Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District Board Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:00 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA I. Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) A) Attendance B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda II. Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda (Please observe a limit of three minutes per person.) III. Permit Applications and Program Updates (Permit Process: 1) Staff Review/Recommendation, 2) Applicant Response, 3) Public Comment, and 4) Board Discussion and Action.) A) Permit # 14-010 Maryland – Payne Intersection B) Wetland and Floodplain Permitting Procedures (Kelley) C) Permit Program/Rules Update (Kelley) IV. Special Reports – Monitoring Program Updates A) Monitoring Program Review, Bob Fossum and Britta Suppes a. Monitoring Station Power and Communication Upgrades, Joe Sellner b. Enhanced Lakes Biological Monitoring, Sarah Wein V. Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the April 2, 2014 Board Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve March Accounts Payable & Budget Update (Sylvander) C) AR: City of Falcon Heights Curtiss Pond Improvement Pond Project (Fossum) a. Approve Cooperative Construction Agreement b. Approve Maintenance Agreement c. Authorize Bidding D) AR: Approve Submittal of 2013 Annual Report (Doneux) E) AR: District Office Facility (Doneux) a. Adopt Program and Facility Plan b. Approve Contract Amendment with CB Richard Ellis for Real Estate Consulting Services F) AR: Approve Professional Services Agreement with Geosyntec for the Upper Villa Project (Kelley) G) AR: Adopt Resolution Approving Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax- Exempt Bonds (Doneux) VI. Unfinished Business a. Highland Ravine Update (Eleria) b. Lake McCarron’s Aquatic Plant Harvesting Project Update (Doneux) Materials Enclosed
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
Board Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for
Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:00 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul,
Minnesota.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
I. Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)
A) Attendance
B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda
II. Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda (Please observe a limit of three minutes per person.)
III. Permit Applications and Program Updates (Permit Process: 1) Staff Review/Recommendation, 2) Applicant Response, 3) Public Comment, and 4)
Board Discussion and Action.)
A) Permit # 14-010 Maryland – Payne Intersection
B) Wetland and Floodplain Permitting Procedures (Kelley)
C) Permit Program/Rules Update (Kelley)
IV. Special Reports – Monitoring Program Updates A) Monitoring Program Review, Bob Fossum and Britta Suppes
a. Monitoring Station Power and Communication Upgrades, Joe Sellner
b. Enhanced Lakes Biological Monitoring, Sarah Wein
V. Action Items
A) AR: Approve Minutes of the April 2, 2014 Board Meeting (Sylvander)
B) AR: Approve March Accounts Payable & Budget Update (Sylvander)
C) AR: City of Falcon Heights Curtiss Pond Improvement Pond Project (Fossum)
a. Approve Cooperative Construction Agreement
b. Approve Maintenance Agreement
c. Authorize Bidding
D) AR: Approve Submittal of 2013 Annual Report (Doneux)
E) AR: District Office Facility (Doneux)
a. Adopt Program and Facility Plan
b. Approve Contract Amendment with CB Richard Ellis for Real Estate Consulting Services
F) AR: Approve Professional Services Agreement with Geosyntec for the Upper Villa Project
(Kelley)
G) AR: Adopt Resolution Approving Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-
Exempt Bonds (Doneux)
VI. Unfinished Business
a. Highland Ravine Update (Eleria)
b. Lake McCarron’s Aquatic Plant Harvesting Project Update (Doneux)
Materials Enclosed
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
VII. General Information
A) Administrator’s Report
VIII. Next Meeting(s)
A) Wednesday, May 7, 2014 CAC Meeting Review
IX. Adjournment
W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2014\April 16, 2014 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Application 14-010 Maryland-Payne
Permit Report 14-010 April 16, 2014 Board Meeting
PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions
1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.
2. Provide additional detail on the Maryland Avenue Traffic study scope and process.
3. Provide documentation to support a cost of $125 per lineal foot for the future installation of 640 linear feet of perforated
18” pipe, or reduce the unit price accordingly. For reference, the City of St. Paul recently estimated an installed cost of
$47 per lineal foot for 280 lineal feet of 12” perforated pipe.
Applicant: Lucas Lortie Contact Molly Churchich
Ramsey County Public Works Ramsey County Public Works
1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive
Arden Hills, MN 55112 Arden Hills, MN 55112
Description: Road reconstruction and intersection improvements at Payne and Maryland Avenues
Stormwater
Management: Applicant proposes submittal of $67,500 to the Stormwater Impact Fund
District Rule: C, D, and F
Disturbed Area: 3.5 Acres
Impervious Acres: 2.25 Acres
Aerial Photo
Pay
ne A
ven
ue
Maryland Avneue
Permit Location
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report
CRWD Permit #: 14-010 Review date: April 11, 2014 Project Name: Maryland Payne Intersection Applicant: Ramsey County Department of Public Works Purpose: Street Reconstruction Location: Maryland Avenue between Edgerton Street and Greenbrier Street Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 3 Conditions EXHIBITS:
1. Memorandum, by Ramsey County, dated 3/11/14, recd. 3/12/14. 2. Construction Plans (9 sheets), by Ramsey County, not dated, recd. 3/12/14. 3. HydroCAD models, by Ramsey County, dated 4/2/14, recd. 4/9/14. 4. Soil borings (SB-3 and SB-4), by Ramsey County, dated 3/11/14, recd. 3/12/14. 5. Drainage Area Maps, by Ramsey County, not dated, recd. 4/9/14. 6. Response to Questions, by Ramsey County, not dated, recd. 4/9/14. 7. Construction Plan Updates (sheets 33-40), by Ramsey County, dated 3/20/14.
Recd. 4/9/14. 8. Soil Boring Map, By Ramsey County, not dated, recd. 4/9/14.
HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Standards Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed
existing rates. Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount
equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-010 Maryland-Payne Intersection\14-010 Permit Report2b.doc Page 1 of 4
Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.
Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.
Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze
runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for
the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.
3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development.
a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 98,010 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)
7,351 None
4. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested due to utility conflicts, poor soils, and lack of space.
a. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard.
b. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard at an offsite location or through the use of qualified banking credits.
c. The applicant requests to submit $60,750 to the Stormwater Impact Fund. This money is proposed to be used at the intersection of Maryland Avenue and Edgerton Street as reconstruction of Maryland Avenue continues to the west. No schedule was provided for the Maryland Avenue and Edgerton Street reconstruction, but is estimated to be completed within 3-5 years.
d. The project is linear, and the cost cap has amount is proposed to be submitted to the Stormwater Impact Fund.
e. Banking of excess volume retention is not applicable 5. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids
removal from the runoff generated by a NURP water quality storm (2.5” rainfall) or on an annual basis.
6. A memorandum of agreement exists between Ramsey County and CRWD
RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-010 Maryland-Payne Intersection\14-010 Permit Report2b.doc Page 2 of 4
Standards Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year
floodplain. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a
project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is not known if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or
adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. However, sufficient conveyances have been provided to allow the storm sewer system to function as or better than it did prior to the project.
RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard
Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.
A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.
Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property.
RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Standards A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control
measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land-disturbing activity.
Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.
Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management
practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.
2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition. 3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from
erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required.
RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-010 Maryland-Payne Intersection\14-010 Permit Report2b.doc Page 3 of 4
Standard Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and
proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.
Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not
proposed. 2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions:
1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 2. Provide additional detail on the Maryland Avenue Traffic study scope and
process. 3. Provide documentation to support a cost of $125 per lineal foot for the future
installation of 640 linear feet of perforated 18” pipe, or reduce the unit price accordingly. For reference, the City of St. Paul recently estimated an installed cost of $47 per lineal foot for 280 lineal feet of 12” perforated pipe.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-010 Maryland-Payne Intersection\14-010 Permit Report2b.doc Page 4 of 4
20'
R/W
33'
EXISTING
C/L
2.0% 2.0%
5'CONC BLVD.WALK
5'CONCBLVD.WALK
R/WEXISTING
R/WPROPOSED
2' 11' 11' 11' 11' 2'
W.B. THRU LANE W.B. THRU LANE LEFT TURN LANE E.B. THRU LANE E.B. THRU LANE
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Application 14-010 Maryland-Payne
Permit Report 14-010 April 16, 2014 Board Meeting
PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions
1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.
2. Provide additional detail on the Maryland Avenue Traffic study scope and process.
3. Provide documentation to support a cost of $125 per lineal foot for the future installation of 640 linear feet of perforated
18” pipe, or reduce the unit price accordingly. For reference, the City of St. Paul recently estimated an installed cost of
$47 per lineal foot for 280 lineal feet of 12” perforated pipe.
Applicant: Lucas Lortie Contact Molly Churchich
Ramsey County Public Works Ramsey County Public Works
1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive
Arden Hills, MN 55112 Arden Hills, MN 55112
Description: Road reconstruction and intersection improvements at Payne and Maryland Avenues
Stormwater
Management: Applicant proposes submittal of $67,500 to the Stormwater Impact Fund
District Rule: C, D, and F
Disturbed Area: 3.5 Acres
Impervious Acres: 2.25 Acres
Aerial Photo
Pay
ne A
ven
ue
Maryland Avneue
Permit Location
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report
CRWD Permit #: 14-010 Review date: April 11, 2014 Project Name: Maryland Payne Intersection Applicant: Ramsey County Department of Public Works Purpose: Street Reconstruction Location: Maryland Avenue between Edgerton Street and Greenbrier Street Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 3 Conditions EXHIBITS:
1. Memorandum, by Ramsey County, dated 3/11/14, recd. 3/12/14. 2. Construction Plans (9 sheets), by Ramsey County, not dated, recd. 3/12/14. 3. HydroCAD models, by Ramsey County, dated 4/2/14, recd. 4/9/14. 4. Soil borings (SB-3 and SB-4), by Ramsey County, dated 3/11/14, recd. 3/12/14. 5. Drainage Area Maps, by Ramsey County, not dated, recd. 4/9/14. 6. Response to Questions, by Ramsey County, not dated, recd. 4/9/14. 7. Construction Plan Updates (sheets 33-40), by Ramsey County, dated 3/20/14.
Recd. 4/9/14. 8. Soil Boring Map, By Ramsey County, not dated, recd. 4/9/14.
HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Standards Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed
existing rates. Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount
equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-010 Maryland-Payne Intersection\14-010 Permit Report2b.doc Page 1 of 4
Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.
Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.
Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze
runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for
the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.
3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development.
a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 98,010 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)
7,351 None
4. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested due to utility conflicts, poor soils, and lack of space.
a. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard.
b. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard at an offsite location or through the use of qualified banking credits.
c. The applicant requests to submit $60,750 to the Stormwater Impact Fund. This money is proposed to be used at the intersection of Maryland Avenue and Edgerton Street as reconstruction of Maryland Avenue continues to the west. No schedule was provided for the Maryland Avenue and Edgerton Street reconstruction, but is estimated to be completed within 3-5 years.
d. The project is linear, and the cost cap has amount is proposed to be submitted to the Stormwater Impact Fund.
e. Banking of excess volume retention is not applicable 5. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids
removal from the runoff generated by a NURP water quality storm (2.5” rainfall) or on an annual basis.
6. A memorandum of agreement exists between Ramsey County and CRWD
RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-010 Maryland-Payne Intersection\14-010 Permit Report2b.doc Page 2 of 4
Standards Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year
floodplain. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a
project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is not known if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or
adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. However, sufficient conveyances have been provided to allow the storm sewer system to function as or better than it did prior to the project.
RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard
Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.
A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.
Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property.
RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Standards A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control
measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land-disturbing activity.
Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.
Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management
practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.
2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition. 3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from
erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required.
RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-010 Maryland-Payne Intersection\14-010 Permit Report2b.doc Page 3 of 4
Standard Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and
proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.
Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not
proposed. 2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions:
1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 2. Provide additional detail on the Maryland Avenue Traffic study scope and
process. 3. Provide documentation to support a cost of $125 per lineal foot for the future
installation of 640 linear feet of perforated 18” pipe, or reduce the unit price accordingly. For reference, the City of St. Paul recently estimated an installed cost of $47 per lineal foot for 280 lineal feet of 12” perforated pipe.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-010 Maryland-Payne Intersection\14-010 Permit Report2b.doc Page 4 of 4
20'
R/W
33'
EXISTING
C/L
2.0% 2.0%
5'CONC BLVD.WALK
5'CONCBLVD.WALK
R/WEXISTING
R/WPROPOSED
2' 11' 11' 11' 11' 2'
W.B. THRU LANE W.B. THRU LANE LEFT TURN LANE E.B. THRU LANE E.B. THRU LANE
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
DATE: April 10, 2014 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Bob Fossum, Water Resource Program Manager Britta Suppes, Monitoring Program Coordinator Joe Sellner, Water Resource Technician
Sarah Wein, Water Resource Technician SUBJECT: Monitoring Program Review Background Capitol Region Watershed District established a Monitoring and Data Collection Program in 2004. Over the program’s 9 year history incremental improvements and enhancements have been made. In 2013, the District sought to complete a comprehensive review of the program to analyze, and if necessary refocus the goals, approach, methods, and deliverables of the Program. Issues District staff completed a review of the existing program during a staff retreat that took place the morning of November 1, 2013 at the Wilder Foundation Offices. Following this, recommendations for program improvement were developed.
The District’s CAC reviewed the draft Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Recommendations on April 9, 2014 and offered several suggestions relative to clarifying the intent of the recommendations and identifying areas where data could be used to better inform the public on water resource and water quality issues. The CAC passed a motion supporting the Monitoring Program Review and Recommendations document with the suggested changes. District staff will present the draft Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Recommendations to the Board. Additionally, during the first part of 2014, District staff have already begun work on two recommendations identified in the Program Review so that can be implemented during the 2014 field season. Staff will review with the Managers the Monitoring Station Power and Communication Improvement Plan and Enhanced Lakes Biological Monitoring Work Plan. Requested Action Approve the Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Recommendations. enc: Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Recommendations, draft Monitoring Station Power and Communication Improvement Plan, draft
Enhanced Lakes Biological Monitoring Work Plan, draft W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\0 Projects\2013 Program Evaluation\Brd Memo Mont Prog Review 4-10-14.docx
April 16, 2014 Board Meeting IV. Special Reports, A)
Monitoring Program Review
Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Recommendations
Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN April 2014
2
1. Background
Capitol Region Watershed District established a Monitoring Program in 2004. Over the program’s nine year history incremental improvements and enhancements have been made. In 2013, the District sought to complete a comprehensive review of the program to analyze, and if necessary, refocus the goals, approach, methods, and deliverables of the Program.
2. Program Review
District staff completed a review of the existing program and discussed its strengths and weaknesses. The first step in the review was a staff retreat that took place the morning of November 1, 2013 at the Wilder Foundation Offices. Elizabeth Beckman facilitated the discussion and the following District staff participated in the retreat: Anna Eleria, Britta Suppes, Forrest Kelley, Mark Doneux, Corey Poland, Joe Sellner, Nate Zwonitzer, Gustavo Castro, Stephanie Herbst, and Bob Fossum. Discussions at the retreat resulted from consideration of the following questions:
1. What do we do well? 2. Why monitor in CRWD? 3. How can our monitoring data be used in other CRWD programs? 4. Who are the audiences for our data? 5. What do our audiences need to effectively make use of our data? 6. Who are potential new monitoring program partners who could strengthen our work? 7. What changes can we make to improve the efficiency of our data collection? 8. To best use our finite resources, where are areas we could reduce or eliminate collection
efforts? 9. Is there anything that should be added to the program?
A summary of the retreat, responses to the questions above, subsequent discussions, and initial recommendations are found in Appendix 1.
3. Program Evaluation and Recommendations
Following the retreat, staff of the Monitoring, Research, and Maintenance Division developed a list of recommendations for the Monitoring Program. These recommendations were focused on the 3-year time period of 2014—2016. A summary table of all recommendations including a proposed schedule and estimated additional cost is found at the end of this document. The recommendations are grouped by the questions from the retreat that they address. (Note: no recommendations are linked to questions 1 and 4)
3
Question #2--Why monitor in CRWD? Recommendation 1 Currently, in Annual Monitoring Reports, the stated goal/objective of the monitoring program as follows:
In 2004, CRWD established a monitoring program to assess water quality and quantity of various subwatersheds and stormwater best management practices (BMPs) owned and/or operated and maintained by CRWD…..The objectives of the program are to identify water quality problem areas, quantify the subwatershed runoff pollutant loadings to the Mississippi River, evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs, and provide data for the calibration of hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality models.
It is recommended that the District adjust the goal/objective of the Monitoring Program as follows: CRWD monitors waters within the District to: identify problem areas, quantify subwatershed runoff pollutant loadings, evaluate effectiveness of BMPs, provide data to calibrate hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality models, and promote understanding of District water resources and water quality. Question #3--How can our monitoring data be used in other CRWD programs? Recommendation 2 The District should better incorporate monitoring data into the following work of the District. Specifically, better utilizing monitoring data within the following programs should be evaluated:
a) BMP Performance b) Targeting CIPs, grants and education c) In-lake management decisions d) Spatial Analysis e) MS4 permit, specifically TMDL compliance/progress
Question #5--What do our audiences need to effectively make use of our data? Recommendation 3
Develop a comprehensive monitoring database that could more effectively manage the large data sets of the District. This would improve: data organization, data accessibility, data querying, and data analysis. The database should have components useable to both District staff and the general public. Recommendation 4 Complete a comprehensive evaluation of and implement improvements to the District’s reporting methods. The evaluation should focus on improvements to: format, frequency, analysis types, generation of figures & tables, data cleaning.
4
Recommendation 5 Consider expanded stand-alone sub-watershed reports that would contain a more comprehensive analysis of monitoring data in the subwatershed. This could include reports for the Como Lake and/or Trout Brook Subwatersheds. Further consider a subwatershed summary document that would be focused to inform the general public. Question #6--Who are potential new monitoring program partners who could strengthen our work? Recommendation 6 Based on the idea that a true partnership needs to mutually benefit all parties, 5 specific partners should be prioritized for actively developing or enhancing our monitoring partnerships over the next 3 years. The 5 priority partners are:
a) University of Minnesota b) City of St Paul c) Ramsey County (Conservation District and Public Works) d) Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) e) Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO)
The District would continue to actively communicate and partner with several other entities but would not actively attempt to develop/nurture new partnerships during the next three year period unless mutually beneficial outcomes can be realized. Question #7--What changes can we make to improve the efficiency of our data collection? Recommendation 7 Improve staff organization and training. This includes create of the District’s Monitoring, Research, and Maintenance Division as well as more formal and comprehensive training of new District staff. Recommendation 8 Install AC Power and Remote Data Access to baseline sites (6). This would improve the monitoring program as follows:
a. Temperature control (heating & cooling) of sampling equipment b. Year-round sampling c. Reduced frequency of site visits d. Analyze and report data more quickly e. Improved data quality
Recommendation 9
5
Improve methods and efficiency of sample preparation and lab analysis, including: a. Submittal requirements and procedures b. Laboratory results reporting c. Sample Bottle Cleaning d. Finalize Quality Assurance and Project Plan (QAPP)
Recommendation 10 For baseline sites, adjust sampling frequency as follows:
a. Fewer baseflow samples (1x per month vs 2x per month) b. Focus sampling towards larger storm events
Question #8--To best use our finite resources, where are areas we could reduce or eliminate collection efforts? Recommendation 11 Evaluate and consider adjusting monitoring parameters and frequency at the following locations:
a. Arlington-Pascal Infiltration Trenches (T5E, T4W, T4E) b. Como Regional Pond Inlet and Outlet c. Arlington Hamline Underground (AHUG) Outlet d. Como 3 Subwatershed e. Stormwater Pond Level Loggers
Recommendation 12 Evaluate and consider discontinuing analysis of the following chemical parameters:
a. Nitrogen b. Metals with negligible concentrations (Nickle, Cromium)
Recommendation 13 Evaluate and consider adjusting Qualitative Lakes Data Collection. Consider utilizing citizen volunteers to accomplish this work. Question #9--Is there anything that should be added to the program? Recommendation 14 Enhance lake monitoring and conduct more complete analysis. Regularly collect and analyze the following data:
a. Biological data i. Fisheries
ii. Macrophytes
6
iii. Phyto/Zooplankton b. Temperature c. Ice cover/Ice out d. Sediment
Recommendation 15 Historically, the District has focused on more typical stormwater parameters such as phosphorus and total suspended solids. The District should consider expanding its analysis of other stormwater parameters, including:
a. Bacteria/microbial source tracking b. Chloride c. Trash d. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Recommendation 16 Consider monitoring and/or analysis of previously unmonitored subwatersheds. This effort should focus on:
a. Subwatersheds with land uses/source areas different than existing monitored locations b. Utilize modeling to simulate loading
Recommendation 17 Consider additional BMP monitoring, such as:
a. Research based BMP monitoring b. “Microsite” monitoring (roofs, parking lots, greenspace, construction sites, private
BMPs) c. Climate change adaptation monitoring
7
Monitoring Program Review RecommendationsSchedule and estimated additional costs beyond typical annual monitoring cost
# Name 2014 2015 2016 Estimated Additional Cost Question Addressed1 New goal/mission statement for Monitoring Program -$ 22 Better incorporate data into other District programs -$ 33 Develop a comprehensive monitoring database Budgeted for in 2014 54 Improvements to monitoring reports -$ 55 Consider stand-alone subwatershed reports (Como, Trout Brook) -$ 56 Develop enhanced monitoring partnerships 2,500$ 67 Improve staff organization and training 5,000$ 78 Install AC power and remote data access at baseline sites Budgeted for in 2014 79 Sample preparation and lab improvements 5,000$ 7
10 Adjust sampling frequency for baseline sites -$ 711 Evaluate adjusting some existing monitoring sites -$ 812 Evaluate discontinuing some existing chemical analysis -$ 813 Evaluate adjusting qualitative lakes data collection -$ 814 Expand Lakes Monitoring to include additional biological data Budgeted for in 2014 915 Consider expanding analysis to others stormwater parameters Budgeted for in 2014 916 Consider monitoring of previously unmonitored subwatersheds -$ 917 Consider additional BMP monitoring -$ 9
12,500$
8
Appendix 1—Monitoring Program Review Retreat Summary, November 1, 2013
W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\0 Projects\2013 Program Evaluation\Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Workplan, 04-11-2014.docx
9
Monitoring program evaluation, Retreat Summary and Initial Recommendations Retreat held 11/1/2013 Document drafted 11/19/2013
1. What do we do well? Responses to this question can be categorized into 3 categories: Data Collection, Data Analysis/Reporting, Other
Data Collection o Collecting data. o Developing methods that work in CRWD. o Adapt to challenges of monitoring in an urban watershed o Working on a team in the field. o Handling lots of physical/manual labor successfully. o Maintain equipment….make sure it’s in working order and appropriate for the task. o Efficiency in field work…we have lots of tasks to do and they all get done
Data Analysis/Reporting o QA/QC of data. o Managing a lot of data. o Reporting data. o Sharing with other practitioners….transparent with process and data. o Making a complete analysis of data...automated samplers and loading calculations. o Calculating loads…it takes time. This is unique and important because it plays into cost-
benefit analysis. o
Other o Adequately funding the different steps of the program….monitoring is made a budgetary
priority. o Recently open to innovation, encouraging innovative thought, open to staff suggesting
ways to do things better. o We want to be leaders in our field and make it happen...this generates pride in our work. o We generate lots of data, but perhaps more important is its quality…it is research grade
and usable by other partners. o Communication between field staff and coordinator (weekly meetings, regular
communication, open lines of dialogue) this is key to getting work done well.
2. Why monitor in CRWD? Each response to this question was tested against our current monitoring program goal to see if it is adequately covered in the current goal or adjustments need to be made.
Current program goal:
10
In 2004, CRWD established a monitoring program to assess water quality and quantity of various subwatersheds and stormwater best management practices (BMPs) owned and/or operated and maintained by CRWD…..The objectives of the program are to identify water quality problem areas, quantify the subwatershed runoff pollutant loadings to the Mississippi River, evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs, and provide data for the calibration of hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality models.
Overall the current goal encapsulates the program well with the exception of monitoring serving to educate and increase awareness within the District. Potential new program mission statement: (in bulleted list to make review/discussion easier, final will be narrative) CRWD monitors waters within the District to:
a) Identify problem areas b) Quantify subwatershed runoff pollutant loadings c) Evaluate effectiveness of BMPs d) Provide data to calibrate hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality models e) Educate and increase awareness
3. How can our monitoring data be used in other CRWD programs? The responses to this question can be placed in one of 6 categories listed below.
Permitting a. Determine Rules (Requirements and Standards…1”?). b. Subwatershed-specific rules (Como TMDL). c. Permit sites – problem areas, i.e. illicit discharges. d. BMP Performance. e. Identify suitable designs of BMP construction sites. f. Construction site inspection and permitting
Subwatershed (new) a. Focus project dollars. b. Address “hot spots”.
TBI a. Model/calibrate/validate. b. Safety for operations and maintenance. c. MS4 Permit. d. Trout Brook conveyance questions.
Education a. Show impacts, good and bad. b. Link behaviors with water quality improvements. c. Influence public decision making in relation to other watersheds
Capital Improvement Projects a. To focus our CIPs, grants and education geographically. b. Determine maintenance requirements and frequency.
11
c. Assist BMP design and placement. Other
a. Support research opportunities. b. Climate change adaptation. c. In-lake management. d. Guide wetland management plan. e. Spatial analysis (GIS, modeling, etc.)
Recommendation: 5 priorities areas to incorporate monitoring data in the next 3 years.
a. BMP Performance b. Focus CIPs, grants and education c. In-lake management decisions d. Spatial Analysis e. MS4 permit, specifically TMDL compliance/progress
4. Who are the audiences for our data?
Answers to this question can be grouped into 3 major categories—Internal, External-Local, External-Non-Local
Internal o CRWD Board. o CRWD staff. o Citizens of CRWD, children, adults and seniors (different data delivery systems for all).
External--Local o MPCA. o Other CRWD cities. o Scientific community, academia, graduate students. o Stormwater professionals. o Developers (a potential audience). o Artists. o Teachers. o Advocates. o Nonprofit staff. o Landscape professionals. o Snowplow drivers, winter maintenance workers (Saint Paul snowplow fleet drivers and
their supervisors, Kevin Nelson, Matt Morreim). o Contractors. o Legislators/policymakers. o District planning councils. o Other decision makers.
External—Non-Local o Other regulatory agencies, EPA, NPDES NPS Listserv (Don Waye). o Other cities outside CRWD. o International locations.
12
5. What do our audiences need to effectively make use of our data?
Answers to this question can be grouped into 2 major categories—Data Understanding, Data Delivery
Data Understanding o Data they can understand. o Summaries. o Pie charts. o To know how to ask for the data, i.e. we need to help them know what’s available, and
may need us to prompt them re: what they want/need. o Point person to ask questions re: data, “handholding.” o Presentation of data in different formats. o Condensed versions of data. o More concise or simplified versions of data for the layperson. o Symbols, images to show data. o Interactive presentations. o Translation/interpretation. o Interpreted data: “What does it mean?” o Clean recommendations for management: “How do I use this data as an audience
member?” o Caveats or disclaimers for data. o Clear definitions of QAQC…people need assurance of how the data was collected, e.g.
Braun recently sent a clear definition of their QAQC. o We need to promote our data to certain audiences. o Comparison or amount that is commonly understood. o To make sure audiences members understand the science to education/policy leap. o A call to action, either general or specific.
Data Delivery
o Detailed procedures about collection. o Easy access to data. o Electronic/internet access. o Good organization. o Different delivery methods: a cellphone app, printed reports, .PDFs, billboards. o Different ways to query data on website, or monitoring database. o Consistent way to give data away to everyone, even if they are a nontraditional client. o Nontraditional delivery methods, marketing, advertising formats. o Deliver data in a more timely way, sometimes it is needed immediately by a client,
especially illicit discharges. o Raw data available. o A place to provide feedback and/or to interact with the data.
6. Who are potential new monitoring program partners who could strengthen our work?
13
Each potential partner was put into one of 6 categories for partner types: 1. Academic/Research:
a. University of Minnesota i. St. Anthony Falls Lab (SAFL)
ii. Ecology Evolution Behavior (EEB) iii. Entomology iv. Water Resource Center
b. University of New Hampshire c. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) d. Water Environment Federation (WEF) e. Local Road Research Board
2. State/NAT’L Govt:
a. MPCA b. DNR c. MnDOT d. EPA e. USGS f. NWS g. Port Authority
3. Cities/Counties/Municipalities:
a. City of St. Paul i. Public Works, Sewer Division
ii. Regional Water Services b. City of Roseville c. City of Falcon Heights d. Ramsey County
i. Conservation District ii. Public Works
e. Other major cities within the region (e.g. Milwaukee)
4. Other Watershed Districts: a. MWMO b. RWMWD c. WCD d. MCWD
5. Citizens/Groups/NGOs
a. CLNN b. Citizen volunteers c. Non-profit/advocacy groups d. Private landowners with BMPs
14
6. Private Sector a. Media/Communication b. Private engineering companies (e.g. Barr) c. Vendors of BMPs
Recommendation: Based on the idea that a true partnership needs to mutually benefit all parties, from the list above 5 specific partners should be prioritized for actively developing or enhancing our monitoring partnerships over the next 3 years.
a. University of Minnesota b. City of St Paul c. Ramsey County (CD and PW) d. RWMWD e. MWMO
The others in the list above we would actively communicate and partner with as appropriate partnerships present themselves but we would not actively attempt to develop/nurture partnerships during the next three year period.
7. What changes can we make to improve the efficiency of our data collection? 8. To best use our finite resources, where are areas we could reduce or eliminate collection
efforts? 9. Is there anything that should be added to the program?
Based on the response to Questions 7-9 priority items (Top 5) were listed for Changes, Deletions, and Additions to the monitoring program (without sacrificing data quality): TOP 5 Changes:
1. AC Power and Remote Data Access to baseline sites a. Temp control (heating & cooling) b. Year-round monitoring c. Reduced frequency of site visits d. Analyze and report data more quickly e. Improved data quality
2. Staff organization and training 3. Monitoring Database development 4. Reporting Improvements (Format, Frequency, Analysis types, Generation of figures & tables,
data cleaning) 5. Sample Preparation and Lab Efficiency
a. Submittal requirements and procedures b. Laboratory results reporting c. Bottle Cleaning
15
TOP 5 Deletions: 1. Site Removal:
a. Trenches (T5E, T4W, T4E) b. GCP Inlet and Outlet c. AHUG Outlet d. Como 3—what are we doing here? e. Level Loggers—do we need this many deployed? What is data being used for?
2. Parameter removal: a. N b. Metals with non-detects (Ni, Cr)
a. Fewer baseflow samples (1x per month vs 2x) b. Larger storm events only
TOP 5 Additions:
1. Lakes Monitoring Data expansion and more complete analysis a. Biological data
i. Fisheries ii. Macrophytes
iii. Phyto/Zooplankton b. Temperature c. Ice cover/Ice out d. Sediment
2. Expanded analysis of other stormwater parameters a. Bacteria/microbial source tracking b. Chloride c. Trash d. PAHS e. Emerging contaminants
3. Monitoring of new subwatersheds a. Sub-WSs with different land use/source areas b. Utilize modeling to simulate loading c. Detailed, stand-alone reports by subwatershed
i. Como ii. Trout Brook
4. BMP Monitoring a. BMP research based monitoring b. “Microsite” monitoring (roofs, parking lots, greenspace, construction sites, private
BMPs) c. Climate change adaption monitoring
5. Detailed sub-watershed reports a. Expanded subwatershed monitoring and more detailed reports by subwatershed
16
Hot topics:
Reporting wetland data Groundwater data Lake monitoring – biochemical and chemical Mississippi River Emerging contaminants
Monitoring Station Power and Communication UpgradeWork Plan
Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN April 2014
I. Background Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) maintains and operates, as of February 2014, 16 full water quality sites consisting of an automated water sampler, data logger, and area-velocity sensor. Each is equipped with a 12 volt deep cycle marine battery to power the sampler and two 6 volt lantern batteries to power the data logger and area-velocity sensor. Stored data on the data loggers is manually downloaded to a field laptop which is brought to each site. There are several limitations and inefficiencies to the current monitoring system: Battery Power
1. Battery voltages must be checked on a regular basis to prevent power failure. This requires routine visits to each monitoring site.
2. When a battery voltage drops below the accepted threshold, it must be exchanged for a fully charged battery and returned to the CRWD shop for charging. There is no system to charge batteries in the field, nor is there a source of backup power.
3. Power failures due to low battery power are common. Power failures can result in loss of data and/or potential water quality samples.
Data Access
1. Stored data must be downloaded manually requiring a CRWD staff member to visit each site.
2. Data cannot be reviewed for possible equipment issues, current conditions, illicit discharges etc. until a site visit has been made and the data downloaded.
3. Certain sampling activities such as snowmelt grabs or storm grabs require specific conditions that, at present, can only be determined by physically visiting each site.
4. All programming of data loggers and samplers must be carried out in person at each site.
5. A site visit is required to determine if a site collected water quality samples during a storm event.
A significant amount of staff time is dedicated to the maintenance, reprogramming, status checking, and sample collection at monitoring sites. Table 1 summarizes the staff time spent at the 3 Trout Brook Monitoring Sites in 2013. Table 1 - 2013 Staff Hours
Activity Trout Brook East Branch Trout Brook West Branch Trout Brook Outlet Total
Storm Composite/Grab 8.1 6.4 13.0 27.6
Base Composite/Grab 14.7 14.0 12.8 41.6
Routine Site Visit 6.4 7.2 6.7 20.0
Maintenance 2.9 5.6 6.4 14.9
Total 32.2 33.2 38.9 104.4
CRWD is interested in increasing power reliability, reducing staff time spent on field visits, and accessing site data in real-time. To achieve these goals, CRWD has evaluated the establishment of AC power at its monitoring sites and a communication system for remote wireless data access.
II. Project Goals and Description The primary goals of this project are to 1) Increase sampling reliability and data integrity by providing monitoring sites with a reliable power source 2) Establish a system of real-time and/or on-demand remote wireless data access between deployed monitoring equipment and the CRWD office and 3) Increase the efficiency of staff time and resources related to field work activities. A reliable power source will eliminate periods of missing data caused by battery power failure. Continuous power will also increase the consistency of samples, delivering uniform volumes for each sample, by eliminating variations in pump motor speeds caused by the diminishing power over time supplied by the current battery setup. A key component of the remote data access system will be a 2-way communication system allowing for (re)programming of equipment without the need for personnel to be physically present at a site. Access to real-time data on flow conditions, sampler status, and equipment condition as well as the ability to react to conditions through remote programming is expected to significantly reduce staff time spent on travel to and from sites. It will also allow for more timely and effective responses to equipment malfunctions thereby increasing data quality. Higher quality raw data will reduce the amount and scope of QA/QC that needs to be done prior to reporting each year’s monitoring data. CRWD will pilot the power upgrades and communication system outlined in this work plan at three (3) of its long term baseline monitoring sites:
1. Trout Brook – East Branch 2. Trout Brook – West Branch 3. Trout Brook – Outlet
These sites were chosen because they are anticipated to be monitored well into the foreseeable future and because they monitor the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor, which CRWD owns and maintains. Once the three pilot sites have been established and the performance of the remote data access system has been evaluated, CRWD will make a determination on how or whether to implement remote data access at its remaining baseline monitoring sites.
III. Project Organization CRWD will coordinate with Xcel Energy, property owners and the electrical contractor throughout the course of this project. IV. Scope of Work The tasks needed to complete this project can be divided into two main categories 1) Installation of the AC power connection and 2) Establishment of the remote wireless data access system. Many aspects of the two categories can be completed concurrently, but the remote data access system cannot be fully established and tested without first establishing the AC power connection. 1. Installation of AC Power Connection
Task 1 CRWD will ensure that all necessary easements and agreements from property owners are in order prior to proceeding with any of the following tasks. Task 2 CRWD will solicit quotes and contract with an electrical contractor who will be responsible for the following:
1. Assessment of the project needs in terms of materials, labor, and energy loads. 2. Calculation of each site’s projected load and complete the necessary load sheet
for submittal to Xcel Energy. 3. Installation of an Xcel Energy approved meter and all necessary components
from the meter to the monitoring box terminating in a standard outlet (exact specs to be determined by the electrician).
Task 3 Meet with parties to discuss the project. Parties include but are not limited to:
Task 4 CRWD or its contractor will apply for service from Xcel Energy. Task 5 Xcel Energy will design the project and determine its costs, if any. Task 6 All necessary agreements between Xcel and CRWD will be signed and any payment owed to Xcel will be made before construction begins.
Task 7 Xcel Energy will construct the designed project. Task 8 A final check will be performed by CRWD’s electrician and, if necessary, Xcel Energy.
2. Establishment of Wireless Data Access System Task 1 Set up cellular data plans for the three pilot sites. Task 2 Equipment Purchases:
1. Three (3) Isco 2105ci cellular interface modules 2. Three (3) power adapters with battery backup for the 6712 samplers at the three
pilot sites
Task 3 Conduct in-house testing of the intended setup prior to field deployment.
1. Evaluate performance vs. needs 2. Adjust and seek additional solutions as needed.
Task 4 Deploy remote access equipment in the field and evaluate its field performance. Task 5 Continually evaluate overall performance of the remote access system vs. desires and find areas for improvement, if any.
1. Evaluate the potential benefits of the addition of Flowlink Pro software. 2. Perform a cost-benefit analysis after 1 year of operation.
V. Anticipated Timeline CRWD anticipates that the remote access system and all supporting components will be active and in use by late July to early August 2014. The largest uncertainty in the schedule is Xcel Energy’s construction schedule. The expected time to go from design to construction is 8 – 10 weeks. Table 2 outlines the anticipated schedule of tasks.
Table 2 - Anticipated Timeline
VI. Cost Estimates Table 3 outlines the estimated up-front costs associated with the proposed system. Once the system is in place, recurring costs consist of monthly charges for the cellular data plan and power usage. Table 3 – Estimated Up-Front Costs
Item Unit Cost Units Total
Xcel Energy Design and Construction1 $3200 3 $9600
Electrician Installation1 $900 3 $2700
Cellular Data Plan – 3 Sites (Verizon Wireless) $45 242 $1080
Verizon Static IP setup (one‐time fee) $500 3 $1500
Isco 2105ci Module $3070 3 $9210
Power Adapter with Battery Backup (Isco model 914) $536 3 $1609
Project Total $25,6991 Based on data provided by MWMO for similar work.
2 Months. Based on minimum 2 year contract.
Attachments: Xcel Energy Electric Service Information Load Sheet
May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec
Task 1 ‐ Secure Easments and Property Owner Agreements CRWD x
Task 2 ‐ Solicit Quotes and Contract with Electrical Contractor CRWD x
2.1 ‐ Assessment of project needs Electrician x
2.2 ‐ Calculation of projected load and submittal to Xcel Electrician x
2.3 ‐ Installation of Meter and Connection to Monitoring Box Electrician x
Task 3 ‐ Meet With Parties to Discuss Project All x
Task 4 ‐ Apply for Service from Xcel CRWD x
Task 5 ‐ Design Project and Determine Costs Xcel x
Task 6 ‐ Sign Agreements and Make Payment to Xcel Xcel/CRWD x
Task 7 ‐ Construction Xcel x
Task 8 ‐ Finalize Installation and Perform Check Electrician x
Task 1 ‐ Set up Cellular Data Plan CRWD x
Task 2 ‐ Equipment Purchases CRWD x
Task 3 ‐ In‐House Testing CRWD x
Task 4 ‐ Field Deployment of Equipment CRWD x
Task 5 ‐ Performance Evaluation CRWD x x
Task Party
Establishment of Remote Data Access System
2014
Installation of AC Power Connection
Enhanced Lake Biological Monitoring Work Plan
Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN April 2014
2
I. Background of CRWD Lakes Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) has five lakes within its boundaries: Como Lake, Crosby Lake, Little Crosby Lake, Loeb Lake, and Lake McCarrons (monitored annually since 1984, 1999, 2011, 2003, and 1988, respectively). The lakes are monitored by Ramsey County Public Works (RCPW), Ramsey Conservation District (RCD), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and CRWD to assess overall health and to determine if each lake supports their designated uses for swimming, fishing, and/or aesthetics. All of the lakes receive stormwater runoff and ultimately drain to the Mississippi River (with the exception of Loeb Lake). Como, Crosby, Little Crosby and Loeb Lakes are classified as shallow lakes, defined by a maximum depth of less than fifteen feet or those in which more than 80% of the lake is within the littoral zone (the area of the lake in which plants grow). Lake McCarrons is the only deep lake in the District, defined by a maximum depth of greater than fifteen feet or those in which less than 80% of the lake is in the littoral zone. Every two years, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) assesses the water quality conditions of the State’s surface waters and updates the “Impaired Waters List” based on the current, available water quality data. This list identifies the lakes and streams in the state that do not meet their designated uses (i.e.: fishing, swimming, drinking water, etc) because of poor water quality. Of the five District lakes, Como Lake is the only lake listed as impaired on the MPCA 303(d) list for excess nutrients, having been listed since 2002. CRWD developed the Como Lake Strategic Management Plan in 2002 in an effort to improve water quality in the lake. II. Historical Monitoring and the Need for More Data CRWD lakes have been consistently monitored in the past for chemical, physical, and some biological parameters (i.e., nutrient concentrations, water clarity, and aquatic vegetation, respectively). Examining the relationships between these parameters provides insight into overall lake health. In many cases chemical and physical data are the primary factors that inform lake management decisions. Biological data is equally as important, and can provide additional insight into the complex interactions taking place within a lake. Biological parameters include information on abundance and size of phytoplankton and zooplankton, abundance and types of aquatic vegetation, and size and composition of fish populations. Historically, CRWD or others have collected or obtained data on certain biological parameters, but on an inconsistent basis (Table 1). Collection of biological data is often more
3
time-intensive and expensive, and therefore not monitored as frequently as some of the major chemical and physical data parameters collected. The relationship among the biological organisms in a lake is complex and can greatly affect water quality. For example, if there are larger populations of piscivorous fish (fish that consume other smaller fish) in a lake, this can cause lower populations of planktivorous fish (fish that consume zooplankton). When there are not as many planktivorous fish to feed on zooplankton (such as daphnia), zooplankton communities increase, feeding on more of the phytoplankton in the lake. This can result in lower levels of algae and clearer water. Conversely, lower levels of piscivorous fish equates to higher levels of planktivorous fish, lower levels of zooplankton to consume phytoplankton, higher levels of algae growth and reduced water clarity. Among other chemical, physical, and biological factors, the abundance of different members of the lake food chain can greatly affect water quality and clarity.
In addition, lake sediments can often be a large internal source of phosphorus. A small amount of phosphorus released from the upper level sediments (typically through wave action or rough fish disturbance) can have a pronounced impact on the overall phosphorus concentration in the water column. Sediment data has been collected in the past, but only on a few lakes for specific purposes (i.e., the 2004 alum treatment of Lake McCarrons). Establishing baseline lake sediment data would provide information essential for identifying phosphorus sources and could impact lake management decisions. III. Project Goals and Description The primary goal of this project is to enhance monitoring of biological parameters of CRWD lakes in order to increase understanding of how they interact with chemical and physical parameters, all of which shape lake water quality. Ultimately, this additional knowledge will provide a more complete picture of CRWD lake health. In 2013, CRWD contracted Wenck Associates, Inc. to complete a statistical analysis of CRWD lake data to determine if any water quality trends exist and what factors could be causing these trends. One major recommendation from the report was to increase monitoring of biological data, as many of these parameters (aquatic vegetation, zooplankton and phytoplankton abundance, and fish populations) could be having an effect which cannot be determined by examining chemical and physical data alone. By obtaining data on biological parameters that have not been monitored in the past or have been monitored infrequently, a better picture of what is happening within the District’s lakes can be obtained. This additional data will also help us better understand our overall watershed management efforts. For example, many successful BMP projects (i.e., CRWD’s Arlington-Pascal Stormwater Improvement Project) have been completed in recent years in the area around
4
Como Lake. The projects have significantly reduced external pollutant loading to the lake, but improvements in water quality have been inconsistent. Instead, a cyclical trend in total phosphorus (TP) and chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) concentrations, and Secchi disk depth has become apparent, where every 5-6 years these parameters fluctuate and affect water quality. This is one example of where knowledge of biological factors will increase understanding of lake water quality trends, as it can be difficult to develop conclusions based on chemical and physical data alone.
5
Table 1. CRWD HISTORICAL LAKE MONITORING
Chemical/Physical Data Collection Yes 2x per month (May-Sept)
1984 (Como), 1999 (Crosby), 2003 (Loeb),
1988 (McCarrons), 2011 (Little Crosby)
RCPW
Collected parameters in accordance with MPCA required data collection (depth, pH, DO, conductivity, Chl-a, chloride, ammonia, TP, temperature, etc). Collected annually since start year.
Aquatic Vegetation Point-Intercept Surveys* Yes2x per year (spring and late summer)
2012-2013 (And past years for lakes surveyed during DNR fish
surveys, i.e., Loeb)
RCD (DNR)
Occurred in all lakes. Additional survey completed in West End of Lake McCarrons in August, 2013. Additionally done in Como in 2010, Crosby in 2009, and Loeb in 2011. Data collected on Species Name, Depth, % Occurrence, and Avg. Abundance.
summer) 2012-2013 RCDOccurred in all lakes. Data collected on lake depth, plant biovolume at each depth, % area covered in vegetation, heat map.
Phytoplankton Data Collection Yes 2x per month (May-Sept)
1984 (Como), 1999 (Crosby), 2003 (Loeb),
1988 (McCarrons), 2011 (Little Crosby)
RCPW
Data collected on Phylum/Genus and concentration (organisms/mL) found for each date. Collected annually since start year except for McCarrons, which missed a year in 1999.
Zooplankton Data Collection Yes 2x per month (May-Sept)
1984 (Como), 1999 (Crosby), 2003 (Loeb),
1988 (McCarrons), 2011 (Little Crosby)
RCPW Data collected on number and concentration (1000/m^3) of specific types, as well as daphnia size distribution
Fisheries Survey YesOnce (mid-late
summer)
2011 (Como), 2004 (Crosby), 2006 (Loeb),
2008 McCarronsDNR
The DNR surveys all MN lakes on a 5-10 year rotation. Stocking occurs more frequently in lakes popular for fishing. Little Crosby never surveyed. Data not collected frequently enough on any lake to say it was regularly monitored.
Temperature Data Collection Yes 2x per month (May-Sept)
1984 (Como), 1999 (Crosby), 2003 (Loeb),
1988 (McCarrons), 2011 (Little Crosby)
RCPW Surface temperature and temperature profiles taken along with chemical/physical data collection
Sediment Analysis Yes Once (unknown times of year)
2004 (McCarrons), 2008 (Crosby)
Barr Engineering/ UMN LCR
Completed once for McCarrons (2004) corresponding to the alum treatment on the lake, and once for Crosby (2008) completed by the UMN LRC. Not enough times to say we consciously monitored for sediments in the past.
Lake Elevations Yes
At least once/month,
twice/month in summer
1978 (Como), 1924 (McCarrons), 2003 (Loeb) DNR
Monitored as part of the Lake Level Minnesota Monitoring Program by the DNR.
* The point-intercept method involves surveying aquatic vegetation at specif ic evenly-spaced points throughout a lake and documenting type and abundance of plant species found.
** Biovolume surveys involve using a GPS enabled depth-f inder to assess evenly spaced transects that determine the depth of the lake and the amount of aquatic vegetation along each transect.
Data Type NotesPreviously Collected? Frequency Collected Since Year Collected By
6
IV. Enhanced Monitoring Recommendations The following recommendations are proposed for each CRWD lake (Table 2): Monitoring to be continued as currently scheduled:
Chemical/physical data collection eight times from May – September by RCPW
Aquatic vegetation point-intercept surveys completed twice per summer by RCD
Aquatic vegetation biovolume analysis completed twice per summer by RCD
Phytoplankton data collection eight times from May – September by RCPW
Zooplankton data collection eight times from May – September by RCPW
Monitoring to be completed by external organizations not contracted by CRWD Fisheries surveys to be conducted on Crosby Lake, Loeb Lake and Lake McCarrons in
2014 by the Minnesota DNR
Lake elevations to be measured on Como Lake, Loeb Lake, and Lake McCarrons by the Minnesota DNR
Recommended additional monitoring:
Chemical/physical data to be collected in spring and fall by RCPW (if possible)
Aquatic vegetation point-intercept survey to be conducted in spring by RCD (if possible)
Aquatic vegetation biovolume analysis to be conducted in spring by RCD (if possible)
Phytoplankton data to be collected in spring and fall by RCPW (if possible)
Zooplankton data to be collected in spring and fall by RCPW (if possible)
Fisheries surveys to be conducted on Como Lake and Little Crosby Lake in 2014 by a consultant. Fisheries surveys to be conducted in future years for ALL lakes by a consultant when not surveyed by the DNR.
Temperature monitoring equipment to be installed in Como Lake and Lake McCarrons by CRWD (to obtain continuous data on lake epilimnion temperature)
Sediment analyses to be conducted on all lakes in winter of 2014 – 2015 by external consultant (with potential for additional analyses in future years)
Lake elevation to be measured in Como Lake, Crosby Lake, and Lake McCarrons by CRWD
7
Table 2. CRWD PROPOSED LAKE MONITORING
Winter April May - Sept October
Chemical/Physical Data Collection Once? 2x per Month
Once? Annually RCPW
Collected parameters in accordance with MPCA required data collection (depth, pH, DO, conductivity, Chl-a, chloride, ammonia, TP, temperature, etc). Potential collection in early spring and late fall if possible based on staff time.
Aquatic Vegetation Point-Intercept Surveys Once 2x per summer
Annually RCD* As per previous collection methods, collect data on Species Name, Depth, % Occurrence, and Avg. Abundance.
Aquatic Vegetation Biovolume Analysis Once2x per
summer Annually RCD*As per previous collection methods, but potentially interested in performing this during the spring as well as the late summer timeframe. This is dependent upon staffing at RCPW and cost.
Phytoplankton Data Collection Once? 2x per Month Once? Annually RCPW
As per previous collection methods, collect data on phytoplankton type (phylum/genus) and concentration (organisms/mL). Recommendations for monitoring are once in early spring and late fall, and 2x monthly through summer. Hope for early spring/late fall but probably not possible based on predicted staff time.
Zooplankton Data Collection Once? 2x per Month Once? Annually RCPW
As per previous collection methods, collect data on zooplankton type, number and concentration (1000/m 3̂), as well as daphnia size distribution. Recommendations for monitoring are once in spring and fall, and 1x monthly through summer. The District anticipates for spring/fall monitoring but it is probably not possible based on predicted staff time. CRWD already collects more than is recommended during summer months.
Fisheries Survey Once Annually DNR or consultant
Crosby/Loeb/McCarrons will be monitored in 2014 by the DNR. Como is scheduled to be monitored in 2016. CRWD will be responsible for organizing consultants to monitor Como/Little Crosby in 2014. As the DNR only monitors MN lakes every 5-6 years (at most), future years will require CRWD to find external consults to complete this work in future years.
Temperature Data Collection Continuous Annually CRWD
CRWD will install temperature monitoring equipment in Villa Park to see possible effect of Villa Park overflow on Lake McCarrons surface temperature. Temperature sensors will also be installed in Como/McCarrons on the fishing piers which will give a continous record of temperature over the summer months.
Sediment Analysis Once? 2014 Consultant
Survey sediment once (Talk to consultant as to best time during the year to conduct sampling and what parameters to monitor) in order to have baseline knowledge of the sediment in our lakes. Based on the findings, this could have to be analyzed again in the future.
Lake Elevations Continuous Continuous Continuous Annually CRWD
The DNR currently manages the lake elevation database and historical years of elevation data for Como/Loeb/McCarrons can be obtained from their website. The District will install a level logger in Crosby Lake to monitor level for Crosby/Little Crosby.
*May require the use of consultants if RCD does not have adequate staff resources.
Data Type To be Collected By
NotesAnnually or 2014 only?
Frequency of Collection
8
V. Project Timeline As shown in Table 3, the majority of preparatory work for this project is expected to be completed in April 2014. Once outside consultants are determined for the additional work that is to be completed, the 2014 budget for the additional monitoring can be finalized. Data will then be collected by CRWD monitoring staff at the end of the monitoring season and included in the 2014 reporting. Table 3. CRWD 2014 lakes enhanced biological monitoring timeline
March April May June July August September OctoberAdministrative
Develop work plan draft CRWDCRWD staff review of work plan CRWD Early AprilPresent work plan to CRWD Board CRWD April 16th Verify contract with RCPW for 2014 monitoring season CRWDContract with external consultants to complete additional work CRWDDevelop budget specifics based off of consultant work CRWD
MonitoringInstall temperature probes in Como Lake and Lake McCarrons CRWD (As early as possible)Install level gauge in Crosby Lake CRWD (As early as possible)
2014 Lakes MonitoringRCPW, RCD,
DNR, etc (If possible) (If possible)
Tasks Organization2014 Monitoring Season
9
VI. Project Budget The CRWD 2014 lakes monitoring budget allocates $20,000 for enhanced biological monitoring of all five lakes (Table 4). This amount is sufficient to cover anticipated costs of the additional monitoring. Table 4. CRWD 2014 lakes monitoring budget Cost Budgeted Amount DescriptionCRWD Staff Time $4,880 Includes 0.1 FTE for qualitative lakes monitoring and lakes reportingRCPW $6,000 Lakes monitoring and laboratory analysisEnhanced Biological Monitoring $20,000 For additional monitoring of aquatic organisms and sedimentEquipment $1,300 Equipment purchase, rental/lease, and maintenance
Total $32,180
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday,
April 2, 2014 6:09 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.
REGULAR MEETING
I. Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)
A) Attendance
Joe Collins
Shirley Reider
Seitu Jones
Mary Texer
Mike Thienes
Staff Present
Mark Doneux, CRWD
Michelle Sylvander, CRWD
Forrest Kelley, CRWD
Anna Eleria, CRWD
Jim Mogan, Ramsey County
Attorney
Public Attendees Nathan Campeau, Barr
Engineering
Tony Wendland, Xcel
Sharon Sarappo, Xcel
Conrad Miller, Xcel
B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda
Manager Mary Texer asked for additions or changes to the agenda. No changes were requested.
Motion 14-066: Approve the April 2, 2014 Agenda.
Reider/Jones
Unanimously approved
II. Public Comments – For Items not on the Agenda
There were no public comments.
III. Permit Applications and Program Updates
A) Permit # 14-007 St. Paul Public Schools – 360 Colborne Parking Lot Rehabilitation (Kelley)
Mr. Kelley reviewed Permit #14-007 Colborne Pavement Rehabilitation. The applicant is St. Paul Public
Schools. The permit is for reconstruction of the parking lot at the St. Paul Public School District headquarters.
The applicable rules are Stormwater Management (Rule C), Flood Control (Rule D), Erosion and Sediment
Control (Rule F). The disturbed area of this project is 2.64 Acres and 2.40 Acres impervious surface.
Motion 14-067: Approve the St. Paul Public Schools – 360 Colborne Parking Lot Rehabilitation with 2 Conditions.
1. Increase filtration volume from 9,193 cubic feet to at least 10,204 cubic feet. Storage must be provided below the lowest adjacent gutter elevation. See attached diagram of calculated volume retention. The volume of 10,336 cf calculated by the applicant includes volume above the gutter elevation (hatched areas in attached diagrams A, B, and C).
April 16, 2014 Board Meeting
V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes
of April 2, 2014
DRAFT Regular Board Meeting
(Sylvander)
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
2. Provide inlet protection for the catch basin at the center of the north edge of the parking lot.
No discussion.
Reider/Jones
Unanimously approved
B) Permit # 14-011 Xcel Energy – East Metro Gas Pipeline – Phase 2 (Kelley)
Mr. Kelley reviewed Permit #14-011 Xcel Energy East Metro Gas Pipeline. The applicant is Xcel Energy. The
permit is for replacement and maintenance of existing pipeline. The applicable rules are Stormwater
Management (Rule C), and Erosion and Sediment Control (Rule F). The disturbed area of this project is 8.7
Acres.
Motion 14-068: Approve permit #14-011 Xcel Energy – East Metro Gas Pipeline Phase 2 with 6 conditions:
1. Receipt of surety.
2. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID.
3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.
4. Identify specific locations of inlet protection, stormwater and erosion control devices.
5. Provide the amount of impervious area to be reconstructed and maps or figures similar to that provided
with the 2013 CRWD permit application.
6. Provide additional information on Highland Park regulator station between stations 2+30 and 3+40.
a. Will a building be constructed?
b. When will this part of the project be constructed?
Ms. Texer requested clarification of item number six, provide addition information on regulator station. Mr.
Kelley replied that he has already received the additional information requested.
Mr. Jones asked if there will additional utilities in future phases. Mr. Kelley replied that there may be in the
future but he is not aware of any.
Thienes/Reider
Unanimously approved
Motion 14-069: Approve variance from Rule C Stormwater Management requirements for permit #14-011 Xcel
Energy East Metro Gas Pipeline.
Thienes/Reider
Unanimously approved
C) Permit Program/Rules Update (Kelley)
Mr. Kelley reviewed an upcoming permit for a Goodwill store on University Avenue. Mr. Kelley noted that the
TAC is still working on some adjustments to the rules. The percentages for the new filtration credits were off
so the TAC may need to go back and redo some the calculations.
IV. Special Reports.
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
A. TBI Drainage Improvements at Cottage Ave. and Farrington Street (Eleria)
Ms. Eleria introduced Mr. Nathan Campeau with Barr Engineering. Ms. Eleria reviewed how an area located
near Cottage Avenue and Farrington Street has experienced flooding from rainwater runoff. Mr. Campeau
shared his feasibility report showing the causes of flooding and potential solutions. The inlet in this area would
often get clogged with debris, garbage, and items being dumped. In the summer of 2013 repairs were made to
the berm and large rocks were placed around the inlet. Soon after the repairs were made a large rainfall tested
the improvements and it held to hold up well to the amount of storm water runoff. The improvements have
reduced the flooding in this area. The low area located just north east of the inlet may still experience some
flooding in a residential backyard. Mr. Campeau reviewed four options that could be implemented to reduce
the flooding problems in this area. The first option would be to replace the current inlet with a beehive style
inlet. This would allow more runoff to enter the storm drain. Option number two would be to place a beehive
style inlet further upstream. This option would capture more stormwater runoff before it would reach the
current inlet. The third option would be to build a raingarden. This option does cost more and would not
reduce flooding. The forth option is a combination of a beehive style inlet and a raingarden.
Administrator Doneux noted that Mr. Campeau has shared his feasibility report with the CAC in March for
comments. Two of the CAC members had strong opinions of this project. Mr. Barton suggested that the area is
a wetland and a flooding easement be acquired. Mr. Byrne suggested obtaining flooding or ponding easements
rather than building a project.
Mr. Jones asked why the cause of the flooding was not looked into further for the homeowners. Ms. Eleria
replied that much of the information was based on the information that the homeowners were sharing.
The focus of the project was, to determine if CRWD was contributing to the problem. Ms. Eleria noted that she
has not heard from the neighbor that was having flooding issues in his backyard. There was some discussion
about option number two, adding a beehive inlet further upstream. The Board of Managers discussed observing
this area and to consider adding this to the budget in 2015 if a project is warranted. The Board of Managers
thanked Mr. Campeau for his presentation.
V. Action Items
A) AR: Approve Minutes of the March 19, 2014 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)
Motion 14-070: Approve Minutes of the March 19, 2014Regular Meeting.
Jones/Reider
Unanimously approved
B) AR: Approve Minutes of the March 19, 2014 Board Workshop (Sylvander)
Motion 14-071: Approve Minutes of the March 19, 2014 Board Workshop.
Reider/Thienes
Unanimously approved
C) AR: Approve Monetary Limits of Municipal Tort Liability (Doneux)
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
Administrator Doneux reviewed that in the past several years the Board has decided to NOT waive the tort
liability limits. In a review of our insurance coverage it was determined that we must again determine if we are
going to waive our tort liability limits. Administrator Doneux met with Mark Lenz the District’s Insurance
agent. Mr. Lenz reviewed the options regarding whether or not to waive tort liability limits, as the District has
done in the past. Administrator Doneux recommends that the District NOT waive the monetary limits on
municipal tort liability. The District will continue to purchase an insurance rider for accident coverage for
volunteers.
Motion 14-072: Accept the LMCIT liability coverage and NOT Waive the Monetary Limits on municipal tort
liability.
Thienes/Jones
Unanimously approved
D) AR: Approve License Agreement with the City of St. Paul for Highland Ravine Project
(Eleria)
Ms. Eleria, reviewed the Highland Ravine Stabilization Project. This project involves work on both private
property and public parkland with construction limits ranging from 10 to 20 feet wide along the centerlines of
three ravines. In Ravine 3, the majority of the project will take place on City parkland with a small area on one
private residence. The private property easement has been secured and approved by CRWD’s Board of
Managers.
Ms. Eleria said the City of Saint Paul and CRWD staff prepared a draft license agreement for access and
construction of the Highland Ravine Stabilization Project on City parkland. The license agreement grants
CRWD the rights to stabilize the main ravine channel with rock grade control structures, remove select,
undesirable trees to allow more sunlight into the area, and conduct minor grading to enhance the berm on the
downstream ravine section within City property. The license also allows CRWD to maintain the project through
2017.
Mr. Jones asked what the difference was between a license and easement. Attorney Mogen replied that a
license gives CRWD the right to access and use the land. An easement is a more permanent attachment to the
land.
Motion 14-073: Approve the license agreement with the City of Saint Paul for the Highland Ravine
Stabilization Project subject to approval of the Ramsey County Attorney.
Thienes/Reider
Unanimously approved
VI. Unfinished Business
A) FI: Highland Ravine Update (Eleria)
Ms. Eleria provided an update on the Highland Ravine Project. Attorney Mogen has been talking to the
Attorney for the Deer Park Association. The final issues and verbiage are being worked out. Ms. Eleria
anticipates being able to put the project out to bid next week.
B) FI: Upper Villa Park Stormwater Improvements (Kelley)
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
Mr. Kelley reviewed the Upper Villa Park stormwater improvements. Mr. Kelley has met with the City of
Roseville Public Works Department. It has been confirmed that CRWD will proceed with the feasibility study
for the reuse portion of the project. Mr. Kelley currently has proposals from SRF and Geosyntec.
C) FI: Curtiss Pond Improvement Project (Fossum)
Mr. Fossum provided an update on the Curtiss Pond Improvement Project. Mr. Fossum reviewed the evolution
of the design. Mr Fossum reviewed that the newest design will lower the level of the pond by two feet before
anticipated rainfall. Educational informational signage will be added to the site. The City of Falcon Heights is
currently in the planning process for the park area. The city plans to remove the current basketball court. The
hockey rink will be paved and serve as the basketball court in the summer months. Mr. Fossum reviewed a
schedule of the project. The City of Falcon Heights will be reviewing the project and schedule. Work would
not begin until after the MN State Fair due to heavy traffic.
D) FI: Office Plan Update (Doneux)
Administrator Doneux gave an update on the office plans. Administrator Doneux met with CBRE, they will
compile the information collected into one summary report. This report will be presented at the next meeting.
A letter is being drafted to extend the current lease.
VII. General Information
Administrator Approved or Executed Agreements
No new agreements
Board Approved or Executed Agreements
Partner Grant Agreement with Harambee Elementary for water education programming and activities - $9,000.
General updates including recent and upcoming meetings and events
Friday, March 14 was Seasonal Water Resource Technician, Stephanie Herbst’s last day at CRWD. Jordan
Jessen started work on Monday, March 17 as the new Annual Water Resource Technician.
Sarah Wein and Britta Suppes will attend the annual Women’s Environmental Network, networking event on
Wednesday April 2, 2014 held at Hamline University.
A meeting is set for Monday, April 7, 2014 with the neighbors of Lake McCarrons to discuss weed harvesting.
Staff will give a presentation on stormwater management and BMPs to students during Central High School’s
Earth Day Extravaganza on Tuesday, April 29, 2014.
The IT Committee has decided to contract with Computer Revolution as CRWD’s IT consultant.
1.) Upcoming events and meetings
a) Manager Collins will not be at the April 2, 2014 Board meeting.
b) Next CAC meeting is Wednesday April 9, 2014 from 7:00 - 9:00 pm. Manager Reider will attend the
April 9, 2014 CAC meeting.
c) Next Board Meeting is Wednesday April 16, 2014 from 6:00 to 8:00 pm. Manager Jones will not be at
the April 16, 2014 meeting.
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
d) Manager Thienes will not be at the May 7, 2014 or May 11, 2014 Board meetings.
e) The 20th
Annual Great River Gathering presented by the Saint Paul River Front Corporation is Thursday
May 8, 2014 from 5:00 – 8:30 pm at Union Depot.
f) Saint Paul Public Works Annul Open House is Tuesday May 20, 2014 from 4:00 – 7:00 pm at the Dale
Street Garage.
2.) Project Updates – None at this time
VIII. Adjournment
Motion 14-074: Adjournment of the April 2, 2014 Regular Board Meeting at 7:23 p.m.
Jones/Thienes
Unanimously Approved
Respectfully submitted,
Michelle Sylvander
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
DATE: April 10, 2014
TO: CRWD Board of Managers
FROM: Michelle Sylvander, Office Manager
RE: March 2014 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Administrative/Program Budget
03/25/14 Century College 3300 Century Avenue NorthWhite Bear Lake, MN 55110-1842 540586 Confined Space Training 2/26/2014 $1,835.00 $1,835.00 15849 240-14390-4430 Consultants
03/23/14 City of St. Paul 1100 Hamline Avenue NorthSt. Paul, MN 55108 Intership Support Parks & Recreation Internship - Tyler Polster $8,000.00 $8,000.00 15850 301-14405-4710 Grants/Cost-Share/Partnerships
01/24/14 Joe Collins 1410 Energy Park Dr.St. Paul, MN 55108 1st Quarter Expense Report 1st Quarter, 2014 $934.68 $934.68 15851 101-13970-4000 $900.00
101-13970-4010 $34.68 Manager Per Diem/Expense
03/07/14 Corner Marking Co. 1174 7th Street W.St. Paul, MN 55102 86916 Name Plate for Jordan Jessen $19.91 $19.91 15852 101-14970-4210 Office Supplies
03/28/14 Anna Eleria March Expense Expense Report $57.68 $57.68 15853
03/31/14 International Erosiion Control Assoc. 3401 Quebec Street, Suite 3500Denver, CO 80207-2339 2014 Membership 2014 Membership $170.00 $170.00 15862 101-14970-4260 Dues & Publications
03/11/14 Integra Telecom P.O. Box 2966Milwaukee, WI 53201-2966 11826292 Monthly Phone service $558.70 $558.70 15863 101-14970-4320 Utilities
04/08/14 Seitu Jones 629 Kent StreetSt. Paul, MN 55103 Expense Report 1st Qtr Expense Report $700.47 $700.47 15864 101-14970-4000 $675.00
02/28/14 Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet MallMinneapolis, MN 55401 Permit Fee for Pipeline Phase II $2,000.00 875355 208-14010 Permit Fees
03/20/14 Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed 2665 Noel DriveLittle Canada, MN 55117 Confined Space Training $300.00 66714 240-14390 Miscellaneous Income
03/20/14 State of Minnesota 658 Cedar Street, Suite 400St. Paul, MN 55155-1616 Green Line - Central Corridor $48,484.00 53554592 430-12880 Grant Income
03/31/14 PMA FINANCIAL - 4M Fund7th Floor 2135 City Gate Lane Naperville, IL 60563
Interest Income $67.51 N/A 101-3700 Interest Income
03/24/14 TOTAL $50,851.51
OUTSTANDING INVOICES/CREDITS
03/03/14 All CoveredDept. 33163P.O. Box 39000San Francisco, CA 94139-3163
600491 Monthly Service Fee $1,557.38 $1,557.38 Ended contract - prepaid one month
03/17/14 Techware17850 Kenwood Trail, Suite 216Lakeville, MN 55044 85335 Sage Software $3,051.09 $3,051.09 Only paying 1/2 - not installed
03/11/14 Pitney Bowes Purchase Power 38926275 Credit for returned ink cart. ($53.92) ($53.92) Credit for items returned from old meter
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
DATE: April 10, 2014 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Bob Fossum, Water Resource Program Manager SUBJECT: Curtis Pond Improvement Project Background Curtiss Field Pond, located in Falcon Heights, regularly floods during moderate rainfall events which limits the use of the park, park infrastructure, and presents a safety concern for the City. In 2011, the City requested our assistance in determining the causes of the problems and identifying possible solutions to mitigate the flooding. In 2012 the District completed the Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Feasibility Study. The study recommended a project to increase the stormwater storage and infiltration area with in the park. During 2013 and early 2014 the District has been completing final design of the project. Issues District staff reviewed the draft Curtiss Pond Plans, Cost Estimate, and Project Financing with the CAC on April 9, 2014. The CAC offered was supportive of the project and recommended it move forward. District staff will review the project plans, cost estimate, financing, schedule, and maintenance plan with the Managers. Requested Action Approve Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Joint Powers Agreement with Falcons Heights and direct Board President and Administrator to execute the agreement. Approve Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Maintenance MOA with Falcons Heights and direct Board President and Administrator to execute the agreement, subject to the review and approval of the Ramsey County Attorney. Authorize Bidding for the Curtiss Pond Improvement Project. enc: Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Joint Powers Agreement with Falcons Heights Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Maintenance MOU with Falcons Heights
April 16, 2014 Board Meeting V. Action Items, C) Curtiss Pond
Improvement Project
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the Capitol Region Watershed District a Minnesota watershed district established under the authority of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D (the CRWD), and the city of Falcon Heights, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the City), pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat. §103D.335, subd. 2, and §471.59.
Recitals
WHEREAS, the CRWD and the City have been planning to conduct stormwater and flood mitigation improvements to Pond at Curtiss Field by completing the Curtiss Pond Improvement Project (the Project); and WHEREAS, the Project contemplates and includes regrading of the field, installation of an underground storage system and site restoration; and WHEREAS, the Project has been identified in the “Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Feasibility Study” report dated August 28, 2013, and prepared by Houston Engineering, Inc.; and WHEREAS, these constructed improvements are proposed at the Curtiss Field Park adjacent to the Snelling Ave. N. and Idaho Ave. intersection in the city of Falcon Heights, See Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the City and the CRWD have agreed to participate in financing the total cost of the Project, and such participation for the City as is defined herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits that each party shall derive herefrom, the parties agree as follows: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to define the funding shares, direction, management and control, contracting, supervision, and liability of the parties in connection with the Project. 2. Funding. Pursuant to estimates prepared by Houston Engineering, Inc. dated April 1, 2014 (See Exhibit “B”) the preliminary estimate of the cost of the Project is $575,600. The CRWD shall be responsible for payment of the sum of $375,600. The City shall pay $200,000, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3. 3. Cost Overrun. In the event actual design and construction costs exceed $575,600, the City shall pay an additional 10%, to a maximum additional contribution of $20,000. Regardless of actual cost, the City’s maximum contribution shall be $220,000. The CRWD shall be responsible for additional costs not paid by the City. 4. Project Management. The CRWD shall manage and direct the Project on its own behalf and on behalf of the City. The CRWD shall cause to be prepared all construction plans and specifications; shall prepare bid specifications and let the Project for public bidding; shall award the construction and
related contracts; shall enter into construction and other contracts on its behalf; and shall direct and manage completion of the Project. The CRWD reserves the right to reject all bids. 5. Extra Work. All extra work orders or substantial changes to the Project made during construction of the Project shall be subject to approval by change order in writing signed by the City and the CRWD prior to such construction. 6. Construction Permits. Each party having jurisdiction for any construction permits or other permits required for construction of the Project agrees to provide those permits, in accordance with applicable law, with no fee or expense made to the Project. 7. Records and Reports/Payment by City. All parties agree to maintain records of costs pertaining to the Project in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and relevant internal record keeping and accounting procedures. Upon completion of the Project, the CRWD will submit a payment request to the City, payable in full within sixty (60) days of the billing date. Completion of the Project will be as determined by the City and the CRWD at a final project walk-through and when all punchlist items have been satisfactorily addressed by the Contractor. 8. Maintenance and Safety During Construction. Work site maintenance and safety will be the responsibility of CRWD and its contractor during the construction project. 9. Employees. It is further agreed that any and all employees of CRWD and all other persons engaged by CRWD in the performance of any work or services required, volunteered, or provided for herein to be performed by CRWD, shall not be considered employees of City, and that any and all claims that may arise under the Worker’s Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of City. 10. Non-Discrimination. The provisions of Minn. Stat. §181.59, and of any applicable local ordinance relating to Civil Rights and Discrimination, shall be considered a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein 11. Indemnification. The City and CRWD agree that liability under this Agreement is controlled by Minn. Stat. §471.59, subd. 1a and that the total liability for the participating cities shall not exceed the limits on governmental liability for a single use of government as specified in §466.04, subd. 1. CRWD agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City against any and all claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement and caused by or resulting from negligent acts or omissions of CRWD or those of CRWD’s employees or agents. City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CRWD against any and all claims liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement for which City is responsible and caused by or resulting from negligent acts or omissions of City and or those of City’s employees or agents. Under no circumstances, however, shall a party be required to pay on behalf of itself and the other party any amount in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, applicable to any one party. The limits of liability for both parties may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for either party. The intent of this paragraph is to impose on each party a
Page 2 of 6
limited duty to defend and indemnify each other subject to the limits of liability under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. The purpose of creating this duty to defend and indemnify is to simplify the defense of claims by eliminating conflicts among the parties and to permit liability claims against both parties from a single occurrence to be defended by a single attorney. 12. Project Property Ownership. Upon completion of the Project, all infrastructure constructed and all property utilized in connection with the Project shall be the property of the City, and the CRWD shall have no interest in or claim thereto. 13. Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of the last date of signature of the parties below. This Agreement shall expire and be of no further force or effect upon completion of the Project, except that the provisions of paragraphs 7 and 12 shall survive expiration of the Agreement. CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT By: __________________________ Joe Collins, President Date Recommended for Approval: By: __________________________ Mark Doneux, Administrator Date
Page 3 of 6
CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS BY: Peter Lindstrom, Mayor AND: Bart Fischer, City Administrator/Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me this __ day of _______________, 2014, by Peter Lindstrom and by Bart Fischer, respectively the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk of the City of Falcon Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public
Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT A Project Plans for Curtiss Pond Improvement Project
Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT B Estimated Costs for Construction of Curtiss Pond Improvement Project
Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Costs and Financing 4-1-2014
MAINTENANCE OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY AT CURTISS FIELD PARK
AN AGREEMENT, dated this of , 2014, by and
between the CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT hereinafter called the “DISTRICT”, and the CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS, Minnesota hereinafter called the “CITY”.
WHEREAS, the DISTRICT and the CITY jointly completed installation of a stormwater
management facility at Curtiss Field Park as part of the 2014 Curtiss Pond Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, the DISTRICT and CITY jointly participated in financing the installation of
the stormwater management facility and have considerable vested interest in the proper long-term operation and maintenance of the facility; and
WHEREAS, the DISTRICT and the CITY desire to enter into an agreement to maintain
constructed stormwater management facilities to ensure timely and efficient operation and maintenance of the facilities; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, the DISTRICT and the CITY agree as follows:
SECTION 1. Definitions a) Stormwater Management Facility means the devices constructed as a part of the
Curtiss Pond Improvement Project. SECTION 2. DISTRICT Obligations The DISTRICT shall maintain, in working
condition and in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommended schedule of long term maintenance activities, all improvements associated with the Inlet Manhole and Opti-RTC infrastructure, including, the stop logs, valve, actuator motor, level probes, electrical service, telephone service, and control panel.
SECTION 3. CITY Obligations The CITY shall maintain all improvements installed as part of the Curtiss Pond Improvement Project, with the exception of the improvements identified as District obligations in Section 2, in working condition and in accordance with the schedule of long term maintenance activities agreed to, as follows:
a) Maintain all stormwater management facilities as necessary to preserve the integrity
and intended function of the facility, and where applicable in accordance with the recommendations of the State of Minnesota Stormwater Manual, or as amended.
1 of 2
SECTION 4. Entire Agreement It is understood and agreed that this Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and that it supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matters hereof. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, the day and year first above written. CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT By By _______________________________
Peter Lindstrom, Mayor Joe Collins, President By By_______________________________ Bart Fischer, Administrator Mark Doneux, Administrator Approved as to form: Approved as to form: _______________________________ City Attorney Assistant Ramsey County Attorney Legal Counsel for Capitol Region Watershed District
2 of 2
Houston
Houston
Houston
Houston
Houston
Houston
Houston
Houston
HoustonEngineering Inc.
HoustonEngineering Inc.
Houston
ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
CURTISS POND PROJECT1‐Apr‐14
Item Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price
2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 2101.618 REMOVE SHRUBS SQ FT 100 5.00$ 500.00$ 2104.503 SAW CUT AND REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 1162 1.25$ 1,452.50$ 2104.602 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL DISABLED PARKING SIGN EACH 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION (CV)(P) CU YD 3900 8.00$ 31,200.00$ 2105.607 HAUL AND DISPOSAL SOIL (LV) CU YD 3000 10.00$ 30,000.00$ 2015.525 TOPSOIL BORROW CU YD 170 25.00$ 4,250.00$ 2015.525 CLAY BORROW FOR CLAY PLUG CU YD 4 30.00$ 120.00$ 2015.535 PLACE SALVAGED TOPSOIL (P) CU YD 253 4.00$ 1,012.00$ 2105.601 WATER CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (LV) (CLASS 5) CU YD 30 25.00$ 750.00$ 2451.607 0.75" ‐ 2" WASHED ROCK FOR DETENTION SYSTEM (P) CU YD 1330 35.00$ 46,550.00$ 2501.515 24" RC PIPE APRON EACH 1 850.00$ 850.00$ 2503.511 24" CS PIPE SEWER LIN FT 4 70.00$ 280.00$ 2503.511 24" RC PIPE SEWER LIN FT 8 45.00$ 360.00$ 2506.601 CMP DETENTION SYSTEM LUMP SUM 1 189,000.00$ 189,000.00$ 2506.602 WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE EACH 1 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 2511.515 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, NON WOVEN SQ YD 1300 5.00$ 6,500.00$ 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 1523 3.50$ 5,330.50$ 2557.501 TEMPORARY 6FT CHAIN‐LINK FENCE LIN FT 495 15.00$ 7,425.00$ 2557.517 TEMPORARY 12FT VEHICULAR GATE W/LOCK EACH 1 750.00$ 750.00$ 2563.602 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2564.537 PROJECT SIGN EACH 2 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE PA LIN FT 110 3.50$ 385.00$ 2573.505 SILT FENCE , TYPE TB LIN FT 85 20.00$ 1,700.00$ 2573.535 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LUMP SUM 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 2574.604 SOIL BED PREPARATION SQ YD 2320 0.50$ 1,160.00$ 2575.502 COVER CROP SEED MIXTURE 21‐112 POUND 48 4.00$ 192.00$ 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 25‐151 POUND 58 4.00$ 232.00$ 2575.563 HYDRAULIC MATRIX, FIBER BONDED HYDRO‐MULCH SQ YD 2190 0.85$ 1,861.50$ 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CATEGORY 2 SQ YD 130 4.00$ 520.00$ 2575.530 INLET PROTECTION EACH 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 3803.501 4" PVC SCH. 80 ELECTRIC CONDUIT LIN FT 16 20.00$ 320.00$
SUBTOTAL BASE BID 379,200.50$
10% CONTINGENCY 37,920.05$
TOTAL BASE BID 417,120.55$
Bid Alternate #1
2557.501 4FT CHAIN‐LINK FENCE LIN FT 522 10.00$ 5,220.00$ 2557.517 8FT VEHICULAR GATE W/LOCK EACH 3 600.00$ 1,800.00$
SUBTOTAL ALTERNATIVE #1 7,020.00$
Bid Alternate #2
2104.501 REMOVE EXISTING CHAIN‐LINK FENCE LIN FT 80 5.00$ 400.00$ 2104.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS SQ FT 1610 1.67$ 2,688.70$ 2104.503 SAW CUT AND REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 166 1.25$ 207.50$ 2104.509 REMOVE BASKETBALL HOOP EACH 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 2015.525 TOPSOIL BORROW CU YD 30 25.00$ 750.00$ 2574.604 SOIL BED PREPARATION SQ YD 200 0.50$ 100.00$ 2575.502 COVER CROP SEED MIXTURE 21‐112 POUND 5 4.00$ 20.00$ 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 25‐151 POUND 5 4.00$ 20.00$ 2575.563 HYDRAULIC MATRIX, FIBER BONDED HYDRO‐MULCH SQ YD 200 0.85$ 170.00$
SUBTOTAL ALTERNATIVE #2 4,856.20$
Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Costs and Financing 4-1-2014
The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) assists CRWD Board of Managers with organizational development and strengthens connections between CRWD and its citizens. Meetings are held the second Wednesday of each month and are open to the public. 2013 members are:
David Arbeit; co-chair, Bill Barton, Pat Byrne, Janna Caywood, Steven Duerre, Michael MacDonald, Ted McCaslin*, Kathryn Swanson, Michael Trojan, Michelle Ulrich, Jerome Wagner, Richard Weil, Gwen Willems; co-chair
* At-large CAC member.
Shirley Reider1725 Fairview Ave N Falcon Heights, MN [email protected]
Joe Collins, President534 W Orange StSaint Paul, MN 55117joe.collins@ ci.stpaul.mn.us
Michael Thienes, Treasurer284 S McCarrons BlvdRoseville, MN 55113mthienes@ comcast.net
Seitu Jones, Secretary629 Kent StSaint Paul, MN 55103seitu.jones@ comcast.net
Mary Texer, Education/ Information113 Farrington StSaint Paul, MN [email protected]
Seasonal Water Resource Technicians David DePaz, Stephanie Herbst, Joe Sellner
Interns Lisa Hu, Amanda Wareham, Marlys Mandaville,
resident’s awareness of water quality issues, another
purpose of the Partner Grant Program is to support
and foster relationships with organizations and groups
whose work furthers the mission of CRWD.
2013 Partner Grants included:
• Funding for an organizing project with faith commu-
nities in CRWD encouraging water quality projects
• An environmental festival highlighting the role of
water in indigenous cultures
• Civic organizing and a fall cleanup event around
Como Lake
• Stipends for environmental education intern-
ships for youth through the Urban Roots (formerly
Community Design Center) and Great River
Greening’s Science Area Teen Network
• Support of Friends of the Mississippi River’s river
stewardship and habitat restoration programs as
well as their State of the River Report and
• New equipment for the City of Saint Paul’s Street
Maintenance Department to improve plowing and
salt application techniques.
Nine grants were awarded in 2013, totaling $82,000.
CRWD staff worked at Ce Tempoxcalli’s Mother Earth Fest Macroinvertebrate night at Como Lake, June 2013.
2 6 | C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
Our Work
Special Grants
In 2013 several previous Special Grant projects
were constructed and multiple new projects were
awarded for construction in 2014-2015. The first
completed project was the Burns Avenue neigh-
borhood rain garden retrofit. Working with Urban
Roots, homeowners were recruited for curb-cut rain
garden installation within the boulevard. Curb-cut
rain gardens are the most cost-effective water
quality improvement project we can install in
neighborhoods They are designed to capture runoff
from the street before it goes into the storm drain
and the Mississippi River. A total of seven gardens
were constructed by a contractor and planted by
Urban Roots.
The second completed Special Grant project
was large water quality improvement BMPs at
the Union Depot parking lot. Ramsey County
Regional Rail Authority was awarded $200,000
for the construction of pervious parking lot islands,
bio-retention cells, and a substantial underground
filtration system. These projects will treat storm-
water runoff from the parking lot before it is
discharged to the Mississippi River.
In addition to completed projects, the CRWD Board
of Managers awarded grants for projects beginning
in 2014. The following table outlines the projects, a
brief description and the grant award amount.
Stewardship and Partner Grants
Project Name Description Grant Award
Model Cities – Central Exchange and BROWNstone
Design and installation of permeable pavers, infiltration swales and native plantings along the Green Line
$65,000
Saint Paul – Lowertown Ballpark
Rain gardens, underground filtration, tree trenches, rainwater reuse and interactive signage
$225,000
Central High School Design and grant match funding for stormwater retrofits at Central High School
$80,000
Great River School Construction of stormwater retrofits including permeable parking lot, rain gardens, and rainwater reuse
$110,000
Well Sealing Grants
Abandoned wells pose a threat to public health since
they provide a direct pathway for contaminants
to enter groundwater. Groundwater is a source of
drinking water for thousands of people in the metro
area. Abandoned Well Sealing Grants are available
to all residents within Capitol Region Watershed
District who have a well that is no longer in use on
their property. Wells must be sealed by a licensed
well contractor. In 2013, 10 well sealing grants were
awarded, totaling $4,497.50.
Rain Barrel Construction Workshop Grants
With rain barrel construction
workshop grants from CRWD,
two community organizations
hosted 82 participants at three
events. Workshops were held
by Union Park District Council
and Mississippi Market food
cooperative.
Rain barrel assembly workshop.
2 0 1 3 A N N U A L R E P O R T C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T | 2 7
Our Work
Stewardship and Partner Grants
In summer 2011, the City of Saint Paul’s Department
of Planning and Economic Development and CRWD
began a unique partnership to enhance residential
landscapes and achieve water quality benefits at
foreclosed homes acquired by the city for rehabili-
tation. The Inspiring Communities Program
(previously Neighborhood Stabilization Program)
rehabilitates foreclosed and vacant housing in
some of the most racially diverse and economically
challenged areas of Saint Paul. Landscape designs
include features that treat nearly all runoff on-site
and include downspout redirections to rain gardens,
rain barrels or green space. CRWD provides expert
advice and design to create a landscape plan, and
both partners provide resources for installation and
educational support to homebuyers.
After a site visit to assess existing conditions, CRWD
determines how to best redirect downspouts from
the home to pervious areas and improve drainage
on the property, and where to locate rain gardens,
swales or other BMPs. The City of Saint Paul’s
Forestry Department also provides crucial input on
the condition of residential trees and recommenda-
tions on how to improve the tree canopy, which
are incorporated into the design. Along with design
assistance, CRWD provides a $1,000 reimbursement
for the construction of stormwater BMPs on each
property and consultation during construction. The
city provides each homebuyer a rain garden mainte-
nance guidebook.
By the end of 2013, more than 90 properties were
rehabilitated with new landscapes that will infiltrate
127,500 cubic feet of runoff and reduce phosphorus
loads by 2.8 pounds per year. Partners expect to
rehabilitate 40-50 new sites each year.
To recognize the unique and successful collabo-
ration, the partners received a “Program of the
Year” award from the Minnesota Association of
Watershed Districts in December.
Inspiring Communities Program
Residential Street Vitality Program (RSVP) boulevard rain garden plantings
CRWD partners with the City of Saint Paul Public Works
Department during their annual street reconstruction,
known as the Residential Street Vitality Program
(RSVP). Because the boulevard area — the space
between the sidewalk and curb on most residential
streets — is often left unplanted with anything except
turfgrass, it provides a great opportunity to put in
clean water landscaping that helps prevent polluted
runoff from flowing to the Mississippi River. Street
reconstruction is an especially good time to install rain
gardens since the boulevard is already being rebuilt. The
City of Saint Paul offers residents the opportunity to
host a garden, identifies suitable boulevards, constructs
the basin and curb cut, installs a soil mix of sand and
compost and lays mulch. Homeowners agree to plant
and maintain the gardens.
Street reconstruction recipients in Hamline Midway
and Macalester Groveland neighborhoods planted
80 rain gardens in spring 2013 with help from CRWD.
Homeowners picked up their native rain garden plants
and CRWD staff was on hand to answer questions.
Volunteers and staff members from the organization
Great River Greening worked in the neighborhoods to
help the residents with planting and watering. There
are currently 140 RSVP rain gardens in Saint Paul, with
55 more planned for 2014.
RSVP rain garden in Hamline Midway neighborhood.
2 8 | C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
Stormwater Quality Monitoring
Since 2005, CRWD has monitored stormwater
quantity and quality from its 41-square-mile
watershed in Saint Paul, Roseville, Maplewood, Falcon
Heights and Lauderdale, which eventually drains to
the Mississippi River. CRWD is highly urbanized with
225,000 residents and approximately 42% impervious
land cover.
Monitoring locations
Of the 16 major subwatersheds in CRWD (see
map page 6), six are currently monitored for
water quantity and quality (St. Anthony Park, East
Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, Trout Brook, McCarrons
and Como 7). Within the monitored subwatersheds,
CRWD collected water quality and/or quantity data
at 17 monitoring sites in 2013. At ten stations, samples
were collected during both baseflow and stormflow
periods and analyzed to determine pollutant concen-
trations for a suite of water quality parameters
including nutrients, sediment, metals and bacteria,
which are used to calculate total pollutant loading.
Additionally, CRWD monitored the water quality
of the five lakes within the District (Como Lake,
Crosby Lake, Little Crosby Lake, Loeb Lake, Lake
McCarrons) in partnership with Ramsey County
Public Works Department. Lakes were sampled
monthly or bi-weekly from May through September
for water quality parameters including nutrients,
sediment, water clarity and Chlorophyll-a. Also,
Ramsey Conservation District worked with CRWD to
conduct macrophyte and biovolume surveys of each
lake, which included plant species identification and
estimations of relative plant abundance.
Precipitation
2013 was an above average year for precipitation,
with 36.36 inches recorded. This was +5.75 inches
above the 30-year normal and the wettest year since
CRWD monitoring began in 2005. The majority of the
precipitation, however, occurred during spring with a
total 19.84 inches from April through June.
Our Work
Figure 1: 2013 water yield in cf/acre for CRWD monitored subwatersheds.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
East Kittsondale
Wat
er Y
ield
(cf/
ac)
Historical Average*
2013
*The historical average is based on discharge data from 2010-2012 for baseline sites and 2005-2012 for baseline sites.
PhalenCreek
St. AnthonyPark
Trout BrookE. Branch
Trout BrookW. Branch
Trout BrookOutlet
Como 7Subwatershed
Sarita Villa Park
* The historical average for baseline sites is based on discharge data from 2010-2012. The historical average for BMP sites is based on discharge data from 2005-2012.
2 0 1 3 A N N U A L R E P O R T C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T | 2 9
Stormwater Quality Monitoring
Our Work
CRWD staff install monitoring equipment.
Monitoring equipment.
Stormwater monitoring continues in winter.
Alternatively, August and September were uncharacter-
istically dry with a total 5.82 inches of precipitation,
5.60 inches below the 30-year normal average.
Discharge
Due to increased precipitation, major CRWD subwa-
tersheds recorded greater than average flow and
water yield in 2013 (Figure 1), especially from April
through June. Subsequently, pollutant loading generally
increased because more water carried more pollutants.
Of the four major CRWD subwatersheds, Trout Brook
exported the greatest amount of water (144,989 cf/ac)
because it has the largest total subwatershed drainage
area (8,000 acres).
Lakes
In 2013, water quality varied in each of CRWD’s five
lakes. Como Lake, Crosby and Little Crosby all failed
to meet the state eutrophication standard for total
phosphorus, so they were considered impaired.
Lake McCarrons and Loeb Lake both met the total
phosphorus standard.
3 0 | C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
BMP Maintenance and Monitoring
Stormwater BMPs are activities, practices and struc-
tures that reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff.
CRWD maintains or owns several stormwater BMP
structures throughout the watershed: 18 stormwater
BMPs constructed in the Como Lake Subwatershed
in Saint Paul and 14 along the Green Line (Central
Corridor Light Rail), also in Saint Paul.
The BMPs constructed in the Como Lake
Subwatershed were built as part of the Arlington-
Pascal Stormwater Improvement Project; a
multi-jurisdictional project that aimed to reduce
localized flooding and improve the water quality of
Como Lake. BMPs constructed include an under-
ground stormwater storage and infiltration facility,
a regional stormwater pond, eight rain gardens and
eight underground infiltration trenches. The under-
ground stormwater facility and infiltration trenches
have pretreatment devices (a hydrodynamic separator,
sumped catch basins and manholes) incorporated
into their design in order to provide treatment of
stormwater runoff by capturing trash, debris, oils
and sediment before it flows into the BMP. These
pretreatment units help to maintain the performance
of those BMPs by removing pollutants and infiltrating
stormwater runoff.
The Green Line BMPs include eight stormwater
planters and six rain gardens. These green infra-
structure practices are highly visible and not only clean
stormwater on its way to the Mississippi River, but
also add beauty, improve air quality and reduce the
urban heat island effect.
Regular inspection and maintenance of all of the
BMPs and pretreatment units is coordinated by
CRWD. Maintenance is crucial to ensure the BMPs
are functioning properly. CRWD receives assistance
with maintenance of some of the BMPs from citizen
volunteers and other government entities. In 2013, a
majority of the maintenance was completed by CRWD
staff, Conservation Corps Minnesota, Great River
Greening and a private contractor.
Since 2007, CRWD has been collecting water quality
and quantity data on several BMPs constructed for
the Arlington-Pascal Project. BMPs are monitored to
determine their overall effec-
tiveness at reducing stormwater
runoff and pollutant loads. All
of this monitoring data was
used to calibrate a water quality
model which simulated the
amount of stormwater runoff
and pollutants flowing to and
from all 18 of the Arlington-
Pascal Project BMPs. Modeling
efforts are necessary because
Minnesota’s winter prohibits
monitoring data from being
collected year-round. This
data, in addition to actual
construction, design, operation
and maintenance costs for each
individual BMP, were used to Volunteers clear Frankson McKinley rain garden,
Our Work
2 0 1 3 A N N U A L R E P O R T C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T | 3 1
BMP Maintenance and Monitoring
Our Work
determine the cost-benefit (the cost per pound of
pollutants removed and the cost per unit of volume
reduction) of each BMP. All of this data is presented
in CRWD’s BMP Performance and Cost-Benefit
Analysis: Arlington-Pascal Project 2007-2010
published in spring 2012 and available at capitolre-
gionwd.org.
CRWD also undertook additional monitoring efforts to
determine the amount of gross solids (trash, organic
matter and sand/gravel) which accumulated within
the Arlington-Pascal Project BMPs as well as the gross
solids captured by the BMP’s pretreatment units. The
amount of phosphorous contained in the gross solids
was also determined. The results of this study were
incorporated into the BMP performance analysis
mentioned above. Detailed results can be found in
CRWD’s Arlington-Pascal Project: Gross Solids
Accumulation Study published in spring 2012 and
available at capitolregionwd.org.
Sumped catch basin with steel hood to capture debris
CRWD staff members monitor a rain garden near the Green Line.
3 2 | C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
The Green Line, formerly known as the Central
Corridor Light Rail Transit project, required full recon-
struction of heavily traveled streets in Saint Paul, most
notably University Avenue. The corridor is primarily
comprised of commercial and industrial land uses
with more than 100 acres of paved surfaces that were
devoid of healthy trees and green spaces. The previous
drainage system conveyed all runoff within the project
limits to the Mississippi River through numerous
outfalls without any water quality treatment. Portions
of this stretch of the river are impaired for turbidity,
nutrients and bacteria and are not meeting desig-
nated recreation uses.
CRWD, the City of Saint Paul, Metropolitan
Council (Met Council) and Ramsey County forged
a partnership with a commitment to improve
stormwater management, enhance the urban tree
canopy and transform the aesthetics of the Green
Line corridor using highly visible green infrastruc-
tures practices. Known as the Green Line Green
Infrastructure Project, two clear environmental needs
were addressed: establishing a vibrant and sustainable
urban tree canopy and maximizing treatment of
stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces.
Four types of green infrastructure practices were
constructed from 2010 to 2013: an innovative
integrated tree trench system along University
Avenue and rain gardens, stormwater planters and
infiltration trenches on side streets. These practices
incorporate natural landscape features and hydro-
logic processes to treat stormwater by infiltrating and
evapotranspiring runoff. The practices also integrate
with the character and values of the surrounding
community and serve as educational tools that help
raise community awareness of stormwater.
Improving water quality and stormwater runoff in
urban settings is a challenging, complex problem and
construction of stormwater management practices
Green Infrastructure on the Green Line
Our Work
Syndicate Street rain garden.
2 0 1 3 A N N U A L R E P O R T C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T | 3 3
Green Infrastructure on the Green Line
Our Work
Oxford Street stormwater planter.
is often conducted parcel by parcel, which does
not maximize water quality treatment or achieve
cost efficiencies. The partners recognized that the
construction of the Green Line provided a rare oppor-
tunity to address multiple environmental issues and
achieve measurable results on a scale that would likely
not be feasible in the foreseeable future.
CRWD has estimated that annually the entire project
will reduce post-construction stormwater volume by
over 50% or 134 acre-feet, sediment load by 9 tons
and phosphorus load by 109 pounds to the Mississippi
River. This project contributes to the overall pollutant
load reductions required by the state for this section
of the Mississippi River.
Anticipating increased pedestrian traffic along the
Green Line corridor and surrounding neighborhoods,
artistic elements, seating areas and interpretive
signage have been incorporated into the practices.
These features encourage the public to pause and
learn more about stormwater runoff and how it’s
being treated in their community. In 2013, interpretive
signage for each type of practice was installed at the
11 side street practice sites and 11 tree trench locations
nearby. The signs have been interpreted into Hmong
and Spanish to help reach the diverse ethnic groups
residing in and visiting the Green Line corridor.
The Green Line project was featured promi-
nently during the 2013 International Low Impact
Development Symposium hosted in Saint Paul, which
drew over 800 attendees. Staff from CRWD and Met
Council and city and project consultants gave presen-
tations and a tour of the project. In addition, CRWD
has used the practices as interactive examples during
tours to teach youth from Saint Paul’s East Side about
stormwater management.
3 4 | C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
2013 District Finance Summary
CRWD offers this summary overview and analysis of the District’s financial activities for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. The complete 2013 Annual Financial Report and Audit can be found in Appendix A.
Operations2013 budgeted revenue was down $60,468 from a budgeted revenue of $2,322,360 and actual revenue of $2,259,892. This decrease was largely due to an increase uncollectable property taxes and the loss of the Homestead Market Value Credit. Expenditures in 2013 were under budget. Budgeted expenditures were $2,322,360 while actual expenditures were $2,086,711, or $235,649. The decrease in expenditures was largely due to several large projects that were not undertaken in 2013.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)2013 budgeted revenue was $5,299,552 and actual revenue was $4,395,124. This decrease of $904,428 in revenue was mostly due to not receiving a MNDOT reimbursement until 2014 for work completed in 2013. Expenditures in 2013 decreased from the budgeted amount of $7,701,612 to an actual amount of $5,278,604. This reduction in expenditures was largely due to several large projects coming in under budget, several special grants not being
completed in 2013 and several projects being delayed until 2014.
Financial HighlightsThe assets of CRWD exceeded its liabilities at the close of the most recent fiscal year by $X (net assets). Of this amount, $X (unassigned net assets) may be used to meet the government’s ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors in accordance with CRWD’s fund designations and fiscal policies. CRWD’s total net assets increased $X in 2013. As of the close of the current fiscal year, CRWD’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balance was $X compared to $X the previous year. At the end of the current fiscal year, CRWD is able to report a positive balance in net assets.
2 0 1 3 A N N U A L R E P O R T C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T | 3 5
Our Plans
2013 Year In Review
Below is a complete list of 2013 CRWD projects:
Fund Name Project Name
Administration General Administration
Performance Review and Assistance Program
Groundwater Groundwater Protection — Well Sealing
Groundwater Studies
Ramsey County Groundwater Plan
Rulemaking/Rule Revisions Wetland Management and Regulation Plan
Permitting Implement Permit Program
Permit Tracking Database and Information Management
Construction Inspection
Stewardship Grants Grant Program Administration
Project Inspection
Project Design and Assistance
Application Processing and Grant Award
Monitoring and Data Collection Baseline Monitoring and Data Collection
Lake Monitoring and Data Collection
Villa Park Monitoring and Data Collection
Wetland Bio-monitoring
Long-term Monitoring Database Development
Willow Reserve / Loeb Lake Monitoring and Data Collection
Non-CRWD BMP Inventory
10-Year Monitoring Plan
BMP Monitoring
Education and Outreach Outreach/Communication
Homeowner Outreach — Stop the Rain Drain
Homeowner Outreach — Community Clean-up
Municipal Outreach
Website and Social Media
Contractor Outreach
3 6 | C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
Fund Name Project Name
Education and Outreach (cont.) Partnerships
Events/Outreach
Homeowner Outreach — Watershed Heroes
Technical Resources and Information Sharing
Local and Agency Plan Review and Tech Committee
Watershed Approach: MS4 & TMDL Compliance
Strategic Project Preparation
Future Trends: Research and Positioning
Innovative BMPs Research
Water Resource Awareness Tools/Methods/Techniques
National Speakers for Conferences
Geographic Information System GIS Program Development
Data Acquisition
Internal Mapping System
Impervious Surfaces Data Set
Safety Program Safety Training
Safety Program Updates/Audits
CSE Equipment
Shoreline and Streambank Maintenance
Lake McCarrons Shoreline Restoration Project
Saint Paul Natural Resources Intern Program
Loeb Lake Shoreline Assessment
Crosby Lake Shoreline Assessment
Como Lake Subwatershed Como Park Regional Park Stormwater Plan
Como BMP Maintenance and Inspection
Como Lake Implementation Reporting & Audit
Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Lake McCarrons Subwatershed
Villa Park Wetland Sediment Sampling
2013 Year In Review
Our Plans
2 0 1 3 A N N U A L R E P O R T C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T | 3 7
2013 Year In Review
Our Plans
Fund Name Project Name
Loeb Lake Subwatershed Willow Reserve Restoration Plan
Crosby Lake Subwatershed
Crosby Lake Management Plan Implementation
Trout Brook Subwatershed Inspection and Minor Maintenance
TBI Easement Verification and Documentation
Center St./Rice St. Subwatershed Analysis
NPDES MS4 Stormwater Program
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program
(TBI) Television Inspection
Wetland, Stream and Ecosystem Restoration — Planning
Stream Corridor Restoration Feasibility Study
Mississippi River Subwatershed Mississippi River Subwatershed Initiatives
Implement Green Infrastructure along the Central Corridor — Planning
Large Scale Redevelopment Stormwater Planning
Green Line BMP Maintenance
Watershed Management Planning Third Generation Watershed Management Plan
Special Projects and Grants Staff & Engineering Support of Special Grants
Green Infrastructure Incentive Program
Shoreline and Streambank Restoration
Shoreline and Streambank Restoration Projects
Como Lake BMPs Curtiss Field Subwatershed Improvements
Gottfried’s Pit Improvement Project
Lake McCarrons BMPs Villa Park Wetland Restoration Project
Villa Park Subwatershed BMPs
Loeb Lake BMPs Stormwater Pond Retrofit
3 8 | C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
2013 Year In Review
Our Plans
Fund Name Project Name
Crosby Lake BMPs Highland Ravine
Trout Brook BMPs TBI Repair Station 53+08 to 60+49 — Cayuga Interchange
TBI Repair — Farrington
Wetland, Stream and Ecosystem Restoratiom — Implementation
Trillium Site — Water Resource Feature — Construction
Mississippi River Subwatershed BMPs
Green Line BMP Implementation
Green Line Redevelopment BMPs
Special Projects and Grants Special Grants
Debt Service Debt and Loan Service
2 0 1 3 A N N U A L R E P O R T C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T | 3 9
Our Plans
Fund Name Project Name Priority Project Description
Adminstration General Administration
Critical General Administration of District Operations
Administrative Allocation
Ongoing Annual Administrative Cost Allocation to Projects and Programs
Groundwater Groundwater Protec-tion - Well Sealing
Beneficial Provide grant reimbursements for well sealing
Rulemaking/ Rule Revisions
Evaluate Rules and Conduct Annual TAC Meeting
Critical Conduct TAC process to update Rules
Permitting Implement Permit Program
Critical Implement District Permit Program
Permit Tracking Database and Infor-mation Management
Critical Implement BMP Database for previous permits
Construction Inspection
Critical Inspect active permits sites for compliance
Permit Closure and Post Construction Inspection & Mainte-nance
Important Inspect completed permit projects for compliance and maintenance
Stewardship Grants
Grant Program Administration
Important Administer, promote, and outreach on Stewardship Grants
Project Inspection Important Inspection of grant projects to ensure proper construction and function
Project Design and Assistance
Important Provide project designs through public and private partners
Application Process-ing and Grant Award
Important Grant Award payments, processing
2014 Workplan
4 0 | C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
Fund Name Project Name Priority Project Description
Monitoring and Data Collection
Baseline Monitoring and Data Collection
Critical Monitoring of 7 baseline sites, 14 level logger sites and 4 rain gauges
Lake Monitoring and Data Collection
Critical Monitoring of 5 CRWD lakes, including chemistry and biological sampling and qualitative parameters
Villa Park Monitoring and Data Collection
Critical Monitoring of 2 FWQ sites in Villa Park as well as 2 level loggers and Lake McCarrons flow only station
Wetland Bio-monitoring
Important Annual Monitoring of CRWD wetlands including IBI assessments, water quality analysis, data analysis and reporting
Long-term Monitoring Database Development
Critical Development of a long term monitoring database for effective data management
BMP Monitoring Important Monitoring of BMP sites — Como 7 (6), Green Line (2), Bdale (1) and 24 level logger sites
Education and Outreach
General Critical General Communication and Outreach (Added $25,000 for U of M Community Assessment)
Stop the Rain Drain Critical Update SRD website to host CRWD Grant Programs
Homeowner Outreach — Community Clean-up
Critical Como Leaf Cleanup
Municipal Outreach Important Turf and winter maintenance Best Practices training for municipalities and Parks staff
Website and Social Media
Important Maintenance and improvement of CRWD website, purchase of contacts database
Contractor Outreach Important Best Practices training for professional landscape contractors
Partnerships Beneficial Contributions to partner organizations and collaborative groups
Events/Outreach Beneficial Events: Community and CRWD-sponsored, including Green Line outreach activity
Homeowner Outreach — Watershed Heroes
Beneficial Partnership with City of Saint Paul Parks to recognize homeowners using clean water practices
Technical Resources and Information Sharing
Local and Agency Plan Review and Tech Committee
Critical Review plans, serve on local, state, national committees related to stormwater/water quality
Strategic Project Preparation
Important Take a project(s) to next level of design to assist with grant applications ("shovel ready")
2014 Workplan
Our Plans
2 0 1 3 A N N U A L R E P O R T C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T | 4 1
2014 Workplan
Our Plans
Fund Name Project Name Priority Project Description
Future Trends:Research andPositioning
Innovative BMPs Research
Important Research of two BMPs or one large BMP to further CRWD understanding of their function
Water Resource Awareness Tools/Methods/Techniques
Important Develop Art Policy work with Watershed Artist in Residence
Green Infrastructure Incentive Program
Beneficial Develop incentive program for Green Infrastructure.
Climate Change Impacts-Research and Action
Beneficial Research Climate Change impacts on design Standards (Atlas — 14)
GeographicInformation Systems (GIS)
GIS Program Development
Important Manage GIS needs for CRWD
Data Acquisition Critical Purchase and update data layers
Internal Mapping System
Critical Maintain and update internal mapping system layers and troubleshoot issues
Impervious Surfaces Data Set
Critical Coordinate with GIS user group to obtain updated impervious surfaces data set
Safety Program Safety Training Critical Conduct CSE/first aid/CPR training for CRWD staff
Safety Program Up-dates/Audits
Critical Conduct safety audit including assessment of program plan, CSE protocols, office procedures and equipment
CSE Equipment Critical Proper equipment for safe entry into confined spaces including new equipment, calibration, maintenance, and repair expenses
Shoreline andStreambankMaintenance
Lake McCarrons Shoreline Restoration Project
Important Promote shoreline restoration project around Lake McCarrons
Saint Paul Natural Resources Intern Program
Important Sponsor intern with Saint Paul for BMP maintenance or other activities
Loeb Lake Shoreline Assessment
Important Conduct assessment of the lake shore
Crosby Lake Shoreline Assessment
Important Conduct assessment of the lake shore
4 2 | C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3
Fund Name Project Name Priority Project Description
Como Lake Subwatershed
Como Regional Park Stormwater Plan
Important Complete a Como Regional Park Stormwater Plan
Como BMP Mainte-nance and Inspection
Critical Maintenance and Inspection of Arlington-Pascal BMPs
Como Lake Imple-mentation Reporting and Audit
Important Annual MS4 TMDL compliance reporting, State of the Lake, assess need for in-lake management strategies
Lake McCarrons Subwatershed
Aquatic Invasive Species Plan
Critical Develop an Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Plan for Lake McCarrons
Loeb Lake Subwatershed
Willow Reserve Restoration Plan
Critical Planning for the protection and restoration of Willow Reserve in Saint Paul
Crosby Lake Subwatershed
Crosby Lake Manage-ment Plan Implemen-tation
Critical Implement project initiative as listed in the Crosby Lake Management Plan
Trout Brook Subwatershed
Crosby Lake Management Plan Implementation
Critical Implement project initiative as listed in the Crosby Lake Management Plan
TBI Easement Verification and Documentation
Critical Complete easement verification work for TBI and work towards correcting errors in location and filling gaps where there are no easements
Center St./Rice St. Subwatershed Analysis
Important Evaluate management strategies and plans for water quality improvement and flood reduction for implementation by the District and its partners
NPDES MS4 Stormwater Program
Critical Coordinate District MS4 requirements in cooperation with District partners
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program
Critical Develop a web-based system for citizen reporting of potential illicit discharges
Wetland, Stream andEcosystemRestoration —Planning
Wetland/Stream Reestablishment Feasibility Study
Important Wetland/Stream Feature analysis/design for Victoria Park or Ford Site
2014 Workplan
Our Plans
2 0 1 3 A N N U A L R E P O R T C A P I T O L R E G I O N W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I C T | 4 3
2014 Workplan
Our Plans
Fund Name Project Name Priority Project Description
Mississippi RiverSubwatershed
Implement Green Infrastructure along the Central Corridor — Planning
Critical Planning, Design and Construction of Green Line Stormwater BMP Signage
Redevelopment Stormwater Planning
Important Plan, design and other activities for shared, stacked green infrastructure along the Green Line
Green Line BMP Maintenance
Critical Maintain and repair CRWD's green infrastructure along Green Line
Shoreline andStreambankRestoration
Shoreline and Streambank Restoration Projects
Important Implement shoreline restoration and aquatic plant management
Ravine Stabilization Projects
Beneficial Complete design and installation of ravine stabilization projects
Como Lake BMPs
Curtiss Field Subwatershed Improvements
Critical Construction of Curtiss Pond Improvement Project to reduce flooding
Floating Island Important Design and build a floating island wetland in the Como Golf Course Pond
Lake McCarrons BMPs
McCarrons Subwatershed BMPs
Critical Construct BMPs within McCarrons Subwatershed
Crosby Lake BMPs
Highland Ravine Critical Complete the Highland Ravine Stabilization projects.
Trout Brook BMPs
TBI Repair — Farrington/Cottage
Critical Complete TBI inlet repair and new inlet installation at Farrington and Cottage
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1330 Minneapolis, MN 55401
PH 612.253.8200 www.Geosyntec.com
13 March 2014; rev 8 April 2014 Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park Drive Suite 4 Saint Paul, MN 55108 Attention: Mr. Forrest Kelley Subject: RFP for Potential OptiRTC at Upper Villa Park Project
Dear Forrest:
Geosyntec Consultants Inc. (Geosyntec) is pleased to submit to the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) a proposal to evaluate the benefits of including the OptiRTC monitoring and control system as part of the Upper Villa Park water quality improvement project in Roseville, MN.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
CRWD is working with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) to design an infiltration based water quality retrofit in the Lake McCarrons Subwatershed with the goal of reducing phosphorus by 45 pounds per year. As the infiltration gallery is to be located beneath an existing ball field, there is an opportunity to incorporate rainwater harvesting (RWH) for irrigation reuse as part of the project as well. CRWD would like to engage Geosyntec to determine if inclusion of the OptiRTC system can reduce the retrofit size and/or improve the function of the proposed combination of RWH and infiltration.
OptiRTC is a flexible platform that provides real-time control and data management services to meet a wide variety of environmental needs. Geosyntec’s OptiRTC system is a cloud based Microsoft Windows Azure Application coupled with lightweight low cost remote control and monitoring hardware, which provides secure and reliable infrastructure for data collection, storage, processing and internet based delivery.
KEY PERSONNEL
Mr. Eric Tollefsrud, P.G., located in our Minneapolis Office, will be the Geosyntec Project Director. Mr. Tollefsrud will be responsible for coordinating internal resources to ensure that all client expectations are being met.
Ms. Charlene Harper, P.E., LEED AP will serve as your Geosyntec Project Manager and she will be responsible for all services rendered by Geosyntec on this project. Ms. Harper has over 19 years of experience in the fields of water resources and site development specializing in low impact development and innovative stormwater treatment designs, stormwater concepts for federal projects, and compliance strategies for MS-4 and industrial stormwater permit programs.
2014 03 14 CRWD Upper Villa proposal.doc.doc
Mr. Forrest Kelley 13 March 2014; rev 8 April 2014 Page 2 of 5 Marcus Quigley, P.E., D.WRE, CPESC will provide overall quality control review and specific technical support for the OptiRTC design. Mr. Quigley has over a decade of experience working on challenging projects related to surface water hydrology, hydraulics, water quality, and stormwater and erosion and sediment control permitting and management. Through his research and development efforts, Mr. Quigley has pioneered new approaches to real-time surface and stormwater control and combined stormwater control/reuse systems.
Erica Tillinghast, CPESC, EIT will be the project engineer and lead modeler. She has two years of experience in the application of civil and water resources engineering, and was extensively involved in linking the impacts of urbanization and BMPs to stream bank erosion through her Master’s thesis research at North Carolina State University. Ms. Tillinghast has conducted hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for flood control and precipitation analyses, designed multiple stormwater BMP systems, created web-based dashboards for real-time control of stormwater practices, conducted statistical analyses, performed over 60 construction site audits, and written multiple technical documents.
Ms. Tillinghast is also assisting in a research and development effort led by Mr. Quigley and WERF entitled Critical Assessment of Stormwater Treatment and Control Selection Issues. The goal of the research is the commercialization of innovative real-time control systems for surface water application including rainwater harvesting, controlled underdrain bioretention, active green roofs, tidal marsh restoration, stormwater detention, retention, and wetland control, flood control, CSO compliance, flow diversion and splitting, and other low impact/distributed stormwater designs.
Geosyntec believes in assembling the best team to meet each client’s needs, independent of geography. CRWD will not be charged for travel time or expenses for Geosyntec’s design team; however, travel expenses for the system installation team are included in the fee below.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Based on the project understanding described above, and a scoping phone call with SRF, Geosyntec will provide the following scope of work:
1. Project Collaboration
Geosyntec will collaborate with SRF to identify and quantify the potential project benefits possible with the inclusion of OptiRTC. Anticipated benefits include reducing the size of the infiltration gallery, optimizing nutrient removal using an actively controlled treatment train approach, and providing monitoring and feedback for tracking the system’s function. This task includes preliminary modeling in support of the control system design, based on SWMM models and plans prepared by SRF.
The deliverable for this task will be a technical memo with recommendations for system layout; budget cost information for the OptiRTC components; and quantified volume and nutrient removal benefits. This task includes three conference/web calls with CRWD and SRF, as well as one presentation to the CRWD board.
2014 03 14 CRWD Upper Villa proposal.doc
Mr. Forrest Kelley 13 March 2014; rev 8 April 2014 Page 3 of 5
2. OptiRTC Interface Design and System Specifications
Following CRWD approval of the retrofit strategy, Geosyntec will perform detailed design for sensor, control valve and other system components, which will be integrated with the proposed irrigation system. We will produce draft design drawings and specifications for team review. Two to three plan sheets will be required to depict the control system layout, including details and notes necessary to communicate installation requirements. Specifications can be provided either in book form or directly on the drawings.
Once the system design and specifications are complete, Geosyntec will also design an internet interface (i.e., dashboard) for the project for CRWD review. The dashboard will include information on the Park Villa system in real-time, including water levels in the cistern and infiltration gallery, rates of infiltration, and forecasted rainfalls. The project dashboard can be open to the public or made private at the discretion of CRWD.
This task includes one site visit and meeting with CRWD by the design and installation team. Three additional collaboration meetings by conference/web calls are included in this task. The deliverable for this task includes draft and final system drawings and specifications.
3. Construction Phase Technical Support
Geosyntec will review contractor submittals of Site Water Control System components and respond to related RFI requests. These components include water level sensors and control valves to be included in the construction bid documents developed in task 2. Other activities to be provided by the project contractor include installing and connecting power and data signal conduits and cabling from source locations to the controller and other system components as required. This budget includes review of six submittals and two RFIs, as well as two site visits for construction phase meetings or observation of installation of key Control System components.
4. OptiRTC Installation
Geosyntec will provide and install a fully configured OptiRTC controller with appropriate enclosure for interfacing with the power and signal feeds from the system control valve(s), sensor(s), network and irrigation system components installed by the site contractor. This task includes system start-up services and confirmation of operational status.
Please note, any necessary permits and permit fees will be the responsibility of CRWD.
5. Technical Support
As part of this task, Geosyntec will train the system owner/operator how to operate the OptiRTC system. The training will consist of an in-person 4 hour training session at the owner’s offices. All training materials will be submitted to the owner prior to the training for distribution to personnel to be trained. Training will consist of an introduction to the OptiRTC system and how it has been implemented as part of the project and will include a demonstration of the system using the online interface.
2014 03 14 CRWD Upper Villa proposal.doc
Mr. Forrest Kelley 13 March 2014; rev 8 April 2014 Page 4 of 5
Geosyntec will develop a site-specific Operating Manual (one draft and one final) which will provide users information to manage the system. The training session above will also include a walk-through of the operating manual to ensure site personnel understand how the system operates. Finally, Geosyntec will develop a site-specific Maintenance Manual (one draft and one final) which will provide the owner/operator information required to maintain the system including regularly scheduled maintenance protocols.
POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING
The monitoring and control platform proposed for the project requires little physical maintenance; however periodic inspection of the control valve and other components is warranted. Due to the ability to remotely monitor the system, functional abnormalities or performance degradation can be detected through these means and automatically relayed to stakeholders or operations staff for interim inspection.
The computing environment developed for operation and performance tracking is a cloud-based application set with expandability and redundancy provided as part of the system architecture. As such, network connectivity is required at the site to incorporate predictive weather information, backend processing and control, and system monitoring. If network access cannot be provided by the host property, annual operating costs will need to incorporate the cost of engaging a network service provider to enable system connectivity.
In addition, data processing and transaction costs are accrued as part of normal operations. These are incorporated in as part of the base installation costs for the first year following commissioning. Beginning in year two (2), aggregate data processing, transaction and support service costs will be $100 per month exclusive of dedicated network costs if needed.
ESTIMATED FEE
Please see the attached detailed price breakdown for additional information.
Task Total Labor Hours Direct Expenses Time & Material Budget
1 Project Collaboration
54 $0 $7,511
2 OptiRTC Interface Design and System Specifications
162 $0 $20,849
3 Construction Phase Technical Support
32 $0 $4,796
4 OptiRTC Installation
48 $19,500 $25,532
5 Technical Support 60 $0 $8,355 $67,043
2014 03 14 CRWD Upper Villa proposal.doc
Mr. Forrest Kelley 13 March 2014; rev 8 April 2014 Page 5 of 5 Geosyntec will provide a one (1) year warranty on all parts and labor installed and will maintain the system for one (1) year after the installation date. Additional system operation and maintenance after the one year warranty period will be contracted separately.
SCHEDULE
Geosyntec understands the project schedule to be as follows:
• Preliminary engineering: Feb – March 2014 • Final engineering: March – July 2014 • Construction documents: June – September 2014 • Bid: December 2014 (to be ahead of MnDOT’s bid letting schedule) • Construction: October 2015.
We are prepared to begin work immediately upon receiving notice to proceed from CRWD and the modeling information from SRF.
CLOSING
Geosyntec appreciates the opportunity to support CRWD and the Upper Villa Park project team for this important project. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact me at (804) 393-9350. Sincerely,
Charlene A. Harper, P.E. Marcus Quigley, P.E. Senior Engineer Principal Attachments: Detailed Hourly Breakdown
2014 03 14 CRWD Upper Villa proposal.doc
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
DATE: April 11, 2014
TO: CRWD Board of Managers
FROM: Mark Doneux
RE: Post-Bond Issuance Compliance Policy
Background
The Capitol Region Watershed District is an issuer of tax-exempt governmental bonds. Over time, the
Internal Revenue Service has developed a series of regulations that require issuers of such bonds to take
certain actions after the bonds have been issued, to ensure that the bonds remain tax-exempt.
Issues
In September 2011, the IRS revised its Form 8038-G, which is the informational tax return that issuers
of tax-exempt governmental bonds are required to submit in connection with each bond issue. The new
version of the Form 8038-G requires the issuer to certify whether it has written procedures in place for
its post-issuance compliance activities.
The District’s Bond Counsel, Jenny Boulton of Kennedy and Graven, has prepared a model policy
which, if implemented and followed, will meet IRS requirements for post-issuance compliance. I would
recommend that the Board of Managers adopt this policy and follow the adopted policy with regard to
all of the District’s tax-exempt bonds. Simply stated, the policy requires the Administrator, as
responsible for monitoring three items:
1. How the District spends bond proceeds (use it for capital costs, authorized by statute, for our
governmental purpose),
2. How the District invests bond proceeds until they are spent and how the District invests money set
aside to pay the bonds, and
3. How the facilities the District financed are used.
This policy will be added to our current financial policies and procedures manual.
Requested Actions
Adopt Resolution Approving Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds
enc: Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds
Resolution Approving Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds
W:\02 Budget and Finance\CIP Financing\Bd Memo - Post Issuance Compliance Policy 4-11-14.doc
April 16, 2014
V. Action Item G)
Adopt Post-Bond Issuance
Compliance Policy
(Doneux)
DATE: April 10, 2014
TO: CRWD Board of Managers and Staff
FROM: Mark Doneux, Administrator
RE: April 16, 2014 Administrator’s Report
Administrator Approved or Executed Agreements
No new agreements
Board Approved or Executed Agreements
No new agreements
General updates including recent and upcoming meetings and events
CRWD Staff Anna Eleria, Bob Fossum and Forrest Kelley presented at the Stormwater U: Innovation in BMPs
conference on Tuesday April 1, 2014.
Staff attended the annual Women’s Environmental Network, networking event on Wednesday April 2, 2014
held at Hamline University.
Staff will give a presentation on stormwater management and BMPs to students during Central High School’s
Earth Day Extravaganza on Tuesday April 29, 2014.
Britta Suppes will be presenting ‘Multiple uses of data from an automated monitoring network in a 6-mile urban
stormwater tunnel’ at the National Water Quality Monitoring Conference in Cincinnati, OH, April 28 – May 2.
1.) Upcoming events and meetings
a) Next Board meeting is Wednesday May 7, 2014 from 6:00 - 8:00 pm.
b) Manager Thienes will not be at the May 7, 2014 or May 21, 2014 Board meetings.
c) The 20th
Annual Great River Gathering presented by the Saint Paul River Front Corporation is Thursday
May 8, 2014 from 5:00 – 8:30 pm at Union Depot.
d) Next CAC meeting is Wednesday May 14, 2014 from 7:00 - 9:00 pm.
e) Saint Paul Public Works Annual Open House is Tuesday May 20, 2014 from 4:00 – 7:00 pm at the Dale
Street Garage.
2.) Project Updates – Community Capacity Assessment: CRWD staff been working with the research team at the U of M and have
developed an interview guide. Interviews will begin in early May.
W:\04 Board of Managers\Correspondence\Administrator's Report 2014\Administrator's Report 4-16-14.docx
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.