CAC April 9, 2014 packet

Citizen’s Advisory Committee 7:00 PM, Wednesday, April 9, 2014 - Capitol Region Watershed District Office Agenda 7:00

I)

Welcome, Announcements and Updates – Introductions

7:05

II)

Public Comment for issues not on the Agenda (3 minutes per person)

7:08

III)

Approval of the Agenda

7:09

IV)

Approval of Minutes

Materials Enclosed

Approval of the March 12, 2014 Minutes 7:10

V)

District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recomendations A) Election of Officers B) Monitoring Program Review, Bob Fossum C) Curtiss Pond Improvement Project, Bob Fossum

8:00

VI)

CAC Initiatives A) Discuss the Development of CAC Orientation Packet B) Discuss the fall 2014 “Event”

8:45

VII)

Project and Program Updates A) 2014 Rule Revisions

8:50

VIII) CAC Observer Update

8:55

IX)

Discussion A) B) C) D)

9:00

X)

New & Old Issues Identify CAC Observer for April 16th and May 7th Board of Managers Meetings May 14th CAC Agenda Overview 2014 Meeting Schedule

Adjourn

W:\05 Citizens Advisory Committee\Agendas\2014\April 9, 2014 CAC Agenda.docx

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

Draft

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday, March 12, 2014 – 7:00 p.m.

CAC Members Present: Gwen Willems Michelle Ulrich Steve Duerre Bill Barton Mike MacDonald Richard Weil Pat Byrne

Others Present: Mark Doneux, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD Lindsay VanPatten, CRWD Nate Zwonitzer, CRWD Gustavo Castro, CRWD Mary Texer, Board Manager Nathan Campeau, Barr Engineering

Members absent: Katheryn Swanson, w/notice David Arbeit, w/notice Janna Caywood, w/notice Ted McCaslin, w/notice

Welcome, Announcements, and Updates Ms. Willems opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. with a request for any announcements.

Administrator Doneux noted that a “Charter” committee was formed by managers Shirley Reider, and Mary Texer along with CAC members David Arbeit, and Gwen Willems. To better define the mission, goals and responsibilities of the CAC the committee met to review the framework of the CAC. One of the key goals that came out of the meeting was to present more projects and programs before the CAC for review and comments. These projects and programs, along with CAC comments, will go before the Board of Managers for review.

Public Comments There were no public comments.

Approval of Agenda Ms. Willems asked for any additions or changes to the Agenda. There were no changes.

CAC 14-037 Motion: To approve the CAC March 12, 2014, agenda.

McDonald/Ulrich Unanimously approved Approval of the January 15, 2014 CAC Minutes Ms. Willems requested any changes or corrections to the minutes.

CAC 13-038 Motion: To approve the CAC February 12, 2014 CAC Minutes.

1

Duerre/McDonald Unanimously approved District Initiatives A) Feasibility Report: Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor Drainage Improvements at Cottage Ave. and Farrington St., (Nathan Campeau, Barr Engineering Co.) Administrator Doneux introduced Mr. Nathan Campeau with Barr Engineering. Administrator Doneux reviewed how an area located near Cottage Avenue and Farrington Street has occurred flooding from rainwater runoff. Mr. Campeau shared his feasibility report presentation showing this area before improvements were made. The inlet in this area would often get clogged with garbage and items being dumped. In the summer of 2013 repairs were made to the berm and large rocks were placed around the inlet.

Soon after the repairs were made a large rainfall tested the improvements and showed to hold up well to amount of storm water runoff for this area. The improvements have made a difference with the flooding in this area. An area located just north east of the inlet is still experiencing some flooding in a residential backyard. Mr. Campeau reviewed four options that could be implemented to reduce the flooding problems in this area. The first option would be to replace the current inlet with a beehive style inlet. This would allow more runoff to enter the storm drain. Option number two would be to place a beehive style inlet further upstream. This option would capture more stormwater runoff before it would reach the current inlet. The third option would be to build a raingarden. This option does cost more and would not prevent flooding.

The forth option is a combination of a beehive style inlet and a raingarden. Administrator Doneux requested comments for the Board of Managers to review before approval. Mr. Barton suggested that the area is a wetland and a flooding easement be arranged with the home. Mr. Byrne suggested obtaining flooding or ponding easements rather than building a project. A lengthy discussion of options occurred. The CAC thanked Mr. Campeau for his presentation.

CAC 14-039 Motion: To request a flooding easement in the area located near Cottage Avenue and Farrington Street and in the event easements are not feasible the pursue option.

Barton/Duerre Opposed by Byre B)

Stewardship Grant Program Improvements (Zwonitzer)

Mr. Nate Zwonitzer and Mr. Gustavo Castro reviewed improvements made to the current Stewardship Grant Program. The Stewardship Grant program offers financial assistance to property owners interested in implementing stormwater BMPs on their property. A typical project would receive funding for rain gardens, rain barrels, permeable hardscapes and swales. Most grant awards are under $10,000 and cover 100% of the material costs or 50% of the total project costs. Mr. Zwonitzer and staff have been reviewing the grant program. Goals were set to identify improvements. The first goal was to provide exceptional level of education and outreach. Mr. Castro reviewed a sample packet that would be given to every property owner.

The packet would include information about CRWD, Citizen Advisory Committee, upcoming events, grant program information and more details on projects identified for their property. The second goal is to improve design efficiency. A “Clean Water Plan” will be developed for every property. The plans will include basic project information such as total cost, water quality treatment ranking and whether additional design services are available. The third goal is to develop a more equitable grant award system based on project benefit. Instead of focusing on the project cost, the calculator factors in size, area treated, rainfall depth treated and provides a bonus based on the promotional or educational value of the project. Mr. Duerre “Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.”

2

stated that the packet was great. Administrator Doneux replied that the forms would be available on the website as well. The CAC members were very pleased with the suggested changes. The members of the CAC thanked Mr. Zwonitzer and Mr. Gustavo for their work and presentation.

CAC 13-040 Motion: To approve the recommended changes to the Stewardship Grant Program.

Duerre/Byre Unanimously approved CAC Initiatives A) Discuss the Development of CAC Orientation Packet Ms. Willems reviewed the development of the CAC Orientation Packet. The orientation packet committee consists of: Michelle Ulrich, Steve Duerre, and Gwen Willems. A rough draft of the orientation packet was available for review. The key areas for the CAC to focus on editing would be: CAC Framework, CAC Expectation, CAC Contribution, and CAC Bios. The framework section can be a stand-alone document to convey the overall purpose and function of the Committee. The expectations section includes the State Statue and CAC By-Laws. Additional information can be added here for CAC membership expectations.

The contribution section needs a list of contributions that the CAC has made over the years. The CAC Bios section needs to include a 2-3 sentence personal bio from each CAC member. A draft will be presented to the Board. The Committee will accept comments from the CAC and bring back the next draft of the packet.

B) Discuss basic elements of fall 2014 “Event” The Freshwater Society has been known for having good speakers that would be able to talk about groundwater, climate or storm water reuse topics. Administrator Doneux has contacted Steve Woods with the Freshwater Society. An event is already scheduled on September 18, 2014 with the Moos Family Lecture series. The speaker has helped lead worldwide research that uses NASA satellites to measure changes in the Earth’s stores of groundwater.

CAC 13-041 Motion: To request the Board of Managers to support sponsorship of an event with the Freshwater Society on September 18, 2104.

Weil/Byren Unanimously approved Project and Program Updates A)

CRWD Office Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux will provide an update at the April meeting.

CAC Observer Update No update was given.

Discussion – A) New & Old Issues There was no discussion.

“Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.”

3

B) Identify CAC Observer for March 19th Board of Managers Meeting and the April 2nd, 2014 Board of Managers Meeting No members were identified.

C) April 9th CAC Agenda Overview Ellen Anderson was suggested to be scheduled for the April 9th meeting. Administrator Doneux will continue trying to arrange a date when she can come back and speak with the CAC. A monitoring report will be presented at the April 9th meeting.

Adjourn – CAC 14-042 Motion: To adjourn.

Byrne/Weil Unanimously approved The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 PM. Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander W:\05 Citizens Advisory Committee\Minutes\2014\February 12, 2014 Draft Minutes.doc

“Our mission is to protect, manage, and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.”

4

Capitol Region Watershed District Citizen Advisory Committee 2014 Agenda Plan Updated: April 3, 2014 CAC Meeting Date January 15, 2014 February 12, 2014 March 12, 2014

April 9, 2014

May 14, 2014

District Initiatives Lakes Analysis Audubon Certification Partner Grant Review BMP Database Review -Farrington/Cottage Drainage Study -Stewardship Grant Program Updates -Adopt CAC Duties and Responsibilities -Event Planning -Monitoring Program Review -Curtiss Pond Improvement Project

June 11, 2014

-2013 Monitoring Report -Awards Program Development Tour of District Projects

July 16, 2014

2015 Work Plan Development

August 13, 2014

CAC Orientation Packet Discuss 2014 “Event�

How to Be Effective with the Legislature (Date Pending) -CAC Orientation Packet

-Election of Officers -CAC Orientation Packet -Event Planning -CAC Orientation Packet

CAC Orientation Packet CAC Orientation Packet

September 10, 2014 October 8, 2014 November 12, 2014 December 10, 2014

CAC Initiatives 2014 CAC Meeting Plan

2015 Reappointment Recommendations

Pervious Parking Lot Permit Program Update Education Program Update Groundwater Management Pan Update W:\05 Citizens Advisory Committee\Agendas\2014\2014 CAC Agenda Plan 3-6-14.doc

1

April 9, 2014 CAC Meeting V. Action Items, A) Monitoring Program Review

DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

April 3, 2014 CRWD CAC Bob Fossum, Water Resource Program Manager Britta Suppes, Monitoring Program Coordinator Monitoring Program Review

Background Capitol Region Watershed District established a Monitoring and Data Collection Program in 2004. Over the program’s 9 year history incremental improvements and enhancements have been made. In 2013, the District sought to complete a comprehensive review of the program to analyze, and if necessary refocus the goals, approach, methods, and deliverables of the Program.

Issues District staff completed a review of the existing program and discussed strengths and weaknesses of it. The first step in the review was a staff retreat that took place the morning of November 1, 2013 at the Wilder Foundation Offices. Elizabeth Beckman facilitated the discussion and the following District staff participated in the retreat: Anna Eleria, Britta Suppes, Forrest Kelley, Mark Doneux, Corey Poland, Joe Sellner, Nate Zwonitzer, Gustavo Castro, Stephanie Herbst, and Bob Fossum.

District staff will present the draft Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Recommendations to the CAC. Requested Action Provide comment and recommendations to the Board of Managers on Monitoring Program Review and 20142016 Recommendations. enc:

Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Recommendations

W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\0 Projects\2013 Program Evaluation\CAC Memo Mont Prog Review 4-3-14.docx

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Recommendations Capitol Region Watershed District established a Monitoring and Data Collection Program in 2004.

Over the program’s 9 year history incremental improvements and enhancements have been made. In 2013, the District sought to complete a comprehensive review of the program to analyze, and if necessary refocus the goals, approach, methods, and deliverables of the Program.

Program Review District staff completed a review of the existing program and discussed strengths and weaknesses of it.

The first step in the review was a staff retreat that took place the morning of November 1, 2013 at the Wilder Foundation Offices. Elizabeth Beckman facilitated the discussion and the following District staff participated in the retreat: Anna Eleria, Britta Suppes, Forrest Kelley, Mark Doneux, Corey Poland, Joe Sellner, Nate Zwonitzer, Gustavo Castro, Stephanie Herbst, and Bob Fossum. Discussions at the retreat resulted from consideration of the following questions: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

What do we do well?

Why monitor in CRWD? How can our monitoring data be used in other CRWD programs?

Who are the audiences for our data?

What do our audiences need to effectively make use of our data?

Who are potential new monitoring program partners who could strengthen our work?

What changes can we make to improve the efficiency of our data collection?

To best use our finite resources, where are areas we could reduce or eliminate collection efforts?

9. Is there anything that should be added to the program?

A summary of the retreat, responses to the questions above, subsequent discussions, and initial recommendations are found in Appendix 1.

Program Evaluation and Recommendations Following the retreat, staff of the Monitoring, Research, and Maintenance Division worked to develop a list of recommendations for the Monitoring Program. These recommendations were focused on the 3-

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

year time period of 2014—2016. A summary table of all recommendations including a proposed schedule and estimated additional cost is found at the end of this document.

Recommendation 1 Previously, in Annual Monitoring Reports, the District stated the goal/objective of the monitoring program as follows: In 2004, CRWD established a monitoring program to assess water quality and quantity of various subwatersheds and stormwater best management practices (BMPs) owned and/or operated and maintained by CRWD‌..The objectives of the program are to identify water quality problem areas, quantify the subwatershed runoff pollutant loadings to the Mississippi River, evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs, and provide data for the calibration of hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality models.

It is recommended that the District adjust the goal/objective of the Monitoring Program as follows: CRWD monitors waters within the District to: identify problem areas, quantify subwatershed runoff pollutant loadings, evaluate effectiveness of BMPs, provide data to calibrate hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality models, and educate and increase awareness.

Recommendation 2 Improve staff organization and training Recommendation 3 The District should better incorporate monitoring data into the following work of the District.

Specifically, better utilizing monitoring data within the following programs should be evaluated: a) BMP Performance b) Focus CIPs, grants and education c) In-lake management decisions d) Spatial Analysis e) MS4 permit, specifically TMDL compliance/progress Recommendation 4 Based on the idea that a true partnership needs to mutually benefit all parties, 5 specific partners should be prioritized for actively developing or enhancing our monitoring partnerships over the next 3 years.

The 5 priority partners are: 1. University of Minnesota 2. City of St Paul 3. Ramsey County (CD and PW) 4. RWMWD 5. MWMO 2

The District would continue to actively communicate with several other entities and partner with them as appropriate partnerships present themselves but would not actively attempt to develop/nurture partnerships during the next three year period.

Recommendation 5 Install AC Power and Remote Data Access to baseline sites (6). This would improve the monitoring program as follows: a. Temperature control (heating & cooling) b. Year-round monitoring c. Reduced frequency of site visits d. Analyze and report data more quickly e. Improved data quality Recommendation 6 Improve methods and efficiency of sample preparation and lab analysis, including: a. Submittal requirements and procedures b. Laboratory results reporting c. Bottle Cleaning Recommendation 7 Evaluate and consider discontinuing monitoring at the following locations: a. Trenches (T5E, T4W, T4E) b. Golf Course Pond Inlet and Outlet c. AHUG Outlet d. Como 3 Subwatershed e. Level Loggers—do we need this many deployed? What is data being used for?

Recommendation 8 Evaluate and consider discontinuing analysis of the following chemical parameters: a. Nitrogen b. Metals with non-detects (Ni, Cr) Recommendation 9 For baseline sites, adjust sampling frequency as follows: a. Fewer baseflow samples (1x per month vs 2x per month) b. Focus sampling towards larger storm events only Recommendation 10 3

Expand Lakes Monitoring and conduct more complete analysis. Additional data to be collected and analyzed include: a. Biological data i. Fisheries ii. Macrophytes iii. Phyto/Zooplankton b. Temperature c. Ice cover/Ice out d. Sediment Recommendation 11 Evaluate and consider discontinuing Qualitative Lakes Data Collection. Consider utilizing volunteers to accomplish this work.

Recommendation 12 Develop a comprehensive monitoring database that could more effectively manage the large data sets of the District.

Recommendation 13 Complete a comprehensive evaluation of and implement improvements to the District’s reporting methods. The evaluation should focus on improvements to: format, frequency, analysis types, generation of figures & tables, data cleaning.

Recommendation 14 Historically, the District has focused on more typical stormwater parameters such as phosphorus and total suspended solids. The District should consider expanding its analysis of other stormwater parameters, including: a. Bacteria/microbial source tracking b. Chloride c. Trash d. PAHS Recommendation 15 Consider monitoring and/or analysis of previously unmonitored subwatersheds. This effort should focus on: a. Subwaterhseds with land uses/source areas different than previously monitored locations b. Utilize modeling to simulate loading 4

Recommendation 16 Consider expanded stand-alone sub-watershed reports that would contain a more comprehensive look at the subwatershed. This could include reports for the Como Lake and/or Trout Brook Subwatersheds.

Recommendation 17 Consider additional BMP monitoring, such as: a. Research based BMP monitoring b. “Microsite� monitoring (roofs, parking lots, greenspace, construction sites, private BMPs) c. Climate change adaption monitoring

5

Monitoring Program Review Recommendations Schedule and estimated additional costs beyond typical annual monitoring cost

6

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Name New goal/mission statement for Monitoring Program Improve staff organization and training Incorporate data into other District programs Develop enhanced monitoring partnerships Install AC power at baseline sites Sample preparation and lab improvements Evaluate discontinuing some existing monitoring sites Evaluate discontinuing some existing chemical analysis Adjust sampling frequency for baseline sites Expand Lakes Monitoring to include additional biological data Evaluate discontinuing qualitative Lakes data collection Develop a comprehensive monitoring database Improvements to monitoring reports Consider expanding analysis to others stormwater parameters Consider monitoring of previously unmonitored subwatersheds Consider stand-alone subwatershed reports (Como, Trout Brook) Additional BMP monitoring

2014

2015

2016

Estimated Additional Cost $ $ 5,000 $ $ 2,500 Budgeted for in 2014 $ 5,000 $ $ $ Budgeted for in 2014 $ Budgeted for in 2014 $ Budgeted for in 2014 $ $ $ $ 12,500

Appendix 1—Monitoring Program Review Retreat Summary

W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\0 Projects\2013 Program Evaluation\Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Workplan, 03-272014.docx

7

Monitoring program evaluation, Retreat Summary and Initial Recommendations Retreat held 11/1/2013 Document drafted 11/19/2013 1. What do we do well?

Responses to this question can be categorized into 3 categories: Data Collection, Data Analysis/Reporting, Other 





Data Collection o Collecting data. o Developing methods that work in CRWD. o Adapt to challenges of monitoring in an urban watershed o Working on a team in the field. o Handling lots of physical/manual labor successfully. o Maintain equipment….make sure it’s in working order and appropriate for the task. o Efficiency in field work…we have lots of tasks to do and they all get done Data Analysis/Reporting o QA/QC of data. o Managing a lot of data. o Reporting data. o Sharing with other practitioners….transparent with process and data. o Making a complete analysis of data...automated samplers and loading calculations. o Calculating loads…it takes time. This is unique and important because it plays into costbenefit analysis. o Other o Adequately funding the different steps of the program….monitoring is made a budgetary priority. o Recently open to innovation, encouraging innovative thought, open to staff suggesting ways to do things better. o We want to be leaders in our field and make it happen...this generates pride in our work. o We generate lots of data, but perhaps more important is its quality…it is research grade and usable by other partners. o Communication between field staff and coordinator (weekly meetings, regular communication, open lines of dialogue) this is key to getting work done well.

2. Why monitor in CRWD? Each response to this question was tested against our current monitoring program goal to see if it is adequately covered in the current goal or adjustments need to be made.

8

Current program goal: In 2004, CRWD established a monitoring program to assess water quality and quantity of various subwatersheds and stormwater best management practices (BMPs) owned and/or operated and maintained by CRWD…..The objectives of the program are to identify water quality problem areas, quantify the subwatershed runoff pollutant loadings to the Mississippi River, evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs, and provide data for the calibration of hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality models.

Overall the current goal encapsulates the program well with the exception of monitoring serving to educate and increase awareness within the District.

Potential new program mission statement: (in bulleted list to make review/discussion easier, final will be narrative) CRWD monitors waters within the District to: a) Identify problem areas b) Quantify subwatershed runoff pollutant loadings c) Evaluate effectiveness of BMPs d) Provide data to calibrate hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality models e) Educate and increase awareness

3. How can our monitoring data be used in other CRWD programs?

The responses to this question can be placed in one of 6 categories listed below.  Permitting a. Determine Rules (Requirements and Standards…1”?). b. Subwatershed-specific rules (Como TMDL). c. Permit sites – problem areas, i.e. illicit discharges. d. BMP Performance. e. Identify suitable designs of BMP construction sites. f. Construction site inspection and permitting  Subwatershed (new) a. Focus project dollars. b. Address “hot spots”.  TBI a. Model/calibrate/validate. b. Safety for operations and maintenance. c. MS4 Permit. d. Trout Brook conveyance questions.  Education a. Show impacts, good and bad. b. Link behaviors with water quality improvements.

9

c. Influence public decision making in relation to other watersheds  Capital Improvement Projects a. To focus our CIPs, grants and education geographically. b. Determine maintenance requirements and frequency. c. Assist BMP design and placement.  Other a. Support research opportunities. b. Climate change adaptation. c. In-lake management. d. Guide wetland management plan. e. Spatial analysis (GIS, modeling, etc.)

Recommendation: 5 priorities areas to incorporate monitoring data in the next 3 years. f) BMP Performance g) Focus CIPs, grants and education h) In-lake management decisions i) Spatial Analysis j) MS4 permit, specifically TMDL compliance/progress 4. Who are the audiences for our data?

Answers to this question can be grouped into 3 major categories—Internal, External-Local, External-Non-Local 



Internal o CRWD Board. o CRWD staff. o Citizens of CRWD, children, adults and seniors (different data delivery systems for all).

External--Local o MPCA. o Other CRWD cities. o Scientific community, academia, graduate students. o Stormwater professionals. o Developers (a potential audience). o Artists. o Teachers. o Advocates. o Nonprofit staff. o Landscape professionals. o Snowplow drivers, winter maintenance workers (Saint Paul snowplow fleet drivers and their supervisors, Kevin Nelson, Matt Morreim). o Contractors. o Legislators/policymakers.

10



o District planning councils. o Other decision makers.

External—Non-Local o Other regulatory agencies, EPA, NPDES NPS Listserv (Don Waye). o Other cities outside CRWD. o International locations.

5. What do our audiences need to effectively make use of our data?

Answers to this question can be grouped into 2 major categories—Data Understanding, Data Delivery 

Data Understanding o Data they can understand. o Summaries. o Pie charts. o To know how to ask for the data, i.e. we need to help them know what’s available, and may need us to prompt them re: what they want/need. o Point person to ask questions re: data, “handholding.” o Presentation of data in different formats. o Condensed versions of data. o More concise or simplified versions of data for the layperson. o Symbols, images to show data. o Interactive presentations. o Translation/interpretation. o Interpreted data: “What does it mean?” o Clean recommendations for management: “How do I use this data as an audience member?” o Caveats or disclaimers for data. o Clear definitions of QAQC…people need assurance of how the data was collected, e.g.

Braun recently sent a clear definition of their QAQC. o We need to promote our data to certain audiences. o Comparison or amount that is commonly understood. o To make sure audiences members understand the science to education/policy leap. o A call to action, either general or specific.



Data Delivery o Detailed procedures about collection. o Easy access to data. o Electronic/internet access. o Good organization. o Different delivery methods: a cellphone app, printed reports, .PDFs, billboards.

11

Different ways to query data on website, or monitoring database.

Consistent way to give data away to everyone, even if they are a nontraditional client.

Nontraditional delivery methods, marketing, advertising formats.

Deliver data in a more timely way, sometimes it is needed immediately by a client, especially illicit discharges. o Raw data available. o A place to provide feedback and/or to interact with the data. o o o o

6. Who are potential new monitoring program partners who could strengthen our work?

Each potential partner was put into one of 6 categories for partner types: 1. Academic/Research: a. University of Minnesota i. St. Anthony Falls Lab (SAFL) ii. Ecology Evolution Behavior (EEB) iii. Entomology iv. Water Resource Center b. University of New Hampshire c. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) d. Water Environment Federation (WEF) e. Local Road Research Board 2. State/NAT’L Govt: a. MPCA b. DNR c. MnDOT d. EPA e. USGS f. NWS g. Port Authority 3. Cities/Counties/Municipalities: a. City of St. Paul i. Public Works, Sewer Division ii. Regional Water Services b. City of Roseville c. City of Falcon Heights d. Ramsey County i. Conservation District ii. Public Works e. Other major cities within the region (e.g. Milwaukee) 12

4. Other Watershed Districts: a. MWMO b. RWMWD c. WCD d. MCWD 5. Citizens/Groups/NGOs a. CLNN b. Citizen volunteers c. Non-profit/advocacy groups d. Private landowners with BMPs 6. Private Sector a. Media/Communication b. Private engineering companies (e.g. Barr) c. Vendors of BMPs

Recommendation: Based on the idea that a true partnership needs to mutually benefit all parties, from the list above 5 specific partners should be prioritized for actively developing or enhancing our monitoring partnerships over the next 3 years.

6. University of Minnesota 7. City of St Paul 8. Ramsey County (CD and PW) 9. RWMWD 10. MWMO The others in the list above we would actively communicate and partner with as appropriate partnerships present themselves but we would not actively attempt to develop/nurture partnerships during the next three year period.

7. What changes can we make to improve the efficiency of our data collection?

8. To best use our finite resources, where are areas we could reduce or eliminate collection efforts?

9. Is there anything that should be added to the program?

Based on the response to Questions 7-9 priority items (Top 5) were listed for Changes, Deletions, and Additions to the monitoring program (without sacrificing data quality): TOP 5 Changes: 1. AC Power and Remote Data Access to baseline sites 13

2.

3.

4.

5.

a. Temp control (heating & cooling) b. Year-round monitoring c. Reduced frequency of site visits d. Analyze and report data more quickly e. Improved data quality Staff organization and training Monitoring Database development Reporting Improvements (Format, Frequency, Analysis types, Generation of figures & tables, data cleaning) Sample Preparation and Lab Efficiency a. Submittal requirements and procedures b. Laboratory results reporting c. Bottle Cleaning

TOP 5 Deletions: 1. Site Removal: a. Trenches (T5E, T4W, T4E) b. GCP Inlet and Outlet c. AHUG Outlet d. Como 3—what are we doing here? e. Level Loggers—do we need this many deployed? What is data being used for?

2. Parameter removal: a. N b. Metals with non-detects (Ni, Cr) 3. Qualitative Lakes Data Collection (volunteers instead?)

4. Adjust Sampling Frequency: a. Fewer baseflow samples (1x per month vs 2x) b. Larger storm events only TOP 5 Additions: 1. Lakes Monitoring Data expansion and more complete analysis a. Biological data i. Fisheries ii. Macrophytes iii. Phyto/Zooplankton b. Temperature c. Ice cover/Ice out d. Sediment 2. Expanded analysis of other stormwater parameters a. Bacteria/microbial source tracking b. Chloride c. Trash d. PAHS e. Emerging contaminants 14

3. Monitoring of new subwatersheds a. Sub-WSs with different land use/source areas b. Utilize modeling to simulate loading c. Detailed, stand-alone reports by subwatershed i. Como ii. Trout Brook 4. BMP Monitoring a. BMP research based monitoring b. “Microsite” monitoring (roofs, parking lots, greenspace, construction sites, private BMPs) c. Climate change adaption monitoring 5. Detailed sub-watershed reports a. Expanded subwatershed monitoring and more detailed reports by subwatershed

Hot topics:  Reporting wetland data  Groundwater data  Lake monitoring – biochemical and chemical  Mississippi River  Emerging contaminants

15

April 9, 2014 Board Meeting V. Action Items, B) Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Update

(Fossum)

DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

April 3, 2014 CRWD CAC Bob Fossum, Water Resource Project Manager Curtis Pond Improvement Project

Background Curtiss Field Pond, located in Falcon Heights, regularly flood during moderate rainfall events which limits the use of the park, park infrastructure, and presents a safety concern for the City. In 2011, the City requested our assistance in determining the causes of the problems and identifying possible solutions to mitigate the flooding.

In 2012 the District completed the Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Feasibility Study. The study recommended a project to increase the stormwater storage and infiltration area with in the park. During 2013 and early 2014 the District has been completing final design of the project.

Issues District staff will present the draft Curtiss Pond Plans, Cost Estimate, and Project Financing to the CAC. Requested Action Provide comment, questions and/or concerns to the Board of Managers on the Curtiss Pond Improvement Project.

enc:

Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Plans Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Cost Estimate Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Financing Plan

W:\06 Projects\Curtis Field\Final Design\CAC Memo Curtiss Pond 4-3-14.docx

Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

%#2+61. 4')+10 9#6'45*'& &+564+%6 #0& %+6; 1( (#.%10 *'+)*65 %105647%6+10 2.#05 (14 %746+55 210& +/2418'/'06 241,'%6 (#.%10 *'+)*65 /+00'516#

^͗ͰϲϰϳϱͲϬϬϴͺ Zt ͺ ƵƌƚŝƐWŽŶĚͺ ĞƐŝŐŶΘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰ Ͱ&ŝŶĂů ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰϲϰϳϱϬϬϴͲ ŽǀĞƌͲ&/E >͘ĚǁŐ Ͳ ŽǀĞƌͲ^ĂǀĞͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϴ͗Ϭϲ DͲWůŽƚͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϴ͗Ϭϵ DͲ;ĚůŝƚƚĞƌĞƌͿ

#24+.

³ ´

24'.+/+0#4;

Houston(QJLQHHULQJ ,QF

016'5 Ä 5+6' #%%'55 *#7. 4176'

^͗ͰϲϰϳϱͲϬϬϴͺ Zt ͺ ƵƌƚŝƐWŽŶĚͺ ĞƐŝŐŶΘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰ Ͱ&ŝŶĂů ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰϲϰϳϱϬϬϴͲ džŝƐƚŝŶŐ ŶĚZĞŵŽǀĂůͲ&/E >͘ĚǁŐ Ͳ džŝƐƚŝŶŐͲZĞŵŽǀĂůͲ^ĂǀĞͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϯͬϯϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϭϮ͗ϭϲ WDͲWůŽƚͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϴ͗Ϭϵ DͲ;ĚůŝƚƚĞƌĞƌͿ

016'5

%746+55 210& 5VQTOYCVGT CPF (NQQF 4GFWEVKQP 2TQLGEV 2TQLGEV 5RQPUGTU

%QPVTCEVQT

'PIKPGGT Houston (QJLQHHULQJ ,QF

(QT KPHQTOCVKQP ECNN

Ä

241,'%6 5+)0 &'6#+.

DĂƉůĞ 'ƌŽǀĞ Houston (QJLQHHULQJ ,QF EŽ͘

ZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ

ĂƚĞ

LJ

W͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϰϱϮϮ &͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϱϱϳϮ

ƌĂǁŶ ďLJ

:>

ĂƚĞ

ϰͲϭͲϭϰ

%746+55 210& +/2418'/'06 241,'%6

)$/&21 +(,*+76 0,11(627$ ŚĞĐŬĞĚ ďLJ ^ĐĂůĞ &$3,72/ 5(*,21 :$7(56+(' ',675,&7 $1' '^ ^ ^,KtE &,7< 2) )$/&21 +(,*+76

y/^d/E' KE /d/KE^͕

^, d

Z DKs >^ Θ dZ &&/ KEdZK> WZK: d EK͘

Ϯ ŽĨ ϭϬ

^͗ͰϲϰϳϱͲϬϬϴͺ Zt ͺ ƵƌƚŝƐWŽŶĚͺ ĞƐŝŐŶΘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰ Ͱ&ŝŶĂů ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰϲϰϳϱϬϬϴͲWůĂŶͲ&/E >͘ĚǁŐ Ͳ^ŝƚĞͲ'ƌĂĚŝŶŐͲ^ĂǀĞͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϯͬϯϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϱ͗Ϯϳ WDͲWůŽƚͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϴ͗ϭϬ DͲ;ĚůŝƚƚĞƌĞƌͿ

016'5

DĂƉůĞ 'ƌŽǀĞ Houston (QJLQHHULQJ ,QF EŽ͘

ZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ

ĂƚĞ

LJ

W͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϰϱϮϮ &͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϱϱϳϮ

ƌĂǁŶ ďLJ

:>

ĂƚĞ

ϰͲϭͲϭϰ

%746+55 210& +/2418'/'06 241,'%6

)$/&21 +(,*+76 0,11(627$ ŚĞĐŬĞĚ ďLJ ^ĐĂůĞ &$3,72/ 5(*,21 :$7(56+(' ',675,&7 $1' '^ ^ ^,KtE &,7< 2) )$/&21 +(,*+76

^/d E 'Z /E' W> E WZK: d EK͘

^, d

ϯ ŽĨ ϭϬ

^͗ͰϲϰϳϱͲϬϬϴͺ Zt ͺ ƵƌƚŝƐWŽŶĚͺ ĞƐŝŐŶΘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰ Ͱ&ŝŶĂů ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰϲϰϳϱϬϬϴͲWůĂŶͲ&/E >͘ĚǁŐ ͲWΘWͲ^ĂǀĞͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϯͬϯϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϱ͗Ϯϳ WDͲWůŽƚͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϴ͗ϭϬ DͲ;ĚůŝƚƚĞƌĞƌͿ

016'5

DĂƉůĞ 'ƌŽǀĞ Houston (QJLQHHULQJ ,QF EŽ͘

ZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ

ĂƚĞ

LJ

W͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϰϱϮϮ &͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϱϱϳϮ

ƌĂǁŶ ďLJ

:>

ĂƚĞ

ϰͲϭͲϭϰ

%746+55 210& +/2418'/'06 241,'%6

)$/&21 +(,*+76 0,11(627$ ŚĞĐŬĞĚ ďLJ ^ĐĂůĞ &$3,72/ 5(*,21 :$7(56+(' ',675,&7 $1' '^ ^ ^,KtE &,7< 2) )$/&21 +(,*+76

W> E E WZK&/> DW d Ed/KE WZK: d EK͘

^, d

ϰ ŽĨ ϭϬ

^͗ͰϲϰϳϱͲϬϬϴͺ Zt ͺ ƵƌƚŝƐWŽŶĚͺ ĞƐŝŐŶΘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰ Ͱ&ŝŶĂů ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰϲϰϳϱϬϬϴͲ ĞƚĂŝůͲ&/E >͘ĚǁŐ Ͳ ĞƚĂŝůƐͲ^ĂǀĞͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϯͬϯϭͬϮϬϭϰ Ϯ͗ϭϴ WDͲWůŽƚͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϴ͗ϭϬ DͲ;ĚůŝƚƚĞƌĞƌͿ

DĂƉůĞ 'ƌŽǀĞ Houston (QJLQHHULQJ ,QF EŽ͘

ZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ

ĂƚĞ

LJ

W͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϰϱϮϮ &͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϱϱϳϮ

ƌĂǁŶ ďLJ

:>

ĂƚĞ

ϰͲϭͲϭϰ

%746+55 210& +/2418'/'06 241,'%6

)$/&21 +(,*+76 0,11(627$ ŚĞĐŬĞĚ ďLJ ^ĐĂůĞ &$3,72/ 5(*,21 :$7(56+(' ',675,&7 $1' '^ ^ ^,KtE &,7< 2) )$/&21 +(,*+76

KE^dZh d/KE d />^ WZK: d EK͘

^, d

ϱ ŽĨ ϭϬ

^͗ͰϲϰϳϱͲϬϬϴͺ Zt ͺ ƵƌƚŝƐWŽŶĚͺ ĞƐŝŐŶΘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰ Ͱ&ŝŶĂů ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰϲϰϳϱϬϬϴͲ ĞƚĂŝůͲ&/E >͘ĚǁŐ Ͳ ĞƚĂŝůƐ ;ϮͿͲ^ĂǀĞͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϯͬϯϭͬϮϬϭϰ Ϯ͗ϭϴ WDͲWůŽƚͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϴ͗ϭϬ DͲ;ĚůŝƚƚĞƌĞƌͿ

DĂƉůĞ 'ƌŽǀĞ Houston (QJLQHHULQJ ,QF EŽ͘

ZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ

ĂƚĞ

LJ

W͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϰϱϮϮ &͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϱϱϳϮ

ƌĂǁŶ ďLJ

:>

ĂƚĞ

ϰͲϭͲϭϰ

%746+55 210& +/2418'/'06 241,'%6

)$/&21 +(,*+76 0,11(627$ ŚĞĐŬĞĚ ďLJ ^ĐĂůĞ &$3,72/ 5(*,21 :$7(56+(' ',675,&7 $1' '^ ^ ^,KtE &,7< 2) )$/&21 +(,*+76

KE^dZh d/KE d />^ WZK: d EK͘

^, d

ϲ ŽĨ ϭϬ

^͗ͰϲϰϳϱͲϬϬϴͺ Zt ͺ ƵƌƚŝƐWŽŶĚͺ ĞƐŝŐŶΘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰ Ͱ&ŝŶĂů ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰϲϰϳϱϬϬϴͲ ĞƚĂŝůͲ&/E >͘ĚǁŐ Ͳ ĞƚĂŝůƐ ;ϯͿͲ^ĂǀĞͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϯͬϯϭͬϮϬϭϰ Ϯ͗ϭϴ WDͲWůŽƚͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϴ͗ϭϬ DͲ;ĚůŝƚƚĞƌĞƌͿ

DĂƉůĞ 'ƌŽǀĞ Houston (QJLQHHULQJ ,QF EŽ͘

ZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ

ĂƚĞ

LJ

W͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϰϱϮϮ &͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϱϱϳϮ

ƌĂǁŶ ďLJ

:>

ĂƚĞ

ϰͲϭͲϭϰ

%746+55 210& +/2418'/'06 241,'%6

)$/&21 +(,*+76 0,11(627$ ŚĞĐŬĞĚ ďLJ ^ĐĂůĞ &$3,72/ 5(*,21 :$7(56+(' ',675,&7 $1' '^ ^ ^,KtE &,7< 2) )$/&21 +(,*+76

KE^dZh d/KE d />^ WZK: d EK͘

^, d

ϳ ŽĨ ϭϬ

^͗ͰϲϰϳϱͲϬϬϴͺ Zt ͺ ƵƌƚŝƐWŽŶĚͺ ĞƐŝŐŶΘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰ Ͱ&ŝŶĂů ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰϲϰϳϱϬϬϴͲ ĞƚĂŝůͲ&/E >͘ĚǁŐ Ͳ ĞƚĂŝůƐ ;ϰͿͲ^ĂǀĞͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϭϬ͗Ϯϯ DͲWůŽƚͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϭϬ͗Ϯϯ DͲ;ĚůŝƚƚĞƌĞƌͿ

DĂƉůĞ 'ƌŽǀĞ Houston Engineering Inc. EŽ͘

ZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ

ĂƚĞ

LJ

W͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϰϱϮϮ &͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϱϱϳϮ

ƌĂǁŶ ďLJ

:>

ĂƚĞ

ϰͲϭͲϭϰ

%746+55 210& +/2418'/'06 241,'%6

)$/&21 +(,*+76 0,11(627$ ŚĞĐŬĞĚ ďLJ ^ĐĂůĞ &$3,72/ 5(*,21 :$7(56+(' ',675,&7 $1' '^ ^ ^,KtE &,7< 2) )$/&21 +(,*+76

KE^dZh d/KE d />^ WZK: d EK͘

^, d

ϴ ŽĨ ϭϬ

^͗ͰϲϰϳϱͲϬϬϴͺ Zt ͺ ƵƌƚŝƐWŽŶĚͺ ĞƐŝŐŶΘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰ Ͱ&ŝŶĂů ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰϲϰϳϱϬϬϴͲ ƌŽƐŝŽŶ ŽŶƚƌŽůͲ&/E >͘ĚǁŐ ͲĞƌŽƐŝŽŶĐŽŶƚƌŽůͲ^ĂǀĞͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϭϬ͗ϮϬ DͲWůŽƚͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϭϬ͗Ϯϭ DͲ;ĚůŝƚƚĞƌĞƌͿ

016'5

DĂƉůĞ 'ƌŽǀĞ Houston Engineering Inc. EŽ͘

ZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ

ĂƚĞ

LJ

W͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϰϱϮϮ &͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϱϱϳϮ

ƌĂǁŶ ďLJ

:>

ĂƚĞ

ϰͲϭͲϭϰ

%746+55 210& +/2418'/'06 241,'%6

)$/&21 +(,*+76 0,11(627$ ŚĞĐŬĞĚ ďLJ ^ĐĂůĞ &$3,72/ 5(*,21 :$7(56+(' ',675,&7 $1' '^ ^ ^,KtE &,7< 2) )$/&21 +(,*+76

ZK^/KE Θ ^ /D Ed KEdZK> WZK: d EK͘

^, d

ϵ ŽĨ ϭϬ

^͗ͰϲϰϳϱͲϬϬϴͺ Zt ͺ ƵƌƚŝƐWŽŶĚͺ ĞƐŝŐŶΘ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰ Ͱ&ŝŶĂů ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͰϲϰϳϱϬϬϴͲ ƌŽƐŝŽŶ ŽŶƚƌŽůͺ ĞƚĂŝůͲ&/E >͘ĚǁŐ Ͳ ĞƚĂŝůͲ^ĂǀĞͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϯͬϮϬͬϮϬϭϰ ϯ͗ϱϱ WDͲWůŽƚͺ ĂƚĞ͗ϰͬϭͬϮϬϭϰ ϴ͗ϭϬ DͲ;ĚůŝƚƚĞƌĞƌͿ

DĂƉůĞ 'ƌŽǀĞ Houston (QJLQHHULQJ ,QF EŽ͘

ZĞǀŝƐŝŽŶ

ĂƚĞ

LJ

W͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϰϱϮϮ &͗ ϳϲϯ͘ϰϵϯ͘ϱϱϳϮ

ƌĂǁŶ ďLJ

:>

ĂƚĞ

ϰͲϭͲϭϰ

%746+55 210& +/2418'/'06 241,'%6

)$/&21 +(,*+76 0,11(627$ ŚĞĐŬĞĚ ďLJ ^ĐĂůĞ &$3,72/ 5(*,21 :$7(56+(' ',675,&7 $1' '^ ^ ^,KtE &,7< 2) )$/&21 +(,*+76

ZK^/KE Θ ^ /D Ed KEdZK> d />^ WZK: d EK͘

^, d

ϭϬ ŽĨ ϭϬ

ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE CURTISS POND PROJECT 1‐Apr‐14 Item 2021.501 2101.618 2104.503 2104.602 2105.501 2105.607 2015.525 2015.525 2015.535 2105.601 2211.503 2451.607 2501.515 2503.511 2503.511 2506.601 2506.602 2511.515 2521.501 2557.501 2557.517 2563.602 2564.537 2573.502 2573.505 2573.535 2574.604 2575.502 2575.502 2575.563 2575.523 2575.530 3803.501

Item Description MOBILIZATION REMOVE SHRUBS SAW CUT AND REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SALVAGE AND REINSTALL DISABLED PARKING SIGN COMMON EXCAVATION (CV)(P) HAUL AND DISPOSAL SOIL (LV) TOPSOIL BORROW CLAY BORROW FOR CLAY PLUG PLACE SALVAGED TOPSOIL (P) WATER CONTROL AGGREGATE BASE (LV) (CLASS 5) 0.75" ‐ 2" WASHED ROCK FOR DETENTION SYSTEM (P) 24" RC PIPE APRON 24" CS PIPE SEWER 24" RC PIPE SEWER CMP DETENTION SYSTEM WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, NON WOVEN 4" CONCRETE WALK TEMPORARY 6FT CHAIN‐LINK FENCE TEMPORARY 12FT VEHICULAR GATE W/LOCK TRAFFIC CONTROL PROJECT SIGN SILT FENCE, TYPE PA SILT FENCE , TYPE TB STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT SOIL BED PREPARATION COVER CROP SEED MIXTURE 21‐112 SEED MIXTURE 25‐151 HYDRAULIC MATRIX, FIBER BONDED HYDRO‐MULCH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CATEGORY 2 INLET PROTECTION 4" PVC SCH. 80 ELECTRIC CONDUIT

Unit

Quantity

Unit Price

Total Price

LUMP SUM SQ FT SQ FT EACH CU YD CU YD CU YD CU YD CU YD LUMP SUM CU YD CU YD EACH LIN FT LIN FT LUMP SUM EACH SQ YD SQ FT LIN FT EACH LUMP SUM EACH LIN FT LIN FT LUMP SUM SQ YD POUND POUND SQ YD SQ YD EACH LIN FT

1 100 1162 1 3900 3000 170 4 253 1 30 1330 1 4 8 1 1 1300 1523 495 1 1 2 110 85 1 2320 48 58 2190 130 1 16

$ 15,000.00 $ 5.00 $ 1.25 $ 500.00 $ 8.00 $ 10.00 $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 4.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 25.00 $ 35.00 $ 850.00 $ 70.00 $ 45.00 $ 189,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.50 $ 15.00 $ 750.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 3.50 $ 20.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 0.50 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 $ 0.85 $ 4.00 $ 500.00 $ 20.00

$ 15,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,452.50 $ 500.00 $ 31,200.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 4,250.00 $ 120.00 $ 1,012.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 750.00 $ 46,550.00 $ 850.00 $ 280.00 $ 360.00 $ 189,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 5,330.50 $ 7,425.00 $ 750.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 385.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,160.00 $ 192.00 $ 232.00 $ 1,861.50 $ 520.00 $ 500.00 $ 320.00

SUBTOTAL BASE BID 10% CONTINGENCY TOTAL BASE BID

$ 379,200.50 $ 37,920.05 $ 417,120.55

$ 10.00 $ 600.00

$ 5,220.00 $ 1,800.00

SUBTOTAL ALTERNATIVE #1

$ 7,020.00

$ 5.00 $ 1.67 $ 1.25 $ 500.00 $ 25.00 $ 0.50 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 $ 0.85

$ 400.00 $ 2,688.70 $ 207.50 $ 500.00 $ 750.00 $ 100.00 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 $ 170.00

SUBTOTAL ALTERNATIVE #2

$ 4,856.20

Bid Alternate #1 2557.501 4FT CHAIN‐LINK FENCE 2557.517 8FT VEHICULAR GATE W/LOCK

LIN FT EACH

522 3

Bid Alternate #2 2104.501 2104.503 2104.503 2104.509 2015.525 2574.604 2575.502 2575.502 2575.563

REMOVE EXISTING CHAIN‐LINK FENCE REMOVE BITUMINOUS SAW CUT AND REMOVE CONCRETE WALK REMOVE BASKETBALL HOOP TOPSOIL BORROW SOIL BED PREPARATION COVER CROP SEED MIXTURE 21‐112 SEED MIXTURE 25‐151 HYDRAULIC MATRIX, FIBER BONDED HYDRO‐MULCH

LIN FT SQ FT SQ FT EACH CU YD SQ YD POUND POUND SQ YD

80 1610 166 1 30 200 5 5 200

Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Costs and Financing 4-1-2014 Costs Construction, Contingency Base Engineering (Houston Eng. Inc.) Design and Installation--OptiRTC (Geosyntec)

Financing

$424,000 $81,600 $70,000

Total

$575,600

Total

$375,600 $200,000 $575,600

CRWD Falcon Heights