Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District Regular Meeting of Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board Of Managers, for Wednesday, June 17, 2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of 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 # 15-008 Victoria Street Roseville - Wetland Permit (Kelley) B) Permit # 15-025 Stewart Street (Kelley) C) Permit # 08-021 St Paul College – Permit Closeout (Hosch) IV. Special Reports A) MS4 Permit Annual Report and Public Meeting, Anna Eleria B) 2014 Stormwater Monitoring Report, Britta Suppes V. Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the June 3, 2015 Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve May 2015 Accounts Payables/Receivables (Sylvander) C) AR: Approve Joint Powers Agreement with MPCA for Exfiltration Monitoring (Zwonitzer) VI. Unfinished Business A) Ford Site Update (Fossum) B) Drainage Assistance Guidelines (Eleria) VII. General Information A) Summer Event Schedule VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, June 10, 2015 CAC Tour B) Wednesday, July 8, 2015 Board Meeting IX. Adjournment W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2015\June 17, 2015 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx 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
Regular Meeting of Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board Of Managers, for Wednesday, June 17,
2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of 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 # 15-008 Victoria Street Roseville - Wetland Permit (Kelley)
B) Permit # 15-025 Stewart Street (Kelley)
C) Permit # 08-021 St Paul College – Permit Closeout (Hosch)
IV. Special Reports A) MS4 Permit Annual Report and Public Meeting, Anna Eleria
B) 2014 Stormwater Monitoring Report, Britta Suppes
V. Action Items
A) AR: Approve Minutes of the June 3, 2015 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)
B) AR: Approve May 2015 Accounts Payables/Receivables (Sylvander)
C) AR: Approve Joint Powers Agreement with MPCA for Exfiltration Monitoring (Zwonitzer)
VI. Unfinished Business
A) Ford Site Update (Fossum)
B) Drainage Assistance Guidelines (Eleria)
VII. General Information
A) Summer Event Schedule
VIII. Next Meetings
A) Wednesday, June 10, 2015 CAC Tour
B) Wednesday, July 8, 2015 Board Meeting
IX. Adjournment
W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2015\June 17, 2015 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx
Materials Enclosed
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-008 Victoria Street Wetland Permit
Applicant: Marc Culver City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113
VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION: Approve the requested variance from the 25 foot minimum buffer requirements of Wetland Management Rule E. PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions 1. Provide final wetland replacement plan sheet signed by a licensed professional per the Minnesota Board of
AELSLAGID. 2. Provide a planting plan that identifies plugs, species, spacing, and quantities for the emergent wetland
vegetation. 3. Provide an updated erosion control sheet for the wetland creation. Include perimeter controls to prevent
sediment from entering the existing wetland during construction.
Applicant: Ryan Johnson City of Roseville
2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113
Description: Wetland replacement for unavoidable impacts due to creation of a new bituminous trail Stormwater Management: N/A District Rule: E, F Variance Requested Disturbed Area: 2,080 square feet of wetland impact Impervious Area: N/A
Permit Location
Aerial Photo
Victoria Street
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report
CRWD Permit #: 15-008 Review date: June 11, 2015 Project Name: Victoria Street Reconstruction Applicant: Marc Culver City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 651-792-7042 [email protected] Purpose: Wetland replacement for unavoidable impacts due to creation of a
new bituminous trail Location: Alameda Pond at Victoria Street between Roselawn and CR B Applicable Rules: E and F VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION: Approve the requested variance from the 25 foot minimum buffer requirements of Wetland Management Rule E. PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions EXHIBITS:
1. Construction Plans, by City of Roseville, dated 3/6/15, recd. 4/6/15. 2. MN Joint Application form dated 5/7/15, recd. 5/15/15. 3. Joint Application Attachment D Packet, not dated, recd. 5/15/15. 4. Victoria Wetland Land Acquisition Potential Path, by City of Roseville, not dated,
recd. 5/7/15 HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: Permit 15-008 Victoria Street Roseville was issued on April 21, 2015. That permit did not include an approved replacement plan or allow for impacts to the wetlands on site. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-008 Victoria Street Roseville\WCA\15-008 Victoria Street wetland review.doc Page 1 of 3
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. 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 N/A
RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL
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
N/A 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. The project intersects a wetland that is approximately 8.7 acres. 2. Wetland boundaries have been delineated and approved by CRWD staff and
WCA. 3. Approximately 2,080 square feet of wetland impact are proposed from the
addition of a continuous trail from Larpenteur to County Road B. 4. WCA sequencing has been adequately addressed by attempting to avoid and
minimize the impacts. Alternatives considered but determined infeasible include realignment, pedestrian crossings, boardwalks, decreasing road setbacks, and increasing bank slopes.
5. Impact mitigation is proposed by creating a 6,098 sf wetland in upland adjacent to the wetland across Victoria Street.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-008 Victoria Street Roseville\WCA\15-008 Victoria Street wetland review.doc Page 2 of 3
6. The City of Roseville is purchasing the privately owned parcel to the south of the existing wetland in order to construct the replacement wetland. CRWD provided a grant to purchase and protect the wooded buffer.
7. A minimum buffer of 25 feet is not provided. A variance has been requested based on the following findings:
a. A 25 foot buffer currently does not exist due to wetlands directly adjacent to the road embankment on both sides.
b. Providing a 25 foot buffer would require additional wetland fill. c. The stormwater runoff from the new trail will be directed away from
the wetland and to curb and gutter through a stable piped conveyance. 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. The existing west wetland is not protected from sediment deposition.
Additional BMPs are needed. RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION
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
N/A VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION: Approve the requested variance from the 25 foot minimum buffer requirements of Wetland Management Rule E. RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions:
1. Provide final wetland replacement plans signed by a licensed professional per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID.
2. Provide a planting plan that identifies plugs, species, spacing, and quantities for the emergent wetland vegetation.
3. Provide an updated erosion control sheet for the wetland creation. Include perimeter controls to prevent sediment from entering the existing wetland during construction.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-008 Victoria Street Roseville\WCA\15-008 Victoria Street wetland review.doc Page 3 of 3
URBAN SECTION RECONSTRUCTIONWETLAND IMPACTS
15 30 60
Figure 1
SHEET NO.
FIE
LD B
OO
K:
Plo
t Dat
e: 0
4/07
/201
5D
raw
ing
nam
e: R
:\Pub
licW
orks
\CA
D\P
roje
cts\
2015
\15-
02_2
015_
PM
P_R
econ
stru
ctio
n\D
raw
ings
\27-
Vic
tST_
C50
1.dw
gX
refs
:, X
-SIT
E-E
XS
T, R
SV
L22-
bdr,
X-S
ITE
-NE
W, X
-SIT
E-S
UR
F
DE
SC
RIP
TIO
N O
F R
EV
ISIO
NS
DA
TEN
O.
BY
LIC
. NO
.D
ATE
CH
EC
KE
D
DE
SIG
NE
DD
RA
WN
CIT
Y P
RO
J. N
O.
SA
P N
O.
SHEET NO. OF SHEETS
EN
GIN
EE
RIN
G
DE
PA
RTM
EN
T
I HE
RE
BY
CE
RTI
FY T
HA
T TH
IS P
LAN
WA
S P
RE
PA
RE
DB
Y M
E O
R U
ND
ER
MY
DIR
EC
T S
UP
ER
VIS
ION
AN
D T
HA
TI A
M A
DU
LY L
ICE
NS
ED
UN
DE
R T
HE
LA
WS
OF
THE
STA
TE O
F M
INN
ES
OTA
.E
R T
HE
LA
WS
OF
THE
STA
TE O
F M
INN
ES
O
2015
PM
P R
EC
ON
STR
UC
TIO
NV
ICTO
RIA
STR
EE
T
4200
2D
ATE
DR
T/M
JCD
RT
MJC
15-0
216
0-25
1-00
3 06
2-65
2-02
1
LAR
PE
NTE
UR
AV
E. T
O C
OU
NTY
RO
AD
BV
ICTO
RIA
ST.
RE
CO
NS
TRU
CTI
ON
71
PR
OFE
SS
ION
AL
EN
GIN
EE
RP
RO
FES
SIO
NA
L E
NG
INE
ER
CIT
Y E
NG
INE
ER
CIT
YE
NG
INE
ER
27
14/
7/15
DR
TA
DD
EN
DU
M #
2
STO
RM
SE
WE
R
950
940
975
970
965
960
955
945
ROSELAWN AVE./VICTORIA ST. STORM SEWER15 30 60
950
980
975
970
965
960
955
945
NOTES:1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING UTILITIES LOCATED IN THE FIELD.2. SIGN RELOCATIONS (REMOVAL, PROTECTION AND REINSTALLATION) IS INCIDENTAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.3. SEE TABULATION A FOR WORK PERFORMED ON ALL UTILITY STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS4. INSULATE ALL EXISTING WATER SERVICES AT ALL STORM SEWER CROSSINGS. SEE INSULATION DETAIL.
Access/Parking
Future Trail on top of berm
Path
Wetland Edge
Wetland Edge
Approximate Mitigation Area
Access/Parking
Prepared by:Engineering Department ´
0 40 80 Feet
Victoria Street Mill & Overlawyand Pathway Improvements
Wetland Mitigation Area and Future Path Layout (DRAFT)2011 Aerial
May 07, 2015 mapdoc: Victoria Wetland Land Acquisition Potential Path.mxdmap: Victoria Wetland Land Acquisition Potent ial Path.pdf
1975 Victoria StreetLegend
Wetland Replacement
Wetland Boundary
Parcels_Detai l
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-025 Stewart Street Extension
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions: 1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Provide a landscaping plan that includes plugs for vegetation establishment on the basin bottom.
Applicant: Diane Nordquist St. Paul Planning and Economic Development 25 W Fourth Street, Suite 1300 CHA St Paul, MN 55102
Consultant: Eric Klingbeil TKDA, Inc
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 St. Paul, MN 55101-2140
Description: Construction of a new parking lot and street extension into Victoria Park Stormwater Management: Applicant proposes one surface filtration basin. District Rule: —C D F Disturbed Area: 1.86 Acres Impervious Area: 1.08 Acres
Permit Location
Aerial Photo
Otto
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report
CRWD Permit #: 15-025 Review date: June 9, 2015 Project Name: Stewart Street Applicant: Diane Nordquist
Saint Paul Planning and Economic Development 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 651-266-6640 [email protected]
Purpose: Construction of a cul-de-sac road, a filtration basin, and storm
sewer. Location: West of the intersection of Otto Avenue and Stewart Avenue Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 3 Conditions EXHIBITS:
1. Drainage Area Map, by TKDA, dated 5/15/15, recd. 5/28/15. 2. Atlas 14 storm duration frequencies, by NOAA, dated 6/18/14, recd. 5/4/15. 3. HydroCAD Report, by TKDA, dated 5/15/15, recd. 5/28/15. 4. Drain Tile Calculation, by TKDA, not dated, recd. 5/4/15. 5. Drainage Report, by TKDA, dated 8/9/12, recd. 5/4/15. 6. Stormwater Memorandum, by TKDA, dated 5/15/15, recd. 5/28/15. 7. Response to Comments, by TKDA, dated 5/28/15, recd. 5/28/15. 8. Project Plans (sheets C000, C001, C100-C102, C200, C201, C300, C400, C500,
C501-C503, C600-C602, E100, E101), by TKDA, dated 5/28/15, recd. 5/28/15. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: Work was previously approved on this site under permits 11-023 and 14-022. A private project adjacent to the site is being reviewed under permit 15-026. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-025 Stewart Street Extension\15-025 Stewart Street_Review_02.doc Page 1 of 4
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. 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 47,045 square feet. b. Volume retention calculation :
47,045 sf X 0.9 inches X (1/12 foot/inch) =3,528 cf Volume
Retention Required (cu. ft.)
BMP 1 inch Runoff (cu. ft.)
2 inch Runoff Max
(cu. ft.)
Volume below outlet
(cu. ft.)
3,528 None. Filtration is proposed.
c. Filtration is proposed due to high bedrock: d. 70% credit Filtration calculation:
e. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. f. Filtration volume and facility size has been calculated using the
appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-025 Stewart Street Extension\15-025 Stewart Street_Review_02.doc Page 2 of 4
g. The filtration area is capable of filtering the required volume within 48 hours.
h. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.
4. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested. 5. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids
removal from the runoff generated by the new street on an annual basis. However, additional off-site treatment was directed to the oversized filtration basin to north of the railroad that offset the drainage leaving the site untreated
6. The City of St. Paul has a standing Memorandum of Understanding for maintenance with CRWD. Adequate maintenance access is provided for the surface systems.
RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL 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, adequate conveyance of stormwater has been provided to prevent flooding.
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.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-025 Stewart Street Extension\15-025 Stewart Street_Review_02.doc Page 3 of 4
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. A SWPPP has
been submitted and satisfies NPDES requirements. RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION
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 plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID.
2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Provide a landscaping plan that includes plugs for vegetation establishment on the
basin bottom.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-025 Stewart Street Extension\15-025 Stewart Street_Review_02.doc Page 4 of 4
DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS
FIE
LD B
OO
K:
DATENO. BYLIC. NO.
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THATI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED
DATE
CHECKED
DESIGNED DRAWN
I AM A DULY LICENSED
CLIENT NO. MSA NO.
RECORD NO.
PROJECT NO.
Plo
t Dat
e: 0
5/28
/201
5D
raw
ing
nam
e: K
:\n-z
\StP
aul\1
3079
005\
mun
i\dw
gs\C
3D11
-Blu
ff S
t\Pla
nSet
\C20
0.dw
gX
refs
:, 22
x34-
Mun
i, R
SQ
, _P
ropo
sed
Bas
e - c
urre
nt, _
Exi
st B
ase,
S01
794-
Mas
ter,
_Pro
pose
dBas
e-au
gust
201
4, a
ngle
d pa
rkin
g ba
se
SHEET NO.
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500Saint Paul, MN 55101651.292.4400tkda.com
13079.005VICTORIA PARK DEVELOPMENT
ST. PAUL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SAINT PAUL MINNESOTAERIC E. KLINGBEIL
EEK MOB
RSQ
MINNESOTAPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
C200
STEWART AVENUE
EROSION CONTROL
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
DATE: June 9, 2015
TO: CRWD Board of Managers
FROM: Elizabeth Hosch, BMP Inspector
RE: Permit Closeout
Background
Construction activity is complete for permit 08-021, St. Paul College.
Issues
Final inspection has been conducted to confirm construction of a new entry drive, functionality of an
underground infiltration stormwater treatment system, and final stabilization.
No surety was retained for the project.
Action Requested
Approve Certificate of Completion for permit #08-021, St. Paul College.
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
DATE: June 11, 2015 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Anna Eleria, Water Resource Project Manager RE: Approve MS4 Annual Report for 2014
Background
As a regulated operator of a small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), CRWD is required to prepare and submit an annual report of activities and accomplishments associated with its stormwater pollution prevention program (SWPPP) by June 30th to MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). CRWD must solicit public comment on the MS4 annual report and hold an annual public meeting to present the SWPPP activities and accomplishments made in the previous year.
Issues
At the June 3, 2015 meeting, the Board authorized a public comment period for CRWD’s 2014 stormwater management activities and accomplishments, which are summarized in the enclosed draft MS4 annual report form and in CRWD’s draft 2014 annual report. The public comment period ends on June 28th. Announcements of the public comment period and public meeting were published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press and CRWD’s website. The draft 2014 annual reports are available on CRWD’s website.
The June 17th Board meeting serves as CRWD’s annual public meeting. CRWD staff will give a brief presentation of CRWD’s stormwater management accomplishments and accept comments from the public. Any comments received at the meeting or in writing will be considered and if appropriate, incorporated into the annual report.
Action Requested
Approve CRWD’s MS4 Annual Report for 2014 and authorize the Administrator to submit the report to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
enc: Draft CRWD MS4 Annual Report for 2014 (hard copies available at the meeting upon request)
June 17, 2015 Board Meeting IV. Special Report – A) CRWD
MS4 Annual Report for 2014 and Public Meeting (Eleria)
DATE: June 11, 2015 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Britta Suppes, Monitoring Coordinator RE: Accept 2014 Stormwater Monitoring Report Background Since 2005, CRWD has been collecting and analyzing water quality data through the District Monitoring Program. During the 2014 monitoring period (January-December), stormwater monitoring sites located throughout seven of the sixteen major subwatersheds were monitored for flow and water quality. Water quality samples were analyzed for a variety of parameters including nutrients, solids, metals, bacteria, and chloride. Conclusions and recommendations from 2014 will help guide monitoring performed in 2015. Issues Staff have analyzed the 2014 monitoring data and have completed a draft stormwater report. Staff will review and request acceptance of the 2014 Stormwater Monitoring Report at this Board meeting. The report will be reviewed with the Managers highlighting key findings from the monitoring efforts. The report is lengthy and staff would suggest Managers focus their review on sections 1 (Executive Summary), 2 (Introduction), 4 (Climatological Summary), 5 (2014 CRWD Water Quality Results Summary), and 13 (Conclusions & Recommendations). If you would like a paper copy of the draft report please contact Michelle at the office. Requested Action Accept 2014 Stormwater Monitoring Report. enc: Draft 2014 Stormwater Monitoring Report (hard copies available at the meeting upon request) W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\2014 Monitoring\2014 Annual Report\Brd Memo_Strmwtr Report 6-11-15.docx
June 17, 2013 Board Meeting
IV. Special Report—2014 Stormwater Monitoring Report
(Suppes)
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
2014 Stormwater Monitoring Report
JUNE 11, 2015
Prepared By: CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ i
Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi
* Date/Time indicates period of operation for continuously monitored sites in 2014.
** Equipment malfunction. Data not used for entire 2014 monitoring period.
Continuously Monitored SitesInstall
Date/Time*
Uninstall
Date/Time*
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 13
Full water quality stations in 2014 consisted of an area-velocity sensor and an automated water
sampler. The area-velocity sensors were secured to the base and center of the pipe or channel and
were connected to the automated water sampler housed above ground. Area-velocity sensors
measured and recorded water depth and velocity every 10 or 15 minutes. This data was used to
calculate discharge or volumetric flow of water at the site by relating water depth in the pipe or
channel to area (each pipe or channel has a unique relationship) and multiplying by the velocity
reading.
When the flow of water reached a specified depth or velocity, the sampler engaged to collect
water samples. Generally, samplers were programmed to capture storm events greater than or
equal to the 0.5 inch precipitation event. Two different sampler sizes were used: a compact
sampler and a full-size sampler. A compact sampler can collect up to 48 200 milliliter (mL)
samples (2 per bottle). A full-size sampler can collect 96 200 mL samples (4 per bottle). A
sample was collected after a specified volume of water passed through the site in order to collect
samples over the entire hydrograph. These individual samples were combined and mixed to
produce a single composite sample. This approach provides a better representation of stormwater
quality throughout the entirety of a storm or base flow event as opposed to taking a single grab
sample. To create a composite sample of an event at a given site, the individual sample bottles
were first shaken until the sampled water became homogenous. The sample bottles were then
poured together into a 14-Liter (L) churn sample splitter and thoroughly mixed to create a
homogenous sample. Once mixed, 4 liters of the homogenous sample were distributed to a
sample bottle provided by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)
Laboratory.
Water quality samples were collected during storm events at the ten full water quality sites.
With the exception of Sarita, Como 7, Como 3 and Como Golf Course Pond, monitoring sites
had continuous baseflow during dry weather periods. Composite samples of this dry weather
baseflow were taken at these sites twice a month from April to November and once a month
from December to March.
Bacteria grab samples for Escherichia coli (E. coli) were taken at all full water quality sites
during storm events when runoff was generated. At sites with baseflow, bacteria base grab
samples were collected twice a month during dry weather from March to November and monthly
during the winter. When collected, bacteria grab samples for E. coli were sampled directly into
sterilized containers during storm events and baseflow periods and delivered immediately to the
lab for analyses due to the short sample holding time (6 hours).
Water quality samples were delivered to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
(MCES) Laboratory for analysis. The chemical parameters, method of analysis, and holding
times are listed in Table 3-4. If the lab analysis occurred after the holding time of a given
chemical parameter had expired, that chemical parameter was not analyzed.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 14
3.2.3 FLOW-ONLY AND LEVEL LOGGER STATIONS
The flow-only stations positioned at the outlets of Como Lake and Lake McCarrons use two
different methods to collect and determine discharge data. At the Como Lake outlet, flow is
regulated by a wooden weir in a manhole. A level sensor was placed on the upstream side of the
weir. When the level recorded exceeded the distance between the sensor and the weir, the
structure was discharging. The volume was then calculated based on the dimensions of the weir,
the recorded level, and the periods of recorded outflow. At the Lake McCarrons outlet, an area-
velocity sensor connected to a data logger collected and recorded water depth and velocity every
ten minutes. This data was used to calculate discharge at the site with the known pipe
dimensions.
Level logger stations were operated at four storm ponds within the Trout Brook subwatershed
(Figure 3-1). The data collected at these sites is used to track pond elevation in relation to
precipitation. The data is also used to calibrate the hydrologic and hydraulic model for the Trout
Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor. A pressure transducer was secured at a known depth in the
Table 3-4: Analysis method, reporting limits, and holding times for water chemistry parameters analyzed by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES).
Parameter Abbreviation Method Reporting Limit Holding Time
Cadmium Cd MET-ICPMSV_5 0.0002 mg/L 180 days
Carbonaceous BOD, 5 day CBOD BOD5_5 0.2 mg/L 48 hours
Chloride Cl CHLORIDE_AA_3 0.5 mg/L 28 days
Chromium Cr MET-ICPMSV_5 0.00008 mg/L 180 days
Copper Cu MET-ICPMSV_5 0.0003 mg/L 180 days
Escherichia Coli E. coli Colilert and Colilert-18 with Quanti-Tray/2000 method N/A 6 hours
Fluoride Fl ANIONS_IC_3 0.02 mg/L 28 days
Hardness Hardness HARD-TITR_3 N/A 28 days
Lead Pb MET-ICPMSV_5 0.0001 mg/L 180 days
Nickel Ni MET-ICPMSV_5 0.0003 mg/L 180 days
Nitrate as N NO3 N-N_AA_4 0.01 mg/L 28 days
Nitrite as N NO2 N-N_AA_4 0.003 mg/L 28 days
Nitrogen, Ammonia NH3 NH3_AA_3 0.005 mg/L 28 days
Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, Total TKN NUT_AA_3 0.03 mg/L 28 days
Orthophosphate as P Ortho-P ORTHO_P_1 0.005 mg/L 48 hours
pH at 25 Degrees C pH pH by electrochemical pH probe N/A N/A
Phosphorus, Dissolved Dissolved P P-AV 0.02 mg/L 28 days
Phosphorus, Total TP NUT_AA_3 0.02 mg/L 28 days
Potassium K MET-ICPMSV_5 .03 mg/L 180 days
Sulfate SO4 SO4-IC 0.15 mg/L 28 days
Surfactants MBAS$ SM 5540 C 0.10 mg/L 48 hours
Total Dissolved Solids TDS TDS180_1 5 mg/L 7 days
Total Suspended Solids TSS TSSVSS_3 N/A 7 days
Volatile Suspended Soilds VSS TSSVSS_3 N/A 7 days
Zinc Zn MET-ICPMSV_5 0.0008 mg/L 180 days
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 15
pond and connected to a data logger which continuously recorded stage every ten minutes. The
logger locations were surveyed relative to a known benchmark in order to convert stage data to a
true elevation.
3.2.4 PRECIPITATION STATIONS
Precipitation was measured using automatic and manual rain gauges (Figure 3-1). The Trout
Brook-East Branch, Saint Paul Fire Station No. 1, Metropolitan Mosquito Control District
central office, Western District Police Station, and Villa Park Outlet precipitation monitoring
sites used automatic tipping bucket rain gauges which record precipitation amounts continuously
during storm events in order to determine rainfall intensity. Manual rain gauges were used at the
CRWD office and Villa Park. The manual rain gauge at the CRWD office was checked and
emptied each workday at 7:30 AM. The manual rain gauge at Villa Park was checked and
emptied after every storm event.
Precipitation data, recorded every 15 minutes at the UMN St. Paul campus, was used to
determine daily, monthly, and annual rainfall amounts for the Capitol Region watershed.
Precipitation data from the NWS at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport was
substituted for any gaps in the UMN data. It is acknowledged that some level of variability exists
spatially and temporally for precipitation events within the District. However, previous
watershed model calibration within the District has shown that the precipitation amount at the
UMN site adequately represents the District as a whole.
3.2.5 MONITORING DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE
Full water quality sites that were installed for the entire year in 2014 collected data for an
average of 356 days. CRWD achieved an average monitoring efficiency of 98% at the
continuously monitored full water quality sites in 2014, meaning that 98% of all potential data
was collected during the calendar year (Appendix B). Missing data accounted for the remaining
2% and was due to equipment failure, power failure, flooding, or vandalism. Monitoring at Villa
Park, Sarita, and Hidden Falls was 100% efficient during the periods they were installed from
April to November 2014. The level logger site at Sims-Agate and the Como Outlet flow-only
site were also 100% efficient. The Westminster-Mississippi level logger and McCarrons Outlet
flow logger were 97% and 95% efficient respectively. Due to equipment malfunction, the entire
2014 record of data for Willow Reserve and Arlington-Jackson was determined to be unusable.
After the 2014 monitoring season was complete, flow data was quality checked and corrected by
removing points with missing data or bad values and interpolating their values between good
data points. If there were extended periods of missing or bad data in which there were no storm
events, an average baseflow level and velocity were calculated and substituted. For storm events
where velocity did not log accurately, but level was still logged, a stage to velocity relationship
was developed using level and velocity data from good periods of stormflow record. The
relationship was then used to calculate an approximation of velocity for those periods of missing
data. If this was not possible, or there were storm events during this time, the data was left as
missing and not factored into discharge calculations.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 16
The 2014 water quality sample data reported by the MCES lab was also rigorously checked for
quality. The reported sample times and dates were compared with field notes as well as the lab
chain of custody forms. Any abnormally high or low sample values were denoted and cross-
checked with field notes to ensure the parameter value was commensurate with the conditions of
the day in which the sample was taken. Sample concentration results that were outside of the
average range of data were identified as outliers and removed from event load calculations.
3.2.6 TOTAL DISCHARGE AND POLLUTANT LOAD CALCULATIONS
For all full water quality monitoring stations, the stage, velocity, and water quality data collected
were used to calculate total discharge and pollutant loads for total phosphorus (TP) and total
suspended solids (TSS). Discharge and pollutant loads were calculated for each storm,
snowmelt, and illicit discharge event at all stations. For sites with baseflow, monthly TP and TSS
loads were calculated. At the stations monitored continuously, the totals represent annual
discharges and loads. At Como 7, Como 3, Hidden Falls, Sarita, and Villa Park, monitoring
equipment cannot be operated during the winter months because equipment failure or damage
can occur from freezing temperatures and ice. The 2014 reported discharge and loads for these
stations are only representative of April through November.
Total discharge and pollutant loads for the Como 7 Subwatershed include combined data from
the Como 7 monitoring site and the outlet for the Como Golf Course Pond. The outflow from
the pond discharges into a storm sewer just downstream of the Como 7 monitoring station.
Analysis of the combined Como 7 and Como Golf Course Pond site data was done in the same
manner as all other full water quality monitoring stations.
For Villa Park, total discharge and pollutant loads also include any discharge flowing through the
emergency overflow near the outlet of the wetland system. Discharge was quantified by placing
a level logger near the weir outlet structure that recorded the duration of an overflow period.
In 2014, total discharge and pollutant load calculations for all stations were performed in Kisters
WISKI (Version 7.4.1) software (referred to as WISKI from here on). WISKI is a database
software specifically designed for continuous and discrete water quality data. WISKI was
implemented in 2014 by CRWD and will be utilized in to the future for all stormwater data
storage and analysis.
Flow Partitioning and Discharge Calculation
The 2014 final flow data for each station was separated into base, storm, snowmelt, and illicit
discharge. For sites without sustained baseflow, all events corresponding to a precipitation event
were considered storm, snowmelt, or illicit discharge intervals. For sites with year-round
baseflow, separation of event flow and baseflow was necessary. Storm events were identified
using an automated script in WISKI, which took into account the rate of change in the
hydrograph and a threshold above baseflow in the preceding period. Baseflow was considered
continuous (but not constant) during storm events. Baseflow was estimated during a storm event
by interpolating between the discharge at the beginning and end of the storm event interval. The
baseflow amount calculated during the storm event was subtracted from the total storm event
discharge to determine the storm event discharge volume.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 17
To identify snowmelt events, peaks that occurred during winter and early-spring months were
cross-referenced with snowpack data from the National Weather Service (NWS). A peak was
determined to be a snowmelt interval if a snowpack depth was recorded by the NWS the day of
the peak and no precipitation was recorded. If precipitation occurred on the same day as a peak
and a snowpack depth was recorded, the event was also classified as snowmelt. If precipitation
(including snow) occurred on the same day as a peak, but no snowpack was recorded, the event
was classified as a storm event.
An event was considered a potential illicit discharge if elevated flow was observed in the
discharge data that did not correspond to precipitation, snowmelt, or any other known
climatological or permitted discharging event. Illicit discharge volumes are generally
significantly lower than snowmelt or stormflow and are not identified by the automated script.
As a result, illicit discharge events were manually identified.
The total discharge for each interval was calculated using WISKI to integrate the flow rate data
for baseflow and events. Discharge volumes were summed to calculate a total discharge for the
2014 monitoring period. Discharge subtotals were also calculated by flow type (base, storm,
snowmelt, illicit discharge) for the monitoring period.
The 2014 method of baseflow and event separation is different from methods used in previous
years. The 2014 method was not used to recalculate baseflow and event parameters for
historically collected flow data at all sites. Due to the differing calculation method, 2014 storm,
snowmelt and baseflow loads and discharge volumes cannot be directly compared to previous
years. However, total annual loads and discharges are unaffected by the new methodology.
Event Load Calculation
The TP and TSS concentrations (reported by the MCES lab) were used to calculate TP and TSS
loads for each sampled event. A median historical monthly concentration was applied to events
for which samples were not collected. The median concentration was calculated using the
median of all samples collected for a given monitoring station by month and by event type (i.e.
base, storm, snowmelt, or illicit discharge) for the entire monitoring record. The median
concentration values used for the 2014 load calculations are listed in Appendix C.
TP and TSS loads were calculated for each event using the following equation:
In 2014, the Trout Brook subwatershed exported the greatest amount of water (666,381,676 cf)
because it has the largest drainage area in CRWD (5,028 acres) (Figure 5-1; Table 5-7). The
2014 total discharge for all monitored subwatersheds for both continuously and seasonally
monitored stations were greater than the historical averages of previous monitoring years (2005-
2013) (Figure 5-1), largely due to an above average annual precipitation year. The total
precipitation amount in 2014 was 35.66 inches, which was 5.05 inches greater than the 30-year
normal. In addition, a deep snowpack during winter 2014, followed a very wet spring (57% of
2014 precipitation occurred in April-June) resulted in substantial runoff and high discharge
volumes at all monitoring stations.
For the continuously monitored stations (St. Anthony Park, Phalen Creek, Trout Brook-East
Branch, Trout Brook-West Branch, and Trout Brook Outlet), baseflow comprised the majority
(54-88%) of the total annual discharge, with the exception of East Kittsondale (35%) because it
is the only subwatershed that is not connected to a surface water (Figure 5-2; Table 5-7).
Stormflow accounted for less of the total annual discharge at the continuously monitored sites
since precipitation is episodic and seasonal, whereas baseflow is constant and perennial.
Due to a deep snowpack in 2014 (76.2 inches), snowmelt runoff made up a larger than normal
fraction of the total discharge at the continuously monitored stations (Figure 5-2; Table 5-7).
Throughout spring 2014, the snowpack melted slowly and diurnally with daily afternoon peaks
and was not fully melted until April 27. In addition, the large amount of snowmelt provided
substantial recharge and increased the antecedent soil moisture conditions, so any spring
precipitation following snowmelt became runoff.
At the seasonally monitored stations (Como 3, Como 7, Sarita), stormflow comprised the entire
total annual discharge since these sites do not have baseflow (Figure 5-2; Table 5-7). Villa Park
and Hidden Falls are also seasonally monitored, though baseflow is present at these stations. At
Villa Park, 60% of the total annual flow is baseflow. At Hidden Falls, 54% of the total annual
flow is baseflow. Snowmelt events were not recorded at any of the seasonally monitored sites
since snowmelt occurred prior to the flow monitoring equipment being installed spring 2014
(Table 3-3). Overall, the seasonally monitored stations record less total annual discharge than the
continuously monitored stations since they do not have baseflow and they are monitored for a
shorter time period (April to November).
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 34
Water Yield (cf/ac)
Water yield was calculated for each monitoring site by dividing the total annual discharge by
subwatershed drainage area in order to make subwatershed comparisons possible. From this
calculation, Phalen Creek recorded the highest annual water yield (145,979 cf/ac) in comparison
to all other continuously monitored stations in 2014 (Figure 5-3). However, Phalen Creek likely
recorded the highest water yield because it receives tail water from the Mississippi River when it
is flooded, which did occur in 2014 (50 days of inundation; 7th highest river stage recorded ever
(NWS, 2015b). Trout Brook-West Branch had the next highest water yield (142,936 cf/ac),
likely because it has the most surface water connections in its subwatershed. Overall, all
continuously monitored sites in 2014 recorded greater total water yields than historical averages
(Figure 5-3).
For the seasonally monitored sites, Villa Park had the highest annual water yield (22,301 cf/ac),
which is due to the presence of baseflow (unlike Como 3, Como 7, or Sarita) (Figure 5-3). Como
3 had the lowest annual water yield (9,634 cf/ac) of the seasonally monitored sites. The annual
water yields at Sarita (11,168 cf/ac) and Como 7 (17,798 cf/ac) were much greater than the
historical average (Figure 5-3).
Discharge is the primary driver of pollutant loading. While baseflow discharges show relatively
minor fluctuations at the continuously monitored sites, stormflow discharges are episodic and
directly related to climate and seasonality. To investigate this further, a sensitivity analysis of the
effect of climate (i.e. precipitation variability, rainfall intensity, and seasonality) on stormwater
runoff, discharge, and pollutant loading trends in CRWD was conducted in 2013 and reported in
the 2013 Stormwater Monitoring Report (CRWD, 2014). The objective of this report was to
determine how the watershed might respond to changes in climate or seasonal precipitation
patterns, including extended drought or high intensity precipitation events. The analysis found:
(1) cool-season precipitation amounts (i.e. snowpack, snowmelt, and spring rain events) are
positively correlated with baseflow volumes and nutrient loading; (2) seasonal rainfall is the
most important driver of seasonal and annual stormflow volumes and loads of nutrients,
sediment, and chloride; and (3) late season precipitation is important for annual nutrient loads,
with wetter fall periods resulting in increased nutrient loading likely from autumn leaf drop.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 35
Figure 5-1: Total discharge at CRWD monitoring sites in 2014 compared to historical averages.
0
100,000,000
200,000,000
300,000,000
400,000,000
500,000,000
600,000,000
700,000,000T
ota
l D
isch
arg
e (
cf)
Site
Historical Average
2014
a
a. The historical average for continuously monitoredsites is based on discharge data from 2010-2013. The historical average for seasonally monitored sites is based on discharge data from 2005-2013.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 36
Figure 5-2: Baseflow, stormflow, and snowmelt discharge totals at CRWD monitoring sites, 2014.
0
100,000,000
200,000,000
300,000,000
400,000,000
500,000,000
600,000,000
700,000,000T
ota
l D
isch
arg
e (
cf)
Site
Snowmelt
Storm
Base
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 37
Figure 5-3: Total annual water yield at CRWD monitoring sites in 2014 compared to historical averages.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
To
tal A
nn
ua
l W
ate
r Y
ield
(c
f/a
c)
Site
Historical Average
2014
a
a. The historical average for continuously monitored sites is based on discharge data from 2010-2013. The historical average for seasonally monitored sites is based on discharge data from 2005-2013.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 38
5.1.2 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS)
TSS Loads (lbs)
At the stations with continuous monitoring (East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, St. Anthony Park,
Trout Brook-East Branch, Trout Brook-West Branch, and Trout Brook Outlet), stormflow was
the largest contributor to the total TSS load at all sites (Figure 5-4), even though baseflow
accounted for the majority of the total discharge (Figure 5-2). Baseflow generally has lower TSS
concentrations because it includes flow contributions from groundwater, surface water, and
permitted industrial discharges. In addition, velocity and flow volumes are lower during
baseflow periods, so water does not have as much ability to carry solids. Stormwater contains
more TSS because it washes off impervious surfaces. Also, sediment is less likely to settle out in
water while in transport.
In 2014, snowmelt was also a contributor to the total annual TSS loads at the continuously
monitored stations, especially in comparison to previous years. Generally, the snowmelt TSS
load at the continuously monitored sites accounted for 2-18% of the total annual load. East
Kittsondale had the highest percentage (18%; 144,378 lbs) of the total annual TSS load come
from snowmelt runoff (Figure 5-4; Table 5-7).
Of the continuously monitored stations, Trout Brook Outlet had the largest total annual TSS load
(2,364,568 lbs) in 2014, of which 78% of the total load was transported by stormflow (Figure
5-4; Table 5-7). For the seasonally monitored sites, the Como 7 subwatershed had the largest
total annual TSS load (68,026 lbs), which was all transported by stormflow (Figure 5-4; Table
5-7).
TSS Yields (lbs/ac)
In comparing the continuously monitored stations, East Kittsondale produced the highest total
annual TSS yields on a per acre basis in 2014 (711 lbs/ac) and exceeded its historical average
TSS yield (490 lbs/ac) (Figure 5-5; Figure 5-6). The Hidden Falls subwatershed also had a high
TSS yield in 2014 (623 lbs/ac). Note: this was the first year of monitoring at Hidden Falls, so no
historical data is available for comparison. Also, the majority of the Hidden Falls subwatershed
was undergoing demolition in 2014 due to the deconstruction of the Ford Site, so disturbed or
bare soils may have contributed to high sediment yields (Figure 5-5; Figure 5-6; Table 5-7).
In 2014, all monitored stations exceeded their historical average TSS yields, except for Trout
Brook-West Branch and Villa Park (Figure 5-5). At most stations, TSS yields were likely greater
than historical averages in 2014 because of the above average precipitation that occurred; TSS
loading is primarily driven by stormwater runoff. For Trout Brook-West Branch, it is uncertain
why the 2014 TSS yield was below the historical average. A number of factors could have
influenced the TSS yield reduction, such as watershed changes (i.e. reduced sediment loading).
For Villa Park, the 2014 TSS yield was likely lower than the historical average due to dredging
of the ponds that occurred in 2013 that increased storage in the system. The historical average at
Villa Park (2006-2013) is based on pre-dredging conditions.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 39
Figure 5-4: Baseflow, stormflow, and snowmelt TSS load totals at CRWD monitoring sites, 2014.
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
EastKittsondale
Hidden Falls Phalen Creek St. AnthonyPark
Trout Brook-East Branch
Trout Brook-West Branch
Trout BrookOutlet
Como 3 Como 7Subwatershed
Sarita Villa Park
TS
S L
oad
(lb
s)
Site
Snowmelt
Storm
Base
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 40
Figure 5-5: Total TSS yields at CRWD monitoring sites in 2014 compared to historical averages.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800T
SS
Yie
ld (
lb/a
c)
Site
Historical Average
2014
a
a. The historical average for continuously monitoredsites is based on 2010-13 TSS yield data. The historical average for seasonally monitored sites is based on 2005-13 TSS yield data.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 41
Figure 5-6: Total TSS yields from CRWD subwatersheds, 2014.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 42
5.1.3 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (TP)
TP Loads (lbs)
TP loading in 2014 primarily occurred during storm events at all continuously monitored stations
(Figure 5-7), even though baseflow accounted for the majority of the total discharge (except at
East Kittsondale and Hidden Falls) (Figure 5-2). Baseflow periods generally have lower TP
concentrations because the discharge is driven by groundwater or surface water. At East
Kittsondale, 79% of the total annual TP load (1,525 lbs) was from storm events. At Hidden Falls,
84% of the total annual TP load (92 lbs) was from storm events. Both East Kittsondale and
Hidden Falls have very low baseflow, so TP loading is greater during storm events. At Trout
Brook Outlet, 56% of the total annual TP load (3,133 lbs) was from storm events; however, this
station is primarily baseflow driven.
In 2014, snowmelt runoff contributed to the total annual TP loads measured at the continuously
monitored sites. At East Kittsondale, the total snowmelt TP load (217 lbs) exceeded total
baseflow TP load (107 lbs) (Figure 5-7; Table 5-7). Trout Brook Outlet had the highest snowmelt
TP load in comparison to all the other subwatersheds (372 lbs).
For the continuously monitored sites, overall Trout Brook Outlet produced the largest total
annual TP load (5,564 lbs) in 2014 (Figure 5-7; Table 5-7). Trout Brook-West Branch had the
next highest total annual TP load in 2014 (3,063 lbs). In comparing the seasonally monitored
stations, Villa Park had the largest total annual TP load (225 lbs), but a greater portion of loading
was related to baseflow (55%; 123 lbs) instead of stormflow (45%; 102 lbs) (Figure 5-7; Table
5-7).
TP Yields (lbs/ac)
In 2014, East Kittsondale produced the highest total annual TP yield (1.37 lb/ac) (Figure 5-8;
Figure 5-9). Phalen Creek (1.31 lbs/ac) and Trout Brook-West Branch (1.29 lbs/ac) also had high
annual TP yields (Figure 5-8; Figure 5-9). Como 3 (0.14 lbs/ac) and Sarita (0.16 lbs/ac) had the
lowest annual TP yields of all subwatershed in 2014 (Figure 5-8).
The 2014 total annual TP yields from all District monitoring stations (with the exception of
Hidden Falls, Trout Brook-West Branch, and Como 3) were higher than the historical averages,
which was likely related to the above-average precipitation year (Figure 5-8). For Hidden Falls,
2014 was the first year of monitoring, so no historical data is available for comparison. However,
in general TP loads and yields were lower at Hidden Falls in comparison to other stations. One
factor potentially contributing to this result is the general lack of vegetation in the Hidden Falls
subwatershed. For Trout Brook-West Branch, it is uncertain why the 2014 TP yield was below
the historical average, though influencing factors such as watershed. For Como 3, the historical
average TP yield is calculated based on only two years of data (2012-2013), so the dataset does
not represent a wide-range of conditions or precipitation events to date.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 43
Figure 5-7: Baseflow, stormflow, and snowmelt TP load totals at CRWD monitoring sites, 2014.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
EastKittsondale
Hidden Falls Phalen Creek St. AnthonyPark
Trout Brook-East Branch
Trout Brook-West Branch
Trout BrookOutlet
Como 3 Como 7Subwatershed
Sarita Villa Park
TP
Lo
ad
(lb
s)
Site
Snowmelt
Storm
Base
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 44
Figure 5-8: Total TP yields at CRWD monitoring sites in 2014 compared to historical averages.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80T
P Y
ield
(lb
/ac)
Site
Historical Average
2014
a
a. The historical average for continuously monitored sites is based on 2010-13 TP data. The historical average for seasonally monitored sites is based on 2005-13 TP data.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 45
Figure 5-9: Total TP yields from CRWD subwatersheds, 2014.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 46
5.2 COMPARISON OF CRWD DATA TO METRO TRIBUTARIES
The 2014 annual TP and TSS yields of CRWD subwatershed outlet stations (East Kittsondale,
Hidden Falls, Phalen Creek, St. Anthony Park, Trout Brook Outlet) were compared to the yields
observed in 2014 at four other Twin Cities metro-area tributaries (Bassett Creek, Battle Creek,
Fish Creek, Minnehaha Creek). Each tributary utilized for comparison is an open-channel system
that outlets directly to the Mississippi River.
When comparing discharge from CRWD outlets to other metro-area tributaries, it should be
noted that the entire CRWD watershed is highly urbanized with water flowing in pipes instead of
natural channels. In tributaries, discharge primarily flows in natural channels. Storm sewers
operate differently than natural streams. When water velocity decreases, sediments settle out of
the water column. In natural streams, this occurs when the stream meanders, flows through a
vegetated area, gets wider, or reaches a relatively flat stretch. Storm sewers are designed to
maintain velocity in the pipe; pipes have a set diameter, do not meander, and can change
elevation quickly. In natural streams, nutrients are taken up by vegetation and algae, but there is
no vegetation in storm sewers. As a result, most of the sediment and nutrients washed into storm
sewers remain in the water column until the pipe reaches a body of water. Sediments and
nutrients from streets and sidewalks are washed directly into the storm sewer and carried to the
river.
All five of CRWD’s major subwatershed outlet stations (East Kittsondale, Hidden Falls, Phalen
Creek, St. Anthony Park, and Trout Brook Outlet) produced a greater TSS yield per acre than the
TSS yields observed at the four metro-area tributaries (Figure 5-10). East Kittsondale produced
the highest TSS yield (711 lbs/ac) of all subwatershed outlets in 2014. Hidden Falls also
produced a high TSS yield (623 lbs/ac). Comparatively, Battle Creek produced the highest
average TSS yields of all the metro-area tributaries with only 150 lbs/ac (Figure 5-10). For the
seasonally monitored sites (Como 3, Como 7, Sarita, and Villa Park), Como 3 was the only
station that exceeded all TSS yields observed at the metro-area tributaries with 354 lbs/ac.
For annual average TP yields, all five of the major subwatershed outlet stations produced greater
TP yields in comparison to the metro-area tributaries. East Kittsondale (1.37 lbs/ac), Phalen
Creek (1.31 lbs/ac), and Trout Brook-West Branch (1.28 lbs/ac) had the highest yields of all the
stations (Figure 5-11). Comparatively, Bassett Creek had the highest of the tributary TP yields
with only 0.32 lbs/ac. For the seasonally monitored sites, Como 3 (0.43 lbs/ac) was the only
station that exceeded metro-area tributary TP yields. Como 7, Sarita, and Villa Park TP yields
were less than Basset, Battle, and Fish Creeks (Figure 5-11).
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 47
Figure 5-10: TSS yields from CRWD subwatersheds compared to Twin Cities metro-area tributaries, 2014.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
EastKittsondale
HiddenFalls
PhalenCreek
St. AnthonyPark
TroutBrook-East
Branch
TroutBrook-West
Branch
Trout BrookOutlet
Como 3 Como 7 Sarita Villa Park
Av
era
ge T
SS
Yie
ld (
lb/a
c)
2014 Avg TSS yield(lb/ac)Basset Creek*
Battle Creek*
Fish Creek*
Minnehaha Creek*
* Water quality data for Twin Cities metro tributaries were collected by Metropolitan Council (MCES, 2014). Lines represent historical average annual TSS yields in lb/ac from 2005-2013.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 48
Figure 5-11: TP yields from CRWD subwatersheds compared to Twin Cities metro-area tributaries, 2014.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
EastKittsondale
HiddenFalls
PhalenCreek
St. AnthonyPark
TroutBrook-East
Branch
TroutBrook-West
Branch
Trout BrookOutlet
Como 3 Como 7 Sarita Villa Park
Av
era
ge T
P Y
ield
(lb
/ac)
2014 Avg TP yield(lb/acre)Basset Creek*
Battle Creek*
Fish Creek*
Minnehaha Creek*
* Water quality data for Twin Cities metro tributaries were collected by Metropolitan Council (MCES, 2014). Lines represent historical average annual TP yields in lb/ac from 2005-2013
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 49
Average annual pollutant concentrations observed in 2014 at CRWD subwatershed outlet
stations were compared to state water quality standards and average annual concentrations
observed at Lambert’s Landing on the Mississippi River in St. Paul, Minnesota (Table 5-1). The
Metropolitan Council monitors the Mississippi River at Lambert’s Landing and reports the data
online (MCES, 2015). When comparing CRWD storm tunnel outlets to the Mississippi River, it
is acknowledged that both systems are inherently different. However, the Lambert’s Landing
station is the only station operated by Metropolitan Council that is within CRWD and is
downstream of all monitoring stations, so it was determined to be a useful comparison.
Average nitrate concentrations at CRWD subwatershed outlet stations was the only parameter
that did not exceed average nitrate concentrations observed at Lambert’s Landing in 2014 (Table
5-1). However, average nitrite concentrations observed at all CRWD subwatershed outlet
stations were equal to those observed at Lambert’s Landing. Average concentrations for all other
measured parameters (nutrients, solids, and metals) observed at CRWD subwatershed outlet
stations exceeded those average concentrations observed at Lambert’s Landing (Table 5-1).
Additionally, average concentrations for TP, TSS, ammonia, and chloride observed at CRWD
subwatershed outlet stations all exceeded the State standards for the Mississippi River
Navigational Pool 2 (Table 5-1).
Average flow-weighted concentrations of TSS from all CRWD subwatershed monitoring stations
in 2014 (except Villa Park) exceeded the South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL goal of 32
mg/L (Figure 5-12). Additionally, the average flow-weighted concentrations of TSS from all
stations (except Villa Park) exceeded the 2014 Lambert’s Landing average flow-weighted
concentration of 38 mg/L (Figure 5-12). Como 3 (194 mg/L) had the highest average flow-
weighted TSS concentration, and East Kittsondale (144 mg/L) had the next highest. Villa Park
(11 mg/L) had the lowest highest flow-weighted TSS concentration.
For average flow-weighted TP concentrations, all CRWD subwatershed monitoring stations
exceeded the target TP concentration for the MPCA Lake Pepin Excess Nutrient TMDL (0.10
mg/L) in 2014 (Figure 5-13). The 2014 average flow-weighted TP concentration for Lambert’s
Landing (0.13 mg/L) was exceeded by most CRWD subwatershed monitoring stations in 2014,
except Hudden Falls, St. Anthony Park, and Trout Brook Outlet (Figure 5-13). East Kittsondale
(0.28 mg/L) had the highest average flow-weighted TP concentration of all subwatershed outlets
in 2014.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 50
Table 5-1: Pollutant standards and average concentrations at CRWD sites and the Mississippi River at Lamberts Landing, 2014.
* The standard is dependent on w ater hardness; See Appendix B
c Ammonia standard is based on un-ionized ammonia, w hich varies and is dependent on temperature and pH
d There is no nitrate, nitrite, or TKN State standard for surface w ater.
e Chloride standards are from the MPCA.
All numbers are in mg/L.
Red Exceed/equal Lambert's Landing concentrations and the standard
Yellow Exceed/equal Lambert's Landing concentrations, but not the standard
2014 CRWD Monitoring Sites
Key
a The Mississippi River is subject to site specif ic State standards for specif ied reaches. Capitol Region Watershed
District discharges into tw o of these reaches. The TP standard for Mississippi River Navigational Pool 2 (river miles
847.7 to 815.2 reach from Ford Dam to Hastings Dam) w as chosen for comparison to the TP standard of 0.125 mg/L to
be consistent among all sites.
b The TSS State standard is a summer average that applies to Mississippi River Navigation Pools 2 - 4 (below Ford Dam)
from April 1 through September 30. This standard may be exceeded not more than 50% of the time.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 51
Figure 5-12: 2014 flow-weighted average TSS concentrations from CRWD subwatersheds compared to Lamberts Landing and the South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL target concentration.
0
50
100
150
200
250F
low
-We
igh
ted
TS
S C
on
cen
tra
tio
n (
mg
/L)
Site
Historical Average
2014 TSS (mg/L)
a. Target TSS concentration for the South Metro Mississippi TSS TMDL: 32 mg/L: (MPCA, 2012b).b. Average TSS concentration at Lamberts Landing, 2014: 38 mg/L (MCES, 2014).c. The historical average for continuously monitored sites is based on TSS data from 2010-2013. The historical average for seasonally monitored sites is based on TSS data from 2005-2013.
South Metro Mississippi TSS TMDLa
Lamberts Landingb
c
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 52
Figure 5-13: 2014 flow-weighted average TP concentrations from CRWD subwatersheds compared to Lamberts Landing and the Lake Pepin Excess Nutrient TMDL target TP concentration.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
Flo
w-W
eig
hte
d T
P C
on
cen
tra
tio
n (
mg
/L)
Site
Historical Average
2014 TP (mg/L)
a. Target TP concentration for MPCA Lake Pepin Excess Nutrient TMDL: 0.10 mg/L (MPCA, 2013).b. Average TP concentration at Lamberts Landing, 2014: 0.13 mg/L (MCES, 2014).c. The historical average for continuously monitored sites is based on TP data from 2010-2013. The historical average for seasonally monitored sites is based on TP data from 2005-2013.
Lake Pepin Excess Nutrients TMDLa
Lamberts Landingb
c
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 53
5.2.1 METALS
The MPCA surface water standards for metals toxicity are a function of the water hardness of a
sample; therefore, the standard is not a set value and is instead based on the water hardness
measured at an individual monitoring station. Appendix A lists the equations used by MPCA to
calculate metal standards for cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc at each
monitoring station as a function of measured water hardness levels. A table of the calculated
standards for each individual station for all metals is also listed in Appendix A (Table A-1).
Average annual toxicity of metals for each individual station were calculated for baseflow,
snowmelt, stormflow, and total flow (yearly) and compared to the calculated MPCA standards.
For all stations, metal toxicity for average baseflow periods never exceeded the MPCA toxicity
standard in 2014 for any of the 6 metals analyzed (Table 5-2). Toxicity exceedances are
uncommon during baseflow periods because the hardness of the water is much higher since it is
primarily groundwater driven. Increased hardness in water buffers heavy metals and reduces
toxicity.
Metals toxicity in snowmelt and storm events is common since this flow type is direct surface
runoff, so the hardness of the water is significantly lower than baseflow. Metals of particular
concern in stormwater runoff are lead, copper, and zinc.
In 2014, the average storm concentrations of lead and copper at all stations (except Villa Park)
exceeded the MPCA toxicity standards (Table 5-2). Lead and copper were also observed to
exceed the MPCA toxicity standards during snowmelt events at all stations (except SAP and
Villa Park). Average stormflow concentrations of zinc exceeded the toxicity standard at East
Kittsondale, Hidden Falls, Phalen Creek, Como 3, and Como 7. For all sites, average toxicity of
cadmium, chromium, and nickel for all flow types (base, snowmelt, storm, and yearly) generally
did not exceed the MPCA toxicity standards in 2014.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 54
Table 5-2: Metals toxicity and chronic toxicity standard exceedances at CRWD monitoring sites, 2014.
NA= Not available, these sites w ere not monitored or sampled for Illicit Dischargesa. Como 7 values represent total amounts exported from the subw atershed, and include combined data from the Como 7 and Golf Course Pond monitoring sites.
Table 5-6: Annual monitoring results summary for CRWD sites, 2013.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 60
Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 61
6 COMO LAKE SUBWATERSHED RESULTS
6.1 DESCRIPTION
CRWD monitors two of the eight minor subwatersheds within the greater Como Lake
subwatershed: Como 7 and Como 3.
Como 7
The Como 7 subwatershed includes portions of the cities of St. Paul, Roseville, and Falcon
Heights. Como 7 is located west of Como Lake (Figure 6-2). North of Como 7 is Como 8
subwatershed, which drains to Gottfried’s Pit, a stormwater retention pond. When the water
level in Gottfried’s Pit reaches a specific level, a lift station pumps the water via storm sewer to
the Como Golf Course Pond (part of the Como 7 subwatershed) before being discharged to
Como Lake.
CRWD monitors the Como 7 subwatershed to determine the aggregated or combined
improvements to water quality based on the BMPs constructed as part of the Arlington-Pascal
Stormwater Improvement Project. Started in 2005, the project included four stormwater BMP
types: 1) eight infiltration trenches, 2) eight raingardens, 3) an underground infiltration and
storage facility (Arlington-Hamline Underground Storage Facility), and 4) a stormwater pond at
the Como Golf Course. These BMPs treat and infiltrate stormwater runoff, minimize localized
flooding, and reduce stormwater volumes in the storm sewer system. Three of the four BMPs
(the Arlington-Hamline Underground Stormwater Storage Facility, eight in-street infiltration
trenches, and eight neighborhood raingardens), became operational in 2006 and 2007. The last
BMP of the project, a storage and retention pond on the Como Park Golf Course (Como Golf
Course Pond) became operational in October 2007.
Figure 6-1: The Como 7 monitoring station (left) and the Como Golf Course Pond Outlet (right).
Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 62
Figure 6-2: Map of the Como subwatershed and monitoring locations.
Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 63
Como 3
The 458.2 acre Como 3 subwatershed is located entirely within the City of Saint Paul just west of
Como Lake (Figure 6-2). It consists of park areas (namely Como Park and parts of the Como
Zoo and Como Town Amusement Park) and single-family homes (located off of the southwest
corner of the lake). All stormwater from the Como 3 subwatershed is directed to Como Lake via
an inlet to the lake located off of Como Blvd W. just north of the intersection with Gateway
Drive. This inlet has been monitored since 2009 for flow. A full water quality monitoring station
was installed in 2012. North of Como 3 is the Como 7 subwatershed, which also drains entirely
to Como Lake.
In 2002, CRWD developed the Como Lake Strategic Management Plan, which was written to
address management concerns of Como Lake, and develop goals to improve the water quality of
the lake. One important goal included reducing the amount of phosphorus entering the lake from
the surrounding watershed. CRWD monitors the Como 3 inlet to Como Lake to determine the
amount of phosphorus entering the lake via this specific part of the overall Como subwatershed,
and to determine if any improvements to water quality are observed as a result of BMPs
constructed within the subwatershed that aim to reduce phosphorus runoff.
Figure 6-3: The Como 3 monitoring station in summer (left) and during winter snowmelt grab sampling (right).
Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 64
6.2 2014 MONITORING SUMMARY – COMO 7
The Como 7 subwatershed has been monitored for discharge and water quality from 2005-2014.
Flow and water quality monitoring at this location generally occurs between the months of April
to November. During the winter months, snowmelt grab samples are taken when possible, but
neither level nor flow are recorded during this period.
Summaries of 2014 monitoring data collected and observed at Como 7 are listed below.
Monitoring efficiency at Como 7 is explained in Appendix B.
6.2.1 DISCHARGE – COMO 7
Total stormflow discharge: 14,034,808 cubic feet (Figure 6-4; Table 6-1)
Total illicit discharge: 40,164 cubic feet (Figure 6-4; Table 6-1)
Total annual discharge: 14,074,972 cubic feet (Figure 6-4; Table 6-1)
6.2.2 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) – COMO 7
Stormflow and illicit discharge samples were analyzed for TSS concentrations in mg/L in order
to calculate event-based and total annual loads.
Stormflow flow weighted average concentration: 77 mg/L (Table 6-1)
Illicit discharge flow weighted average concentration: 12 mg/L (Table 6-1)
Total stormflow TSS load: 67,775 lbs (Figure 6-10; Table 6-1)
Notes: Como 7 w as not monitored in 2006. Table includes data for Como 7 and Como Golf Course Pond Outlet monitoring sites and pumping from Gottfred's Pit located in the Como 7 subw atershed.
NA: Not available. Gottfried's Pit pumping w as not included in discharge calculations until 2013.
Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 76
6.3 2014 MONITORING SUMMARY – COMO 3
The Como 3 subwatershed has been monitored for discharge and water quality from 2012-2014.
Flow and water quality monitoring at this location generally occurs between the months of April
to November. During the winter months, snowmelt grab samples are taken when possible, but
neither level nor flow are recorded during this period.
Summaries of 2014 monitoring data collected and observed at Como 3 are listed below.
Monitoring efficiency at Como 3 is explained in Appendix B.
6.3.1 DISCHARGE – COMO 3
Total stormflow discharge: 4,980,597 cubic feet (Figure 6-14; Table 6-2)
Total annual discharge: 4,980,597 cubic feet (Figure 6-14;Table 6-2)
6.3.2 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) – COMO 3
Stormflow samples were analyzed for TSS concentrations in mg/L in order to calculate event-
based and total annual loads.
Stormflow flow weighted average concentration: 194 mg/L (Table 6-2)
Total stormflow TSS load: 59,170 lbs (Figure 6-18;Table 6-2)
Total annual TSS load: 59,170 lbs (Figure 6-18;Table 6-2)
6.3.3 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (TP) – COMO 3
Stormflow samples were analyzed for TP concentrations in mg/L in order to calculate event-
based and total annual loads.
Stormflow flow weighted average concentration: 0.23 mg/L (Table 6-2)
Total stormflow TP load: 71 lbs (Figure 6-20;Table 6-2)
Total annual TP load: 71 lbs (Figure 6-20;Table 6-2)
Discharge Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 77
Figure 6-14: Historical total monitored discharge volumes at Como 3 subwatershed for stormflow and illicit discharge from 2012-2014
3,800,000
4,000,000
4,200,000
4,400,000
4,600,000
4,800,000
5,000,000
5,200,000
2012 2013 2014
Dis
ch
arg
e (
cf)
Year
Illicit Discharge
Storm
Discharge Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 78
Figure 6-15: Como 3 cumulative discharge and daily precipitation.
Discharge Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 79
Figure 6-16: Como 3 level, velocity, and discharge.
Discharge Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 80
Figure 6-17: Como 3 level, discharge, and precipitation.
Total Suspended Solids Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 81
Figure 6-18: Historical total monitored TSS loads at Como 3 subwatershed for stormflow from 2012-2014.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2012 2013 2014
TS
S L
oa
d (
lbs
)
Year
Storm
Total Suspended Solids Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 82
Figure 6-19: Monthly average storm sample TSS concentrations in 2014 for Como 3 subwatershed and historical averages (2009-2014).
n=
2
n=
3
n=
15
n=
15
n=
12
n=
9
n=
5
n=
9
n=
1
n=
3
n=
5
n=
4
n=
3
n=
4
n=
1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
TS
S C
on
cen
trati
on
(m
g/L
)
Month
Historical Average (2009-2013)
2014
Total Phosphorus Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 83
Figure 6-20: Historical total monitored TP loads at Como 3 subwatershed for stormflow from 2012-2014.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2012 2013 2014
TP
Lo
ad
(lb
s)
Year
Storm
Storm
Total Phosphorus Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 84
Figure 6-21: Monthly average storm sample TP concentrations in 2014 for Como 3 subwatershed and historical averages (2009-2013).
n=
2
n=
3
n=
15
n=
15
n=
12
n=
9
n=
5
n=
9
n=
0
n=
1
n=
3
n=
5
n=
4
n=
3
n=
4
n=
1
n=
0
0.0
00
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
TP
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
mg
/L)
Month
Historical Average (2009-2013)
2014
Como
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 85
Table 6-2: Como 3 subwatershed monitoring results, 2012-2014
2012 2013 2014
Subwatershed Area (ac) 517 517 517
Total Rainfall (inches) 26.02 24.7 28.37
Number of Monitoring Days 220 190 196
Number of Storm Sampling Events 21 22 18
Number of Storm Intervals 53 72 48
Number of Illicit Discharge Sampling Events 0 NA NA
Number of Illicit Discharge Intervals 5 NA NA
Total Discharge (cf) 4,301,183 4,521,027 4,980,597
Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
- Not collected
Hidden Falls
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 106
East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 107
8 EAST KITTSONDALE SUBWATERSHED RESULTS
8.1 DESCRIPTION
The East Kittsondale subwatershed is located in the southern portion of CRWD and drains 1,116 acres of St. Paul (Figure 8-2). East Kittsondale is the smallest of the four major subwatersheds monitored by CRWD. The subwatershed empties into the Mississippi River, downstream of the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. There are no surface water bodies in the subwatershed. Land use in the subwatershed is largely residential, with 46% impervious surface cover. CRWD operates a full water quality monitoring station in the East Kittsondale subwatershed. Flow monitoring equipment is installed year-round while a water quality sampler is only installed for the non-winter monitoring period (April to early November). The station is not located at the true outlet to the river because the depth of the storm sewer beneath the ground surface makes it difficult to monitor any farther downstream.
Figure 8-1: The East Kittsondale monitoring site location (top, bottom left) and flow-logging and sampling equipment installed inside storm tunnel (bottom right).
East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 108
Figure 8-2: Map of the East Kittsondale subwatershed and monitoring location.
East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 109
8.2 2014 MONITORING SUMMARY
The East Kittsondale subwatershed has been monitored for flow and water quality since 2005. From 2005-2009, monitoring only occurred during the spring, summer, and fall with no winter monitoring. Since 2010, the site has been monitored for the full calendar year with continuous flow data recorded and, at a minimum, one full water quality sampling event per month. Due to these differences in monitoring period, the 2010-2014 loading, and discharge data may show a significant difference when compared to pre-2010 data. Stormflow data should not be affected by differences in monitoring period as all storm samples since 2005 were collected during the spring, summer, or fall.
The East Kittsondale monitoring site has a history of illicit discharges. In 2010, an illicit connection was identified and corrected. In 2012 possible illicit discharges were noticed during a dry period of the year. In 2013, greater attention was paid to the flow data during a dry period from August to October to identify and record potential illicit discharges. In 2014, one illicit discharge was identified in May.
Summaries of 2014 monitoring data collected and observed at East Kittsondale are listed below. Monitoring efficiency at East Kittsondale is explained in Appendix B.
8.2.1 DISCHARGE
Level, velocity, and discharge were monitored at East Kittsondale for both baseflow, stormflow, and snowmelt events in 2014.
Figure 8-3: Historical total monitored discharge volumes at East Kittsondale subwatershed for snowmelt, illicit discharge, stormflow and baseflow from 2005-2014.
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
100,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Dis
char
ge (c
f)
Year
Snowmelt
Illicit Discharge
Storm
Base
Seasonally Monitored (~Apr-Nov)
Continuously Monitored (Jan-Dec)
Discharge East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 112
Figure 8-4: East Kittsondale cumulative discharge and daily precipitation.
Discharge East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 113
Figure 8-5: East Kittsondale level, velocity, and discharge.
Discharge East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 114
Figure 8-6: East Kittsondale level, discharge, and precipitation.
Total Suspended Solids East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 115
Figure 8-7: Historical total monitored TSS loads at East Kittsondale subwatershed for snowmelt, illicit discharge, stormflow and baseflow from 2005-2014.
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
TSS
Load
(lbs
)
Year
Snowmelt
Illicit Discharge
Storm
Base
Total Suspended Solids East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 116
Figure 8-8: Monthly average storm sample TSS concentrations in 2014 for East Kittsondale subwatershed and historical averages (2005-2013).
n=1
n=9
n=28
n=28
n=29
n=33
n=19
n=20
n=2
n=1
n=3
n=5
n=4
n=3
n=4
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
TSS
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/L)
Month
Historical Average (2005-2013)
2014
Total Phosphorus East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 117
Figure 8-9: Historical total monitored TP loads at East Kittsondale subwatershed for snowmelt, illicit discharge, stormflow and baseflow from 2005-2014.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
TP L
oad
(lbs)
Year
Snowmelt
Illicit Discharge
Storm
Base
Total Phosphorus East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 118
Figure 8-10: Monthly average storm sample TP concentrations in 2014 for East Kittsondale subwatershed and historical averages (2005-2013).
n=1
n=9
n=28
n=28
n=29
n=33
n=19
n=20
n=2
n=1
n=3
n=5
n=4
n=3
n=4
n=0
n=0
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
TP C
once
ntra
tion
(mg/
L)
Month
Historical Average (2005-2013)
2014
East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 119
Table 8-1: East Kittsondale subwatershed monitoring results, 2005-2014.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Subwatershed Area (ac) 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116Total Rainfall (inches) 29.28 24.13 13.96 18.89 20.95 35.61 33.62 30.26 36.36 35.66Number of Monitoring Days 200 210 225 217 277 325 365 360 365 364Number of Storm Sampling Events 18 15 25 12 25 19 13 20 22 18Number of Storm Intervals 23 26 43 37 58 54 34 40 40 82Number of Snowmelt Sampling Events NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 1 3Number of Snowmelt Intervals NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 37 18Number of Illicit Discharge Sampling Events NA NA NA NA 8 0 0 0 3 0Number of Illicit Discharge Intervals NA NA NA NA 41 0 0 0 14 0Total Discharge (cf) 27,816,625 39,689,928 58,852,320 35,342,806 44,095,386 66,983,674 76,282,660 55,261,249 72,017,156 88,843,054 Storm Flow Subtotal (cf) 21,125,831 25,397,422 45,045,199 24,635,756 30,705,350 50,937,930 36,668,961 36,530,284 32,265,441 51,888,007 Snowmelt Flow Subtotal (cf) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5,740,510 14,504,314 5,433,144 Illicit Discharge Subtotal (cf) NA NA NA NA 4,211,844 NA NA NA 133,811 NABaseflow Subtotal (cf) 6,690,794 14,292,506 13,806,121 10,707,050 9,178,141 16,045,744 39,613,699 12,990,455 25,113,590 31,521,903 Average TSS Concentration (mg/L) 133 171 279 169 100 106 117 84 102 125Total FWA TSS (mg/L) 132 173 316 214 112 185 122 123 91 144Storm FWA TSS (mg/L) 133 266 403 291 141 241 243 160 184 199Snowmelt FWA TSS (mg/L) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 157 22 426Illicit Discharge FWA TSS (mg/L) NA NA NA NA 98 0 0 0 25 0Baseflow FWA TSS (mg/L) 4 6 32 36 20 7 10 5 11 4Total TSS Load (lbs) 230,190 427,494 1,161,807 471,176 308,358 773,129 580,026 425,599 408,699 793,236Storm TSS Load (lbs) 228,519 421,821 1,134,452 447,229 271,189 766,063 555,801 365,152 371,464 640,084Snowmelt TSS Load (lbs) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 56,334 19,920 144,378Illicit Discharge TSS Load (lbs) NA NA NA NA 25,722 0 0 0 209 0Baseflow TSS Load (lbs) 1,671 5,673 27,354 23,877 11,360 7,066 24,225 4,113 17,106 8,774Total TSS Yield (lb/ac) 206 383 1,038 422 276 693 520 381 366 711Average TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.31 0.37 0.35 0.39 0.29 0.25 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.26Total FWA TP (mg/L) 0.23 0.38 0.35 0.48 0.29 0.34 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.28Storm FWA TP (mg/L) 0.28 0.54 0.44 0.58 0.35 0.43 0.32 0.30 0.35 0.37Snowmelt FWA TP (mg/L) NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.00 0.31 0.33 0.64Illicit Discharge FWA TP (mg/L) NA NA NA NA 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00Baseflow FWA TP (mg/L) 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.24 0.16 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.05Total TP Load (lbs) 398 931 1,302 1,058 801 1,425 886 845 1,125 1,525 Storm TP Load (lbs) 373 861 1,236 898 662 1,369 724 690 710 1,201 Snowmelt TP Load (lbs) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 111 302 217 Illicit Discharge TP Load (lbs) NA NA NA NA 49 0 0 0 1 0Baseflow TP Load (lbs) 25 70 66 161 90 56 162 44 113 107Total TP Yield (lb/ac) 0.36 0.83 1.17 0.95 0.72 1.28 0.79 0.76 1.01 1.37
East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 120
Table 8-2: 2014 East Kittsondale subwatershed loading table.
Actual number less than value (<)Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
- Not collected
East Kittsondale
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 124
Lake McCarrons
9 LAKE MCCARRONS SUBWATERSHED RESULTS
9.1 DESCRIPTION
The Lake McCarrons subwatershed drains 1,070 acres and is the northernmost subwatershed in CRWD, located entirely within the city limits of Roseville (Figure 9-2). Land use in the subwatershed is predominantly residential and parkland. The largest subwatershed within the Lake McCarrons subwatershed is the Villa Park subwatershed (753 acres), which flows through the Villa Park Wetland System before discharging into the lake. The Villa Park Wetland System is designed to capture and treat stormwater runoff from the Villa Park subwatershed before entering Lake McCarrons.
CRWD operates a monitoring station at the outlet of the Villa Park Wetland System (called Villa Park Outlet) in order to quantify and characterize the water exiting the wetland system to Lake McCarrons. CRWD also operates a flow-only station at the outlet of Lake McCarrons (called McCarrons Outlet) to determine total discharge from the lake during storm events (the lake only discharges when water levels are higher than normal). When it overflows, water flowing from the outlet of Lake McCarrons enters the Trout Brook Storm Sewer System which eventually discharges to the Mississippi River. For more information on Lake McCarrons water quality, refer to the CRWD 2014 Lakes Monitoring Report (CRWD, 2015).
Figure 9-1: The Lake McCarrons Outlet monitoring site location (left); and Villa Park Wetland System (Villa Park Outlet) monitoring site location (right).
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 125
Lake McCarrons
Figure 9-2: Map of the Lake McCarrons subwatershed and monitoring locations.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 126
Lake McCarrons
9.2 2014 MONITORING SUMMARY – VILLA PARK OUTLET
The Lake McCarrons subwatershed has been monitored for discharge and water quality at the Villa Park Outlet from 2006-2014. Flow and water quality monitoring at this location generally occurs between the months of April to November. During the winter months, baseflow grab samples are taken once a month, but neither level nor flow are recorded during this period.
Summaries of 2014 monitoring data collected and observed at Villa Park Outlet are listed below. Monitoring efficiency at Villa Park Outlet is explained in Appendix B.
9.2.1 DISCHARGE
Level, velocity, and discharge were monitored at Villa Park Outlet for both baseflow and stormflow events in 2014.
Actual number less than value (<)Actual number greater than value (>)Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
- Not collected
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 139
Lake McCarrons
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 140
Lake McCarrons
9.3 2014 MONITORING SUMMARY – LAKE MCCARRONS OUTLET
The discharge at the outlet of Lake McCarrons has been monitored from 2006-2014. Flow monitoring at this location generally occurs between the months of April to November. During the winter months, level and flow are not recorded. However, outflow during this time period is rare.
A summary of the 2014 monitoring data collected and observed at McCarrons Outlet is listed below. Monitoring efficiency at McCarrons Outlet is explained in Appendix B.
9.3.1 DISCHARGE
Level, velocity, and discharge were monitored at McCarrons Outlet in 2014 (Figure 9-11).
• Total Annual Discharge: 72,267,022 cubic feet
Table 9-4: Historical stage and discharge (2005-2014) at Lake McCarrons Outlet monitoring station.
Year Average Stage (ft) Discharge (cf)2005 0.16 83,156,6302006 0.10 8,603,9542007 0.13 18,831,1562008 0.07 4,888,5482009 0.11 9,673,9892010 0.23 13,998,9002011 0.41 21,723,8002012 NA NA2013 0.39 38,664,0002014 0.55 72,267,022
Historical Average (2005-2013) 0.17 24,942,622
NA: Not Available
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 141
Discharge Lake McCarrons
Figure 9-11: Lake McCarrons Outlet level, velocity, and discharge.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 142
Discharge Lake McCarrons
Figure 9-12: Lake McCarrons Outlet level, discharge, and precipitation.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 143
Lake McCarrons
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 144
Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 145
10 PHALEN CREEK SUBWATERSHED RESULTS
10.1 DESCRIPTION
The Phalen Creek subwatershed is the eastern-most subwatershed in CRWD (Figure 10-2).
Located entirely within the city limits of St. Paul, Phalen Creek drains 1,433 acres and outlets to
the Mississippi River. CRWD monitors the Phalen Creek storm sewer near its outlet to the
Mississippi River at the Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary. Land use in the Phalen Creek
subwatershed is a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential with approximately 50%
impervious surfaces (CRWD, 2000).
Figure 10-1: The Phalen Creek monitoring site location (left), flow-logging and sampling equipment installed inside storm tunnel (top right), and open channel entrance (bottom right).
Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 146
Figure 10-2: Map of the Phalen Creek subwatershed and monitoring location.
Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 147
10.2 2014 MONITORING SUMMARY
The Phalen Creek subwatershed has been monitored for flow and water quality since 2005. From
2005 to 2008, monitoring only occurred during the spring, summer, and fall. In 2009, monitoring
occurred from April to December and beginning in 2010, the subwatershed has been monitored
for the full calendar year recording continuous flow data. Since 2010, one full water quality
sample, at a minimum, has been collected each month. Due to these differences in monitoring
period, the 2010-2014 loading and discharge data may show significant differences when
compared to pre-2010 data. Stormflow data should not be affected by differences in monitoring
period as all storm samples since 2005 were collected during the spring, summer, or fall.
The Phalen Creek monitoring site is located close to the storm sewer’s outfall to the Mississippi
River. The river occasionally backs up into the pipe interfering with the accuracy of the flow
measurements.
Summaries of 2014 monitoring data collected and observed at Phalen Creek are listed below.
Monitoring efficiency at Phalen Creek is explained in Appendix B.
10.2.1 DISCHARGE
Level, velocity, and discharge were monitored at Phalen Creek for both baseflow and stormflow
events in 2014.
Total baseflow discharge: 170,988,210 cubic feet (Figure 10-3; Table 10-1)
Total stormflow discharge: 36,284,992 cubic feet (Figure 10-3; Table 10-1)
Total snowmelt discharge: 1,915,314 cubic feet (Figure 10-3; Table 10-1)
Total annual discharge: 209,188,516 cubic feet (Figure 10-4)
10.2.2 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS)
Baseflow, stormflow, and snowmelt samples were analyzed for TSS concentrations in mg/L in
order to calculate event-based and total annual loads.
Baseflow flow weighted average concentration: 4 mg/L (Table 10-1)
Stormflow flow weighted average concentration: 256 mg/L (Table 10-1)
Snowmelt flow weighted average concentration: 389 mg/L (Table 10-1)
Total baseflow TSS load: 41,990 lbs (Figure 10-7; Table 10-1)
Total stormflow TSS load: 582,013 lbs (Figure 10-7; Table 10-1)
Total snowmelt TSS load: 46,798 lbs (Figure 10-7; Table 10-1)
Total annual TSS load: 670,800 lbs (Figure 10-7; Table 10-1)
10.2.3 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (TP)
Baseflow, stormflow, and snowmelt samples were analyzed for TP concentrations in mg/L in
order to calculate event-based and total annual loads.
Baseflow flow weighted average concentration: 0.06 mg/L (Table 10-1)
Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 148
Stormflow flow weighted average concentration: 0.52 mg/L (Table 10-1)
Snowmelt flow weighted average concentration: 1.07 mg/L (Table 10-1)
Total baseflow TP load: 574 lbs (Figure 10-9; Table 10-1)
Total stormflow TP load: 1,181 lbs (Figure 10-9; Table 10-1)
Total snowmelt TP load: 129 lbs (Figure 10-9; Table 10-1)
Total annual TP load: 1,883 lbs (Figure 10-9; Table 10-1)
Discharge Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 149
Figure 10-3: Historical total monitored discharge volumes at Phalen Creek for snowmelt, stormflow and baseflow from 2005-2014.
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Dis
ch
arg
e (
cf)
Year
Snowmelt
Storm
Base
Seasonally Monitored (~Apr-Nov)
Continuously Monitored (Jan-Dec)
Discharge Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 150
Figure 10-4: Phalen Creek cumulative discharge and daily precipitation.
Discharge Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 151
Figure 10-5: Phalen Creek level, velocity, and discharge
Discharge Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 152
Figure 10-6: Phalen Creek level, discharge, and precipitation.
Total Suspended Solids Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 153
Figure 10-7: Historical total monitored TSS loads at Phalen Creek subwatershed for snowmelt, stormflow and baseflow from 2005-2014.
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
TS
S L
oad
(lb
s)
Year
Snowmelt
Storm
Base
Total Suspended Solids Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 154
Figure 10-8: Monthly average storm sample TSS concentrations in 2014 for Phalen Creek subwatershed and historical averages (2005-2013).
n=
5
n=
8
n=
19
n=
28
n=
25
n=
26
n=
20
n=
15
n=
1
n=
1
n=
2
n=
1
n=
1
n=
3
n=
1
n=
2
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
TS
S C
on
cen
trati
on
(m
g/L
)
Month
Historical Average (2005-2013)
2014
Total Phosphorus Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 155
Figure 10-99: Historical total monitored TP loads at Phalen Creek subwatershed for snowmelt, stormflow and baseflow from 2005-2014.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
TP
Lo
ad
(lb
s)
Year
Snowmelt
Storm
Base
Total Phosphorus Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 156
Figure 10-10: Historical total monitored TP loads at Phalen Creek subwatershed for snowmelt, stormflow and baseflow from 2005-2014.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
TP
Lo
ad
(lb
s)
Year
Snowmelt
Storm
Base
Figure 10-1011: Monthly average storm sample TP concentrations in 2014 for Phalen Creek subwatershed and historical averages (2005-2013).
n=
5
n=
8
n=
19
n=
28
n=
25
n=
26
n=
20
n=
15
n=
1
n=
1
n=
2
n=
1
n=
0
n=
1
n=
3
n=
1
n=
2
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
TP
Co
nc
en
trati
on
(m
g/L
)
Month
Historical Average (2005-2013)
2014
Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 157
Table 10-1: Phalen Creek subwatershed monitoring results, 2005-2014.
Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
- Not collected
Phalen Creek
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 162
St. Anthony Park
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 163
11 ST. ANTHONY PARK SUBWATERSHED RESULTS
11.1 DESCRIPTION
The St. Anthony Park subwatershed has a drainage area of 3,418 acres and is the western-most subwatershed monitored by CRWD. CRWD monitors the storm sewer outlet of the St. Anthony Park subwatershed where it directly flows into the Mississippi River at Desnoyer Park in St. Paul (Figure 11-2). The subwatershed is primarily comprised of industrial and residential land uses with 48% impervious surface land coverage.
CRWD also monitors a 929 acre upland subwatershed of St. Anthony Park called Sarita. The Sarita subwatershed is monitored in a storm sewer at the outlet of the Sarita Wetland near Como Avenue (Figure 11-2). The Sarita subwatershed has substantially different land use than any other CRWD subwatershed because it encompasses the Minnesota State Fair Grounds and the University of Minnesota St. Paul Campus where open space dominates. The predominant land use within the Sarita subwatershed is institutional with 16% impervious surface coverage.
Figure 11-1: The St. Anthony Park monitoring site location (left, top right); and Sarita Outlet monitoring site location (bottom right).
St. Anthony Park
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 164
Figure 11-2: Map of the St. Anthony Park subwatershed and monitoring locations.
St. Anthony Park
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 165
11.2 2014 MONITORING SUMMARY – ST. ANTHONY PARK
The St. Anthony Park site has been monitored for flow and water quality since 2005, with year-round monitoring beginning in 2009. Beginning in 2009, flow monitoring equipment was installed for the full calendar year and a minimum of one full water quality sample has been collected and analyzed each month. Due to these differences in monitoring period, the 2009-2014 load and discharge data may show a significant difference when compared to pre-2009 data. Stormflow data should not be affected by differences in monitoring period as all storm samples since 2005 were collected during the spring, summer, or fall.
The St. Anthony Park monitoring site is located directly at the outfall to the Mississippi River. Its close proximity to the river can make monitoring difficult because of the influence of the river which often backs up into the storm sewer. The storm sewer has a steep gradient resulting in very high velocity flows during storm events. These high velocities increase the risk of monitoring equipment becoming dislodged or damaged. Because of equipment issues and the site characteristics listed above, significant portions of data have been lost each year.
11.2.1 DISCHARGE – ST. ANTHONY PARK
Level, velocity, and discharge were monitored at St. Anthony Park for baseflow, stormflow, and snowmelt events in 2014.
Actual number less than value (<)Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
- Not collected
St. Anthony Park
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 180
St. Anthony Park
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 181
11.3 2014 MONITORING SUMMARY - SARITA
Sarita has been monitored for flow and water quality since 2006. It is generally monitored from late March to mid-November. Sarita does not have baseflow, but may discharge for a prolonged period following large precipitation events. The number of monitoring days has not varied significantly year-to-year (Table 11-4).
11.3.1 DISCHARGE – SARITA
Level, velocity, and discharge were monitored at Sarita for stormflow in 2014.
Actual number less than value (<)Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
- Not collected
St. Anthony Park
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 194
Trout Brook
12 TROUT BROOK SUBWATERSHED RESULTS
12.1 DESCRIPTION
The Trout Brook subwatershed is the largest subwatershed in CRWD, draining 8,000 acres in portions of St. Paul, Maplewood, Falcon Heights, and Roseville (Figure 12-4). The Trout Brook subwatershed contains Loeb Lake and five major stormwater ponds in St. Paul. Land use in the Trout Brook subwatershed is a mix of residential, industrial, and commercial, with 40% impervious surface. Runoff in the subwatershed drains to CRWD’s Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (TBI), which connects to the City of St. Paul’s storm sewer interceptor before eventually discharging to the Mississippi River, just downstream of Lambert’s Landing in St. Paul. The upper section of TBI is comprised of two branches, East and West, which converge near the intersection of Maryland Avenue and I-35E in St. Paul.
Trout Brook–West Branch
Trout Brook-West Branch (TB-WB) subwatershed drains 2,379 acres in St. Paul, Roseville, and Falcon Heights. It has the third largest drainage area of the full water quality monitoring sites. Within the boundaries of TB-WB are the Arlington-Jackson Stormwater Pond, Willow Reserve Stormwater Pond, Como Lake, Lake McCarrons, and Loeb Lake (Figure 12-4). However, it should be noted that the lakesheds of Como Lake and Lake McCarrons are not included in the total drainage area calculation for TB-WB because each lake behaves as its own subwatershed and does not consistently contribute runoff to the Trout Brook subwatershed. The TB-WB monitoring site is located just upstream of the convergence with the east branch of the TBI in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Maryland Avenue and I-35E.
Figure 12-1: The Trout Brook-West Branch monitoring site location.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 195
Trout Brook
Trout Brook–East Branch
Trout Brook-East Branch (TB-EB) subwatershed drains 932 acres in St. Paul and Maplewood and includes two stormwater ponds, Westminster-Mississippi and Arlington-Arkwright. First established in 2006, this monitoring station was moved slightly downstream in 2007 from its original location to a manhole located between L’Orient Street and the I-35E ramp (Figure 12-4). The TB-EB subwatershed receives direct runoff from the I-35E corridor, which is very influential to the water quality measured at this monitoring station.
Trout Brook Outlet
The Trout Brook Outlet (TBO) monitoring station receives water from nearly 5,028 acres of the Trout Brook subwatershed, which includes the combined discharge from TB-EB and TB-WB monitoring locations. Like TB-WB, the TBO subwatershed does not include the lakeshed drainage areas of Como Lake and Lake McCarrons in its total drainage area (Figure 12-4)
Figure 12-2: The Trout Brook-East Branch monitoring site location.
Figure 12-3: The Trout Brook Outlet monitoring site location.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 196
Trout Brook
Figure 12-4: Map of the Trout Brook subwatershed and monitoring locations.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 197
Trout Brook
12.2 2014 MONITORING SUMMARY – TROUT BROOK – WEST BRANCH
The Trout Brook West Branch subwatershed has been monitored for discharge and water quality since 2005. Flow and water quality monitoring at this location generally occurred between the months of April to November from 2005-2009. Since 2010 flow monitoring has been conducted year-round.
Summaries of 2014 monitoring data collected and observed at Trout Brook West Branch are listed below. Monitoring efficiency at Trout Brook West Branch is explained in Appendix B.
12.2.1 DISCHARGE – TROUT BROOK WEST BRANCH
Level, velocity, and discharge were monitored at Trout Brook West Branch for baseflow, stormflow and snowmelt events in 2014.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Subwatershed Area (ac) 2,379 2,379 2,379 2,379 2,379 2,379 2,379 2,379 2,379 2,379Total Rainfall (inches) 28.78 24.67 24.25 18.99 20.63 36.32 33.62 29.72 36.36 35.46Number of Monitoring Days 191 212 228 224 273 365 365 344 365 356Number of Storm Sampling Events 27 12 18 8 20 21 11 15 17 20Number of Storm Intervals 14 21 38 27 31 54 27 50 30 64Number of Snowmelt Sampling Events NA NA NA NA NA NA 6 2 1 2Number of Snowmelt Intervals NA NA NA NA NA NA 13 4 11 8Total Discharge (cf) 141,113,120 105,996,024 178,456,040 136,464,730 173,066,683 333,565,680 328,689,637 284,097,170 344,928,332 340,044,329Storm Flow Subtotal (cf) 27,471,750 26,637,070 39,682,781 33,416,733 56,480,312 136,032,158 135,021,212 114,260,205 82,367,885 55,748,238Snowmelt Flow Subtotal (cf) NA NA NA NA NA NA 15,136,168 3,067,371 30,734,929 2,161,887Baseflow Subtotal (cf) 103,641,370 79,358,954 138,773,259 103,047,997 116,586,370 197,212,437 178,532,258 166,769,594 231,825,518 282,134,204Average TSS Concentration (mg/L) 270 266 109 375 130 203 70 69 200 158Total FWA TSS (mg/L) 108 125 43 115 86 96 76 68 79 56Storm FWA TSS (mg/L) 312 400 156 378 233 222 154 133 252 253Snowmelt FWA TSS (mg/L) NA NA NA NA NA NA 73 58 61 478Baseflow FWA TSS (mg/L) 34 33 10 29 14 9 17 23 20 12Total TSS Load (lbs) 950,788 827,991 476,080 978,540 927,558 1,991,582 1,555,358 1,203,283 1,697,347 1,191,320Storm TSS Load (lbs) 730,597 665,210 386,111 788,964 747,671 1,881,829 1,298,980 949,463 1,296,088 926,437Snowmelt TSS Load (lbs) NA NA NA NA NA NA 68,730 11,167 117,907 63,091Baseflow TSS Load (lbs) 220,191 162,781 89,468 189,576 104,904 109,272 187,648 242,653 283,352 201,792Total TSS Yield (lb/ac) 400 348 200 411 390 837 654 506 713 501Average TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.36 0.28 0.24 0.50 0.29 0.26 0.20 0.24 0.29 0.27Total FWA TP (mg/L) 0.16 0.19 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.14Storm FWA TP (mg/L) 0.41 0.42 0.31 0.47 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.41 0.42 0.44Snowmelt FWA TP (mg/L) NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.27 0.27 0.25 1.19Baseflow FWA TP (mg/L) 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.07Total TP Load (lbs) 1,440 1,249 1,255 1,453 1,739 3,820 4,116 3,983 4,134 3,063Storm TP Load (lbs) 955 697 761 981 1,179 3,150 2,878 2,942 2,159 1,620Snowmelt TP Load (lbs) NA NA NA NA NA NA 255 51 478 157Baseflow TP Load (lbs) 484 553 494 472 422 668 983 983 1,497 1,287Total TP Yield (lb/ac) 0.61 0.53 0.53 0.61 0.73 1.61 1.73 1.67 1.74 1.29NA: Not available. Snow melt events w ere not monitored or sampled until 2011.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 207
Trout Brook
12.3 2014 MONITORING SUMMARY – TROUT BROOK – EAST BRANCH
The Trout Brook East Branch subwatershed has been monitored for discharge and water quality since 2006. Flow and water quality monitoring at this location generally occurred between the months of April to November from 2006-2009. Since 2010 flow monitoring has been conducted year-round.
Summaries of 2014 monitoring data collected and observed at Trout Brook East Branch are listed below. Monitoring efficiency at Trout Brook West Branch is explained in Appendix B.
12.3.1 DISCHARGE – TROUT BROOK EAST BRANCH
Level, velocity, and discharge were monitored at Trout Brook East Branch for baseflow, stormflow and snowmelt events in 2014.
The Trout Brook Outlet subwatershed has been monitored for discharge and water quality since 2005. Flow and water quality monitoring at this location generally occurred between the months of April to November from 2005-2009. Since 2010 flow monitoring has been conducted year-round.
Summaries of 2014 monitoring data collected and observed at Trout Brook Outlet are listed below. Monitoring efficiency at Trout Brook Outlet is explained in Appendix B.
12.4.1 DISCHARGE – TROUT BROOK OUTLET
Level, velocity, and discharge were monitored at Trout Brook Outlet for baseflow, stormflow and snowmelt events in 2014.
CRWD has monitored the elevation of 4 stormwater ponds within the Trout Brook subwatershed: Arlington-Jackson, Westminster-Mississippi, Willow Reserve, and Sims-Agate. Monitoring at these location generally occurs between the months of April to November.
Summaries of 2014 monitoring data collected and observed at the Trout Brook stormwater ponds are listed below. Monitoring efficiencies are explained in Appendix B. Equipment failure resulted in unusable data for Arlington-Jackson and Willow Reserve in 2014.
12.5.1 ELEVATION – WESTMINSTER MISSISSIPPI
• Average elevation: 107.2 feet (Figure 12-29; Table 12-4)
12.5.2 ELEVATION – SIMS-AGATE
• Average elevation: 83.6 feet (Figure 12-30; Table 12-4)
Table 12-4: Historical average elevations for Trout Brook subwatershed stormwater ponds from 2006-2014.
Actual number less than value (<)Actual number greater than value (>)Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
Actual number less than value (<)Actual number greater than value (>)Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
Actual number less than value (<)Actual number greater than value (>)Estimated concentration above the adjusted method detection limit and below the adjusted reporting limit.
- Not collected
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 241
Trout Brook
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 242
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 243
13 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
13.1 CONCLUSIONS
The 2014 stormwater monitoring data collected from twelve monitoring stations in Capitol
Region Watershed District was analyzed for total discharge, pollutant loads, metals toxicity, and
bacteria. The data reported herein represents annual water quality results from seven of the
sixteen major subwatersheds in CRWD.
This 2014 Stormwater Monitoring Report was the first time CRWD reported on the Como 3 and
Hidden Falls subwatersheds. Flow and water quality data has been collected seasonally at the
Como 3 station since 2012. The Hidden Falls monitoring station was established in May 2014, so
2014 was the first season of data collection at this location.
The 2014 monitoring season was the fifth year since 2010 that six CRWD monitoring stations
(East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, St. Anthony Park, Trout Brook-East Branch, Trout Brook-West
Branch, and Trout Brook Outlet) continuously collected data year-round from January through
December. Therefore, the total recorded annual discharge and pollutant loads for these sites
were higher from 2010-2014 than the annual data recorded from 2005-2009.
CLIMATE
Climatologically, 2014 was unique with a cold winter and deep snowpack, followed by a wet and
cool spring, and then an unseasonably dry summer and fall. June 2014 was the wettest June in
Minnesota history. Large precipitation events were frequent in mid-May to late-June 2014 and
generated the majority of stormflow at all CRWD monitoring sites. Large storm events
contributed a significant portion of the annual yield of TSS and TP. Additionally, the melting of
a deep winter snowpack in March and April of 2014 significantly contributed to total annual
discharge as well as high pollutant loading. A drier than average July through November resulted
in reduced pollutant loading during this period.
DISCHARGE
For discharge, the Trout Brook subwatershed exported the greatest amount of water
(666,381,676 cf) in 2014 because it has the largest drainage area in CRWD (5,028 acres). The
2014 water yields for all monitored subwatersheds were greater than the historical averages of
previous monitoring years (2005-2013), largely due to an above average annual precipitation
year. Phalen Creek recorded the highest annual water yield (145,979 cf/ac) in comparison to all
other continuously monitored stations in 2014.
In 2014, snowmelt made up a larger portion of discharge, TSS load, and TP load at all stations
monitored year-round (East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, St. Anthony Park, Trout Brook-East
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 244
Branch, Trout Brook-West Branch, and Trout Brook Outlet). An above average snowpack depth
during the 2013-2014 winter contributed to this observation (76.2 inches; 21.8 inches above
normal). Also, colder than normal winter temperatures that extended through late March 2014
resulted in a gradual late-season melt of the snowpack. In 2014, a greater effort was made to
sample snowmelt events and to standardize how snowmelt discharge volumes are quantified.
POLLUTANT LOADS
In 2014, all monitored subwatersheds exceeded their historical average (2010-2013) TSS yield
(lbs/acre), except for Trout Brook-West Branch and Villa Park. At most stations, TSS yields
were likely greater than historical averages in 2014 because of the above average precipitation
that occurred; TSS loading is primarily driven by stormwater runoff. East Kittsondale produced
the highest total annual TSS yields on a per acre basis in 2014 (711 lbs/ac). Trout Brook Outlet
had the largest total annual TSS load (2,364,568 lbs) in 2014, of which 78% of the total load was
transported by stormflow.
The 2014 total annual TP yields (lbs/acre) generally increased at all sites in comparison to
historical averages (2010-2013). East Kittsondale produced the highest total annual TP yield
(1.37 lb/ac). Como 3 (0.14 lbs/ac) and Sarita (0.16 lbs/ac) had the lowest annual TP yields of all
subwatershed in 2014. Overall, in 2014 Trout Brook Outlet produced the largest total annual TP
load (5,564 lbs). TP loading in 2014 primarily occurred during storm events at all continuously
monitored stations, even though baseflow accounted for the majority of the total discharge.
METALS
For metals, the 2014 average stormflow toxicity of lead exceeded the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) toxicity standards at all stations, except Villa Park. Yearly copper
toxicity was also exceeded from most monitored subwatersheds in 2014, except St. Anthony
Park, Trout Brook (East Branch, West Branch, and Outlet) and Villa Park. Average stormflow
toxicity of zinc exceeded the MPCA toxicity standard at Hidden Falls, Como 3, and Como 7. For
all sites, average concentrations of cadmium, chromium, and nickel for all flow types (base,
snowmelt, storm, and yearly) did not exceed the MPCA toxicity standards in 2014 (except yearly
cadmium at Hidden Falls).
BACTERIA
During stormflow events, the majority (80%) of E. coli samples for all stations exceeded the
MPCA maximum numeric standard (1,260 cfu/100 mL) in 2014. The highest bacteria count
observed was at Hidden Falls in October 2014 with 71,700 cfu/100 mL. Baseflow bacteria
samples typically did not exceed the standard in 2014, with the exception of a few isolated
occurrences.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS & COMPARISONS
In 2014, stormwater discharging from CRWD was measured to be more polluted than the
Mississippi River at Lambert’s Landing. High stormwater pollutant levels contribute to the
various water quality impairments found in CRWD lakes and the Mississippi River.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 245
The 2014 median stormwater concentrations for nutrients, solids, metals, and bacteria were
compared to other urbanized areas in the United States using data reported in the National
Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD). When comparing to NSQD’s mixed residential land use
category, most CRWD monitored subwatersheds exceeded median stormwater concentrations for
TSS and E. coli.
STORMWATER PONDS
CRWD stormwater ponds were able to provide adequate water storage while maintaining surface
levels commensurate with previous monitoring years. Stormwater ponds experienced slight
increases in water levels during large storm events; however, excess water generally drained
within 72 hours.
13.2 ACCOMPLISHMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the goal of CRWD to continually improve the monitoring program with new ideas in order
to advance the program in quality, efficiency, and data application. The monitoring program
aims to collect and analyze high quality data from multiple locations to better understand the
water quality in individual subwatersheds as well as the watershed as a whole. Data collection
and analysis through the monitoring program helps to further CRWD’s mission “to protect,
manage and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.”
ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 2014
In 2014, CRWD achieved many of the goals stated in both the 2013 Monitoring Report and the
Monitoring Program Review & Recommendations (2014-2016), including:
CRWD established new full water quality monitoring stations in unmonitored CRWD
subwatersheds, including Hidden Falls subwatershed, and the Green Line.
CRWD worked to establish AC power connection and remote data access to Trout
Brook-East Branch and Trout Brook-West Branch in 2014 in order to increase data
collection efficiency and data quality.
CRWD adjusted the sampling season schedule to:
o Reduce the total number of monthly baseflow sampling events;
o Target specific precipitation events for sampling for storm volume and intensity.
CRWD implemented a long-term monitoring database for improved data organization,
data accessibility, data querying, and data analysis.
o The database (Kisters WISKI) was launched in December 2014
CRWD worked with the MPCA to monitor chloride pollution in stormwater to contribute
data to the Twin Cities Metro Area Chloride Project (MPCA, 2012b).
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 246
Partnered with the University of Minnesota on several projects by collecting and
analyzing water quality samples.
Identified and eliminated an illicit discharge observed at Trout Brook-East Branch using
IDDE protocols.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2015
For 2015, CRWD has developed several goals and recommendations aimed at improving the
monitoring program’s efficiency as well as CRWD’s water quantity and quality dataset. Goals
for 2015 are:
1. CRWD will further explore and implement the many functions of the newly acquired
monitoring database software (Kisters WISKI) in order to improve efficiency, data
organization, data access, data analysis, and automation of data QA/QC, such as:
a. Automate baseflow and stormflow interval identification
b. Automate pollutant loading calculations
c. Recalculate discharge and pollutant loads for historical data using automated
scripts in order to streamline calculations and eliminate year-to-year subjectivity
2. CRWD will consider analyzing water quality samples for additional parameters not
currently analyzed, such as: bacteria/microbial source tracking, oil/grease, trash, PAHs,
contaminants of emerging concern.
3. CRWD will consider expanding remote data access capabilities to other baseline
monitoring station in the District, such as East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, or St Anthony
Park.
4. CRWD will develop and implement a CRWD Monitoring Quality Assurance Program
Plan (QAPP) in 2015 to ensure data quality. The QAPP will act as a primary guidance
document to:
a. Define field and laboratory quality assurance goals and procedures;
b. Summarize monitoring program goals, design, sampling methods, analytical
procedures, and data review protocols.
5. CRWD will seek to enhance partnerships with the City of Saint Paul, Ramsey County,
other local urban watershed districts, and research groups (e.g. University of Minnesota)
to broaden our understanding of urban hydrology and pollutant loading.
6. CRWD will document illicit discharges throughout the watershed and work with District
municipalities to eliminate other potential sources of pollution.
2014 CRWD Stormwater Monitoring Report 247
14 REFERENCES
Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2015. 2014 Lakes Monitoring Report. Saint Paul,
MN.
Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2014. 2013 Stormwater Monitoring Report. Saint
Paul, MN.
Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2012. Stormwater BMP Performance Assessment
and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Saint Paul, MN.
Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2010. CRWD 2010 Watershed Management Plan.
Saint Paul, MN.
Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2002. Como Lake Strategic Management Plan.
Saint Paul, MN.
Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2000. Watershed Management Plan 2000.
1.1. The Villa Park Wetland ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.2. Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1. Overall (Study Period) Nutrient Loading and Wetland Performance ................................ 12 3.2. Seasonal Net Loading and Removal (Load Ratio) by Year ...................................................... 14 3.3. Significance of Nutrient and Sediment Retention or Export .................................................. 15 3.4. Influence of Discharge, Air Temperature, and Precipitation on Nutrient Loading ....... 17
4.1. Hydrologic and Precipitation Controls on Nutrient Export from the Wetland ............... 18 4.1.1. Patterns of Stormflow and Baseflow Discharge in the Villa Park Wetland............................ 18 4.1.2. Precipitation Effects on Wetland Hydrology ....................................................................................... 21 4.1.3. Hydrologic Controls on Nutrient and Sediment Loading ............................................................... 24
TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: $2,174,100.00 $30,551.71 $414,654.16 $1,759,445.84 19.07%15104 - Debt & Loan Service 15 368,131.00 - - 368,131.00 0.00%
TOTAL DEBT SERVICES: $368,131.00 $0.00 $0.00 $368,131.00 0.00%
TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $5,524,248.00 $290,596.58 $1,351,358.19 $4,172,889.81 24.46%
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
DATE: June 9, 2015
TO: CRWD Board of Managers
FROM: Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist
RE: Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for Exfiltration
Monitoring at Upper Villa
Background
Infiltration is a key tool of stormwater management since it filters pollutants and recharges groundwater
supplies. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) approached CRWD looking for underground
BMP sites where exfiltration (water that has left the BMP) could be sampled to improve our understanding
of BMP performance. The information collected will guide BMP selection and design for future projects.
Issues
CRWD originally considered the Arlington-Hamline underground system (AHUG) as a study site.
Designs were created for horizontal wells at three depths below the BMP that would collect stormwater
for testing. Only one contractor bid on the well installation and the cost was about double what was
estimated.
Staff determined that the Upper Villa project might be another feasible, less expensive location since well
installation could coincide with the construction of the project (October, 2015) Installation estimates for
Upper Villa were generated by the project engineer and were within the budget proposed by the MPCA.
Final designs still need to be developed, but it is likely installation will consist of three pan lysimeters
installed at 3’, 8’, and 15’ below the bottom of the underground infiltration gallery.
Design and installation of the monitoring system is estimated to cost $23,500. Sampling equipment,
sample collection, and analysis for approximately two seasons is estimated to cost $37,350 for a total
project cost of $60,850. A JPA with the MPCA will reimburse CRWD $23,500 for design and installation,
and $7,325 for monitoring activities. The net cost to CRWD will be $30,025 over the two year project
period. CRWD has budgeted $15,000 in 2015 and will budget the balance of $15,025 in 2016.
Requested Action
Approve the Joint Powers Agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the Upper Villa
Park Exfiltration Performance Assessment pending review and approval of Ramsey County Attorney, and
authorize the District Administrator to execute the agreement.
enc: Joint Powers Agreement, workplan, and project budget (hard copies available at the meeting upon request)
\\CRWDC01\Company\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\0 Projects\2015 AHUG Vadose MPCA Project\Upper Villa\Board Memo Upper Villa Exfiltration Monitoring.docx
June 17, 2015
V. Action Items
C) JPA for Upper Villa
Exfiltration Monitoring
(Zwonitzer)
1
Joint Powers Agreement State of Minnesota
Doc Type: Contract
SWIFT Contract No.: 0000000000000000000090132
PO No.: 3000013714
CR No.: 8251
This Agreement is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155 ("State" or "MPCA") and Capitol Region Watershed District, 1410 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, MN 55108 ("Local Governmental Unit" (LGU)).
Recitals
1. Under Minn. Stat. §§ 15.061 and 471.59, subd. 10, the State is empowered to engage such assistance as deemed necessary.
2. The State is in need of the Stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) – Upper Villa Park Exfiltration Performance Assessment ("Project").
3. The LGU represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this Agreement to the satisfaction of the State.
Agreement
1. Term of Agreement
1.1 Effective date: June 30, 2015, or the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 2, whichever is later. The LGU must not begin work under this Agreement until this Agreement is fully executed and the LGU has been notified by the State's Authorized Representative to begin the work.
1.2 Expiration date: June 29, 2017, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first.
1.3 Survival of terms: The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this Agreement: Liability; State Audits; Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; Publicity and Endorsement; Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue.
2. LGU's duties
The LGU, who is not a state employee, will conduct the Project and follow the Budget for the said Project as specified in Attachment A, which is attached and incorporated into this Agreement. No terms or conditions of the LGU's proposal will be construed to modify, diminish, or derogate the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
All water monitoring programs and projects that involve environmental data acquisition from direct measurement activities or laboratory analysis must have an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to ensure all data collected are of known and suitable quality and quantity. The LGU shall cooperate in the development of the QAPP as necessary, and comply with the requisite elements of the plan.
2
The LGU shall, when applicable: 1) Organize water quality data into a spreadsheet format suitable for entry into Environmental Quality Information System (EQuIS). 2) Work with the MPCA Authorized Representative and data management staff to provide information on water quality or biological sampling, as needed, to enter the monitoring data in EQUIS. The LGU shall: A) Provide basic information including project name, purpose, staff assigned, and sampling procedures for project establishment in EQuIS, using the MPCA Project Establishment Form. B) Provide information on all laboratories used for water sample analysis, using the MPCA Lab Establishment Form. C) Provide information on monitoring station location for station establishment in EQuIS using the MPCA Station Establishment Form. Said Forms and other Storage and Retrieval Water Data Repository (STORET) information are available at MPCA EQuIS website, which may be accessed at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-monitoring-and-reporting/equis/equis-program-and-surface-water-data.html.
With the exception of diatom core sampling and invertebrate analysis, all laboratory work conducted under this Project must be done by a laboratory currently certified by the Minnesota Department of Health for the parameter being measured.
The LGU shall ensure that all personnel involved in the performance of this Agreement are properly qualified, trained, and competent; and shall be, where applicable, appropriately medically monitored during activities undertaken.
3. Time The LGU must comply with all the time requirements described in this Agreement. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence.
4. Consideration and payment
4.1 Consideration. The State will pay for all services performed by the LGU under this Agreement as follows:
(a) Compensation. The LGU will be paid in accordance with the breakdown of costs as set forth in the detailed Budget section of Attachment A, which is attached and incorporated into this Agreement.
(b) Travel expenses. Reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses actually and necessarily incurred by the LGU as a result of this Agreement will not exceed the total amount set forth in travel expense section of the detailed Budget section of Attachment A, which is attached and incorporated into this Agreement, provided that the LGU will be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "Commissioner's Plan" promulgated by the Commissioner of Minnesota Management and Budget office, which is incorporated into this Agreement by reference and which can be viewed at: http://www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us/commissionersplan.htm.
(c) Total obligation. The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the LGU under this Agreement will not exceed $30,825.00 (Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Five Dollars and Zero Cents).
4.2 Payment
(a) Invoices. The State will promptly pay the LGU after the LGU presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted timely and according to the following schedule: Quarterly.
Invoices will reference the SWIFT Contract number, Purchase Order number, and the name of the State's Authorized Representative and will be submitted electronically to: [email protected]
If there is a problem with submitting an invoice electronically, please contact the Accounts
The LGU shall submit an invoice for the final payment upon submittal of the final progress and financial report within 30 (thirty) days of the original or amended end date of this Agreement. State reserves the right to review submitted invoices after 30 (thirty) days and make a determination as to payment.
(b) Retainage. Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.08, subd. 2(10), no more than 90 percent of the amount due under this Agreement may be paid until the final product of this Agreement has been reviewed by the State's agency head. The balance due will be paid when the State's agency head determines that the LGU has satisfactorily fulfilled all the terms of this Agreement.
(c) Federal funds. N/A.
4.3 Reporting requirements. The LGU shall submit to the State for review and approval semi-annual reports in a format prescribed by the State. Semi-Annual Reports shall be due to the State each February 1 and August 1 during the life of the Agreement. The January 1 -- June 30 reporting period will be addressed in the August 1 report; the July1 -- December 31 reporting period will be addressed in the February 1 report. Payments shall be withheld if reporting requirements have not been met.
5. Legacy logo Minnesota Laws 2010, chapter 361, article 3, section 5, (b) states: "A recipient of the funds from the outdoor heritage fund, parks and trails fund, clean water fund or arts and cultural heritage fund shall display, where practicable, a sign with the logo developed under this section on construction projects and at access points to any land or water resources acquired in fee or an interest in less than fee title, or that were restored, protected, or enhanced, and incorporate the logo, where practicable, into printed and other materials funded with money from one or more of the funds."
Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment Logo Usage Guidelines: http://www.legacy.leg.mn/sites/default/files/resources/Legacy_Logo_Guidelines.pdf
Download the Legacy Logo: http://www.legacy.leg.mn/legacy-logo/legacy-logo-download
6. Conditions of payment All services provided by the LGU under this Agreement must be performed to the State's satisfaction, as determined at the sole discretion of the State's Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The LGU will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local law.
7. Authorized Representative
The State's Authorized Representative/Project Manager is David Fairbairn, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-757-2659, [email protected], or his successor, and has the responsibility to monitor the LGU's performance and the authority to accept the services provided under this Agreement. If the services are satisfactory, the State's Authorized Representative/Project Manager will certify acceptance on each invoice submitted for payment.
The LGU's Authorized Representative is Bob Fossum, 1410 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul, MN 55108, 651-644-8888, [email protected], or his successor. If the LGU's Authorized Representative changes at any time during this Agreement, the LGU must immediately notify the State.
8. Subcontracting If the LGU decides to fulfill its obligations and duties under this Agreement through a subcontractor, to be paid for by funds received under this Agreement, the LGU shall not execute an agreement with the subcontractor or otherwise enter into a binding agreement until it has first received written approval from the MPCA's Authorized Representative. All subcontracts shall reference this Agreement and require the subcontractor to comply with all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The LGU
shall be responsible for the satisfactory and timely completion of all work required under any subcontract and the LGU shall be responsible for payment of all subcontracts. The LGU shall pay all subcontractors, less any retainage, within 10 calendar days of receipt of payment to the LGU by the State for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor and must pay interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor.
The LGU must follow their policies and procedures for obtaining subcontractors and/or policies and procedures per Minn. Stat. § 471.345 as applicable.
9. Change Orders If the State's Project Manager or the LGU's Authorized Representative identifies a minor change needed in the Work Plan and Budget, either party may initiate a Change Order using the Change Order Form provided by the MPCA. Minor changes are defined as reallocating between tasks and objectives, less than ten percent (10%) of the overall Agreement, cumulatively, or $50,000, cumulatively, whichever is less. Change Orders may not delay or jeopardize the success of the Project, alter the overall scope of the Project, increase or decrease the overall amount of the Agreement, or cause an extension of the term of this Agreement. Major changes or reallocations (over 10% or $50,000) require an Amendment rather than a Change Order.
The State's Project Manager and the LGU's Authorized Representative shall sign the Change Order Form in advance of doing the work, which will then become an integral and enforceable part of the Agreement.
10. Assignment, amendments, waiver, and Agreement complete
10.1 Assignment. The LGU may neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior consent of the State and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this Agreement, or their successors in office.
10.2 Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original Agreement, or their successors in office.
10.3 Waiver. If the State fails to enforce any provision of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it.
10.4 Agreement complete. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the State and the LGU. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party.
11. Liability
Each party agrees that it shall be responsible for its own acts and omissions and shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other party. Each party therefore agrees that is shall assume liability for itself, its agents and employees for any injury to persons or property resulting in any manner from the conduct of its own operations and the operations of its agents and employees under this Agreement, and for any loss, cost, damage, or expense resulting at any time from failure to exercise proper precautions, by itself or through its agents and employees.
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to be construed as a waiver of the State Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. § 3. 736, the Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 466, or any law, legislative or judicial, limiting governmental liability. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies either party may have against the other for its failure to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement.
12. State audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the LGU's books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of
5
this Agreement.
13. Government data practices and intellectual property
13.1 Government data practices. The LGU and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 13, (or, if the State contracting party is part of the Judicial Branch, with the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court as the same may be amended from time to time) as it applies to all data provided by the State under this Agreement, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the LGU under this Agreement. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data governed by the Minnesota Government Practices Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 13, by either the LGU or the State.
If the LGU receives a request to release the data referred to in this clause, the LGU must immediately notify the State. The State will give the LGU instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released.
13.2 Intellectual property rights.
(a) Intellectual property rights: The rights, title, and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including all copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the works and documents, shall be jointly owned by the LGU and the State. The "works" means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the LGU, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this Agreement. "Works" includes documents. The "documents" are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the LGU, its employees, agents, or subcontractors, in the performance of this Agreement. The ownership interests of the State and the LGU in the works and documents shall be equal. The party's ownership interest in the works and documents shall not be reduced by any royalties or revenues received from the sale of the products or the licensing or other activities arising from the works and documents. Each party hereto shall, at the request of the other, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the appropriate ownership interests in the works and documents.
(b) Obligations
(1) Notification: Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or not patentable) is made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the LGU, including its employees and subcontractors, in the performance of this Agreement, the LGU will immediately give the State's Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the State's Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure thereon. All decisions regarding the filing of patent, copyright, trademark or service mark applications and/or registrations shall be the joint decision of the LGU and the State, and costs for such applications shall be divided as agreed by the parties at the time of the filing decisions. In the event the parties cannot agree on said filing decisions, the filing decision will be made by the State.
(2) Representation: The LGU must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in the works and documents are the sole property of the LGU and the State, as agreed herein, and that no LGU employee, agent, or subcontractors retains any interest in and to the works and documents. The LGU represents and warrants that the works and documents do not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of others. The LGU shall indemnify; defend, and hold harmless the State, at the LGU's expense, from any action or claim brought
6
against the State to the extent that it is based on a claim that all or part of the works or documents infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others. The LGU shall be responsible for payment of any and all such claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, costs, and damages, including but not limited to, attorney fees. If such a claim or action arises, or in the LGU's or the State's opinion is likely to arise, the LGU must, at the State's discretion, either procure for the State the right or license to use the intellectual property rights at issue or replace or modify the allegedly infringing works or documents as necessary and appropriate to obviate the infringement claim. This remedy shall be in addition to and not exclusive of other remedies provided by law.
(c) Use of works and documents: The State and LGU shall jointly have the right to make, have made, reproduce, modify, distribute, perform, and otherwise use the works, including documents produced under this Agreement, for noncommercial research, scholarly work, government purposes, and other noncommercial purposes without payment or accounting to the other party. No commercial development, manufacture, marketing, reproduction, distribution, sales or licensing of the works, including documents, shall be authorized without a future written contractual agreement between the parties.
(d) Possession of documents: The documents may remain in the possession of the LGU. The State may inspect any of the documents at any reasonable time. The LGU shall provide a copy of the documents to the State without cost upon the request of the State.
(e) Survivability: The rights and duties of the State and the LGU, provided for above, shall survive the expiration or cancellation of this Agreement.
14. Insurance requirements Below are the minimum insurance limits required by the State of Minnesota for any entity that is not a state Agency or Local Government Unit (LGU) unless otherwise noted (**).
14.1 LGU shall not commence work under the Agreement until they (or subcontractor) have submitted acceptable evidence of insurance and the State of Minnesota has approved such insurance. LGU or subcontractor shall maintain such insurance in force and effect throughout the term of the Agreement. A certificate of insurance is acceptable evidence.
14.2 Subcontractor is required to maintain and furnish satisfactory evidence of the following insurance policies:
(a) Workers' Compensation Insurance. Subcontractor must provide Workers' Compensation insurance for all its employees and, in case any work is subcontracted, LGU will require the subcontractor to provide Workers' Compensation insurance in accordance with the statutory requirements of the State of Minnesota, including Coverage B, Employer's Liability. Insurance minimum amounts are as follows:
$100,000 -- Bodily Injury by Disease per employee $500,000 -- Bodily Injury by Disease aggregate $100,000 -- Bodily Injury by Accident
If Minn. Stat. § 176. 041 exempts subcontractor from Workers' Compensation insurance or if the subcontractor has no employees in the State of Minnesota, subcontractor must provide a written statement, signed by an authorized representative, indicating the qualifying exemption that excludes LGU from the Minnesota Workers' Compensation requirements.
If during the course of the Agreement the subcontractor becomes eligible for Worker's Compensation, the subcontractor must comply with the Workers' Compensation Insurance requirements herein and provide the State of Minnesota with a certificate of insurance.
(b) Commercial General Liability Insurance. Subcontractor is required to maintain insurance protecting it from claims for damages for bodily injury, including sickness or disease, death, and for care and loss of services as well as from claims for property damage, including loss of use which may arise from operations under the Agreement and in any case work is
7
subcontracted the LGU will require the subcontractor to provide Commercial General Liability. Insurance minimum amounts are as follows:
**For LGUs, the coverage shall be maintained in conformance with the Tort Claims limits set forth in Minn. Stat. ch. 466, with limits not less than $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.
The following coverages shall be included:
Premises and Operations Bodily Injury and Property Damage Personal and Advertising Injury Blanket Contractual Liability Products and Completed Operations Liability State of Minnesota named as an Additional Insured
(c) Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Subcontractor is required to maintain insurance protecting the LGU from claims for damages for bodily injury as well as from claims for property damage resulting from the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of all owned, hired, and non-owned autos which may arise from operations under this Agreement, and in case any work is subcontracted the LGU will require the subcontractor to provide Commercial Automobile Liability. Insurance minimum amounts are as follows:
$2,000,000 -- per occurrence Combined Single limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage
**For LGUs, the coverage shall be maintained in conformance with the Tort Claims limits set forth in Minn. Stat. Ch. 466, with limits not less than $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.
In addition, the following coverages should be included:
Owned, Hired, and Non-owned Automobile
(d) Professional Liability Insurance. This policy will provide coverage for all claims the LGU, or its subcontractors, may become legally obligated to pay, resulting from any actual or alleged negligent act, error, or omission related to LGU's or its subcontractors' professional services required under the Agreement.
$2,000,000 -- per claim or event $2,000,000 -- annual aggregate
**For LGUs, the coverage shall be maintained in conformance with the Tort Claims limits set forth in Minn. Stat. ch. 466, with limits not less than $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.
Any deductible of the subcontractor will be the sole responsibility of the subcontractor and may not exceed $50,000 without the written approval of the State. If the subcontractor desires authority from the State to have a deductible in a higher amount, the subcontractor shall request in writing, specifying the amount of the desired deductible and providing financial documentation by submitting the most current audited financial statements or other approved documentation so that the State can ascertain the ability of the subcontractor to cover the deductible from its own resources.
The retroactive or prior acts date of such coverage shall not be after the effective date of this Agreement and LGU or subcontractor shall maintain such insurance for a period of at least three (3) years, following completion of the work. If such insurance is discontinued, extended reporting period coverage must be obtained by LGU or subcontractor to fulfill this requirement.
8
14.3 Additional insurance conditions: • LGU's or subcontractor's policy(ies) or subcontractor's shall be primary insurance to any
other valid and collectible insurance available to the State of Minnesota with respect to any claim arising out of the performance under this Agreement.
• LGU or subcontractor is responsible for payment of Agreement-related insurance premiums and deductibles.
• If LGU or subcontractor is self-insured, a Certificate of Self-Insurance must be attached, include legal defense fees in addition to liability policy limits, with the exception of 14. 2 D. above.
• Obtain insurance policies from an insurance company having an "AM BEST" rating of A- (minus); Financial Size Category (FSC) VII or better and must be authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota or obtain comparable coverage under a program of self-insurance.
• An Umbrella or Excess Liability insurance policy may be used to supplement the LGU's or subcontractor's policy limits to satisfy the full policy limits required by the Agreement.
• If LGU or subcontractor receives a cancellation notice from an insurance carrier affording coverage herein, LGU agrees to notify the State of Minnesota within five (5) business days with a copy of the cancellation notice, unless LGU's or subcontractor's policy(ies) contain a provision that coverage afforded under the policy(ies) will not be cancelled without at least thirty (30) days advance written notice to the State of Minnesota.
14.4 The State reserves the right to immediately terminate the Agreement if the LGU or subcontractor is not in compliance with the insurance requirements and retains all rights to pursue any legal remedies against the LGU. All insurance policies must be open to inspection by the State, and copies of policies must be submitted to the State's authorized representative upon written request.
14.5 The successful responder is required to submit Certificates of Insurance acceptable to the State of Minnesota as evidence of insurance coverage requirements prior to commencing work under the Agreement.
15. Publicity and endorsement
15.1 Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this Agreement must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State's Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the LGU individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this Agreement.
15.2 Endorsement. The LGU must not claim that the State endorses its products or services. 16. Governing law, jurisdiction, and venue
Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this Agreement. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
17. Data disclosure
Under Minn. Stat. § 270C.65, subd. 3 and other applicable law, the LGU consents to disclosure of its social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state agencies, and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state laws which could result in action requiring the LGU to file state tax returns, pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any, or pay other state liabilities.
18. Payment to subcontractors
As required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.1245, the prime contractor must pay all subcontractors, less any retainage, within 10 calendar days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment from the State for
9
undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s) and must pay interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s) on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor(s).
19. Termination
19.1 Termination by the State. The State or Commissioner of Administration may cancel this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days' written notice to the LGU. Upon termination, the LGU will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed.
19.2 Termination for insufficient funding. The State may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the LGU. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However, the LGU will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the Agreement is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the LGU notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State's receiving that notice.
20. Minn. Stat. § 181.59
The vendor will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 181.59 which requires:
Every Agreement for or on behalf of the State, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the LGU agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any Agreement, or any subcontract, no LGU, material supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no LGU, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any Agreement on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this Agreement may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city, town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the Agreement, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this Agreement.
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats e-admin9-38 • 12/2/13 Page 1 of 5
Project Work Plan
Doc Type: Contract
MPCA Use Only
Swift #: 8251
CR #: 90132
Project Title: Stormwater BMP – Upper Villa Park Exfiltration Performance Assessment
1. Project Summary: Organization: Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD)
Contractor contact name: Bob Fossum Title: Program Manager
Address: 1410 Energy Park Drive St. Paul, MN, 55108
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats e-admin9-38 • 12/2/13 Page 2 of 5
Project information Latitude/Longitude: 45.004096, -93.124935
*County: Ramsey Start date: 06/30/2015 End date: 06/29/2017 Total cost: $30,825
*Full time equivalents: 0.06 (for each of 2 years)
*Major watershed(s): [Select all that apply.]
Statewide Kettle River Miss Rvr – GrandRpds Rainy Rvr – Baudette So Fork Crow River Big Fork River Lac Qui Parle River Miss Rvr –Headwaters Rainy Rvr – Black Rvr Lower St. Croix Rvr Upper Big Sioux Rvr Lake of the Woods Miss Rvr –LaCrescent Rainy Rvr – Rainy Rvr Upper St. Croix Rvr Lower Big Sioux Rvr Lake Superior – North Miss Rvr – Reno Rapid River St. Louis River Blue Earth River Lake Superior – South Miss Rvr – Sartell Red Lake River Red Rvr of the North
Tamarac River Bois de Sioux River Le Sueur River Miss Rvr – St. Cloud Upper Red Rvr Thief River Buffalo River Leech Lake River Miss Rvr – Twin Cities Redeye River Two Rivers Cannon River Little Fork River Miss Rvr – Winona Redwood River Upper/Lower Red Lk Cedar River Little Sioux River Miss Rvr – Lake Pepin Rock River Upper Iowa River Chippewa River Long Prairie River Mustinka River Root River Vermillion River Clearwater River Red Rvr of the North
Marsh River Nemadji River Roseau River Upper Wapsipinicon
River Cloquet River MN Rvr – Yellow
Medicine River No Fork Crow River Rum River Watonwan River
Cottonwood River MN Rvr – Headwaters Otter Tail River Red Rvr of the North Sandhill River
DesMoines Rvr Hdwtrs
Crow Wing River MN Rvr – Mankato Pine River Sauk River Lower DesMoines Rvr E Fork DesMoines Rvr Lower MN River Pomme de Terre Rvr Shell Rock River Wild Rice River Red Rvr of the North Grand Marais Creek
Miss Rvr – Brainerd Rainy Rvr – Hdwtrs Snake River Winnebago River Zumbro River
*Organization type:
Federal government For-profit Individual Non-profit
Local/Regional government Private college/university Public college/university State government
Research Restoration/Enhancement Technical assistance
2. Statement of Problems, Opportunities, and Existing Conditions Stormwater professionals currently rely upon infiltration BMPs as an effective means to reduce pollutant and/or volume loads to surface waters. However, questions remain regarding the performance of these BMPs relative to surface water and groundwater in some circumstances. There is a need to assess the performance of existing BMPs, to which considerable resources have been dedicated, to ensure that desired environmental protections are being achieved and that future resources will be well-directed. Numerous BMPs in the TCMA provide opportunities to assess the loading to and performance of individual and groups of BMPs. The project described in this work plan is one several concurrent multi-year field projects. This project will use inflow and vadose zone sampling to investigate pollutant attenuation achieved by a large underground infiltration BMP (Upper Villa Park (UVP)). Data from multiple years will allow broad assessment of BMP condition, performance, and trends. This project provides an opportunity to leverage the capacities of the CRWD together with those of the MPCA. MPCA will provide funding for the installation of vadose zone sampling equipment and a portion of the laboratory analysis of samples. The CRWD will provide staff time and sampling/monitoring equipment as an “in-kind” contribution, and will fund a portion of the laboratory analysis. Results will enhance our understanding and use of underground infiltration BMPs in urban water resource management. 3. Goals, Objectives, Tasks, and Subtasks
Goal: Develop knowledge on pollutant removal and fate in infiltration BMPs. Results of this study will enhance pollutant reduction estimates, inform BMP planning and performance assessments, address groundwater protection concerns, and increase our
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats e-admin9-38 • 12/2/13 Page 3 of 5
understanding of stormwater and stormwater BMPs in the water cycle.
Objective 1: Stormwater BMP site info, preparations, and monitoring
Task A: BMP Description. Includes site characteristics, context, and historical data. Reference to brief appendices can be used instead of rewriting information in this summary. Information of interest includes:
BMP characteristics List/description of similar TCMA BMPs (only requested if the Contractor already has this) Drainage area characteristics (connected area) Surrounding land use, hydrology, and hydrogeology Subsurface characteristics (beneath BMP) Any notable site constraints/considerations such as setbacks or nearby impaired/sensitive waters Any existing monitoring or performance data for the BMP and its fitness/relevance Any existing monitoring data for nearby water resources or BMPs, if relevant.
Deliverable: Summary of site info, with references, attachments, and data. Responsible Party: MPCA and CRWD
Task B: Write the Sampling Plan. Describe the project’s general approach, schedule, needs, and output. Detail on methods is not needed, as this will be provided in the Sampling SOP. The information in the Sampling Plan will help define the Sampling SOP. Be concise but provide enough detail to generally define the project. Sampling Plan should be followed unless otherwise agreed upon by the responsible parties. Include (if applicable): Overview of goals, approach, and rationale Identification of BMP sampling points Any site modifications needed for monitoring Any seasonal/site constraints on monitoring Equipment purchases/needs General sampling schedule
o Regime, targeted events, sample types, estimated numbers, equipment o In situ monitoring equipment, regime, considerations o Chemical, physical, and biological parameters of interest for various sample types and events
Timing and description of equipment deployment and collection (annual/seasonal) Threshold conditions for monitoring
o Conditions that will trigger grab or automated sampling (e.g., snowmelt, precipitation depth) o Timeframe for deployment and sampling once threshold conditions are achieved o If any threshold condition checks are needed (e.g., forecast), specify who will do this, how, and when
O&M needs/schedule for equipment and the BMP Total estimated number of site visits/other activities/samples/hrs over two years
o These are guidelines; actual conditions will determine activities; these will be invoiced and paid accordingly
Deliverable: Written Sampling Plan Responsible Parties: MPCA and CRWD
Task C: Write the Sampling Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). Develop a written Sampling SOP based on the strategies outlined in the Sampling Plan. An existing CRWD SOP can be used or adapted for this purpose, if available. The SOP should be followed unless otherwise agreed upon by the responsible parties. It should delineate the sequence of steps for proper collection of samples and monitoring data that are specified in the Sampling Plan. Topics to address (as applicable):
List of equipment and supplies needed for each type of sampling Any needed prep before the site visit (e.g., equipment calibration, inventory, lab contacts, condition checks) BMP location, access points, sampling points, and any associated considerations On-site preparations or observations to complete before sampling or equipment setup Automated equipment setup and programming procedures Sample collection procedures and associated activities Sample handling, transport, storage, and delivery procedures Maintenance and collection procedures for automated equipment during deployment Collection procedures for any corollary data Paperwork or documentation to complete during site visits Any other follow-up or between-visit activities, maintenance, documentation that is needed Any requirements of the QAPP (Quality Assurance Project Plan, see below)
Deliverable: Sampling SOP Responsible Parties: MPCA and CRWD
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats e-admin9-38 • 12/2/13 Page 4 of 5
Task D: Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). A QAPP will be developed in a format acceptable to MPCA administration. The QAPP will be used to inform the SOP, as necessary.
Deliverable: QAPP Responsible Party: MPCA
Task E: Design, materials, and installation of vadose zone samplers Three (3) vadose zone samplers will be designed and installed by New Look Contracting, Inc. (Subcontractor)
o CRWD will use funds from this task for purchasing vadose zone sampler materials and for the costs associated with the design and installation of the samplers
o Samplers will be designed according to specifications agreed upon by CRWD and MPCA o Samplers will be designed to allow collection of samples (at least 1 L in volume each) from 3 different
depths below Upper Villa Park Infiltration and Reuse infiltration pipe gallery (the current plan is for approx. 3’, 9’, 15’ below bottom of pipe)
o The initial plan is to install pan lysimeters for this purpose, but this plan may be adjusted based on cost and feasibility if agreed upon by CRWD and MPCA
o Samples will be collected either through the use of a sampling cup or through a pump/vacuum line, tbd prior to installation.
Deliverable: 3 vadose zone samplers, each suitable for collection of at least 1-liter of sample per event with materials suitable for analysis for analytes of interest (metals, nutrients, and chloride), installed at 3 different depths in the vadose zone below UVP.
Responsible Party: CRWD and New Look Contracting, Inc. Task F: Monitoring and sampling – preparation and execution. Activities and sample collection to be completed based on the Sampling Plan and SOP. Activities may include, but are not limited to: Site preparation Gaining permission for site access Equipment and supply preparations (e.g., acquisition, calibration, testing, inventory) Equipment set-up, O&M, retrieval, and any other site visits Development of stage-discharge relationship or other analyses needed prior to sampling Collection of the type and frequency of samples specified in the Sampling Plan and SOP
o Including duplicate, composite, or subsampling if necessary o Estimated at approximately 200 samples (100 from UVP inlet areas and 100 from subsurface samplers) o From events determined to meet threshold conditions for sampling, anticipated to be approximately 15
events per year for 2 years. In situ data and other monitoring data collection as specified in Sampling Plan and SOP Sample handling, transport, storage, and delivery to laboratory as specified in Sampling Plan and SOP Any QA/QC requirements of the QAPP Field notes and sample/data log sheets as specified Any needed communications with lab or other personnel, as specified in Sampling Plan and SOP
Deliverable: Samples (roughly 200) from UVP site Responsible Party: CRWD
Task G: Sample analysis. Laboratory analysis of samples for the parameters specified in the Sampling Plan. Responsible Party: MCES and CRWD
Objective 1 Timeline: Jun 2015 – Jun 2017 Objective 1 Total Cost: $30,825
Objective 2: Administrative tasks.
Task A: Project management and reporting. Project and data communication and tracking of purchases, time, activities, deliverables, and budget. This includes:
Meetings and Communications Data/information transfer, tracking, handling, and archiving. New data collected by CRWD for this site will
supplied to MPCA Project Manager with each quarterly invoice, if this has not already been completed by CRWD or the Subcontractor
Changes to work plan. Invoices submitted quarterly by Contractor to MPCA Project Manager, itemized to the “Task” level of the Budget.
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats e-admin9-38 • 12/2/13 Page 5 of 5
Semi-annual progress reports (brief written summaries of project status and completed/pending activities) submitted by the Contractor to the MPCA Project Manager.
A budget tracking sheet will be maintained by MPCA Project Manager and updated quarterly upon receipt of invoices from the Contractor to track spent and remaining funds in the budget for each Task and Objective
Deliverables: Sample log sheets and field notes; In situ and other associated data; Laboratory data for samples Invoices (quarterly), Progress reports (semi-annual), Budget and activity tracking (quarterly), Meetings
(quarterly, if needed)
Responsible Party: CRWD and MPCA Objective 2 Timeline: June 2015 - June 2017 Objective 2 Cost: $0 - Staff hours to be contributed in-kind by MPCA and CRWD Objective 2 Responsible Parties: MPCA and CRWD
Objective 3: Data analysis and reporting.
Task A: Data management. Includes data QA/QC, analysis, tracking, and storage
Deliverables:
Archived data for all samples with associated monitoring, hydrologic, climactic data Data analysis (within 6 months of project end date) Results interpretation (within 6 months of project end date)
Responsible Party: MPCA and CRWD
Task B: Data reporting and report writing. Deliverables: Draft Report (within 8 months of project end date), Final Report (within 1 year of project end date) Responsible Party: MPCA
Objective 3 Timeline: June 2015 - June 2017 Objective 3 Cost: $0 - Staff hours to be contributed in-kind by MPCA and CRWD Objective 3 Responsible Party: MPCA and CRWD
4. Measurable Outcomes While this section is intended for describing expected measurable improvements to the environment, it is acknowledged that the MPCA does not fund physical implementation work (i.e., BMPs) using Clean Water Legacy funding. Rather, MPCA work plans using Clean Water Legacy provide needed information and analysis to make sure that implementation strategies are well thought-out and targeted. This work will retrospectively assess an implementation (BMP) to determine its efficacy and performance. Project outcomes will include:
1. New understandings of BMP performance and design that will lead to a. Enhanced understanding and numerical ranges for pollutant reduction in BMPs b. Enhanced stormwater BMP guidance that is fair to regulated parties and protective of health and the environment c. Improved future pollutant reductions d. Refinements in BMP design guidance e. Increased confidence in resource allocation for stormwater BMPs that will provide direct benefits to the citizens of
Minnesota, LGUs, state agencies, and other stakeholders. 2. Enhanced characterization of pollutant loading to groundwater and surface water from urban runoff that will inform future
water quality planning and assessment efforts.
5. Gantt charts - Attached
6. Project Budget - Attached
PROJECT NAME: Upper Villa Park Exfiltration Performance Assessment
J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J
OBJECTIVE 1: Stormwater BMP site info, preparations, and monitoring
Task A - BMP Description X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Task B - Write the Sampling Plan X X X X X X X X X
Task C - Write the Sampling Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) X X X X X X X X X
Task D - Quality Assurance Protection Plan (QAPP) X X X X X X X X X
Task E - Design and installation of vadose zone water samplers (3) X X X X X X X X X X X X
Task F - Monitoring and sampling – preparation and execution X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Task G - Sample analysis X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
OBJECTIVE 2: Administrative tasks
Task A - Project management and reporting X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
OBJECTIVE 3: Data analysis and reporting
Task A - Data management X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Task B - Data reporting and report writing X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Year 2015 Year 2016 Year 2017
Attachment A SWIFT
Contract No. 90132 CR 8251
4. Other
Expenses
Totals Budget
Per Objective
Project Budget - 2 Years
CRWD Staff -
In Kind
MPCA Staff - In
Kind
New Look Contracting - Design,
Materials, and Installation
Met Council Laboratory -
Laboratory Analysis
Subsurface Samplers -
Incidental Equipment and
Consumables
Samplers - Inlet Printing
$ Rate per Hour/Unit $0.00 $7,833.33 $113.75 $500 7000 $25
Type of Unit Hours Hours Sampler sample total Sampler report
Objective 1: Stormwater BMP site info, preparations, and monitoring
Task A - BMP Description 2 4 1
Task B - Write Sampling Plan 2 8 1
Task C - Write Sampling SOP 2 6 1
Task D - Write QAPP 2 6
Task E - Installation of Subsurface Samplers (3) 3
Task F - Monitoring and Sampling: Prep and Execution 80 20 1 2
Total Cost (MPCA)$23,500 $6,825 $500 $0 $0 $30,825
In Kind Cost (CRWD) $0 $15,925 $0 $14,000 $100 $30,025
1. Personnel 2. Subcontractor 3. Equipment
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
DATE: June 11, 2015 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Anna Eleria, Water Resource Project Manager RE: CRWD Drainage Assistance Guidelines
Background Following the completion of the Sunny Slope Stabilization Feasibility Study and Highland Ravine Stabilization project in early January, the Board discussed formalizing an approach to the CRWD’s involvement and role in future drainage-related issues. While a number of ideas were shared and deliberated, the Board determined that CRWD would not lead, own or maintain drainage related engineering and construction projects on private property, however, CRWD can offer technical guidance and financial assistance to help address these issues. CRWD staff was directed to take the feedback of the Board and move forward on developing and implementing a formal approach for addressing drainage-related issues. Issues Based on both Board and staff input, CRWD staff have prepared the enclosed draft guidelines for CRWD’s involvement in assisting private property owners with drainage related issues. Different guidelines are presented for both single, private property drainage issues and drainage issues that involve or impact multiple private properties and/or public property. Under both scenarios, CRWD may offer technical guidance to private property owners in the form of a site visit, preliminary assessment of the scope and cause(s) of the issues, and potential next steps to address the issues. However, CRWD will not lead, own or maintain drainage-related projects. For larger, multi-property projects, CRWD may offer cost-share grants for engineering or construction. CRWD staff will present the guidelines to the Board and seek comments at the June 17th meeting. Action Requested None, for discussion purposes only enc: Draft CRWD Drainage Assistance Guidance
June 17, 2015 Board Meeting VI. Unfinished Business – B) CRWD
Drainage Assistance Guidelines (Eleria)
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
CRWD Drainage Assistance Guidance Draft Version 2 – June 11, 2015 Capitol Region Watershed District’s (District) mission is to protect, improve and restore the waters of the District. To achieve its mission, the District has a cost‐share grant program that offers technical and financial assistance to residents and other property owners for projects that primarily address water quality related issues in the District. The District recognizes that certain situations related to drainage issues on private property may warrant the District’s assistance. Drainage issues include groundwater seepage, excessive, uncontrolled runoff over steep slopes, ravines, or other areas that leads to erosion, and excessive, uncontrolled runoff that leads to downstream flooding. District Assistance Private property owner(s) are responsible for leading and conducting private drainage improvement projects. The District will not design or construct private drainage‐related projects nor will it own or maintain private drainage‐related projects. However, the District may provide limited technical assistance to private property owners. In situations where the issue involves or affects multiple private properties and/or public property, the District may also consider providing financial assistance to those private property owners. There may be public benefit in addressing complex, multiple property drainage issues, such as improved water quality, reduction in flooding, protection of public infrastructure and/or safeguarding of public health, safety and welfare. Guidelines The District’s involvement with drainage projects on private property will follow these guidelines:
1. For both single properties and multiple involved and/or affected properties, the District may
provide technical assistance that includes a site visit of the affected properties, identification of
potential causes and contributing watershed area of the drainage issues, and determination of
potential next steps for the property owner(s). A summary of this information including a site
map will be provided to the property owner(s) in a technical memorandum.
2. For drainage issues involving and/or affecting multiple properties, the District may offer
assistance in the coordination of private drainage improvement projects.
3. For drainage issues involving and/or affecting multiple properties, the District may offer
reimbursement grants for engineering and construction of private drainage projects.
4. For engineering projects that receive District grant funds, the property owner must provide
District staff the opportunity to review and comment on plans.
5. Individual grant awards may not exceed 25% of the engineering costs nor more than 50% of the
construction costs.
DATE: June 9, 2015
TO: CRWD Board of Managers
FROM: Lindsay VanPatten
RE: Summer Event Schedule
Trout Brook Grand Opening – Grand Opening of Trout Brook with St. Paul Parks and GRG’s 20th
Anniversary Celebration
Saturday May 30, 2015 12:30 – 3 pm
Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary
Staff, Board and CAC members attended. Thank you.
Saint Paul Arbor Month Celebration – Community tabling event celebrating Arbor Month
Saturday May 30, 2015 10 am – 2 pm
Linwood Recreation Center
860 St. Claire, St. Paul, MN 55105
Thank you Michelle and Steve for tabling at the event!
Montreal SPSVP Boulevard Rain Garden Planting Day
Saturday, June 6, 2015 9 am – 12 pm
Kick-off and plant pickup at Highland Park Junior High
Landscape Revival Native Plant Expo and Market – Native Plant Expo and Market
Saturday, June 6, 2015 9 am – 3 pm
The following people helped table at the CRWD/RCD booth:
Gustavo Castro, CRWD Staff
Seth Ristow, RCD Staff
Bill Barton, CRWD CAC
Rick Sanders, CRWD CAC
David Arbeit, CRWD CAC
Hamline Midway Spring Festival – D11 Community Festival