YOU ARE DOWNLOADING DOCUMENT

Please tick the box to continue:

Transcript
Page 1: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Capitol Region Watershed District

Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP Project

Subwatershed Analysis Report

Prepared by

January 9, 2013

Page 2: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

B. Project Objective and Overview ...................................................................................................... 1

C. Previous Work .................................................................................................................................... 2

D. Investigations ...................................................................................................................................... 2

E. Field Walk and Further Investigation Recommendations ............................................................ 5

F. P8 Water Quality Modeling .............................................................................................................. 8

G. Estimate of Probable Construction Costs ...................................................................................... 10

H. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 11

I. Next Steps ......................................................................................................................................... 11

Page 3: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons Villa Park Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Page 1 Subwatershed Analysis Report

A. INTRODUCTION  

Lake McCarrons is an 81-acre lake that is located in the southeastern corner of the City of Roseville within the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) (see Figure 1 for location). A series of wetlands and open waters known as the Villa Park Wetland System (VPWS) is located to the northwest of the Lake and accounts for up to 72 percent of the total 1044-acre Lake McCarrons watershed. A popular 15-acre county park is situated along the eastern side of the lake. Lake McCarrons is a high quality recreational water body, and CRWD is committed to maintaining its integrity by managing pollutant loading from its subwatersheds, including the VPWS. Extensive monitoring and modeling has led the CRWD to develop a summer average TP concentration goal in Lake McCarrons of 33 parts per billion (ppb) or less. Recent water quality studies have noted that despite previous phosphorus reduction efforts, the VPWS continues to be a major source of nutrients to Lake McCarrons. In order to meet the in-lake goal of 33 ppb, a significant reduction in phosphorus loading to the Villa Park wetland complex is necessary. In 2010, the Villa Park Wetland Management Plan (VPWMP) was published. This plan included a goal to reduce Total Phosphorus (TP) loading from the contributing watersheds to the VPWS by 45 lbs per year on an average annual basis – a 28 percent reduction from current loading. A number of specific recommendations to reduce runoff volume and pollutant loading to the wetland system from its watershed were included in the plan. In order to reduce TP loading, it is anticipated that volume control will also be required. The VPWS watershed is the subject of this analysis and report. The land use within the watershed is primarily residential, with commercial, industrial, and park areas mixed in throughout. There are also a number of wetlands and several constructed water quality ponds located within the watershed. A portion of the Trunk Highway (T.H.) 36 and Dale Street interchange is also located within the watershed. B. PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND OVERVIEW  

The objective of this project is to reduce the TP load to Lake McCarrons by 45 pounds per year through the implementation of volume reduction Best Management Practices (BMPs) upstream of Villa Park. This project is funded through a matching grant from the MN Clean Water Partnership (CWP) by the MN Pollution Control Agency. CRWD retained SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to review previous subwatershed analyses, plans, and monitoring reports, and to conduct additional analysis in order to identify locations for BMPs that can provide the desired reduction of total phosphorus loading. Existing utility information, contours, land use, soils data and as-built plans were compiled through a detailed information collection effort. Types of data and their sources included the following:

CRWD – drainage boundaries, various reports and monitoring information, wetland delineation;

City of Roseville – as-built plans, land use, utilities, contour, and other GIS data;

Page 4: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons Villa Park Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Page 2 Subwatershed Analysis Report

Ramsey County – land use;

Minnesota Department of Transportation – T.H. 36 and Dale Street interchange construction plans; and

Online tools such as the NRCS Web Soil Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory.

Wetland boundaries were also field identified and surveyed, and field reconnaissance was completed. Based on this information, drainage areas were revised and phosphorus loading sources throughout the watershed were located. Finally, potential BMP locations and possible conveyance and routing issues were identified. Once the analysis was complete, recommendations for the most appropriate BMP locations were developed. This report provides a summary of this detailed subwatershed analysis and provides recommendations for specific BMP types and locations that will effectively reduce TP within the VPWS watershed. C. PREVIOUS WORK

Several water quality studies have already been completed for the Lake McCarrons watershed. These are summarized in the VPWMP, which was completed by Wenck Associates, Inc. in 2009, and revised in 2010. Wenck also performed their own analysis of the watershed and evaluated numerous BMP options. The details of this analysis are located in the VPWMP. In addition to the VPWMP, two University of Minnesota senior engineering capstone projects were completed in 2010 and 2011. The capstone design projects identified a total of 11 different locations for BMPs, and eight of these were selected for detailed P8 modeling by the students. The results of this analysis were published in the 2010 and 2011 Water Quality Management in Lake McCarrons capstone design reports. All of these locations were considered for this subwatershed analysis. D. INVESTIGATIONS

After a preliminary analysis of the project area, it was determined that in order to remove 45 lbs TP on an average annual basis, which is a relatively large amount, BMPs would need to be constructed in either multiple small drainage areas or one or two larger drainage areas. According to the Simple Method, which is a simplified TP loading and removal worksheet developed for the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, runoff from over 140 acres of drainage area would need to be treated assuming a 50 percent TP removal via a structural BMP. Most work to date has concentrated on smaller drainage areas (less than 100 acres) that provide small amounts of TP removal. For example, of the eight locations studied by the University of Minnesota capstone design students in 2011, only two larger areas of 331 acres and 134 acres provided potential for significant TP removal at 31.7 and 20.6 lbs using infiltration BMPs. Neither of these locations meet the goal of removing 45 lbs TP. The others were smaller areas that removed less than 4 lbs TP on an average annual basis. These are also relatively costly to develop on a per-lb removal basis.

Page 5: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons Villa Park Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Page 3 Subwatershed Analysis Report

Land use also plays an important role in determining which drainage areas have higher pollutant loads and where stormwater treatment BMPs might be placed. Higher loading rates will result in greater TP removal when passed through an appropriate treatment BMP. This, coupled with drainage area size, helps to define which drainage areas would be the best candidates for BMP consideration. Figure 2 illustrates the annual TP loading estimated by the Simple Method. Impervious areas produce greater runoff and thus greater TP loading. The drainage area to Site 1, for example, though smaller in area, produces a relatively high loading because of its higher impervious surface area ratio. Therefore, based on the current subwatershed analysis and work completed for the VPWMP, it appears that the most cost effective approach is to concentrate on one or two larger drainage areas, preferably with a high percentage of impervious land use. Besides drainage area and land use, we developed additional criteria for selecting potential BMP locations within the Villa Park watershed. These criteria are based on previous studies and on practical and regulatory considerations. A complete list of these criteria is as follows:

Total drainage area that drains to each location,

Land use and percent impervious,

Topography,

Publically owned land available for BMP construction,

Potential wetland impacts,

Constructability and extent to which utilities, particularly storm sewer, must be modified or relocated,

Volume reduction potential (soils, proximity to groundwater),

Ability to discharge the BMP to receiving storm sewer or other conveyance system.

As mentioned previously, 11 different locations were analyzed as potential BMP locations in the 2010 and 2011 capstone design projects, and 8 of these were modeled in P8. After SRF completed an in-depth review of these locations, it was determined that the majority did not meet the above criteria. Contour data alone ruled out several potential BMP locations because of steep slopes or elevation challenges in relation to existing conveyance systems. Others were ruled out due to the small amount of drainage area that could be treated or because they were located on private property. Two locations, however, did potentially meet the criteria. Both the 2011 capstone study and the 2010 capstone study identified BMP ID#12A-4 located in the southwest quadrant of County Road B and Victoria Street (referred to as BMP Site 5 on Figure 3), and BMP ID#7 located east and south of the B-Dale softball field (referred to as BMP Site 4 on Figure 3). These two locations were further analyzed and field assessed for this subwatershed analysis. Based on this preliminary review, SRF identified five potential locations, including the two identified in the 2010 and 2011 capstone reports, and three additional locations that were not

Page 6: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons Villa Park Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Page 4 Subwatershed Analysis Report

included in previous studies. The BMP sites are located throughout the Villa Park watershed, and are labeled Site 1, Site 2, Site 3, Site 4, and Site 5. Location descriptions are as follows: Site 1: Site 1 is located in the athletic fields of the south side of the Parkview School property, adjacent to County Road B and Dale Street. Site 2: Site 2 is located at the northern Villa Park entrance, between County Road B and the north sediment pond of the Villa Park Wetland System. Site 3: Site 3 is located to the west of Site 2, near the southeast quadrant of Dale Street and County Road B between the funeral home and the Villa Park Wetland System. Site 4: Site 4 is located in the playing field of the B-Dale Softball Club. Site 5: Site 5 is located in the southwest quadrant of the Victoria Street and County Road B intersection, north of the existing wetland. These potential BMP locations are presented in Figure 3. Table 1 provides a summary of the analysis of the five selected BMP sites and their potential to meet the removal goal of 45 lbs TP on an average annual basis. These results are preliminary and were based on the Simple Method worksheet. More detailed P8 modeling and further land use analysis was also completed and the results are discussed in Section F. Table 1: Preliminary BMP TP Removal Potential (Simple Method)

BMP Site

BMP Location

Drainage Areas

Impervious Area

Total Phosphorus

Loading

Total Phosphorus

Removal Name

(Acres) Acre lbs/yr lbs/yr

1 Parkview School

DA1 (100)

34 56 42

2 Villa Park

North Wetland

DA2 (123)

41 67 50

3 Villa Park

West Wetland

DA1 and DA3 (130)

15 79 59

4 B-Dale Club softball field

DA4 and DA5 (249)

63 110 83

5

County Road B and

Victoria Street

DA5 (114)

31 53 40

Page 7: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons Villa Park Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Page 5 Subwatershed Analysis Report

The NRCS web soil survey, reproduced in Appendix A, indicates that the majority of the soils throughout the VPWS have not been divided into hydrologic soil groups. The majority of the soils are considered ‘urban soils,’ which is inconclusive in terms of infiltration capacity. Further investigation of soils will be necessary as sites are selected for preliminary design. The City of Roseville has provided GIS-based shape files and as-built information for public utilities, contours, and planimetrics throughout the City. This information was very useful in determining the potential for storm sewer modifications for each of the five BMP sites. Where gaps exist, field survey and further investigation will need to be completed before final design. After identifying the five potential sites, a field walk was conducted with representatives from CRWD, the City of Roseville, and SRF to assess physical opportunities and challenges, and to discuss types of BMPs that may be implemented. Detailed notes from the field walk can be found in Appendix B. E. FIELD WALK AND FURTHER INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 2 provides summarized results of the field walk and recommendations for further investigations based on both the field walk and the criteria listed previously.

Page 8: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons Villa Park Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Page 6 Subwatershed Analysis Report

Table 2: Field Walk Notes by BMP Location BMP Site Field Walk Notes Recommendation

1 (Parkview

School)

The school contact has indicated that they would like to remove the tennis courts located on the north edge of the school grounds.

This may be an opportunity for the school to rearrange the recreation area to allow space for a BMP at the intersection of County B and Dale Street.

Soil borings will be necessary here, although it is expected that this area has primarily sandy soils.

Information will be needed on what is being treated within the Trunk Highway 36/Dale Street interchange to accurately determine what is draining to the proposed BMP location.

This option would likely provide the best solution for volume reduction, which means that this may provide the best solution for both CRWD and the City of Roseville.

Using this location in conjunction with Option 2 or Option 5 might be required depending on additional water quality modeling results.

This site should be investigated further.

2 (Villa Park

North Wetland)

The pipes that would have to be brought into this area are located to the east of the proposed location, and the elevation change between the two areas will likely not permit a connection.

It is likely that the area would be considered a wetland based on observed wetland species.

This site will not be investigated further.

3 (Villa Park West

Wetland)

The groundwater in this area may be too high to allow the construction of a volume control BMP since the required three foot separation from the seasonal high groundwater level may not be attainable.

It appears that this area may be a wetland and may not be suitable for BMP construction since mitigation would be necessary.

This site will not be investigated further at this point due to the likelihood of issues noted.

4 (B-Dale

Club Softball Field)

The site identified in the capstone report is south and east of the ball field. Presence of the steep slopes and the potential loss of high quality vegetation make this location undesirable.

The area to the west, within the outfield of the softball field, is flatter and may be an option depending upon elevations of the field vs. storm sewer and connectivity.**

The site identified in the capstone report will not be investigated further. Use of softball field outfield should be investigated further.**

Page 9: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons Villa Park Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Page 7 Subwatershed Analysis Report

5 (County Road B

and Victoria Street)

There is a wetland located here, but it may be possible to locate a BMP (or a couple of BMPs) either near the inlets to the wetland along County B or near the outlet along Victoria to provide treatment for phosphorus removal.

Wetland delineation will need to be done for this area.

The inlet from the North seemed to be the most promising.

Elevations will need to be obtained for the pipes connecting the wetlands on the east and west sides of Victoria St.

Given the dry weather it is difficult to tell if this site can provide any volume reduction, given much of the area is likely wetland with high groundwater.

The City of Roseville plans to reconstruct Victoria in the near future and could perform storm sewer modifications at that time if this site is found to be feasible. The City could also wrap the BMP construction into their plans to meet the CRWD goals and the needs of the project together.

This site should be investigated further.

**These are observations made after the field walk (during conceptual design). Based on both the field walk and the criteria discussed previously, it was determined that BMPs at Sites 1, 4, and 5 should be investigated further. Specific BMPs investigated for each site are summarized as follows:

Site 1: Parkview School

BMP Option A, Parkview School Surface Basin – Pretreatment hydrodynamic sediment separation devices and a surface infiltration basin designed to fit within the Parkview School open area without disturbing current recreational fields.

BMP Option B, Parkview School Underground System – Underground storage and infiltration system with underground sediment removal device that provides pretreatment. The underground system is expected to create a larger disturbance that may require reconfiguration of recreational fields.

Site 4: B-Dale Softball Field

BMP Option C, B-Dale Softball Field Underground System – Underground storage and infiltration system with underground grit chamber for pretreatment. Because there is adequate area available for an underground system, this BMP will be designed to meet the TP removal goal of 45 lbs/year.

Site 5: Victoria Street and County Road B

BMP Option D, Victoria-B Wetland Filtration System – Filtration system with underdrains, designed to obtain maximum TP removal without impacting wetlands.

BMP Options A, B and C will likely allow for both volume reduction and phosphorus loading reduction, whereas BMP Option D may not serve to reduce volume, due to potentially high groundwater in the adjacent wetland. Figure 3 indicates that BMP Option D is upstream of

Page 10: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons Villa Park Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Page 8 Subwatershed Analysis Report

BMP Option C. The interaction between the two BMPs (i.e. if both options are constructed) was also investigated and is discussed briefly in the sections following.

F. P8 WATER QUALITY MODELING

In order to determine the extent to which the BMP Options meet the TP removal goal of 45 lbs/year, P8 water quality modeling was completed. During the development of the more detailed P8 models and the analysis of data obtained for this project, adjustments to drainage areas and hydrologic characteristics, such as impervious area, were made. For example, a length of T.H. 36 between Dale Street and Victoria Street was removed from DA1, which contributes to BMP Option A, because it is now routed to an infiltration BMP located in the northeast quadrant of Victoria and T.H. 36. The BMPs were first sized based on site constraints, existing topography and availability to connect to existing storm sewer. The phosphorus loading to the site, the ability to meet the TP loading and volume reduction goals, and the budget constraints were also considered in sizing and design. The constraints are discussed in more detail in the following sections. Table 3 provides the P8 modeling results. Table 3: Preliminary P8 Modeling Results

BMP Site BMP

Option

Drainage Area(s)

Impervious Area

1-inch volume standard

Treatment Volume Provided

Total Phosphorus

Loading

Total Phosphorus Removed

Name (Acre)

Acre Cubic-Feet Cubic-Feet

lbs/yr lbs/yr

Parkview A DA1 (100)

35 111,078 28,314 40 22.7

Parkview B DA1 (100)

35 111,078 108,900 40 37.4

B-Dale Club

C DA4 and

DA5 (249)

63 212,355 78,983 83.9 45.4

Victoria Wetland

D DA5 (114)

31 101,277 19,602* 42.3 17.0

B-Dale Club and Victoria Wetland

C + D DA4 and

DA5 (249)

63 212,355 98,585 83.9 47.5

*70% credit volume as per the CRWD’s Rules for Filtration BMPs. Site 1, Parkview School – BMP Options A and B: Preliminary design and future discussions with the Roseville School District will determine final BMP size and extents, and, therefore, TP and volume removal. However, it is assumed for this report that the BMP footprint should minimize impacts on existing facilities, whether it is above ground or underground. Figures 4 and 5 provide a rough location and footprint of the two BMP systems that were evaluated for this area. Both options would take flow through a splitting device from modified County Road B and Dale Street storm sewer and direct it to the treatment site. Option A provides treatment using

Page 11: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons Villa Park Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Page 9 Subwatershed Analysis Report

hydrodynamic sediment separation devices (e.g. Stormceptor) for pretreatment and an infiltration basin that will minimize the impact to existing facilities. Option B provides pretreatment and infiltration in an underground system located beneath the existing soccer field. The phosphorus loading from DA1 is only 40 lbs/year, so based on the loading alone it is not possible to remove 45 lbs/year. It is possible to meet approximately half of the loading reduction goal and stay within the construction budget with Option A. In order to provide the maximum amount of TP removal at this site, either an underground system or significant permanent impacts to the recreational areas is necessary. Option B was sized to remove as much volume and TP as possible, but can be scaled back based on budget constraints. However, the cost estimate for Option B is higher than others due to restoration of the many impacts to school property. Site 4, B-Dale Club – BMP Option C: A BMP for this option would be placed in the outfield area of the softball field. This system would consist of a subsurface infiltration chamber system. Option C has a large contributing drainage area, with existing ponds located upstream. The existing ponds are included in the P8 model and provide some reduction in phosphorus loading from the drainage area upstream of Option C. The loading to Option C is still over 80 lbs/year, and therefore this BMP has been sized to meet the desired removal rate of 45 lbs TP/year. Option C could easily be scaled down to fit within the allocated construction budget, and still provide a significant amount of phosphorus loading reduction, or size could be increased to maximize the volume and TP removal. If the system is reduced in size to fall within the construction budget, it would remove approximately 28.2 lbs TP per year and would capture approximately 33,106 cubic feet of runoff during a 1-inch rainfall. Because of the large contributing area, connection to the existing storm sewer system would require splitting flows so that only the desired amount of flow would be directed to the underground system with the remaining flow bypassing the BMP. Site restoration costs in this location are expected to be lower than the options at the Parkview Site. Figure 6 provides the location and approximate size of the system. Site 5 – BMP Option D: Because of the potential for high groundwater and proximity to wetland, a filtration BMP would likely be the most appropriate type of BMP for this area. By raising storm sewer inlet elevations and constructing a filtration basin along the north side of the wetland, the phosphorus load from this watershed can be reduced by approximately 17 lbs/year. The size of Option D is constrained by the wetland limits and the site topography. The loading to the site is only 42.3 lbs, which limits the amount of phosphorus removal that is available to below the goal of 45 lbs/year and the volume reduction benefits would be minimal. Figure 7 illustrates the conceptual configuration of this BMP. In order to determine how Option C and Option D interact, a P8 model that combined both options was developed. Results can be found in Table 3 as “C + D”. Since a portion of the Option C loading is removed by Option D, the increase in TP removal from both together is not the sum of the two options individually. The treatment volume provided is the sum of the two BMP treatment volumes. When comparing the Simple Method and the P8 model results, there are reductions in loading when comparing Table 1 to Table 3, although the removal rates are comparable. This is expected due to the assumed contributing areas and the methodologies used by the Simple Method. However, based on expected TP removal efficiencies for infiltration and filtration

Page 12: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons Villa Park Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Page 10 Subwatershed Analysis Report

BMPs, two of the three options together can most likely meet and perhaps exceed the TP removal goal of 45 lbs. G. ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS

It is important to provide a good estimate of probable construction costs for planning and decision making. Each option was analyzed and priced for the following major items:

Mobilization

Clearing and grubbing

Excavation

Pretreatment BMP installation

BMP construction, including above ground engineered soil or below ground pipe and ballast

Storm sewer modifications, structures, and connections

Erosion control practices during construction

Restoration, including seeding, mulch, sod, and landscaping

Any public utility relocations required to construct the BMP

A 25-percent contingency

Details of this cost analysis per option are presented in Appendix C. While efforts were made to include all potential cost items, not all contingencies can be anticipated at this feasibility stage. Hence, these are preliminary costs and can be expected to be modified as further data is obtained and BMP designs are progressed. The costs of the different options are quite varied, depending on the types of BMPs and the volume of water being treated. Table 4 shows the cost for each option, as well as the cost per pound of phosphorus removed (the same amount of phosphorus is assumed to be removed each year). According to the budget developed for the Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP Project 2012-2014 Work Plan, the estimated construction budget is $390,000. As can be seen in Table 4, none of the proposed options were able to meet both the TP removal and budget goals.

Page 13: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons Villa Park Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Page 11 Subwatershed Analysis Report

Table 4: Estimates of Probable Construction Costs

BMP Site

BMP Option

Probable Construction

Cost (rounded up

to nearest $1,000)

Treatment Volume Provided (cubic-ft)

Approximate Cost per

Cubic-Ft of Treatment Volume

Total Phosphorus

Removal (lbs/year)

Approximate Cost per Pound

Phosphorus Removed

Parkview A $387,000 28,314 $13.67 22.7 $17,057

Parkview B $1,557,000 108,900 $14.30 37.4 $41,636 B-Dale Club

C $810,000 78,983 $10.25 45.4 $17,832

Victoria Wetland

D $290,000 19,602* $14.81 17.0 $17,078

B-Dale Club & Victoria Wetland

C+D $1,100,000 98,585 $11.16 47.5 $23,158

*70% credit volume as per the CRWD’s Rules for Filtration BMPs. H. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Villa Park wetland drainage area is relatively large and does produce a significant amount of phosphorus loading over the entire area. However, finding locations where it is possible to capture enough runoff to meet the TP reduction goal of 45 lbs per year within the proposed budget has proven to be challenging. Based on this analysis, we SRF recommends the following

1. BMP Option C should be progressed into preliminary design. In order to meet the TP reduction goal of 45 lbs per year, additional construction budget will be needed. CRWD staff and Board of Managers should discuss the range of sizing options based on balancing the available budget with maximizing TP removal and volume reduction.

 

2. A meeting with the B-Dale Club representatives should be held to discuss this option and impacts on ballfield availability during construction.

3. The City of Roseville should pursue BMP Option D in connection with the future reconstruction of Victoria Street. SRF will provide the City with a concept design that can be carried forward into preliminary and final design when the Victoria Street reconstruction design commences.

 

 

I. NEXT STEPS

The first step is to determine if the City of Roseville and the B-Dale Club are amenable to allowing a BMP under the softball fields. Next, the desired size of BMP Option C, based on

Page 14: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons Villa Park Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Page 12 Subwatershed Analysis Report

discussion surrounding budget and TP and volume reductions, should be determined. Once the size is determined, preliminary design will begin. Finally, additional data collection will occur for Options C and D. In order to verify the potential functionality of the selected BMPs and their locations, additional information will be needed. Field survey, utility locations, soil borings, and additional city as-built information will all be necessary to verify that the locations for these options are viable.

Page 15: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Figure 1

J:\Maps

\7896\

MXD\R

eport F

igure

1.mxd

Project Location MapLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District

LegendWatershed

Villa Park WatershedCapitol Region Watershed District

City LimitsRoseville City Limits

0 10,000 20,000Feet

[

Lake McCarrons

Page 16: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

kjkj

kjkj

kj

DA 4

DA 2

DA 5 DA 1

DA 3

Site 4

Site 2Site 3

Site 1Site 5

Figure 2

J:\Maps

\7896\

MXD\R

eport F

igure 2

.mxd

Total Phosphorus Loading and Drainage AreasLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District

Legendkj Proposed BMP Location

TP Load<= 0.25 lb TP/ac/yr, <=12% Impervious> 0.25 - 0.61 lb TP/ac/yr, >12%-38% Impervious> 0.61 - 0.99 lb TP/ac/yr, >38%-65% Impervious> 0.99 - 1.09 lb TP/ac/yr, >65%-72% Impervious> 1.09 - 1.34 lb TP/ac/yr, >72% Impervious

0 500 1,000Feet [

Page 17: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

kjkj

kjkj

kj

DA 4

DA 2

DA 5 DA 1

DA 3

Site 4

Site 2Site 3

Site 1Site 5

Figure 3

J:\Maps

\7896\

MXD\R

eport F

igure 3

.mxd

Potential BMP Locations and Drainage Area MapLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District

Legendkj Proposed BMP Location

Potential BMP Treatment AreasBMP Site 1, DA 1: 100.5 acBMP Site 2, DA 2: 123.1 acBMP Site 3, DAs 1 & 3: 130.1 acBMP Site 4, DAs 4 & 5: 248.5 acBMP Site 5, DA 5: 114.4 ac

0 1,000 2,000Feet [

Villa Park Wetland System

Page 18: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Figure 4

J:\Maps

\7896\

MXD\R

eport F

igure

4.mxd

Option A- Parkview School (Site 1), Surface BMPLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District

LegendProposed Parkview SchoolSurface BMP

Storm SewerExistingProposed

ELEVATIONMinor Contours (2')Major Contours (10')

0 200 400Feet [

Diversion Structure

Diversion Structure

Surface Infiltration Basin

Hydrodynamic SeparatorHydrodynamic Separator

Phosphorus Removed: 22.7 lbs/yr (57%)Probable Construction Cost: $387,000

$/lb removal: $17,057/lb P removed

Page 19: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Figure 5

J:\Maps

\7896\

MXD\R

eport F

igure

5.mxd

Option B- Parkview School (Site 1), Underground BMPLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District

LegendStormSewer

ExistingProposedProposed Parkview SchoolUnderground BMP

ELEVATIONMinor Contours (2')Major Contours (10')

0 200 400Feet [

Subsurface Infiltration System

Phosphorus Removed: 37.4 lbs/yr (94%)Probable Construction Cost: $1,557,000

$/lb removal: $41,636

Diversion Structure

Diversion Structure

Page 20: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Figure 6

J:\Maps

\7896\

MXD\R

eport F

igure

6.mxd

Option C- B-Dale Club (Site 4), Underground BMPLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District

LegendProposed B-Dale ClubUnderground BMP

Storm SewerExistingProposed

ELEVATIONMinor Contours (2')Major Contours (10')

WetlandsNWI Wetlands

0 100 200Feet [

Subsurface Infiltration System

Stand Alone, Option C- B-Dale Club, Underground BMP:Phosphorus Removed: 45.4 lbs/yr (54%)

Probable Construction Cost: $810,000$/lb removal: $17,832/lb P removed

In Series, Option D- Victoria Street BMP and Option C- B-Dale Club, Underground BMP:Phosphorus Removed: 47.5 lbs/yr

Probable Construction Cost: $1,100,000$/lb removal: $23,158/lb P removed

Hydrodynamic Separator

Page 21: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Figure 7

J:\Maps

\7896\

MXD\R

eport F

igure

7.mxd

Option D- Victoria Street (Site 5), Filtration BMPLake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP ProjectCapitol Region Watershed District

LegendProposed Victoria StreetFiltration BMP

Storm SewerExistingProposed

ELEVATIONMinor Contours (2')Major Contours (10')

WetlandsNWI WetlandsDelineated Wetland

0 100 200Feet [

Filtration Basin

Phosphorus Removed: 17.0 lbs/yr (40%)Probable Construction Cost: $290,000

$/lb removal: $17,078/lb P removed

Page 22: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

 

Appendix A – Soil Information Appendix B – Field Notes Appendix C – Cost Estimates

Page 23: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Appendix A Soil Information

Page 24: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Dale

St

Victor

ia St

Lovell Ave

Lexin

gton A

ve

Cope Ave

Parker Ave

Burke Ave

Sherren St

Coha

nsey

Blvd

Minnesota Ave

Grandview Ave

Hand

Ave

Weste

rn Av

e

Irene

St

McCarro

ns Blvd

Chats

worth

St

Oxfor

d St

Sandhurst Dr

Alame

da S

t

Shryer Ave

Eldridge Ave

Grott

o St

Capitol Vw

Roselawn Ave

Avon

St

Saint

Alba

ns S

t

Belmont Ln

Love

ll Ln

Skillman AveElmer St

Southhill Dr

Boss

ard D

r

Aglen

St

Ryan Ave

Milto

n St

Crescent Ln

Laurie Rd

Autumn St

Farrin

gton S

tAu

erbac

h St

Nancy Pl

Bayview Dr

Moundsview Ave

Coha

nsey

St

Victor

ia Se

rvice

Rd

Stuber Rd

Irene Ct

Lovell Ave

Lovell Ln

Sherren St

Burke Ave

Ryan Ave

Oxfor

d St

Grandview Ave

Shryer Ave

Nanc

y Pl

Irene

St

Parker Ave

Ryan Ave

Eldridge AveEldridge Ave

Hand

Ave

Weste

rn Av

e

Ryan Ave

Chats

worth

St

Sandhurst Dr

Skillman Ave

Grandview Ave

Shryer AveGr

otto S

t

Sherren St

Roselawn Ave

Ryan Ave

859B

858C

860C

158D

857

159

859B

158C

541

861C

541

456 169C 1027

1039

1027

158C

W

158C

1027

857C

158B

543

298B

1027

861C

1027

10271055

1039

1033

857C

1040

120264

454B

159

488400

488400

488700

488700

489000

489000

489300

489300

489600

489600

489900

489900

490200

490200

490500

490500

490800

490800

491100

4911004982

700

4982

700

4983

000

4983

000

4983

300

4983

300

4983

600

4983

600

4983

900

4983

900

4984

200

4984

200

4984

500

4984

500

0 1,000 2,000 3,000500Feet

0 300 600 900150Meters

45° 0' 53''

93° 6

' 44''

44° 59' 51''

93° 6

' 44''

44° 59' 50''

45° 0' 52''93

° 8' 5

5''93

° 8' 5

5''

Map Scale: 1:13,700 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet.

Hydrologic Soil Group—Ramsey County, Minnesota

Natural ResourcesNatural ResourcesNatural ResourcesNatural ResourcesConservation ServiceConservation ServiceConservation ServiceConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

10/1/2012Page 1 of 4

Appendix A

Page 25: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (AOI)Area of Interest (AOI)

SoilsSoil Map Units

Soil RatingsA

A/D

B

B/D

C

C/D

D

Not rated or not available

Political FeaturesCities

Water FeaturesStreams and Canals

TransportationRails

Interstate Highways

US Routes

Major Roads

Local Roads

Map Scale: 1:13,700 if printed on A size (8.5" × 11") sheet.

The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,840.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate mapmeasurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.govCoordinate System: UTM Zone 15N NAD83

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as ofthe version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Ramsey County, MinnesotaSurvey Area Data: Version 5, Jul 3, 2012

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/18/2003

The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines werecompiled and digitized probably differs from the backgroundimagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shiftingof map unit boundaries may be evident.

Hydrologic Soil Group–Ramsey County, Minnesota

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

10/1/2012Page 2 of 4

Appendix A

Page 26: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Hydrologic Soil Group

Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Ramsey County, Minnesota (MN123)

Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI

120 Brill silt loam C 0.1 0.0%

158B Zimmerman loamy fine sand, 0 to 6percent slopes

A 3.2 0.4%

158C Zimmerman loamy fine sand, 6 to 12percent slopes

A 37.8 5.3%

158D Zimmerman loamy fine sand, 12 to 25percent slopes

A 47.3 6.7%

159 Anoka loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percentslopes

A 27.2 3.8%

169C Braham loamy fine sand, 6 to 15 percentslopes

B 10.1 1.4%

264 Freeon silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes C 0.1 0.0%

298B Richwood silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes B 2.9 0.4%

454B Mahtomedi loamy sand, 0 to 6 percentslopes

A 0.1 0.0%

456 Barronett silt loam C/D 8.4 1.2%

541 Rifle muck A/D 25.3 3.6%

543 Markey muck A/D 2.4 0.3%

857 Urban land-Waukegan complex, 0 to 3percent slopes

29.2 4.1%

857C Urban land-Waukegan complex, 3 to 15percent slopes

4.7 0.7%

858C Urban land-Chetek complex, 3 to 15percent slopes

93.3 13.1%

859B Urban land-Zimmerman complex, 1 to 8percent slopes

309.1 43.5%

860C Urban land-Hayden-Kingsley complex, 3to 15 percent slopes

44.2 6.2%

861C Urban land-Kingsley complex, 3 to 15percent slopes

25.2 3.6%

1027 Udorthents, wet substratum 27.5 3.9%

1033 Udifluvents 0.5 0.1%

1039 Urban land 6.9 1.0%

1040 Udorthents 0.2 0.0%

1055 Aquolls and histosols, ponded B/D 1.8 0.2%

W Water 2.6 0.4%

Totals for Area of Interest 710.0 100.0%

Hydrologic Soil Group–Ramsey County, Minnesota

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

10/1/2012Page 3 of 4

Appendix A

Page 27: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Description

Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils areassigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when thesoils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitationfrom long-duration storms.

The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) andthree dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughlywet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands orgravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. Theseconsist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drainedsoils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soilshave a moderate rate of water transmission.

Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consistchiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water orsoils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of watertransmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) whenthoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swellpotential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layerat or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material.These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter isfor drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in theirnatural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.

Rating Options

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition

Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Hydrologic Soil Group–Ramsey County, Minnesota

Natural ResourcesConservation Service

Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey

10/1/2012Page 4 of 4

Appendix A

Page 28: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Appendix B Field Notes

Page 29: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

SRF No. 7390 0260B Page 1

FIELD WALK NOTES

Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP Project

Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Potential BMP Sites, City of Roseville

Field Walk Attendees:

Kristine Giga, City of Roseville Deb Bloom, City of Roseville Forrest Kelley, CRWD David Filipiak, SRF Walter Eshenaur, SRF Angela Gorham, SRF Goals

• CRWD has established a goal of 45 lbs total phosphorus (TP) per year reduction to Lake McCarrons. This is the primary goal of the project.

• The preferred method to achieve the TP removal is volume reduction to the Villa Park Wetland System. This was discussed during the walk.

Potential BMP Locations

• SRF has identified 5 potential locations (options) for BMP placement throughout the area draining to Lake McCarrons. The locations were selected based on the following criteria:

o Located on public land;

o Drainage area is large enough to remove up to the 45 lbs TP based on a 50% BMP removal rate;

o Storm water conveyance systems have the potential to be modified to direct flow to the BMP location.

• These locations are located throughout the project drainage area, and the loading reduction provided by them varies between 85 and 29 lb/year reduction of phosphorus based on preliminary computations. These loading values were calculated using the Simple Method and land use descriptions in the parcel information provided by the City.

Walk Through

• Figures 1-6 were used throughout the field walk.

• Option 1 is located on the Parkview Center School grounds.

Page 30: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons BMP Project Page 2

o Kris mentioned that her school contact told her that they would like to remove the tennis courts located on the north edge of the school grounds. David also suggested that if the school would like to take the opportunity, it may be possible to rearrange the recreation area of the school to allow space along County B/Dale Street intersection for a BMP.

o More information will be needed on the storm sewer running along Cty Rd B and Dale St. to determine what water can be directed to either of these locations, as well as to determine the best way to discharge any BMPs located here.

o Soil borings would also be necessary. The group suspects that the school grounds primarily consist of sandy soils.

o Information on what is being treated within the Hwy 36/Dale interchange would be needed to accurately determine what is coming to the proposed BMP.

o This option may also be able to provide volume reduction. It may be that using this in conjunction with Option 2 or Option 5 would provide the best solution for both CRWD and the City of Roseville.

• Option 2 is located along the far northwest start of the chain of waters making up the Villa Park Wetland System. This area has the potential to work well for water quality purposes, but volume control may be challenging.

o The groundwater in this area may be too high to allow the construction of a volume control BMP since the required three foot separation from the seasonal high groundwater level may not be attainable.

o It appears that this area may be a wetland and may not be suitable for BMP construction since mitigation would be necessary.

• Option 3 is located to the northeast of the start of the chain of waters making up the Villa Park Wetland System.

o This area did not appear to be ideal for a BMP after the field walk. The pipes that would have to be brought into this area are located to the east of the proposed location, and the elevation change between the two areas will likely not permit a connection. Also, it is likely that the area will be considered a wetland based on observed wetland species.

• Option 4 is located to the south of the ball field at the B Dale Club and was identified in one of the capstone projects.

o It appears that this area will not be conducive to BMP construction due to presence of the ballfield or steep slopes and the potential loss of high quality vegetation.

• Option 5 is located between County Rd B and Parker Ave along Victoria St. (just east of Burke Ave).

o There is a wetland located here, but it may be possible to locate a BMP (or a couple of BMPs) either near the inlets to the wetland or near the outlet from this wetland to provide treatment for phosphorus removal. The inlet to the North seemed to be the most promising. Wetland delineation will need to be done for this area, and elevations will need to be obtained for the pipes connecting the wetlands on the east and west sides of Victoria St.

Page 31: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Lake McCarrons BMP Project Page 3

o Given the dry weather it is difficult to tell if this site can provide any volume reduction, given much of the area is likely wetland with high groundwater.

o Deb indicated the city plans to reconstruct Victoria in the near future and could perform storm sewer modifications at that time if this site is found to be feasible. They could also wrap the BMP construction into their plans to meet the CRWD goals and the needs of the project together.

Page 32: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

Appendix C Cost Estimates

Page 33: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS TOTAL UNIT PRICE COST

QUANTITY

2021.501 MOBILIZATION (5%) LS 1 14,750.00$

2101.501 CLEARING ACRE 0 1,800.00$ -$

2101.506 GRUBBING ACRE 0 1,850.00$ -$

2105.511 EXCAVATION CY 4163 15.00$ 62,445.00$

2105.607 TOPSOIL BORROW (ENGINEERED SOIL-70/30) CY 1840 35.00$ 64,400.00$

2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW CY 702 27.50$ 19,305.00$

2504.601 UTILITY RELOCATION EACH 3 10,000.00$ 30,000.00$

2503.541 15" RCP PIPE (CL III) LF 0 26.75$ -$

2503.541 18" RCP PIPE (CL III) LF 132 28.00$ 3,696.00$

2503.541 24" RCP PIPE (CL III) LF 61 35.50$ 2,165.50$

2503.541 48" RCP PIPE (CL IV) LF 25 102.00$ 2,550.00$

2104.509 REMOVE MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN EACH 2 360.00$ 720.00$

2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LF 61 7.50$ 457.50$

2104.603 ABANDON PIPE SEWER LF 0 2.75$ -$

2506.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 54-4020 EACH 4 2,625.00$ 10,500.00$

2506.502 DIVERSION STRUCTURE EACH 2 720.00$ 1,440.00$

2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 2 565.00$ 1,130.00$

2104.523 SALVAGE CASTING EACH 2 184.50$ 369.00$

2506.521 INSTALL CASTING EACH 4 275.00$ 1,100.00$

2506.602 CONNECT INTO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 7 550.00$ 3,850.00$

2506.502 SPECIAL DESIGN OUTLET STRUCTURE EACH 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$

2506.601 STORMCEPTOR (STC 1200) EACH 1 14,630.00$ 14,630.00$

2506.601 STORMCEPTOR (STC 900) EACH 1 13,530.00$ 13,530.00$

2104.521 SALVAGE FENCE LF 1200 6.10$ 7,320.00$

2557.603 INSTALL SALVAGED FENCE LF 1200 20.50$ 24,600.00$

2557.501 WIRE FENCE DESIGN 60-9322 LF 850 15.40$ 13,090.00$

2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS II CY 0 60.00$ -$

2511.607 RANDOM RIPRAP INSTALLATION CY 0 30.50$ -$

2511.511 GRANULAR FILTER CY 0 50.00$ -$

2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED LF 1200 1.40$ 1,680.00$

2573.602 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT EACH 1 1,450.00$ 1,450.00$

2575.501 SEEDING ACRE 1.42 90.00$ 127.80$

2575.502 SEED, MIXTURE 150 LBS 57 1.60$ 91.20$

2575.502 SEED, MIXTURE 240 LBS 52 2.25$ 117.00$

2575.502 SEED, MIXTURE 310 LBS 65 15.00$ 975.00$

2573.507 LANDSCAPING LS 1 10,000.00$

2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE 3 TON 0 165.00$ -$

2575.513 MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE 9 CY 0 63.00$ -$

2575.519 DISK ANCHORING ACRE 0.15 50.00$ 7.50$

2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, CAT 3 SY 694 1.00$ 694.00$

2575.532 FERTILIZER, TYPE 4 LBS 170.4 0.35$ 59.64$

CONTINGENCY (25%) LS 1 77,437.54$

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 387,188$              

Preliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate

Option A, Parkview School Recreation Area, Above Ground Infiltration

Page 34: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS TOTAL UNIT PRICE COST

QUANTITY

2021.501 MOBILIZATION (5%) LS 1 59,321.00$

2101.501 CLEARING ACRE 0 1,800.00$ -$

2101.506 GRUBBING ACRE 0 1,850.00$ -$

2105.511 EXCAVATION CY 7704 15.00$ 115,560.00$

2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW CY 2283 27.50$ 62,782.50$

2504.601 UTILITY RELOCATION EACH 3 10,000.00$ 30,000.00$

2503.541 15" RCP PIPE (CL III) LF 0 26.75$ -$

2503.541 18" RCP PIPE (CL III) LF 389 28.00$ 10,892.00$

2503.541 24" RCP PIPE (CL III) LF 110 35.50$ 3,905.00$

2503.541 48" RCP PIPE (CL IV) LF 387 102.00$ 39,474.00$

2104.509 REMOVE MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN EACH 2 360.00$ 720.00$

2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LF 61 7.50$ 457.50$

2104.603 ABANDON PIPE SEWER LF 0 2.75$ -$

2506.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 54-4020 EACH 3 2,625.00$ 7,875.00$

2506.502 DIVERSION STRUCTURE EACH 2 720.00$ 1,440.00$

2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 3 565.00$ 1,695.00$

2104.523 SALVAGE CASTING EACH 0 184.50$ -$

2506.521 INSTALL CASTING EACH 3 275.00$ 825.00$

2506.602 CONNECT INTO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 6 550.00$ 3,300.00$

2506.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL (STORMTECH SYSTEM) CF 108945 8.00$ 871,560.00$

2104.521 SALVAGE FENCE LF 1200 6.10$ 7,320.00$

2557.603 INSTALL SALVAGED FENCE LF 1200 20.50$ 24,600.00$

2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS II CY 0 60.00$ -$

2511.607 RANDOM RIPRAP INSTALLATION CY 0 30.50$ -$

2511.511 GRANULAR FILTER CY 0 50.00$ -$

2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED LF 1200 1.40$ 1,680.00$

2573.602 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT EACH 1 1,450.00$ 1,450.00$

2575.501 SEEDING ACRE 2.44 90.00$ 219.60$

2575.502 SEED, MIXTURE 150 LBS 98 1.60$ 156.80$

2575.502 SEED, MIXTURE 240 LBS 183 2.25$ 411.75$

2575.502 SEED, MIXTURE 310 LBS 0 15.00$ -$

2571.507 LANDSCAPING LS 0 -$

2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE 3 TON 0 165.00$ -$

2575.513 MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE 9 CY 0 63.00$ -$

2575.519 DISK ANCHORING ACRE 0 50.00$ -$

2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, CAT 3 SY 0 1.00$ -$

2575.532 FERTILIZER, TYPE 4 LBS 292.8 0.35$ 102.48$

CONTINGENCY (25%) LS 1 311,436.91$

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 1,557,185$                   

Appendix CPreliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate

Option B, Parkview School Recreation Area, Above Ground Infiltration

Page 35: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS TOTAL UNIT PRICE COST

QUANTITY

2021.501 MOBILIZATION (5%) LS 1 30,842.00$

2101.501 CLEARING ACRE 0 1,800.00$ -$

2101.506 GRUBBING ACRE 0 1,850.00$ -$

2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LF 310 7.50$ 2,325.00$

2105.511 EXCAVATION CY 7200 15.00$ 108,000.00$

2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW (CV) CY 2400 27.50$ 66,000.00$

2105.604 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE II SY 2400 3.50$ 8,400.00$

2451.511 COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE (CV) CY 3124 32.00$ 99,968.00$

2502.521 8" TP PIPE DRAIN LF 126 24.00$ 3,024.00$

2503.541 18" RCP PIPE (CL III) LF 50 28.00$ 1,400.00$

2503.541 36" RCP PIPE (CL III) LF 310 63.00$ 19,530.00$

2503.603 48" HDPE PIPE SEWER LF 3600 50.00$ 180,000.00$

2503.603 48" HDPE MANIFOLD LF 288 50.00$ 14,400.00$

2503.603 CONSTRUCT RISER LF 6 30.00$ 180.00$

2504.602 48" X 8" HDPE TEE EACH 42 1,400.00$ 58,800.00$

2504.602 48" X 24" HDPE TEE EACH 2 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$

2506.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 EACH 1 2,400.00$ 2,400.00$

2506.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 72-4020 EACH 2 5,000.00$ 10,000.00$

2506.502 STORMCEPTOR (STC 4800) EACH 1 25,800.00$ 25,800.00$

2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 3 565.00$ 1,695.00$

2506.521 INSTALL CASTING EACH 3 275.00$ 825.00$

2506.602 CONNECT INTO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 2 550.00$ 1,100.00$

2104.521 SALVAGE FENCE LF 75 6.10$ 457.50$

2557.603 INSTALL SALVAGED FENCE LF 75 20.50$ 1,537.50$

2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED LF 600 1.40$ 840.00$

2573.602 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT EACH 1 1,450.00$ 1,450.00$

2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN SY 1560 3.50$ 5,460.00$

2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, CAT 3 SY 200 1.00$ 200.00$

2575.532 FERTILIZER, TYPE 3 LBS 113 0.35$ 39.48$

CONTINGENCY (25%) LS 1 161,918.37$

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 809,592$              

Appendix CPreliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate

Option C, B-Dale Club, Subsurface Infiltration Pipe Gallery

Page 36: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Analysis Report 2013

ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS TOTAL UNIT PRICE COST

QUANTITY

2021.501 MOBILIZATION (5%) LS 1 11,060.00$

2101.501 CLEARING ACRE 0.51 1,800.00$ 918.00$

2101.506 GRUBBING ACRE 0.51 1,850.00$ 943.50$

2105.511 EXCAVATION CY 10760 15.00$ 161,400.00$

2105.607 TOPSOIL BORROW (ENGINEERED SOIL-70/30) CY 540 35.00$ 18,900.00$

2105.607 RAILROAD TRACK BALLAST (CV) CY 201 37.00$ 7,437.00$

2503.541 21" RCP PIPE (CL III) LF 239 39.00$ 9,321.00$

2503.541 36" RCP PIPE (CL III) LF 61 63.00$ 3,843.00$

2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LF 285 7.50$ 2,137.50$

2506.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 66-4020 EACH 1 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$

2506.502 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 72-4020 EACH 1 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$

2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 2 565.00$ 1,130.00$

2506.521 INSTALL CASTING EACH 2 275.00$ 550.00$

2506.602 CONNECT INTO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 2 550.00$ 1,100.00$

2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP, CLASS II CY 16.8 60.00$ 1,008.00$

2511.607 RANDOM RIPRAP INSTALLATION CY 16.8 30.50$ 512.40$

2511.511 GRANULAR FILTER CY 8.5 50.00$ 425.00$

2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED LF 800 1.40$ 1,120.00$

2573.602 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT EACH 1 1,450.00$ 1,450.00$

2575.501 SEEDING ACRE 0.5 90.00$ 45.00$

2575.502 SEED, MIXTURE 150 LBS 20 1.60$ 32.00$

2575.502 SEED, MIXTURE 310 LBS 22 15.00$ 330.00$

2573.507 LANDSCAPING LS 1 -$ -$

2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE 3 TON 0 165.00$ -$

2575.513 MULCH MATERIAL, TYPE 9 CY 0 63.00$ -$

2575.519 DISK ANCHORING ACRE 0.26 50.00$ 13.00$

2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, CAT 3 SY 1258.4 1.00$ 1,258.40$

2575.532 FERTILIZER, TYPE 4 LBS 60 0.35$ 21.00$

CONTINGENCY (25%) LS 1 58,063.70$

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 290,319$              

Appendix CPreliminary Engineer's Cost Estimate

Option D, Victoria and Dale Street Above Ground Filtration


Related Documents