May 16, 2018 packet

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, May 16, 2018 6:00 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Materials Enclosed

I.

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) A) Attendance B) Review, Amendments, and Approval of the Agenda

II.

Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda (Please observe a limit of three minutes per person.)

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates (Permit Process: 1) Staff Review/Recommendation, 2) Applicant Response, 3) Public Comment, and 4) Board Discussion and Action.)

A) B)

Permit 16-026 St. Anthony Park Elementary (Kelley) Permit 18-009 Seal Island at Como Zoo (Hosch)

IV.

Special Reports – Como Park Feasibility Study and BMP Engineering (Zwonitzer)

V.

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the May 2, 2018 Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve Accounts Payable/Receivables for April 2018 (Sylvander) C) AR: Approve Mississippi River Art Proposal (Eleria) D) AR: Approve TBI Easement Acquisition Services Proposal (Eleria)

VI.

Unfinished Business A) Building Update (Doneux) B) History Study Update (Doneux) C) Strategic Plan Update (Doneux) D) BWSR Biennial Budget Request Update (Fossum)

VII.

General Information A) Board of Manager’s Updates The following portion of the meeting will be closed to evaluate the performance of the District Administrator pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(a).

B)

Annual Performance Review of District Administrator

Return to open session.

C)

Approval of Annual Performance Review of Administrator

VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Board Meeting B) Wednesday, June 13, 2018 CAC Tour – Tour Starts at 5:30 IX. Adjournment

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

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Todd Larson Saint Paul Public Schools 1930 Como Ave. Saint Paul, MN 55108

Permit 16-026 St. Anthony Park Elementary Consultant: Blake Ryan VAA Engineering 2300 Berkshire Lane North Suite 200 Plymouth, MN 55441

Description: Redesign and expansion of the elementary school entrance Stormwater Management: Applicant proposes impervious disconnection and volume bank credits District Rule: —C D F Disturbed Area: 1.43 Acres Impervious Area: 0.37 Acres VOLUME BANK RECOMMENDATION: Approve Withdrawal of 743 Cubic Feet from the St. Paul Public Schools Volume Reduction Bank STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 2 Conditions: 1. Provide documentation of agreement with St. Paul Parks Department to direct stormwater to Langford Park.

2. Revise plans to address the following: a. Provide inlet protection for the following: i. Four inlets near north site construction entrance at intersection of Knapp Street and Knapp Place. ii. Two inlets near the south site construction entrance on Gordon Avenue. b. Add note to plans stating that pervious areas will be depressed a minimum of 2 inches below the impervious areas to ensure stormwater runoff will filter through the soils and not directly runoff the site to the streets.

Permit Location Permit Report 16-026

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 05/16/18

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

16-026

Review date:

May 8, 2018

Project Name:

St. Anthony Park Elementary School

Applicant:

Todd Larson St. Paul Public Schools 1930 Como Ave. St. Paul, MN 55108 651-744-1800 toddlarson@spss.org

Purpose:

Addition of St Anthony Park Elementary School

Location:

2180 Knapp St, St Paul, MN 55108

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Volume Bank Recommendation: Recommendation:

Approve Withdrawal of 743 Cubic Feet from the St. Paul Public Schools Volume Reduction Bank.

Approve with 2 Conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. Subwatershed Delineations (Existing & Proposed) and Disturbance Map, by VAA Engineering, dated 3/13/18, rcvd. 3/22/18.

2. Stormwater Narrative & Stormwater Calculations, by VAA Engineering, dated 3/14/18, rcvd. 3/22/18.

3. GeoReport, by Terracon, dated 8/31/16, rcvd. 10/27/16.

4. Civil Set (Sheets C100, 200, 201, 250, 300, 350, 400, 401, & 500), by VAA Engineering, dated 3/13/18, rcvd. 3/22/18.

5. Landscape Set (Sheets L100 & L200), by Cunningham Group, dated 2/10/17, rcvd.

1/26/18.

6. PR#55 - Earthwork for the Building Addition, by VAA, dated 3/13/18, rcvd. 3/22/18.

7. Operations and Maintenance Manual, by unknown, not dated, rcvd. 1/26/18.

8. SWPPP Narrative, by VAA, dated 3/1/2018, rcvd. 3/22/18.

9. NPDES Permit Coverage Card, by MPCA, dated 6/7/17, rcvd 3/22/18.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2016\16-026 St. Anthony Park Elementary\16-026 Permit Report_St Anthony Park Elementary School_R4.doc Page 1 of 4

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards  Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed existing rates.  Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.  Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.  Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.

2. Runoff rates for the school and park area combined do not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not fully achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1-inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious is 16,203 square feet. b. Volume retention required: 16,203 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 1,485 ft3 Table 1. Proposed volume retention through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse).

Volume 2-inch Volume Retention 1.1-inch Retention Runoff Runoff BMP Provided below Required (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) outlet (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.)

Langford Park Impervious 742 1,583 2,878 Disconnect 1,485 Bank withdrawal 743 N/A N/A Total 1,485 cf c. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. d. Infiltration volume and facility size has been calculated using the appropriate hydrologic soil group classification and design infiltration rate. e. The infiltration area is capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours. f. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas. g. Groundwater mounding is not anticipated to affect adjacent properties and buildings.

4. Alternative compliance has been requested due to space and utility constraints.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2016\16-026 St. Anthony Park Elementary\16-026 Permit Report_St Anthony Park Elementary School_R4.doc Page 2 of 4

a. The applicant partially complied with the volume retention standard. b. The applicant explored three different design approaches for the St. Anthony Park Elementary site to meet CRWD’s requirements: biofiltration basin north of new addition, underground chamber system north of new addition, and infiltration trenches along the pavement edge at the west edge of the property. These were deemed infeasible to do the inability to direct water to the north location, and an existing sewer easement in the west location that precludes installation of stormwater facilities c. The applicant has requested withdrawal from the volume retention bank for the remaining required volume of 743 cubic feet. d. The applicant has not submitted money to be contributed to the Stormwater Impact Fund. e. The project is not linear.

5. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis.

6. A memorandum of agreement for maintenance exists between St. Paul Public Schools and CRWD. RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements.

Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard  Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.  A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property.

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land-disturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2016\16-026 St. Anthony Park Elementary\16-026 Permit Report_St Anthony Park Elementary School_R4.doc Page 3 of 4

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are not consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition.

3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are not protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Disturbed area is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted and is sufficient.

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard ďƒ˜ Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.

Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not proposed.

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

Volume Bank Recommendation: Approve Withdrawal of 743 Cubic Feet from the St. Paul Public Schools Volume Reduction Bank.

Recommendation: Approve with 2 Conditions Conditions: 1. Provide documentation of agreement with St. Paul Parks Department to utilize Langford Park as the treatment BMP. 2. Revise plans to address the following: a. Provide inlet protection for the following: i. Four inlets near north site construction entrance near intersection Knapp Street and Knapp Place. ii. Two inlets near the south site construction entrance on Gordon Avenue. b. Add note to plans stating that pervious areas will be depressed a minimum of 2 inches below the impervious areas to ensure stormwater runoff will filter through the soils and not directly runoff the site to the streets.

3. Withdraw 743 CF from St. Paul Public Schools volume retention bank.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2016\16-026 St. Anthony Park Elementary\16-026 Permit Report_St Anthony Park Elementary School_R4.doc Page 4 of 4

GENERAL NOTES 1.

ALL EXISTING INFORMATION TAKEN FROM SURVEY BY WENCK ASSOCIATES PROJECT NUMBER 6327-0001, DATED 1/24/2017 .

BACKGROUND SURVEY ON THESE DRAWINGS IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO CERTIFIED SURVEY AS THE BASIS FOR ALL PROJECT WORK.

1

PROPERTY

LINE

CO

MO

2.

SUBSURFACE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BY TERRACON PROJECT NUMBER MP165108, DATED 08/31/2016.

3.

CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS INCLUDING LOCATIONS OF EXISTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES, AND NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION.

4.

ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO REMAIN UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

5.

CONTRACTOR TO KEEP FROM DAMAGE ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS, LANDSCAPING, STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES THAT ARE TO REMAIN. CONTRACTOR TO REPAIR ANY DAMAGE AT OWN EXPENSE.

6.

ALL WORK TO CONFORM WITH CITY OF SAINT PAUL AND STATE OF MINNESOTA STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS.

7.

ALL EXCAVATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF OSHA 29 CFR, PART 1926, SUBPART P "EXCAVATIONS AND TRENCHES". THIS DOCUMENT STATES THAT EXCAVATION SAFETY IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.

8.

CATCHBASINS AND MANHOLES ARE SHOWN ON PLAN LARGER THAN ACTUAL SIZE. COORDINATE LOCATION OF MANHOLE COVER AND CASTING SO THAT IT IS PROPERLY LOCATED AT THE BACK OF CURBLINE FOR THE CURB INLETS OR CENTERED IN THE AREA AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN FOR THE AREA DRAINS AND MANHOLE COVERS.

9.

PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL AT STREETS AND SIDEWALKS PER CITY OF SAINT PAUL AND MMUTCD REQUIREMENTS.

AV

EN

UE

SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR RECONSTRUCTED PLANTER DETAIL PROPERTY

LINE

PR

OP

ER

TY

LIN

E

2

10. ANY WORK PERFORMED OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES MUST BE APPROVED BY OWNER AND ALL REGULATING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND APPROPRIATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED.

FFE: 902.39

GRADING NOTES TIE INTO EXISTING CATCH BASIN AT INV: 895.70 W/ WATERTIGHT RUBBER BOOT LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 92,039 SF

11

SEE SHEET C200 FOR GENERAL NOTES.

2.

PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONS AND CONTOURS ARE TO TOP OF GRADE, PAVEMENT OR GUTTER LINE, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.

14

BLEND GRADES AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM BUILDING

FFE: 902.41

1.

3.

SEE SHEET C250 FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES.

4.

SEE SHEET C250 FOR LOCATIONS OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ITEMS. INSTALL PERIMETER EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ITEMS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

CITY OF ST. PAUL NOTES

11

2.31 1

1.

CONSTRUCTION IN THE RIGHT OF WAY: ALL WORK ON CURBS, DRIVEWAYS, AND SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY UNDER A PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS SIDEWALK SECTION (651-266-6108). SIDEWALK GRADES MUST BE CARRIED ACROSS DRIVEWAYS.

2.

RIGHT OF WAY RESTORATION: RESTORATION OF ASPHALT AND CONCRETE PAVEMENTS ARE PERFORMED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT TO THE CITY FOR THE COST OF THESE RESTORATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE TO SET UP A WORK ORDER PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY REMOVALS IN THE STREET AT 651-266-9700.

PROCEDURES AND UNIT COSTS ARE FOUND IN STREET MAINTENANCE'S "GENERAL REQUIREMENTS - ALL RESTORATIONS" AND ARE AVAILABLE AT THE PERMIT OFFICE.

3.

SEWER REPAIR PERMIT: PLUMBING CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN "REPAIR PERMITS" FROM PUBLIC WORKS FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS. CALL ST. PAUL PW PERMIT DESK (651-266-6234) FOR INFORMATION ON OBTAINING THIS PERMIT.

4.

SEWER REMOVAL/ABANDONMENT PERMIT: PLUMBING CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN "REMOVAL PERMITS" FROM PUBLIC WORKS TO CUT OFF EXISTING SEWER CONNECTIONS SERVICES TO THE PROPERTY. CALL ST. PAUL PW PERMIT DESK (651-266-6234) FOR INFORMATION ON OBTAINING THIS PERMIT.

5.

SEWER CONNECTION PERMIT: LICENSE HOUSE DRAIN CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN (SEWER CONNECTION PERMIT) TO CONSTRUCT NEW SANITARY AND STORM CONNECTION IN STREET FROM MAIN TO THE PROPERTY. CALL ST. PAUL PW PERMIT DESK (651-266-6234) FOR INFORMATION ON OBTAINING THIS PERMIT.

1

2/10/17 Addendum No 1

6.

ADJACENT STREETS AND ALLEYS MUST BE SWEPT TO KEEP THEM FREE OF SEDIMENT. CONTRACTOR MUST MONITOR CONDITIONS AND SWEEP AS NEEDED OR WITHIN 24 HOURS OF NOTICE BY THE CITY.

2

2/16/17 Addendum No 3

11 6/9/17

14

REFER TO DETAIL 5/ L200 FOR TREE PROTECTION FOR ALL TREES IN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE WORK AND BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION

TOPOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION IS LIMITED ON EAST SIDE OF BUILDING. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY RIM ELEVATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION & NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES.

TY

LIN

LANGFORD PARK

ER

14

OP

11

PR

LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 92,039 SF

E

EXISTING BUILDING FFE = 902.35

SEE SHEET C201 FOR ENLARGED GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN

LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE IN LANGFORD PARK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH KRAUS-ANDERSON AND THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION PHASING SHEETS R005 & R006 FOR MORE INFORMATION. LANDSCAPED AREAS, TREES, AND SHRUBS DISTURBED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OR CONSTRUCTION STAGING SHALL REPLACED TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION. DISTURBED GRASS AREAS ARE BE RIPPED TO A DEPTH OF 8" AND HAVE A SAND AMENDMENT ADDED TO PREVENT FUTURE COMPACTION AND HELP ENSURE HEALTHY VEGETATION.

FFE = 902.41

PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION FFE = 902.41

FFE = 902.41

1

FFE = 902.41

SC UD DE R

1

NO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL STOCKPILING AND VEHICLE TRAFFIC ALLOWED IN AREA OF STORM WATER BASIN.

8.

CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.

14

PR#14 SPR#2 AND DLI 6/27/17 PR#16

9.

CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT CITY FORESTER, PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OR OTHER LAND DISTURBANCE ASSOCIATED WITH SITE CONSTRUCTION, TO VERIFY TREE PROTECTION IS INSTALLED.

45

3/13/18 PR#55-R

ST RE ET

12

14

PR#14 SPR#1

12 6/9/17

7.

12

LEGEND 2

LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 92,039 SF

11

14

M.E.

896

PROPOSED CONTOUR

97.25

PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION

97.33 M.E. 3:1 2.00%

PROPOSED MATCH EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION DENOTES SURFACE DRAINAGE

M.E. M.E.

PROPOSED SIGN PROPOSED WATER LINE

M.E.

TRANSITION GRADING TO 3:1 IN THIS AREA

M.E.

PROPOSED FIRE WATER LINE PROPOSED GATEVALVE

M.E. PROPOSED CONCRETE

M.E.

PROPOSED BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT

M.E. M.E. GORDON AVENUE

CITY OF ST. PAUL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 1.

11

ORDERING OBSTRUCTION AND EXCAVATION PERMITS: CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS RIGHT OF WAY SERVICE DESK AT (651) 266-6151. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT CONTRACTORS CALL FOR COST ESTIMATES PRIOR TO BIDDING TO OBTAIN TO OBTAIN ACCURATE COST ESTIMATES.

2.

OBSTRUCTION PERMITS: THE CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN AN OBSTRUCTION PERMIT IF CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING SILT FENCES) WILL BLOCK CITY STREETS, SIDEWALKS OR ALLEYS, OR IF DRIVING OVER CURBS.

3.

EXCAVATION PERMITS: ALL DIGGING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY REQUIRES AN EXCAVATION PERMIT. IF THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS CLOSE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND EXCAVATING INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY IS NEEDED TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION , CONTACT THE UTILITY INSPECTOR.

4.

5.

REMOVAL OF OLD SEWER CONNECTIONS AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CONNECTIONS TO CITY SEWER MUST BE DONE TO CITY STANDARDS BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR UNDER A PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS SEWER SECTION. PUBLIC WORKS REQUIRE AN INSPECTION OF ALL SEWER CONNECTIONS

PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATER LINE

CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITY INVERTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION

2

EXISTING FIBER OPTIC EXISTING GAS LINE EXISTING WATER VALVE

FAILURE TO SECURE PERMITS: FAILURE TO SECURE OBSTRUCTION PERMITS OR EXCAVATION PERMITS WILL RESULT IN A DOUBLE-PERMIT FEE AND OTHER FEES REQUIRED UNDER CITY OF ST. PAUL LEGISLATIVE CODES. REQUIREMENTS TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: ALL UTILITIES AND CONTRACTORS WORKING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MUST BE REGISTERED, INSURED AND BONDED, AS RECOGNIZED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS SERVICE DESK (651-266-6151).

1

OVERALL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN

C200 20'

40'

EXISTING HYDRANT

CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AT ANY CATCH BASIN NEAR THE SITE THAT COULD RECEIVE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THE SITE

EXISTING POWER POLE

EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE EXISTING INLET EXISTING CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE EXISTING TREE(S)

EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING SIGN EXISTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT

1"= 20' 0

ADJACENT STREETS AND ALLEYS MUST BE SWEPT TO KEEP THEM FREE OF SEDIMENT. CONTRACTOR MUST MONITOR CONDITIONS AND SWEEP AS NEEDED OR WITHIN 24 HOURS OF NOTICE BY THE CITY

LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE

45

60'

SEE INCLUDED PR#55 NARRATIVE OF CHANGES FOR MORE INFORMATION

5/10/2018

Transaction Deposit Deposit Withdrawal

Account:

Volume Banking Credits St. Paul Public Schools

Requested 3/4/2015 8/2/2017 5/10/2018

Approved Approved Pending 5/16/2018

Permit 15-005 17-003 16-026

Project Murray Middle School Como Park Senior High St. Anthony Park Elementary

Deposit

Withdrawal 7,028 7,672 0 14,700

Balance (cf) 7,028 14,700 743 13,957 743 13,957

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Michelle Furrer Como Zoo 1255 Estabrook Dr St. Paul, MN 55103

Permit 18-009 Seal Island at Como Zoo Consultant: Pat Sveum Pierce Pini and Associates 9298 Central Avenue NE Blaine, MN 55434-3425

Description: New Seal and Sea Lion Exhibit at Como Zoo Stormwater Management: Stormwater to be treated through Como Regional Park Stormwater Master Plan.

District Rule: Alternative compliance sequencing requested for conditions not listed in Rule C because site is within the bounds of the Como Regional Park Stormwater Master Plan. - C, D, F Disturbed Area: 1.92 Acres Impervious Area: 1.47 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions: 1.

Provide paving plan that quantifies total new/reconstructed impervious surfaces. Current analysis assumes all impervious area within proposed disturbed subcatchments is new/reconstructed and is subject to CRWD Rule C. 2.

Contribute $58,800 ($40,000 * 1.47 impervious acres) to Stormwater Impact Fund.

3.

Revise HydroCAD to address the following: a. Calculate times of concentration based on site conditions, or justify the "direct entry" value indicated in the model. b. Use MSE 24-hr Storm Curve 3 rainfall distribution.

Aerial Photo Permit Location Permit Report 18-009

Board Meeting Date: 05-16-2018

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

18-009

Review date:

May 4th, 2018

Project Name:

Seal Island at Como Zoo

Applicant:

Michelle Furrer Como Zoo 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, MN 55103 651-207-0333

Purpose:

The proposed site consists of a renovated Seal and Sea Lion Exhibit, a new filtration system building, a new Zooper Concession building, and an addition to the existing Aquatic Animal Building.

Location:

1225 Estabrook Drive, St. Paul, MN

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 3 Conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. Civil Plans (25 Sheets), by Pierce Pini & Associates, dated 4/25/18, rcvd. 4/26/18.

2. Stormwater Calculations (424 pages), by Pierce Pini & Associates, dated 4/25/18, rcvd.

4/26/18.

3. Geotechnical Evaluation Report, by Braun Intertec, dated 11/4/16, rcvd. 4/26/18.

4. Survey, by Sunde Land Surveying, dated 5/18/16, rcvd 4/26/18.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: A Memorandum of Understanding exists between the CRWD, City of St. Paul Public Works, and City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation that outlines mutual goals of regional water quality treatment for Como Regional Park through a Comprehensive Stormwater Master Plan. This unique and campus-specific plan “will provide guidance of future development of park stormwater facilities, and achieve mutual understandings of implementation and regulatory issues relative to compliance and sequencing.� The Plan identifies goals to achieve the CRWD 1.1-inch volume reduction standard over all impervious surfaces of Como Park, and identifies preliminary BMP locations in each drainage area. This Stormwater Master Plan is currently planned for inclusion in the Como Lake Management Plan that is in development. The Como Regional Park Stormwater BMPs Feasibility Study further identifies specific BMP types and

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2018\18-009 Seal Island at Como Zoo\18-009 Permit Report_R1.doc Page 1 of 4

pollutant load estimates for the zoo and golf course drainage areas. This Feasibility Study is on the CRWD Board agenda for action on May 16, 2018.

During this permit application process, it was mutually agreed upon, because of the advance planning and engineering for Como Regional Park Stormwater BMPs, that the applicant eliminate initial plans to expand an existing infiltration basin and pursue alternative compliance for site conditions not listed in Rule C.3.c.Table 2. through submittal to the Stormwater Impact Fund. These funds will then be allocated to the regional stormwater BMPs to efficiently treat the entire northern drainage area of the zoo, including the proposed Seal and Sea Lion Exhibit.

Two of these BMPs have been identified and sized during the Feasibility Study previously mentioned. One infiltration basin expansion and one iron enhanced sand filtration bench are already slated for design and construction in the near future.

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards ➢ Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed existing rates. ➢ Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site. ➢ Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area. ➢ Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.

2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1-inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. On-site soils are amenable to infiltration of stormwater. Soil borings indicate SP or SP-SM soils. b. The amount of proposed impervious is 63,828 square feet. c. Volume retention required: 63,828 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 5,851 ft3 Table 1. Proposed volume retention through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse).

Volume Volume Retention 1.1-inch 2-inch Retention BMP Provided below Runoff Runoff Required outlet (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.)

Applicant proposed to contribute money to the Stormwater Impact 5,851 Fund

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2018\18-009 Seal Island at Como Zoo\18-009 Permit Report_R1.doc Page 2 of 4

4. The applicant has requested Alternative Compliance Sequencing for site conditions not listed in Rule C.3.c.Table 2. a. The site is part of the Como Regional Park Stormwater Master Plan area and has stormwater treatment included in this larger regional framework. b. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard on-site, in favor of regional treatment through the Como Regional Park Stormwater Master Plan as agreed upon by MOU. c. The applicant has requested the use of off-site options as have been analyzed and will be implemented through the Como Park Regional Stormwater Master Plan in partnership with the CRWD and the City of St. Paul. d. The applicant has requested $58,800 contribution to the Stormwater Impact Fund to be allocated for the Como Park Regional Stormwater Master Plan implementation. e. The project is not linear.

5. Proposed best management practices will achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis.

6. A memorandum of agreement for maintenance of stormwater facilities exists between the St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department and the CRWD. RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards ➢ Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100-year floodplain. ➢ All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements.

Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site do not comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard ➢ Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland. ➢ A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property.

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2018\18-009 Seal Island at Como Zoo\18-009 Permit Report_R1.doc Page 3 of 4

Standards ➢ A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land-disturbing activity. ➢ Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual.

Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition.

3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition.

4. Disturbed area is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted and is sufficient.

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard ➢ Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4.

Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not proposed.

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

Recommendation: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions: 1. Provide paving plan that quantifies total new/reconstructed impervious surfaces.

Current analysis assumes all impervious area within proposed disturbed subcatchments is new/reconstructed and is subject to CRWD Rule C. 2. Contribute $58,800 ($40,000 * 1.47 impervious acres) to the Stormwater Impact Fund.

3. Revise HydroCAD to address the following: a. Calculate times of concentration based on site conditions, or justify the "direct entry" value indicated in the model. b. Use MSE 24-hr Storm Curve 3 rainfall distribution.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2018\18-009 Seal Island at Como Zoo\18-009 Permit Report_R1.doc Page 4 of 4

May 16, 2018 Board Meeting IV. Special Report – A) Como Park BMP Feasibility Study (Zwonitzer)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

May 4, 2018 CRWD Board of Managers Nate Zwonitzer, Water Resource Project Manager Accept the Como Park BMP Feasibility Study

Background CRWD has been working with the City of Saint Paul to develop a stormwater master plan for Como Regional Park, which identified several potential regional BMP sites. In 2016 CRWD was awarded a $1.76 million grant through BWSR’s Targeted Watershed Program (TWP) for work in the Como and McCarrons subwatersheds through 2020. CRWD partnered with the City to conduct a feasibility study to investigate potential regional BMP sites that would provide treatment for large drainage areas and possibly be a part of planned park improvements.

Issues A draft of the feasibility study has been completed and is enclosed. It is currently being reviewed by the City and CRWD. Houston Engineering completed a desktop analysis, field investigations, project concept development, water quality modeling and cost estimates for 12 BMP configurations within Como Park.

Several projects identified achieve the goal of treating the 1.1” rainfall volume for portions of Como Park.

Additionally, these projects will make significant progress towards meeting the TWP grant goal of 100 pounds of phosphorus reduction for the Como Subwatershed. Staff seeks Board comment on the feasibility study and recommends accepting it pending final revisions.

Action Requested Accept the Como Park BMP Feasibility Study, subject to final revisions. enc: Draft Como Regional Park BMP Feasibility Study

W:\06 Projects\Como Lake Projects\Como Regional Park BMPs\Board Memo Como Park BMP Feasibility Final Report 5-16-18.docx

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

DRAFT Maple Grove, MN | HEI No. 6475-0019 May 10, 2018

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

DRAFT

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY Capitol Region Watershed District May 10, 2018

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.

Houston Engineering, Inc. 6901 E Fish Lake Rd., Suite 140 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Phone # 763.493.4522

_________________________________________ Greg Bowles, P.E. License Number 41929

_________________________________________ Date

DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................... 1

2 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 2 2.1 BMP IDENTIFICATION AND DESIGN ............................................................................................ 2 2.1.1 DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.2 CONCEPTUAL BMP DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND IDENTIFICATION............................ 2 2.2 PRELIMINARY CONCEPT BMP ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... 4 2.3 SELECTION OF PREFERRED BMP ALTERNATIVES .................................................................. 9 2.4 ASSESSMENT METHODS.............................................................................................................. 9 2.4.1 VOLUME REDUCTION .............................................................................................................. 9 2.4.2 WATER QUALITY MODELING AND ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 9 2.4.3 COST ESTIMATE ..................................................................................................................... 10

3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................11 3.1 CONCEPT BMP ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................. 11 3.2 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ............................................................................. 24 3.3 RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................................... 27

4 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................28

APPENDICES Appendix A – Geotechnical Evaluation Report Appendix B – Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives  

Narrative Description Concept Design Sketches

Appendix C – Additional Concept BMP Alternative Data   

NW Pond Fact Sheet NW Pond Concept Design Opinion of Probable Cost

DRAFT 1 INTRODUCTION The Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) has initiated this study to assess the feasibility of stormwater management options within Como Regional Park, located in St. Paul, MN. Como Lake is the water resource of concern within the park and is impaired for total phosphorus (TP) 1. Como Park is an opportune location for stormwater treatment, for both runoff in and outside of the park, due to its position within the Como Lake watershed and open greenspace.

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND In 2016, CRWD and Houston Engineering, Inc. (HEI) completed an inventory of stormsewers with Como Park, documented constructed stormwater best management practices (BMPs) within the Como Lake watershed, and analyzed the existing pollutant loads delivered to Como Lake 2. A stormwater master plan is currently being developed to manage stormwater within the park. In this effort, large-scale regional treatment BMPs have been identified as a more efficient approach for stormwater treatment when compared to a site-by-site treatment approach. The regional BMPs have the benefit of treating runoff from within Como Park to both improve water quality to Como Lake 3 and provide collaboration between the City of St. Paul and CRWD 4. Due to the timing of planned projects within the park, the BMP feasibility assessment has been expedited for collaboration purposes.

There are many stakeholders involved in the project (project partners). These partners include CRWD; the City of St. Paul Public Works; and the City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation, which includes Como Regional Park, Como Golf Course, and Como Park Zoo and Conservatory.

1.2 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The project partners have a shared goal of protecting and improving water resources within Como Regional Park, including Como Lake. The project partners have previously agreed upon goals and objectives for the Como Regional Park Stormwater Master Plan. The goals and objectives for this project align with the stormwater master plan efforts by providing regional treatment for collaboration opportunities. The following goals will apply to the development of BMP conceptual designs in this project: Goal 1 – Improve Como Lake water quality by developing conceptual BMP options ready for final design and implementation. 

 

Objective 1 – Achieve a level of treatment that equals a 1.1-inch volume reduction in water leaving the tributary impervious area and entering the BMP. This includes any future planned impervious area and may be done collectively in areas where BMP treatment trains take place.

Objective 2 – Develop and prioritize BMPs based on cost efficiency of treatment and timing of park improvement projects.

Objective 3 – Explore BMPs that target reduction of total phosphorous and total suspended solids (TSS).

Goal 2 – Maintain or improve the function and aesthetics of Como Park, its programing, and its amenities, particularly Como Golf Course. 

Objective 1 – Provide visually appealing BMPs that will be viewed as an amenity by park visitors

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

1

DRAFT 

Objective 2 – Integrate BMPs into the current function of Como Park. For Como Golf Course in particular, ensure that any changes to the layout, play, and difficulty of the course improve the golfing experience for visitors.

2 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Seven locations within Como Park were selected for feasibility analysis of stormwater treatment BMP designs. See Figure 1 for a map of these locations. Como Park has many advantages for stormwater management design at these locations. Multiple locations have existing ponds or are adjacent to collector stormsewer lines. Many of these locations were chosen for their location relative to anticipated park improvement projects so that the BMPs may be used to treat the upcoming projects. Priority was placed on the feasibility of designs that would collect and treat runoff from a larger, regional area.

2.1 BMP IDENTIFICATION AND DESIGN 2.1.1 DATA COLLECTION Various information was collected to determine the feasibility of BMP implementation. Relevant data was reviewed from the previous projects and data gaps were identified and sent to the appropriate project partners, who responded with available information. A planning level Gopher One Call was submitted and review for any major utilities that would affect the function or construction of a BMP. Next, 13 soil borings were taken across anticipated infiltration BMP locations and a detailed geotechnical report can be found in Appendix A. A survey was completed to capture missing stormsewer data and identify any utilities that were marked during the soil boring utility locate. Lastly, it was determined that an on-site walk through with the project partners would be useful to receive input at particular locations as well as gain perspective and understanding of the site’s current function within Como Park and Golf Course.

2.1.2 CONCEPTUAL BMP DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND IDENTIFICATION The BMP type was chosen based on site characteristics, site constraints, and BMP performance. In terms of BMP performance, volume reduction (e.g. infiltration and reuse) were regarded as a preferred stormwater treatment option. The soil borings and estimated seasonal high groundwater determined if infiltration was feasible at a particular location. Seven of the 13 soil borings were also screened for environmental contaminants (Diesel Range Organics [DRO] and Volatile Organic Compounds [VOC]).

VOCs were not detected in any of the screened borings. DRO concentrations were detected at three locations with the detected concentrations and limits shown in Table 1. It is recommended that infiltration not be used as a treatment mechanism at these locations; rather, treatment practices should be lined with impermeable material to prevent contaminates from entering groundwater, as indicated in the conceptual designs.

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

2

DRAFT Figure 1 - Locations Selected for BMP Analysis with Stormsewer

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

3

DRAFT Table 1 - Results of the Environmental Screening of Soil Borings

Soil Boring ID ST-5 ST-10 ST-12

Soil Boring Location Just SW of the Golf Course Parking Lot Within the parking lot south of the pavilion, on the NW side In the greenspace north of the parking lot north of the pavilion

Detected DRO Conc. (mg/kg)

MPCA Unregulated Fill DRO Conc. Limit 5 (mg/kg)

47.3

100

95.7

100

5,960

100

Iron-enhanced sand filtration (IESF) BMPs were specifically identified to be assessed at multiple locations due to their improved removal of dissolved phosphorus. Particular attention was given to IESF benches retrofit into existing ponds. It is essential to allow IESFs to ‘rest’ (or dry) for a period of time to avoid anoxic conditions within the filter (anoxic conditions will release bound phosphorus).

Designs for all BMP types were based on criteria from the Minnesota Stormwater Manual 6. The capacities of the concept designs were designed to achieve the 1.1-inch volume reduction goal within Como Park (see Section 2.2.1), except for the NW Pond. For BMP locations where the goal could not be met, the BMP was maximized to a reasonable sized area, depending on site conditions.

HEI analyzed the sites and brainstormed various types and layouts of BMPs based on the project goals and objectives, BMP design criteria, available and collected data, and CRWD input.

2.2 PRELIMINARY CONCEPT BMP ALTERNATIVES An initial list of BMP descriptions and sketches were presented to CRWD for input and preference on BMP selection. After receiving CRWD feedback, the BMPs were further developed into the following preliminary concept BMP alternatives, provided in Appendix B. The preliminary concept BMP alternatives are summarized in Table 2.

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

4

DRAFT Table 2 – Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Preferred BMP ID

Preliminary BMP ID

BMP Type

Northwest Golf Pond Location NW Pond IESF Bench

NW Pond 1

IESF bench

Golf Parking Lot Location

Description The stormwater pond at the northwest end of the golf course currently treats diverted runoff from an upstream stormsewer.

The opportunity exists to retrofit the pond with an IESF bench to provide additional treatment of dissolved phosphorus. (See Section 3.1 for details.)

The golf course parking lot currently drains to an irregular shaped pond (between the greens for Hole 15 and Hole 18) via stormsewer. Further, there is a trunk stormsewer that passes underneath the parking lot which could be used to divert runoff for regional treatment.

The trunk stormsewer would be diverted to an existing pretreatment basin, through a channel waterway, and into the existing pond, which will be retrofit with an IESF bench that drains to the larger pond to the northeast. (See Section 3.1 for details.)

Golf Lot IESF Bench

Golf Lot 1

IESF Bench

--

Golf Lot 2

IESF Ditch Check

Using the same diversion and watercourse as Golf Lot IESF Bench, this BMP would use a series of check dams with replaceable IESF inserts. This is a newer BMP type that has recently been studied by the University of Minnesota.

--

Golf Lot 3

Rain Gardens

Local runoff from the golf course parking lot will be treated by rain gardens located in islands in the parking lot and greenspace west of the lot. DRO was detected in this location at boring ST-5, therefore bio-filtration with a liner is recommended.

East Golf Ponds Location

Currently, the two east ponds in the golf course receive diverted runoff from hundreds of acres in the watershed, which is then pumped to Como Lake.

--

East Ponds 1a

IESF Bed

This BMP would direct a fraction of the pumped water to IESF beds on the east side of Lexington Ave. A valve would be installed to direct flows to alternate the use of each IESF bed and allow them to rest.

--

East Ponds 1b

IESF Bed

Similar to East Ponds IESF Bed 1, this option would use a holding tank on the east side of Lexington store the pumped runoff and better regulate the usage of the IESF bed.

--

East Ponds 1c

IESF Bed

Similar to East Ponds IESF Bed 1, this option would install a separate wet well and pump in the pond, if use of the existing pumps is not favorable.

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

5

DRAFT Preferred BMP ID

Preliminary BMP ID

BMP Type

Como Zoo Regional Location

Description This location would collect regional stormwater runoff from Como Zoo as well as runoff from the residential area upstream of the zoo. Four soil borings were taken at this location. Only soil boring number 1, near the existing Zoo infiltration basin, showed suitable conditions for infiltration.

--

Zoo 1a

Filtration Basin

The stormsewer could be treated by a filtration basin. This would require moving the Hole 8 white tee-box, and the reconstruction of the trunk stormsewer in order to raise the invert elevation to be able to discharge filtered water to downstream stormsewer.

Zoo 1 – Filtration Basin

Zoo 1b

Filtration Basin

Similar to Zoo Filtration Basin 1, this option installs a smaller pipe parallel the trunk stormsewer. (See Section 3.1 for details.)

Zoo 2 – Infiltration Basin

There is an existing infiltration basin adjacent to the zoo stormsewer, which captures a small portion of the zoo. This basin could be expanded, to receive runoff from the zoo stormsewer. The size of the basin is limited by steep slopes and the Hole 7 fairway. (See Section 3.1 for details.)

Zoo 2

Infiltration Basin

--

Zoo 3

Underground Infiltration

Because of the limited space for surface infiltration, an underground system could be considered under the Hole 7 fairway. A pretreatment basin would be provided at existing infiltration basin.

--

Zoo 4

Underground Infiltration

Similar to Zoo 3 underground, but the location of the pretreatment basin could be moved to near the Hole 8 tee-boxes.

Zoo Combo

Zoo 1b & Zoo 2

Infiltration & Filtration Basins

Combine Zoo 1 and Zoo 2 into a treatment train. (See Section 3.1 for details.)

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

6

DRAFT Preferred BMP ID

Preliminary BMP ID

BMP Type

Pavilion North Location

Pavilion North Rain Gardens

Pavilion North 1

Rain Gardens

Pavilion South Parking Lot Location

Pavilion South Parking Lot

Pavilion South 1

Infiltration & Filtration Swale

Description The parking lot north of the pavilion was identified as another potential location to treat the trunk stormsewer which runs through the park. However, it was determined that the trunk stormsewer was too low, relative to the lake, to provide regional treatment.

Rain gardens would provide treatment to the pavilion north parking lot. Bio-filtration with a liner is recommended due to soils and high DRO levels detected at boring ST-12. (See Section 3.1 for details.)

Soil boring number 8 (more southern boring in the parking lot) and potentially boring 9 (east of the parking lot) were suitable for infiltration. Boring 10 (more northern boring in the parking lot) showed suitable soils, but DRO was detected 5-7 feet below grade. Soil Boring number 6 (southeast of the fountain) was suitable for infiltration.

This alternative is a treatment train of an infiltration swale overflowing to a filtration basin. The parking lot would sheet flow to curb cuts that would lead to a bioinfiltration swale. Runoff that is not captured in the infiltration swale would overflow to a filtration basin. (See Section 3.1 for details.)

Pavilion South Regional Location

This location provides an area for regional treatment within Como Park. There are challenges in this area due to the high usage of this park space, utilities, the depth of stormsewer and the large contributing drainage area. The more simple options were first analyzed, which lead to the exploration of other, more expensive BMP alternatives.

Pavilion South 2a

Infiltration Basin

This concept was developed to show the approximate area of a surface infiltration BMP, sized to treat the goal of 1.1-inches of runoff from impervious surface within the drainage area. This alternative is likely infeasible due to the large amount of park area that is required, and the extensive lowering of the ground surface elevation.

Infiltration Basin

This concept was developed to show the approximate area of a surface infiltration BMP, sized to treat 0.5-inches of runoff from impervious surface in the drainage area. This option does not meet the 1.1-inch goal, but results in a more manageable treatment area required. Various arrangements of surface infiltration basins may be explored.

--

--

Pavilion South 2b

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

7

DRAFT Preferred BMP ID

Preliminary BMP ID

BMP Type

Pavilion South Regional 1 – Reuse/UG Infilt.

Pavilion South 3

Reuse / Underground Infiltration

--

Pavilion South 4a

Infiltration Stream

Pavilion South Regional 2 – Recirculating Infilt. Stream

Pavilion South 4b

Recirculating Infiltration Stream

Description With an underground infiltration concept, maintaining separation from the seasonal high groundwater restricts the options for its location. The seasonal high groundwater is assumed to be near the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of the lake (881.4). The simplest solution is to capture water from the stormsewer further upstream (west). Reuse could also be considered with this alternative. (See Section 3.1 for details.)

Runoff from the stormsewer to the southwest can be treated through an infiltration design consisting of an intermittent stream, plantings, landscaping, weir structures to provide storage, and infiltration throughout the system (see example photo below). A normally dry, rock stream bed would meander through the park three to five feet below the existing ground elevation. During rain events, weirs or ditch checks would store runoff in the ‘floodplain’ of the stream, and runoff would subsequently infiltrate.

This alternative builds on the infiltration stream design, but includes underground storage and recirculation for the purpose of providing more volume to infiltration through the stream. (See Section 3.1 for details.)

Pavilion This alternative consists of a holding tank or pond to collect the regional runoff.

IESF Bed Runoff would then be pumped to a set of IESF beds.

South 5 ** Bold BMP Alternatives indicate the preferred alternatives selected for further analysis and concept design --

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

8

DRAFT 2.3 SELECTION OF PREFERRED BMP ALTERNATIVES A meeting was held CRWD on February 2nd, 2018, where the twenty-one preliminary concept BMP alternatives were presented and discussed. Nine BMPs were selected for further conceptual design and assessment.

The southern golf course pond (South Golf Pond) does not currently receive runoff from the trunk storm sewers. It is also land-locked with an approximate normal water elevation (871.2) well beneath the water surface elevation of Como Lake (879.9), therefore, there is no opportunity to install a gravity outlet pipe.

Treatment at this location would require routing additional runoff to the pond, treating it, and then installing a pump to drawdown water elevation of the pond. It is noted that there are localized flooding concerns in the golf course due to the lack of an outlet, but because the pond is land locked, it is not contributing pollutants to Como Lake. Therefore, treatment at this location would not provide additional water quality benefit to Como Lake and thus does not meet the goals of this study. For this reason, BMP alternatives were not further pursued at the South Golf Pond.

No BMP alternative was selected for preliminary concept design. There are concerns with the potential treatment of groundwater, since the elevation of these ponds is below the elevation of the lake. Options to retrofit either of the two east golf course ponds with an IESF bench were not pursued due to issues with altering the pond elevations. Pumped IESF beds were also not pursued because of limited available space and high pedestrian traffic within the park and golf course at this location.

2.4 ASSESSMENT METHODS The nine concept BMP alternatives were refined and assessed for water quality performance.

Construction and maintenance costs were estimated for the life of the BMP.

2.4.1 VOLUME REDUCTION As an initiative in the Como Park stormwater masterplan efforts, a Volume Reduction Memo4 was previously drafted to outline the process and determinations used to define volume reduction within Como Park based on CRWD permitting rules. The method set forth in that document were used in this study to determine the 1.1-inch volume reduction goals. The BMP water quality treatment volume was then compared to the volume reduction goals within and outside of Como Park.

2.4.2 WATER QUALITY MODELING AND ASSESSMENT The Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage through Pits, Puddles, and Ponds (P8) Urban Catchment Model software program was used to model water quality inflow and removals through the proposed BMPs. P8 simulates rainfall, pollutant loading, and runoff from the watershed and subsequently routes the runoff through water quality treatment features that simulate pollutant particle removal. The existing P8 model from previous studies was modified with the BMP alternatives to determine the reduction of TSS, TP, and volume each would provide. For more information on the development of the existing conditions model, see the Como Park Stormwater Inventory and Watershed Analysis Report 2.

Because many of the concept BMPs are in a treatment train (i.e., a downstream feature that also removes pollutants), the BMP removals cannot be simply calculated at the BMP. For example, introducing

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

9

DRAFT a BMP upstream of a pond will reduce the amount of pollutants to the pond and, therefore, reduce the pollutants the pond removes. To account for these treatment train effects, the removals of the BMPs were quantified by reduction of TSS, TP, and volume to the resource of concern (Como Lake) and compared to existing conditions at the resource of concern. Further, percent removals are based on the total load from the BMP drainage area, rather than the inflow to the BMP. This is because some of the BMPs will capture a fraction of the annual inflow and the remaining flow in large storms will bypass the BMP. IESFs introduce iron into a sand filter to increase the removal of dissolved phosphorus through chemical sorption. To model this removal, the CRWD particle file was modified, which specifies removal percentages at various particle sizes. The dissolved fraction (P0%) filtration efficiency was changed from 50% to a value of 70%. This is consistent with 70% dissolved phosphorus removal, conservatively selected from a study of sand filter benches in a 2010 Saint Anthony Falls Laboratory (SAFL) report 7.

Actual dissolved phosphorus removal percentages for monitored locations in the report vary in range from 30%-90%, while dissolved phosphorus capture was greater than 50%.

2.4.3 COST ESTIMATE A preliminary opinion of probable costs (OPC), engineering, administrative, and annual maintenance costs were estimated to determine total BMP implementation costs over a 30 year period. The estimates are approximate and should not be used for bidding or construction. They were developed without the benefit of detailed designs and are not intended to encompass all bid items. Also, the presence of groundwater, significant utilities, access issues, or other unanticipated factors could inflate the cost higher than estimated. Therefore, a 30% contingency was added to each estimate, and the actual costs should be expected to vary. Engineering design and administrative costs were estimated at 25% of the OPC. Long-term maintenance of BMPs is critical to ensuring that they continue to perform as designed. The proposed BMPs will require periodic sediment removal, inspection, mowing, and/or repair. To estimate the annual average cost for long-term maintenance, methods from five sources (Chisago SWCD, 2011; EPA, 1999; Schueler et. al., 1992; WCD, 2014; WERF, 2013) 8 were applied and averaged over each BMP Type. It is expected that the IESF benches (at the Golf Lot and NW Pond) will have a reduced lifespan due to high loading of runoff. Therefore, the life cycle was reduced from 30 years to 20 years for these BMPs.

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

10

DRAFT 3 RESULTS 3.1 CONCEPT BMP ALTERNATIVES The nine concept BMPs alternatives were presented to the project partners on March 23rd, 2018.

Appendix C includes descriptions and discussion of the BMPs at each location, concept sketches, and OPCs of the alternatives which were presented at the meeting. Also included in the analysis and discussion are three scenarios of treatment trains. The results are described below and summarized in Table 3, which tabulates the BMP volume reductions, removals, and costs as well as ranks the BMP alternatives based on the annualized cost to remove TP.

NW Pond IESF Bench Description - The NW Golf Pond as shown in Figure 2 is a 1.75-acre pond that was built for stormwater treatment in 2007 and also serves as a feature to Como Golf Course. The pond captures runoff from 157 residential acres northwest of the Como Golf Course. In addition, the pond receives inflow which is pumped from Gottfrieds Pit, a pond with a 521-acre drainage area of residential and commercial land. Although the pond provides significant TSS removal there is opportunity for additional treatment of dissolved phosphorus through retrofitting the pond with an IESF bench. The sand bench would be cut into the existing grade along Hole 3 and would be an out-of-play golfing hazard due to the tendency of IESFs to form ridged clumps. An automated control valve will be included to bypass flows from Gottfrieds Pit in order to let the filter rest (dry).

The valve could be included at the pond outlet or at the upstream diversion structure.

Additional Design Considerations - Runoff from Gottfrieds Pit is pumped into a stormsewer that is captured by the NW Pond and routed downstream through the large trunk sewer in the golf course. It is understood that this pumping can occur for days after a rain event. This brings a unique challenge to designing an IESF due to the drying requirements of an IESF to avoid anoxic conditions. Preliminary conceptual design of the NW Pond IESF utilized automated valves to divert water away from the IESFs during required drying times 1. There are multiple possible configurations of an automated valve that could be explored, including locating the valve in the diversion structure or at the pond outlet. Further, the following ideas may encourage the drying of IESFs:  Lining the bottom of the sand bed,  Drawing the pond down further than the IESF bed surface,  Sloping the bottom of the IESF to the drain tile, and  Incorporating edging along the pond-filter interface.

Extensive maintenance should be considered due to the large drainage area and high pollutant loading.

1

P8 does not have the ability to model a user defined inflow or time dependent flow changes (i.e. the opening and closing of a valve which are proposed in the NW Pond IESF and Golf Lot IESF). In order to incorporate the modeling of automated valves during the analysis, the pumping from Gottfrieds Pit was not routed to the IESFs.

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

11

DRAFT Results and Analysis – This alternative captures the most TP of any single BMP (excluding the treatment trains) and also provides the largest water quality treatment volume (3.60 ac-ft; three times larger than the next largest BMP alternative analyzed). The pond does not treat any impervious area within the park that counts toward the 1.1-inch volume reduction goal. The play of the golf course would be affected by the IESF (25 feet out-of-play hazard), but the location and size of the IESF could be adjusted to fit the needs of the golf course.

NW Pond IESF Bench Meets 1.1-inch volume reduction goal w/in Como Park

N/A

TP Removed (lb/yr)

31

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP) Cost-Benefit Rank

$923 7 of 12

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

12

DRAFT Figure 2 – NW Pond IESF Bench

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

13

DRAFT Golf Lot IESF Bench Description - The golf course parking lot drains through stormsewer flowing northeast to an irregular shaped pond located between the greens for Hole 15 and Hole 18. That pond would be retrofit with an IESF bench.

Further regional treatment (which includes Como Zoo) would be provided by diverting flow from the trunk stormsewer in this location to an existing basin for pre-treatment. The diverted runoff would flow through the existing waterway, over the waterfall feature, and into the IESF retrofit pond. This alternative gives the golf course an opportunity to revitalize its Hole 18 waterfall feature. Figure 3 shows the concept plan for enhancing this pond.

Additional Design Considerations - Runoff from Gottfrieds Pit is pumped into a stormsewer that is captured by the NW Pond and routed downstream through the large trunk sewer in the golf course. A diversion of the trunk sewer flow could be constructed so that a portion of the flow to reaches this BMP. Similar to the NW Pond IESF Bench, this brings a unique challenge to designing an IESF due to the drying requirements. Conceptual design of the Golf Pond IESF utilized automated valves to divert water away from the IESFs during required drying times. The operation of the upstream NW Pond IESF Bench automated valve, could also affect the operation of this BMP’s automated valve. Further, the following ideas may encourage the drying of IESFs:  Lining the bottom of the sand bed,  Drawing the pond down further than the IESF bed surface,  Sloping the bottom of the IESF to the drain tile, and  Incorporating edging along the pond-filter interface.

Extensive maintenance should be considered due to the large drainage area and high pollutant loading.

Results and Analysis – The 1.1-inch volume reduction goal within the park is not met by this alternative alone, but could be met in a treatment train. The Golf Lot Pond IESF Bench collects the largest drainage area of the preferred BMP alternatives and treats a large amount of TP at a good cost-benefit price (although this is not reflected in the cost-benefit rank). Retrofitting the golf course lot pond with an IESF will have little effect on the play of golf, as the BMP is proposed to be built into the pond area.

Golf Lot IESF Bench Meets 1.1-inch volume reduction goal w/in Como Park

No

TP Removed (lb/yr)

23.9

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP)

$931

Cost-Benefit Rank

9 of 12

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

14

DRAFT Figure 3 – Golf Lot IESF Bench

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

15

DRAFT Zoo 1 - Filtration Basin Description - Runoff will be diverted through a new, smaller stormsewer at a flatter grade to provide sufficient flow to the filtration BMP. Pretreatment will be provided by a hydrodynamic separator in an accessible, upstream manhole. Robust pretreatment should be considered due to the large drainage area and high sediment loading. The filtration basin could be landscaped with grass bottom, sand, plantings, or other features for aesthetics. Figure 4 below shown the concept plan for this filtration basin.

Results and Analysis – The 1.1-inch volume reduction goal within the park is not met by this alternative.

Relocating of the Hole 8 white tee box would be required with this BMP alternative.

Zoo 1 Filtration Basin Meets 1.1-inch volume reduction goal w/in Como Park

No

TP Removed (lb/yr)

16.1

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP)

$927

Cost-Benefit Rank

8 of 12

Figure 4 – Zoo 1 Filtration Basin

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

16

DRAFT Zoo 2 - Infiltration Basin Description – There is an existing infiltration basin in this location that serves as treatment for the zoo’s polar bear exhibit. There is opportunity to capture and treat regional flow from the adjacent trunk stormsewer by diverting sewer flow and expanding the basin. The basin expansion would include a narrow (10 to 20 feet wide) swale along the tree line south of the fairway for Hole 7. Pretreatment would be provided by a hydrodynamic separator in an accessible, upstream manhole. Robust pretreatment should be considered due to the large drainage area and high sediment loading. Figure 5 shows the expanded basin.

Results and Analysis – The 1.1-inch volume reduction goal within the park is not met by this alternative alone, but could be met in a treatment train. This alternative provides the highest cost-benefit of all the alternatives analyzed and still provides a significant amount of TP removal.

Zoo 2 - Infiltration Basin Meets 1.1-inch volume reduction goal w/in Como Park

No

TP Removed (lb/yr)

18.7

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP)

380

Cost-Benefit Rank

1 of 12

Figure 5 – Zoo 2 - Infiltration Basin

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

17

DRAFT Zoo Combination (Zoo Combo) Description - This alternative as showing in Figure 6 combines the Zoo 2 Infiltration Basin and the Zoo 1 Filtration Basin which will capture overflow from the infiltration basin in order to treat a larger volume of runoff.

Results and Analysis – The 1.1-inch volume reduction goal within the park is not met by this alternative alone (not met as shown, but only needs an additional 0.08 ac-ft of volume reduction to meet the goal), but could be met in a treatment train. When considering the addition of the Zoo 1 Filtration Basin (Zoo Combo) in series with the Zoo 2 Infiltration Basin, the TP removal is marginally increased by 6.2 lbs. That increase in removal would cost an estimated $1,257/lb of TP. This shows that the addition of the Zoo Filtration Basin to the Zoo 2-Infiltration Basin as a treatment train (Zoo Combo) is more expensive.

Zoo Combination Meets 1.1-inch volume reduction goal w/in Como Park

No

TP Removed (lb/yr)

24.9

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP)

$827

Cost-Benefit Rank

4 of 12

Figure 6 – Zoo Combination

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

18

DRAFT Pavilion North Raingardens Description - Raingardens shown in Figure 7 would be located near the parking lot to capture runoff. The parking lot would be regraded, and curb cuts would be added to allow runoff to enter the lined bio-filtration basins. A poly liner would be used within the basins due to soils and high DRO levels detected at 10-12 feet of depth.

Results and Analysis – The lack of regional treatment and high maintenance cost of raingardens results in the worst cost-benefit of the BMP alternatives. However, this alternative, along with other treatment options, should be considered in reconstruction of the parking lot – which could require stormwater treatment as it meets the 1.1-inch volume reduction goal.

Pavilion North Raingardens Meets 1.1-inch volume reduction goal w/in Como Park

Yes

TP Removed (lb/yr)

2.0

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP)

$3,478

Cost-Benefit Rank

12 of 12

Figure 7 – Pavilion North Raingardens

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

19

DRAFT Pavilion South Parking Lot Infiltration/Filtration Swale Description - This concept BMP is an infiltration swale overflowing to a swale with filtration (including underdrain). The ability for infiltration will depend on further soil analysis to feasibility due to variability in the soil. The parking lot would sheet flow to curb cuts that would lead to a bio-infiltration/filtration swale with possible terraced seating (see photo in Figure 8).

Additional Design Considerations  Option to include iron-enhanced ditch check filtration practices  Option to include pervious pavers or tree trenches in parking lot; incorporating other BMPs will allow for a smaller infiltration/filtration swale.

Results and Analysis – This alternative ranked high in the cost benefit analysis. A large contributor to this is the lower maintenance estimate for infiltration practices. If plantings are included resulting in a feature more closely representing a raingarden, the cost of maintenance could rise. Creative BMP designs could accommodate high pedestrian traffic and provide an amenity to the park.

Pavilion South Parking Lot Meets 1.1-inch volume reduction goal w/in Como Park

Yes

TP Removed (lb/yr)

4.5

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP) Cost-Benefit Rank

$832 5 of 12

Figure 8 – Pavilion South Parking lot Infiltration/Filtration Swale

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

20

DRAFT Pavilion South Regional 1 - Reuse & Underground Infiltration Description - With an underground infiltration concept, maintaining separation from the seasonal high groundwater restricts the options for it’s location. The seasonal high groundwater is assumed to be near the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of the lake (881.4). The simplest solution is to capture water from the upstream southwest stormsewer, as shown in Figure 9. The concept shown is to combine the underground infiltration gallery with underground storage for water reuse.

Additional Considerations - If water reuse is desired, there would need to be a water demand. The water demand could be irrigating this area of the park, a type of filling station for watering vehicles, or using the reuse stormwater for fountains or other water features.

Results and Analysis – The alternative does meet the 1.1-inch volume reduction goal and removes a high amount of TP, but as the system is underground, it is known that the cost-benefit will be relatively higher.

The BMP size and cost could be reduced by implementing surface BMPs within the drainage area to reduce the required volume of the underground BMP. The impacts to the park consist of loss of trees, but the usable park space is maintained.

Pavilion South Regional 1 Meets 1.1-inch volume reduction goal w/in Como Park

Yes

TP Removed (lb/yr)

21.2

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP)

$2,172

Cost-Benefit Rank

10 of 12

Figure 9 – Pavilion South Regional 1 – Reuse & UG Infiltration

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

21

DRAFT Pavilion South Regional 2 – Recirculating Infiltrating Stream Description - This concept BMP design consists of 3 features outlined below.

Meandering-infiltrating stream – Runoff from the stormsewer to the southwest can be treated through an infiltration design consisting of an intermittent meandering stream, plantings, landscaping, weir structures to provide storage, and infiltration throughout the stream corridor (see example photo in Figure 10). A normally dry, rock stream bed would meander through the park at about two feet below the existing ground elevation. During rain events, stone weirs would store runoff in the ‘floodplain’ of the stream, and runoff would subsequently infiltrate.

Recirculation Tank – The system above would include additional treatment by incorporating a large underground storage tank upstream of the infiltrating stream. Pretreatment would be provided in the storage tank and a hydrodynamic separator can be considered upstream. The underground storage would capture additional runoff that would then be pumped to the upstream end of the stream and ‘recirculated’ through the infiltration stream. Recirculated water will infiltrate or continue down the stream into storage, where the cycle will continue until all of the runoff in the system is infiltrated. This would provide a water feature amenity as the stream bed would be flowing with water after the rain event is over. The benefit is treatment for a greater volume of water, while providing an amenity to Como Park.

Underground Infiltration – To provide additional treatment and flexibility, an underground infiltration system would be installed. Plumbing would allow the recirculation tank to pump water into the infiltrating stream or the underground infiltration system.

Additional Design Considerations a. There are many possible configurations of this BMP that can be further explored to maximize treatment efficiency. b. As an option to showcase different types of stormwater treatment BMPs, a treatment train of various BMP types could be implemented for education and outreach. Further, with the recirculation system, the stored water could be used for live-action demonstrations or research purposes. c. If drawdown requirements are a concern, the recirculation system could be used with a filtration BMP, allowing for faster drawdown time. d. The holding tank could double as a stormwater reuse system.

Results and Analysis – Even with the complexity of the recirculation system, the cost-benefit is similar to the Pavilion South Regional 1 with the same removals. This is attributed to the surface features reducing the underground storage required, thereby off-setting the high cost of underground treatment. Some usable park space is lost due to the stream corridor, but that loss is minimal compared to the other surface BMPs in the preliminary alternatives analysis. Further, surface BMPs will better promote educational opportunities.

Pavilion South Regional 2 Meets 1.1-inch volume reduction goal w/in Como Park

Yes

TP Removed (lb/yr)

21.2

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP)

$2,363

Cost-Benefit Rank

11 of 12

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

22

DRAFT

Figure 10 – Pavilion South Regional 2 – Recirculating Infiltrating Stream

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

23

DRAFT Alternative Treatment Train Combinations Description – Three treatment train options were analyzed in order to maximize volume reduction and TP removal. The options include different combinations of the BMPs proposed for Como Zoo and Golf course.

Results and Analysis – The Zoo 2 & Golf Parking Lot treatment train is the most efficient of the three analyzed, while The Zoo Combination & Golf Parking Lot treatment train is less efficient as shown by the higher benefit cost than both of the individual BMPs by themselves. The Zoo 2, Golf Parking Lot & Northwest Golf Course Pond option is slightly less efficient than the Zoo 2 & Golf Lot, but it removes the most phosphorus out of all the alternatives.

Golf Lot & Zoo Combo Meets 1.1-inch volume reduction goal w/in Como Park

Yes

TP Removed (lb/yr)

43.6

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP)

$853

Cost-Benefit Rank

6 of 12

Zoo 2 & Golf Lot Meets 1.1-inch volume reduction goal w/in Como Park

Yes

TP Removed (lb/yr)

37.5

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP)

$633

Cost-Benefit Rank

2 of 12

Zoo 2, Golf Lot & NW Pond Meets 1.1-inch volume reduction goal w/in Como Park

Yes

TP Removed (lb/yr)

58.3

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP)

$773

Cost-Benefit Rank

3 of 12

3.2 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Table 3 tabulates the BMP volume reductions, removals, and costs as well as ranks the BMP alternatives based on the annualized cost to remove TP.

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

24

DRAFT Table 3 - Concept BMP Alternatives Performance and Efficiency Table

Volume Reduction

BMP Name

BMP Type

Volume Treated7

BMP Removals TP

TSS

%

Construction, Engineering & Admin

Annual Maintenance

Annualized 30-yr LifeCycle Cost

30-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit ($/lb TP)

CostBenefit Rank

Volume

Drainage Area (ac)

BMP Size (sq-ft)

1.1" Volume Reduction Goal (ac-ft)

1.1" Goal w/in Como Park (ac-ft)

BMP WQ Treatment Volume (ac-ft)

(lb/yr)

%

(lb/yr)

%

(acft/yr)

%

(acft/yr)

Cost

NW Pond

IESF Bench

153.24

6,200

4.42

0.00

3.601

31

28%

2517

5%

0.0

0%

93.7

87%

$359,311

$14,372

$28,657

9233

73

Golf Lot

IESF Bench

278.64

1,480

6.58

1.185

0.551

23.9

20%

872

3%

0.0

0%

54.2

37%

$279,460

$11,178

$22,288

9313

93

Zoo 1

Filtration Basin

62.0

9,800

1.91

0.93

0.202

16.1

37%

3882

21%

0.0

0%

35.8

82%

$266,936

$9,183

$14,897

927

8

Zoo 2

Infiltration Basin

63.2

13,420

1.91

0.93

0.65

18.7

40%

3136

16%

24.5

52%

27.8

59%

$176,978

$1,841

$7,102

380

1

Zoo Combo

Filtration Basin & Infiltration Basin

63.2

23,220

1.91

0.93

0.852

24.9

53%

4877

25%

24.3

52%

40.4

86%

$369,074

$12,696

$20,597

827

4

Pavilion North

Rain Gardens

3.4

2,875

0.10

0.10

0.072

2

62%

1133

91%

0.0

0%

3.1

92%

$123,708

$4,256

$6,904

3478

12

Pavilion South Parking Lot Pavilion South Regional 1 Pavilion south Regional 2

Infiltration and Filtration Swale Reuse Tank and Underground Infiltration Infiltration Stream and Underground Infiltration

7.4

9,200

0.15

0.15

0.152

4.5

84%

2438

91%

3.4

74%

4.2

91%

$93,351

$971

$3,746

832

5

68.7

26,180

0.94

0.94

0.94

21.2

63%

13081

66%

15.2

66%

15.2

66%

$1,039,672

$17,466

$46,067

2172

10

68.7

29,000

0.94

0.94

0.94

21.2

63%

12957

66%

15.4

67%

15.4

67%

$1,130,676

$18,995

$50,100

2363

11

Alternative Treatment Train Combinations Golf Lot & Zoo Combo

Treatment Train

278.64

24,700

6.58

1.185

1.406

43.6

38%

4650

18%

24.2

17%

86.0

61%

$648,534

$23,875

$37,2163

8533

6

Zoo 2 & Golf Lot

Treatment Train

278.64

14,900

6.58

1.185

1.206

37.5

34%

3309

13%

24.3

16%

73.4

50%

$456,438

$13,019

$23,7213

6333

2

Zoo 2, Golf Lot & NW Pond

Treatment Train

278.64

21,100

6.58

1.185

4.806

58.3

32%

5068

8%

8.3

5%

180.7

109%8

$815,749

$27,391

$45,0883

7733

3

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Volume after the multiplier of 0.8 was applied for iron enhanced filtration Volume after the multiplier of 0.55 was applied for filtration A 20-year annualized benefit was used for the IESF BMPs due to high loading rates The value shown does not include GottFrieds Pit (513.0 acres), which drains to this BMP but may not be treated The Golf Parking Lot 1.1" Goal is 0.18; most of the remaining 1.1" goal within the park is from Como Zoo. Sum of BMP WQ Treatment Volumes included in the Treatment Train Includes volume infiltrated or filtrated through the BMP The Treated Volume is greater than 100% because treated runoff from the NW Pond IESF is treated again by the Golf Lot IESF

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

25

DRAFT The results were reviewed in light of the quantifiable objectives under Goal 1 of the project, and are highlighted are below: 

  

The BMPs that meet the 1.1-inch volume reduction goal of their respective drainage areas within Como Park are: o Pavilion North Rain Gardens (can adjust size with parking lot reconstruction) o Pavilion South Parking Lot o Pavilion South Regional 1 o Pavilion South Regional 2 o Golf Lot-Zoo Combo Treatment Train o Zoo 2-Golf Lot Treatment Train o Zoo 2-Golf Lot- NW Pond Treatment Train Zoo 2 infiltration basin ranks the highest for dollar per pound of TP removed, at an exceptionally good cost-benefit ($380/lb).

Pavilion South Regional 1 and 2 remove the most TSS (approximately 13,000 lbs/yr TSS) Zoo 2-Golf Lot-NW Pond treatment train removes the most TP (58.3 lbs/yr), at an exceptional value ($773/lb TP) and the NW Pond removes the most TP of the single (non-treatment train) BMPs (31.0 lbs/yr TP).

The three treatment train combinations that were analyzed are the Golf Lot-Zoo Combo, Zoo 2-Golf Lot, and Zoo 2-Golf Lot-NW Pond. Because these BMPs are in series, the removals of each individual BMP are not simply additive. The multiple goals of the project make assessing the results a type of balancing act of prioritizing goals, namely TP removal, cost, and volume reduction goals. When considering the treatment train BMP combinations, the following are important observations:  Combining filtration BMP in series is generally not preferred because the water filtered in the upstream filtration BMP would be filtered a second time in the downstream filtration BMP. However, in the case of the treatment trains modeled, there is a considerable amount of additional untreated runoff that is captured by the downstream BMP.  When considering Zoo 2-Golf Lot vs. Golf Lot-Zoo Combo; the addition of the Zoo Filtration Basin (Zoo Combo) in series with the Golf Lot IESF (Golf Lot-Zoo Combo), the TP removal is marginally increased by 6.1 lbs. That increase in removal would cost an estimated $13,495 annually, or $2,212/lb of TP. This shows that the addition of the Zoo Filtration Basin to the Zoo 2-Golf Lot treatment train is relatively expensive.  Zoo 2-Golf Lot-NW Pond treatment train: o First, it should be noted that the Golf Lot treats less TP, even though it has a larger drainage area. This is because the NW Pond is a larger IESF with more storage in the larger pond. o Second, the Zoo Infiltration Basin in series with the Golf Lot IESF is an excellent combination as the overflow from the undersized infiltration basin will flow to the Golf Lot IESF. If more treatment is desired, the addition of the NW Pond could provide an increase of 20.8 lbs TP at a relatively low cost (ranked 3rd overall). o Last, in the treatment train as modeled, the Golf Lot IESF is essentially double treating the filtered water from the NW Pond IESF (as shown by the Volume Treated column over 100% of the inflow). This is not desirable because of the inefficient treatment and it does not allow the IESF to rest. However, because automated valves are proposed for both the NW Pond IESF and the Golf Lot IESF, flow from Gottfrieds Pit will bypass the NW Pond IESF (via an automated valve, which could occur after 48 hours of inundation), and will also bypass the Golf Lot IESF (via an automated valve).

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

26

DRAFT 3.3 RECOMMENDATION This study shows feasible designs and water quality analysis for many locations throughout Como Regional Park that will provide regional treatment of impervious park area. Technical analysis of results related to the project goals and objectives (as discussed in Section 3.2) will help determine the recommendation of proposed BMPs for implementation. It is recommended that selection of alternatives should be made toward the goals set forth in the Como Lake TMDL1.

There are other less technical factors that also determine the selection of proposed BMPs. These factors include, the benefits of regional practices, collaboration between entities, anticipated park improvement projects, and scheduling/timing of the planned projects. The locations analyzed were selected with these purposes in mind. The following park improvement projects are anticipated within the drainage areas of the concept BMP alternatives (as documented in the Volume Reduction memo4): Pavilion north parking lot, pavilion south parking lot, golf course parking lot, and projects within Como Zoo. It is understood that Como Zoo is the most urgent anticipated park improvement project.

The Zoo 2 Infiltration Basin is the highest ranked alternative in terms of annualized cost-benefit ($/lb TP), and also treats urgent upstream planned projects within the zoo 2. Therefore, Zoo 2 would be the highest recommend alternative. However, Zoo 2 does not meet the 1.1-inch volume reduction goal within the park. If the 1.1-inch volume reduction goal for Como Zoo is to be met by these BMPs, a treatment train combination must also be considered. Zoo 2-Golf Lot treatment train meets the 1.1-inch goal for both the Como Zoo and the golf course parking lot, and also is the second highest ranked alternative. Because of this, and the fact that Zoo 2-Golf lot meets the project goals and objectives, it should be considered a priority by the project partners for implementation.

If more treatment is desired, the next most cost-effective step is to include the NW Pond in the treatment train, which was analyzed as the Zoo 2-Golf Lot-NW Pond treatment train and is ranked third. This combination removes the highest amount of TP of the alternatives analyzed and still provides an exceptional cost-benefit.

For the pavilion north location, since it is infeasible to treat regional flows, it is best that any improvement project re-evaluate the treatment options for the goals of that project.

Lastly, the pavilion south parking lot and regional alternatives can meet the 1.1-inch volume reduction goal.

Many options were considered in the feasibility analysis to provide combined treatment of the regional stormsewer as well as the pavilion south parking lot. The Pavilion South Regional 2 preferred alternative can treat both the regional and parking lot flows. This alternative is more expensive due to the recirculation and underground features but is the recommended project to consider if regional treatment and other ancillary benefits are desired. Further investigation of upstream practices may find a more cost-effective solution. Apart from regional treatment, the Pavilion South Parking Lot BMP alterative provides a cost-effective solution for treatment of the anticipated improvement of the parking lot.

2

It should also be noted that all the BMPs that treat runoff from Como Zoo also capture runoff from other areas. In other words, in an actual 1.1-inch rain event, the BMPs’ volume will capture a fraction of runoff from Como Zoo and a fraction of runoff from areas outside the Zoo and Park. This could affect the permitting of projects. Additionally, treatment of other runoff in-lieu of runoff from a project site will also affect the permitting of future projects.

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

27

DRAFT 4 REFERENCES Como Lake TMDL, Capitol Region Watershed District and Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. October 2010.

Como Park Stormwater Inventory and Watershed Analysis. Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) and Houston Engineering Inc. (HEI). 2016.

3 Como Lake Watershed Load Reductions. Draft Technical Memorandum. Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) and Houston Engineering Inc. (HEI). Dated May 25, 2017.

4 Como Park Volume Reduction Goal. Draft Technical Memorandum. Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) and Houston Engineering Inc. (HEI). Dated May 25, 2017.

5 Best Management Practices for the Off-Site Reuse of Unregulated Fill, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), February 2012.

6 Structural stormwater Best Management Practices. (2017, October 31). Minnesota Stormwater Manual.

Retrieved, 2017-2018 from https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Structural_stormwater_Best_Management_Practice s&oldid=34005.

7 Performance Assessment of an Iron-Enhnaced Sand Filtration Trench for Capturing Dissolved Phosphorus.

Erickson A., Gulliver J., St. Anthony Falls Laboratory (SAFL). November 10,2010.

1 2

8

Chisago Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). 2011. City of Center City: Stormwater Retrofit Assessment.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). August 1999. Strassler, E. et al. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices. Chapter 6. EPA-821-R-99-012.

Schueler, Thomas R., Peter A. Kumble, and Maureen A. Heraty. 1992. A current assessment of urban best management practices: techniques for reducing non-point source pollution in the coastal zone.

Anacostia Restoration Team, Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C. Washington Conservation District (WCD). October, 15, 2014. Wilmes Lake Subwatershed Retrofit Analysis.

Prepared for the South Washington Watershed District.

Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). 2013. Pomeroy, C.A., et al. User’s Guide to the BMP SELECT Model, Version 2.0. Prepared by ACR, Colorado State University, University of Utah, and WERF.

DRAFT - COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

28

APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

Table of Contents Description A.

B.

C. D.

E.

Page

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 A.1.

Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1 A.2.

Purpose................................................................................................................................ 1 A.3.

Scope of Services ................................................................................................................. 1 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 2 B.1.

Geologic Overview .............................................................................................................. 2 B.2.

Boring Results ...................................................................................................................... 2 B.3.

Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 4 B.4.

Laboratory Test Results ....................................................................................................... 4 B.5.

Environmental Screening Results ........................................................................................ 5 Preliminary Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 5 C.1.

Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 5 C.2.

Stormwater.......................................................................................................................... 6 Procedures........................................................................................................................................ 7 D.1.

Penetration Test Borings ..................................................................................................... 7 D.2.

Exploration Logs .................................................................................................................. 7 D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets ............................................................................................... 7 D.2.b. Organic Vapor Measurements ............................................................................... 7 D.2.c. Geologic Origins ..................................................................................................... 8 D.3.

Material Classification and Testing ..................................................................................... 8 D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification ............................................................................ 8 D.3.b. Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................. 8 D.4.

Groundwater Measurements .............................................................................................. 8 Qualifications.................................................................................................................................... 8 E.1.

Variations in Subsurface Conditions.................................................................................... 8 E.1.a. Material Strata ....................................................................................................... 8 E.1.b. Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................... 9 E.2.

Use of Report....................................................................................................................... 9 E.3.

Standard of Care.................................................................................................................. 9

Appendix Soil Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring Sheets ST-1 to ST-13 Descriptive Terminology of Soil

A.

Introduction

A.1. Project Description This Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report addresses the proposed design and construction of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) at the Como Park Golf Course located at 1225 Estabrook Drive in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Details of the project components were not available at the time of this report and a more comprehensive geotechnical exploration may be required during future phases of this project.

A.2. Purpose The purpose of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation is to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at selected exploration locations and evaluate their impact on the design and construction of potential stormwater BMPs.

A.3. Scope of Services We performed our scope of services for the project in accordance with our Proposal for a Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, dated December 12, 2017, and authorized on December 14, 2017. The following list describes the geotechnical tasks completed in accordance with our authorized scope of services. 

Reviewing background information.



Staking and clearing the exploration location of underground utilities. Houston Engineering selected and we staked the new exploration locations. We acquired the surface elevations and locations with GPS technology using the State of Minnesota’s permanent GPS base station network. The Soil Boring Location Sketch included in the Appendix shows the approximate locations of the borings.



Performing 13 standard penetration test (SPT) borings, denoted as ST-1 to ST-13 to nominal depths of 21 to 26 feet below grade across the site.



Performing environmental screening at 7 of the selected boreholes (ST-5, ST-6, ST-8, ST-10, ST11, ST-12, and ST-13).

Houston Engineering, Inc. Project B1712486 January 15, 2017 Page 2



Performing laboratory testing on select samples to aid in soil classification and engineering analysis.



Preparing this report containing a boring location sketch, logs of soil borings, a summary of the soils encountered, results of laboratory tests, results of our environmental screening, and recommendations for stormwater improvements.

B.

Results

B.1. Geologic Overview The Ramsey County geologic atlas indicates that the site is underlain with glacial outwash sands. We based the geologic origins used in this report on the soil types, in-situ and laboratory testing, and available common knowledge of the geological history of the site. Because of the complex depositional history, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. We did not perform a detailed investigation of the geologic history for the site.

B.2. Boring Results Table 1 provides a summary of the soil boring results, in the general order we encountered the strata.

Please refer to the Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix for additional details. The Descriptive Terminology of Soil sheet in the Appendix includes definitions of abbreviations used in Table 1.

Houston Engineering, Inc. Project B1712486 January 15, 2017 Page 3

Table 1. Subsurface Profile Summary*

Strata

Soil Type ASTM Classification

Range of Penetration Resistances

Commentary and Details 

Pavement section

   

Topsoil fill

  

SM, OL, CL

 

Fill

SM, SP, ML

3 to 28 BPF

     

Swamp deposits

OL, SM, CL

Weight of Hammer to 8 BPF

  

Lacustrine

ML

SP, SP-SM, SM

1 to 10 BPF

4 to 44 BPF

Glacial deposits CL

10 to 20 BPF

Encountered only at boring locations ST-8, ST-10, and ST-11.

Overall thickness ranges from 9 to 15 inches.

Bituminous thickness 3 to 11 inches.

Aggregate base is 6 to 12 inches when encountered.

Encountered at all boring locations without pavement.

Predominantly SM. Dark brown to black.

Thicknesses at boring locations varied from about 1 to 13 inches.

Moisture condition generally moist or wet.

Encountered at all boring locations except ST-2 and ST-4.

Predominantly SM. General penetration resistance of 8 to 20 BPF. Moisture condition generally moist.

General thicknesses at boring locations varied from 4 to 9 feet where encountered.

Extended to a depth of 23 feet at boring ST-12.

Encountered at boring locations ST-2 to ST-5, ST-7, ST-9, and ST-12.

Predominantly organic silt.

Thicknesses at boring locations varied from 3 to 18 feet when encountered.

Extended to termination depth of boring ST-12.

  

General penetration resistance of 2 to 4 BPF. Moisture condition generally wet.

Extended to termination depth of borings ST-4 and ST-7.

   

General penetration resistance of 8 to 12 BPF. Variable amounts of gravel.

Moisture condition generally moist.

Extended to termination depth of borings ST-1 to ST-3, ST-5, ST-6, ST-9, ST-10, and ST-13.

  

General penetration resistance of 14 BPF. Moisture condition generally wet.

Extended to termination depth of borings ST-8 and ST-11.

*Abbreviations defined in the attached Descriptive Terminology of Soil sheet.

Houston Engineering, Inc. Project B1712486 January 15, 2017 Page 4

For simplicity in this report, we define existing fill to mean existing, uncontrolled, or undocumented fill.

B.3. Groundwater Table 2 summarizes the depths where we observed groundwater; the attached Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix also include this information and additional details.

Table 2. Groundwater Summary

Location

Surface Elevation

Measured or Estimated Depth to Groundwater (ft)

Corresponding Groundwater Elevation (ft)

ST-1

892

19

873

ST-2

888.4

17

871 1/2

ST-3

890.4

18.5

872

ST-4

884.3

---

---

ST-5

886.2

15

871

ST-6

891.5

15

876 1/2

ST-7

888.4

19

869 1/2

ST-8

889.9

11

879

ST-9

888.2

14

874

ST-10

890

13

877

ST-11

890.2

---

---

ST-12

889.6

---

---

ST-13

889.7

14

875 1/2

Our experience with similar soil indicates that seasonal and annual fluctuations of groundwater should be anticipated.

B.4. Laboratory Test Results Our mechanical analyses indicated that the poorly graded sand with silt contained 5.8 to 10.2 percent silt and clay by weight. The sandy lean clay sample tested contained 68 percent silt and clay by weight.

Houston Engineering, Inc. Project B1712486 January 15, 2017 Page 5

Moisture contents of the sandy soils varied from 4.3 to 4.7 percent, indicating that the material was likely below its optimum moisture content. The moisture content of the clayey sample tested was 16 percent.

B.5. Environmental Screening Results Soil samples were generally collected from depths at intervals where elevated PID measurements were observed in the field. If elevated PID readings were not observed, the soil samples were collected from the depth most likely to be impacted based on the potential contaminant source.

Samples were submitted to Pace Analytical, Montana and analyzed for a combination of the following parameters: 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 8260B



DRO using Method WI MOD DRO

PID field screening results were recorded for soil samples collected from borings ST-5, ST-6, ST-8, ST-10, ST-11, ST-12, and ST-13. Soil samples collected at borings ST-5, ST-6, ST-8, ST-10, ST-11, and ST-13 showed organic vapor concentrations below 1 part per million (ppm), which are considered to be general background readings. PID values from soil boring ST-12 showed a PID value of 3.9 at a depth of 12 1/2 feet, decreasing to 1 ppm or less at in every other sample. A summary of the PID field screening results are included on the boring logs.

VOC’s were not detected from any sample collected on site. DRO was detected in soil samples collected at ST-5 (5-7 feet below grade), ST-10 (5-7 feet below grade) and ST-12 (10-12 feet below grade).

Concentrations of DRO in soil samples collected at ST-5, ST-10, and ST-12 were 47.3 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg), 95.7 mg/kg, and 5,960 mg/kg, respectively.

C.

Preliminary Recommendations

C.1. Discussion The results of this evaluation will be used to select suitable areas for potential stormwater BMPs. A more thorough geotechnical investigation may be necessary after there have been developments in the design phase of this project.

Houston Engineering, Inc. Project B1712486 January 15, 2017 Page 6

C.2. Stormwater We estimated infiltration rates for some of the soils we encountered in our soil borings, as listed in Table 3.

These infiltration rates represent the long-term infiltration capacity of a practice and not the capacity of the soils in their natural state. Field testing, such as with a double-ring infiltrometer (ASTM D3385), may justify the use of higher infiltration rates. However, we recommend adjusting field test rates by the appropriate correction factor, as provided for in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual or as allowed by the local watershed. We recommend consulting the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for stormwater design.

Table 3. Estimated Design Infiltration Rates Based on Soil Classification Soil Type

Infiltration Rate* (inches/hour)

Gravels and gravelly sands

1.63

Sands with less than 12 percent fines, poorly graded or well graded sands

0.8

Silty sands, silty gravelly sands

0.45

Silts, silty, or clayey fine sands

0.2

Clays

0.06

*From Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Rates may differ at individual sites.

Fine-grained soils (silts and clays), topsoil, or organic matter that mixes into or washes onto the soil will lower the permeability. The contractor should maintain and protect infiltration areas during construction.

Furthermore, organic matter and silt washed into the system after construction can fill the soil pores and reduce permeability over time. Proper maintenance is important for long-term performance of infiltration systems.

This geotechnical evaluation does not constitute a review of site suitability for stormwater infiltration or evaluate the potential impacts, if any, from infiltration of large amounts of stormwater.

Houston Engineering, Inc. Project B1712486 January 15, 2017 Page 7

D.

Procedures

D.1. Penetration Test Borings We drilled the penetration test borings with an ATV-mounted core and auger drill equipped with hollowstem auger. We performed the borings in general accordance with ASTM D6151 taking penetration test samples at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals in general accordance to ASTM D1586. The boring logs show the actual sample intervals and corresponding depths.

We sealed penetration test boreholes meeting the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Environmental Borehole criteria with an MDH-approved grout. We will forward a sealing record for those boreholes to the Minnesota Department of Health Well Management Section.

D.2. Exploration Logs D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets The Appendix includes Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings. The logs identify and describe the penetrated geologic materials, and present the results of penetration resistance and other in-situ tests performed. The logs also present the results of organic vapor screening, laboratory tests performed on penetration test samples, and groundwater measurements.

We inferred strata boundaries from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings.

Because we did not perform continuous sampling, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may occur as gradual rather than abrupt transitions.

D.2.b. Organic Vapor Measurements Soils samples recovered from the soil borings were visually and manually classified in the field by an environmental technician using ASTM D 2487 “Unified Soils Classification System” and ASTM D 2488 “Recommended Practice for Visual and Manual Description of Soils.” In addition, the recovered soil samples from each boring location were screened by headspace method for the presence of organic vapors using a photoionization detector (PID). The PID was equipped with a 10.6-electron-volt lamp and calibrated to a 100 parts per million (ppm) isobutylene standard.

Houston Engineering, Inc. Project B1712486 January 15, 2017 Page 8

D.2.c. Geologic Origins We assigned geologic origins to the materials shown on the logs and referenced within this report, based on: (1) a review of the background information and reference documents cited above, (2) visual classification of the various geologic material samples retrieved during the course of our subsurface exploration, (3) penetration resistance and other in-situ testing performed for the project, (4) laboratory test results, and (5) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the site and surrounding area in the past.

D.3. Material Classification and Testing D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification We visually and manually classified the geologic materials encountered based on ASTM D2488. When we performed laboratory classification tests, we used the results to classify the geologic materials in accordance with ASTM D2487. The Appendix includes a chart explaining the classification system we used.

D.3.b. Laboratory Testing The exploration logs in the Appendix note most of the results of the laboratory tests performed on geologic material samples. We performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM procedures.

D.4. Groundwater Measurements The drillers checked for groundwater while advancing the penetration test borings, and again after auger withdrawal. We then filled the boreholes, as noted on the boring logs.

E.

Qualifications

E.1.

Variations in Subsurface Conditions

E.1.a. Material Strata We developed our evaluation, analyses, and recommendations from a limited amount of site and subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from exploration locations continuously with depth. Therefore, we must infer strata boundaries and thicknesses to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and project planning should expect the strata to vary in depth, elevation, and thickness away from the exploration locations.

Houston Engineering, Inc. Project B1712486 January 15, 2017 Page 9

Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until performing additional exploration work, or starting construction. If future activity for this project reveals any such variations, you should notify us so that we may reevaluate our recommendations. Such variations could increase construction costs, and we recommend including a contingency to accommodate them.

E.1.b. Groundwater Levels We made groundwater measurements under the conditions reported herein and shown on the exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. Note that the observation periods were relatively short, and project planning can expect groundwater levels to fluctuate in response to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications, and other seasonal and annual factors.

E.2.

Use of Report

This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. Without written approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects.

E.3.

Standard of Care

In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality.

No warranty, express or implied, is made.

Appendix

LOG OF BORING

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER:

B. Kammermeier

Elev. feet 892.0

Depth feet 0.0

890.9

1.1

FILL

888.0

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

METHOD:

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

DATE:

Description of Materials Symbol FILL

ST-1

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

12/11/17 BPF WL

SCALE:

1" = 4'

Tests or Notes

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, dark brown, moist.

(Topsoil Fill) FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist.

8

POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist, very loose to loose.

(Glacial Outwash)

4

4.0 SP

9 883.0

9.0 SP

POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist to waterbearing, loose to medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

7

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

13

8

871.0

5

21.0 END OF BORING. Water observed at 19 feet with 7 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

An open triangle in the water level (WL) column indicates the depth at which groundwater was observed while drilling. Groundwater levels fluctuate.

Water observed at 19 feet with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 9 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-1

page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER: Elev. feet 888.4 888.2

B. Kammermeier

Depth feet 0.0 0.2

METHOD:

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

DATE:

12/11/17 BPF WL

SCALE:

1" = 4'

Tests or Notes

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

ORGANIC CLAY, black, wet.

(Topsoil) ORGANIC CLAY, black, wet, rather soft.

(Swamp Deposit)

4

882.4

5

6.0 SM

879.4

876.4

SILTY SAND, fine-grained, trace organics, brown, moist.

(Glacial Outwash)

7

9.0 ML

SILT, gray, wet, rather soft.

(Lacustrine)

5

12.0 SM

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

Description of Materials Symbol TS OL

ST-2

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

SILTY SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, with Gravel, with Clay lenses, brown, wet to waterbearing, very loose to loose.

(Glacial Outwash)

6

4

870.4

18.0 SP

867.4

POORLY GRADED SAND, medium- to coarse-grained, with Gravel, brown, waterbearing, loose.

(Glacial Outwash)

21.0

8

END OF BORING. Water observed at 17 feet with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water observed at 17 feet with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 7 1/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-2

page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER: Elev. feet 890.4 889.6

B. Kammermeier

Depth feet 0.0

METHOD:

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

DATE:

12/11/17 BPF WL

SCALE:

1" = 4'

Tests or Notes

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, dark brown, wet.

(Topsoil Fill) FILL: Silt, brown, wet.

6 886.4

4.0 OL

ORGANIC CLAY, black, wet, soft.

(Swamp Deposit)

3

3 881.4

9.0 SM

878.4

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, slightly organic, black, wet, very loose.

(Swamp Deposit)

2

SILT, gray, wet, very soft to rather soft.

(Lacustrine)

1

12.0 ML

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

Description of Materials

Symbol FILL 0.8 FILL

ST-3

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

5

872.4

18.0 SP

869.4

POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, with Gravel, brown, waterbearing, medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

13

21.0 END OF BORING. Water observed at 18 1/2 feet with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water observed at 18 1/2 feet with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 11 1/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-3

page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER: Elev. feet 884.3 884.1

B. Kammermeier

Depth feet 0.0 Symbol 0.2 FILL OL

ST-4

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

METHOD:

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

DATE:

Description of Materials

12/11/17 BPF WL

SCALE:

1" = 4'

Tests or Notes

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

FILL: Lean Clay, black, wet.

(Topsoil Fill) ORGANIC CLAY, fine- to medium-grained, black, wet, soft.

(Swamp Deposit)

3

WH

3 875.3

9.0 OL

ORGANIC CLAY, trace shells, black, wet, soft to rather soft.

(Swamp Deposit)

4

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

4

2

866.3

18.0 ML

863.3

SILT, gray, wet, rather soft.

(Lacustrine)

5

21.0 END OF BORING. Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 5 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-4

page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER: Elev. feet 886.2 886.1

879.2

877.2

874.2

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

872.2

865.2

B. Kammermeier

Depth feet 0.0 Symbol 0.1 FILL FILL

ST-5

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

METHOD:

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

DATE:

Description of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, trace roots, dark brown, moist.

(Topsoil Fill) FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, dark brown, moist.

SCALE:

12/11/17 BPF WL PID ppm

24

0.4

24

0.5

1" = 4'

Tests or Notes

7.0 OL

ORGANIC CLAY, black, wet, medium.

(Swamp Deposit)

7

0.6

SM

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, black, moist, loose.

(Swamp Deposit)

5

0.4

ML

SILT, gray, wet, rather soft.

(Lacustrine)

4

0.2

SPSM

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, waterbearing, loose.

(Glacial Outwash)

10

0.2

10

0.2

9.0

12.0

14.0

21.0 END OF BORING. Water observed at 15 feet with 15 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water observed at 18 1/2 feet with 20 feet after last sample.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 6 1/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-5

page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER: Elev. feet 891.5 891.2

B. Kammermeier

Depth feet 0.0 Symbol 0.3 FILL FILL

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

METHOD:

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

DATE:

Description of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, trace roots, dark brown, moist.

(Topsoil Fill) FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist.

SCALE:

12/11/17

BPF WL MC PID % ppm

28

1" = 4'

Tests or Notes

0.1

13 884.5

7.0 SPSM

877.5

873.5

14

5

0.4 p200 = 8%

9

0.2

12

0.1

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, wet to waterbearing, loose.

(Glacial Outwash)

8

0.1

5

0.1

18.0 SPSM

870.5

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, with Clay seams, brown, moist to wet, loose to medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

14.0 SM

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

ST-6

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, waterbearing, loose.

(Glacial Outwash)

21.0 END OF BORING. Water observed at 15 feet with 15 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water observed at 17 feet with 20 feet after last sample.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 7 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-6

page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER: Elev. feet 888.4 888.1

B. Kammermeier

Depth feet 0.0 0.3

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

METHOD:

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

DATE:

Description of Materials Symbol SM FILL

ST-7

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

12/11/17 BPF WL

SCALE:

1" = 4'

Tests or Notes

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace roots, dark brown, moist.

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, trace organics, dark brown.

27

882.4

10

6.0 OL

ORGANIC CLAY, trace shells, black, wet, rather soft.

(Swamp Deposit)

4

4 876.4

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

874.4

870.4

12.0 SM

SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace shells, black, wet, rather soft.

(Swamp Deposit)

OL

ORGANIC CLAY, trace shells, dark gray, wet, very soft.

(Swamp Deposit)

14.0

WH

18.0 ML

867.4

5

SILT, gray, wet, soft.

(Lacustrine)

2

21.0 END OF BORING. Water observed at 19 feet with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water observed at 19 feet with 19 1/2 feet after last sample.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 5 1/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-7

page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER: Elev. feet 889.9 889.2

883.9

B. Kammermeier

Depth feet 0.0

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

DATE:

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

SCALE:

12/11/17

BPF WL MC PID % ppm

1" = 4'

Tests or Notes

3 inches of bituminous over 6 inches of aggregate base.

FILL: Poorly Graded Sand, with organics, with Gravel, brown to dark brown, moist.

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

8

0.1

8

0.1

17

5

0.2 p200 = 10%

13

0.2

POORLY GRADED GRAVEL, fine- to coarse-grained, with Sand, brown, waterbearing, loose.

(Glacial Outwash)

7

0.1

5

0.1

10

0.3

18.0 CL

868.9

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

12.0 GP

871.9

METHOD:

6.0 SPSM

877.9

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

Description of Materials

Symbol PAV 0.8 FILL

ST-8

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

LEAN CLAY, reddish brown, wet, rather stiff.

(Glacial Till)

21.0 END OF BORING. Water observed at 11 feet with 12 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water observed at 16 1/2 feet with 20 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 7 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-8

page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER: Elev. feet 888.2 887.9

B. Kammermeier

Depth feet 0.0 Symbol 0.3 FILL FILL

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

METHOD:

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

DATE:

Description of Materials

12/11/17 BPF WL

SCALE:

1" = 4'

Tests or Notes

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, trace roots, dark brown, moist.

(Topsoil Fill) FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, trace asphalt debris at 3 feet, trace organics, brown, moist.

14

5

3 879.2

9.0 CL

876.2

LEAN CLAY, trace shells, dark gray, wet, soft.

(Swamp Deposit)

3

12.0 SP

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

ST-9

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, gray, waterbearing, medium dense to dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

44

11

870.2

18.0 SP

867.2

POORLY GRADED SAND, medium- to coarse-grained, with Gravel, gray, waterbearing, very loose.

(Glacial Outwash)

21.0

4

END OF BORING. Water observed at 15 feet with 15 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water observed at 14 feet with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 6 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-9

page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER: Elev. feet 890.0 888.8

B. Kammermeier

Depth feet 0.0 1.3

FILL

884.0

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

SCALE:

12/11/17

BPF WL MC PID % ppm

1" = 4'

Tests or Notes

3 inches of bituminous over 12 inches of aggregate base.

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist.

19

0.1

6

0.2

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

11

POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, with Gravel, dark brown, moist, medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

15

4

0.7 p200 = 6%

0.3

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, medium- to coarse-grained, with Gravel, brown, waterbearing, loose to medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

12

6

0.2

29

0.3

18.0 SPSM

869.0

DATE:

12.0 SPSM

872.0

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

9.0 SP

878.0

METHOD:

6.0 SPSM

881.0

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

Description of Materials Symbol PAV

ST-10

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to coarse-grained, with Gravel, gray, waterbearing, medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

21.0 END OF BORING. Water observed at 13 feet with 15 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water observed at 17 feet with 20 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 6 1/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-10

page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER:

B. Kammermeier

Elev. feet 890.2

Depth feet 0.0

889.2

1.0

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

METHOD:

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

DATE:

Description of Materials Symbol PAV FILL

ST-11

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

SCALE:

12/11/17

BPF WL MC PID % ppm

FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist.

0.2

4.0 CL

869.2

Tests or Notes

11 inches of bituminous.

7 886.2

1" = 4'

SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace Gravel, brown, wet, very stiff.

(Glacial Till)

21.0

14

16

0.1 p200 = 68%

14

0.1

20

0.1

14

0.0

14

0.0

11

0.1

END OF BORING. Water not observed with 19 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-11

page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER: Elev. feet 889.6 889.4

B. Kammermeier

Depth feet 0.0 Symbol 0.3 FILL FILL

ST-12

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

METHOD:

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

DATE:

Description of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, trace roots, dark brown, moist.

(Topsoil Fill) FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to coarse-grained, with Gravel, trace Clay, dark brown to gray, moist to wet.

SCALE:

12/11/17 BPF WL PID ppm

17

1" = 4'

Tests or Notes

0.1

13

866.6

0.2

6

1.0

6

3.9

7

1.0

7

0.2

8

0.2

23.0 OL

863.6

6

ORGANIC CLAY, black, wet, medium.

(Swamp Deposit)

26.0 END OF BORING. Water not observed with 24 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 6 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

Boring then backfilled with bentonite grout.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-12

page 1 of 1

LOG OF BORING

(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)

Braun Project B1712486

DRILLER: Elev. feet 889.7 889.2

885.7

B. Kammermeier

Depth feet 0.0 Symbol 0.5 FILL FILL

LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2017\12486.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/15/18 11:04

875.7

868.7

METHOD:

3 1/4" HSA, Autohammer

DATE:

Description of Materials (Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)

FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, trace roots, dark brown, moist.

(Topsoil Fill) FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist.

SCALE:

12/11/17

BPF WL MC PID % ppm

6

1" = 4'

Tests or Notes

0.1

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, moist, medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

13

4

0.1 p200 = 10%

14

0.1

2

0.2

9.0 ML

877.7

LOCATION: See attached sketch.

4.0 SPSM

880.7

ST-13

BORING:

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Como Stormwater BMPs 1225 Estabrook Drive St. Paul, Minnesota

SILT, white, wet, soft.

(Lacustrine)

12.0 ML

SILT, gray, wet, rather stiff.

(Lacustrine)

10

0.2

SPSM

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, brown, waterbearing, loose to medium dense.

(Glacial Outwash)

18

0.2

8

0.1

14.0

21.0 END OF BORING. Water observed at 15 feet with 15 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground.

Water observed at 19 1/2 feet with 20 feet after last sample.

Water not observed to cave-in depth of 7 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger.

B1712486

Braun Intertec Corporation

ST-13

page 1 of 1

Descriptive Terminology of Soil Standard D 2487 Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System)

Particle Size Identification Boulders................. over 12” Cobbles ................. 3” to 12” Gravel Coarse ........... 3/4” to 3” Fine................ No. 4 to 3/4” Sand Coarse ........... No. 4 to No. 10 Medium .......... No. 10 to No. 40 Fine................ No. 40 to No. 200 Silt ......................... <No. 200, PI< 4 or below “A” line Clay ...................... <No. 200, PI > 4 and on or about “A” line Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils Very Loose............. 0 to 4 BPF Loose ..................... 5 to 10 BPF Medium dense ....... 11 to 30 PPF Dense .................... 31 to 50 BPF Very dense............. over 50 BPF

a. b. c.

Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75mm) sieve.

If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders or both” to group name.

Cu = D60/D10 C c = (D30)2 D10 x D60 d. If soil contains ≥15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. e. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay f.

If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM. g. If fines are organic, add “with organic fines: to group name. h. If soil contains ≥15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. i.

Sand with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay j.

If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. k. If soil contains 10 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel” whichever is predominant. l.

If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name. m. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name. n. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line. o. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line. p. PI plots on or above “A” lines. q. PI plots below “A” line.

Consistency of Cohesive Soils Very soft................. 0 to 1 BPF Soft ........................ 2 to 3 BPF Rather soft ............. 4 to 5 BPF Medium .................. 6 to 8 BPF Rather stiff ............. 9 to 12 BPF Stiff ........................ 13 to 16 BPF Very stiff ................. 17 to 30 BPF Hard ....................... over 30 BPF

Drilling Notes Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3 1/4” or 6 1/4” ID hollow-stem augers, unless noted otherwise.

Jetting water was used to clean out auger prior to sampling only where indicated on logs. All samples were taken with the standard 2” OD split-tube samples, except where noted.

Power auger borings were advanced by 4” or 6” diameter continuous flight, solid-stern augers. Soil classifications and strata depths were inferred from disturbed samples augered to the surface, and are therefore, somewhat approximate.

Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 1 1/2” or 3 1/4” diameter auger and were limited to the depth from which the auger could be manually withdrawn.

BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetration test, also known as “N” value. The sampler was set 6” into undisturbed soil below the hollow-stem auger.

Driving resistances were then counted for second and third 6” increments, and added to get BPF. Where they differed significantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/12 for the second and third 6” increments, respectively.

WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required.

ML or OL

WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods alone; hammer weight, and driving not required.

Laboratory Tests

DD WD MC LL PL PI P200

Dry density, pcf Wet density, pcg Natural moisture content, % Liquid limit, % Plastic limits, % Plasticity index, % % passing 200 sieve

OC S SG C Ø qu qp

TW: TW indicates thin-walled (undisturbed) tube sample.

Organic content, % Percent of saturation, % Specific gravity Cohesion, psf Angle of internal friction Unconfined compressive strength, psf Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf

Note: All tests were run in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards.

Rev. 9/15

APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY CONCEPT BMP ALTERNATIVES

COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix B

1-29-2018

Preliminary BMP Alternatives Como BMP Feasibility Study Bold Numbered BMPs have sketches associated

Golf Lot 1) IESF bench in irregular shaped pond  Pretreatment in existing basin  The golf course would have a chance to revitalize waterfall feature and upstream basin 2) Horizontal IESF  Check dam with a replaceable IESF vertical insert 3) Local rain gardens in parking island and greenspace to the west  DRO detected (at 5-7 foot depth), below MPCA limit for ‘unregulated fill’. Recommend using bio-filtration with a liner to prevent groundwater contamination.

East Ponds Silty soils layer in boring limits the use of infiltration.

1) Pump and treat IESFs east of Lexington a) Use existing lift station b) Underground holding tank after existing lift station; pump from holding tank to surface IESF c) Install new wet well and lift station, bore new pressure line under road

South Pond None

NW Pond 1) IESF bench with optional automated drawdown valve a) Various designs for IESF benches will result in different normal water level for the pond.

Changing the pond normal water level will also affect the inundation periods of the adjacent fairways.

Zoo Regional Four soil borings were taken at this location. Only soil borings number 1, near the existing Zoo infiltration basin, showed suitable conditions for infiltration.

1) Hole 8 filtration basin a) Reconstruct upstream stormsewer at a flatter grade to provide sufficient fall for filtration BMP b) Install new, smaller parallel stormsewer upstream at a flatter grade to provide sufficient fall for filtration BMP 2) Expand existing infiltration basin and incorporate regional inflows 3) Expand existing infiltration basin and incorporate regional inflows as pretreatment to an underground infiltration structure.

4) Install a pretreatment basin near the Hole 8 tee box, and route runoff to an underground infiltration structure.

Appendix B

1-29-2018

Pavilion North 1) Local rain gardens  Use lined bio-filtration due to soils and high DRO levels detected at 10-12 feet of depth  60-inch trunk sewer is too low to provide a regional gravity infiltration or filtration BMP.

Pavilion South Soil boring number 6 (southeast of the fountain) and boring 8 (more southern boring in the parking lot) and potentially boring 9 (east of the parking lot) were suitable for infiltration. Boring 10 (more norther boring in the parking lot) showed suitable soils, but DRO was detected 5-7 feet below grade.

1) Infiltration swale and filtration basin for parking lot  This concept BMP is a treatment train of a infiltration swale overflowing to a filtration basin.

The parking lot would sheet flow to curb cuts that would lead to a bio-infiltration swale with terraced seating (see example photo below). Runoff that is not captured in the infiltration swale will overflow to a filtration basin.  Option to include iron-enhanced filtration practices  Option to include pervious pavers in parking lot

2) Surface Infiltration Basin a) Sized to 1.1-inch goal  This concept shows the approximate area of a surface infiltration BMP, sized to treat the goal of 1.1-inches of runoff from impervious surface in the drainage area. This alternative is likely infeasible due to the large amount of park area that is required, and the extensive lowering of the ground surface elevation. This lead to the exploration of other, more expensive BMP alternatives. b) Sized to 0.5-inch treatment  This concept shows the approximate area of a surface infiltration BMP, sized to treat 0.5inches of runoff from impervious surface in the drainage area. This option does not meet the 1.1-inch goal, but results in a more manageable area required. Various arrangements of surface infiltration basins may be explored.

3) Underground Infiltration Gallery  With an underground infiltration concept, maintaining separation from the seasonal high groundwater restricts the options for its location. The seasonal high groundwater is assumed to

Appendix B

1-29-2018 be near the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation of the lake (881.4). The simplest solution is to capture water from the stormsewer shown.  The concept shown is to combine the underground infiltration with underground storage for water reuse. There are questions surrounding the demand for a water reuse BMP: o Is Como Park interested in irrigating this area of the park? o What does Como Park use to irrigate their plants, gardens, etc. currently? Would there be interest or need to use a type of stormwater filling station, for watering vehicles? o Potentially use reuse water for the fountain, or other water features.

4) Meandering infiltrating stream corridor with weirs a) Infiltrating Stream - Runoff from the stormsewer to the southwest can be treated through an infiltration design consisting of an intermittent stream, plantings, landscaping, weir structures to provide storage, and infiltration throughout the system (see example photo below). A normally dry, rock stream bed would meander through the park three to five feet below the existing ground elevation. During rain events, weirs or ditch checks would store runoff in the ‘floodplain’ of the stream, and runoff would subsequently infiltrate.

b) Recirculating infiltration stream BMP - The system above could include additional treatment by incorporating a large underground storage (or pond) downstream of the BMP. The underground storage would capture untreated runoff that would then be pumped to the upstream end of the stream and ‘recirculated’ through the infiltration BMP. Recirculated water will infiltrate or continue down the stream into the storage, and the cycle will continue until all of the runoff in the system in infiltrated. This would provide a water feature amenity as the stream bed would be flowing with water after the rain event is over. The benefit is treatment for a greater volume of water, while providing an amenity to Como Park.

Additional Ideas:  As an option to showcase different types of stormwater treatment BMPs, a treatment train of various BMP types could be implemented for education and outreach. Further, with the recirculation system, the stored water could be used for live-action demonstrations or research purposes.  If drawdown requirements are a concern, the recirculation system could be used with a filtration BMP, allowing for a faster drawdown time.  The holding tank could double as a stormwater reuse system.  The alternative could also use filtration to treat the water entering the holding tank, and subsequently used for a stormwater-waterpark. You see the water being treated that is used in the stormwater-waterpark!

5) Holding tank and pump for surface IESF; or UG IESF

Appendix B

1-29-2018

Pavilion South Comparison Table Treatment Volume Goal

Attainable Treatment Volume (Ac-Ft)

Ease of Construction Long-Term Cost Maintenance

Option

1.1â&#x20AC;? over impervious area (Ac-Ft)

Pavilion South 1: Swale to Filtration Basin Pavilion South 2a: 1.1" Infiltration Basin Pavilion South 2b: 0.5" Infiltration Basin Pavilion South 3: Underground Infiltration Pavilion South 4a: Train of Infiltration Basins Pavilion South 4b: Train of Infiltration Basins (Recirculating)

0.2

0.2

Difficult

Medium

1.2

1.2

Medium

Medium

1.2

0.6

Medium

Medium

1.2

0.9

Difficult

High

1.2

0.3

Difficult

Medium

1.2

1.2

Difficult

High

1.2

1.0

Difficult

High

Pavilion South 5: Underground Tank pumps to IESF

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

Appendix B - Preliminary Concept BMP Alternatives

APPENDIX C ADDITIONAL CONCEPT BMP ALTERNATIVE DATA

COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

CONCEPTUAL BMP FACT SHEET

NW GOLF POND â&#x20AC;&#x201C; IESF BENCH BMP Type:

Iron Enhanced Sand Filter bench retrofit to pond

The NW Golf Pond is a 1.75-acre pond that was built for stormwater treatment in 2007 and also serves as a feature to Como Golf Course.

The pond captures runoff from 157 residential acres northwest of the Como Golf Course, and currently also receives inflow which is pumped from Gottfrieds Pit, a pond with a 521-acre drainage area of residential and commercial land. Although the pond provides significant TSS removal there is opportunity for additional treatment of dissolved phosphorus through retrofitting the pond with an IESF bench. The sand bench would be cut into the existing grade along Hole 3 and would be an out-of-play golfing hazard due to the tendency of IESFs to form ridged clumps. An automated control valve will be included to bypass flows from Gottfrieds Pit in order to let the filter rest (dry). The valve could be included at the pond outlet or at the upstream diversion structure.

Catchment Area

3.6 ac-ft

Treatment Volume

31 lb

BMP Name BMP Type Drainage Area (ac) BMP Size (sq-ft) Volume Reduction

Como Golf Course pond at Hole 3 and Hole 11

BMP Removals2

Location:

666 acres

NW Pond 1 IESF Bench 666.2 6,200

1.1" Volume Reduction Goal (ac-ft)

4.42

1.1" Goal w/in Como Park (ac-ft)

0.0 1

BMP WQ Treatment Volume (ac-ft)

3.60

TP (lbs/yr) 3

Retrofit Increase 31.0 28%

TSS (lbs/yr)

2,517

5%

45,766

0

0%

0

Volume (ac-ft/yr)

Retrofit + Existing 81.9

Construction, Engineering & Admin

$359,311

Annual Maintenance5

$14,372

Annualized 20-yr life-cycle 20-yr Annualized Cost-Benefit for IESF Retrofit ($/lb TP)

$28,657

4

Cost

Increase in Annual TP Removal

1

923

Volume of water treated by the IESF bench multiplied by 80% filtration credit. and proposed conditions were modeled without the inflow from Gottfrieds Pit to better simulate the automated valve bypass, results may vary depending on the configuration of the automated valve.

3 Dissolved phosphorus removal was adjusted to 70% to account for the iron sorption of phosphorus (Erickson, Gulliver; 2010).

4 Engineering and administration costs were estimated as 25% of the construction cost.

5 Estimated as 5% of the construction cost.

2 Existing

COMO REGIONAL PARK - STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY

920

91 8

N 91 6 91

4

91

2

30

0

30

Scale

EXISTING OUTLET NOTCH ELEV. 891.8

91

60

0

Feet

89

89 2

90 90 6 4 9 90 02 8 0 89 98 89 6 4

90 8

EXISTING RIM: 893.20

EXISTING GROUND

IESF BENCH TOP OF SAND ELEV. 889.3

INSTALL WEIR AT ELEV. 891.9 2 DRAINTILE OUTLETS INV. 888.8

0

REGRADE EXISTING GROUND

1'

25'

DRAINTILE INV. 888.8

POND POLYLINER AND EDGING

IESF Bench Top of Sand: 889.3 Draintile Invert: 888.8

Draintile Outlet INV: 888.8

A

EXISTING 8" PVC INV. 888.8

2:1 PROPOSED GROUND

B

ORIFICE AND AUTOMATIC CONTROL VALVE INV. 888.8

EXISTING 24" RCP INV. 888.6

Existing Outlet Structure

A

SECTION A-A

STS

NOT TO SCALE

Hole 11

WATER LEVELS TABLE

STS

le Ho

3

STS

Existing 24" RCP Stormsewer

EXISTING

PROPOSED

OVERFLOW

893.2

893.2

WQL ( WEIR)

NA

891.9

NOTCH IN MH

891.8

891.8

NWL (AUTOMATIC CONTROL VALVE)

888.8

888.8

VARIES (891.3 MAX.)

Connect to Existing 48" Manhole RIM: 895.62 INV: 888.69

890.3

STS

STS

0.5'

Draintile Outlet INV: 888.8

IRON ENHANCED SAND FILTER MEDIA

MEDIUM FILTER AGGREGATE

0.5'

Regrade Existing Ground at 2:1

VARIES (1' to 1.5')

STS

S ST

COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE

889.8

Furnish and Install 48" Manhole

6" PERFORATED DRAINTILE @ 0.5% 889.1

ST S

Furnish and Install 12" RCP Stormsewer

STS

H:\Maple Grove\JBN\6400\6475\17_6475_019\CAD\Exhibits\Exhibit Layout 1.dwg-NW Pond-3/9/2018 5:41 PM-(hrollin)

B

1.5'

NORMAL WATER SURFACE ELEVATION 888.8

IESF AGGREGATE GRADING LAYOUT (SECTION B-B)

Alternate Bench Area

NOT TO SCALE

PRELIMINARY No.

Revision

Date

By

Not for Construction

Houston Engineering Inc.

Fargo

Drawn by

Date

P: 701.237.5065 F: 701.237.5101

Checked by

Scale

HRR GB

3-9-2018 AS SHOWN

COMO REGIONAL PARK STORMWATER BMPS FEASIBILITY STUDY CAPITAL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

NORTHWEST POND CONCEPT DESIGN PROJECT NO. 6745-019

SHEET

1 of 1

Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate BMP - NW Pond Iron Enhanced Sand Filter Bench 3/9/2018

No.

Bid Item

1 Mobilization 2 Clearing and Grubbing 3 Excavation (P) 4 Haul & Dispose of Soil (P) 5 6" PVC Perforated Pipe Drain (pipe and cleanouts) 6 12" RCP Stormsewer (pipe and bedding) 7 48" Stormsewer Structure 8 Sand Filter Edging (Plastic) 9 Install Weir in Existing Manhole 10 Coarse Filter Aggregate 11 Medium Filter Aggregate 12 Fine Filter Aggregate 13 Iron Filings (5% by weight of Fine Filter Aggregate) 14 Polyliner Material 15 Automatic Valve Vault 16 Seeding 17 Hydromulch 18 Golf Course Restoration 19 Erosion Control (construction entrance, silt fence, bioroll) Construction Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Total Construction Cost Engineering and Administration (25%) Non-Construction Cost

Unit

Quantity

LS LS CY CY LF LF EA LF EA CY CY CY TON SY EA AC AC LS LS

1 1 880 880 590 114 1 588 1 30 197 320 28 840 1 0.4 0.4 1.0 1.0

Unit Price $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

15,000.00 500.00 6.00 12.00 15.00 50.00 4,500.00 10.00 1,500.00 70.00 70.00 60.00 1,500.00 2.50 70,000.00 1,500.00 7,500.00 5,000.00 5,000.00

Total Price $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

15,000.00 500.00 5,280.00 10,560.00 8,850.00 5,700.00 4,500.00 5,880.00 1,500.00 2,100.00 13,790.00 19,200.00 42,525.00 2,100.00 70,000.00 629.71 3,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 221,114.71 66,334.41 287,449.13 71,862.28 71,862.28

Total Estimated Project Cost

$

359,311.41

Operation and Maintenance Assumptions:

$

14,372.46

Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate BMP - Golf Parking Lot Pond IESF Bench 3/9/2018

No.

Bid Item

1 Mobilization 2 Clearing and Grubbing 3 Grading (pond berm, IESF) 4 Common Borrow (CV) 5 Stone to Stabilize Existing Channel 6 Reconstruct Waterfall 7 Reconstruct Overflow Outlet 8 Grout Existing Diversion 9 Diversion Weir in Existing MH 10 6" PVC Perforated Pipe Drain (pipe and cleanout) 11 12" RCP Stormsewer (pipe and bedding) 12 Sand Filter Edging 13 Medium & Coarse Filter Aggregate 14 Fine Filter Aggregate 15 Iron Filings 16 Polyliner Material for IESF Lining 17 Automatic Valve Vault 18 Pavement/Aggregate/Curb Reconstruction 19 Golf Course Restoration 20 Seeding 21 Hydromulch 22 Erosion Control (construction entrance, silt fence, bioroll) Construction Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Total Construction Cost Engineering and Administration (25%) Non-Construction Cost

Unit

Quantity

Unit Price

LS LS LS CY CY LS LS LS LS LF LF LF CY CY TON SY LS SY LS AC AC LS

1 1 1 150 83 1 1 1 1 100 90 175 55 55 5 213 1 58 1 0.1 0.1 1

$ 20,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 30.00 $ 150.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 15.00 $ 50.00 $ 10.00 $ 70.00 $ 60.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 2.50 $ 70,000.00 $ 100.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 5,000.00

Total Price $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

20,000.00 2,500.00 3,000.00 4,488.89 12,500.00 5,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 4,500.00 1,750.00 3,837.04 3,288.89 7,400.00 532.64 70,000.00 5,777.78 15,000.00 150.00 750.00 5,000.00 171,975.23 51,592.57 223,567.80 55,891.95 55,891.95

Total Estimated Project Cost

$

279,459.75

Operation and Maintenance Assumptions:

$

11,178.39

Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate BMP - Zoo 1 Filtration Basin 3/9/2018

No.

Bid Item

1 Mobilization 2 Clearing and Grubbing 3 Excavation (P) 4 Haul & Dispose of Soil (P) 5 6" PVC Perforated Pipe Drain (pipe and cleanout) 6 12" RCP Stormsewer (pipe and bedding) 7 48" Stormsewer Structure 8 60" Stormsewer Structure 9 Landscaping 10 Relocate Tee Box 11 Filter Aggregate 12 Outlet Structure 13 Hydrodynamic Separator 14 Golf Course Restoration 15 Seeding 16 Hydromulch 17 Erosion Control (construction entrance, silt fence, bioroll) Construction Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Total Construction Cost Engineering and Administration (25%) Non-Construction Cost

Unit

Quantity

Unit Price

LS LS CY CY LF LF EA EA LS LS CY EA EA LS AC AC LS

1 1 1280 1180 340 476 2 1 1 1 544 1 1 1 0.2 0.2 1.0

$ 10,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 6.00 $ 12.00 $ 15.00 $ 50.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 70.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 5,000.00

Total Price $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

10,000.00 2,500.00 7,680.00 14,160.00 5,100.00 23,800.00 9,000.00 6,000.00 7,500.00 2,000.00 38,111.11 6,500.00 20,000.00 5,000.00 319.49 1,597.45 5,000.00 164,268.05 49,280.42 213,548.47 53,387.12 53,387.12

Total Estimated Project Cost

$

266,935.59

Operation and Maintenance

$

9,182.58

Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate BMP - Zoo 2 Expanded Infiltration Basin 3/9/2018

No.

Bid Item

1 Mobilization 2 Clearing and Grubbing 3 Excavation (P) 4 Haul & Dispose of Soil (P) 3 Grading 5 Remove Existing Stormsewer Structure 6 12" RCP Stormsewer (pipe and bedding) 7 60" Stormsewer Structure 8 48" Stormsewer Structure 9 Install Weir Diversion Structure 10 Salvage and Relocate Existing Stormsewer 11 Hydrodynamic Separator 12 Golf Course Restoration 13 Restructure Existing Outlet 14 Seeding 15 Hydromulch 16 Erosion Control (construction entrance, silt fence, bioroll) Construction Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Total Construction Cost Engineering and Administration (25%) Non-Construction Cost

Unit

Quantity

Unit Price

LS LS CY CY CY LS LF EA EA EA LF EA LS LS AC AC LS

1 1 1733 962 770 1 40 2 1 1 125 1 1 1 0.9 0.9 1

$ 10,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 6.00 $ 12.00 $ 4.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 50.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 80.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 5,000.00

Total Price $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

10,000.00 2,500.00 10,396.67 11,548.89 3,081.48 1,000.00 2,000.00 12,000.00 4,500.00 2,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 5,000.00 1,500.00 1,397.07 6,985.37 5,000.00 108,909.48 32,672.84 141,582.32 35,395.58 35,395.58

Total Estimated Project Cost

$

176,977.90

Operation and Maintenance Assumptions:

$

1,840.57

Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate BMP - Zoo Combination Filtration Basin and Expanded Infiltration Basin 3/19/2018

No.

Bid Item

1 Mobilization 2 Clearing and Grubbing 3 Remove Existing Stormsewer Structure 4 Excavation (P) 5 Haul & Dispose of Soil (P) 6 6" PVC Perforated Pipe Drain (pipe and cleanout) 7 12" RCP Stormsewer (pipe and bedding) 8 Relocate Tee Box 9 Weir Diversion Structure 10 48" Stormsewer Structure 11 60" Stormsewer Structure 13 42" RCP Stormsewer 14 Salvage and Relocate Existing Stormsewer 15 Filter Aggregate 16 Hydrodynamic Separator 17 Restructure Existing Outlet of Infiltration Basin 18 Outlet Structure 19 Landscaping 20 Golf Course Restoration 21 Seeding 22 Hydromulch 23 Erosion Control (construction entrance, silt fence, bioroll) Construction Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Total Construction Cost Engineering (25%) Non-Construction Cost

Unit

Quantity

Unit Price

LS LS LS CY CY LF LF LS LS Each EA LF LF CY Each LS EA LS LS AC AC LS

1 1 1 3010 2140 340 398 1 1 1 3 25 125 544 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1

$ 20,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 6.00 $ 12.00 $ 15.00 $ 50.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 120.00 $ 80.00 $ 70.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 5,000.00

Total Price $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

20,000.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 18,060.00 25,680.00 5,100.00 19,900.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 4,500.00 18,000.00 3,000.00 10,000.00 38,111.11 20,000.00 1,500.00 6,500.00 7,500.00 7,000.00 1,628.55 8,142.73 5,000.00 227,122.39 68,136.72 295,259.11 73,814.78 73,814.78

Total Estimated Project Cost

$

369,073.89

Operation and Maintenance Assumptions:

$

12,696.14

Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate BMP - Pavilion North Rain Gardens 3/9/2018

No.

Bid Item

1 Mobilization 2 Clearing and Grubbing 3 Excavation (P) 4 Haul & Dispose of Soil (P) 5 Grout Existing Stormsewer 6 Pretreatment 7 Polyliner Material 8 Concrete Curb Cut (4') 9 Pavement Reconstruction 10 Engineered Soil 11 Filter Aggregate 12 Raingarden Plantings 13 6" PVC Perforated Pipe Drain (pipe and cleanout) 14 Outlet structure 15 12" RCP Stormsewer (pipe and bedding) 16 Riprap 17 Seeding 18 Hydromulch 19 Erosion Control (construction entrance, silt fence, bioroll) Construction Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Total Construction Cost Engineering and Administration (25%) Non-Construction Cost

Unit

Quantity

LS LS CY CY Each Each SY Each SY CY CY SY LF Each LF CY AC AC LS

1 1 540 540 3 4 460 4 50 270 110 160 110 2 100 21 0.05 0.05 1

Unit Price $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

5,000.00 2,500.00 6.00 12.00 500.00 2,000.00 2.50 500.00 50.00 30.00 70.00 60.00 20.00 2,000.00 50.00 80.00 1,500.00 7,500.00 5,000.00

Total Price $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

5,000.00 2,500.00 3,240.00 6,480.00 1,500.00 8,000.00 1,150.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 8,100.00 7,700.00 9,583.33 2,200.00 4,000.00 5,000.00 1,688.89 80.92 404.61 5,000.00 76,127.76 22,838.33 98,966.09 24,741.52 24,741.52

Total Estimated Project Cost

$

123,707.61

Operation and Maintenance Assumptions: St. Paul Parks will reconstruct and regrade parking lot, no contamination clean-up

$

4,255.54

Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate BMP - Pavilion South Infiltration and Filtration Swale 3/9/2018

No.

Bid Item

1 Mobilization 2 Clearing and Grubbing 3 Excavation (P) 4 Haul & Dispose of Soil (P) 5 Remove Existing Stormsewer 7 Concrete Curb Cut 8 Concrete Flume from Curb Cut to Swale 9 Pretreatment (Rain-Guardian) 10 6" PVC Perforated Pipe Drain (pipe and cleanout) 14 Raingarden Plantings 15 Landscaping 16 Connect to Existing Stormsewer 17 Riprap (outlet of flumes) 18 Seeding 19 Hydromulch 20 Erosion Control (construction entrance, silt fence, bioroll) Construction Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Total Construction Cost Engineering and Administration (25%) Non-Construction Cost

Unit

Quantity

LS LS CY CY LF EA LF EA LF SY LS LS CY AC AC LS

1 1 420 420 140 3 62 3 620 156 1 1 5 0.2 0.2 1.0

Unit Price $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

5,000.00 2,500.00 6.00 12.00 15.00 500.00 40.00 1,500.00 15.00 60.00 5,000.00 1,000.00 80.00 1,500.00 7,500.00 5,000.00

Total Price $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

5,000.00 2,500.00 2,520.00 5,040.00 2,100.00 1,500.00 2,480.00 4,500.00 9,300.00 9,333.33 5,000.00 1,000.00 373.33 300.00 1,500.00 5,000.00 57,446.67 17,234.00 74,680.67 18,670.17 18,670.17

Total Estimated Project Cost

$

93,350.83

Operation and Maintenance Assumptions: St. Paul Parks will reconstruct and regrade parking lot

$

970.85

Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate BMP - Pavilion South Reuse Tank and Underground Infiltration 3/9/2018

No. 1 2 3 4

Bid Item

Mobilization Clearing and Grubbing Excavation (P) Haul & Dispose of Soil (P) Backfill Material (P) 6 Underground Stormwater Holding Tank (Reuse) 8 Underground Stormwater Infiltration Chambers 9 Washed Rock Material for Infiltration Chambers 10 Pump System for Irrigation 11 Control System for Irrigation 12 Hydrodynamic Separator 13 12" RCP Stormsewer (pipe and bedding) 14 Diversion Weir in Existing MH 15 Pavement Reconstruction 16 Seeding 17 Hydromulch 18 Erosion Control (construction entrance, silt fence, bioroll) Construction Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Total Construction Cost Engineering and Administration (25%) Non-Construction Cost

Unit

Quantity

Unit Price

LS LS CY CY CY CF CF CY EA LS EA LF LS SY AC AC LS

1 1 10528 3158 7370 13286 30492 1800 1 1 1 30 1 313 0.9 0.9 1.0

$ 32,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 6.00 $ 12.00 $ 4.00 $ 11.00 $ 4.00 $ 57.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 50.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 50.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 5,000.00

Total Price $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

32,000.00 2,500.00 63,167.98 37,897.62 29,479.45 146,143.80 121,968.00 102,600.00 40,000.00 12,000.00 20,000.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 15,661.11 1,396.70 6,983.52 5,000.00 639,798.19 191,939.46 831,737.64 207,934.41 207,934.41

Total Estimated Project Cost

$ 1,039,672.05

Operation and Maintenance Assumptions: Underground stormwater structure prices based on McMurray Field project

$

17,466.49

Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate BMP - Pavilion South Infiltration Stream and Underground Infiltration 3/9/2018

No.

Bid Item

1 Mobilization 2 Clearing and Grubbing 3 Excavation (P) 4 Haul & Dispose of Soil (P) 5 Backfill Material (P) 6 Underground Stormwater Holding Tank (Recirculation) 7 Underground Stormwater Infiltration Chambers 8 Washed Rock Material for Infiltration Chambers 9 Pump System for Recirculation 10 Control System for Recirculation 11 72" Manhole with Lift Station for Recirculation 12 Install Weir in Existing Manhole 13 Riprap 14 Streambed Stone 15 Outlet Structure (at outlet of stream) 16 Automatic Valve Vautl 17 8" PVC Distribution Pipe 18 12" RCP Stormsewer (pipe and bedding) 19 6" PVC Perforated Drain 20 Pavement Reconstruction 21 Raingarden Plants 22 Landscaping 23 Stone Weirs 24 Hydrodynamic Separator 25 Seeding 26 Hydromulch 27 Erosion Control (construction entrance, silt fence, bioroll) Construction Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Total Construction Cost Engineering (25%) Non-Construction Cost

Unit

Quantity

Unit Price

LS LS CY CY CY CF CF CY EA LS LS LS CY CY LS EA LF LF LF SY SY LS EA EA AC AC LS

1 1 6550 2430 4120 17060 13649 806 2 1 1 1 17 200 1 1 450 40 522 213 339 1 4 1 1.1 1.1 1.0

$ 35,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 6.00 $ 12.00 $ 4.00 $ 11.00 $ 4.00 $ 57.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 80.00 $ 150.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 60.00 $ 50.00 $ 15.00 $ 50.00 $ 30.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 5,000.00

Total Price $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

35,000.00 2,500.00 39,300.00 29,160.00 16,480.00 187,660.00 54,595.20 45,913.50 80,000.00 12,000.00 15,000.00 1,500.00 1,333.33 30,000.00 6,500.00 20,000.00 27,000.00 2,000.00 7,830.00 10,638.89 10,180.97 16,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 1,701.45 8,507.23 5,000.00 695,800.56 208,740.17 904,540.73 226,135.18 226,135.18

Total Estimated Project Cost

$ 1,130,675.92

Operation and Maintenance Assumptions: Underground stormwater structure prices based on McMurray Field project

$

18,995.36

Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate BMP - Zoo Combination and Golf Parking Lot Treatment Train 3/9/2018 Golf Lot Construction Subtotal Zoo Combo Construction Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Total Construction Cost Engineering and Administration (25%) Non-Construction Cost

$ $ $ $ $ $

171,975.23 227,122.39 119,729.29 518,826.91 129,706.73 129,706.73

Total Estimated Project Cost

$

648,533.64

Operation and Maintenance Assumptions:

$

23,874.53

Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate BMP - Zoo 2 and Golf Parking Lot Treatment Train 3/15/2018 Golf Lot Construction Subtotal Zoo 2 Construction Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Total Construction Cost Engineering and Administration (25%) Non-Construction Cost

$ $ $ $ $ $

171,975.23 108,909.48 84,265.41 365,150.12 91,287.53 91,287.53

Total Estimated Project Cost

$

456,437.65

Operation and Maintenance Assumptions:

$

13,018.96

Engineer's Preliminary Cost Estimate BMP - Zoo 2, Golf Parking Lot and NW Pond Treatment Train 3/15/2018 Golf Lot Construction Subtotal Zoo 2 Construction Subtotal NW Pond Construction Subtotal Construction Contingencies (30%) Total Construction Cost Engineering and Administration (25%) Non-Construction Cost

$ $ $ $ $ $ $

171,975.23 108,909.48 221,114.71 150,599.83 652,599.24 163,149.81 163,149.81

Total Estimated Project Cost

$

815,749.06

Operation and Maintenance Assumptions:

$

27,391.42

May 16, 2018 Board Meeting IV. Special Report B) Approve Consultant Agreement for Como BMPs Engineering (Zwonitzer)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

May 4, 2018 CRWD Board of Managers Nate Zwonitzer, Water Resource Project Manager Approve Consultant Agreement with HEI for Como Regional Park Stormwater BMPs Engineering

Background CRWD has been working with the City of Saint Paul to develop a stormwater master plan for Como Regional Park, which identified several potential regional BMP sites. In 2016 CRWD was awarded a $1.76 million grant through BWSRâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Targeted Watershed Program (TWP) for work in the Como and McCarrons subwatersheds through 2020. CRWD partnered with the City to conduct a feasibility study to investigate potential regional BMP sites that would provide treatment for large drainage areas and possibly be part of planned park improvements. A preferred configuration of BMPs has been identified for additional engineering by CRWD and the City.

Issues After reviewing the 12 BMP configurations in the Como Park BMP Feasibility Study, several projects were identified as high priority. These projects include expansion of an existing infiltration basin in the golf course that is currently treating the zoo, and adding iron-enhanced sand filter benches to the north west golf course pond (owned/operated by CRWD) and one of the small ponds near the golf course clubhouse. CRWD has received letters of support for advancing designs for these BMPs from the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Parks and Recreation and Public Works departments (enclosed). Houston Engineering (HEI) has submitted a proposal to design these three BMPs and develop plans and technical specifications for all three BMPs at a cost of $99,559. Construction documents will be completed by the end of 2018. While the projects are being designed, staff will begin discussions with the City regarding construction funding, CRWD volume credits, and address any inconsistencies between this project implementation approach and CRWD rules. The projects could be ready for construction as early as spring 2019. Staff recommend approving HEI to develop construction plans for the three BMPs with funding from #405-16705 which has a 2018 budget of $444,140.

Requested Action Approve HEI as the consultant for the Como Regional Park BMPs Engineering and authorize the Administrator to execute an agreement not to exceed $99,559 and any amendments to the agreement up to $10,000.

Enc: HEI Engineering Proposal dated May 9, 2018 and Saint Paul letters of support dated April 13, 2018 and April 5, 2018 W:\06 Projects\Como Lake Projects\Como Regional Park BMPs\Board Memo Como BMPs Engineering 5-16-18.docx

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

VIA EMAIL: nate@capitolregionwd.org May 9, 2018 Nate Zwonitzer, Water Resource Project Manager Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4 St. Paul, MN 55108 Subject: Como Zoo and Golf Course Stormwater BMPs Final Design Dear Nate: Houston Engineering, Inc. (HEI) is thrilled to continue our relationship with the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) by completing the Como Zoo and Golf Course Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) Final Design. We have enjoyed our work with you on the feasibility study which led to the selection of these treatment practices, to improve the water quality in Como Lake. Our knowledge of the project and Como Park area, and experience in designing Iron-Enhanced Sand Filters (IESFs) is the formula for the success of this project.

Attachment A describes our approach and provides an estimated compensation based on the proposed scope of services for completing the project. Your final product will consist of documents for the construction of three BMPs at Como Golf Course.

We know that CRWD is dedicated to improving the water quality of Como Lake and we are honored to continue to serve CRWD in working toward achieving this goal. Please contact me directly if you have any questions regarding our proposal before this time.

Sincerely, HOUSTON ENGINEERING, INC.

Alex Schmidt, PE Project Engineer 763.493.6663 alschmidt@houstoneng.com

Greg Bowles, PE Project Manager; Principal-in-Charge 763.493.6670 gbowles@houstoneng.com

Como Zoo and Golf Course BMPs Final Design May 4, 2018 Attachment A

ATTACHMENT A. PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK HEI understands that surface runoff is contributing to poor water quality in Como Lake. Previous work has targeted water quality treatment practices, particularly with the purpose of collaboration between public entities. The Como Regional Park Stormwater BMPs Feasibility Study identifies the three preferred BMP alternatives, selected by the project partners, for final design located in Como Golf Course. The BMPs for final design are the Northwest Golf Pond Iron Enhanced Sand Filter (IESF) Bench located along Hole 3, the Golf Course Lot Pond IESF Bench located at Hole 18, and the Zoo Infiltration Basin located at Hole 7. The purpose of this project is to finalize the BMPs design, generate construction documents including construction plans, specifications, quantities, and engineerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opinion of probable cost. Depending on your needs, we are open to adjusting the scope of work, timelines, and budget to meet your goals.

Task 1: Collection of Field Data The feasibility study included soil borings and a geotechnical evaluation near the Zoo Infiltration Basin. The soil boring near the proposed BMP location was conducive to infiltration, however, other borings in the area revealed soils which are not favorable for infiltration. Because the proposed infiltration basin extends beyond the boring location, and because of the variable soils in the area, HEI will have a geotechnical evaluation of two additional borings to a depth of 20 feet near the Zoo Infiltration Basin and collect three hand auger soil borings to a depth of up to 6 feet within the pretreatment area of the Golf Lot Pond Channel and the locations of the IESF beds of the NW Pond and of the Golf Pond to ensure acceptable soils for the designs. The geotechnical borings will be located along the southwest side of Hole 7. HEI will collect hand auger borings within this pretreatment basin to determine the design of the pretreatment basin (i.e. to determine if the basin will normally be dry or wet) and also within the IESF bed locations of the NW Pond and the Golf Pond to ensure good stabile soils exist below the proposed BMPs. HEI will complete a topographic site survey to identify the location and elevation of storm sewer, utilities, slopes, trees greater than 8 inches in diameter at breast height, and existing site features within the three BMP areas, for use in the preparation of the construction plans. The survey will also include the bathymetry of the Golf Lot Pond and the NW Pond that will help us assess the need for dredging or cleanout. The survey of the ponds is needed to determine if the ponds provide appropriate pretreatment prior to the IESF. The survey will be completed in three trips and use a robotic total station and possibly sonar instrumentation.

Next, a site visit will be conducted and include a review of the existing conditions for design considerations and photographic documentation of the project area. The field survey will include a utility locate through Gopher State One Call with the locations surveyed by HEI. Flow monitoring data was previously measured at the existing NW Pond. HEI will collect and analyze the data to help determine the function and design of the IESFs in relation to the inflow from the pumping at Gottfrieds Pit.

ASSUMPTIONS:

1. Geotechnical evaluation of 2 soil borings to a maximum depth of 20 feet. No environmental screening of the two borings. Braun will be completing the evaluation and will be a sub-consultant to HEI. 2. HEI staff will perform up to 3 hand auger soil borings to a maximum depth of 6 feet.

Como Zoo and Golf Course BMPs Final Design May 4, 2018 Attachment A 3.

4.

5.

6.

HEI will conduct one site visit to field truth the design and meet with the landscape architect.

Survey will be completed in three trips.

CRWD will provide flow monitoring data at the NW Pond.

Sediment sampling and analytical analysis for dredging of Golf Lot Pond and the NW Pond are not included in this scope of services.

DELIVERABLES: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Geotechnical report.

Hand auger boring logs.

Site photos of existing conditions for three BMP sites.

Located utilities.

Existing conditions topographic survey of three BMP sites.

Bathymetry map of the Golf Lot Pond and the NW Pond.

Task 2: Engineering Design Services The three proposed BMPs are a part of a treatment train, and the hydraulics of the upstream BMP will affect the hydraulics and design of the downstream BMP (Golf lot IESF). This interplay is further complicated with the introduction of automated valves, which are proposed to allow the IESFs to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;restâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (or dry) for a period of time to avoid anoxic conditions within the filter (anoxic conditions will release bound phosphorus).

There is an existing H&H model (XPSWMM) for the project area. It is assumed that the model is sufficient for the design and will not require modifications, other than what is listed herein. The existing model does not include Como 4, 5 or 6 subwatersheds totaling approximately 350 acres which drain via diversion structures to the large pond at the east end of the golf course. HEI will update the model with the three drainage areas and three diversion structures. The purpose of this update is to evaluate the water surface elevation and timing of the east ponds in relation to backflowing and inundating the Golf Lot Pond IESF. The model will then be modified to include the three proposed BMPs to assist with the hydraulic design of these BMPs, including sizing hydraulic structures, evaluating flows and bounce, and ensuring no negative impacts to the existing pipe hydraulics. XPSWMM does not have the capability to model stage or time-dependent hydraulic flow changes (automated valves).

HEI will coordinate with a supplier of the automated values on the design, installation requirements, and costs. It is assumed the inputs for valve control will be based on water surface levels and/or other factors such as timing or pumping. The automated valves may also be connected to the internet for remote control or other smart features (e.g. weather forecasting). The use of Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC) may be required, and this scope does not include PLC related services. It is assumed the automated valve supplier will supply engineering services related to the functioning of the automated valves. HEI will provide the general constraints for the conditions of when the valve should be open or closed (timing and water surface elevations). The H&H model, mass balance calculations, and the flow monitoring data will be used to determine appropriate timing of the automated valves in relation to draw-down times, pumping inflow, and IESF required wet and dry times.

Como Zoo and Golf Course BMPs Final Design May 4, 2018 Attachment A Various options of design and layout of automated valves will be analyzed by HEI. These options will be communicated to CRWD for input in selecting the option for design and construction. It is assumed that up to 3 options for valve function and layout will be considered.

Ideas which may encourage the drying of the IESFs were discussed during the feasibility study and include: lining the bottom of the sand bed, drawing the pond down further than the IESF bed surface, sloping the bottom of the IESF to the draintile, and incorporating edging along the pond-filter interface. These ideas will be further developed and incorporated into the plans, as appropriate.

A design documentation memo will be drafted to document and summarize the design assumptions, calculations, and results. Items included in the report include the results of modeling for the ponds, function and operation of the gate valves and IESFs, and storm sewer hydraulic calculations. A meeting with the project partners will be held to discuss and finalize design options.

ASSUMPTIONS:

1. No other modifications will be made to the H&H model, other than those listed in this scope of services.

2. Automated valve supplier will supply engineering services related to the functioning of the automated valves.

DELIVERABLES: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Revised H&H model including the 3 proposed BMPs, for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events.

Options for automatic valve function and layout.

Design documentation memo.

Design option meeting with project partners.

Task 3: Construction Documents HEI will use the conceptual designs from the feasibility study and the engineering analysis from Task 2 to generate a set of construction documents. The design of the BMPs will be of a similar function and layout to the preferred BMPs as shown in the Como Regional Park Stormwater BMPs Feasibility Study (2018). The design will be for the basic function for the purpose of water quality treatment, while maintaining the experience for the golfers.

HEI understands that no permits will be required during this final design phase of the project. Regardless it is good to be thinking ahead to the next construction phase. During the construction phase, HEI anticipates the necessary permits will include: City of St. Paul land alteration permit and MPCA construction stormwater permit.

Loucks Associates will be used as a subcontractor as a landscape architect for the project. See Attachment B for their scope of services.

The submittal and review process will be as follows: First, the concept BMPs will be developed into 30% concept design plans, showing sufficient detail of function and technical feasibility, including plan layout and cross section views. One meeting is anticipated with the

Como Zoo and Golf Course BMPs Final Design May 4, 2018 Attachment A project partners to discuss any design alternatives and answer questions of the 30% plans. HEI assumes to receive one set of comments from the project partners which will be incorporated into the design or addressed with a response. HEI will then further the design to 60% preliminary design plans which will also include updated quantities and opinion of probable cost. The 60% preliminary design plans will be sent to CRWD and project partners to review and provide one set of comments. Finally, 90% draft final plans will be developed which will be the draft construction documents (before CRWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final review) and will include the construction plan set, technical specifications, unit quantities, and the engineers opinion of probable cost. CRWD and project partners will provide one set of final comments (assuming minor revisions), and HEI will revise and prepare the 100% final plans that can be used for solicitation of bids.

Solicitation of bids, bid management, construction management, construction observation and related services are not included in this scope of services.

ASSUMPTIONS: 1. The three BMP designs will be of a similar function and layout to the preferred BMPs as shown in the Como Regional Park Stormwater BMPs Feasibility Study (2018).

2. One in-person meeting with the project partners at 30% complete plans.

3. One set of comments for revisions for each of the three phases (30%, 60% and 90%) of the project.

4. Final construction plan set will consist of 26 sheets.

5. Final technical specifications do not include front end contract documents.

6. Landscape architect will be a subcontractor to HEI and will only include level of work provided within Loukes & Associates scope of services provided in Attachment B. 7. Solicitation of bids, bid management, construction management, and construction observation are not included in this scope of services.

DELIVERABLES 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

30% design plans for review and comment Meeting with project partners at 30% complete plans.

60% design plans for review and comment 90% design plans for review and comment 100% Bid Package: a. Construction plan set b. Project technical specifications c. Bid tabulation (unit quantities) d. Engineers opinion of probable cost 6. Three renderings of final BMPs (within Loukes & Associates scope of services).

7. Final Board project presentation.

Como Zoo and Golf Course BMPs Final Design May 4, 2018 Attachment A

ANTICIPATED PROJECT SCHEDULE

HEI will begin work on the project once a signed contract between HEI and Capitol Region Watershed District is executed. We anticipate that this project could be completed in December 2018 assuming a signed contract is received by May 21, 2018.

Task

Completion Date

Task 1: Collection of Field Data 30% design plans 30% design plans review meeting 60% design plans 90% design plans Prepare bid package

June 22, 2018 July 27, 2018 August 24, 2018 October 12, 2018 November 23, 2018 December 21, 2018

ESTIMATED COMPENSATION

Table 1 shows the estimated compensation for completing the tasks describe in the Scope of Work.

Table 1. Estimated compensation for completing the Scope of Work.

Task

Cost

Task 1: Collection of Field Data Task 2: Engineering Design Services Task 3: Construction Documents

$16,747 $19,869 $61,790 $1,153 $99,559

Expenses (mileage, survey equipment) Total

The estimated compensation information is presented by Task in the attached detail budget spreadsheet. Houston Engineering, Inc. reserves the right to move the level of effort and estimated compensation between tasks.

Attachment A

ESTIMATED BUDGET Como Zoo and Golf Course Stormwater BMPs Final Design $178

2018 Rates ==>

$178

$146

$117

$130

Date Prepared: April 26, 2018

$98,406 $1,153 Total Estimated Cost $99,559

Total Estimated Labor

Date Revised: May 2, 2018

Total Estimated Expenses

Prepared by: A. Schmidt Checked by:

$172

G. Bowles, B. Shultz

14%

14%

2%

27%

36%

2%

6%

SubConsultant Fees

Project Manager

Project Manager (QA/QC)

Engineer III

Engineer I

Scientist II

Survey (2person crew)

GB 80 $14,240

NS / DM 11 $1,958

AS 180 $26,280

HR 302 $35,334

EB 13 $1,690

HEI Crew 32 $5,504

80 6.0 $1,068 4.0 1.0

11 1.0 $178 1.0 1.0

180 19.0 $2,774 14.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0

302 9.0 $1,053 7.0 1.0

13 9.0 $1,170 9.0 1.0

32 32.0 $5,504 0.0

Total

TASK DESCRIPTION

Total Labor Hours ===> Total Labor Dollars ===>

Como Zoo and Golf Course Stormwater BMPs Final Design Task 1 - Collection of Field Data Soil Boring and Site Data Collection Internal kick-off meeting Gopher One Call for utilities Design site visit & coordinate location of other utilities (1 trip, utility locate meeting onsite, site photos) Collect additional soil borings (1 trip, 3" hand auger, 6' max depth, up to 3 borings) Geotechnical (Bruan sub-consultant)(Assume 2 borings, 20 ft depth, no environmental screening) Analyze and document soil borings, adjust design infiltration rates and confirm water table Receive and analyze flow monitoring data at inlet and outlet of NW Pond and other available data Site Topographic Survey Prepare maps and data for survey, define area and boundaries Site topo survey (storm sewer, utilities, slopes, trees, golf lot and NW pond depths, and site features) (assume 2 Survey management and coordination Post-processing survey data, bring into CAD Task 2 - Engineering Design Services Engineering Design Services - Hydraulics Review existing H&H model Revise existing H&H model with Como 4, 5 & 6 drainage areas and diversion structures Revise existing H&H model with proposed BMPs Run model and address stability issues Hydraulic design for optimizing diversion, pipes, pond outlet, and infiltration bed Internal Quality Assurance / Quality Control review of hydraulics Engineering Design Services Coordination with automated valve company for function, installation, and costs Analyze options and benefits for automated valve function and location Determine constraints for logical control of automated valves (open and closed conditions, timing, locate power source, assess need for telemetry, etc.)

Integrate automated valve into hydraulic design IESF design to promote drying and liner evaluation Assess the need for pond dredging of the Golf Lot pond Draft a technical memo for design documentation of the automated valves and hydraulics Communication with CRWD on automated valve and IESF design Meeting on design option (with project partners) Task 3 - Construction Documents Landscaping Construction Plans and Specifications Coordination with landscape architect Landscape architect (sub-consultant)

-$13,400

--$5,000 5000

$5,000

0.0

1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0

0.0

1.0 -$0 0.0

0.0

-$8,400 $8,400 $8,400

25.0 $4,450 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 22.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 49.0 $8,722 2.0 2.0

2.0 7.0 $1,246 4.0

4.0 3.0

3.0

3.0 $534 0.0

53.0 $7,738 12.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 41.0 4.0 8.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 108.0 $15,768 12.0 12.0

6.0

6.0 2.0

2.0

0.0

32.0 30.0

2.0 55.0 $6,435 35.0 2.0 10.0 6.0 3.0 10.0 4.0 20.0

0.0 $0 0.0

2.0 0.0 $0 0.0

0.0

0.0

4.0 2.0 2.0 12.0

238.0 $27,846 2.0 2.0

4.0 $520 0.0

0.0 $0 0.0

Hours

Dollars

618 $98,406

618 76.0

$98,406.00 $16,747

35.0 6 2 7 2 6 5 41.0 4 30 3 4 140.0

$9,923 $895 $292 $848 $926 $5,292 $876 $794 $6,824 $616 $5,160 $470 $578 $19,869

54.0 3.5 13.5 8.5 4.5 13.5 10.5 86.0 6 16

$7,093 $469 $1,697 $1,083 $586 $1,697 $1,561 $12,776 $940 $2,348

12 5 10 4 19 4 10 402.0

$1,822 $704 $1,588 $616 $2,522 $648 $1,588 $61,790

16.0 16 0

$10,742 $2,342 $8,400

ESTIMATED BUDGET Como Zoo and Golf Course Stormwater BMPs Final Design $178

2018 Rates ==>

$178

$146

$117

$130

Date Prepared: April 26, 2018

$98,406 $1,153 Total Estimated Cost $99,559

Total Estimated Labor

Date Revised: May 2, 2018

Total Estimated Expenses

Prepared by: A. Schmidt Checked by:

G. Bowles, B. Shultz

$172

14%

14%

2%

27%

36%

2%

6%

SubConsultant Fees

Project Manager

Project Manager (QA/QC)

Engineer III

Engineer I

Scientist II

Survey (2person crew)

0.0

13.0

1.0

28.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 2.0 6.0 30.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 27.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.0

78.0 4.0 8.0 18.0 20.0 18.0 6.0 4.0

0.0

0.0

90.0 10.0 6.0 4.0 10.0 16.0 10.0 8.0 12.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 58.0 8.0 4.0 12.0 16.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0

2.0

0.0

Total

TASK DESCRIPTION 30% Concept Plans Title and site location sheet (assume 1 sheet) Site access sheet (assume 1 sheets) Existing conditions and demo/removals sheet (assume 3 sheets) Concept Site layout sheets (assume 4 sheets) Cross section details (assume 3 sheets) Concept preliminary opinion of cost (update feasibility cost) Internal engineering review of 30% design plans Meeting on 30% design plan review (with project partners, one set of comments) 60% Preliminary Plans and Specifications Update of 30% plan sheets with design plan comments Legend and Construction note sheets (assume 1 sheet) Quantity plan (assume 1 sheets) Erosion Control Detail Sheets (assume 2 sheets) Stormsewer plan & profile sheets (assume 2 sheets) Preliminary construction detail sheets (assume 2 sheets) SWPPP sheets (assume 2 sheets) Prepare preliminary technical specifications Preliminary quantities and opinion of probable cost Internal engineering review of 60% design plans Send 60% design plans for review (one set of comments from project partners)(Skype meeting optional) 90% Draft Final Construction Plans and Specifications Finalizing plan sheets, incorporate 60% design plan comments into design Incorporate Landscape plan and details into construction plan set (assume 2 sheets) Construction detail sheets (assume 2 sheets) Draft final technical specifications Calculate final quantities and opinion of probable cost Internal engineering review of 90% design plans Send 90% design plans for review (one set of comments from project partners)(Skype meeting optional) Incorporate 90% design plan comments into design (assume minor comments) 100% Final Construction Plans and Specifications Finalize construction plans Finalize opinion of probable cost Finalize technical specifications (assumed no front end/contract docuements) Final check and package assesmbly (not including solicitation of bids) Board presentation of final package (assume one set of comments on draft presentation)

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 14.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 12.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

Hours

Dollars

120.0 5 12 23 26 26 10 8 10 137.0 15 8 6 13 21 15 11 20 14 8 6 100.0 12 7 18 26 15 6 6 10 29.0 4 4 4 7 10

$15,706 $614 $1,552 $2,900 $3,280 $3,338 $1,318 $1,116 $1,588 $17,840 $1,932 $1,026 $792 $1,640 $2,634 $1,932 $1,406 $2,604 $1,876 $1,116 $882 $13,302 $1,520 $938 $2,344 $3,364 $2,054 $882 $882 $1,318 $4,200 $558 $558 $558 $938 $1,588

Total Estimated Labor Total Estimated Expenses Total Estimated Cost

$98,406 $1,153 $99,559

May 16, 2018 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of May 2, 2018 DRAFT Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander)

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, May 2, 2018, 6:00 p.m. at the office of CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I.

A)

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

Managers Joe Collins Seitu Jones absent w/notice Shirley Reider Rick Sanders Mary Texer B)

Staff Present Anna Eleria, CRWD Forrest Kelley, CRWD Lindsay Schwantes, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD

Public Attendees Richard Weil, CAC Zach Moen, Loucks Associates Steve Mitrione - Master Water Steward Peggy Thomas, Master Water Steward

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

President Collins asked for any additions or changes to the agenda.

Motion 18-067: Approve the Agenda of May 2, 2018.

Reider/Texer Unanimously Approved II.

Public Comment â&#x20AC;&#x201C; For Items not on the Agenda

No Comments were made.

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates A)

Permit #13-023 Dew Drop Pond - Closure (Hosch)

Mr. Kelley reviewed permit #13-023 Dew Drop Pond. The permit was issued for the removal of accumulated sediment and invasive cattails from the Dew Drop Pond on the campus of St. Catherine University. No stormwater treatment was required; only erosion/sediment control and wetland (no-loss to an incidental wetland). The project is complete, and the site is stable. No surety was collected.

Motion 18-068: Approve Certificate of Completion for permit #13-023, Dew Drop Pond.

Reider/Sanders Unanimously Approved

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

B)

Permit #13-033 Fairview-Bohland

Mr. Kelley reviewed permit #13-033 Fairview-Bohland. Stormwater treatment was met by withdrawal from the St. Paul Public Works volume bank. The project is complete, and the site is stable. No surety was collected.

Motion 18-069:

Approve Certificate of Completion for permit #13-033, Fairview-Bohland.

Reider/Sanders Unanimously Approved C)

Permit #18-011 The Hendrickson (Kelley)

Mr, Kelley reviewed permit #18-011 The Hendrickson. The applicant, 1750 Larpenteur, LLC is constructing an apartment building, surface pavement, underground infiltration, and utilities. The applicable rules are Stormwater Management (Rule C), Flood Control (Rule D), and Erosion and Sediment Control (Rule F). The disturbed area of this project is 1.18 acres with 1.02 acres impervious surface.

Motion 18-070:

Approve permit#18-011 The Hendrickson with three conditions:

1. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County.

2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

3. Revise plans to address the following: a. Revise rock specification for the underground storage system shown on Sheet C8-2. Specification shall include the following: i. Acceptable rock types: igneous and crystalline metamorphic (granite, rhyolite, gabbro, basalt, quartzite). ii. Unacceptable rock types: carbonate (limestone, dolomite, dolostone) and non-crystalline metamorphic (shale). b. Revise sump design so that the drainage area to the inflow pipe is at least three times greater than the drainage area to the grate above per the University of Minnesota. The proposed sump ratios in CBMH 6 is 1.5:1. Install MH sump between CBMH 6 and the infiltration system.

Reider/Texer Unanimously Approved D)

Permit #18-012 Scheffer Community Center

Mr. Kelley reviewed permit #18-012 Scheffer Community Center. The applicant, City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation is redeveloping a community center and associated athletic field. The applicable rules are Stormwater Management (Rule C), Flood Control (Rule D), and Erosion and Sediment Control (Rule F). The disturbed area of this project is 3.97 acres with 1.38 acres impervious surface.

Motion 18-071:

Approve permit#18-012 Scheffer Community Center with four conditions:

1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

2. Revise plans to address the following: a. Detail 5 on C503 refers to chamber control structure in Detail 2 on Sheet C503. This shall refer to Detail 1 on Sheet C503. b. Detail 5 on C503 refers to manhole structure in Detail 2 on Sheet C503. This shall refer to Detail 7 Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

on Sheet C503.

3. Revise HydroCAD to address items a.-d. in the 4/24/18 engineer’s report.

4. Revise HydroCAD or plans to correspond for items a.-b. in the 4/24/18 engineer’s report.

Reider/Sanders Unanimously Approved IV.

Special Reports – no reports

V.

Action Items A)

AR:

Approve Minutes of the April 18, 2018 Regular Meeting (Sylvander).

Motion 18-072: Approve Minutes of the April 18, 2018 Regular Meeting.

Reider/Texer Unanimously approved B) B) Work (Eleria)

AR: Approve Consultant Services for TBI Easement Site Plan and Legal Description

Ms. Eleria reviewed that in 2004, Sunde Land Surveying utilized GIS data, survey data of TBI manhole locations, and existing easement documents to create a map of the TBI system and identify approximate locations of easement areas. These maps have been useful in CRWD’s preliminary evaluation of easement area needs. Ms. Eleria shared that the quality of mapping has improved since 2004.

For the TBI Easement Project, legal descriptions and site plans of desired easement areas need to be prepared to survey industry standards for inclusion in easement agreements with affected property owners. Sunde is familiar with the TBI system and initial survey and easement documentation work.

The site plan and legal description scope of work involves two phases. The first phase includes development of a base map of the entire TBI system that is of survey quality and some field work to verify property positions. The second phase involves preparation of site plans and legal description of easements for 20 parcels targeted for acquisition in 2018. The total estimated cost for the project is $37,994.

President Collins asked Ms. Eleria if the work could be done this year. Ms. Eleria replied that the work could be completed this year and added that there is money in the TBI Easement project budget.

Motion 18-073: Approve the TBI Easement Site Plan and Legal Description Proposal from Sunde Land Surveying and authorize the Administrator to execute a consultant services agreement with Sunde Land Surveying for an amount not to exceed $38,000 and any amendments to the agreement up to $4,000.

Reider/Texer Unanimously approved VI.

Unfinished Business A) Building Update (Doneux)

President Collins reflected on the site visit from April 26th for the Board, CAC, and Staff.

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

Manager Reider asked Ms. Schwantes about a neighborhood cleanup project prior to the ground-breaking ceremony. Ms. Schwantes replied that she is currently working on setting something up.

Ms. Eleria gave an update on the planning of a ground-breaking ceremony. Ms. Eleria is just waiting to hear back from Manager Jones and Russ Stark from Mayor Carter’s office. A tentative date is being set for Tuesday, May 22 at 11:30 am.

Mr. Kelley attended a construction update meeting and provided an update. Mr. Kelley noted that 90% of the interior demolition is done. The roofing demolition is at 75% with tearing off decking material. More water damage was discovered on the roof than was anticipated.

B) Master Water Stewards Update (Schwantes) Ms. Schwantes reviewed for the board of managers that CRWD has sponsored three classes of Master Water Stewards and currently has 17 active stewards. The Master Water Stewards program is modeled after University of Minnesota Extension’s Master Gardener certification program and started in 2012 as a partnership between the Freshwater Society and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) with funding through a Clean Water Land and Legacy grant. The program trains, certifies and supports community leaders to install pollution prevention projects that educate community members and reduce polluted runoff. After a three-year pilot at MCWD, in 2015 Freshwater Society developed a plan to expand the program to other Metro-area partners.

Two graduates from the 2017 classes reviewed their projects. Ms. Peggy Thomas shared how she taught grade school classes about water quality by creating water stories and presented the improvements she’s making on her property. Mr. Steve Mitrione reviewed his raingarden project and shared some of the challenges coordinating with City of St. Paul and Ramsey County. The project has not been contructed yet.

The Managers thanked Mr. Mitrione and Ms. Thomas for their work. No action was taken.

VII. A)

General Information

Board of Managers’ Updates

Manager Texer attended the Metro GIS, GEO Data Summit and shared concerns of duplicated efforts regarding runoff calculations. Ms. Eleria will follow up with Mr. Jeff Maas regarding correct contact information for CRWD. VIII. A) B)

Next Meetings

Wednesday, May 9, 2018 CAC Meeting – Manager Rick Sanders will be attending Wednesday, May 16, 2018 Regular Board Meeting IX.

Adjournment

Motion 18-074: Adjournment of the May 2, 2018 Regular Board Meeting at 6:55 p.m.

Reider/Sanders Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

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

May 17, 2018 Board Meeting V. Action Items – B) Accounts Payable & Budget Update (Sylvander)

DATE: April 12, 2018 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Michelle Sylvander, Office Manager RE: April 2018 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Administrative/Program Budget Report _________________________________________________________________________________ Enclosed are the Accounts Payable/Receivable and the Administrative/Program Budget Reports for the Month of April 30, 2018.

Summary of Budget Report: (April Only Expenses) Administrative Budget (100’s) Program Budget (200’s) Project Budget (300’s) Capital Improvement Budget (400’s) Debt Service (500’s)

$ $ $ $ $

64,439.88 149,056.90 44,814.92 442,431.09 23,828.59

TOTAL

$

724,571.38

Summary of Accounts Payable/Receivable Report through April 30, 2018: (Past, present and future months) (April 2018 Only)

Accounts Payable Accounts Receivable

$ $

704,512.11 20,622.36

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

2018 Operations and CIP Monthly YTD Expenditures to Budget $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $Jan

Feb

March

April

May

Jun

July

August

Sept

Oct

2018 Operations Budget

Operations Cumulative Expenditures

2018 CIP Budget

CIP Cumulative Expenditures

Nov

Request Action Approve April 2018 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Budget Report, direct Treasurer and Board President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments. enc:

April 2018 Accounts Payable April 2018 Budget Report

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Board Memos\Board Memos 2018\BD Memo AP Budget Report 5.17.18.docx

2

Dec

Capitol Region Watershed District

Check Register For the Period From May 1, 2018 - May 31, 2018

Date 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18

Payee Al's Coffee Applied Ecological Services, Inc. Barr Engineering Barr Engineering Barr Engineering Barr Engineering Ben Meadows Company Benefit Extras, Inc. Blue Stem Heritage Group C Lanphear Design Colonial Life Comcast - Business Comcast Business - VM Cable Communication Systems Specialists Computer Revolution Energy Park Plaza Forrest J. Kelley Freshwater Society Gopher State One Gray Line Hamline University HealthPartners In-Situ, Inc. Joseph Casacio Joseph Collins Land Title, Inc. Marco - Minolta Mavo Systems Menards MetLife Minnesota Environmental Partnership Minnesota Historical Society Minnesota Pollution Control Minnesota State Auditor MSC Industrial Supply MSR Northern Battery Quality Snowplowing & Lawn Ramsey Conservation District Ramsey County - Attorney Redpath & Company Ltd SRF Consulting, Inc. St. Paul Regional Water Services St. Paul Stamp Works, Inc. Staples Business Advantage Syscon, Inc. Teledyne Instruments, Inc. Union Park District Council Verizon Wireless Viking Industrial Center

Amount

Check Total

315.00 512.50 8,956.16 1,483.30 3,467.94 4,483.28 3,914.25 71.00 1,050.00 1,829.42 1,678.25 319.26 516.70 421.50 2,130.50 8,715.90 800.00 15,000.00 117.50 415.00 5,000.00 20,680.93 420.00 750.00 703.44 2,709.00 993.87 22,575.00 293.51 509.32 25.00 1,544.46 23,828.59 5,165.00 1,088.27 41,327.54 772.43 62.50 19,242.00 3,655.00 6,400.00 2,381.42 95.71 62.33 153.37 46.25 7,666.50 8,664.11 15.28 475.84

315.00 512.50 8,956.16 1,483.30 3,467.94 4,483.28 3,914.25 71.00 1,050.00 1,829.42 1,678.25 319.26 516.70 421.50 2,130.50 8,715.90 800.00 15,000.00 117.50 415.00 5,000.00 20,680.93 420.00 750.00 703.44 2,709.00 993.87 22,575.00 293.51 509.32 25.00 1,544.46 23,828.59 5,165.00 1,088.27 41,327.54 772.43 62.50 19,242.00 3,655.00 6,400.00 2,381.42 95.71 62.33 153.37 46.25 7,666.50 8,664.11 15.28 475.84

Page 1 of 2

Check # 18949 18950 18951 18952 18953 18954 18955 18956 18957 18958 18959 18960 18961 18962 18963 18964 18965 18966 18967 18968 18969 18970 18971 18972 18973 18974 18975 18976 18977 18978 18979 18980 18981 18982 18983 18984 18985 18986 18987 18988 18989 18990 18991 18992 18993 18994 18995 18996 18997 18998

Description Filters/Supplies Task 6 Design Support Atlas 14 Updates Agreement/Amendment #4 Monitoring Assistance Gloves/Vests/Tool Reacher/Loggers Employee Benefits Aldine History Presentation Design Work Employee Benefits Business Voice Mail Business Internet Cables/Intern Work Area Managed Services Rent Office Cleaning Master Water Stewards Program Operator Fee/Tickets CAC Tour Metro Watershed Partners Employee Benefits HydroVac Well Sealing Cost Share Manager Per Diem/Expense Easements Copier Contract Asbestos Removal Supplies Employee Benefits Partnership Refund/Unspent Grant Funds Partnership Project Loan 2017 Audit Supplies/Materials/Batteries Professional Services/Office Design Batteries Snow Plowing Aquatic Vegetation Reports/Design Services Attorney Services Monthly Accounting/Audit Feasibitity Study/Como Lake Proj/Graphics Water & Sewer Name Tags Office Supplies Sage Support/New Server Velocity Sensors/Control Box Blooming Alleys Project iPads Safety Glass/Recalibrating/Sleeve Anchor

Capitol Region Watershed District

Check Register For the Period From May 1, 2018 - May 31, 2018

Date 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18 05/16/18

Payee Walters Waste Management Wenck Associates, Inc. Wenck Associates, Inc. Wenck Associates, Inc. Wenck Associates, Inc. Wenck Associates, Inc. Wenck Associates, Inc. Wetland Habitat Restoration, LLC Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy US Bank

SUB-TOTAL: APRIL A/P

Amount

Check Total

73.64 48.27 1,759.60 7,936.79 4,630.13 684.80 297.00 1,249.70 15,315.00 30.99 27.16 543.92 595.00 375.02 34.73 255.20 1,647.07

73.64 48.27 1,759.60 7,936.79 4,630.13 684.80 297.00 1,249.70 15,315.00 30.99 27.16 543.92 595.00 375.02 34.73 255.20 1,647.07

$269,008.15

$269,008.15

$3,631.00 344,096.00

$3,631.00 344,096.00

$347,727.00

$347,727.00

$87,776.96

$87,776.96

$704,512.11

$704,512.11

Check # 18999 19000 19001 19002 19003 19004 19005 19006 19007 19008 19009 19010 19011 19012 19013 19014 19015

Description Trash & Recycling Trash Service Permit Inspections Permit Program Inspections Lake McCarron's AIS Plan Area C Environmental Assistance Maintenance Plan Ravine 1A Repairs Electrical at Kittson Electrical at Maryland Ave. Gas Service - Aldine Temporary Electrical Service Electrical Service Gas Service Electrical Service Monthly Credit Card

WIRE TRANSFERS: 05/17/18 J. E. Dunn Construction Company 05/17/18 J. E. Dunn Construction Company SUB-TOTAL: WIRE TRANSFERS: APRIL PAYROLL/BENEFITS: APRIL TOTAL:

Certificate of Payment - #1 - Thru 4/30/18 Certificate of Payment - #2 - Thru 4/30/18

APPROVED FOR PAYMENT:

5/16/2018

APRIL, 2018 RECEIPTS

Henrickson 4M Fund-Bonds 4M Fund-General APRIL RECEIPTS:

5,000.00 11,326.62 4,295.74 $20,622.36

Page 2 of 2

Surety - 18-011 April Interest April Interest

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST RECAP FOR THE PERIOD APR 1, 2018 ‐ APR 30, 2018

17970 ‐ General Administration 17 18970 ‐ General Administration 18 18795 ‐ Aldine Operating Expense 18976 ‐ Thomas Operating Expense 17980 ‐ Diversity Plan 17985 ‐ CRWD History Study 00000 ‐ Administration Allocation

JOB COST #/NAME

TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: 200 ‐ Administration 201 ‐ Groundwater 207 ‐ Rulemaking/Rule Revisions 208 ‐ Permitting 210 ‐ Stewardship Grants 211 ‐ Monitoring & Data Collection 220 ‐ Education & Outreach 225 ‐ Technical Resources & Information Sharing 228 ‐ Future Trends: Research and Positioning 230 ‐ Geographic Informatin Systems (GIS) 240 ‐ Safety Program TOTAL PROGRAMS: 300 ‐ Administration 301 ‐ Shoreline & Streambank Maintenance 305 ‐ Como Lake Subwatershed 310 ‐ Lake McCarron's Subwatershed 315 ‐ Trout Brook Subwatershed 317 ‐ Crosby Lake Subwatershed 330 ‐ Mississippi River Subwatershed 370 ‐ Watershed Management Plan TOTAL PROJECTS: TOTAL OPERATING FUND: 405 ‐ Como Lake BMP's 410 ‐ Lake McCarron's BMP's 413 ‐ Loeb Lake BMP's 415 ‐ Trout Brook BMP's 417 ‐ Crosby Lake BMP's 430 ‐ Mississippi River Subwatersheds BMP's 440 ‐ Special Projects & Grants 450 ‐ Future Trends: Implementation TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 15104 ‐ Debt & Loan Service 15 TOTAL DEBT SERVICES: TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

2018 ANNUAL BUDGET ‐ 506,220.00 214,310.00 74,560.00 ‐ ‐ (396,257.00) $398,833.00 261,530.00 7,400.00 15,000.00 322,840.00 560,110.00 591,210.00 497,130.00 41,840.00 133,510.00 26,700.00 33,320.00 $2,490,590.00 134,727.00 8,000.00 260,330.00 51,650.00 222,300.00 26,290.00 113,760.00 65,000.00 $882,057.00 $3,771,480.00 444,140.00 119,970.00 85,590.00 288,150.00 ‐ 619,540.00 824,580.00 8,762,000.00 $11,143,970.00 550,000.00 $550,000.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ 60,967.23 1,521.08 65.98 341.13 1,544.46 ‐ 64,439.88 ‐ 750.00 224.11 29,252.23 36,115.03 37,297.03 39,869.63 1,419.91 1,671.71 1,952.96 504.29 $149,056.90 ‐ ‐ 7,288.89 2,364.42 14,929.16 16,786.55 3,445.90 ‐ $44,814.92 $258,311.70 117.50 7,740.16 614.31 ‐ ‐ 929.47 4,776.12 428,253.53 $442,431.09 23,828.59 $23,828.59

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF BUDGET EXPENDITURES REMAINING 10,965.46 (10,965.46) 210,857.55 295,362.45 6,700.21 207,609.79 3,848.27 70,711.73 1,327.15 (1,327.15) 1,544.46 (1,544.46) ‐ (396,257.00) $235,243.10 $163,589.90 ‐ 261,530.00 1,517.00 5,883.00 1,804.82 13,195.18 100,478.78 222,361.22 62,371.97 497,738.03 152,431.40 438,778.60 107,631.97 389,498.03 3,351.89 38,488.11 12,737.66 120,772.34 4,576.32 22,123.68 7,881.97 25,438.03 $454,783.78 $2,035,806.22 ‐ 134,727.00 ‐ 8,000.00 64,819.71 195,510.29 14,540.99 37,109.01 37,047.29 185,252.71 17,862.97 8,427.03 11,952.65 101,807.35 ‐ 65,000.00 $146,223.61 $735,833.39 $836,250.49 $2,935,229.51 162.36 443,977.64 68,697.85 51,272.15 2,367.15 83,222.85 ‐ 288,150.00 24,564.55 (24,564.55) 14,000.94 605,539.06 71,289.07 753,290.93 670,731.33 8,091,268.67 $851,813.25 $10,292,156.75 345,471.47 204,528.53 $345,471.47 $204,528.53

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ 41.65% 3.13% 5.16% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.00% 58.98% 0.00% 20.50% ‐‐‐ 31.12% 11.14% 25.78% 21.65% 8.01% 9.54% 17.14% 23.66% 18.26% 0.00% 0.00% 24.90% 28.15% 16.67% 67.95% 10.51% ‐‐‐ 16.58% 22.17% 0.04% 57.26% 2.77% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 2.26% 8.65% 7.66% 7.64% 62.81% 62.81%

$15,465,450.00

$724,571.38

$2,033,535.21

$13,431,914.79

13.15%

Unaudited Fund Balance FUND BALANCES @ 12/31/17 Operations 2,071,267.17 Capital Improvement 1,130,734.69 Debt Service 94,698.10 Building/Bond Proceeds ‐ TOTAL FUND BALANCE: $3,296,699.96

2018 Fund Transfers ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $0.00

Year‐to‐Date Revenue 30,678.90 5,548.26 ‐ 9,911,621.32 $9,947,848.48

Year‐to‐Date Expenditures $836,250.49 504,086.25 345,471.47 347,727.00 $2,033,535.21

Unaudited Fund Balance @ 04/30/18 1,265,695.58 632,196.70 (250,773.37) 9,563,894.32 $11,211,013.23

Page 1 of 7

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD APR 1, 2018 ‐ APR 30, 2018

2018 ANNUAL BUDGET ‐ 506,220.00 214,310.00 74,560.00 ‐ ‐ (396,257.00) TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: $398,833.00 20000 ‐ Administration Allocation 261,530.00 17000 ‐ District Permit Program ‐ 18000 ‐ District Permit Program 165,050.00 18101 ‐ Permit Tracking & Database Management 10,740.00 18102 ‐ Construction Inspection 119,050.00 17103 ‐ Permit Closure & Post Construction Inspection/Maintenance ‐ 18103 ‐ Permit Closure & Post Construction Inspection/Maintenance 28,000.00 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐ Permits ‐ 18120 ‐ Evaluate Rules/TAC Meetings 15,000.00 18130 ‐ Groundwater Protectin ‐ Well Sealing 7,400.00 16143 ‐ Stewardship Grants ‐ 17143 ‐ Stewardship Grants ‐ 18143 ‐ Stewardship Grants 318,190.00 17144 ‐ Partner Grants ‐ 18144 ‐ Partner Grants 96,790.00 17145 ‐ Inspiring Communities Program 18,850.00 18145 ‐ Inspiring Communities Program ‐ 18146 ‐ Rain Garden Projects 25,330.00 16147 ‐ TWP Blvd. Rain Gardens 92,190.00 18148 ‐ MN Greencorps Member 8,760.00 17200 ‐ Baseline Monitoring & Data Collection ‐ 18200 ‐ Baseline Monitoring & Data Collection 289,190.00 17205 ‐ Lake Monitoring & Data Collection ‐ 18205 ‐ Lake Monitoring & Data Collection 113,550.00 ‐ 17210 ‐ Villa Park Monitoring & Data Collection 18210 ‐ Villa Park Monitoring & Data Collection 30,570.00 17215 ‐ Wetland Bio‐Monitoring ‐ 18215 ‐ Wetland Bio‐Monitoring 14,420.00 18220 ‐ Long‐Term Monitoring Database Development 13,510.00 17221 ‐ Data Analysis & Reporting Tool 18,320.00 18225 ‐ Remote Data Access & Set‐Up 13,380.00 17230 ‐ BMP Monitoring ‐ 18230 ‐ BMP Monitoring 46,520.00

17970 ‐ General Administration 18970 ‐ General Administration 18975 ‐ Aldine Operating Expense 18976 ‐ Thomas Operating Expense 17980 ‐ Diversity Plan 17985 ‐ CRWD History Study 10000 ‐ Administration Allocation

JOB COST #/NAME

CURRENT MONTH YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING ‐ 10,965.46 (10,965.46) 60,967.23 210,857.55 295,362.45 1,521.08 6,700.21 207,609.79 65.98 3,848.27 70,711.73 341.13 1,327.15 (1,327.15) 1,544.46 1,544.46 (1,544.46) ‐ ‐ (396,257.00) $64,439.88 $235,243.10 $163,589.90 ‐ ‐ 261,530.00 ‐ 5,790.93 (5,790.93) 11,387.57 39,302.03 125,747.97 67.23 246.51 10,493.49 143.96 460.79 118,589.21 ‐ 244.42 (244.42) 217.26 660.82 27,339.18 17,436.21 53,773.28 (53,773.28) 224.11 1,804.82 13,195.18 750.00 1,517.00 5,883.00 ‐ 234.95 (234.95) ‐ 3,470.33 (3,470.33) 30,852.46 46,848.43 271,341.57 ‐ 489.76 (489.76) 578.09 2,872.75 93,917.25 ‐ ‐ 18,850.00 486.00 486.00 (486.00) ‐ ‐ 25,330.00 3,636.24 6,872.05 85,317.95 562.24 1,097.70 7,662.30 ‐ 15,495.43 (15,495.43) 32,592.15 74,114.30 215,075.70 ‐ 501.95 (501.95) 1,560.63 3,619.72 109,930.28 ‐ 1,583.60 (1,583.60) 235.23 926.51 29,643.49 ‐ 4,530.00 (4,530.00) 1,080.00 1,080.00 13,340.00 76.85 76.85 13,433.15 436.51 31,478.43 (13,158.43) ‐ 687.07 12,692.93 ‐ 1,912.83 (1,912.83) 430.78 1,107.53 45,412.47

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ 41.65% 3.13% 5.16% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.00% 58.98% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 23.81% 2.30% 0.39% ‐‐‐ 2.36% ‐‐‐ 12.03% 20.50% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 14.72% ‐‐‐ 2.97% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 7.45% 12.53% ‐‐‐ 25.63% ‐‐‐ 3.19% ‐‐‐ 3.03% ‐‐‐ 7.49% 0.57% 171.83% 5.14% ‐‐‐ 2.38%

Page 2 of 7

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD APR 1, 2018 ‐ APR 30, 2018

JOB COST #/NAME 15231 ‐ AHUG Exfiltration Monitoring 16232 ‐ Midway Office WH Monitoring 17232 ‐ Midway Office WH Monitoring 17250 ‐ General Ed & Outreach 18250 ‐ General Ed & Outreach 18251 ‐ General Communications 18252 ‐ Education & Outreach ‐ Aldine 18255 ‐ Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 17260 ‐ Municipal Outreach 18260 ‐ Municipal Training 18262 ‐ Youth Outreach 18263 ‐ Communication Training 18265 ‐ Sponsorships & Partnerships 16268 ‐ Adopt A Drain 17268 ‐ Adopt A Drain 18268 ‐ Adopt A Drain 17270 ‐ Website & Social Media 18270 ‐ Website & Social Media 18271 ‐ Master Water Stewards 17274 ‐ TWP Communications 18275 ‐ Events 16277 ‐ TWP ‐ Adopt a Drain 16278 ‐ TWP Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 18279 ‐ Social Media 17285 ‐ Awards & Recognition Programs 18285 ‐ Awards & Recognition Programs 17300 ‐ Local & Agency Plan Review & Tech Committee 18300 ‐ Plan Review & Tech Committee 17303 ‐ BMP Database Maintenance/Updates 18303 ‐ BMP Database Maintenance/Updates 17330 ‐ District Research Program 18330 ‐ District Research Program 17333 ‐ Public Art Program 18333 ‐ Public Art Program 18334 ‐ Public Art Program ‐ Aldine 18336 ‐ Climate Change 18370 ‐ GIS Program Development 18390 ‐ Safety Training 16395 ‐ Safety Updates 17395 ‐ Safety Program Update/Audits 18395 ‐ Safety Program Update/Audits 18396 ‐ CSE Equipment

2018 ANNUAL BUDGET 20,460.00 31,290.00 ‐ ‐ 79,350.00 76,960.00 60,000.00 17,400.00 ‐ 20,090.00 10,690.00 10,990.00 27,560.00 ‐ ‐ 17,390.00 ‐ 77,770.00 28,120.00 7,480.00 22,780.00 6,900.00 10,400.00 7,270.00 ‐ 15,980.00 20,940.00 ‐ ‐ 20,900.00 ‐ 38,720.00 ‐ 19,790.00 60,000.00 15,000.00 26,700.00 10,540.00 12,460.00 ‐ ‐ 10,320.00 TOTAL PROGRAMS: $2,490,590.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 232.44 ‐ 652.44 ‐ 6,662.00 3,608.58 ‐ 374.30 ‐ 121.94 1,176.81 ‐ 5,524.45 ‐ ‐ 125.75 2,891.35 ‐ 17,289.02 80.62 1,848.75 94.12 31.63 40.31 ‐ ‐ ‐ 537.88 ‐ 882.03 ‐ 717.18 ‐ 258.40 696.13 ‐ 1,952.96 170.94 ‐ ‐ 48.65 284.70 $149,056.90

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 5,311.06 15,148.94 ‐ 31,290.00 10,006.12 (10,006.12) 4,490.80 (4,490.80) 19,550.94 59,799.06 6,716.56 70,243.44 ‐ 60,000.00 612.04 16,787.96 6,337.50 (6,337.50) 121.94 19,968.06 1,539.22 9,150.78 142.85 10,847.15 7,786.39 19,773.61 31.44 (31.44) 2,210.51 (2,210.51) 1,301.30 16,088.70 26,755.32 (26,755.32) ‐ 77,770.00 19,899.84 8,220.16 325.35 7,154.65 2,513.32 20,266.68 3,169.96 3,730.04 235.28 10,164.72 417.44 6,852.56 3,210.85 (3,210.85) 263.12 15,716.88 50.47 20,889.53 1,213.77 (1,213.77) 430.23 (430.23) 1,657.42 19,242.58 102.46 (102.46) 1,050.15 37,669.85 7,409.83 (7,409.83) 1,881.41 17,908.59 1,035.23 58,964.77 1,258.58 13,741.42 4,576.32 22,123.68 4,171.34 6,368.66 ‐ 12,460.00 2,105.04 (2,105.04) 616.77 (616.77) 988.82 9,331.18 454,783.78 $2,035,806.22

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 25.96% 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 24.64% 8.73% 0.00% 3.52% ‐‐‐ 0.61% 14.40% 1.30% 28.25% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 7.48% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 70.77% 4.35% 11.03% 45.94% 2.26% 5.74% ‐‐‐ 1.65% 0.24% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 7.93% ‐‐‐ 2.71% ‐‐‐ 9.51% 1.73% 8.39% 17.14% 39.58% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 9.58% 18.26%

Page 3 of 7

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD APR 1, 2018 ‐ APR 30, 2018

JOB COST #/NAME 30000 ‐ Administration Allocation 18100 ‐ Watershed Management Plan ‐ 2020 18001 ‐ Strategic Plan 18405 ‐ St. Paul Natural Resources Intern Program 16420 ‐ Como Reg Park Stormwater Plan 17421 ‐ Como BMP Maintenance & Inspection 18421 ‐ Como BMP Maintenance & Inspection 18425 ‐ Curtis Pond Opti RTC O & M 16426 ‐ Como Lake, In‐Lake Management Assessment 18427 ‐ Como Lake Management Plan 16430 ‐ TWP Como Lake Project Development 16432 ‐ TWP Como Lake Project Dev. 17435 ‐ North & East Subwatershed Study 18470 ‐ AIS Management 15471 ‐ Aquatic Invasive Mgt Plan 15 17475 ‐ Lake McCarron's Internal Loading Assessment 18475 ‐ Lake McCarron's Internal Loading Assessment 18476 ‐ Upper Villa Maintenance 16477 ‐ TWP ‐ Lake McCarron's Project Development 17550 ‐ Inspection & Annual Maintenance 18550 ‐ Inspection & Annual Maintenance 14552 ‐ TBI Easement Verification & Documentation 17554 ‐ TBI Hydraulic/Hydrolic Model Calibration & Update 18570 ‐ NPDES MS4 Stormwater Program 18575 ‐ Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination Program 17621 ‐ Snelling Midway Redevelopment 17622 ‐ Ford Site Planning 18622 ‐ Ford Site Planning 18624 ‐ CCLRT BMP Maintenance 14625 ‐ Eustis St. Stormwater Improvement 18531 ‐ Highland Ravine BMP Maintenance 17631 ‐ Highland Ravine Maintenance 16660 ‐ TWP Grant Admin 16

16705 ‐ TWP Como BMP McMurray 16715 ‐ TWP Como Sr. High 16720 ‐ Willow Reserve Restoration Project 16752 ‐ TWP ‐ McCarrons BMP ‐ Parkview 12801 ‐ Highland Ravine Stabilization 16815 ‐ TBI Repairs ‐ St. 0+00 ‐ 28+49 13xxx ‐ Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary 13852 ‐ Tirllium Site Water Resource

2018 ANNUAL BUDGET 134,727.00 50,000.00 15,000.00 8,000.00 21,010.00 ‐ 25,310.00 9,550.00 ‐ 135,540.00 68,920.00 ‐ ‐ 14,300.00 ‐ ‐ 29,200.00 8,150.00 ‐ ‐ 112,650.00 76,050.00 10,610.00 6,450.00 16,540.00 10,850.00 ‐ 69,200.00 33,710.00 ‐ 26,290.00 ‐ ‐ TOTAL PROJECTS: $882,057.00 TOTAL OPERATING FUND: $3,771,480.00 444,140.00 ‐ 85,590.00 119,970.00 ‐ ‐ 288,150.00 ‐

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 34.03 ‐ 279.56 4,333.81 458.34 2,183.15 ‐ ‐ 1,516.20 ‐ ‐ 89.66 758.56 ‐ 7,118.60 5,356.91 2,022.49 48.65 382.51 246.86 ‐ 3,012.10 97.30 89.64 221.85 16,564.70 ‐ $44,814.92 $258,311.70 ‐ ‐ 614.31 2,756.91 ‐ 117.50 ‐ 4,855.19

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING ‐ 134,727.00 ‐ 50,000.00 ‐ 15,000.00 ‐ 8,000.00 ‐ 21,010.00 50.47 (50.47) 183.28 25,126.72 ‐ 9,550.00 4,861.26 (4,861.26) 7,086.27 128,453.73 48,955.92 19,964.08 3,530.09 (3,530.09) 152.42 (152.42) ‐ 14,300.00 3,807.03 (3,807.03) 9,689.69 (9,689.69) ‐ 29,200.00 246.55 7,903.45 797.72 (797.72) 2,062.37 (2,062.37) 16,566.78 96,083.22 8,808.28 67,241.72 8,704.83 1,905.17 522.52 5,927.48 382.51 16,157.49 651.07 10,198.93 2,510.16 (2,510.16) 7,754.24 61,445.76 183.94 33,526.06 89.64 (89.64) 1,053.66 25,236.34 16,809.31 (16,809.31) 763.60 (763.60) 146,223.61 $735,833.39 $836,250.49 $2,935,229.51 ‐ 444,140.00 39.16 (39.16) 2,367.15 83,222.85 17,845.36 102,124.64 24,564.55 (24,564.55) 123.20 (123.20) ‐ 288,150.00 49,505.58 (49,505.58)

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 0.72% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 5.23% 71.03% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.00% 3.03% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 14.71% 11.58% 82.04% 8.10% 2.31% 6.00% ‐‐‐ 11.21% 0.55% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 16.58% 22.17% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 2.77% 14.87% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.00% ‐‐‐

Page 4 of 7

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD APR 1, 2018 ‐ APR 30, 2018

JOB COST #/NAME 16853 ‐ Victoria Park Water Features 16881 ‐ Green Line Redevelopment BMP's 16886 ‐ Lauderdale Subwatershed Stormwater Improvement Projectg 16910 ‐ Special Grants 17910 ‐ Special Grants 18910 ‐ Special Grants 16912 ‐ Selby Milton Victoria 15917 ‐ Harambee Elementary 15 16917 ‐ Swede Hollow Construction 14922 ‐ Model Cities ‐ Brownstone 17925 ‐ Highland Park Sr. High 17928 ‐ Jimmy Lee Play Area 17929 ‐ Wilder Square Condo 16950 ‐ New Office Facility 17950 ‐ New Office Facility TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 17001 ‐ Debt & Loan Service TOTAL DEBT SERVICES:

2018 ANNUAL BUDGET ‐ 559,490.00 60,050.00 ‐ ‐ 821,700.00 2,880.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,762,000.00 $11,143,970.00 550,000.00 $550,000.00

TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

$15,465,450.00

CURRENT MONTH YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 128.06 1,346.91 (1,346.91) 611.24 1,816.33 557,673.67 318.23 12,184.61 47,865.39 ‐ 97.93 (97.93) ‐ 2,427.84 (2,427.84) 4,715.03 11,811.54 809,888.46 ‐ 39.16 2,840.84 ‐ 56,199.04 (56,199.04) ‐ 219.96 (219.96) ‐ 97.90 (97.90) ‐ 75.48 (75.48) 61.09 61.09 (61.09) ‐ 259.13 (259.13) 428,253.53 670,731.33 (670,731.33) ‐ 0.00 8,762,000.00 $442,431.09 $851,813.25 $10,292,156.75 23,828.59 345,471.47 204,528.53 $23,828.59 $345,471.47 $204,528.53 $724,571.38

$2,033,535.21

$13,431,914.79

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ 0.32% 20.29% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1.44% 1.36% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.00% 7.64% 62.81% 62.81% 13.15%

Page 5 of 7

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD APR 1, 2018 ‐ APR 30, 2018 PERMIT NUMBER 12023 13023 14003 14005 14009 14018 14020 14022 14026 14034 14041 15002 15013 15024 15029 15030 15040 16008 16017 16018 16019 16020 16021 16023 16024 16025 16026 16027 16028 16029 16032 16033 17001 17002

PERMIT NAME

PERMITTING BUDGET

Ford Site Demo Dew Drop Inn State Trunk Highway 5 Resurface Hazelden Redevelopment Waters of Highland Frogtown Farms Primrose School Victoria Park Stormwater Pleasant Ridge East 7th Senior Apartments Higher Ground 2700 University Jamestown Homes Saints Tailgating Parking Lot Midway Office Warehouse Farrington Estates Luther Seminary Keg & Case Market Rivoli Redevelopment 601 Prior Demo Roselawn Cemetary Dorothy Day Place 2300 Territorial Apartments Linwood Lower School Hmong Academy Expansion Snelling Midway St. Anthony Park Elementary River East School Adams School Boaters Outlet SPJCC Addition AET Campus Expansion Horace Mann Elementary Highland Park Elementary

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES

547.56 36.21 ‐ 470.40 54.32 9.05 36.21 ‐ 246.64 54.32 ‐ 564.90 88.71 968.64 ‐ 153.89 246.64 300.89 308.55 108.62 99.57 236.14 323.05 300.78 171.99 2,263.01 72.41 99.57 90.53 81.46 698.57 109.05 99.57 208.21

2,019.24 36.21 43.33 470.40 54.32 9.05 36.21 9.05 1,206.43 369.32 51.00 564.90 689.33 1,011.97 176.29 280.63 844.87 312.59 1,408.13 208.19 144.82 1,546.32 1,668.41 1,364.10 325.89 10,328.57 1,274.87 344.00 262.52 199.14 1,629.49 132.34 226.29 371.14

BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING

% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Page 6 of 7

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD APR 1, 2018 ‐ APR 30, 2018 PERMIT NUMBER 17003 17008 17009 17010 17013 17014 17016 17018 17019 17020 17021 17022 17023 17024 17025 18001 18002 18003 18004 18005 18006 18007 18008 18009 18010 18011 18012

18000

PERMIT NAME

PERMITTING BUDGET

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES

Como Park Sr. High School SPA Expansion Jackson Street Reconstruction Swede Hollow Great River Schools Residence Inn Grand Avenue Smith Avenue Bridge Exchange Street Apartments MN United Stadium Hauling Transfer Road Storage Macalaster Theater Building Regions Birth Center Weyerhaeuser Apts.

St. Catherine Library Lot Rice Park Revitalization Sylvan Park Improvements Menards Trnasload Terminal Marydale Park Improvements Como Paving 2018 Higher Ground Academy Wheelock 2018 Woodlawn Jefferson Vomela Beacon Bluff Seal Island at Como Zoo CRWD 595 Aldine Hendrickson Apartments Scheffer Community Center

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

90.51 320.14 96.14 108.63 99.58 246.64 181.06 300.78 18.10 395.63 99.58 99.58 36.21 172.00 ‐ 44.83 1,103.77 9.05 ‐ 324.00 ‐ 623.61 895.23 135.78 1,531.80 752.10 702.00

226.30 1,365.22 96.14 108.63 244.41 1,499.50 325.90 1,393.26 99.55 418.92 242.48 285.64 715.49 359.14 1,740.99 1,952.76 2,950.10 1,212.96 1,374.50 1,343.92 517.66 993.41 1,565.36 135.78 1,531.80 752.10 702.00

Sub‐Total: Permits

‐

17,436.21

53,773.28

General Permitting TOTAL PERMITS:

‐ $165,050.00

11,387.57 39,302.03 28,823.78 93,075.31

BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING

% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ $71,974.69

‐ 56.39%

Page 7 of 7

4/26/2018

CRWD Construction Bilings Forecast

Pay App # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

TOTAL BILLINGS TO DATE $350,000 $1,150,000 $2,650,000 $4,450,000 $5,950,000 $6,750,000 $7,250,000 $7,344,000

ESTIMATED BILLING $350,000 $800,000 $1,500,000 $1,800,000 $1,500,000 $800,000 $500,000 $94,000

DATE May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18

% COMPLETE 4.77% 10.89% 36.08% 60.59% 81.02% 91.91% 98.72% 100.00%

$7,344,000

CRWD Monthly Construction Billings Forecast $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000

Seâ&#x20AC;¦

$500,000 $0 May-18

Jun-18

Jul-18

Aug-18

Sep-18

Date (Pay App)

Oct-18

Nov-18

Dec-18

May 16, 2018 Board Meeting V. Action Item – C) Mississippi River Art Proposal (Eleria)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

May 9, 2018 CRWD Board of Managers Anna Eleria, Program Manager Approve Mississippi River Art Proposal

Background CRWD staff and Christine Baeumler, CRWD’s watershed-in-resident artist, have been exploring opportunities for integrating art into CRWD’s new office that align with our education, outreach and art goals and themes for the space that was defined by staff last summer.

Issues CRWD staff propose hiring Tamsie Ringler, a public metal artist and University of Minnesota faculty member, to create a hanging iron sculpture of the entire Mississippi River for CRWD’s new office. Called the River of Iron, the iron sculpture would be 10’ H x 12’ W x 4” D and hang on the center partition wall in the lobby (See enclosed office rendering). In addition, casting of the iron sculpture could be performed in a fall 2018 event at the new office site. A larger version of this piece was created in 2015 and is now part of the permanent collection at the Weisman Museum in Minneapolis. For more information about this piece, visit http://www.tamsie.com/River%20of%20Iron.html The estimated cost for River of Iron artwork at CRWD’s new office, which includes materials and labor for the molds, pour and installation, is $28,440. See enclosed proposal. Funds for this project would come from Project #228-18334, which has a 2018 budget of $60,000.

Action Requested Approve Mississippi River Art Proposal from Tamsie Ringler in an amount not to exceed $28,440 and authorize the Administrator to execute an agreement.

enc:

Mississippi River Art Proposal dated April 13, 2018 Lobby Rendering

W:\01 Administration\Facility Management\595 Aldine\Building Program\OAA Committee\Board Memos\BM Mississippi River Art 05-16-2018.docx

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

Mississippi River Watershed Iron Casting Project – Capitol Region Watershed District Tamsie Ringler April 13, 2018

Budget Costs related to one-day Iron Pour event with performative iron casting and relief molds, and production and installation of an iron casting of the Mississippi River Watershed. (Scale: @ 10’ x 12’ x 4”)

Research Materials: Mississippi River Watershed vector map

Materials: 10’ x 12’ iron casting + public iron pour + 40 relief molds 1200 lbs iron: 500.00 9,000 lbs bonded sand: 900.00 Misc foundry supplies: core paste/ mold wash/ parting compound: 200.00 Misc flask supplies: wood for flasks/ bottom boards (600) hardware (100): 700.00 Pattern supplies: 6/ 1" mdf board (300), vector file preparation and cutting (400): 700.00 Finishing supplies: grinding wheels, cut off wheels, buffing wheels, buffing compound, burrs, files, wire brushes, welding rods: 300.00 Installation contractor Andrew MacGuffie: $1500 Iron Pour: KRL Metals: $5000 Misc project costs: transportation/ material disposal/ equipment rental: $1000 Total materials: $10,800.00

Project Personnel/ Assistants: Mold assistants: 5,000 (20/ hr x 250 hrs.)

Finishing assistants: 2,000 (20/ hr x 100 hrs) Pour day assistants (4): 640 (20/hr x 32 hrs) – For relief molds workshops.

Artist, including design, fabrication, project management: 10,000 Total personnel: $17,640

Total Project Budget: $28,440

May 16, 2018 Board Meeting V. Action Item – D) Approve TBI Easement Acquisition Services Proposal (Eleria)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

May 9, 2018 CRWD Board of Managers Anna Eleria, PPG Division Manager Approve TBI Easement Acquisition Services Proposal from SRF Consulting Group

Background Negotiation and acquisition of easements for TBI requires the professional services of a survey company, an independent appraisal consultant, and an acquisition agent. Last April, CRWD’s Board of Managers approved SRF Consulting Group as the TBI easement acquisition agent.

Issues SRF Consulting Group has prepared the enclosed proposal for TBI easement acquisition services. The scope of services includes notifications, field title investigation meetings and negotiations with affected property owners, recording of easement documents and project coordination with CRWD and Ramsey County Attorney’s Office. SRF’s estimated budget is $48,898 for services related to 17 high priority parcels identified by CRWD. The cost per parcel is $2,876, which is slightly less compared to a current, similar County project.

Funds for the project will come from TBI Easement Project #315-14552, which has a 2018 budget of $76,050. Combined with the Sunde Survey proposal of $38,000 that the Board approved last month, the two contracts equal $86,898, which exceeds the 2018 budget. Please note that this does not include the budget for an appraisal consultant, which staff are currently negotiating. With nearly half the year past, CRWD staff does not anticipate completing work for all 17 parcels in 2018 and therefore, we may not exceed the 2018 project budget. If the project budget is nearing exceedance, staff will seek a project budget amendment from the Board. We will review the SRF proposal as well as the entire anticipated professional services budget of the TBI Easement Project with the Board at the May 16th meeting.

Action Requested Approve the TBI Easement Acquisition Agent Proposal from SRF Consulting Group and authorize the Administrator to execute a consultant services agreement with SRF Consulting Group for an amount not to exceed $48,898 and any amendments to the agreement up to $4,900.

Enc:

SRF Proposal dated May 8, 2018

W:\06 Projects\Trout Brook Interceptor\Easements\Ramsey County Project 2014-2016\Board Memo\BM TBI Easement Right of Way Acquisition Services 05-16-18.docx

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

SRF 11505.PP

May 8, 2018

Ms. Anna Eleria Water Resources Project Manager Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4 St. Paul, MN 55108 Subject:

Trout Brook Interceptor – Right of Way Project Proposal for Professional Services

Dear Ms. Eleria: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) is pleased to provide this proposal for right of way services as requested in your Request for Proposal. Our proposed scope of services is described below.

Scope of Services Project Coordination •

SRF will provide to Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) ongoing management and coordination for the acquisitions of real property.

•

SRF will work with and take direction from CRWD as it relates to the acquisition process. SRF will be responsible for keeping CRWD informed of the project status. We will provide all reports and forms for offers and conveyances in a pre-approved format provided by CRWD.

•

Open and frequent communication will be promoted to keep CRWD fully involved in the progress and issues surrounding the project as well as suggesting solutions and resolution to the issues.

•

Proper staffing will be ensured that all tasks are on schedule and within budget. We will also implement quality control and review procedures.

•

SRF will plan and attend an initial planning meeting with CRWD’s staff to review the proposed acquisitions. CRWD may provide a map showing the project with the proposed acquisitions.

SRF will make field inspections as needed. We will review the proposed acquisitions and make any recommendations necessary to minimize impacts to the property or avoid any adverse impacts.

•

Progress Reports on the status and activities of each parcel to CRWD will be provided. These reports are to be provided weekly to CRWD or as directed.

www.srfconsulting.com 1 Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 | Minneapolis, MN 55447-4453 | 763.475.0010 Fax: 1.866.440.6364

An Equal Opportunity Employer

Ms. Anna Eleria Capitol Region Watershed District •

May 8, 2018 Page 2

We will also conduct meetings, as needed, with CRWD’s staff to discuss issues and milestones and to review work status. SRF will prepare an agenda for these meetings. Minutes of the meetings will be prepared and submitted to CRWD within three business days of the meeting.

Property Owner Notification Letter/Field Title Meetings SRF will provide all property owners’ information as well as gathering information at the field title meeting for the required properties for the project. A letter will be prepared for each property owner giving the following information: •

Explanation of the project.

•

The tentative timetable for the acquisition and construction of the project.

•

CRWD will provide a value analysis to the property owner prior to an appraisal. When required, CRWD’s fee appraiser will contact the property owners to obtain permission to go onto their property to do an inspection of the property. It will include the interest to be acquired and that the property owner is given the opportunity to accompany the appraiser during the inspection or otherwise speak to the appraiser.

•

SRF will also meet individually with each owner to conduct field title investigations to confirm information in the O&E Reports as well as to investigate any unrecorded encumbrances or issues.

Property Owner Negotiations & Agreements All acquisitions will be carried out in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. We will review and understand the title report, appraisal, and other pertinent information of the property and the acquisition. We will prepare a parcel file that includes a negotiator’s diary documenting details of all contacts.

The SRF Team will arrange to meet the property owner and all other parties with an interest in the property. During the meeting, we will: •

Explain the project to the property owner.

•

Elaborate on the specific property interest to be acquired by CRWD.

•

Inform the property owner of the appraised value determined by the independent fee appraiser or other value analyses.

•

Provide the property owner the appraisal or other value analyses.

•

Explain to the property owner that if there are other parties who have an interest in the property such as mortgagees, lien holders, etc., CRWD’s acquisition payment will be made payable to all parties with an interest in the property.

•

Make an offer of payment to the property owner in the amount of the appraised value.

•

Inform the property owner that they have a reasonable time to consider the offer.

Ms. Anna Eleria Capitol Region Watershed District •

May 8, 2018 Page 3

Explain that if the property owner does not accept the offer, CRWD has the legal authority to take the property or property interest by eminent domain and will have to do so in the event a settlement cannot be reached with the property owner or when the project requires the easement. SRF will explain that CRWD will continue to make a settlement in good faith even if a condemnation petition has to be filed.

Also at the meeting with the property owner, SRF will provide the owner with a written statement of the basis for the amount estimated to be just compensation. If an owner is out of town or cannot meet in person, SRF will prepare and mail an offer letter by certified mail, but continue to attempt to contact the owner and meet in person. We will seek CRWD’s approval prior to mailing any offers.

If CRWD’s offer is acceptable to the property owner, SRF will prepare an acceptance letter, have the property owner sign an earnest money contract, and return the letter and earnest money contract to CRWD. A parcel file will be created for each acquisition. These files will contain at the minimum: the title report, parcel exhibit, a negotiator’s diary, appraisal, offer, conveyance documents, and any other documents or correspondence pertinent to the acquisition. SRF will obtain owner signatures and record any easement documents when needed for the settled properties.

Deliverables SRF Deliverables (contents of the finalized acquisition file) – File checklist, contact report and correspondence, Owners and Encumbrance Report, field title report, required notices, appraisal as applicable, Just Compensation memo, offer letter to property owner, executed original easement, copy of recorded easement, copy of disbursement check with payee signature and date of receipt as well as all other documentation related to acquisition process.

CRWD Deliverables – Priority list for parcel acquisition and a project schedule, oversight of work being performed by acquisition agent, parcel exhibits and legal descriptions for acquisitions, Ownership and Encumbrance Reports for all parcels and appraisal or other analysis obtained from independent appraiser regarding CRWD opinion of value of easement.

Schedule SRF will need identification of the initial impacted parcels, Owners and Encumbrance Reports and parcel sketches to begin the field title investigation. We will complete this project within a timeframe mutually-agreed upon with you, once we receive a notice to proceed.

Basis of Payment/Budget We propose to be reimbursed for our services on an hourly basis for the actual time expended.

Direct project expenses, such as printing, supplies, reproduction, etc., will be billed at cost and mileage will be billed at the current allowable IRS rate for business miles. Invoices are submitted on a monthly basis for work performed during the previous month. Payment is due within 30 days.

Ms. Anna Eleria Capitol Region Watershed District

May 8, 2018 Page 4

Based on the scope of services detailed above, we estimate the not-to-exceed cost of our services to be $48,898.00, which includes both time and expenses. A detailed Proposed Budget (Attachment A) is attached.

Changes in the Scope of Services It is understood that if the scope or extent of work changes, the cost will be adjusted accordingly.

Before any out-of-scope work is initiated, however, we will submit a budget request for the new work and will not begin work until we receive authorization from you.

Notice to Proceed A signed copy of this proposal or a separate letter of authorization, mailed or emailed to our office, will serve as our notice to proceed. The email address is cwiste@srfconsulting.com.

We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to working with you on this project. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely, SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC.

SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC.

Cindy Wiste Senior Associate

Ken Helvey Principal, Real Estate

CW/KH/cw Attachment A â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Proposed Budget Spreadsheet S:\Marketing\Proposals\2018 Letter Proposals\11505.PP_TBI Letter_KH.docx

Capitol Region Watershed District Trout Brook Interceptor (TBI) Easment Acquisition 5/7/2018 SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

Hourly Rates

$186 Hours

$135 Cost

Hours

$84 Cost

Hours

Tota

l Co

st

st ff Co Tota

l Sta

ff ho l Sta Tota

Cler ical

E x pe nses

urs

Sen ior Tam Right o f my Gud Way Sp eria ecia n list

Sen ior Nico Right o f Wa le W y Sp ood ecia s list

Workplan Item

Sen i or Cind Associ a yW iste te

Prin cip Ken al In-Ch Helv arge ey

Attachment A: Proposed Budget

$96 Cost

Hours

Cost

Hours

Cost

Hours

Cost

Right of Way Easement Acquisition

Project Administration

9

$1,674

30

$4,050

14

$1,176.00

26

$2,184.00

22

150

$12,600.00

102

53

$6,900

$6,900

$2,112

48

$4,296

$4,296

$9,792

304

$29,871

$29,871

QA/QC Project Management Project Meetings (assumes 4 at CRWD office) Initial contact letter Monthly Project Status Worksheet Just Compensation Memos Field Title Investigation Field Title Meetings Negotiation Services

9

$1,674

43

$5,805

Offer packages Good Faith Negotiations Administrative Settlements Mortgage Involvement (assummed 17 mortgage companies- permanent easement parcels) Recording of Documents for each parcel Deliverables: Field title reports Value calculations Copies of offer letters Negotiators log Settlement memo Memorandum of Agreement Check request, payment autorization and W-9 Signed conveance doucments (SRF to record) Mortgage consents (assumes 17 parcels) Updates on the acquisition process Assumptions: 17 Parcels. Each parcel has a Temporary Easement and/or a Permanent Easement

Page 1 of 2

Capitol Region Watershed District Trout Brook Interceptor (TBI) Easment Acquisition 5/7/2018 SRF Consulting Group, Inc.

Hourly Rates

$186 Hours

$135 Cost

Hours

$84 Cost

Hours

Tota

l Co

st

st ff Co Tota

l Sta

ff ho l Sta Tota

Cler ical

E x pe nses

urs

Sen ior Tam Right o f my Gud Way Sp eria ecia n list

Sen ior Nico Right o f Wa le W y Sp ood ecia s list

Workplan Item

Sen i or Cind Associ a yW iste te

Prin cip Ken al In-Ch Helv arge ey

Attachment A: Proposed Budget

$96 Cost

Hours

Cost

Hours

Cost

Hours

Cost

CRWD to furnish parcel acquisition list, project schedule, parcel exhibits, legal descriptions, O&E reports, appraisal or other analysis obtained from appraiser, templates for project acquisition, (i.e., letters, required notices, easement agreement and other forms as needed) Expenses: Mortgage Fees: 17 applications @ $350 per application

$5,950

Mileage: 500 Miles @ $0.560 per mile

$280

Postage: 34 letters @ $0.55 per letter

$20

Postage: 17 certified @ $10.00 per each

$17

Recording: 17 Easements @ $46.00 per easement

$782

Recording: 17 Mortgage Consents @ $46.00 per consent

$782

Project Total

18

$3,348

73

$9,855

190

$15,960

Page 2 of 2

124

$11,904

-

-

$7,831

405

$41,067

$48,898

May 16, 2018 Board Meeting VI. Unfinished Business – D. BWSR Biennial Budget Request

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

May 9, 2018 CRWD Board of Managers Bob Fossum, Division Manager BWSR Biennial Budget Request FY 2020-21

Background The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) issues grants to local units of government under Minnesota Statutes 103B.3369. These appropriations primarily include General Funds and Clean Water Funds. The purpose of BWSR Biennial Budget Request (BBR) is to provide information to BWSR about the scope and scale of future funding needs from local units of government.

BWSR will use information gathered through the BBR process to: • • •

• •

Serve as the basis for budget requests made to the Governor and Legislature, Support grant-making decisions following enactment of appropriations; Serve as the soil and water conservation district annual plan of work for program and operations grants and as the Allocation and Contribution Statement for the Natural Resources Block Grant; Encourage improved local government water quality project planning; and Improve coordination of State funds used by local governments for project and activity implementation.

Issues Staff prepared and submitted a BBR by the April 12, 2018 deadline. The BBR includes projects detailed in the District’s Watershed Management Plan as well as other planned projects beyond 2020. Staff will review the submitted BBR with the Managers.

Actions Requested None, information only. enc:

FY 2020-2021 Biennial Budget Request, submitted 4/12/2018

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Grants\2018\BWSR BBR 2020-21\Brd Memo, BBR 2020-21, 5-9-2018.docx

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

FY 20 ‐ 21 Biennial Budget Request Capitol Region WD

Total Requested Biennial State Contribution: Total Leveraged Funds Total Resource Project and Activities Budget Total BMPs Total FTEs

$2,009,000.00

BBR ID

BBR18‐6280

$2,719,000.00 $4,728,000.00 35

Submitted Date Staff Contact Board Conservationist

4/12/2018 Bob Fossum Mary Peterson

Water Resources of Concern Primary Water Resource of Concern

Water Resource Category

Mississippi River

Surface Water

Lake McCarrons

Surface Water

Como Lake

Surface Water

Loeb Lake

Surface Water

Watershed

Impairments

Mississippi River ‐ Twin Cities Mississippi River ‐ Twin Cities Mississippi River ‐ Twin Cities Mississippi River ‐ Twin Cities

Trend

Yes

Stable

No

Down

Yes

Stable

No

Stable

Activity Summary Water Resource Name

Mississippi River

Activity Description

Innovative BMPs or innovative additions to BMPs will be identified, designed and implement with our City partners.

Urban Stormwater Capital Improvement Project?

Yes Management Practices

Activity Category Report created on:5/9/18

Page 1 of 6

Source of State Contribution Total Requested Biennial State Contribution Estimated Leveraged Funds

BWSR Clean Water Fund ‐ Projects and Practices $13,000.00 $13,000.00

Estimated # of FTEs

Describe how this activity could be accomplished in the biennium

2 Watershed Management Plan (Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations only) $26,000.00 Action or Objective (from plan) Page 111‐‐450 Future Trends: Implementation Innovative BMPs or innovative additions to BMPs will be identified, designed and implement with our City partners.

Water Resource Name

Mississippi River

Projects & Activities Budget

Activity Description

Estimated Number of Practices Plan Type

Describe how this activity could be accomplished in the biennium

Annual solicitation of Capital Grants from project partners identifies and implements cost‐effective opportunities to implement BMPs Urban Stormwater Capital Improvement Project?

Yes Management Practices BWSR Clean Water Fund ‐ Estimated # of FTEs

Projects and Practices $200,000.00 Estimated Number of Practices 4 $200,000.00 Plan Type Watershed Management Plan (Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations only) $400,000.00 Action or Objective (from plan) Pages 109‐110‐‐440 Special Projects and Grants Annual solicitation of Capital Grants from project partners identifies and implements cost‐effective opportunities to implement BMPs

Water Resource Name

Mississippi River

Activity Category Source of State Contribution Total Requested Biennial State Contribution Estimated Leveraged Funds

Projects & Activities Budget

Activity Description Activity Category Source of State Contribution Total Requested Biennial State Contribution Report created on:5/9/18

Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor CIP identifies repairs and enhancements to the system. The schedule projects for this biennium will be designed and implemented.

Urban Stormwater Capital Improvement Project?

Yes Management Practices Public Facilities Authority Estimated # of FTEs

$200,000.00 Estimated Number of Practices 1

Page 2 of 6

Estimated Leveraged Funds

Describe how this activity could be accomplished in the biennium

Watershed Management Plan (Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations only) $1,110,000.00 Action or Objective (from plan) Pages 103‐104‐‐Trout Brook Subwatershed BMPs Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor CIP identifies repairs and enhancements to the system. The schedule projects for this biennium will be designed and implemented.

Water Resource Name

Mississippi River

Projects & Activities Budget

Activity Description

$910,000.00

Plan Type

Describe how this activity could be accomplished in the biennium

Feasibility studies have identify stream corridor and wetland restoration opportunities which will be designed and implemented with our City partners.

Wetland Capital Improvement Project?

Yes Restoration/Creation BWSR Clean Water Fund ‐ Estimated # of FTEs

Projects and Practices $168,000.00 Estimated Number of Practices 1 $168,000.00 Plan Type Watershed Management Plan (Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations only) $336,000.00 Action or Objective (from plan) Pages 105‐106‐‐425 Wetland, Stream, and Ecosystem Restoration‐Implementation Feasibility studies have identify stream corridor and wetland restoration opportunities which will be designed and implemented with our City partners.

Water Resource Name

Lake McCarrons

Activity Category Source of State Contribution Total Requested Biennial State Contribution Estimated Leveraged Funds

Projects & Activities Budget

Activity Description Activity Category Source of State Contribution Total Requested Biennial State Contribution Estimated Leveraged Funds Report created on:5/9/18

Boulevard Infiltration Trenches were identified in the McCarrons Subwatershed 4 Analysis and will be designed and implemented with our City partners.

Urban Stormwater Capital Improvement Project?

Yes Management Practices BWSR Clean Water Fund ‐ Estimated # of FTEs

Projects and Practices $12,000.00 Estimated Number of Practices 20 $12,000.00 Plan Type Watershed Management Plan

Page 3 of 6

Describe how this activity could be accomplished in the biennium

(Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations only) $24,000.00 Action or Objective (from plan) Pages 99‐100‐‐413 Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMPs Boulevard Infiltration Trenches were identified in the McCarrons Subwatershed 4 Analysis and will be designed and implemented with our City partners.

Water Resource Name

Como Lake

Projects & Activities Budget

Activity Description

Describe how this activity could be accomplished in the biennium

Subwatershed studies for Como Subwatershed 2, 4, 5, and 6 will identify BMPs which will be designed and implemented in partnership with member Cities and other stakeholders.

Urban Stormwater Capital Improvement Project?

Yes Management Practices BWSR Clean Water Fund ‐ Estimated # of FTEs

Projects and Practices $102,500.00 Estimated Number of Practices 2 $102,500.00 Plan Type Watershed Management Plan (Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations only) $205,000.00 Action or Objective (from plan) Page 96‐98 Como Lake Subwatershed BMPs Subwatershed studies for Como Subwatershed 2, 4, 5, and 6 will identify BMPs which will be designed and implemented in partnership with member Cities and other stakeholders.

Water Resource Name

Como Lake

Activity Category Source of State Contribution Total Requested Biennial State Contribution Estimated Leveraged Funds

Projects & Activities Budget

Activity Description Activity Category Source of State Contribution Total Requested Biennial State Contribution Estimated Leveraged Funds

Report created on:5/9/18

Implement the McMurray Field BMP that was identified in the Como Subwatershed 3 Feasibility Study Urban Stormwater Capital Improvement Project?

Yes Management Practices BWSR Clean Water Fund ‐ Estimated # of FTEs

Projects and Practices $750,000.00 Estimated Number of Practices 1 $750,000.00 Plan Type Watershed Management Plan (Watershed Districts and Watershed Management

Page 4 of 6

Projects & Activities Budget Describe how this activity could be accomplished in the biennium

Water Resource Name

Activity Description Activity Category Source of State Contribution Total Requested Biennial State Contribution Estimated Leveraged Funds

Projects & Activities Budget Describe how this activity could be accomplished in the biennium

Water Resource Name

Activity Description Activity Category Source of State Contribution Total Requested Biennial State Contribution Estimated Leveraged Funds

Projects & Activities Budget Describe how this activity could be Report created on:5/9/18

Organizations only) $1,500,000.00 Action or Objective (from plan) Page 96‐98 Como Lake Subwatershed BMPs Implement the McMurray Field BMP that was identified in the Como Subwatershed 3 Feasibility Study

Como Lake

Implement the Como Pavilion South BMP that was identified in the Como Park BMP Feasibility Study Urban Stormwater Capital Improvement Project?

Yes Management Practices BWSR Clean Water Fund ‐ Estimated # of FTEs

Projects and Practices $550,000.00 Estimated Number of Practices 1 $550,000.00 Plan Type Watershed Management Plan (Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations only) $1,100,000.00 Action or Objective (from plan) Page 96‐98 Como Lake Subwatershed BMPs Implement the Como Pavilion South BMP that was identified in the Como Park BMP Feasibility Study

Loeb Lake

Assessment of degraded shoreline and steambanks will lead to development of implementation plans for restoration.

Streambank or Shoreline Capital Improvement Project?

Yes Protection Buffer Implementation Funds Estimated # of FTEs

$13,500.00 Estimated Number of Practices 3 $13,500.00 Plan Type Watershed Management Plan (Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations only) $27,000.00 Action or Objective (from plan) Page 94‐95‐‐401 Shoreline and Streambank Restoration Assessment of degraded shoreline and steambanks will lead to development of implementation plans for

Page 5 of 6

accomplished in the biennium

restoration.

Report created on:5/9/18

Page 6 of 6