interested in reaching
audiences with which they had few connections. CRWD managers identified business and commercial
property owners along the Metro Transit Central Corridor Green Line light rail as a prime audience for
future programming. Managers sought insight on how best to engage these property owners and
managers in stormwater management practices. CRWD also requested a program evaluation
component to learn how business owners perceive the Central Corridor’s stormwater infrastructure
installations, including rain gardens, tree trenches, and pervious pavers. RWMWD had questions about
how to engage large landowners in water issues and conservation actions. RWMWD also requested a
program evaluation of a Living Streets project, in which a series of stormwater infrastructure features
were installed in a residential neighborhood. MWMO expressed the need to understand how to engage
racially and ethnically diverse community members and recent immigrants in particular communities,
including North Minneapolis, Fridley and Colombia Heights.
A project advisory team (PAT) was assembled representing the three watersheds at the onset of the
project (Table 2). The team provided insight and guidance in study design and the stakeholder inventory.
The team reviewed the survey questionnaire, and provided input on research findings and outreach
strategies. The PAT was comprised of a range of stakeholders representing local government,
community organizations, and community activists. Project personnel with support from Partners
facilitated two meetings with PAT members for project planning and local coordination.

4
Table 1. Issue scoping and assessment focus
Issue/Opportunity Stakeholders Assessment Questions Assessment Audiences
CRWD Non-point source
pollution
Business and
commercial
property owners
along the Green
Line corridor
What are perspectives
on stormwater BMPs?
How to best engage and
inspire business owners
in conservation actions?
Lack of opportunities
for community
member actions
toward clean water
Organizations that
serve racial and
ethnic minority
communities along
the Green Line
Central Corridor
How to best engage
community members in
interactive dialogue
around clean water?
RWMWD Stormwater runoff &
non-point source
pollution
Large landowners How to best engage
landowners in water
resource issues and
conservation actions?
Faith centers/places of
worship and
commercial/business
owners
Stormwater runoff &
non-point source
pollution
Living Streets
Program
Implementation:
participants and
non-participants
How to best design
Living Streets Program
that resonates with and
engages property
owners?
Property owners in
neighborhoods where
Living Streets initiatives
have been
implemented
MWMO Stormwater runoff &
non-point source
pollution
New immigrant
community
members in the
watershed and near
areas
How to best engage the
new immigrant
community in water
resource issues and
Stormwater runoff &
non-point source
pollution
Community
members of North
Minneapolis,
Fridley, and
Colombia Heights
How to best engage
community members of
North Minneapolis,
Fridley, and Colombia
Heights in water
resource issues and
Table 2. PAT membership and stakeholders
CRWD RWMWD MWMO
PAT members 14 6 7
Stakeholders 40 15 phase I, 113 phase II 33

5
3.1 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
UMN personnel developed a project description flier (Appendix A), contact script (Appendix B) and
interview guides (Appendix C) to facilitate community member participation. All of these materials were
reviewed by project partners. The interview guide was piloted by project personnel and refined based
on input from pilot participants. The project was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) as
designated by University policy. The IRB process is designed to protect human subjects involved in
research from harm and ensure the ethical practice of research by University personnel. IRB review
determined the study was not at risk of causing harm and therefore was exempt from further review.
In coordination with PAT members and Partners, UMN personnel identified an initial list of prospective
interview and focus group participants. Researchers employed “snowball sampling” to identify
additional potential stakeholders. Snowball sampling, or chain referral sampling, invites participants to
identify other members of their community who they believe have important knowledge about their
community or community action. Participants made referrals based on publicly available knowledge
(Mack et al., 2005). In the two evaluation studies, additional participant recruitment strategies were
used. In CRWD, to reach businesses located along the Green Line Central corridor, project personnel
approached business owners in person. In RWMWD, flyering houses located in the residential area
where the Living Streets program was used to specifically recruit individuals living within the program
implementation area.
Sixty semi-structured interviews were conducted with 64 individuals; in four instances a pair of
individuals was interviewed together. Twenty interviews were conducted in each watershed.
Participants included representatives from community-based organizations, business owners, property
managers, and local residents. Most of the interviews occurred in the individual’s home or place of
business, although some opted to meet at public establishments (e.g., community center, local coffee
shop, etc.). Participants were offered $50.00 as an incentive to participate. Each individual signed a
consent form (Appendix D) prior to the start of the interview and the interviewer emphasized that
participation was voluntary and that every reasonable effort would be made to ensure confidentiality.
The interviewer also answered any questions the interviewee had prior to beginning the interview.
Following the interview, participants were asked to complete a participant background information form
(Appendix E). This information was used to help understand the sample profile and is only reported at
the aggregate level. No personally identifying information is linked to the interview data.
3.2 FOCUS GROUPS
Three focus group sessions were administered in October and November 2015 with project Partners,
PAT members, and select community interest groups. The aim of the focus groups was to reflect on
preliminary study findings and to further explore institutional constraints to community engagement
from the perspectives of water resource professionals, community leaders and community actors. The

6
first focus group session was held with project Partner staff that had been most closely working and
advising researchers on the study. The next two focus group sessions were held with project advisory
team members who had been somewhat involved in advising researchers and recruiting interview
participants. Potential participants in these sessions were contacted using a set script similar to the one
used in the interview process which explains the intent of the project and the focus groups. Each
participant was asked to complete a consent form (Appendix F) prior to the start of the focus group. An
agenda (Appendix G) was set for the events to guide the proceedings with assistance from other
members of the research team. The focus group included a brief presentation summarizing findings to
date, as well as time for discussion on the issue of stormwater attitudes and decision making.
Participants were also asked to complete a background information form (Appendix H) prior to the
conclusion of the event.
Researchers attempted to conduct a third focus group with community members who had not been
previously involved in any aspect of the study. Researchers worked with Partners to identify
communities of focus. Partners asked that focus groups be held in the North Minneapolis and
Fridley/Columbia Heights areas to reengage these communities beyond the interviewee pool.
Researchers worked with PAT members to recruit individuals, contacted previous interviewees in the
communities for recommendations, and distributed flyers advertising the focus groups in the
communities at local libraries. Unfortunately, there was not a sufficient response to move forward with
the focus groups and they were canceled.
3.3 QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS
Qualitative data were analyzed using open coding consistent with adapted grounded theory procedures
(Charmaz, 2006; Corbin and Strass, 2008) and focused coding to highlight responses with direct bearing
on the research or interview questions. Analysis was performed using QSR International’s Nvivo 10.0
software to manage, code, and organize the data. The coding schema development and analytic
processes included periodic checks for consistency and applicability with a team of researchers familiar
with the study.
The goal of the analysis was not to statistically represent the beliefs of the broader watershed
population. Thus, findings may not be generalizable at this scale. While the study findings only represent
the beliefs and opinions of the study participants, wide-ranging and diverse perspectives were captured.
Study participants have different backgrounds, experiences, and connections to community and water.
Importantly, this study documented the perspectives of members of historically excluded groups and
People of Color. While study findings should not be generalized to all urban watershed populations, we
believe the study provides important insight and lessons about community members and community
engagement in similar sociocultural contexts.

7
3.4 RESIDENT MAIL SURVEY
The resident study was conducted through a self-administered survey of a random sample of residents
in select neighborhoods within MWMO, RWMWD, and CRWD boundaries. A stratified, proportional
sample of 1000 residents from selected census tracts within the three study watersheds was purchased
from Survey Sampling International (SSI). The sample included residents from census tracts within the
cities of Minneapolis, Fridley and Columbia Heights (MWMO), St. Paul (CRWD) and Roseville (RWMWD)
(Figures 1-3). Census tracts were selected in areas of highest interest for project Partners. The surveys
were administered from August 2015 through January 2016.
Survey instruments were designed based on an extensive literature review and feedback from Partners
and the project advisory teams (PAT). The survey questionnaire included a variety of fixed-choice and
scale questions. Several questions were adapted from survey instruments used in previous studies of
attitudes, beliefs, and values of conservation behaviors (Blasczyk, Your views on local water resources,
2010; Brehm, Eisenhauer & Krannich, 2006; Harland, Staats, & Wilke, 2007; Prokopy et al., 2009; Schultz,
2001; Schwartz, 1977; Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1998; Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Seekamp, Davenport,
& Brehm, Lower Kaskaskia River Watershed Resident Survey, 2009). Each questionnaire was labeled
with a unique identification number to track responses for subsequent mailings.
An adapted Dillman's (2009) Tailored Design Method was used to increase response rates. The survey
was administered in three waves: (1) the questionnaire (Appendix I) with a cover letter (Appendix J),
self-addressed, business reply envelope and a cash incentive ($2 bill); (2) a replacement questionnaire
with a reminder letter (Appendix K) and envelope; and (3) a third replacement questionnaire with cover
letter (Appendix L) and envelope. Important to note: findings described in this report are based on
questionnaires received after the first two waves of mailing.
Returned questionnaires were logged into a respondent database. Response data were numerically
coded and entered into a database using Microsoft Excel 2010. Basic descriptive statistics were
conducted to determine frequency distributions and central tendency of individual variables. Inferential
statistics also were conducted to test for significant differences across the three study watersheds (i.e.,
MWMO, CRWD and RWMWD). Statistical analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS release 21.0).
Respondent watershed subgroups (i.e., CRWD respondents, MWMO respondents, and RWMWD
respondents were compared for differences in their sociodemographic (survey questions 20, 23, 24, 25,
26, and 27) and housing characteristics (survey questions 8, 21 and 22), social influences on decisions
about getting involved in their community (survey question 2 and 3), perspectives on their
neighborhood (survey questions 4 and 5), perspectives on water resources (survey questions 9, 10 and
14), concern about water issues (survey question 15), familiarity with and current use of clean water
actions (survey question 16), familiarity with and participation in community activities (survey question
17) and likelihood of future clean water actions (survey question 19).

8
Comparisons also were conducted between subgroups by levels of clean water action (i.e., high action
versus low action) and levels of civic engagement (i.e., high engagement versus low engagement). These
subgroups were compared for statistical differences in their socio-demographic and housing
characteristics, social norms of civic action, water resource and neighborhood beliefs, and concern
about water issues.

9
Figure 1. Study sites within Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
¯
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
Interview sites
Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
County boundaries
Survey census tracts

10
Figure 2. Study sites within the Capitol Region Watershed District
¯
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
Interview sites
Capitol Region Watershed District
County boundaries

11
Figure 3. Study sites within the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District
¯
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
Interview sites
Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District
County boundaries

12
4 PROJECT FINDINGS
Project findings are organized in 3 sections: interview findings, focus group findings, and survey findings.
Interview findings are further organized into four sub-sections including participant profile, community
narratives, water narratives, and community-stormwater interaction narratives. Survey findings are
organized in 3 sub-sections: survey respondent profile, divergences: unique respondent attributes by
watershed area, and confluences: common respondent attributes across watersheds.
4.1 INTERVIEW FINDINGS
The three study watersheds, MWMO, CRWD, and RWMWO, are distinct in geographic location within
the Twin Cities metro area, socioeconomics, and water resource amenities. Despite these differences,
several common themes and shared opportunities for community-water engagement in stormwater
management emerged in the analysis. At the same time, multiple barriers and constraints to
community-water engagement were revealed. The topics, community narratives, and supporting
themes and descriptors are presented in this section. First, we describe the interview participant profile.
4.1.1 Interview Participant Profile
Participants represented diverse sociodemographic characteristics (Table 3). Ages ranged from 20-78.
Both longtime and new community members were represented. About 40% of participants were female.
Most participants identified as White/Caucasian, but the sample included participants who identified as
African American, Egyptian, Somali, Sudanese, Asian, Hmong, Chinese, Mexican, Latino and Ojibwe.
4.1.2 Community Narratives
Participants were asked about how they define community, community strengths and concerns, and
examples of times the community came together to address an opportunity or challenge. Five broad
community topics were discussed (Table 4):
Community character
Several narratives around community character emerged with different emphases by watershed area.
Participants from each watershed area described communities that are socially connected and close-
knit. For example, a MWMO participant acknowledged, “The people, you know. There are so many
people that care and want to get involved and want to help and connect with others and make it a
better place to live.” Similarly, another MWMO participant described community members as
committed to solving problems: “People are involved in community actions in one sort or another. They
are willing to take on a problem and work on it for five years if that is what it takes.”

13
Table 3. Interviewee sociodemographic characteristics
TOTAL MWMO CRWD RWMWD
No. of interviewees 64 21 21 22
Age (min/max) 20-78 32-71 29-63 20-78
Age (median) 50 55 43 51
Years in community
(min/max)
0-64 0-64 0-45 6-44
Years in community
(median)
21 21 17 21
Gender
26 female
38 male
9 female
12 male
10 females
11 males
7 female
15 males
Self-identified
race/ethnicity
White/Caucasian
(13)
European-
American (2)
Egyptian (2)
Somali
Chicana
Latino
N/A
White/Caucasian (6)
African-American
(3)
Black (2)
African/Somali
African/Sudanese
American Indian/
Mixed
Ojibwe
Asian
Chinese
Human
N/A
White/Caucasian
(20)
Hmong
Mexican
In somewhat of a contrast, RWMWD participants expressed concern about increased social
fragmentation in communities. One participant explained, “I’ve heard that from all the neighbors on the
street that nobody really talks to each other.” Another interviewee described it as a changing social
environment:
I think community itself is not the same as it used to be. Not everybody knows their
neighbor, so the changing interaction of a neighborhood, people are more inclined to
spend time inside, we don’t know our neighbors as well. So yeah, collaboration is a little
harder to do when you resist [meeting neighbors].
Social fragmentation was viewed as a barrier to community engagement in water issues: “I guess the
barrier would be that people just aren’t really talking to each other about it in this community so
[change] would all mostly have to come from an outside source. The fact that we are not really talking in
the first place [is a barrier].”

14
Participants also characterized diversity as a strength and asset to their communities. Diversity of
viewpoints, cultures, businesses, and amenities was believed to increase quality of life and enhance
community resilience. One participant credited diversity for making the community more vital: “I really
like the diversity, I think that is great. The diversity of people and the diversity of businesses, small and
large, it gives it a feeling, especially with the light rail coming through now, it gives it a feeling of being a
dynamic kind of place.”
A few participants expressed frustration about change in their communities. These participants
suggested that gentrification, or the influx of a new “class” of residents drawn to the communities
because of revitalization, has disrupted the community. A MWMO participant explained, “You get one
class of people who come and do all the dirty work, and then you get another class of people who come
and reap the rewards of creating a revitalized community.” Concern for this form of community
disruption was echoed by another MWMO participant:
Sometimes, someone with lots of sense of commitment will move in, and after a year or
two, they just don’t fit here. They just don’t feel comfortable. They move on. We think
that is good. Rather than stay here on some sort of sense of social do-gooderism, but
they are really uncomfortable. They make room for someone who does come and stay
longer.
A CRWD participant lamented a community project that had negative outcomes for area youth:
I grew up there. They had the raggediest, and I’m gonna be blunt, they had the most
shitty field ever, rocks in it and everything. But, we would be out there playing catch.
We’d be out there tackling each other, doing all kinds of stuff. Well guess what? They
replaced it. It looks beautiful. But nobody can go on it. So are you taking away from the
community or are you giving to the community? Now I see a bunch of white kids out
there playing soccer. It disgusts me. And it’s not about the racial thing, it’s about
people; [they] call themselves giving back, but they’re taking away from us.
RWMWD participants told a somewhat different story about changing community character. Some
participants acknowledged community members’ concern about diversification of residents. Another
participant likened local resistance to community change to being in a “rut.”
This is how life is … we are in our rut. We are in our groove. We found our place; we are
not all that excited about doing something new, or different, or out of the ordinary. We
like this life we’ve carved out for ourselves. It’s maybe just another facet of the apathy I
was talking about earlier, but that’s the challenge. To try and present a new way of
thinking or a new way of doing things to make it attractive, to sufficiently motivate
people to actually think in a new way or do something in a new way. That can be a very
real challenge.

15
Community organizations
Across all three watershed areas, participants identified existing community-based organizations
including non-profit organizations, schools, and religious organizations as assets, because these
organizations know the communities, are trusted, and have positive impacts on community members.
One CRWD participant noted the importance of local neighborhood associations: “The Frogtown
Neighborhood Association, they really have their finger on the pulse of community probably more than
anybody, because that is their role to kind of be a voice for the community and to assess what people
are thinking, I mean that is kind of what they do, and so I would think they would be the most logical
place to tap in to.” A RWMWD participant praised the service role of area faith or religious
organizations: “[One role of the church is] to be active in looking beyond the walls of the immediate
church community to the community at large, and say, ‘What can we do? How can we be of service?’
How can we, in one way or another, make a difference in the quality of life that’s going on out there.”
Community networks
In two of the watershed areas – CRWD and MWMO – strong informal and inter-organizational networks
were identified as community assets. Participants described collaboration between community
organizations as a strength. For example, a MWMO participant noted that local neighborhood
organizations support each other: “All of the North Side neighborhood organizations are invited… we try
to get together once a month and talk about common issues and support each other’s initiatives. We
have some issues in common, and even if we don’t, we want to support the other neighborhoods that
do.”
Other participants spoke of emphasized the role of informal networks among community members as
central to neighborhood identity and a culture of community support. A MWMO participant explained,
“When [community members] are faced with issues, these things that go beyond them, and go beyond
the little problems that they have, they stick together very well.” A CRWD participant noted the
importance of informal networks for helping new immigrants adjust to the community: “[The]
mentoring [of new immigrants] has to be very informal, there is no way for it to be anything but very
informal. So yeah, as you mingle with them you give tips here and there, things like that. That’s okay to
them.”
Community governance
Participants shared varying perspectives on community governance. For example, some CRWD
participants spoke of the challenges they and others have faced in dealing with government regulations.
A participant described a feeling of discrimination in how recent immigrant or black business owners are
treated:
I think that, when you’re talking about immigrants and People of Color, especially black
business owners, it’s maybe not aggressively dislike, but it definitely is that [business
owners] are wary and gun shy, [because they] have run into ridiculous challenges that
they feel like, it’s just because of who I am. Just because of the neighborhood I am from.

16
Another CRWD interviewee described how past government projects, and the impacts to the
community, are potentially influencing current community perspectives. The participant had referred to
the construction of U.S. Interstate Highway 94 through the Rondo neighborhood earlier in the interview.
Well, again, the history of this community has not been a positive one with large
infrastructure investment. So there has been, and still continues to be, a non-
supportive attitude towards the rail. I don’t know that people always see their own
self-interest in these investments. And in fact, the project has had more of a negative
effect to them, in their experience with their living and working. So I think we are still
waiting to see how it plays out.
One participant from CRWD, but who works across the Twin Cities metro, described the challenges for
people interested in water issues of participating in decision making:
I would say that most of the people who are aware of water resources, their biggest
concern is a lack of ability to be a part of the decision making process. [They] really feel
like there needs to a process by which they can impact the decision making, because if
they could impact the decision making in general, [they] want to encourage decisions
that are going to ensure that there is water that is clean and available.
Participants from RWMWD also described an inability to influence decision making, as well as frustration
with community leadership and follow through. One individual described their disappointment with a
promised community project that hadn’t happened:
The city promised the youth a community center but the business [like the area it how it
is]. It’s frustrating because there are not facilities for youth sports, and there is
nowhere for the kids to go. I just got a nasty-gram in the mail because my kid’s
basketball hoop was too close to the street, and it’s like, well, you’re supposed to build a
community center. It was approved, and then you don’t. Now, my kid doesn’t have
anywhere to play, and now he plays in the street. Somebody complains, now I’m
supposed to move my basketball hoop. That’s frustrating to the point where I actually
might do something about it, but I think the focus is from a political standpoint kind of
short-sighted.
Another RWMWD interviewee who had participated in multiple community initiatives described a
prominent government leader thusly, “He just put people down. He didn’t even listen. He wasn’t
respectful. He was just miserable. He told people to sit down and shut up. I was intimidated by him.”
Community issues and priorities
Several community issues emerged in the discussions that seemed to take precedence over
environmental and water issues including education, housing, immigration, and economics. A MWMO
participant said, “You know, there are so many priorities in this community. I don’t know that [water] is

17
a priority to them or how much they think about it. We were talking earlier about immigration, about
education and health care, and there seems to be so many things that sort of are solo on the top of the
list."
The need for community revitalization and concerns about education, safe and affordable housing,
healthcare, and social inequities were emphasized in MWMO and CRWD. One MWMO participant
observed, “Revitalization in this neighborhood looks like better quality education, more job
opportunities, safer housing, all of those kind of inequities that have made it difficult for people to thrive
in this kind of a space.” Another MWMO participant acknowledged foreclosures as a persistent
problem: “[In] our zip code we’ve had the highest number of foreclosure in the whole State of
Minnesota.”
Concern about safety and crime emerged as a prominent narrative among a few RWMWD participants.
One participant observed, “I think up the block there are some rental properties and some people
moved in that have some kids that I don’t think they necessarily watch or care what kind of
trouble…they are out after curfew, that kind of stuff.”
4.1.3 Water Narratives
Participants were asked what comes to mind when they think about water in their community, how they
use water, how water is important to them, and if they have or their community has concerns about
water. Four general water topics were discussed (Table 5):
Clean water abundance
When asked about natural resources and water, several distinct narratives emerged that reflected
different worldviews, uses, cultural backgrounds, and risk perceptions. Across the watershed areas,
participants noted that water is not a high priority community issue. One reason for this perspective
may be the clean water abundance narrative. Participants in each area noted that water quantity and
quality for various uses is not a problem. One RWMWD participant appreciated the community’s
drinking water: “Well it’s clean you know it doesn’t have odors or a funny taste to it, to me it’s not very
strong chemical wise”.

18
Table 4. Community
Topics Narratives Themes and Descriptors MWMO* CRWD RWMWD
Community
character
Socially connected, close-knit
communities
Intergenerational ties, social
networks, strong religious
institutions
X X X
Engaged community members X
Strength in diversity Racial and ethnic diversity,
new immigrants
X X
Greenspace and nature centers As an amenity X
As a need X
Changing character Concern about gentrification X
Concern about diversification X
Increasing social
fragmentation
X
Resistance to change X
Community-
based
organizations
Trusted and legitimate Cultural understanding X X X
Community-centered mission
Positive community
outcomes
X X X
Service-oriented mission
Schools reach youth X X X
Religious institutions serve
the community
X X X
Community
networks
Active, accessible informal networks X X
Inaccessible formal networks X X X
Active organization-based networks X X
Networks lacking altogether X
Community
governance
Weak government relations Low trust, inaccessible
planning processes
X X X
Historic tensions X
Limited community
representation
X X
Regulatory complexity Uncertainty about roles,
jurisdictions, authority
X X X
Hardships on businesses,
perceived discrimination
X
Strong leaders In the community, for
community needs
X
Weak leaders X
High priority
community
issues
Education X X
Housing Safe and affordable X X
Immigration X X
Economics X X
Healthcare X X
Safety and crime X
*An “X” in the cell denotes that at least one reference to this issue was made by a study participant affiliated with
that watershed. It is important to note, that these cells represent common or diverging areas of emphasis rather
than any agreement or disagreement on whether the issue is important or relevant.

19
Participants also suggested that for many new immigrants, having clean and abundant tap water is a
new experience and a luxury. One MWMO participant explained, “if you’re in Central or South America
and in Mexico as well, you don’t let the tap run. Here it’s not as big of a concern. In their home
countries, water was considerably more precious than it is here.” Similarly, another participant linked
resource scarcity in new immigrants’ countries of origin to perceived resource abundance in Minnesota:
I think in this community, the community that comes from fairly disadvantaged
countries, that these sorts of things were a part of the main stay while they were there. I
mean, and it wasn’t necessarily because it was conservation, it was because there was
no resources. So you had limited resources, and what we have here, we have a bounty
of resources, but we’re trying to limit…we’re trying to increase our understanding so
that we limit the impact that we have on those resources.
One MWMO participant also acknowledged disparities in water infrastructure and sanitation in
developing countries, as well as limited public awareness of water issues that may contribute to an
abundance perspective.
When I think about water, what comes to mind is living in America, comparing to
situations in the developing world, is huge blessings because we have good
infrastructure here, separation between sanitary sewer and stormwater and
organizations who care about the source of water, and how it is connected to our
health. And I see, unfortunately, clear evidence where I came from where people have
less awareness and education about water issues...So I think it's a blessing, living in
America when it comes to water issues.
Community-water barriers
Several participants in the CRWD and MWMO identified community-water barriers that limited access
to water for recreation or other uses or impaired views of water. Participants believed opportunities
exist to make water resources less of a liability and more of a community asset. A MWMO participant
offered an example, “… Ryan Lake, it looked like a jungle, and nobody wanted to be there. Now, we
need to make it more of an amenity, and people with gather.” Another MWMO participant noted
disparities in water resource amenities and management in different communities:
I wish that our community was a rich in the kind of water resources [like] when you
think of South Minneapolis, I think there is four, or five, or six interesting lakes and
channels right off of the bat. The creek, the Minnehaha Creek, which runs through there
is much more celebrated and much more taken care of. The Basset Creek kind of just
meanders around and goes underground and back up. There have been some attempts
to clean it up here and there. There are groups that, once a year, clean it up right where
the ridge is and so on. I still think some of our water resources are second cousins to
other parts of the city.

20
Cultured relationships with water
A MWMO participant acknowledged institutionally driven cultural barriers to water including limited
swimming programming and access in African American communities.
So, historically in the African American community, a lot of kids don’t know how to
swim. You also look at again, one of these things, like access to community pools and
beaches. Ones that are supervised where you could get swimming lessons and things
are pretty limited. There is also some recent drownings and stuff where there has been
some movements to change some of that. So those are the kinds of things that I think
are relevant and important to me as far as water goes. It’s just straight access, both for
fun, but also just as a skill and an ability and everything else.
When asked about community engagement in water, a MWMO participant described cultural
differences in leisure and recreation styles:
There are other barriers, some of it is a cultural barrier, and some of it is, they don’t
have the leverage. I wouldn’t say they don’t have the leverage, but they don’t have the
mindset to really go to the lakes and relax and enjoy and have fun. I mean, those things,
it’s a cultural thing. It’s very rare in Somalia that a family goes for vacation.
For recent immigrants, adjusting to life in a new community and a different natural environment is also
a constraint to outdoor recreation. One participant explained,
The new immigrant community, a lot of them don’t have a long history of being involved
with the outdoors. And a lot of them are also, you know, struggling with becoming
acclimated making a living, learning English, whatever their issues are. They don’t have a
lot of time for that kind of thing…
Notably, a few participants expressed a strong cultural identity associated with water within their
communities. For example, a CRWD participant described water’s spiritual and intergenerational values
to the community:
We believe that the water has a spirit. So, it’s water spirits that we talk to when we
have a ceremony. That is who you are talking to. We are saying to the river that we
wish for you to be here and continue to flow for the next seven generations and then
the next seven generations after that.
Water as a community issue
Many participants expressed confidence in water resource conditions or admitted uncertainty about
water problems. For those who did express concern, drinking water, flooding, groundwater
contamination from superfund sites, and fish contamination were the most pressing issues. Concerns
appeared to vary by community. For example, concern about fish contamination was a prominent

21
narrative among some CRWD participants: “When I used to fish we would fish in Cedar Lake, and we
actually ate the fish because it was really clean lake, but I wouldn’t eat any other fish. I wouldn’t go
anywhere else and eat the fish.”
Table 5. Water
Clean water abundance For drinking Observed disparities in
new immigrants’ countries
of origin
X X
For fish consumption,
gardening
X
For recreation X
Community-water barriers Access Limited opportunities to
access water, social
inequities
X X
Lack of surface water X
Viewscapes Limited views, low scenic
quality
X X
Cultured relationships
with water
Cultural constraints and
disconnects
Outdoor or water-based
recreation and leisure not
part of cultural norms
X X
Constraint of adjusting to
new natural and social
environment for new
immigrants
X X
Cultural connections Identity X X
Spirituality X
Water as a community
issue
Low priority relative to
other pressing community
issues
X X X
Concern about drinking
water
X X
Concern about fish
contamination
For consumption
X
Concern about superfund
sites
Groundwater
contamination
X
Concern about flooding
and property damage
X X

22
4.1.4 Community-Stormwater Interaction Narratives
Participants were asked about their understanding of stormwater issues, any problems they had
observed with stormwater, who should be responsible for addressing stormwater issues, and what
practices they had adopted related to water protection or stormwater management. Three overarching
community-stormwater topics were discussed (Table 6):
Community-stormwater linkages
Several participants across the three watershed areas made an explicit link between stormwater
management and community values. Investing in community infrastructure and green space
maintenance was viewed as being good for residents and businesses alike. One MWMO participant
stated:
I think that they are worth the investment over time, and I think that fact this makes a
big contribution, not only to our community, but the larger City of Minneapolis that we
preserve and invest in this community, an inner-city community with beautiful
infrastructure and beautiful buildings. We preserve it for the group that is coming after
us. That is part of why I like to invest in it. It’s important to do it.
For some participants stormwater management practices add aesthetic value to the neighborhood, like
this CRWD participant who said: “I’d love to, just for aesthetic reasons … have a rain garden on the
boulevard.” Similarly, certain property maintenance practices were seen as a homeowner’s
responsibility. As this RWMWD participant put it : “I don’t think it’s good to let your property go. I think
you have a community responsibility to maintain your stuff because a crappy house makes everyone
else’s house go down.”
Other participants noted that stormwater management projects that include interpretation and
education programming contribute to a community’s identity. One participant in the CRWD gave this
example:
The first things that came out to my head was Maplewood Mall. You’ve seen the rain
garden display. That is something that I want here that helps advocate water quality
and water savings. It teaches something. It teaches people certain things. That is one
of the things that I would like to have here. We are more than a shopping center. We
are a community.
Community image was important to several participants. One MWMO participant described the
effort of a business and environment committee to add green infrastructure to make an
intersection and a neighborhood more welcoming: “The intersection here that the city and
county did all of the infrastructure and left us with loads of concrete. So now, our business and

23
environment committee are putting their head together and saying that we need to green this
up. We need to make it more friendly.”
One MWMO participant described the community’s image to outsiders as being counter to the “green”
values held by residents:
We are one of the greenest parts of the city, because we are green as far as we use
public transit, you know there is a lot of people who walk and bike often, not only just
out of choice but out of necessity at times. But we often aren’t treated in the same way
that other parts of the city are, as in eco-friendly or whatever else kinds of things. Those
are values that are here.
Community engagement in stormwater issues
Three prominent narratives emerged around community engagement in stormwater issues. Participants
from each watershed area identified barriers associated with stormwater information. For some the
problem was a matter of not knowing where to get information or distrust in information sources. For
others language and heuristics used in stormwater information and communication programming was a
barrier. Though limited multilingual translation was a problem, several participants noted that even the
heuristics, symbols and images used in communication and messaging efforts were not culturally
relevant or inclusive. A CRWD participant acknowledged that many families do not understand the
environmental symbols used in environmental programs: "A lot of people don't know those symbols
and that's why it doesn't make sense, I mean my parents didn't know what the toxic symbol meant."
Similarly, several participants spoke about the challenge of translating and conveying complex
environmental processes or conservation practices to recent immigrants. One participant noted that
certain concepts like recycling and composting do not exist in some cultures or languages:
In the Hmong community, there is really no scientific word out there for composting.
You don't really have a word for composting. That was one of the challenges the
students [working with the Hmong community] came on to. Students actually had to
describe recycling. I don't think that they actually used the word recycling.
In some cases even simple nuances or contexts in messaging can be a problem. Idioms, acronyms and
images used in messaging can be culturally exclusive. For example, one CRWD participant observed,
“Sometimes in America, there is a certain phrase that make sense for people who live here, and they
explain things. Like, ‘whatever floats your boats,’ stuff like that. It’s not going to register with someone
[with a different background].” Similarly, another CRWD participant noted,
A lot of things that I see are like pictures or graphics of nice water and green places and
trees, but it’s nothing that hits them or that they understand. [You] need to put pictures
that they like or they can relate to, like pictures of their own gardens or home gardening
or things that they do or see every day.

24
A second narrative that has bearing on community engagement in stormwater management is
frustration with land use planning processes and decisions. For example a RWMWD participant
recalled a public meeting about installing sidewalks in the neighborhood and felt that resident
input was not used in the decision: “I went to several meetings, we all did, and said why do we
need sidewalks? We do not want them. There was only one couple that wanted them down on
the end for their little boys, they said. But we didn’t want them, but they didn’t listen to us. They
had already set in their minds they were going to put in sidewalks.” Not feeling represented or
heard in local decision making was a common theme among participants in all three watershed
areas and appeared to be a source of distrust in government. Some participants asserted that
new immigrants feel especially alienated from decision making processes. One CRWD
participant explained, “We feel like those structures were not meant for us and yet, we know
that those are the places the decisions are coming from. So how do we just encourage in our
communities to [identify] those people who can actually bring our voices, to be able to impact
those broad scale changes that have to happen.”
Similarly, a CRWD participant observed that Hmong community members and others who are new to
the U.S. feel powerless and don’t know where to start when it comes to engaging in decision making
processes:
I think Hmong people in general, and I think for refugees or immigrants, people [who]
are new to this country, they don’t feel like they have any power so they kind of feel
like, okay, we’ll just let things go and just live. We don’t want to get involved, we don’t
want to interfere. Not they don’t care about anything, it’s just maybe they don’t feel like
they know the right people to help them in case they run into obstacles. I think they
don’t know where or how to look for solutions.
Despite these barriers, several participants from each of the watersheds identified many
partnership opportunities for engaging community members in stormwater management issues.
According to participants, strong community-based organizations such as schools, religious
institutions and non-profits could be valuable assets to watershed managers’ efforts to engage
the community.
For example, a CRWD participant with ties to a community-based organization that supports local
businesses said,
I think working with groups like us … is just a smart way to go. And, the more that we
buy into it, the more that we are educated in it—know where to send people and
understand it enough to send people at the right times or provide the information—the
better we are. Because in many cases, we are sometimes the first folks that are getting
introduced to a business. Or when they are ready to expand and make some
exterior/interior changes, because we do lending, we’re engaged, and those are key
moments…

25
When describing a previous collaboration with a technical group working in the community, CRWD
participant stressed the advantages of pairing an established local organization with outside technical
expertise:
It was smart … to utilize relationships that had already been built, because I can go in
anywhere, I have complete access, I've known these folks for so long, we have people
here who have known these businesses for ten to fifteen years. They trust us; we have
not done them any harm. So when we bring someone new, and say, “Hey, this is a good
idea. Why don't you listen to what they have to say,” they trust us.
A few participants expressed enthusiasm for existing programs and partnerships that link water
issues to community needs. One MWMO participant praised a small grant program:
I am very thrilled by how [watershed managers] take a look at what the community
needs are. They offer small grants for community to develop activities like education or
even art, support some kind of art that has to do with water management on site. I
really love that they participate in that way.
Stormwater management practices
Many different narratives emerged when participants were asked about stormwater management
practices.
Several MWMO participants described their community as having a high awareness of environmental
issues and willingness to do “little things” that might make an impact: “I’m not planning on making any
big decisions, but yeah, using a rain barrel as an example. And I think a garden has a better impact than
regular grass, so some of those kind of things. I’m not planning on putting in a bunch of asphalt just for
kicks.” Still participants from each watershed characterized their community members as having limited
stormwater understanding. They noted misperceptions, apathy, and low self-efficacy as constraints to
action.
When asked “who” should be responsible for addressing the stormwater issues, participants responses
varied, ranging from a specific personal sense of responsibility, to a more general “everyone’s
responsible.” Still, watershed area participants expressed or acknowledged uncertainty as to who is
responsible, what roles different entities play and what triggers action.
Social pressures appeared to be a prominent stormwater management practice narrative in the
RWMWD. Participants suggested that neighborhood norms and conflict avoidance in property
management decisions have a strong influence on residents. A participant asserted, “We wouldn’t
decide to do anything that was going to make the neighbors mad, or by any means be totally different
from the rest of the neighbors.”

26
A predominating narrative across each watershed area was the economics of stormwater management
practices. Economics were described as primary driver and constraint to action. Participants
contemplated the financial costs and benefits of stormwater management practice installation and
maintenance. Business owners represented most prominently in CRWD interviews spoke positively
about the energy efficiencies of “green” building improvements. For one participant, sustainable
business practices help to set green businesses apart from competitors, but those differences need to
be made explicit to customers:
My competitors aren’t going to say, “Well, we waste your money by wasting electricity,
and we contaminate the environment by using chemicals, and we don’t change our
filters because it saves us money, and we don’t really care what the air is like that you
breath, we care about the economics.” No one is ever going to talk about that stuff. I
have to be the one that talks about it when customers come and I say, “This is how we
manage our building, and so as you look at our competition, see what they do.”
Still, several CRWD participants acknowledged businesses are driven by the “bottom line” and so any
property improvements must be cost effective. For many business owners, macro level economic
conditions can be a barrier to adopting new stormwater management practices: “We’re trying to survive
an economic downturn … that has been here since 2008. So we are six years into finding ways to deliver
the same product, quality of product to our customers with flat or decreasing rental rates. …We have to
survive or we won’t be contributing to the stormwater management. If we can do it from an economic
standpoint that is a good thing.”

27
Table 6. Community-stormwater interactions
Community-stormwater
linkages
Community values Community aesthetics X X X
Neighborhood property
values
X X X
Community-water identity
development potential
Community self-identity X X X
Community image among
outsiders
X X
Community engagement
in stormwater issues
Stormwater information
barriers
Information sources
unknown or untrusted
X X X
Language and heuristic
barriers
X X
Frustration with land use
planning processes,
decisions
Not feeling represented X X X
Not being heard
X X X
Many partnership
opportunities
Strong community-based
organizations exist
X X X
Success in strong
partnerships with water
managers
X X
Stormwater management
practices
General environmental
awareness and behaviors
High awareness X
Incremental behavior
change
X
Limited stormwater
understanding
Misperceptions or
incomplete knowledge
X X X
Apathy X X X
Low perceived ability, self-
efficacy
X X X
Stormwater issue
relevance
Focus on point source
polluters, superfunds,
drinking water, flooding
X X X
Diffusion, dismissal, or
uncertainty around
responsibility for
stormwater problems and
solutions
Who, what roles, when
they act
X X X
Social pressures in
property management
Neighborhood norms,
conflict avoidance
X
Perceived economics of
practices
Financial costs X X X
Financial benefits X X X
Business energy
efficiencies
X

28
4.2 STORMWATER PROGRAM EVALUATIONS
4.2.1 Evaluation of the Central Corridor Green Line Stormwater Management Projects
CRWD participants were asked to consider stormwater management projects installed along University
Avenue. Participants, many of whom were business owners or property managers in the area, were
asked if they were familiar with the project, what they think of the project, and how to get more
community members involved. Participants were read a short description of the project:
Capitol Region Watershed District has installed several gardens and a tree trench system
along University Avenue that receive polluted rainwater from the street and allow it to
soak into the ground instead of flowing to the Mississippi River. The plants in the
gardens and trees in the tree trench prevent water pollution and add beauty and plant
life to University Avenue. This project has been implemented in neighborhoods
throughout the Green Line route, as have educational signs explaining the purpose of
the gardens and tree trenches.
When participants were asked about their familiarity with the green infrastructure projects installed
along the Green Line in the Central Corridor, common responses were “I haven’t heard of that” or “I
don’t know what that is.” A participant who was aware of the projects reflected on community member
awareness: “I think a lot of people don’t know it’s there, sadly.” Another participant echoed this
sentiment: “I think if you were to ask anyone else along here, they probably wouldn’t know about why
they put the trees here other than the visual.” One participant recalled that a project had been installed
near their business but admitted to not knowing much about it: “It was just something that was done
and got installed. I was not involved with anything. But I’m responsible to watch that and keep it clean.”
Confusion and concern about project maintenance emerged as a prominent narrative. One participant
expressed uncertainty about maintenance expectations. Another participant who had a rain garden
project installed nearby their business said, “I think they are going to put me on training soon. They
talked briefly about it, but I suppose if there is something else I should know about, maybe I should start
thinking about that, now that I’m in charge of it.” Another expressed concern about what would happen
if projects were not maintained: “If you don’t have [maintenance of tree trenches and rain gardens],
and people just throw their trash and things like that into it, I think it would just defeat the purpose. I
think if you have something like that in place, I would say maintenance in place also at the same time is
important.”
Those study participants who expressed awareness and understanding of the project, valued the
aesthetics and “green” aspects of the project. For example, one participant observed, “It improves the
visual image, I think a lot of people feel, when the trees are starting to bloom, it looks really nice outside
and I think it makes business more welcoming.” Another participant echoed that sentiment: “I think it’s

29
nice for the community. It’s nice, it’s pretty the way they planted it. It’s a nice idea overall for the
community.” Water quality benefits seemed less prominent among participants. However, a few
participants voiced strong support for outcomes including reduced water pollution and flooding.
One participant called for more projects: “Would it improve [water quality]? Yes. Would it trap polluted
water? Then they should do more of it.” Another participant suggested that community-wide benefits
like reduced flooding should be better communicated: “I think if people actually knew how much water
[the rain gardens and tree trenches were] collecting, and keeping off of University Ave., I think people
would be really happy. Because I haven’t seen any flooding issues along the corridor at all. Whereas we
used to get a little bit more of that before the train was built” (Table 7).
Table 7. Central Corridor green infrastructure evaluation
Topics Narratives Themes and Descriptors
Project awareness
Community members
generally unaware
Of green infrastructure improvements
Of the rules and responsibilities involved
Ongoing maintenance
Responsibilities unclear or
perceived as unfair
Regular maintenance and repairs
Sidewalk maintenance
Raingarden, tree upkeep
Project outcomes Many individuals recognize the
positive impacts
Aesthetic improvements
Greening of the corridor
Positive impacts on water resources
Identified as place making efforts
Support for further implementation
projects
4.2.2 Evaluation of the Living Streets Program
Several participants expressed frustration in the planning process and voiced dismay over not feeling
their concerns or opposition was considered or properly addressed in decision making:
We got to look at what the residents want. And residents didn’t get exactly what they
want. Most of the ones I’ve talked to are not real happy about it. But, we fought it and
it’s…unfortunately government dictates to us, we don’t dictate to government anymore.
It’s unfortunate.
One participant suggested that community leaders were intimidating to residents in public meetings.
Another participant described not having a choice in design decisions:
[The streets here are] narrower than the average street in St. Paul. …There [were] not
very many people in the neighborhood that [were] pleased with that, but we didn’t
have a choice. They told us this is the way it is, and we had to pay for a third of the
whole project.

30
The community appeared fairly divided about the outcomes. While some lamented the sidewalks and
narrow streets, others appreciated the changes:
I really like it. It really made the neighborhood look nice. The kids can use the sidewalks,
and I don’t have to be nervous. Not that there is much traffic back here anyways.
There’s not the big potholes in the street. I just think overall it made our neighborhood
look, appearance-wise, much nicer.
One prominent narrative was concerns about safety. Participants expressed apprehension about the
narrow streets and effects on two-way traffic and emergency vehicle access:
They can’t make the street twice as small as it was before. You’ve got too many cars
going up and down these streets. You’ve got one plow coming down this street and you
are pretty much done for. There is just no way. You can’t get a plow and a car coming
down the street at the same time.
Another interview commented, “I really and seriously am worried that there are times when a fire truck
wouldn’t be able to get down the street. Some of the people across the street sometimes don’t park
real close to the curb. There isn’t really much space if the snow is there.”
Some participants were critical of the lack of maintenance, or watering of trees and sod. One participant
blamed the city and another blamed residents: “[the trees the city planted are] stuck, deformed, or
dead. They didn’t take care of them. They didn’t water them. They didn’t do any maintenance up
there. They didn’t cut the grass.” Another participant observed: “They sent out a notification with the
sod saying that when they were done, it was our responsibility and stuff to take care of it. They did
water it. They had a truck come down the street. Quite a bit of the people didn’t do anything to try to
help it. A lot of it died. “
A few participants acknowledged seeing improvements in stormwater management because of the
Living Streets Program. Participants recalled seeing new gutters full of water and minimal surface level
pooling of water after rain events: “I really like the gutters. And we do notice that there’s a lot of water
in them after it rains. So I know they’re doing their job, as far as collecting that rain water.” Similarly,
another participant noted, “You never see any water pool anymore, where it did before and things. I
think overall it was a pretty good project” (Table 8).

31
Table 8. Living Streets program neighborhood evaluation
Topics Narratives Themes and Descriptors
Watershed role
Project viewed as a city
project, not a watershed
project
Mixed positive and negative perceptions of city
involvement
Very little knowledge of the watershed
involvement in the project
Satisfaction with
planning process
Some felt unrepresented
and unheard in the process
Perceived decision made without community
input
Many did not want sidewalks
Many did not want narrowed roads
Perceived that the project changed the
community for the worse
Those who saw outcomes
as positive, viewed process
as neutral or positive
Like the new sidewalks
Like the additional green areas
See the project as positive for property values
Like park updates
Community divided
about outcomes
Sidewalks viewed as
positive and negative
Dangerous and slippery
Good for kids and families
Road narrowing viewed as
positive and negative
Slows traffic down (for better or worse)
Dangerous
Makes parking more difficult
Cheaper
Neutral on road width
General safety
concerns
Rain gardens
Drivers ending up in them
Children playing in them
Narrower roads
Fire trucks cannot pass
Conflicts between drivers in opposite directions
Snow plowing problems
Ongoing
maintenance
Responsibilities unclear or
perceived as unfair
Regular maintenance and repairs
Sidewalk maintenance and snow removal
Raingarden, tree upkeep
Stormwater
improvements
Water benefits generally
viewed as positive
Perceived as beneficial by those with previous
knowledge
Individuals without prior knowledge of project
also viewed water benefits as positive once they
were introduced to more information
4.3 FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS
Three focus group sessions were conducted with project partners, project advisory team (PAT)
members, and representatives of select sub-groups in the community. The intent of the focus groups
was to triangulate methods and further explore stormwater decision making and water resource issues
from a resource professional perspective, as well as gather additional input regarding the motivations of

32
community member’s stormwater decision making. The sessions were designed to offer opportunities
for involvement for individuals in decreasing levels of previous involvement with the study. The first
focus group session included partner watershed organization staff whose roles and responsibilities are
directly tied to community engagement. The next two focus group sessions included PAT members and
other community representatives. Data presented here were drawn from idea listing exercises
conducted with participants, as well as background information collected in a short questionnaire. The
focus group engaged participants in discussions about two primary topics:
• Constraints and opportunities for promoting water and stormwater programing in the Twin
Cities metro area
• Critical issues associated with perceptions, attitudes, values, and norms of residents in the
Twin Cities metro area related to water and stormwater
Table 9. Focus group participant sociodemographic characteristics
Focus Group Participant Characteristics
No. of participants 11
Age (min/max) 26 - 64
Age (median) 46
Gender 9 female
2 male
Reported race/ethnicity White (8)
Asian (1)
Hispanic/Latino (1)
American Indian or Alaska Native and White (1)
Participants identified several opportunities for and challenges to engaging their communities in
stormwater management. Emergent themes were categorized as internal challenges and opportunities
(i.e., driven by conditions and forces internal to watershed organizations) or external challenges and
opportunities (i.e., driven by conditions and forces external to watershed organizations). Participants
across all focus group sessions noted the challenges and opportunities that exist for watershed districts
and resource managers. The structure of watershed districts was described with funding, prioritization
of work load, and evaluation and measurement as notable challenges. Funding, as well as working with
other management agencies, also was seen as an opportunity for organizations to explore intermediate
results in long term projects. Developing effective messaging to reach diverse audiences and forging
meaningful partnerships with community stakeholders also emerged as opportunity areas. Participants
listed strategies for creative outreach and messaging, including working with artist, use of technology
and social media, and storytelling. Adapting messaging to unique audiences with different
understanding and values for water resources was viewed as both a challenge and an opportunity.
While developing partnerships with schools, religious institutions, and other trusted organizations was
generally viewed as an opportunity, identify best partners and taking the time to build relationships was
noted as a challenge (Table 10).

33
Table 10. Internal challenges and opportunities associated with community engagement
Categories Themes and descriptors Opportunity* Challenge
Organizational
bureaucracy and
management
Seeking and dedicating funds and resources to engaging
communities
X
Lack of funding for outreach and infrastructure X
Heavy workloads and prioritizing competing tasks X
Valuing intermediate results for projects with long
implementation timeframes
X X
Working with other management agencies with similar
goals
X X
Evaluation and measuring effectiveness X
Internal procedural barriers to action (e.g., red tape) X
Effective
messaging and
outreach
Social media outreach X
Connecting youth with technology to explore the outdoors X
Connecting to communities on topics they are already
interested in (non-water issues)
X X
Adapting messaging to different audiences’ understanding
of the issues
X X
Developing materials in appropriate languages and cultural
context
X X
Working with artists and visual materials to communicate X
Storytelling and field trips to reach audiences X
Developing
meaningful
partnerships with
existing
community
stakeholders
Working with schools to engage youth in STEM education
and community outreach programs
X
Providing job and internship opportunities for diverse
youth
X
Working with local businesses and property owners X X
Identifying and building relationship with trusted
community organizations
X X
Working with faith-based groups and organizations X
Engaging communities that do not have strong formal or
informal networks
X
Working closely with the Master Water Stewards program X
*An “X” in the cell denotes that at least one reference to this issue was made by a study participant.
Focus group participants also identified many challenges and opportunities to community engagement
in stormwater management based primarily in external conditions and forces. For example, participants
described land use changes that could diminish best management practice effectiveness, such as
increased impervious surfaces from roads, builds, and parking lots. Yet, comprehensive planning
processes, new development, and redevelopment were all seen as important opportunities for the
promotion or installation of green infrastructure projects. Participants acknowledged multiple
community-water access issues including physical, financial, and cultural barriers. Finally, participants

34
listed characteristics of other management agencies that may influence community engagement in
stormwater management. A historic lack of trust in government and a lack of diversity in some
communities were seen as distinct challenges for engagement (Table 11).
Table 11. External challenges and opportunities associated with community engagement
Theme Item Identified by Participants Opportunity* Challenge
Landscape
characteristics and
changes
Land use changes impacting existing natural
systems
X
New development and redevelopment as
chances to incorporate green infrastructure
X
Comprehensive planning cycles X
Changes in natural systems (e.g., invasive
species, weather)
X
Appropriateness of green infrastructure on
different land types
X
Access to water Water pricing not reflecting actual value X
Physical barriers to water resources X X
Cultural and educational barriers to
engagement in water issues
X X
Other managers Little diversity represented in government and
natural resource management
X
*An “X” in the cell denotes that at least one reference to this issue was made by a study participant.
4.4 SURVEY FINDINGS
Survey findings are drawn from analysis of 268 completed and returned surveys out of 1,000 surveys
distributed proportionately across the three study areas. The survey response rate as of the time of
reporting was 32% overall (adjusted for 158 surveys returned undeliverable) (Table 12). RWMWD had a
significantly higher response rate than MWMO or CRWD.
Survey findings are organized into 3 sub-sections that respond to 8 unique research questions. Complete
statistics for all survey questions in aggregate, as well as statistics for select watershed comparisons, are
presented in tabular form in Appendix M.
Table 12. Survey response rate by watershed
Watershed No. of completed surveys Response rate
MWMO 71 25.7%
CRWD 70 26.4%
RWMWD 127 42.6%
Total 268 31.9%
MWMO = Mississippi Watershed Management Organization
CRWD = Capitol Region Watershed District
RWMWD = Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District

35
4.4.1 Survey Respondent Profile
Who are respondents and what are their housing arrangements?
Respondents were asked a series of questions about their socio-demographic background and housing
arrangements. Across the three watersheds, sociodemographic and housing profiles were similar in
terms of gender, formal education levels, years living in the community, and housing’s proximity to
water (Table 13). Overall, about half of the respondents were female (52%), median age was 58, more
than half had attained a college bachelor’s degree (56%), and about half reported an annual household
income of less than $50,000 (49%) (Table 13). More than one-third of respondents (37%) reported that
they make decisions about the property where they live (Table 14).A vast majority of respondents (93%)
reported that the property where they live does not touch a stream, lake, or river (Table 14).
Comparing survey respondent sociodemographic profiles with census profiles provides insight into how
the study sample might differ from area residents. According to census statistics (U.S. Census Bureau,
2010) between 50% (Minneapolis) and 53% (Roseville) of residents in the study areas are female.
Between 40% (Roseville) and 51% (St. Paul) of residents in the study areas have an annual household
income of less than $50,000. While study respondents are older than residents in the study area
(median = 31 to 42), the study specifically targeted adult (age 18 or older) residents. Compared to
census statistics, the study sample also represents a higher proportion of residents who have attained at
least a bachelor’s degree (Table 13).
Other sociodemographic and housing data varied by watershed. Altogether the majority of respondents
reported being white (79% overall), however, a significantly higher proportion of RWMWD respondents
(88%) were white than MWMO (79%) or CRWD (63%) respondents. Significant differences were found
among watershed respondents in age and housing arrangements as well. Respondents in RWMWD
(mean = 61) were significantly older than respondents in MWMO (54) or CRWD (mean = 50) (Appendix
M, Table 1). The RWMWD respondent group (95%) also had a higher proportion of homeowners than
MWMO (75%) or CRWD (47%) respondent groups and fewer renters (Appendix M, Table 2).

36
Table 13.Survey respondents' sociodemographic characteristics
Socio-demographic characteristics MWMO CRWD RWMWD Total
N % N % N % N %
Gender Male 33 48.5 26 40.6 62 52.1 121 48.2
Female 35 51.5 38 59.4 57 47.9 130 51.8
Race White 60 78.9 49 62.8 115 87.8 224 78.6
Other Race
Hispanic
16
1
21.1
1.4
29
3
37.2
4.3
16
5
12.2
3.9
61
9
21.4
3.4
Black 5 7.0 14 20.0 2 1.6 21 7.8
Asian 5 7.0 4 5.7 3 2.4 12 4.5
American Indian or Alaska
Native
2 2.8 2 2.9 1 0.8 5 1.9
Middle Eastern or North
African
0 0.0 2 2.9 2 1.6 4 1.5
Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander
0 0.0 2 2.9 1 0.8 3 1.1
Other (e.g., Creole, Italian) 3 4.2 2 2.9 2 1.6 7 2.6
Age Mean 54.2 - 50.3 - 61 - 56.6 -
Median 55 - 53.5 - 63 - 58 -
Minimum 25 - 24 - 25 - 24 -
Maximum 86 - 93 - 90 - 93 -
Years lived
in
community
Mean 15 - 17 - 19 - 17 -
Median 8 - 10 - 15 - 12 -
Minimum 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -
Maximum 60 - 70 - 65 - 70 -
Education Did not finish high school 3 4.3 2 3.1 1 0.8 6 2.3
Completed high school 10 14.3 7 10.8 15 12.1 32 12.4
Some college but no degree 11 15.7 10 15.4 15 12.1 36 13.9
Associate degree or vocational
degree
17 24.3 6 9.2 18 14.5 41 15.8
College bachelor's degree 15 21.4 19 29.2 37 29.8 71 27.4
Some graduate work 1 1.4 3 4.6 6 4.8 10 3.9
Completed graduate degree
(Masters or Ph.D.)
13 18.6 18 27.7 32 25.8 63 24.3
Income Under $10,000 5 8.1 5 8.6 4 3.7 14 6.1
$10,000- $24,999 11 17.7 9 15.5 15 13.8 35 15.3
$25,000 - $34,999 5 8.1 9 15.5 12 11.0 26 11.4
$35,000 - $49,999 10 16.1 8 13.8 18 16.5 36 15.7
$50,000 - $74,999 9 14.5 11 19.0 19 17.4 39 17.0
$75,000 - $99,999 13 21.0 7 12.1 16 14.7 36 15.7
$100,000 - $149,999 8 12.9 6 10.3 18 16.5 32 14.0
$150,000 or more 1 1.6 3 5.2 7 6.4 11 4.8

37
Table 14. Survey respondents' housing/property characteristics
Housing/property characteristics MWMO CRWD RWMWD Total
N % N % N % N %
Housing
arrangement
I own my own home 50 70.4 31 44.9 107 85.6 188 70.9
I rent 17 23.9 35 50.7 6 4.8 58 21.9
I am the landlord 0 0.0 1 1.4 0 0 .0 1 0.4
Other (e.g., condo, mobile
home)
4 5.6 2 2.9 12 9.6 18 6.8
Decisions about
property
I make the decisions 30 42.3 20 29.0 49 39.2 99 37.4
A family member makes the
decisions
2 2.8 0 0.0 3 2.4 5 1.9
A family member and I make
decisions together
22 31.0 19 27.5 45 36.0 86 32.5
I leave it up to my renter 1 1.4 1 1.4 0 0.0 2 0.8
I leave it up to the
landowner/property owner
6 8.5 17 24.6 5 4.0 28 10.6
I work together with the
renter/landowner to make the
decisions
3 4.2 4 5.8 3 2.4 10 3.8
Some decisions are up to me;
others are up to the property
owner
1 1.4 7 10.1 7 5.6 15 5.7
Other (e.g., homeowners
association)
6 8.5 1 1.4 13 10.4 20 7.5
Property touches
a stream, lake, or
river
Yes 4 5.7 1 1.5 13 10.3 18 6.9
No 66 94.3 65 98.5 113 89.7 244 93.1

38
Table 15. Survey area residents’ sociodemographic and housing characteristics
Socio-demographic and housing
characteristics
MWMO CRWD RWMWD
Minneapolis Fridley
Columbia
Heights St. Paul Roseville
Gender Male 50.3% 49.5% 48.5% 48.9% 47.1%
Female 49.7% 50.5% 51.5% 51.1% 52.9%
Racea
White 66.7% 78.5% 72.8% 62.7% 83.6%
Other Race 33.3% 21.5% 27.2% 37.3% 16.4%
Age Median 31.4 37.1 36.9 30.9 42.1
Education Less than high school 10.7% 9.4% 16.0% 13.7% 6.4%
High school 17.0% 30.7% 29.0% 22.3% 20.5%
Some college or Associate
degree
30.1% 35.2% 35.6% 29.7% 30.0%
Bachelor’s degree or higher 42.1% 24.6% 19.5% 34.3% 43.1%
Household
income
Median 50,767 54,509 48,857 48,258 62,464
Under $10,000 10.7% 4.8% 4.4% 10.2% 5.0%
$10,000- $24,999 16.5% 13.1% 21.2% 17.6% 14.0%
$25,000 - $34,999 9.1% 9.8% 10.6% 10.6% 8.0%
$35,000 - $49,999 13.0% 17.2% 14.9% 12.9% 13.2%
$50,000 - $74,999 16.3% 23.3% 19.8% 17.4% 17.8%
$75,000 - $99,999 11.5% 13.6% 12.7% 12.0% 13.8%
$100,000 - $149,999 12.9% 12.9% 13.0% 11.4% 18.2%
$150,000 or more 10.0% 5.4% 3.5% 7.8% 10.2%
Housing
tenure
Owner occupied 49.2% 65.4% 68.3% 51.3% 67.2%
Renter occupied 50.8% 34.6% 31.7% 48.7% 32.8%
a
Percent among those reporting one race; excludes Hispanic/Latino origin
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates.
4.4.2 Divergences: Unique Respondent Attributes by Watershed Area
Though the three watershed study areas are geographically and hydrologically distinct, this study
revealed that when it comes to community and water, survey respondents share many beliefs, norms,
and behaviors across the watersheds. However, this section highlights the few respondent attributes
that varied statistically by watershed. In instances where survey responses show no statistically
significant differences by watershed, any observable differences in respondent attributes (e.g.,
variations in means or frequencies) are likely to be chance differences. In contrast, this section reports
on differences in respondent attributes that, based on statistical testing, are more likely to be actual
differences between watershed respondent groups than they are to be merely chance differences. Thus,
these findings highlight areas where the need for watershed- and community-tailored or customized
programs and projects is greatest.
What are important differences between watershed respondents?
Watershed respondents were compared for differences in their sociodemographic and property
characteristics, social influences on decisions about getting involved in their community, perspectives on

Metro Stormwater Full Technical Report Final

Metro Stormwater Full Technical Report Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Metro Stormwater Full Technical Report Final

Similar to Metro Stormwater Full Technical Report Final (20)

Metro Stormwater Full Technical Report Final