May 5, 2021 Board Packet

Materials Enclosed

Board Workshop and Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, May 5, 2021, 5:00 p.m. held electronically. See note below.

Until further notice Board meetings will only be available via telephone and/or the web-based application Go To Meeting. You will not be able to attend meetings in person. You can join the meeting electronically by clinking on this link https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/461953693 and following the directions or dial in using your phone: +1 (571) 317-3122 Access Code: 461-953-693

Please visit www.capitolregionwd.org to get additional CRWD COVID-19 information.

WORKSHOP AGENDA (5:00 PM) I. II. III.

Call to Order of Board Workshop St. Paul Directors Meeting Adjourn Board Workshop REGULAR MEETING AGENDA (6:00 PM)

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 .) nd

A) 21-002, MRB Subdivision – 2 Review Period Extension (Hosch) B) 21-012, Highland Arena Parking Improvements – Review Period Extension (Hosch) C) 21-015, Cretin-Derham Hall Addition (Hosch) IV.

Special Reports –

V.

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the April 21, 2021 Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve 2021-2022 Professional Services Consulting Pool (Eleria) C) AR: Authorize Como Lake Shoreline Restoration RFP (Belden) D) AR: Approve Manufactured Treatment Device Policy (Martinkosky)

VI.

Unfinished Business A) Como Lake 319 Grant Update (Fossum)

VII.

General Information A) Board of Manager’s Updates

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

VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 PM – CAC Meeting– Electronic Only B) Wednesday, May 19, 2021 6:00 PM- Regular Meeting – Electronic Only IX.

Adjournment

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

May 5, 2021 Board Workshop City of St. Paul Department Directors Mtg (Fossum)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

April 29, 2021 CRWD Board of Managers Bob Fossum, Acting Administrator Board Workshop - City of St. Paul Department Directors Mtg

Background The CRWD Board of Managers have been meeting annually with the City of St. Paul Department Directors and key staff. The meetings were initiated nearly 10 years ago to provide an open forum between the two organizations relative to concerns raised about the District’s regulations by the City. More recently, as the City and District’s partnership has flourished, these meetings have become an opportunity to celebrate our collaboration, identify key policy issues and to ensure alignment between our initiatives of mutual interest.

Issues The Board Workshop on May 5th, while being held virtually, will allow new members with both organizations to get acquainted and continue to build on our relationship and discussion of mutual interests. The presentation that staff will review at the workshop is attached. Please note that all of the invited individuals as well as a more detailed agenda is in this presentation. Since this meeting is virtual, during introductions we are asking that the Board provide more than just your name and position with the organization but also consider adding why you joined the Board, what are your connections or concerns about water as well as what you do outside of your work with the District.

Finally, this workshop is most likely going to be a high-level conversation due to the virtual format, rather than a deep policy discussion. However, you should still ask questions if you have any. You may ask questions that come to mind as you consider our working relationship to the City. You may also want to ask about our role with the Wetland Management Plan, Facility Management or ask about potential future projects and role as a funder or partner. It is always a good idea to remind the City leadership about budget cycle and learning about partnership project early in the summer allows the District to fully consider their request.

Action Requested No Action requested. For informational purposes only. enc.

Presentation for City of St. Paul Department Directors Meeting

W:\08 Orgs-Cities-Agencies\St. Paul\Dept Director Meetings\2021\Board Memo and Enclosure Board Workshop 5-5-21.docx

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

CRWD and City of St. Paul 2021 Department Directors Meeting

May 5, 2021

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Meeting Agenda I. Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) II. Introductions and Connections III. Review of Key 2020 Accomplishments IV. Review of Key 2021-2022 Initiatives V. Open Discussion VI. Adjournment

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Invited Participants – City of St. Paul Russ Stark, Chief Resilience Officer Mike Hahm, Director, Parks and Recreation Allice Messer, Design and Construction Mgr, Parks and Recreation Ricardo Cervantes, Director, Safety and Inspections Steve Ubl, Building Official, Safety and Inspections Wes Saunders-Pearce, Water Resource Coordinator

Sean Kershaw, Director, Public Works Bruce Elder, Manager, Sewer Utility, Public Works Nicolle Goodman, Director, Planning and Economic Development Kristin Guild, Deputy Director, Planning and Economic Development Luis Pereira, Planning Director, Planning and Economic Development CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Invited Participants - CRWD Joe Collins, President Mary Texer, Vice President Rick Sanders, Treasurer Shawn Murphy, Communications and Engagement Howana Sullivan Janzen, Secretary

Mark Doneux, Administrator Bob Fossum, Division Mgr, Monitoring and Research Anna Eleria, Division Mgr, Planning, Projects, and Grants Forrest Kelley, Division Mgr, Regulatory Jessica Brommelkamp, Division Mgr, Communications and Engagement Michelle Sylvander, Office Manager

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Capitol Region Watershed District ’ Special purpose unit of local government, formed in 1998 ’ 5 Board of Managers ’ Community Advisory Committee ’ 21 staff ’ Mission: To protect, improve and manage local water resources ’ 2021 Budget $9.4 mil CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Our Watershed • 41 Square Miles • 5 Cities • Population ~250,000 (1/20th Minnesotans live in CRWD) • 5 Lakes • 42% impervious (paved) surfaces • Over 500 miles of storm sewers

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Organization Chart

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Watershed Management Plan

• MN Statutes 103B and 103D and MN Rules 8410 • Third generation plan • 10 years from 2021 to 2030 • Priority issues, measurable goals and targeted implementation plan

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Plan Themes • • • • • •

Bring Water Back Rain as a Resource Community equity Recreation Quality of life Climate change and resilience • Partnerships • Innovation • Adaptive management CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Key Projects—Highland Bridge Sustainable

Stormwater Management • 2015 Technical Assistance • 2019 Technical Assistance

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Key Projects—Highland Bridge

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Key Projects—Highland Bridge

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Key Projects—Como Lake

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Key Projects—Como Lake

- 56%

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

2021-2022 Initiatives • • • • • • •

Wetland Management Plan Facility Management Como Pavilion/Clubhouse Parking Lots Como Lake Shoreland Management Trout Brook Storm Sewer Modeling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Community Engagement Events

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Questions and Discussion?

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

May 5, 2021 III. Permits A.) Mississippi River Blvd Subdivision Review Extension Request (Hosch)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

April 28, 2021 CRWD Board of Managers Elizabeth Hosch 2nd 60-day Review Period Extension for Permit 21-002

Background The current review period for Permit 21-002 Mississippi River Blvd Subdivision expires on 5-15-2021.

Issues The applicant requested an extension to the 60-day review period prior to the expiration. The applicant has requested the additional time to complete the required conditions, with particular attention to City of St. Paul permitting needs.

Requested Action Approve 60-day review period extension for Permit 21-002 Mississippi River Blvd Subdivision to expire July 14, 2021.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2021\21-002, Mississippi River Blvd subdivision\Brd Memo 2nd Extension request 21-002, MRB subdivision.docx

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

May 5, 2021 III. Permits B. Highland Arena parking improvements Review Extension Request (Hosch)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

April 28, 2021 CRWD Board of Managers Elizabeth Hosch 60-day Review Period Extension for Permit 21-012

Background The current review period for Permit 21-012 Highland Arena parking improvements expires on 5-9-2021.

Issues The applicant requested an extension to the 60-day review period prior to the expiration. The applicant has requested the additional time to complete the required conditions. An erosion and sediment control permit for demolition and grading work only has been issued for work to begin as the applicant works on stormwater conditions for full permit approval.

Requested Action Approve 60-day review period extension for Permit 21-012 Highland Arena parking improvements to expire July 8, 2021.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2021\21-012, Highland Arena Parking Lot Improvements\Brd Memo Extension request 21-012, Highland Arena parking improvements.docx

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

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Paul Solmon Cretin-Derham Hall School 550 South Albert Street St Paul, MN 55116

Permit 21-015 Cretin-Derham Hall Ryan Stem Center Addition Consultant: Christopher Ghormley Bolton and Menk 7575 Golden Valley Rd Minneapolis, MN 55427

Description: New building addition on south entry of the Cretin-Derham Hall School. The south parking lot will be reconstructed and a west driveway will be added to allow delivery traffic.

Stormwater Management: One stormwater filtration device is proposed.

District Rule: —C, D, F Disturbed Area: 1.47 Acres Impervious Area: 1.29 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 8 Conditions: 1. Receipt of $6,400 surety.

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

3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

4. Revise SWPPP/ESC Plan to include notes a.-b. found in the 4/28/21 permit report.

5. Revise maintenance plan to indicate maintenance of the underground system/StormFilter if the system does not drawdown in 48 hours.

6. Specify overflow assembly elevation on Detail 1 on Sheet C2.12. This is modeled as a 2’ weir at an elevation of 232.95’ in the HydroCAD model.

7. Revise the StormFilter design to meet the 48-hour drawdown time without system bypass. The currently proposed 25 filters at 1 gpm/filter can draw down 10,451 ft3 in approximately 52 hours.

8. Revise HydroCAD or plans to correspond as noted in items a.-e. in the 4/28/21 permit report.

Hamline

Hartford

Permit Location Permit Report 21-015

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 5/5/2021

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #:

21-015

Review date:

April 28, 2021

Project Name:

Cretin-Derham Hall Ryan Stem Center Addition

Applicant:

Paul Solmon Cretin-Derham Hall School 550 South Albert Street St Paul, MN 55116 (612) 271-5856 christopher.ghormley@bolton-menk.com

Purpose:

New building addition on south entry of the Cretin-Derham Hall School.

Reconstruction of south parking lot which includes the addition of a west driveway to allow delivery traffic. Permanent stormwater management consists of an underground storage CMP storage system with a Contech StormFilter MTD.

Location:

550 South Albert Street, St. Paul, MN

Applicable Rules:

C, D, and F

Recommendation:

Approve with 8 Conditions

EXHIBITS: 1. Civil Plans (Sheets C1.00, C1.11, C1.21, C1.31, C1.41, C2.11, C2.12.), by Anderson – Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 4/5/21, recv. 4/1/21.

2. Storm Water Management Report, by Anderson – Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 4/20/21, recv. 4/26/21.

3. Survey, by Sunde Land Surveying, dated 12/21/18, recv. 4/1/21.

4. Report of Geotechnical Exploration, by AET, dated 3/4/21, recv. 4/1/21.

5. Declaration for Maintenance of Stormwater Facilities, by Anderson Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 6/15/12, recv. 4/19/21.

6. SWPPP, by Bolton & Menk, dated 3/26/21, recv. 4/19/21.

7. Operations and Maintenance Plan, by Anderson – Johnson Associates, Inc., dated 4/19/21, recv. 4/19/21.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: There are three existing stormwater management practices onsite: 1) a surface basin at the north end of the site (year constructed unknown); 2) an underground filtration system under W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2021\21-015, Cretin-Derham Hall Addition\21-015 Permit Report_R2b.doc Page 1 of 5

the football/soccer field (Permit 12-003); and 3) an underground system constructed in 2019, which did not require a CRWD permit because it did not disturb more than one acre.

Drainage area to the 12-003 system is impacted by proposed work under 21-015.

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. It is unknown if 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. The amount of proposed impervious is 56,119 ft2. b. Volume retention required: 56,119 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 5,144 ft3 Table 1. Proposed volume retention through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse).

Volume Volume Retention 1.1-inch 2.5-inch Retention BMP Provided below Runoff Runoff Required (ft3) outlet (ft3) (ft3) (ft3) 5,144 None, filtration is provided.

4. Alternative compliance has been requested due to high groundwater and poor soils as confirmed by the geotechnical report. a. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard. b. Filtration using Contech StormFilter with Phosphosorb Media (68% credit) is proposed; filtration required: 5,144 ft3 x 1.47 credit factor = 7,562 ft3

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2021\21-015, Cretin-Derham Hall Addition\21-015 Permit Report_R2b.doc Page 2 of 5

Table 2. Proposed volume retention through filtration (i.e. sand, enhanced).

Filtration Filtration Volume 1.1-inch Volume BMP Provided below Runoff 3 3 Required (ft ) outlet (ft ) (ft3) StormFilter with Phosphosorb 10,451 13,740 7,562 Total 10,451 ft3 i. Filtration volume and facility size has been calculated using the appropriate hydrologic soil group classification and design filtration rate. ii. The filtration area is not capable of filtering the required volume within 48 hours. iii. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to filtration areas. c. The applicant did not partially comply with the volume retention standard at an offsite location or through the use of qualified banking credits. 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 achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis.

6. A maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County has not been submitted.

7. Adequate maintenance access is provided for underground systems. A site-specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices has been submitted but is not sufficient.

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.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2021\21-015, Cretin-Derham Hall Addition\21-015 Permit Report_R2b.doc Page 3 of 5

2.5-inch Runoff (ft3) 31,227

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

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

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

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

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

4. Total disturbed area is 1.47 acres; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted but is not 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 8 Conditions Conditions: 1. Receipt of $6,400 surety.

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

3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

4. Revise SWPPP/ESC Plan to include the following notes: a. Installation of filtration practices shall be done during periods of dry weather and completed before a rainfall event. b. During construction, stormwater must be routed around permanent stormwater BMPs areas until all construction activity has ceased and tributary surfaces are cleaned of sediment.

5. Revise maintenance plan to indicate maintenance of the underground system/StormFilter if the system does not drawdown in 48 hours.

6. Specify overflow assembly elevation on Detail 1 on Sheet C2.12. This is modeled as a 2’ weir at an elevation of 232.95’ in the HydroCAD model.

7. Revise the StormFilter design to meet the 48-hour drawdown time without system bypass. The currently proposed 25 filters at 1 gpm/filter can draw down 10,451 ft3 in approximately 52 hours.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2021\21-015, Cretin-Derham Hall Addition\21-015 Permit Report_R2b.doc Page 4 of 5

8. Revise HydroCAD or plans to correspond: a. Broad-crested weir invert for proposed model Pond MH103 is 238.6’ in HydroCAD and 239.4’ on Sheet C1.41. b. Invert of primary outlet in XCB1 is 235.1’ in HydroCAD and 234.2’ on Sheet C1.41. c. Length of primary outlet for XCB2 is 100 feet in HydroCAD and 47 feet on Sheet C1.41. d. Downstream invert of the primary outlet for XCB2 is 233.53’ in HydroCAD and 233.87 on Sheet C1.41. e. Invert of primary outlet for XCB5 is 232.7’ in HydroCAD and 232.4’ on Sheet C1.41.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2021\21-015, Cretin-Derham Hall Addition\21-015 Permit Report_R2b.doc Page 5 of 5

HCS 241.4

242.0

242.3

243.8 ME 244.0 ME

242.9 CB 1 (EXISTING) ADJUST RIM TO FINISH GRADE. RIM = 240.9 242.7 ME 243.3 ME INV. = 237.90 FD (2) INV. = 234.2 W (EXISTING - FIELD VERIFY) CONNECT DRAINTILE TO EXISTING STRUCTURE. PROVIDE FLEXIBLE JOINTS AT CONNECTIONS.

243.9 ME

47' - 15" RCP 240.8 @ 0.49%

240.4

241.6

CB

241.1

240.8

242.4 ME

242.4 ME

240.9

240.7

10 10A C2.11 C2.11

GATE

CONC

10 10A C2.11 C2.11

241

241.5

240.7

240

49' - 24" RCP @ 1.08%

PROVIDE DAILY SWEEPING 240.3

TN

TN TN

10 FT CHAIN LINK FENCE

CONC

RD

LA

241.3 ME

PPU

239.5

240.6

240.8 ME

240.6 ME

CONC STEPS240.0 ME

240.4 ME

240.3 ME 241.4 ME

EM

8 C2.11

239.6 ME

10A

C2.11 C2.11 STORAGE BUILDING

239.2

238.9

HYD

STAT

LP

RAMP

TNH=241.23

239.0

239.2

ON CONC

BL

10 10A CB C2.11 C2.11 TOP= 238.0 INV= 232.6

238.9

CB TOP= 237.7 INV= 232.2 INV=232.4 S (P)

238.1 ME 238.0 ME

GATE GATE

10 10A C2.11 C2.11

CONCRETE

SCORE

10 10A C2.11 C2.11

23 8

MH SAN

238.4

PKS

239.6 239.4

SMH TOP= 238.9 INV= 231.8

239.5

MH

239.1 239.4

18 C2.11

238.2 ME

LP

MH

238.7

239.3 ME

BENCH 239.2 ME

CB

LP SMH(P) TOP= 238.8 INV= 232.7 N(P) INV=233.0 S(P) INV=234.1 E(P)

6P - STORM CB WATER FILTRATION VAULT 238.68' ME X 11' VAULT

TOP= 237.4

INLET INV. = 230.90 INV= 234.2 OUTLET INV. =229.90 OVERFLOW OUTLET = 233.00

1 C2.12

CB CB TOP= 237.5 INV= 234.4 NW INV=234.5 NE

MH 107 (EXISTING) RIM = 238.1 (EXISTING) INV. = 227.90 (EXISTING - FIELD VERIFY) INV. = 227.9 W CONNECT TO EXISTING STRUCTURE.

239.3

239.0

INV= 224.5 SMH TOP= 237.9 INV= 227.9 MH

MH HHC UGTV A CB 237.5 ME PPLP UGTV UGC

1 C2.11

239.3

TOP=@ 238.1 41' - 24" RCP 3.63%

237.8

239.2 ME

A

237.7 ME

BL

4 FT CHAIN LINK FENCE

238.5

238.8

SMH239.1 TOP= 239.3 239.1 INV= 232.2 SW/N

METAL STEPS 238.0 ME

CB 4 (EXISTING) RIM = 237.9 (EXISTING) INV. = 232.70 (EXISTING) INV. = 235.40 FG (2) CONNECT FINGER DRAINS TO STRUCTURE.

238.7

24" INV. = 231.00 239.6

23 9 239.0

13 14 C2.11 C2.11

BL BLEACHERS

RIM = 237.8 238.6 ME INV. = 229.40 W/NW INV. = 233.40 S (EXISTING - FIELD VERIFY) 238.5 ME INV. = 230.90 N (EXISTING - FIELD VERIFY) INV. = 231.80 SW (EXISTING - FIELD VERIFY) 96" ID R-1642 CONSTRUCT STRUCTURE OVER EXISTING 238.4 MEPIPES.

239.2

240.1 5' - 24" PVC @ 0.00%

CONC STEPS

238.6 ME

239.0 ME 2 AIS C2.11 PKS

9' - 24" RCP @ 0.67%

UGTV 239.9 LP

238.8

18 C2.11

CB

LP

239.3

BOTTOM OF PIPE = 230.90 OUTLET INV. = 230.90239 TREATMENT VOLUME BELOW 233.00 = 10,451 CF HWL =234.78

238.8

A

18 C2.11

18 C2.11

239

CB TOP= 237.9 238.1 ME INV= 232.7 NW/E

8 FT CHAIN LINK FENCE

239.5

239.7

238.9

238.6 ME

GATE

36' - 24" RCP @ 1.17% 239.5

6P - UNDERGROUND STORAGE SYSTEM

WV

GATE SCORE

SCOREBOARD

239.2

239

238.1 227.0 237.7 234.2

CB TOP= 237.5 234.5 CBINV= MH 106

239.8 ME

MH 105 RIM = 239.2 INV. = 229.84 INV. = 237.50 FD (3) 60" ID 239.0 R-1642

MH

A

LA

37' - 24" RCP @ 1.19%

239.4 ME

239.7 ME

MH 104 RIM = 239.5 INV. = 230.26 W/S 240 INV. = 237.50 FD (3) 60" ID 239.9 ME R-1642 240.2 ME 238' - 24" RCP @ 1.15%

LP

240.0

PKS

PKS

239.5

240.0

239.6

237.9

GATE GATE

240.0 ME

240.2

240

LP 24" INV. = 231.00

239.2 ME

PKS

240.5 ME 240.0 ME

BITUMINOUS

239.6

239.7 FFE 10

CONCRETE STRIP

240.3 ME

AIS

UGTV

239.4 MH 103 RIM = 239.4 INV. = 233.01 S (EXISTING - FIELD 239.3 VERIFY) INV. = 231.30 E/N239 INV. = 223.30 (8' SUMP) INV. = 237.50 FD (3) 72" ID R-1642 PROVIDE HOODED OUTLET COVER. CONSTRUCT STRUCTURE OVER EXISTING PIPE. PROVIDE FLEXIBLE JOINTS AT CONNECTIONS.

SMH TOP= INV= CB TOP= INV= CB

PROVIDE DAILY SWEEPING

PKS

PKS

THE UNDERGROUND SYSTEM.

38' - 24" RCP @ 1.84% 240

239.3

EO

GATE

RD

LA

LA

DIVERSION BERM 18" HIGH WINDROW OF SOIL AROUND EXCAVATION UNTIL FINAL BACKFILL IS COMPLETE FOR240.5

239.5

239.4

241.5 ME

10 FT CHAIN LINK FENCE

RD

RD RD

241.3 ME 241.2 ME

240.4

PKS

241.7 ME 240.3 ME

16' - 24" PVC @ 1.88%

BITUMINOUS TENNIS COURT

GRASS AC

0 24

MH 102 RIM = 240.4 INV. = 232.00 S INV. = 233.00 W/N LP ME 240.9 72" ID R-1642 240.0

PP

GRDL

AIS

INV. = 233.53 S/W/N INV. = 236.37 NE 24 (2) INV. = 234.80 DT 1 84" ID R-1642

LA

RD CBX

CBX

MH 101 241.4 ME RIM = 240.8

GATE GATE TN TN

RD RD

PPU

OHU

TN

CONC

RD

30' - 15" SCHEDULE 40 PVC @ 0.50%

GW

239.6

241.6 ME

WOOD WALL

CONCRETE RD

10 10A C2.11 C2.11

240.5

240.2 241.6 ME

CBX 240.6

PPU

240.8

LA

RD RD

AIS

241.5

239.9 240.6

ELEV=243.00

P

CB 3 RIM = 240.4 INV. = 233.87 240.4 INV. = 237.00 FD (3) 48" ID 240.2 R-2501 240.2

GATE

A

240.9 EOF

240.9

240.9

240.8 53' - 15" RCP 240.8 (2) 1 @ 0.49% 240.5

A

240.6

240.8

240.9

AC

9 23

R-2501 CONSTRUCT STRUCTURE OVER EXISTING PIPES. PROVIDE FLEXIBLE JOINTS AT CONNECTIONS.

LP

240.9 19' - 24" PVC @ 0.53% 240.7

CB 2 241.5 241.4 RIM = 240.4 242.2 ME GATE INV. = 234.10 E GATE 241.4 ME INV. = 234.20 W (EXISTING - FIELD VERIFY) INV. = 234.80 DT (2) INV. = 237.00 FD (3) 241.5 ME 60" ID

CB

RD RD

57' - 12" SCHEDULE 40 PVC @ 0.53%

241.9

241.5 241.9 FFE 34' - 15" SCHEDULE 40 PVC @ 0.53% 241.6 CB 6 RIM = 240.8 INV. = 236.52 241.6 INV. = 237.70 FD 48" ID MH 110 R-2501 RIM = 240.6 INV. = 233.63 S/NW/N 30" PVC STRUCTURE SOLID CASTING AND CONCRETE COLLAR

240.8 10.00' MIN

241.1

240.9

240.4

240.9

CBOX

10 FT CHAIN LINK FENCE

CBOX

241.4 241.2 241.1

9 C2.11

240.6

(2) 1 240.8

2 24

10 10A C2.11 C2.11

6" DT CLEANOUT INV. = 240.8 235.10

240.8

241.7

241.8

11 C2.11

240.8

240.8

240.9

241.7

242.1

242.3

241.4 ME

241

9 C2.11

241.1

242.4

242.2

CB

242.0 242.1

241.6 ME

GRDL

RD

RD

PKS

242

A

243

242.3

242.3 241.8

9 C2.11

1 24

242

TCS

242.5 242.5 FFE (EXISTING)

242.1

CONC

CB 8 RIM = 241.5 INV. = 237.00 48" ID R-2501

CONCRETE

242.6 243.2

243.6

242.1 ME 241.8 ME

242.4 ME

240

243.0 243.6 ME

10A C2.11

1 24

243.7 ME

241.6 ME C2.11 241.0 ME

TOP= 240.9 INV= 234.6 NW INV=235.1+/- E 240.9 FULL OF LEAVES/BURIED

241.2 FFE

242.3 ME

GARAGE

10

242.9 ME PROVIDE DAILY SWEEPING242.0 ME 243.0 ME CB

241.1 FFE (EXISTING)

GRASS 242.0

242.0 ME

10A RD C2.11 241.5 C2.11

550 SOUTH ALBERT STREET, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA

242.2 ME

242.0 EOF

241.3 10

240.9 241 241.1 241.0 EOF 241.6

241.2 241.1 240.9 241.0

241

241.7 ME 243.8 ME

9

5.00'

243.3 ME

11 C2.11

11 C2.11

BD 2 (EXISTING 12" STORM) INV. = 233.66 = MECH 92' - 5" (FIELD VERIFY EXISTING INVERTS) EXISTING = 19,814 SF

10 10A C2.11 C2.11

CRETIN-DERHAM HALL

LA

242.0 EOF 241.7

240.8

241.1

10.00' MIN

STAT

A

241.5

A

GRDL

242.2 ME 242.0

48" ID 241.4 R-2501 241.5 240.9

241.2 FFE C2.11

6' - 15" SCHEDULE 40 PVC @ 0.50%

6" DT CLEANOUT INV. = 235.00

6" DT CLEANOUT INV. = 236.50

243.8

TRANS

11 C2.11

CONC

CONCRETE

6" DT CLEANOUT INV. = 235.10

242.7 ME

243.0

241.5 ME RD EM 241.3 CB 7 RIM = 240.8 EM 241.5 INV. = 236.70 242 EB 241.4 INV. = 237.70 FD (2)

STAT

CONC STEPS

242.5 ME

243.3

243.3 243.0 243

RD241.5 ME

4' - 24" PVC @ 0.50%

PKS 243.8

CONCRETE

HCS

BITUMINOUS

243.9 ME 243.5 ME

243.4 ME

RD

FFE = 241.20 = ARCH 100'-0"

BD 1 (24" STORM) INV. = 233.65 = MECH 92' - 5" (FIELD VERIFY EXISTING INVERTS) EXISTING ROOF AREA 1 & 2 = 78,447 SF ADDITION = 2,308 SF TOTAL = 80,755 SF

550 SOUTH ALBERT STREET, ST PAUL, MINNESOTA

PP

TE CRE CON

MN

LA

43.3 FFE

PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION 41.2 FFE (EXISTING)

LA

RD

CONC WALL

GM

CONC BD 2 (STORM OVERFLOW) DISCHARGE ON GRADE. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR SPLASH BLOCK.

P

BITUMINOUS

BITU

GATE

RD

A CB TOP= 241.2 CBINV= 235.0 N/SE

CRETIN-DERHAM HALL STEM ADDITION

CONCRETE RD

P

6 FT CHAIN LINK FENCE

AC

CONCRETE

CONCRETE

HCS

CB 5 (EXISTING) RIM = 237.7 INV. = 232.20 W (EXISTING - FILED VERIFY) INV. = 232.40 S (EXISTING - FIELD VERIFY) INV. = 234.50 FD (3) CONNECT DRAINTILE TO EXISTING STRUCTURE. PROVIDE FLEXIBLE JOINTS AT CONNECTIONS.

8 FT CHAIN LINK FENCE

SMH(P) TOP= 238.6 INV= 233.6 NE(P) INV=233.7 W/S(P)

SCORE

CONCRETE

EXCERPT FROM THE SWPPP NARRATIVE

NOTES 1.

REFER TO SHEET C1.31, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN, FOR GENERAL NOTES.

2.

ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE RCP, CLASS III (MIN.), WITH FLEXIBLE WATERTIGHT JOINTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C-361 OR PVC PIPE (ASTM D3034, SDR 35) INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

12.

3.

FLEXIBLE JOINTS AT STORM SEWER PIPE CONNECTIONS TO STRUCTURES: a.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, PROVIDE FLEXIBLE JOINTS AT ALL PIPE CONNECTIONS TO ALL STORM SEWER STRUCTURES. b.

ACCEPTABLE MANUFACTURERS / PRODUCTS: i.

FERNCO, “CONCRETE MANHOLE ADAPTORS” OR “LARGE-DIAMETER WATERSTOPS” ii.

PRESS-SEAL, WATERSTOP GROUTING RINGS” iii.

OR APPROVED EQUAL.

4.

LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE AND INVERT ELEVATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. VERIFY LOCATIONS, SIZES AND ELEVATIONS OF SAME BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.

5.

PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED BUILDING UTILITY SERVICES (STORM SEWER), VERIFY ALL PROPOSED BUILDING UTILITY SERVICE PIPE SIZES, LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS WITH MECHANICAL PLANS. COORDINATE CONSTRUCTION AND CONNECTIONS WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE LIMITS OF WALKS AND CURBING PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES. CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE STAKED TO ALLOW CURB INLET TYPE CATCH BASINS TO BE PROPERLY LOCATED IN LINE WITH CURBING.

7.

MAINTAIN ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS CLEAN FROM CONSTRUCTION CAUSED DIRT AND DEBRIS ON A DAILY BASIS. PROTECT DRAINAGE SYSTEMS FROM SEDIMENTATION AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED DIRT AND DEBRIS.

8.

MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL DURING GRADING OPERATIONS.

9.

ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHALL COMPLY WITH MPCA AND OTHER LOCAL REGULATIONS.

10.

11.

C

NOTIFY CAPITOL REGIONS WATERSHED DISTRICT INSPECTORS AT LEAST 24 HRS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF STORM WATER UNDERGROUND STORAGE SYSTEM.

16.

ALL PRIMARY ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE STORM SEWER. MPC 4714.1101.1.

16.1.

IF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES TAKEN ARE NOT ADEQUATE AND RESULT IN DOWNSTREAM SEDIMENT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING OUT DOWNSTREAM STORM SEWERS AS NECESSARY, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED RESTORATION. SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE AT STORM SEWER INLETS. AT THE INLETS TO ALL STORM SEWER STRUCTURES, PROVIDE A PRODUCT FROM THE FOLLOWING LIST. ACCEPTABLE PRODUCTS:

11.1.

11.2.

11.3.

11.4.

11.5.

11.6.

11.7.

11.8.

ROAD DRAIN “TOP SLAB”, MANUFACTURED BY WIMCO ROAD DRAIN “CURB & GUTTER”, MANUFACTURED BY WIMCO INFRASAFE® “SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER”, MANUFACTURED BY ROYAL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. INFRASAFE® “DEBRIS COLLECTION DEVICE”, MANUFACTURED BY ROYAL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. INFRASAFE® “CULVERT INLET PROTECTOR”, MANUFACTURED BY ROYAL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. DANDY SACK®, MANUFACTURED BY DANDY PRODUCTS, INC. DANDY CURB SACK®, MANUFACTURED BY DANDY PRODUCTS, INC. OR APPROVED EQUAL.

5.4

16.2.

a.

Silt fences, sediment logs, and erosion control devices at storm sewer inlets shall be inspected for depth of sediment, tears, to see if fabric is securely attached to support posts or structure, and to see that posts and devices are securely in place.

b.

Silt fences, sediment logs and erosion control devices at storm sewer inlets, and other erosion control devices shall be cleaned when sediment reaches 1/3 the height of the erosion control device, within 24 hours.

c.

Repairs or replacements to all erosion control devices shall occur within 24 hours of discovery.

8.

e.

Tracked sediment from construction vehicles on to public streets and paved areas (including paved areas on the construction site) shall be removed within 24 hours of discovery.

f.

Removal of sediment and restabilization of Surface Waters shall be accomplished within 7 days of discovery (note: surface waters include curb and gutter, pavements, storm sewer, swales, or other similar storm water conveyance devices).

g.

Inlet protection may be removed if a local unit of government directs the permittee to do so because of a specific safety concern.

Construct curb and gutter and concrete walks/slabs. This will serve as permanent stabilization for the walk/slab areas.

c.

Prior to spreading topsoil, till all subgrade soils that will receive topsoil to a minimum depth of 6 inches as specified in Section 31 00 00 Earthwork.

b.

Spread topsoil and finish grade the outlying areas.

Prepare these areas for final sodding.

Provide final sodding. This will serve as permanent stabilization for the outlying vegetated areas.

Continue construction of the paved areas, using the following sequence: a. b.

At this time the paved areas will be completely stabilized with the first lift of pavement.

a.

11.

Complete exterior building work.

Provide final lift of pavement and pavement markings.

13.

Provide final stabilization and cleanup of the site.

Erosion Control Device Inspection

Inspect erosion control devices and provide routine maintenance as follows: 1.

Inspect erosion control a minimum of once per week and after each rain event measuring 0.5" or more. Provide a rain gauge at the site and use the rain gauge to document rainfall events. Record inspection on log posted in Contractor's construction trailer or other suitable temporary storage area. a. i.

Records of each inspection and maintenance activity shall include: Date and time of inspections

ii.

Name of person conducting inspection

iii.

Findings of inspections, including recommendations for corrective actions

iv. v.

Findings shall include photographs, accurate description of the observations (i.e. color, odor, settled or suspended solids, oil sheen, or other pollutants), and a map describing the locations of the observations Corrective actions taken (including dates, times, and party completing maintenance activities

vi.

Date and amount of all rainfall events greater than one quarter inch (0.25 inch) in 24 hours

b.

Inspections are not required where the ground is frozen. The required inspections and maintenance schedule must begin within 24 hours after runoff occurs at

(1)

Documentation of changes made to the SWPPP as required by the NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity (MN R100001)

PROPOSED STORM SEWER

Dewatering Practices Provide dewatering of excavations as identified in Section 31 00 00.

Revisions

10

10A

Provide maintenance of all sodded areas until fully established.

2.

Provide cleaning of storm sewer system at the completion of the project. a.

3.

1.

Cleaning shall include removal of accumulated sediment from all surface waters as defined by the permit (for example, curb and gutter, pavements, swales, and storm sewer piping and structures).

Remove silt fence and erosion control devices at storm sewer inlets following full establishment of site vegetation. Dispose materials properly off-site.

4.

Apply for Notice of Termination (NOT) with MPCA. NOT must be submitted within 30 days after:

a.

Site has undergone Final Stabilization (at least 80% vegetative cover), and

b.

Removal of all temporary erosion control measures (silt fence, etc.), and

c.

Final cleanout and maintenance of all permanent storm water facilities, and

d.

Completion of all maintenance activities and site cleanup.

17

SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE AT STORM SEWER INLET C2.12

1

CONNECT DRAIN TILE TO STRUCTURE 12 C2.11 AND PROVIDE BACKWATER VALVE 1

PROPOSED SILT FENCE C2.11

PROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS

PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED TEMPORARY DIVERSION BERM 13

14

PROPOSED UNDERGROUND SYSTEM C2.11 C2.11

Comm:

212071

Date:

2021.03.26

Drawn:

CLG

Check:

DAR

North

UTILITY AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN

APPROXIMATE EROSION CONTROL DEVICE QUANTITIES SILT FENCE = 150 L.F. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE = 30 C.Y. SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE AT STORM SEWER INLET = 9

Num AD1

7

A

2

Substantial Completion / Turf Establishment 1.

Date 04/05/2020

6 8 C2.11 C2.11

PROPOSED ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE C2.11 1.9

DAVID A. REY Date 2021.03.26 40180

Description ADDENDUM 1

PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB) C2.11

Temporary soil stockpiles shall be treated with appropriate erosion control measure, including silt fence and temporary seeding when stockpiles are left inactive for periods longer than 7 days.

1.8

Registration Number

4 5 C2.11 C2.11 9

PROPOSED MANHOLE (MH)

Stabilize denuded areas, initiated immediately, within 7 days of last construction activity (temporary or permanent) in that area except for temporary soil stockpiles.

Steep slopes, defined as slopes steeper than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, are not proposed for this project. Therefore, no special provisions are required.

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER MINNESOTA

under the laws of the State of

PROPOSED DRAINTILE (DT) / FINGER DRAIN (FD) C2.11 C2.11 C2.11

Denuded Areas

Steep Slope Disturbances

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

PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ME = MATCH EXISTING EOF = EMERGENCY OVERFLOW

PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS

Provide silt fence at the base of all stockpiles, including clean aggregate and similar stockpiles, full perimeter.

Provide maintenance to erosion control devices and BMP's to comply with the requirements of the permit.

Re-install all sediment control practices that have been adjusted or removed to accommodate short-term activates, such as passage of construction vehicles or equipment, immediately after the short-term activity has been completed. All sediment control practices shall be re-installed before the next precipitation event if the short-term activity is not complete.

PROPOSED CONTOUR

Temporary Soil Stockpiles

Construct the first lift of pavement. This will serve as permanent stabilization for the paved areas.

12.

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION

Temporary soil stockpiles shall not be placed in surface waters of the state, including surface conveyances such as curb and gutter, swales, or ditches.

Spread topsoil and finish grade the outlying areas. Topsoil spreading shall include all areas except around the building additions until the exterior building work is complete.

c.

EXISTING CONTOUR

240

Temporary soil stockpiles shall be seeded with temporary seed mix and hydromulch when stockpiles are left inactive for seven (7) days. Note, this does not apply to aggregate stockpiles or other stockpiles without significant silt, clay or organic components (clean aggregate stockpiles, clean rock, clean sand and similar clean aggregates).

1.7

REFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)

26365 241.0

41.0 1.6

Prior to spreading topsoil, till all subgrade soils that will receive topsoil to a minimum depth of 6 inches as specified in Section 31 00 00 Earthwork.

d.

1 C2.11

Street sweeping (with a pickup broom only) shall be provided on a daily basis.

Complete stabilization of the outlying vegetated areas. a.

1.5

Once pavement subgrade testing is complete, construct the stabilized aggregate base course. This will serve as temporary stabilization for the pavement areas.

b. d.

10.

Temporary diversion berms shall be inspected and any breaches promptly repaired.

a.

Begin construction of the paved areas, using the following sequence: a.

9.

d.

3.

Inspections of areas with permanent cover may be reduced to once per month, even if construction activity continues on other portions of the site. Once all construction activity is complete, monthly inspections may be terminated after one year following completion of all construction activities.

Provide maintenance for all devices as follows:

SWPPP Construction Sequence

Following review of the SWPPP plans commence with the construction sequence: 1.

Prior to construction, delineate turf and vegetated areas not to be disturbed with orange snow fence. No construction traffic, equipment or materials shall be permitted to utilize, access, or otherwise enter the areas designated not to be disturbed. Minimize soil compaction and disruption of topsoil in areas outside the construction limits to comply with MN Construction Stormwater General Permit.

2.

Install perimeter silt fence where indicated on the Drawings. Silt fence shall be as specified in Section 31 25 00.

3.

Have silt fence and other erosion control devices inspected by local authorities, as required by the local authority.

1.

4.

Re-install all sediment control practices that have been adjusted or removed to accommodate short-term activates, such as passage of construction vehicles or equipment, immediately after the short-term activity has been completed. All sediment control practices shall be re-installed before the next precipitation event if the short-term activity is not complete.

5.

Begin work at the proposed building addition areas to allow for critical path construction of building footings and foundations. a.

Remove existing surface features (pavements, curbing, etc.). Minimize disturbance to minimize erosion potential. b.

Strip and stockpile topsoil from the building area and its oversize area. Provide temporary seed and mulch on stockpiles as described herein. c.

Rough grade the building pad. d.

Complete the grading of the building pad. e.

Begin footing excavations. f.

Provide temporary seed and mulch on all stockpiles as described herein.

6.

Begin installation of site utilities for these areas. a.

Construct proposed storm sewer system. i.

Construct Inlet Protection Devices at proposed storm sewer inlets (hay bales around castings and silt fence under castings will not be acceptable). ii.

Begin construction of the underground retention system.

(1) Protect the underground retention system during construction.

(2) Construct the temporary berm around the excavation to prevent construction site sediment from reaching the underground retention system. The temporary berm can be a simple wind row of soil pushed into a berm from the adjacent area.

(3) Do not allow sediment to reach the underground system. Maintenance of Sediment Control Devices is critical until the upslope areas are stabilized.

(4) Once backfilling the underground retention system is complete, remove the temporary berm.

7.

Begin mass grading of the site, recognizing the following sequence: a.

In fill areas, strip and stockpile soils prior to placement of subsequent fill. i.

Provide temporary seed and mulch on stockpiles as described herein. ii.

Provide silt fence at the base of stockpiles, full perimeter. This silt fence may not be shown on the plans but shall be included in the Contractor's lump sum bid. b.

In cut areas, strip and stockpile soils prior to placement of subsequent fill. i.

Provide temporary seed and mulch on stockpiles as described herein. ii.

Provide silt fence at the base of stockpiles, full perimeter. This silt fence may not be shown on the plans but shall be included in the Contractor's lump sum bid. c.

Establish subgrade elevations for the drives and walk areas.

SECONDARY ROOF DRAINAGE SHALL DRAIN TO AN APPROVED PLACE OF DISPOSAL IN THE FORM OF SCUPPERS (IF THE ROOF IS LESS THAN 25 FEET) OR SECONDARY ROOF DRAINS (IF THE ROOF IS OVER 25 FEET) AND INSTALLED PER MPC 4714.1101 & 1102, AND MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE 1503.4 1-5. SECONDARY ROOF DRAINAGE MUST DISCHARGE ONTO PERMEABLE SOILS AND CANNOT DRAIN ONTO THE SIDEWALK. MPC 4714.1101.1. BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ROOF DRAINAGE SYSTEMS MUST MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. MINNESOTA HAS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO ADDRESS SEASONAL CONDITIONS OF FREEZE AND THAW WHEN THE DISCHARGE FROM ROOF DRAINS COULD CREATE UNSAFE, ICY CONDITIONS ON SIDEWALKS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT A PROPER POINT OF DISCHARGE THAT CAN BE APPROVED BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION FOR SECONDARY ROOF DRAINAGE IS IN THE FORM OF SECONDARY ROOF DRAINS PIPED INTERNALLY, DOWN TO WITHIN 18 INCHES OF GRADE, THROUGH THE OUTSIDE WALL, ONTO A SPLASH BLOCK INSTALLED PER MPC 1101.5.3, AND LAID OVER PERMEABLE SOILS OF AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT WHERE SATURATION OF THE SOIL WILL NOT OCCUR. IF SECONDARY ROOF DRAINAGE DISCHARGING ONTO THE SIDEWALK ARE TO BE ENTERTAINED AS THE ENTIRE BUILDING IS SURROUNDED BY SIDEWALK OR OTHER PROPER POINTS OF DISCHARGE CANNOT BE MET, APPROVAL MUST BE REQUESTED, AND APPROVAL GRANTED, BY DSI AND ST. PAUL PUBLIC WORKS BEFORE DISCHARGE ONTO HARD SURFACES OR A SIDEWALK. IN ADDITION, PROVISIONS MUST BE MADE IN THE FORM OF OPEN GRATES INSTALLED IN THE SIDEWALK OF A SIZE EQUAL TO THE CROSS SECTIONAL AREA OF THE SECONDARY DISCHARGE PIPE FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE SIDEWALK TO PREVENT WATER OR ICE FROM ACCUMULATING IN COLD WEATHER CONDITIONS THAT MAY CAUSE A HAZARD. PROVIDE SECONDARY ROOF DRAIN DESIGN PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.

the site or 24 hours prior to resuming construction, whichever comes first. c.

2.

Work includes installation of erosion control devices, excavation, grading, erosion control, storm sewer, curbing, paving, sodding, landscaping, and site restoration.

STORM SEWER SERVICES PASSING WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING MUST BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN STATE PLUMBING CODE 4714 SECTION1109.0. REFER ALSO TO SPECIFICATION SECTION 33 40 00, 3.08 STORM SEWER TESTING.

15.

LEGEND

The following is from the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Narrative, Section 01 89 13 of the Project Manual. In accordance with Section 31 00 00, the Contractor shall be responsible for full implementation of and maintenance required by the SWPPP Narrative until the Notice of Termination is approved by the MPCA. Should differences arise between the SWPPP Narrative information described below and the information contained within the SWPPP Narrative, bound into the Project Manual, the SWPPP in the Project Manual shall govern.

13. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES (REFER ALSO TO SPECIFICATIONS): 13.1.

TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS OF THE STATE, INCLUDING SURFACE CONVEYANCES SUCH AS CURB AND GUTTER, SWALES, OR DITCHES. 13.2.

INSTALL SILT FENCE AT THE BASE OF THE TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILE (FULL PERIMETER).

13.3.

TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES SHALL BE SEEDED WITH TEMPORARY SEED MIX AND HYDROMULCH WHEN STOCKPILES ARE LEFT INACTIVE FOR SEVEN (7) DAYS. NOTE, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO AGGREGATE STOCKPILES OR OTHER STOCKPILES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT SILT, CLAY OR ORGANIC COMPONENTS (CLEAN AGGREGATE STOCKPILES, CLEAN ROCK, CLEAN SAND AND SIMILAR CLEAN AGGREGATES).

14.

6.

PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, DELINEATE TURF AND VEGETATED AREAS NOT TO BE DISTURBED WITH ORANGE SNOW FENCE. NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO UTILIZE, ACCESS, OR OTHERWISE ENTER THE AREAS DESIGNATED NOT TO BE DISTURBED. MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION AND DISRUPTION OF TOPSOIL IN AREAS OUTSIDE THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TO COMPLY WITH MN CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER GENERAL PERMIT.

Scale:

1" = 20'

C1.41

May 5, 2021 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of April 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting

(Sylvander)

Regular Board Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 6:05 p.m. (Regular Meeting) at the office of CRWD, 595 Aldine Street, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I.

A)

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

Managers Joe Collins, remote Shawn Murphy, remote Rick Sanders, remote Hawona Sullivan Janzen, remote Mary Texer, remote

B)

Staff Present Public Attendees Mark Doneux, CRWD Elizabeth Hosch, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD Mary Van Sant, CRWD Nate Zwonitzer, CRWD James Mogen, Ramsey County Atty

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda.

Motion 21-077: Approve the Agenda of April 21, 2021, with addition of Unfinished Business B trash project update.

Manager Sullivan Janzen noted a correction on the Agenda. Action Item A should read Approve the Minutes of the April 7th Board Workshop and Regular Meeting not April 14th.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved II.

Public Comment

President Joe Collins shared a quote made by Vice President Kamala Harris in remembrance of Mr. George Floyd. “A measure of justice is not the same as equal justice. The fact is we still have work to do”.

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates A)

MnDOT I94 and 35E (Hosch)

Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #21-011 for MnDOT I94 and 35E. The applicant, Minnesota Department of Transportation, will start a project which includes concrete pavement rehabilitation, signals, lighting, drainage repair work, and slope seepage fixes. Permanent stormwater management consists of an iron enhanced filtration basin. 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 4.21 acres with 0.38 acres impervious surface.

Motion 21-078: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions: 1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

2. Update stormwater management cost estimate to correspond with quantities in the most recent plan set. a. Remove mobilization and traffic control line items. These items will already be done for the project and are not stormwater specific costs. b. Remove geotextile filter fabric. c. Remove bale barrier and silt fence line items or show where these will be installed. The only reference to stormwater basin perimeter control is the placement of sediment control logs at the bottom of the basin slopes. d. Increase Iron-enhanced sand quantity per updated design.

3. Clarify location/intent of Geotextile Filter Type 3 on shown Sheet 204 to ensure that the geotextile is removed from the basin cross-section.

President Collins asked for any questions. Manager Texer commented that it would be difficult getting around this summer. Ms. Hosch replied that she will provide updates with progress as they become available. Manager Murphy asked for explanation why fabric would need to be removed. Ms. Hosch replied that the fabric is used in-between the layers of the filtration basin. Typically, it is included around the drain. The filter tends to clog and should only be used during construction period.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved B)

21-016 Xcel CR B Phase 3 (Hosch)

Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #21-016 for Xcel CR B Phase. The applicant, Xcel Energy, will install two miles of new 16-inch gas main and retirement in-place of an existing 12-inch gas pipe. The new piping will be installed using open trench and horizontal direction drilling (HDD) boring techniques. All disturbed impervious surface will be replaced and no additional impervious is proposed. 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 0.71 acres with 0.71 acres impervious surface.

President Collins inquired about the name of the BMP Cooper filtration basin. Ms. Hosch clarified the term Cooper is the name given to the basin and has nothing to do with the performance of the basin.

Manager Sanders asked if the variance is just for this permit or the whole project. Ms. Hosch replied that the variance is just for this section of the work. Manager Sanders asked who the property owner is.

Ms. Hosch replied, Ramsey County and the City of Roseville own the right away.

Motion 21-079: Approve variance of 2,835 cf from volume retention requirement of Rule C for street impervious.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved Motion 21-080: Approve with 5 Conditions Conditions: 1. Receipt of $3,600 surety.

2. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

4. Revise SWPPP to include a note stating that silt fence or fabric placed under the grate is not an approved form of inlet protection.

5. Verify disturbed area and the area of reconstructed impervious within CRWD boundary for Phase 3. Application lists 0.71 acres for both disturbance and reconstructed impervious. SWPPP lists areas for both Phases 3 and 4 but does not separate by phase. The delineation for these areas is not clear in the plans. Current CRWD assumption is that reconstructed impervious area is 0.71 acres.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved IV.

Special Reports – No Special Report

V.

Action Items A)

AR: Approve Minutes of the April 7, 2021 Board Workshop and Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

Motion 21-081: Approve the Minutes of April 7, 2021 Board Workshop and Regular Meeting.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved B)

AR: Approve Accounts Payable/Receivable for March 2021 (Sylvander)

Motion 21-082: Approve March 2021 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Budget Report and direct Board Treasurer and President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved C)

AR: Authorize Notice of Award and Order Construction of the 2021 Boulevard Rain Garden Project (Zwonitzer)

Mr. Zwonitzer reviewed that 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. Boulevard

rain gardens were identified as part of CRWD’s Clean Street Initiatives for the purposes of the grant.

CRWD promoted rain gardens in the Como Subwatershed and McCarrons Subwatershed, and designs were developed by Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation Division. In early March 2021, CRWD’s Board of Managers approved plans and authorized bidding for the 2021 Boulevard Rain Garden Project. The bidding period for the project extended over a four-week period from March 5 – April 2, 2021. During bidding, one rain garden needed to be eliminated and another downsized due to previously unidentified utility conflicts. Bid quantities were updated via a bid addendum to include 24 rain gardens on 23 properties. CRWD received bids from six contractors ranging from approximately $195,000 to $406,372. The project estimate was $199,000 and two bids were within $5,000 of the estimate. Minnesota Native Landscapes, Inc. (MNL) submitted the lowest bid. President Collins asked for any questions or comments. No comments were made.

Motion 21-083: Order construction of the CRWD 2021 Boulevard Rain Garden Project and authorize the Board President and Administrator to execute a Notice of Award and an Agreement with Minnesota Native Landscapes, subject to the review and approval of the Ramsey County Attorney; and authorize the Administrator to execute change orders in an amount not to exceed $20,000.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved D)

AR: Approve Consultant for TBI Detailed Modeling Project (Zwonitzer)

Mr. Zwonitzer shared that in CRWD’s 2021 budget funding is included to conduct additional detailed modeling of Trout Brook Interceptor (TBI) and the 8,150-acre Trout Brook subwatershed. This expands on the Atlas-14 model update completed in 2018 by adding spatial resolution to the model particularly in the City of Saint Paul and includes evaluating storm sewer capacity issues, areas of flooding, and watershed pollutant loading. The results will help CRWD, and its partners, identify and prioritize future mitigation efforts. The CRWD Board of Managers previously reviewed a draft project scope and approved a $375,000 grant application for the effort through a State and Federal Hazard Mitigation Program in November 2020 and authorized an RFP for the project in February 2021.

In March, CRWD received proposals to complete the modeling project from three consulting firms: HZ United (DBE), Barr Engineering, and HR Green. All three proposals met the requirements of the RFP and costs were within the anticipated level of effort ranging from $382,616 - $411,579.

Mr. Zwonitzer reviewed the scoring process used to review proposals. Proposals were independently evaluated and scored by a review team consisting of three CRWD staff as well as one staff from the City of St. Paul’s Sewers Division, a key stakeholder with extensive experience working with consultants on highly technical modeling efforts. Independent proposal scoring identified Barr Engineering as the top proposal in all review categories, particularly personnel qualifications and relevant experience. The review committee also agreed the project approach and allocation of staff resources outlined by Barr was the best fit for this project. Staff recommend approving Barr Engineering as the consultant and are seeking approval of an agreement amount for the project base tasks. In addition, staff recommend the Board give authorization to the Administrator for amendments to conduct the optional tasks outlined in the proposal if they are deemed necessary. CRWD has budgeted $150,000 for the project in 2021 (CRWD Project #315-21554) and will budget an additional $250,000 in 2022. In addition to the

potential federal grant for this project, CRWD staff will approach City and County partners for contributions towards this effort. Work will begin on the project shortly and is anticipated to be completed by July 2022.

Manager Texer inquired about partnership contributions. Mr. Zwonitzer felt confident that partners would contribute and that CRWD would be able to cover the project costs with out partnership support.

President Collins asked about other areas being identified for future projects. President Collins also inquired if this project would be eligible for Federal funding. Mr. Zwonitzer replied that this project would be eligible, and an application has been submitted. Mr. Zwonitzer added that it would be 6-8 months before CRWD would hear back. Managers thanked Mr. Zwonitzer.

Motion 21-084: Approve Barr Engineering as the consultant for the TBI Detailed Modeling Project and authorize the Administrator to execute an agreement not to exceed $320,310 and any amendments to the agreement up to $84,020.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved E)

AR: Approve 2020 Annual Report (Van Sant)

Ms. Van Sant reviewed that all metropolitan watershed management organizations are required by Minnesota Statute 103.B to submit an annual Activity Report, Financial Report and Financial Audit to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). Ms. Van Sant shared that staff are requesting feedback from the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) about the general format and contents of the report as well as how best to share this information with residents by April 14, 2021. Staff requests Board feedback as part of the discussion at the April 21 meeting or written feedback no later than the meeting date. Attached is the Draft 2020 Annual Report. Please contact Belinda Gardner at bgardner@capitolregionwd.org if you would like a hard copy of the Annual Report for the Board meeting. Staff will submit the final 2020 Annual Report on April 29, 2021. CRWD’s 2020 Financial Statement and Audit and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Annual Report will be sent upon completion later this year.

Manager Sullivan Janzen said it was very attractive and well designed and that she did not know about a lot of the things that were included in the report. Manager Sanders added that the report was easy to read and thanked Ms. Van Sant for the work. President Collins added that liked the charts and recommended achievements be highlighted. Ms. Van Sant replied that she will share with the graphic designer.

Administrator Doneux noted the one-page summary that was suggested by Manager Murphy in 2020.

Motion 21-085: Approve the 2020 Annual Report for submission to BWSR. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved VI.

Unfinished Business A)

COVID 19 Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux shared with the Board of Manager’s a plan for staff returning to the office.

About 75% of staff have school aged children so planning is important. Based on state requirements and Department of Health recommendations the intention is to return to the office full-time after Labor Day. Public meetings return later. Manager Sullivan Janzen inquired about a way to ask staff about vaccination status. Administrator Doneux replied based on HIPAA privacy laws he did not think CRWD could require any proof of vaccination. Administrator Doneux added that there is a protocol if someone has symptoms. President Collins asked if Administrator Doneux had heard of any concerns from staff about return to work at the office. Administrator Doneux replied that most of the comments have been regarding planning for day care. Administrator Doneux added that a new employee handbook is being drafted and will be presented to the board for adoption this summer.

B) Trash Collection app Administrator Doneux shared that Chris Kucek came to the board regarding an application to work with the community in tracking trash pickup. CRWD learned that the City of St. Paul has signed on with Mississippi River Cities and Towns Initiative. The Mississippi River Plastics pollution Campaign is a nationwide program that the City of St. Paul, Saint Louis and Baton Rouge are the lead cities. CRWD will be working with the App developer of to help with collecting data in our area. Manager Murphy asked Manager Sanders about a City wide clean up in Roseville. Manager Sanders replied that a clean up took place last weekend. Manager Sanders added that it was around his neighborhood and might not have been part of a City-Wide cleanup.

Administrator Doneux shared that the workshop scheduled on May 5th from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm will be with the Department directors from the City of St. Paul. Administrator Doneux will not be attending.

Mr. Fossum will be attending in Administrator Doneux’s place. Manager Murphy asked what the Board’s roll will be in the workshop. Administrator Doneux replied that the Board would be provided with list of topics and key issues. Managers are encouraged to ask questions. Manager Texer asked if the City of St. Paul department heads would be provided with general information. Administrator Doneux replied that staff are working on materials for the presentation. Administrator Doneux explained how this annual meeting has benefited relationships with the City of St. Paul. Administrator Doneux asked Manager Sanders about having a meeting with department heads from the City of Roseville. President Collins explained how a portion of St. Paul is not included in CRWD boundaries.

VII.

General Information A)

Board of Managers’ Updates

Manager Texer shared Metro MAWD had a meeting. Manager Sanders and Texer attended the Operations Committee meeting and toured Thomas building. The committee is reviewing tentative plans for making repairs and reviewing the budget to finance the needed repairs. Manager Texer shared the Annual Meeting for MAWD is being planned in person for November 30 – Dec. 4th. MAWD will make a final decision for these plans in June.

Manager Sanders attended the CAC meeting and shared that the June tour was discussed. The CAC tour may take place later. Manager Sanders added the Annual report was reviewed and approved by the CAC.

VIII. Next Meetings A) B) IX.

Wednesday, May 5, 2021 5:00 PM - Workshop and Regular Meeting– Electronic Only Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 PM- CAC Meeting – Electronic Only President Collins

Adjournment

Motion 21-086: Adjournment of the April 21, 2021 Regular Board Meeting at 7:20 P.M. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander

May 5, 2021 Board Meeting V. Action Items - B) Approve 20212022 Professional Services Pool (Eleria)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

April 29, 2021 CRWD Board of Managers Anna Eleria, Planning, Projects and Grants Division Manager Approve 2021-2022 Professional Services Consulting Pool

Background CRWD adopted a policy for soliciting professional services in 2010 and solicits statements of qualifications from interested consultants on a biennial basis. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for professional, technical services for 2021 and 2021 was distributed to over 130 Minnesota businesses including approximately 83 businesses that meet WBE (women-owned) or MBE (minority-owned) certifications through MNUCP (Federal/State database) and/or CERT (Metro database administered by City of St. Paul) Issues Staff reviewed Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from 31 firms and determined their qualifications for 12 specific service areas as shown in the enclosed table. Consulting firms SOQs available upon request.

Of the submittals received 21 were firms in CRWD’s 2019-2020 pool, and 10 are new firms for 20212022. Eleven firms are disadvantage business enterprises (DBE). CRWD staff will utilize this qualified pool for selecting firms to submit proposals or qualifications on new projects over the next two years.

CRWD typically seeks one to three proposals or SOQs for new projects each year.

Requested Action Approve 2021-2022 Professional Services Consulting Pool Enc:

2021-2022 Professional Services Consulting Pool Table

W:\01 Administration\Contracts & Agreements\2021-2022 RFQ\Professional Services\Board Memos\BM Professional Services Consultant Pool 05-052021.docx

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

Capitol Region Watershed District 2021- 2022 Professional Services Consultant Pool Updated: 4/28/2021

COMPANY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

AECOM Aune Fernandez Landscape Architects Barr Engineering Company CNA Consulting Engineers EOR Fortin Consulting, Inc. Hazen and Sawyer HDR Houston Engineering HR Green HTPO Inter-fluve ISG, Inc. Kimley-Horn Landbridge Ecological LimnoTech Natural Shore Technologies Northwestern Surveying and Engineering Nova Consulting Prairie Restorations, Inc. RES (AES) Resilience Resources Solution Blue SRF Stanley Consultants Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Wenck) Stevens Engineers Studio Gro Sunde Land Surveying WSB Young Environmental Consulting Group, LLC # per Service Area

2021-2022 Consultant Pool Status New for '21-21 New for '21-22

New for '21-22

New for '21-22 New for '21-22

1 - Watershed, 2019-2020 Certified 2 - Lake, Wetland, Subwatershed and Consultant Pool DBE or NonNature Resource and Water Resource Status Profit Stream Restoration Management and and Management Planning X DBE $ X X DBE X X $ DBE X X X X X $ X X X X DBE X X $ X X X X X $ DBE X $ X X X DBE

X X

X X X

X X X

X X X

New for '21-22 $ DBE DBE

New for '21-22 New for '21-22 $ $

DBE DBE

New for '21-22

3 - Hydrologic, Hydraulic and Water Quality Modeling and Analysis X

Service Areas 4 - Stormwater BMP Design and Construction Mgmt.

5 - Water Resource Permitting

X

6Landscape Architecture and Design

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X

X

X

7- Storm Sewer Inspection, Maintenance and Repair

X X

X X X X

X

X X X

X

8 - BMP Management/ Maintenance Support

$

DBE 11

X X 19

X X 21

Notes $ - In pool and did work for CRWD in 2019-2020 2021-2022 Summary 31 Consultants in Pool 12 active/recent contracts (60%) 22 Firms in Urban Stormwater BMP Design (most) 4 Firms in Soil and Geotechnical Engineering (fewest) 11 new firms W:\01 Administration\Contracts & Agreements\2021-2022 RFQ\Professional Services\Professional Service Provider Lists\[2021-2022 Professional Services Providers RFQ List.xlsx]2021-2022 Pool

10 - Soil and Geotechnical Engineering

X

X

X X X X X X

X X 20

X X 22

X

X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X

X 14

12 - Brownfields, Environmental Assessments and EIS

X

X

X

X X X X X X

11 - GIS X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

16

6

12

10

4

13

12

X X

$ New for '21-22

9 - Land Surveying

May 5, 2021 Board Meeting V. C. Action Items—Authorize Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan RFP (Belden)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

April 29, 2021 CRWD Board of Managers Britta Belden, Water Resource Project Manager Authorize Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan Request For Proposals (RFP)

Background The Como Lake Management Plan (CLMP) was adopted by the Board of Managers on May 15, 2019. The CLMP presents an adaptive management plan framework for achieving water quality goals for Como Lake through in-lake, watershed, and community actions over the next 20 years.

Goal 2 of the CLMP states: “Maintain healthy shoreline areas that can support a variety of wildlife and contribute to the ecological health of Como Lake”. To work toward achieving Goal 2, the CLMP recommends completing actions L10: Conduct shoreline assessment, L11: Develop and implement shoreline management plan, and L12: Engage volunteers and local partners in shoreline management. Action L10 was completed in September 2020 by Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation District and will serve to inform the development and implementation of Actions L11 and L12.

Issues With Action L10 complete, CRWD staff plan to start implementation of Action L11: Develop and implement shoreline management plan. A Request For Proposals (RFP) has been developed to seek out a consultant to assist with the development of the plan. The RFP will be distributed to three qualified firms who have experience in shoreline restoration and management plan development: Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc (EOR), Landbridge Ecological, and Resources Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES). Each of these selected firms are included on CRWD’s 2021-2022 Professional Services Providers list and have submitted Statements of Qualifications, and one of which is a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE).

The shoreline is currently managed by the City of Saint Paul Parks and Recreation (SPPR) staff. CRWD staff have been collaborating with SPPR staff to develop the RFP. SPPR staff will also be heavily involved in the review of proposals and the development of the Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan.

Requested Action Authorize distribution of the Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan Request For Proposals (RFP) to the selected consulting firms. enc:

Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan Request For Proposals (RFP)

W:\06 Projects\Como Lake Projects\Como Shoreline Restoration\2021 Como Lake Shoreline Mgmt Plan\Board & CAC\Brd Memo_Shoreline Mgmt Plan_RFP_4-2921.docx

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

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO:

Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc (EOR) Landbridge Ecological Resource Environmental Solution, LLC (RES)

FROM:

Britta Belden, Water Resource Project Manager

DATE:

May 6, 2021

SUBJECT:

Development of Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan

ATTACHED: Exhibit A – Como Lake Shoreline Assessment Report (2020) Exhibit B – Example Proposal Budget Spreadsheet Exhibit C – Consultant Services Agreement Template BACKGROUND Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) in partnership with the City of Saint Paul seeks proposals from interested consulting firms to develop a Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan that outlines long-term goals and actions for the management and maintenance of Como Lake’s shoreline. The plan will help CRWD and the City of Saint Paul prioritize routine shoreline maintenance and plan for larger-scale or site-specific shoreline improvement projects. An assessment of Como Lake’s shoreline was conducted in September 2020 to inform the development of the Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan. Please see Exhibit A for a copy of the Como Lake Shoreline Assessment Report. Proposals shall be submitted electronically no later than 4:00 PM, Thursday, May 27, 2021.

Como Lake, a 70.5 acre shallow urban lake located in St. Paul’s 348 acre Como Regional Park, is one of the most popular lakes in the region. Como Lake has experienced poor water quality for decades due to excessive phosphorus and associated algal blooms. Significant work has been completed in and around the lake over the last twenty years in effort to improve water quality, including an herbicide treatment of curly-leaf pondweed (April 2020), an alum treatment (May 2020), the conversion of the lake’s shoreline areas to plant buffers with native perennials. The Como Lake shoreline has been restored in phases starting in 2002 in partnership between the City of Saint Paul Parks and Recreation (SPPR), Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation District (RCSWCD, formerly known and Ramsey Conservation District (RCD)), Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Prior to restoration efforts, the Como Lake shoreline Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

primarily consisted of turf grass down to the water edge. Restoration plans were originally developed by the City of Saint Paul in 2001 and sought to address erosion issues and establish a stable native plant buffer zone between the walking path and the lake. All shoreline restoration work was also intended to improve Como Lake’s water quality by intercepting surface runoff, preventing erosion, and deterring geese activity while simultaneously enhancing the overall lake aesthetic. The shoreline restoration work began in 2002 by SPPR and was completed in phases through 2007. Since completion, SPPR has managed and maintained the shoreline vegetation during the growing season.

Despite significant restoration efforts over the past 20 years, shoreline maintenance has been difficult to keep up with and several areas have become subject to erosion, invasive species establishment, and vegetation overgrowth. The recently adopted 2019 Como Lake Management Plan (CLMP) identifies shoreline management as a priority for meeting water quality goals, supporting wildlife, and contributing to the ecological health of Como Lake (Goal 2). Shoreline improvements may also provide an opportunity to meet additional CLMP management goals and objectives (e.g. reduce trash loading or provide additional fishing locations). The following actions are recommended in the CLMP to achieve the objectives of Goal 2: L10. Conduct shoreline assessment. A shoreline assessment is the first step in development of a Shoreline Management Plan (discussed below), which should be completed early in the implementation of the CLMP in collaboration with the City of Saint Paul. (Note: Completed September 2020 (Exhibit A)) L11. Develop and implement shoreline management plan. In collaboration with the City of Saint Paul, develop and implement a “Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan” that emphasizes native plant diversity, wildlife habitat, shoreline stabilization, and capture of surface runoff.

Using information obtained in the shoreline assessment, the shoreline management plan should incorporate steps to implement priority actions, which include: •

Implement shoreline vegetation improvement and/or reinforcement to stabilize erosional areas and promote wildlife habitat.

•

Maintain areas of shoreline vegetation that allow for visual and physical access to Como Lake from the shoreline through vegetation.

•

Where needed and feasible, replace nuisance non-native vegetation with native vegetation.

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION CRWD and the City of Saint Paul seeks to develop a Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan to guide long-term maintenance and project planning of Como Lake’s shoreline areas. The selected consulting firm will conduct the work necessary to identify issues, develop goals, propose management actions, and produce the Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan.

Below is the preliminary scope of work for the study that includes tasks, deliverables, and timeline.

Interested consulting firms should prepare a proposal that contains the tasks listed below and include more detail as needed. A detailed budget should also be developed. Instructions for preparing and submitting the proposal are located at the end of this document.

2

PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF WORK The preliminary scope of work includes the completion of Tasks 1-6 and their respective deliverables within the timeline listed below.

Task 1 – Site Assessment & Review of Existing Information The selected consulting firm will review the Como Lake Shoreline Assessment Report (Exhibit A) to familiarize with the historical restoration efforts and the current conditions of the shoreline. The consultant will also conduct a site visit to familiarize with shoreline areas and their current condition. A kickoff meeting will be held with CRWD and the Saint Paul Parks and Recreation (SPPR) staff.

Recommended Subtasks: 1. Evaluate datasets to identify data gaps.

2. Gather and review additional information on Como Lake’s shoreline.

3. Familiarize with the goals and management actions presented in other management plans for Como Lake that may have overlap with shoreline management goals: a. Como Lake Management Plan (2019) b. Como Lake Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (2020) c. Como Lake Fishery Management Plan (2021) 4. Site visit to assist in filling critical data gaps.

Task 1 Deliverables: List of gaps in information or data; Kickoff meeting with CRWD and Partners.

Task 2 – Identification of Issues The selected consultant will work to identify issues related to the Como Lake shoreline (physical issues, management constraints, and general attitudes/perception from public). The consultant will meet with CRWD and SPPR staff to better understand current management practices as well as existing constraints.

Recommended Subtasks: 1. Review comments on the shoreline received from the public during the Como Lake Management Plan planning process in 2018.

2. Evaluate the issues identified in Exhibit A, the Como Lake Shoreline Assessment Summary report.

Task 2 Deliverables: A summary list of issues.

Task 3 – Development of Goals The selected consultant will work to develop a list of goals for the Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan that includes measurable outcomes. The goals for the plan will be based on the goals and objectives listed in the Como Lake Management Plan and the issues identified in Task 2. The consultant will meet with CRWD and SPPR staff to confirm and finalize the goals of the plan.

Task 3 Deliverables: A list of goals and measurable outcomes.

3

Task 4 – Develop List of Management Actions The selected consultant will develop a list of recommended management actions (either maintenance or projects) that will each work toward achieving the goals and measurable outcomes identified in Task 3. The recommended management actions will be specific to each section of Como Lake’ shoreline and will also include an anticipated schedule for implementation, frequency, level of effort, and cost. The consultant will meet with CRWD and SPPR staff to confirm and finalize the recommended management actions.

Recommended Subtasks: 1. Where possible, recommended actions should complement the initiatives identified in the Como Lake Vegetation Management Plan and the Como Lake Fishery Management Plan (e.g. invasive species control, nearshore native aquatic plant reestablishment, fish habitat improvements).

Task 4 Deliverables: A table of recommended management actions with schedule, frequency, level of effort, cost, lead agency, and anticipated outcomes.

Task 5 – Draft and Finalize the Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan The selected consultant will develop and write the Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan which will serve as a framework for the management of Como Lake’s shoreline for the next 20 years. The selected consultant will incorporate the deliverables developed in Tasks 1-4 into the management plan. It will include a summary of the issues and goals, and then a management approach for meeting those goals.

The plan will provide an annual schedule for recommended maintenance and projects and include details on the frequency, cost, and level of effort of those recommendations.

Overall, the plan will provide guidance on how and when the Como Lake shoreline should be maintained or improved to achieve the stated goals. The plan will also utilize an adaptive management approach that allows for progress to be evaluated along the way so it can be adjusted to reflect current conditions and coincide with other ongoing activities in the Como Lake Management Plan.

The consultant will meet with CRWD and SPPR staff to review the draft and final plans. The draft plan will be reviewed with the community at a public meeting. The final plan will be presented by the consultant to the CRWD Board of Managers and Community Advisory Committee.

Task 5 Deliverables: Draft Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan; Final Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan; presentation of Final Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan to the CRWD Board of Managers and Community Advisory Committee.

Task 6 – Project Coordination and Meetings Coordination with CRWD and partners including meetings and progress updates. Recommended subtasks include: 1. Periodic communications and emails throughout project.

2. Project meetings as follows: a. Kickoff meeting with CRWD and Partners (Task 1) 4

b. Issues identification meetings with CRWD and Partners (Task 2) c. Finalize goals with CRWD and Partners (Task 3) d. Review list of management actions with CRWD and Partners (Task 4) e. Review Draft plan with CRWD and Partners (Task 5) f. Review Draft plan with the community (Task 5) g. Review Final plan with CRWD and Partners (Task 5) h. Presentation of Final plan to CRWD Board of Managers (Task 5) i. Presentation of Final plan to CRWD Community Advisory Committee (Task 5) 3. Incorporate two rounds of review from CRWD and Partners for the Task 3, 4, and 5 deliverables.

4. Share all final report materials (tables, figures, spreadsheets, word docs) with CRWD and Partners.

Task 6 Deliverables: Periodic communications and emails, draft and final report, final Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan files, meetings, and presentations.

ANTICIPATED TIMELINE Task

Completion Date

Task 1: Site Assessment and Review of Existing Information Task 2: Identification of Issues

June 30, 2021

Task 3: Development of Goals

July 31, 2021

Task 4: Develop List of Management Actions

August 31, 2021

Task 5: Draft and finalize the Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan

Draft Plan: October 15, 2021 Final Plan: November 15, 2021

July 15, 2021

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING AND SUBMITTING PROPOSAL Firms are required to follow the outline below for their proposal. Failure to respond to any of the following technical submittal requirements may disqualify the proposal. Proposals should include: 1. Firm’s name, address, contact person phone number and email address and basic firm information.

2. Description of the firm’s approach to completing the study.

3. List of specific individual(s) who will work on this study and include brief descriptions of their professional qualifications, experience on similar projects and availability.

5

4. A detailed scope of work, budget, and schedule to complete the study, including billing rates and hours for staff proposed. The proposal must include a budget consistent with the example budget spreadsheet provided in Exhibit C. It is not necessary to complete the exact budget spreadsheet, however, CRWD requires similar pieces of information as shown in this example. Outside costs not identified in the preliminary scope of work shall be listed separately in the budget proposal.

5. Brief descriptions of recent similar projects successfully completed by the firm that demonstrate the ability to develop large-scale detailed models. Provide references for clients.

Please submit an electronic copy of your cover letter and proposal. Your proposal may not exceed ten (10) pages in length. The proposal cover, cover letter, and budget spreadsheet are separate from the 10-page limit. Staff resumes and project descriptions may be included in the appendices and are not limited in length. Proposals shall be submitted electronically no later than 4:00 PM, Thursday, May 27, 2021 to Britta Belden, CRWD Water Resource Project Manager, bbelden@capitolregionwd.org.

SELECTION PROCESS CRWD’s proposal review committee will review proposals, which will be evaluated based on the following criteria: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Experience of key personnel who will be involved in the project; Recent similar completed projects; General approach to completing the project; and Detailed scope of work and budget.

Based on the merits of the proposals, CRWD will consider selecting one firm as the Consultant for this project. After a firm has been selected, a professional services agreement (Exhibit C) with CRWD will be executed.

6

EXHIBIT A Como Lake Shoreline Assessment Report (2020)

COMO LAKE SHORELINE SURVEY September 2-3, 2020

SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIVISION This document contains reports of data collected on Como Lake shoreline. Details of this report include the methods and findings of a survey of shoreline vegetation. Also included are identified areas of erosion, wildlife habitat, and anthropogenic impacts on the lake.

Data was collected and prepared by Ramsey County­—Parks & Recreation, Soil and Water Conservation Division (2015 Van Dyke St, Maplewood, MN 55109, www.ramseycounty.us, phone 651-266-7270) for Capitol Region Watershed District (595 Aldine St, Saint Paul, MN 55104, www.capitolregionwd.org, phone 651.644.8888, fax 651.644-8894) 1

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

CONTENTS O V E R V I E W ..............................................................3 P U R P O S E ..................................................................4 B A C K G R O U N D .....................................................5

Areas of Past Restoration....................6 Restoration Narrative..........................7-8 Restoration Timeline............................9-10 Shoreline Maintenance.........................11-13

M E T H O D S ................................................................1 4 - 1 6 R E S U LT S ...................................................................1 7 - 2 7

Invasive species...................................20-27

A N A LY S I S O F R E S U LT S ................................2 8 - 4 0

Planting Successes..............................28-29 Planting Struggles..............................28-37 Wildlife Habitat..................................38-40

C O N C L U D I N G R E M A R K S .............................4 0 R E F E R E N C E S .........................................................4 2 - 4 3 A P P E N D I C E S .........................................................4 4 - 5 0 Appendix A: Field Data Results by Quadrat Como Lake Shoreline Survey Field Data.................................42-52 Appendix B: Historically Planted Species by Type, Quantity, Location, and Year................................53-66

2

Appendix C: Como Lake Shoreland Maintenance Matrix..............................67-69 Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

OVERVIEW

This report provides documentation of the shoreline assessment completed September 2-3, 2020 on Como Lake.

In addition, this report aims to summarize... historical shoreline restoration efforts, long-term shoreline management goals, and summary of current shoreline conditions (erosivity, vegetation composition, wildlife habitat, width, water levels).

Also included are... maps with shoreline delineation and regions, vegetation communities, storm drain locations, lake access points (e.g. shore fishing locations, benches), and pictures of current conditions.

3

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide documentation of the shoreline assessment completed September 2-3, 2020 on Como Lake. In addition, this report aims to summarize historical shoreline restoration efforts, long-term shoreline management goals, and summary of current shoreline conditions (erosivity, vegetation composition, wildlife habitat, width, water levels). This report includes maps with shoreline delineation and regions, vegetation communities, storm drain locations, lake access points (e.g. shore fishing locations, benches). Additionally, this report includes pictures of current conditions.

An assessment of the Como Lake’s shoreline was conducted during peak growing season on September 2-3, 2020 to document the state of the shoreline in terms of erosivity, vegetation composition, habitat, and buffer width. An assessment of the entire lake perimeter was conducted from both on land and from a boat to identify and document the following:

Erosional areas (current and susceptible) Existing shoreline vegetation composition (density, diversity of native and non-native species).

Quality of wildlife habitat (species types, availability, and needs) Areas where the shoreline vegetation buffer widths could be expanded to maximize capture of surface runoff.

Eventually, the findings of this report will be utilized for the development of a Long-Term Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan that will guide maintenance efforts to ensure the integrity of the shoreline.

4

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

BACKGROUND Como Lake is located in Saint Paul, Minnesota along the northern boundary of Ramsey County and Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD). The watershed ecoregion is classified as a North Central Hardwoods Forest (NCHF) and the climate is Hot Summer Continental Climate. The shallow lake is approximately 15 feet at the deepest section and spans about 71 acres in total. Its shoreline length is 1.73 miles long. Como Lake has a 97% littoral area and its plant community is classified as a Non-Vegetated Aquatic Community. It is a lentic system with shallow, open water (Figure 1) and is in the state of a stable turbid lake.

Currently, Como Lake’s phosphorus level is listed at three times higher than the standard set by the state of Minnesota. There are 22 drains directing stormwater runoff into the lake from over 1,711 acres of land in the cities of Saint Paul, Roseville, and Falcon Heights.

5

FIGURE 1. Como Lake depth contours (in meters) and surrounding wetland types.

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

AREAS OF PAST RESTORATION

Historical Restoration Efforts and Other Maintenance

Since the development of Como Lake as a destination for recreation, the lake had no natural shoreline vegetation and has consisted of turf grass that went down to the water’s edge. The turf grass shoreline was problematic because it was highly susceptible to erosion and provided easy lake-access for geese. Large populations of geese caused high levels of fecal bacteria in the lake. In addition, the many water quality and habitat benefits that shoreline buffers provide (e.g., surface runoff control, erosion control, nesting habitat, water temperature control) were not realized.

In 1999, concerned residents delivered a petition to the City of Saint Paul expressing concerns about the Como Lake shoreline and polluted nature of the lake. Soon after, the community helped sponsor events to improve lake and shoreline conditions. In response, the City of Saint Paul developed the Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan in 1999 which set the foundation for future lake restoration projects. The plan defined 13 shoreline zones (Figure 2), each distinct in slope and species composition, to begin restoring the entire perimeter of the lakeshore.

Shortly thereafter, the Como Lake Strategic Management Plan (CLSMP) was developed in 2002 to identify important management issues through stakeholder input to improve water quality in Como Lake. Partners involved in the plan development included CRWD, cities of Saint Paul, Roseville, and Falcon Heights, Ramsey County, state and regional agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other community groups (businesses and residents).

Restoring shoreline vegetation was included in the CLSMP and aimed to achieve shoreline aesthetics and improve natural resources around Como Lake. Other shoreline initiatives identified in the plan included installation of signs discouraging foot traffic in erosion-prone areas, installation of signs to emphasize the importance of trash removal, adding educational signage on natural resource features (water quality, ecology, geology, etc.), and creating designated fishing areas to discourage scattered off-trail paths. The CLSMP called for the implementation of the City of Saint Paul’s Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan and to develop specific plans for each shoreline segment to achieve the following expectations:

Focusing the plan on erosion control and water quality as well as aesthetics Restore and maintain upland forest Restore and maintain different prairie types

Provide in-lake and shoreline microhabitat (rocks for turtles, woody debris, snags, etc.)

Increase in-lake habitat (fish cribs, woody debris, emergent vegetation) Establish mesic wetland vegetation in exposed areas around lake Emergent vegetation will be part of shore plant communities in appropriate areas

6

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

RESTORATION NARRATIVE Since the adoption of the CLSMP in 2002, the entire shoreline of Como Lake has been planted and restored in phases. Plantings included a combination of both native terrestrial plants and aquatic plants. There have been multiple shoreline restoration projects around the Como Lake, including prescribed burnings, plantings, and shoreline stabilization. Appendix B is a detailed list of historically planted species in the various shoreline locations, including general seeding specifics and Dragonfly Garden selections.

2012-present Como Shoreline Maintenance Work Each year, Environmental Services staff maintained the shoreline using prescribed fire in 3-5 year increments along the shoreline to maintain native plantings and knock back weedy or invasive species. Staff routinely performed mechanical and chemical control of invasive or noxious weed species, following appropriate integrated pest management strategies. On occasion, staff added plant material to sites around the lake if extras were available after other plantings or from native plants propagated and grown by staff. Sites for extra plant material were identified as areas with little or no native cover, areas where invasive species were removed, and areas that lacked diversity in native plantings. Frost seeding also occurred in similarly identified spots along the lakeshore. Seed for frost seeding was collected in fall by volunteers, staff and Conservation Corps crews from other natural areas in the City.

Volunteer tree removal is an ongoing effort and should continue to be addressed each year. Volunteer trees include small diameter buckthorn, ash, black locust, white mulberry, European white poplar and others, varying by location as needed. Ash trees were removed in winter 2018 by Tree Trust crews throughout Como Park. 32 ash trees in natural areas European White Poplar along the lakeshore were removed and stumps were left in place, and treated, so as not to disturb any native plantings nearby. This is opposed to stump grinding which would have led to more disturbance and potential erosion issues along the lakeshore.

7

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Como Restoration Section 13 was fully restored in fall 2018 using grant funding from Capitol Region Watershed District. Section 13 was burned in spring 2018; invasive or weedy species were sprayed and removed summer 2018, and then the area was replanted with native plants (plugs from Natural Shore Technologies and seed from Prairie Moon Nursery) in fall 2018. The undercut banks were stabilized using biodegradable coir logs with built-in holes for planting emergent species of native plugs. Steeper areas of shoreline were reinforced with erosion control blanket and quick-growing Canada wild rye seed was sown underneath. Bare-root plant material was installed directly in the bio-logs in late fall 2018. In 2019, vegetation was cut back along several bench areas to improve views, and lower growing native plant material was replanted in spring 2020. Native plants were present in 2020 but weedy species are still present, which is to be expected in a new restoration. Vegetation was trampled in some areas, presumably by park users using the area as a fishing access. Continued maintenance of this area will be ongoing.

Annual shoreline maintenance was completed year-round by Saint Paul Parks and Recreation staff. For an eight to ten-week period in the summer, staff received additional assistance from Right Track (Youth Job Corps) youth crews led by staff or Conservation Corps Minnesota adults. From 2012–2019, Conservation Corps Minnesota provided state-funded young adult crew time (Clean Water funding —approximately 16 crew days annually), to perform lakeshore management and maintenance activities as prescribed by Saint Paul Parks and Recreation staff. In 2012, native vegetation on lakeshore sections 6 & 9 was enhanced with grant funding from CRWD and the Ramsey Conservation District. From 2016 to 2018, lakeshore section 13 was restored with native vegetation and 4.25 acres of adjacent natural area, north of Lake Como, was restored or enhanced into native prairie and oak woodland. Timeline follows. ones 11 and 12 (south of pavilion) were the sites for a shoreline revegetation and buffer improvement project in 2002.

Shoreland with

8

Ironweed as do

minant species

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

RESTORATION TIMELINE 2002

Zones 11 and 12 (south of pavilion) were the sites for a shoreline revegetation and buffer improvement project in 2002.

2003

In 2003, the same initiatives were carried out for zones 2 (Duck Point), 3 (Compass Point), and 10. Duck Point was also excavated, and stabilizing stonewalls were installed.

2004

2005

In 2004, aquatic plants were established in zones 1, 6, 9, and 13. Additionally, zones 1 and 13 included toe stabilization work, while zone 9 received toe and slope stabilization. Zone 6 underwent prescribed burning, then was seeded followed by an installation of erosioncontrol blankets. A lake access point was also created in zone 6.

2006

2007

2008

2009

Shoreland with Smooth Oxeye (yellow flowers) & Common Boneset (white flowers) as dominant species

2010

2011

9

Phase I restoration focused on zones 8, 11, and 13 was implemented. Zone 11 was eroded by natural water level fluctuations. It was re-stabilized using erosion control mats and soil lifting. Additional plantings of grasses were implemented in zones 8 and 13 to increase vegetation density.

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Phase II restoration of targeted zones 6 and 9. Zone 6 was cleared of weeds and planted with species mostly comprised of grasses and sedges (the optimal ratio of grasses/sedges to flowers was determined to 4 to 1, or 75% grass/sedge and 25% flowers). The toe of the slope was reinforced with biologs and erosion control blankets. Zone 9 had eroded due to fluctuations in water level, while the bank also served as an entrance for a weed-harvesting equipment. Similarly, vegetation density in zone 9 was enhanced through supplemental planting. The shoreline was stabilized with Envirolok materials—a method which allowed room for additional plantings between bags filled with compost material.

2012

CRWD cost share grant enhancement sections 6 & 9, Ramsey Conservation District cost share grant enhancement sections 6 & 9, 16 days CCM Clean Water time

2013

24 days CCM Clean Water time

2014

10 days CCM Clean Water time

2015

16 days CCM Clean Water time

2016

CRWD cost-share grant enhance section 13, 4.25 acres prairie and woodland installation and enhancement on north side of lake, 15 days CCM Clean Water time

2017

Continuation: CRWD cost share grant enhance section 13, 4.25 acres prairie and woodland installation and enhancement on north side of lake, 15 days CCM Clean Water time

2018

Continuation: CRWD cost share grant enhance section 13, 4.25 acres prairie and woodland installation and enhancement on north side of lake, 15 days CCM Clean Water time

2019

15 days CCM Clean Water time

2020

Shoreline Survey Completed

10

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

SHORELINE MAINTENANCE Shoreline maintenance continues to be carried out by the City of Saint Paul. The work conducted is categorized by maintenance ranks of low, medium, and high, which are all summarized below. For a complete list of details associated with each rank, please see Appendix C.

Low Maintenance Shoreland Area Maintain wildlife habitat, preservation of the shoreline by creation of minimum impact zones, and visual quality or diversity to the landscape

11



Removal of brush, stormdamaged trees or branches, and trees/saplings based on the tree care strategies



Coarse woody debris are left for habitat purposes, mushroom beds, turtle or water bird basking, nesting cavities

Medium Maintenance Shoreland Area Maintain wildlife habitat (food sources, nesting), shaded areas for patrons, and visual transition to the manicured high-maintenance areas as well as views and sightlines to the lake 

Pruning for form and structure

High Maintenance Shoreland Area Maintain manicured areas for access to the lake and clear views and sightlines of the lake and the surrounding area



Pruning for aesthetics

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

The 2019 Como Lake Management Plan (CLMP) identifies shoreline management as a priority for supporting wildlife and contributing to the ecological health of Como Lake (Goal 2). Despite restoration efforts, there are areas along the shore that need additional stabilization and/or may provide opportunities to meet additional CLMP management goals and objectives (e.g., reduce trash loading or provide additional fishing locations).

The actions below are recommended in the CLMP to assess and document current shoreline conditions and develop plans for management based on those conditions.

L10. Conduct shoreline assessment A shoreline assessment is the first step in development of a Shoreline Management Plan (discussed below), which should be completed early in the implementation of the CLMP in collaboration with the city of Saint Paul.

L11. Develop and implement shoreline management plan.

In collaboration with the city of Saint Paul, develop and implement a “Como Lake Shoreline Management Plan” that emphasizes native plant diversity, wildlife habitat, shoreline stabilization, and capture of surface runoff. Using information obtained in the shoreline assessment, the shoreline management plan should incorporate steps to implement priority actions, which include: Implement shoreline vegetation improvement and/or reinforcement to stabilize erosional areas and promote wildlife habitat.

Maintain areas of shoreline vegetation that allow for visual and physical access to Como Lake from the shoreline through vegetation.

Where needed and feasible, replace nuisance non-native vegetation with native vegetation.

12

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

AmeriCorps Involvement Through the years, the City of Saint Paul assigned AmeriCorps members and youth volunteers to conduct maintenance around the shoreline of Como Lake. The hours of work accrued, number of individuals, and type of work carried out were recorded each year.

For example, in 2019, total hours for AmeriCorps members were 124 hours with 15 Corps members. Youth numbers were 100 hours and 24 youth. Efforts included seeding, removal of invasive species such as buckthorn, removal of seed heads, collection of plants such as milkweed, Culver’s root, and rattlesnake master, and installation of a fence at Duck Point.

In 2020, total hours for AmeriCorps members were 180 hours with 18 Corps members. Youth numbers totaled 200 hours and 30 youth. Maintenance in 2020 consisted of invasive species removal and seed collection.

13

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

METHODS The sampling sampling method chosen for this shoreline vegetation survey was a quadrat-transect method, as first developed by Curtis and McIntosh (1950). Around the perimeter of Como Lake, 13 transect lines perpendicular to shore were pre-drawn in Google’s My Maps with the objective of documenting environmental variations across the areas of study, as well as capturing the 13 pre-determined shoreline zones that were established by the City of Saint Paul in 2001 (Figure 2). To best account for vegetation present within dense herbaceous habitats, a one-square-meter quadrat was used in this survey (Goldsmith et al., 1986). Systematic sampling, using defined intervals for transect and quadrat placement, was chosen to best investigate spatial patterns in plant species and abundance along the lakeshore (Barbour et al., 1987).

In the field, individual plants lying within a one-squaremeter quadrat (Figure 3) were identified and counted at each of three locations along each transect line: at the interface with the lake (0 m), 5 m from shore, and 10 m from shore, for a total of 39 quadrat sample sites. A My Maps application with a GPS tracker was used in the field to verify and locate each transect. A tape measure was then used from the lake-shore interface to measure quadrat locations at 0 m, 5 m, and 10 m. The number of individual plants of each species per quadrat was recorded in the field (Appendix A). When the buffer did not allow

Relative Coverage = Total # of individual species

Total # of all species

Density = Total # of individual species

Total # of quadrats sampled

for a full 10-m transect (due to walking path or turf grass), the final quadrat was placed as close as possible to the “end” of the buffer.

In order to better characterize the plant community in Zone 6, Transect 6 was altered approximately 45 degrees southward with the shoreline being the origin of angle.

The quadrat-transect plant sampling method allowed for the computation of statistics including cover, density, and frequency of each species recorded, as calculated using the equations below (Cox, 1990)

Frequency = # of quadrats species occurred in

Total # of quadrats Relative Frequency = Species frequency

Total frequency of all species

Relative Density = Species density

Total density for all species

14

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Figure 2. Shoreline zones and transects (T) selected for vegetation survey. Transect locations were selected based on objective of capturing the best plant diversity in each zone.

15

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Figure 3. Plants lying within a one-square-meter quadrat (at Transect 1, Quadrat 5-m).

16

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

R E S U LT S Tables 1 and 2 display shoreline plant species, coverage, density and frequency data as observed within square-meter quadrats (N=39) sampled along thirteen 10-meter long transects. When a total count of 50 or more individual species occurred per quadrat, the count was denoted with an “A” (for Abundant) as shown in Appendix A, then a count of 50 was added to each occurrence of A for statistical purposes.

Note that some plants were identified only to the genus level due to the lack of peak characteristics (i.e., young plant, no flowers, etc.).

Species that were concentrated – occurred only in one quadrat with total count of 10 or more – included Smooth Oxeye (Heliopsis helianthoides), Blue Lobelia (Lobelia siphilitica), Prairie Ironweed (Vernonia fasciculata), Penn Sedge (Carex pensylvanica), New England Aster 17

(Symphyotrichum novae-angliae), Willow (Salix sp.), and Liatrus cultivars (Liatris sp.).

Snakeroot (white flowers), Smooth Oxyed (yellow flowers)

A total of 98 species was observed (Table 2). The four most abundant species (over 100 total plant count) with highest average densities included Reed Canary (Phalaris arundinacea), Fescue (Festuca sp.), Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis), and Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis). The two most widespread species across the lake shoreline – found in 12 quadrats at a frequency of 30.77% – included Snakeroot (Ageratina altissima) and Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) (Table 3). Other common species, found in 6-9 of the 39 total quadrats, included Fescue, Reed Canary, Dotted Smartweed (Persicaria punctata), Creeping Charlie (Glechoma hederacea), Goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Lake Sedge (Carex palustris), Smooth Brome, Kentucky Bluegrass, Orange Coneflower (Rudbeckia fulgida), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense), Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), Riverbank Grape (Vitis riparia), and Rock Elm (Ulmus thomasii). The remaining 83 species were found in six or fewer quadrats (less than 15% of the total quadrats sampled) and are listed in Table 3.

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Other observations included a notable presence of the following species outside of the surveyed quadrats: Present Along Transect Path

Zone 1

Bush Honeysuckle (Diervilla lonicera)

Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)

Sweet Clover (Melilotus sp.)

Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus)

White Mulberry (Morus alba) Smartweed (Persicaria sp.)

Lake Sedge

Zone 2

Present Throughout Zone

Iris (Iris sp.)

Gray Dogwood (Cornus racemosa) Willow (Salix sp.)

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 5

Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida)

Wild Bergamot (Monarda fistulosa) Orange Coneflower Giant Ragweed

Black Locust

Sweet Clover (Melilotus sp.)

Rock Elm Smooth Brome

biennis)

Zone 6

Amur Maple (Acer ginnala)

Zone 7

Wood’s Rose (Rosa woodsii)

Zone 8

Virgin’s Bower (Clematis virginiana)

Red-osier Dogwood (Cornus sericea)

Zone 9

Riverbank Grape Virginia Stickseed (Hackelia virginiana) Common Evening Primrose Willow

Zone 10

Coneflower (Rudbeckia sp.)

Wild Bergamot Rock Elm Cup Plant (Silphium perfoliatum)

Zone 11 Zone 12

18

Common Evening Primrose (Oenothera

Crown Vetch (Securigera varia) Virgin’s Bower White Poplar (Populus alba)

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Canada Anemone (Anemone canadensis) Lake Sedge Rock Elm Zone 13

Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum) Common Milkweed Indian Grass (Sorghastrum nutans) Hoary Vervain (Verbena stricta) Canada Wild Rye (Elymus canadensis) Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia)

Sweet clover

Black locust

Buckthorn Invasive species 19

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

INVASIVE SPECIES There were 22 invasive species among the results of this survey, listed from highest to lowest plant count as displayed in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Invasive species that occurred in survey results. Invasiveness was defined as being non-native to Minnesota, an aggressive native, and/or listed as an invasive species on the MN Wildflowers website.

Scientific Name

20

Common Name

Total Plant Count (Coverage)

Glechoma hederacea

Creeping Charlie

87

Phalaris arundinacea

Reed Canary

68

Geranium sibiricum

Siberian Cranesbill

55

Phleum pratense

Timothy Grass

48

Plantago major

Common Plantain

44

Cirsium arvense

Canada Thistle

24

Bromus inermis

Smooth Brome

19

Solanum dulcamara

Bittersweet Nightshade

19

Lotus corniculatus

Birds-foot Trefoil

17

Arctium minus

Common Burdock

15

Robinia pseudoacacia

Black Locust

13

Typha angustifolia

Narrowleaf Cattail

12

Taraxacum officinale

Common Dandelion

10

Acer ginnala

Amur Maple

5

Melilotus officinalis

Yellow Sweet Clover

5

Melilotus alba

White Sweet Clover

3

Cyperus esculentus

Yellow Nutsedge

2

Frangula alnus

Glossy Buckthorn

2

Lactuca serriola

Prickly Lettuce

2

Populus alba

White Poplar

2

Convolvulus arvensis

Field Bindweed

1

Lonicera tatarica

Tatarian Honeysuckle

1

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Table 2. Como Lake Shoreline Vegetation Survey Species List (red = invasive). Planted indicates species that were planted in 2003 or after based on available historical records (note: planting records do not necessarily explain the survey results).

Scientific Name

21

Common Name

Planted

Acer ginnala

Amur Maple

Achillea millefolium

Common Yarrow

X

Ageratina altissima

Snakeroot

Allium stellatum

Prairie Onion

X

Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Common Ragweed

Ambrosia trifida

Giant Ragweed

Amorpha canescens

Lead Plant

X

Anemone canadensis

Canada Anemone

X

Apocynum cannabinum

Dogbane (Indian Hemp)

Arctium minus

Common Burdock

Asclepias incarnata

Swamp Milkweed

X

Asclepias syriaca

Common Milkweed

Bromus inermis

Smooth Brome

Carex lacustris

Lake Sedge

X

Carex pensylvanica

Penn Sedge

X

Carex sp.

Sedge

Cirsium arvense

Canada Thistle

Convolvulus arvensis

Field Bindweed

Conyza canadensis

Canadian Horseweed

Cornus sericea

Yellow-twig Dogwood

Cyperus esculentus

Yellow Nutsedge

Desmodium canadense

Showy Tick-trefoil

X

Diervilla lonicera

Bush Honeysuckle

X

Elymus canadensis

Canada Wild Rye

X

Epilobium sp.

Willowherb

Erigeron sp.

Fleabane

Erigeron strigosus

Prairie Fleabane

Euthamia graminifolia

Grass-leaved Goldenrod

X

Eutrochium maculatum

Spotted Joe-pye Weed

X

Festuca sp.

Fescue

Frangula alnus

Glossy Buckthorn

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Green Ash

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Scientific Name

22

Common Name

Planted

Fraxinus sp.

Ash Sapling

Geranium maculatum

Wild Geranium

Geranium sibiricum

Siberian Cranesbill

Glechoma hederacea

Creeping Charlie

Hackelia virginiana

Virginia Stickseed

Helianthus annuus

Common Sunflower

Heliopsis helianthoides

Smooth Oxeye

X

Iris sp.

Iris

Juniperus virginiana

Eastern Red Cedar

Lactuca serriola

Prickly Lettuce

Liatris sp.

Liatrus (cultivar)

X

Lilium sp.

Lily

X

Lobelia siphilitica

Blue Lobelia

X

Lonicera tatarica

Tatarian Honeysuckle

Lotus corniculatus

Birds-foot Trefoil

Lycopus americanus

American Water Horehound

Lycopus sp.

Bugleweed

Melilotus alba

White Sweet Clover

Melilotus officinalis

Yellow Sweet Clover

Mentha arvensis

Wild Mint

Monarda fistulosa

Wild Bergamot

X

Oenothera biennis

Common Evening Primrose

Parthenocissus inserta

Woodbine

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

Virginia Creeper

Persicaria pensylvanica

Pennsylvania Smartweed

Persicaria punctata

Dotted Smartweed

Persicaria sp.

Smartweed

Phalaris arundinacea

Reed Canary

Phleum pratense

Timothy Grass

Plantago major

Common Plantain

Poa pratensis

Kentucky Bluegrass

Polygonum aviculare

Common Knotgrass

Populus alba

White Poplar

Potentilla norvegica

Rough Cinquefoil

Robinia pseudoacacia

Black Locust

Rosa arkansana

Prairie Rose

X

Rubus sp.

Raspberry

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Scientific Name

23

Common Name

Planted

Rudbeckia fulgida

Orange Coneflower

Rudbeckia triloba

Brown-eyed Susan

X

Salix sp.

Willow

Sambucus sp.

Elderberry

Schizachyrium scoparium

Little Bluestem Grass

X

Silphium perfoliatum

Cup Plant

Solanum dulcamara

Bittersweet Nightshade

Solidago sp.

Goldenrod

Sorghastrum nutans

Indian Grass

X

Symphyotrichum ericoides

Heath Aster

X

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum

Panicled Aster

X

Symphyotrichum novae-angliae

New England Aster

X

Symphyotrichum oolentangiense

Sky-blue Aster

X

Symphyotrichum sp.

Aster

Taraxacum officinale

Common Dandelion

Teucrium canadense

Germander

Thalictrum sp.

Rue

Thalictrum thalictroides

Rue Anemone

Typha angustifolia

Narrowleaf Cattail

Ulmus thomasii

Rock Elm

Urtica dioica

Stinging Nettle

Verbascum thapsus

Common Mullein

Verbena hastata

Blue Vervain

X

Verbena stricta

Hoary Vervain

X

Verbena urticifolia

White Vervain

Vernonia fasciculata

Prairie Ironweed

X

Vitis riparia

Riverbank Grape

Zinnia angustifolia

Zinnia

X

Zizia aurea

Golden Alexander

X

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Table 3.

Species listed by total plant count (coverage), number of quadrats occurred, density, frequency, and relative data for each statistic (red = invasive) Scientific Name

Common Name

Total Plant Count (Coverage)

Quadrats Occurred

Density

Relative Density

Relative Coverage

Frequency

Relative Frequency

Phalaris arundinacea

Reed Canary

218

8

5.59

10.56%

10.56%

20.51%

3.01%

Festuca sp.

Fescue

181

9

4.64

8.77%

8.77%

23.08%

3.38%

Bromus inermis

Smooth Brome

169

6

4.33

8.18%

8.18%

15.38%

2.26%

Poa pratensis

Kentucky Bluegrass

163

6

4.18

7.89%

7.89%

15.38%

2.26%

Glechoma hederacea

Creeping Charlie

87

7

2.23

4.21%

4.21%

17.95%

2.63%

Ageratina altissima

Snakeroot

74

12

1.90

3.58%

3.58%

30.77%

4.51%

Persicaria punctata

Dotted Smartweed

69

8

1.77

3.34%

3.34%

20.51%

3.01%

Monarda fistulosa

Wild Bergamot

65

4

1.67

3.15%

3.15%

10.26%

1.50%

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

Virginia Creeper

62

12

1.59

3.00%

3.00%

30.77%

4.51%

Solidago sp.

Goldenrod

62

7

1.59

3.00%

3.00%

17.95%

2.63%

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum

Panicled Aster

60

4

1.54

2.91%

2.91%

10.26%

1.50%

Geranium sibiricum

Siberian Cranesbill

55

3

1.41

2.66%

2.66%

7.69%

1.13%

Iris sp.

Iris

55

2

1.41

2.66%

2.66%

5.13%

0.75%

Carex lacustris

Lake Sedge

51

7

1.31

2.47%

2.47%

17.95%

2.63%

Phleum pratense

Timothy Grass

48

5

1.23

2.32%

2.32%

12.82%

1.88%

Plantago major

Common Plantain

44

5

1.13

2.13%

2.13%

12.82%

1.88%

Rudbeckia fulgida

Orange Coneflower

42

6

1.08

2.03%

2.03%

15.38%

2.26%

Potentilla norvegica

Rough Cinquefoil

28

5

0.72

1.36%

1.36%

12.82%

1.88%

Heliopsis helianthoides

Smooth Oxeye

25

1

0.64

1.21%

1.21%

2.56%

0.38%

Cirsium arvense

Canada Thistle

24

6

0.62

1.16%

1.16%

15.38%

2.26%

Anemone canadensis

Canada Anemone

22

4

0.56

1.07%

1.07%

10.26%

1.50%

Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Common Ragweed

21

5

0.54

1.02%

1.02%

12.82%

1.88%

Geranium maculatum

Wild Geranium

20

2

0.51

0.97%

0.97%

5.13%

0.75%

Solanum dulcamara

Bittersweet Nightshade

19

3

0.49

0.92%

0.92%

7.69%

1.13%

Lobelia siphilitica

Blue Lobelia

19

1

0.49

0.92%

0.92%

2.56%

0.38%

Lotus corniculatus

Birds-foot Trefoil

17

4

0.44

0.82%

0.82%

10.26%

1.50%

Table 3 continued.

Species listed by total plant count (coverage), number of quadrats occurred, density, frequency, and relative data for each statistic (red = invasive) Scientific Name

Common Name

Total Plant Count (Coverage)

Quadrats Occurred

Density

Relative Density

Relative Coverage

Frequency

Relative Frequency

Vernonia fasciculata

Prairie Ironweed

17

1

0.44

0.82%

0.82%

2.56%

0.38%

Carex pensylvanica

Penn Sedge

16

1

0.41

0.77%

0.77%

2.56%

0.38%

Arctium minus

Common Burdock

15

4

0.38

0.73%

0.73%

10.26%

1.50%

Achillea millefolium

Common Yarrow

15

3

0.38

0.73%

0.73%

7.69%

1.13%

Zizia aurea

Golden Alexander

14

3

0.36

0.68%

0.68%

7.69%

1.13%

Robinia pseudoacacia

Black Locust

13

4

0.33

0.63%

0.63%

10.26%

1.50%

Lycopus americanus

American Water Horehound

13

3

0.33

0.63%

0.63%

7.69%

1.13%

Typha angustifolia

Narrowleaf Cattail

12

4

0.31

0.58%

0.58%

10.26%

1.50%

Urtica dioica

Stinging Nettle

11

2

0.28

0.53%

0.53%

5.13%

0.75%

Symphyotrichum novae-angliae

New England Aster

11

1

0.28

0.53%

0.53%

2.56%

0.38%

Salix sp.

Willow

11

1

0.28

0.53%

0.53%

2.56%

0.38%

Asclepias syriaca

Common Milkweed

10

6

0.26

0.48%

0.48%

15.38%

2.26%

Vitis riparia

Riverbank Grape

10

6

0.26

0.48%

0.48%

15.38%

2.26%

Taraxacum officinale

Common Dandelion

10

3

0.26

0.48%

0.48%

7.69%

1.13%

Liatris sp.

Liatrus (cultivar)

10

1

0.26

0.48%

0.48%

2.56%

0.38%

Helianthus annuus

Common Sunflower

9

1

0.23

0.44%

0.44%

2.56%

0.38%

Ulmus thomasii

Rock Elm

8

6

0.21

0.39%

0.39%

15.38%

2.26%

Symphyotrichum sp.

Aster

8

3

0.21

0.39%

0.39%

7.69%

1.13%

Mentha arvensis

Wild Mint

8

2

0.21

0.39%

0.39%

5.13%

0.75%

Parthenocissus inserta

Woodbine

8

2

0.21

0.39%

0.39%

5.13%

0.75%

Persicaria sp.

Smartweed

7

2

0.18

0.34%

0.34%

5.13%

0.75%

Desmodium canadense

Showy Tick-trefoil

6

2

0.15

0.29%

0.29%

5.13%

0.75%

Verbascum thapsus

Common Mullein

6

1

0.15

0.29%

0.29%

2.56%

0.38%

Eutrochium maculatum

Spotted Joe-pye Weed

6

1

0.15

0.29%

0.29%

2.56%

0.38%

Acer ginnala

Amur Maple

5

2

0.13

0.24%

0.24%

5.13%

0.75%

Schizachyrium scoparium

Little Bluestem Grass

5

1

0.13

0.24%

0.24%

2.56%

0.38%

Table 3 continued.

Species listed by total plant count (coverage), number of quadrats occurred, density, frequency, and relative data for each statistic (red = invasive) Scientific Name

Common Name

Erigeron strigosus

Prairie Fleabane

Melilotus officinalis

Total Plant Count (Coverage)

Quadrats Relative Density Occurred Density

Relative Coverage

Frequency

Relative Frequency

5

1

0.13

0.24%

0.24%

2.56%

0.38%

Yellow Sweet Clover

5

1

0.13

0.24%

0.24%

2.56%

0.38%

Elymus canadensis

Canada Wild Rye

4

2

0.10

0.19%

0.19%

5.13%

0.75%

Allium stellatum

Prairie Onion

4

2

0.10

0.19%

0.19%

5.13%

0.75%

Symphyotrichum ericoides

Heath Aster

4

1

0.10

0.19%

0.19%

2.56%

0.38%

Symphyotrichum oolentangiense

Sky-blue Aster

4

1

0.10

0.19%

0.19%

2.56%

0.38%

Oenothera biennis

Common Evening Primrose

3

2

0.08

0.15%

0.15%

5.13%

0.75%

Sorghastrum nutans

Indian Grass

3

2

0.08

0.15%

0.15%

5.13%

0.75%

Melilotus alba

White Sweet Clover

3

2

0.08

0.15%

0.15%

5.13%

0.75%

Lycopus sp.

Bugleweed

3

1

0.08

0.15%

0.15%

2.56%

0.38%

Polygonum aviculare

Common Knotgrass

3

1

0.08

0.15%

0.15%

2.56%

0.38%

Apocynum cannabinum

Dogbane (Indian Hemp)

3

1

0.08

0.15%

0.15%

2.56%

0.38%

Teucrium canadense

Germander

3

1

0.08

0.15%

0.15%

2.56%

0.38%

Euthamia graminifolia

Grass-leaved Goldenrod

3

1

0.08

0.15%

0.15%

2.56%

0.38%

Carex sp.

Sedge

3

1

0.08

0.15%

0.15%

2.56%

0.38%

Verbena hastata

Blue Vervain

2

2

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

5.13%

0.75%

Diervilla lonicera

Bush Honeysuckle

2

2

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

5.13%

0.75%

Frangula alnus

Glossy Buckthorn

2

2

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

5.13%

0.75%

Lactuca serriola

Prickly Lettuce

2

2

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

5.13%

0.75%

Thalictrum thalictroides

Rue Anemone

2

2

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

5.13%

0.75%

Asclepias incarnata

Swamp Milkweed

2

2

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

5.13%

0.75%

Hackelia virginiana

Virginia Stickseed

2

2

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

5.13%

0.75%

Rudbeckia triloba

Brown-eyed Susan

2

1

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

2.56%

0.38%

Silphium perfoliatum

Cup Plant

2

1

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

2.56%

0.38%

Juniperus virginiana

Eastern Red Cedar

2

1

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

2.56%

0.38%

Table 3 continued.

Species listed by total plant count (coverage), number of quadrats occurred, density, frequency, and relative data for each statistic (red = invasive)

Scientific Name

Common Name

Sambucus sp.

Elderberry

Erigeron sp.

Total Plant Count (Coverage)

Quadrats Relative Density Occurred Density

Relative Coverage

Frequency

Relative Frequency

2

1

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

2.56%

0.38%

Fleabane

2

1

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

2.56%

0.38%

Rosa arkansana

Prairie Rose

2

1

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

2.56%

0.38%

Populus alba

White Poplar

2

1

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

2.56%

0.38%

Cyperus esculentus

Yellow Nutsedge

2

1

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

2.56%

0.38%

Cornus sericea

Yellow-twig Dogwood

2

1

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

2.56%

0.38%

Zinnia angustifolia

Zinnia

2

1

0.05

0.10%

0.10%

2.56%

0.38%

Fraxinus sp.

Ash Sapling

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Conyza canadensis

Canadian Horseweed

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Convolvulus arvensis

Field Bindweed

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Ambrosia trifida

Giant Ragweed

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Green Ash

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Verbena stricta

Hoary Vervain

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Amorpha canescens

Lead Plant

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Lilium sp.

Lily

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Persicaria pensylvanica

Pennsylvania Smartweed

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Rubus sp.

Raspberry

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Thalictrum sp.

Rue

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Lonicera tatarica

Tatarian Honeysuckle

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Verbena urticifolia

White Vervain

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

Epilobium sp.

Willowherb

1

1

0.03

0.05%

0.05%

2.56%

0.38%

2065

266

52.95

100%

100%

682%

100%

Total

A N A LY S I S O F R E S U LT S PLANTING SUCCESSES Areas of successful re-establishment of native vegetation generally follow an East and West success rate. The West shore generally shows more diversity, greater density, and more robust layering. The East Shore appears to have moderate diversity; however the ground layer is partially or completely denuded in many areas. Invasive plants, discussed in the next section, are also prevalent in many quadrats and noted throughout.

Planted native vegetation on the west shore in zones 9, 10, 11, and 13 show good establishment of native forbs, such as Wild Bergamot (Monarda fistulosa), and grasses, such as wild rye (Elymus canadensis).

In some restoration areas, aggressive natives have outcompeted other species creating a need to introduce natural maintenance practices or mimics such as fire, grazing, or mowing.

Comparing planted or seeded species to those present in this survey showed excellent results for many Solidago sp., Ironweed (Vernonia fasciculata), several Asters (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae, S. oolentangiense, and S. lanceolatum), Hoary Vervain (Verbena stricta), Golden Alexander (Zizia aurea), and Common Sunflower (Helianthus annuus). More moderate success was seen for Lead Plant (Amorpha canescens), Cup Plant (Silphium perfoliatum), Orange Coneflower (Rudbeckia fulgida), Indian Grass (Sorghastrum nutans), Swamp Milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), Joe-pye Weed (Eutrochium maculatum), Blue Lobelia (Lobelia siphilitica), and Lake Sedge (Carex lacustris).

The latter two are doing especially well in the shorelake interface. Areas of thicker overstory are dominated

by Snakeroot (Ageratina altissima) and Woodbine 28

(Parthenocissus inserta) or (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).

Virginia

Creeper

Zones 2 and 3 on the east shore show good native establishment from planting in some areas while impervious surfaces and infrastructure have inhibited establishment in others. Generally, the south side of zone 2 and north side of zone 3 show good diversity in the immediate shore with several Carex species (such as Porcupine (C. hystericina) and Penn Sedge (C. pensylvanica)), and Blue Iris (I. versicolor & I. virginica) colonies thriving. Upland, Orange Coneflower (Rudbeckia fulgida) and Ironweed are thriving to the point of overtaking in the planted areas. Zones 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 saw good success with Wild Bergamot, Golden Alexander, Goldenrods (Solidago sp.), and Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), forbs such as Indian Grass (Sorghastrum nutans), and Canada Wild Rye. For bush type plants, Red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) and Dogbane/Indian Hemp (Apocynum cannabinum) were prevalent along on the south shore in zones 7 and 8. Highbush Cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. americanum) was present in zone 1 near the northeast corner of the lake. Dogwoods were the most prevalent woody bush throughout the shoreline and were doing well without overtaking areas.

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Blue Vervain 29

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

PLANTING STRUGGLES

Less successful restoration or plant diversity, in general, can be seen in every zone. This seems to be stemming from several issues: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Encroachment of manicured turf grass areas Invasive plants Erosion (anthropogenic and natural) Water level fluctuation

Zones 1, 6, 9 and 13 had extensive plug and seeding completed post 2002. Very few planted species were observed during the survey. Of the planted species observed, few proved to be dominant. It was especially difficult to find plants at the land-water interface. This may be due to the flashy nature of lake levels. Blue Flag Iris (Iris virginica), most rushes, especially Softstem (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani), and Lake Sedge (Carex lacustris) seemed to have the best survival. All other species listed as planted in Appendix B were either non-existent or in such low numbers that they become inconsequential. It should be noted that the timing of this survey may not have captured early blooming species. Most dominant species, such as Wild Bergamot or Golden Alexander, were identifiable even though they were well into seed stage.

30

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Invasive Plants Numerous non-native invasive plants along with aggressive natives were noted throughout the shoreline. For a full list of species and location of occurrence, see Appendix A. In terms of biomass, European White Poplar (Populus alba) is the most prevalent throughout but is most dense in zone 10. This tree and suckers coming up in the area should be removed. Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) in zones 1 and 6 along with Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), which is ubiquitous throughout the zones, require more active control. Invasive Bush Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) was present in zones 1, 6, and 7 at low levels. Amur maple (Acer ginnala) is an emerging concern in several spots, especially zone 6.

Herbaceous plants of concern are widespread. Knapweed (Centaurea spp.) in zones 1 and 9 should continue to be managed as it has in the past. Creeping Charlie (Glechoma hederacea) and Birds-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) have invaded many areas of tree understories and lawn areas. Active management is difficult but should be a priority.

Providing native plants to introduce competition would be necessary to promote better plant diversity. Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) is an emerging concern in zones 4, 9, 10, and 13. Bittersweet Nightshade (Solanum dulcamara) appeared several times in the survey. White Sweetclover (Melilotus alba) was visible in zones 1, 4, and 9.

Zones 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 12 have varying levels of Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) infestations. Turf grass on the transitional area from natural to manicured is also reducing in diversity. Fescues (Festuca spp.) and Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis) are prevalent within 10 meters of the shoreline (Appendix A) among other turf species and lawn weeds.

General Erosion

There are several eroded spots around Como Lake that were categorized into one of three erosion classifications – heavy, moderate, and low. The classification criteria are as follows: having exposed roots, dirt, lack of vegetation, and the creation of a worn track into the earth (Heavy); some exposed dirt and little to no vegetation (Moderate); and presence of vegetation mats with small, but noticeable exposed dirt with potential for more erosion (Low). The majority (27) of eroded areas was ranked as moderate. There are 16 low-eroded spots throughout the perimeter and 10 heavy-eroded spots mostly along the north and northwest shore (Figure 4 on page 31). There are nine spots of noticeable undercuts along the southwest shore.

Many eroded areas are paths and patches caused by people walking through vegetation to reach fishing spots around the lake. Most of these paths occur near the outputs that drain into the lake. One large patch occurs near the fishing dock.

31

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Some stretches of the main walking path have become worn off at the edges, presumably, where people have stepped off and walked along the grass. Some erosion has occurred around the outputs as well from a general lake erosion effect.

The undercuts likely resulted from large trees shading out the understory and undermining the potential for herbaceous plants to take root and stabilize the soils. See Figure 5 on page 32 for a map of stormwater outfall locations and other important features of the shoreline, such as some of the more prominent informal shore-fishing areas.

Saint Paul Parks & Recreation has done a good job mitigating the effects of erosion, but the quantity of eroded areas with continued “off-trail” fishing has made it difficult to manage without persistent restoration efforts. Maintenance of every eroded site would be time-consuming and costly as members of the public will likely continue to create informal trails. Signs posted about the effects of erosion and a map denoting the location of the fishing pier could serve to educate the public and encourage the use of designated fishing spots. Some areas could potentially be converted and designated permanently for fishing, especially in areas exacerbated by frequent foot-traffic (e.g., install limestone retaining walls to prevent erosion while offering access to open water for fishing).

For all photos taken of eroded areas and undercuts displayed in Figure 4, please visit: https://www.google.com/maps/ d/u/0/edit?mid=1F-AWx6jusJyZdnVmSFiriHrfl4VXUump&usp=sharing For locations and photos of storm sewer outlets into Como Lake (from Maintenance Plan 2019), please visit: https://crwd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Shortlist/index.html?appid=c024536b207647ed96045df994a25414

32

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Figure 4. Eroded areas and undercut locations (N=62; Heavy = 10, Moderate = 27, Low = 16, Undercuts = 9).

33

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Figure 5. Majority of Como Lake stormwater outfalls (16) and other shoreline features. Shorefishing areas featured here tend to be the more prominent areas documented by CRWD.

34

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Water Level Fluctuation Being a basin for at least 16 major outfalls, Como Lake tends to have rapid fluctuations in water level and its shoreline gets inundated for extended periods.

As seen in Figure 6, between the years 2016 and 2020, there were 64 events in which the water level exceeded the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL), averaging 12.8 events per year and comprising 40% of the growing season (June – September). These events likely affect shoreline stability, contribute to increased erosion, and should be considered as a factor in the long-term shoreline management plan when evaluating options for shoreline stabilization methods and species selection for planting (i.e., tolerance for being submerged vs. unsubmerged).

LEVEL (FT.) 883.0

882.5

882.0

Figure 6.

Hydrograph of Como Lake water levels from 2016 to 2020. Red dots indicate peak events exceeding the OHWL.

881.5

881.0

880.5

01/01/2016

01/01/2017

01/01/2018

01/01/2019

01/01/2020

TIME

Erosion from Current Fishing Areas Several locations are currently being utilized as informal fishing locations. It is assumed that all erosion spots in Figure 4 are from those seeking fishing opportunities except undercuts which are likely caused by other factors. There is a variety of informal fishing areas, such as the examples pictured in Figure 7. Mapped in Figure 7 is the volume of damage caused by these informal fishing areas in each zone with green being 0-2 areas, yellow being 2-3, and red being 4 or more informal fishing areas. Many in zones 1-3 and 13 are short in length and width. In zone 1, they lead to the large inlets on the north end of the lake. Zones 4-6 and 12 have no informal fishing areas currently. Zones 7-11 have relatively wide and long trails and fishing nodes. These areas tend to stretch out along the shoreline as well. Considerable trampling of native plantings was seen in zones 9-11 and 13, which can be seen in the photos in Figure 7.

Figure 7.

Shoreline zones displayed by criteria: green = suitable, yellow = not ideal, and red = severe restrictions.

Photos provide examples of areas with frequent foot-traffic.

36

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Areas with Less Than a 10-meter Buffer There are few places around the lakeshore, where the buffer could be expanded to reach a full 10 meters from shore or reach the designated walking path. Around the entire shoreline, there is a set boundary between the lake and walking path, which would limit the width and length of expansion. Saint Paul Parks & Recreation has done an admirable job maintaining the balance between environmental needs along with recreational needs. It should be noted these are potential areas for expansion and that some areas may lack the possibility to be expanded due to unforeseen limitations (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Areas for possible buffer expansion.

37

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

WILDLIFE HABITAT While habitat-needs change from species to species, there are general habitat requirements for the wildlife found at Como Lake, including reptiles, waterfowl, and pollinators. These include access to food, shelter, and corridors to other habitats. Figure 9 shows suitability for all wildlife in each zone based on these necessary factors. Red is currently unsuitable, yellow is limited suitability, and green meets all three criteria. These rankings are relative only to other zones. That is, the green areas may not be prime suitability for all or even any species currently. However, these areas have the three elements necessary for survival.

Below are specific needs of reptiles, waterfowl, and pollinators to meet minimum requirements for food, shelter, and corridors.

Notable trends are apparent. Based on criteria, zones 1, 3 (not including Duck Point), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 are most suitable. Duck point in zone 3 and zone 7 are somewhat limited due to proximity to human activity.

In both zones, the lack of a duff layer coupled with proximity to the walking trail limits suitability. Zones 2, 8, 12, and 13 are severely limited. For instance, in zone 2, the parking lot severely restricts nesting habitat. The recreational opportunities in zone 8, including the fishing pier, conflict with the wildlife.

In all zones there are varying degrees of human interaction that disrupt the ability for wildlife to thrive, a need for enhanced plant life for shelter, and increased diversity of plant species to meet the needs of all wildlife forage.

Figure 9. Wildlife habitat suitability: green = suitable, yellow = limited suitability, red = unsuitable.

38

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

REPTILES Reptile habitat suitability was extrapolated using guidelines developed by Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (2002). According to this management document, there are several specific needs of reptiles in terms of food, shelter, and corridors.

For food and shelter, native vegetation and control of invasive species is key. For corridors, providing reptiles with as wide of native plant buffers as possible, along with as much connectivity to surrounding wetlands as possible will ensure survivability (PARC, 2002).

There is historic knowledge of turtles in Como Lake. A turtle study conducted in 2011 by the Como Community Council and District 10 found that Como Lake hosted two species of turtles – Painted and Snapping Turtles. From May 1, 2011 through August 23, 2011, volunteers observed 2052 Painted Turtles and 47 Snapping Turtles basking in and around the lake. In May, June, and July 2011, Como Zoo personnel and volunteers set traps to capture turtles to record characteristics. During that time, 118 Painted Turtles and 32 Snapping Turtles were caught, measured, sexed, and released. The status of other reptiles is not currently known.

Current reptile habitat varies across the shoreline zones but is generally limited. Based on criteria, zones 1, 3 (not including Duck Point), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 are most suitable. Duck Point (zone 3) and zone 7 are somewhat limited due to proximity to human activity. In both zones, the lack of a duff layer coupled with proximity to the walking trail limits suitability. Zones 2, 8, 12, and 13 are severely limited for multiple reasons. For instance, in zones 2 and 13, the parking lot severely restricts nesting habitat. Zone 12 is almost entirely impervious due to the pavilion. Finally, zone 8 has ideal components, but is severely limited by the proximity to the fishing pier and informal fishing areas which increases the chance for human disturbance.

WATERFOWL Characteristic species of shallow lakes include, Mallard, Green-Winged Teal, Blue-Winged Teal, Cinnamon Teal, Pintail, Gadwall, Wigeon, Shoveler, Wood Duck, and Black Duck. Currently no known studies of waterfowl exist on Como Lake, but it is well documented that shallow lakes play a key role in waterfowl production and migration. Plant management practices currently in place are key. First, is forage material for waterfowl and the second being shelter and protection from predators. Properly managed plants in shallow lakes can provide high energy aquatic invertebrates for brooding hens. The quality of forage while a hen is brooding correlates closely to the health of ducklings. Emergent

39

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

vegetation such as rushes and rooted common cattail are examples of plants favored by waterfowl for brooding and forage. Furthermore, an abundance of invertebrates is correlated with a higher chance of duckling survival (MNDNR, 2010). It should be noted that Como Lake is part of the Mississippi Flyway, a natural migratory path for approximately 325 bird species. Shallow lakes, such as Como, are critical resting spots for both nesting waterfowl on their migratory journeys.

Current waterfowl habitat is similarly laid out to reptile habitat in that it varies across the shoreline zones and is generally limited. Based on criteria, zones 1, 3 (not including Duck Point), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 are most suitable. This is due to availability of shoreline plants for food, dense cover for nesting, and the ability of waterfowl to move zone to zone with minimal interruption. Duck Point (zone 3) and zone 7 are somewhat limited due to proximity to human activity. In both zones, the lack of a nesting habitat coupled with proximity to the walking trail limits suitability. Zones 2, 12, and 13 are severely limited. For instance, in zone 2, the parking lot, coupled with rip-rap, limits waterfowl nesting. Connectivity, even in green zones, is a major limiting factor to a healthy waterfowl population.

POLLINATORS There are over 400 pollinator species in Minnesota.

Currently, there are four species listed as threatened and endangered at the state and federal level. Two of them—Karner Blue Butterfly and Rusty Patched Bumble Bee—have ranges that overlap with Como Lake. For proper pollinator habitat to support these species, plants need to be blooming year-round for a variety of pollinators. Having plants that bloom at various times of the year provides pollinators with food. A deficit in blooming plants means less food for survival. Additionally, some pollinators are adapted to specific types of plants, so having plant diversity allows for different species of pollinators to thrive. Generally, including flowering plants, grasses, and woody species will provide food, nesting, shelter, winter habitat, etc. Very dense planting is also beneficial, and few bare spots are not harmful (good for ground-nesting bees). The following are top-10 native plants for bumblebees, according to the MN Board of Water and Soil Resources: Virginia Bluebells, Blazing stars, Wild White Indigo, Milkweeds, Goldenrods, Beebalms, Beardtongues, Red Columbine, Asters, and Blue Giant Hyssop.

Based on the plant survey results, Milkweeds, Goldenrods and Asters have sufficient quantity to support pollinators (Planting for Pollinators). In general, pollinator habitat suitability is similarly laid out to reptile and waterfowl habitat by zone. Suitability varies across the shoreline zones and is generally limited. Based on criteria, zones 1, 3 (not including Duck Point), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 are most suitable. This is due to availability of a variety of blooming plants throughout the seasons for food and shelter. Similar to waterfowl, pollinators have the ability to fly and move across zones. Vehicle and human interaction are still a limiting factor in all zones even with the ability to fly. Duck Point (zone 3) and zone 7 are somewhat limited due to proximity to excessive human activity. In both zones, the lack of desirable plant species, coupled with proximity to the walking trail, limits suitability. Zones 2, 12, and 13 are severely limited. In zone 2 the parking lot conflicts with habitat coupled with the sandwiching of desirable species between rip rap, the walking trail, and the parking lot. Connectivity, even in green zones, is a major limiting factor to a healthy pollinator population.

40

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

CONCLUDING REMARKS Overall, the Como Lake shoreline has displayed vast improvements from almost two decades ago. Significant amounts of the shoreline have been regraded, stabilized, and planted with native species. While most of the shoreline and many planted species are generally doing well, increasing maintenance and implementing more restoration are likely required in order to maintain the areas currently deemed as healthy, as well as prevent further degradation in areas that need improvement.

Several concerns have potential to become larger issues if not addressed. These include, but may not be limited to, invasive plant species, aggressive native species, and shoreline erosion (both natural and anthropogenic). Ideally, a separate management plan would detail specific parameters for necessary actions. In general, it would need to address concerns for invasive species, such as Reed Canary and the encroachment of large, woody species like White Poplar, Common Buckthorn, and Black Locust. Similarly, it would be prudent to monitor aggressive native species like Wild Bergamot and Virginia Creeper. Lastly, it would be critical to address erosion issues caused naturally by fluctuating water levels of the lake, as well as by foot-traffic. Mitigating natural erosion processes may require further analysis of Como Lake’s hydrological regime, whereas erosion caused by foot-traffic may be addressed with more outreach and education. In either case, monitoring the state of erosion would be beneficial to any future management plan.

The results presented in this report will inform an updated long-term shoreline management plan. As indicated earlier in this report, the data collected are intended to help accomplish the goals for action L11 in the 2019 Como Lake Management Plan.

41

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

REFERENCES Barbour, M.G., J.H. Burk, and W.D. Pitts. (1987). Terrestrial plant ecology. Chapter 9: Method of sampling the plant community. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co. Capitol Region Watershed District. (2020). Historical Como shoreline info. https://capitolregionwd. sharefile.com/. Date accessed: Sept 2020-Nov 2020.

Capitol Region Watershed District Board of Managers. (2002). Como Lake Strategic Management Plan.

Saint Paul, MN. Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. (1979). Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Cox, G. (1990). Laboratory manual of general ecology 6th Ed. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown.

Curtis, J. & McIntosh, R. (1950). The interrelations of certain analytic and synthetic phytosociological characteristics. Ecology 31:434-455.

Goldsmith, F.B., C.M. Harrison, and A.J. Morton. (1986). Description and analysis of vegetation. Pages 437-524 in P.D. Moore and S.B. Chapman, editors. Methods in plant ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, England.

LimnoTech. Como Lake Management Plan. (2019). Capitol Region Watershed District. Saint Paul, MN. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). (2005). Ecological land classification program.

Saint Paul, MN. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (2010). Managing Minnesota’s shallow lakes for waterfowl and wildlife, pp. 26–27. Saint Paul, MN. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (2014). Field guide to native plant communities: eastern broadleaf forest province. Saint Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (2014). MNDNR Native Plant Communities. Shapefile published 7/11/2014 and retrieved from Minnesota Geospatial Commons in November 2018.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, and

42

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2000). Best management practices for minimizing reed canary grass prior to wetland restoration, pp. 40.

Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources. (2006). Minnesota wildflowers: a field guide to the flora of Minnesota. https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/. Date accessed: Sept 2020-Nov 2020.

Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC). (2002). Habitat management guidelines for amphibians and reptiles of the midwestern United States, pp. 49–56.

Shaw, D., Befanz, L., Boese, A., & Foltz-Jordan, S. (n.d.). Planting for pollinators. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Saint Paul, MN. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2017). Federally endangered and threatened species in Minnesota.

Division of Endangered Species.

43

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

APPENDICES Appendix A: Field Data Results by Quadrat Como Lake Shoreline Survey Field Data 9/2/2020 and 9/3/2020 Red = Invasive, A = 50+ individuals

Transect 1

COMMON NAME

Q0

Q5

Q8

1

1

Rock Elm

Ulmus thomasii

2

Creeping Charlie

Glechoma hederacea

20

12

21

3

Fescue

Festuca sp.

31

10

4

Kentucky Bluegrass

Poa pratensis

2

A

5

Snakeroot

Ageratina altissima

1

22

6

Common Dandelion

Taraxacum officinale

8

7

Common Plantain

Plantago major

1

1

8

White Sweet Clover

Melilotus alba

1

9

Rough Cinquefoil

Potentilla norvegica

9

10

Prairie Fleabane

Erigeron strigosus

5

11

Fleabane

Erigeron sp.

2

12

Virginia Creeper

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

1

6

13

Raspberry

Rubus sp.

1

14

Virginia Stickseed

Hackelia virginiana

1

15

Smooth Brome

Bromus inermis

8

16

Goldenrod

Solidago sp.

14

17

Glossy Buckthorn

Frangula alnus

1

37 37

111 111

44

SCIENTIFIC NAME

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

35% 35%

81 81

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Transect 2

COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Q0

Q5

Q10

1

Iris

Iris sp.

19

2

Lake Sedge

Carex lacustris

29

3

Penn Sedge

Carex pensylvanica

16

4

American Water Horehound

Lycopus americanus

3

5

Dotted Smartweed

Persicaria punctata

23

6

Virginia Stickseed

Hackelia virginiana

1

7

Canada Wild Rye

Elymus canadensis

1

8

Panicled Aster

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum

1

9

Wild Geranium

Geranium maculatum

19

1

10

Orange Coneflower

Rudbeckia fulgida

23

11

Prairie Onion

Allium stellatum

2

2

12

Timothy Grass

Phleum pratense

3

13

Showy Tick-trefoil

5

14

New England Aster

11

15

Prairie Ironweed

Desmodium canadense Symphyotrichum novaeangliae Vernonia fasciculata

17

16

Common Milkweed

Asclepias syriaca

1

17

Rock Elm

Ulmus thomasii

2

18

Common Sunflower

Helianthus annuus

9

81 90

37 55

111 43

Q0

Q5

Q8

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

35% 6%

Transect 3

COMMON NAME 1

Reed Canary

Phalaris arundinacea

16

1

2

Narrowleaf Cattail

Typha angustifolia

9

3

Dotted Smartweed

Persicaria punctata

35

1

4

Siberian Cranesbill

Geranium sibiricum

27

26

5

Giant Ragweed

Ambrosia trifida

1

6

Riverbank Grape

Vitis riparia

2

1

7

Lake Sedge

Carex lacustris

4

8

Common Plantain

Plantago major

16

9

Aster

Symphyotrichum sp.

2

Common Milkweed

Asclepias syriaca

3

10

45

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

11

Fescue

Festuca sp.

12

12

Willow

Salix sp.

11

13

Creeping Charlie

Glechoma hederacea

1

81 60

37 43

111 65

Q0

Q5

Q10

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

35% 31%

Transect 4

Common Name

Scientific Name

1

Blue Vervain

Verbena hastata

1

2

Swamp Milkweed

Asclepias incarnata

1

3

Canada Thistle

Cirsium arvense

1

4

Rough Cinquefoil

Potentilla norvegica

5

5

Orange Coneflower

Rudbeckia fulgida

2

8

6

Lake Sedge

Carex lacustris

5

7

Yellow-twig Dogwood

Cornus sericea

2

8

Timothy Grass

Phleum pratense

3

9

Dotted Smartweed

Persicaria punctata

3

10

Narrowleaf Cattail

Typha angustifolia

1

11

Willowherb

Epilobium sp.

1

12

Fescue

Festuca sp.

8

13

Ash Sapling

Fraxinus sp.

1

14

Wild Bergamot

Monarda fistulosa

4

A

15

Common Milkweed

Asclepias syriaca

1

16

Golden Alexander

Zizia aurea

7

81 34

1 37 21

111 50

Q0

Q5

Q6

17 Lead Plant

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

Amorpha canescens 35% 18%

Transect 5

46

Common Name

Scientific Name

1

Tatarian Honeysuckle

Lonicera tatarica

1

2

Bittersweet Nightshade

Solanum dulcamara

3

3

Elderberry

Sambucus sp.

2

4

Black Locust

Robinia pseudoacacia

6

5

Hoary Vervain

Verbena stricta

1

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

6

Dotted Smartweed

Persicaria punctata

1

7

Bugleweed

Lycopus sp.

3

8

Sedge

Carex sp.

3

9

Canada Anemone

Anemone canadensis

17

1

10

Rough Cinquefoil

Potentilla norvegica

1

11

Reed Canary

Phalaris arundinacea

24

12

Creeping Charlie

Glechoma hederacea

22

13

Goldenrod

Solidago sp.

21

14

Common Milkweed

Asclepias syriaca

3

15

Wild Bergamot

Monarda fistulosa

10

1

16

Indian Grass

Sorghastrum nutans

2

1

17

Common Evening Primrose

Oenothera biennis

2

18

Smooth Brome

Bromus inermis

4

A

19

Canada Wild Rye

Elymus canadensis

3

20

Yellow Nutsedge

Cyperus esculentus

2

21

Cup Plant

Silphium perfoliatum

2

22

Common Ragweed

Ambrosia artemisiifolia

7

23

Timothy Grass

Phleum pratense

8

84 84

47 47

1 71 71

Q0

Q5

Q10

24 Kentucky Bluegrass

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

Poa pratensis 33% 33%

Transect 6

47

Common Name

Scientific Name

1

Rock Elm Sapling

Ulmus thomasii

2

2

Reed Canary

Phalaris arundinacea

A

3

Lake Sedge

Carex lacustris

4

4

Amur Maple

Acer ginnala

4

1

5

Glossy Buckthorn

Frangula alnus

1

6

Green Ash

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

1

7

Eastern Red Cedar

Juniperus virginiana

2

8

Common Ragweed

Ambrosia artemisiifolia

1

3

9

Common Yarrow

Achillea millefolium

1

10

Black Locust

Robinia pseudoacacia

4

11

Fescue

Festuca sp.

29

12

Birds-foot Trefoil

Lotus corniculatus

13

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

13

Goldenrod

Solidago sp.

1

4

14

Prickly Lettuce

Lactuca serriola

1

15

Virginia Creeper

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

2

16

Bush Honeysuckle

Diervilla lonicera

1

17

Orange Coneflower

Rudbeckia fulgida

1

18

Woodbine

Parthenocissus inserta

4

19

Smooth Brome

Bromus inermis

A

20

Snakeroot

Ageratina altissima

2

60 60

57 57

65 65

Q0

Q5

Q10

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

35% 35%

Transect 7

Common Name 1

Narrowleaf Cattail

Typha angustifolia

1

2

Black Locust

Robinia pseudoacacia

2

3

Fescue

Festuca sp.

11

4

Common Plantain

Plantago major

25

5

Reed Canary

Phalaris arundinacea

1

6

Common Dandelion

Taraxacum officinale

1

7

Virginia Creeper

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

2

11

8

Bush Honeysuckle

Diervilla lonicera

1

9

Prairie Rose

Rosa arkansana

2

10

Snakeroot

Ageratina altissima

2

11

Common Milkweed

Asclepias syriaca

1

12

Timothy Grass

Phleum pratense

32

13

Woodbine

Parthenocissus inserta

4

14

Goldenrod

Solidago sp.

5

37 16

111 42

48

Scientific Name

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

35% 43%

81 43

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Transect 8

Common Name

Scientific Name

Q0

Q5

Q10

1

Virginia Creeper

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

2

1

13

2

Rock Elm

Ulmus thomasii

1

3

Smartweed

Persicaria sp.

5

4

Black Locust

Robinia pseudoacacia

1

5

Wild Mint

Mentha arvensis

5

6

Birds-foot Trefoil

Lotus corniculatus

1

7

Bittersweet Nightshade

Solanum dulcamara

4

8

Dogbane (Indian Hemp)

Apocynum cannabinum

3

9

Common Ragweed

Ambrosia artemisiifolia

9

10

Kentucky Bluegrass

Poa pratensis

A

11

Common Yarrow

Achillea millefolium

4

15 15

88

76 76

Q0

Q5

Q10

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

27% 27%

Transect 9

49

Common Name

Scientific Name

1

Common Knotgrass

Polygonum aviculare

3

2

Wild Mint

Mentha arvensis

3

3

Canada anemone

Anemone canadensis

3

1

4

Common Burdock

Arctium minus

1

5

Yellow Sweet Clover

Melilotus officinalis

5

6

Canada Thistle

Cirsium arvense

4

1

7

Smartweed

Persicaria sp.

2

8

Timothy Grass

Phleum pratense

2

9

Goldenrod

Solidago sp.

6

10

Aster

Symphyotrichum sp.

2

11

Reed Canary

Phalaris arundinacea

A

A

12

Birds-foot Trefoil

Lotus corniculatus

1

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

13

Snakeroot

Ageratina altissima

4

1

15

Narrowleaf Cattail

Typha angustifolia

1

16

Common Ragweed

Ambrosia artemisiifolia

1

17

Lake Sedge

Carex lacustris

5

18

Orange Coneflower

Rudbeckia fulgida

4

19

Virginia Creeper

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

8

20

White Sweet Clover

Melilotus alba

2

23

Creeping Charlie

Glechoma hederacea

2

24

Smooth Brome

Bromus inermis

A

80 80

64 64

68 68

Q0

Q5

Q10

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

42% 42%

Transect 10

50

Common Name

Scientific Name

1

Rue Anemone

Thalictrum thalictroides

1

2

Fescue

Festuca sp.

1

3

Lake Sedge

Carex lacustris

1

4

Canada Thistle

Cirsium arvense

12

5

5

American Water Horehound

Lycopus americanus

6

6

Blue Lobelia

Lobelia siphilitica

19

7

Rough Cinquefoil

Potentilla norvegica

8

8

Pennsylvania Smartweed

Persicaria pensylvanica

1

9

Dotted Smartweed

Persicaria punctata

2

10

Siberian Cranesbill

Geranium sibiricum

2

11

Snakeroot

Ageratina altissima

1

13

12

Showy Tick-trefoil

Desmodium canadense

1

13

Rue

Thalictrum sp.

1

14

Orange Coneflower

Rudbeckia fulgida

4

15

Riverbank Grape

Vitis riparia

4

1

16

Common Burdock

Arctium minus

1

17

White Vervain

Verbena urticifolia

1

18

Brown-eyed Susan

Rudbeckia triloba

2

19

Smooth Oxeye

Heliopsis helianthoides

25

20

Common Milkweed

Asclepias syriaca

1

21

Creeping Charlie

Glechoma hederacea

9

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Heath Aster 22

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

Symphyotrichum ericoides 18% 18%

56 56

28 28

4 42 42

Q0

Q5

Q10

Transect 11

Common Name

Scientific Name

1

Stinging Nettle

Urtica dioica

10

1

2

Bittersweet Nightshade

Solanum dulcamara

12

3

Riverbank Grape

Vitis riparia

1

4

American Water Horehound

Lycopus americanus

4

5

Common Burdock

Arctium minus

4

9

6

Prickly Lettuce

Lactuca serriola

1

7

Common Yarrow

Achillea millefolium

10

8

Golden Alexander

Zizia aurea

1

9

Virginia Creeper

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

3

10

Snakeroot

Ageratina altissima

3

11

Swamp Milkweed

Asclepias incarnata

1

12

Common Dandelion

Taraxacum officinale

1

13

Fescue

Festuca sp.

A

14

Kentucky Bluegrass

Poa pratensis

A

15

Panicled Aster

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum

A

31 31

29 29

151 151

Q0

Q5

Q10

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

27% 27% Transect 12

51

Common Name

Scientific Name

1

Evening Primrose

Oenothera biennis

1

2

Field Bindweed

Convolvulus arvensis

1

3

Blue Vervain

Verbena hastata

1

4

Snakeroot

Ageratina altissima

1

23

1

5

Dotted Smartweed

Persicaria punctata

2

6

Virginia Creeper

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

11

7

Rough Cinquefoil

Potentilla norvegica

5

8

Panicled Aster

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum

7

9

Common Plantain

Plantago major

1

10

Common Mullein

Verbascum thapsus

6

11

Rock Elm

Ulmus thomasii

1

1

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

12

Reed Canary

Phalaris arundinacea

13

Rue Anemone

14

Kentucky Bluegrass

15

Sky-blue Aster

16

26

Thalictrum thalictroides

1

10

4

Germander

Poa pratensis Symphyotrichum oolentangiense Teucrium canadense

3

17

Riverbank Grape

Vitis riparia

1

18

Spotted Joe-pye Weed

Eutrochium maculatum

6

21

Canadian Horseweed

Conyza canadensis

1

22

White Poplar

Populus alba

2

23

Golden Alexander

Zizia aurea

6

24

Aster

Symphyotrichum sp.

4

25

Smooth Brome

Bromus inermis

7

26

Fescue

Festuca sp.

29

74 74

32 32

56 56

Q0

Q5

Q10

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

23% 23% Transect 13

1

Iris

Iris sp.

36

3

Birds-foot Trefoil

Lotus corniculatus

2

4

Canada Thistle

Cirsium arvense

1

5

Dotted Smartweed

Persicaria punctata

2

6

Lake Sedge

Carex lacustris

3

7

Goldenrod

Solidago sp.

11

8

Panicled Aster

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum

2

9

Grass-leaved Goldenrod

Euthamia graminifolia

3

10

Virginia Creeper

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

2

11

Little Bluestem Grass

Schizachyrium scoparium

5

12

Liatrus (cultivar)

Liatris sp.

10

13

Lily

Lilium sp.

1

14

Zinnia

Zinnia angustifolia

2

44 44

23 23

13 13

52

Scientific Name

Common Name

% Invasive Species % Invasive Species

14% 14%

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Appendix B: Historically Planted Species by Type, Quantity, Location, and Year

AQUATIC PLANTS Provider: Natural Shore Technologies

SUMMARY D AT E : 2 0 0 4 SCIENTIFIC:

COMMON:

FLAT QTY:

TOTAL:

Sagittaria latifolia

Common Arrowhead

25

450

Schoenoplectus acutus

Hardstem Bulrush

30

540

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani

Soft stem Bulrush

25

450

Sparganium eurycarpum

Common Bur-reed

15

270

Pontederia cordata

Pickerel Plant

3

54

LOCATION: 1 NORTH

SCIENTIFIC:

COMMON:

Sagittaria latifolia

TOTAL:

1,764

FLAT QTY:

PLANTS:

TOTAL:

Common Arrowhead

9

18

162

Schoenoplectus acutus

Hardstem Bulrush

9

18

162

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani

Soft stem Bulrush

7

18

126

Sparganium eurycarpum

Common Bur-reed

4

18

72

Pontederia cordata

Pickerel Plant

1

18

18

TOTAL:

540

LOCATION: 6 NORTH

SCIENTIFIC:

COMMON:

FLAT QTY:

PLANTS:

TOTAL:

Sagittaria latifolia

Common Arrowhead

4

18

72

53

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Schoenoplectus acutus

Hardstem Bulrush

5

18

90

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani

Soft stem Bulrush

4

18

72

Sparganium eurycarpum

Common Bur-reed

2

18

36

Pontederia cordata

Pickerel Plant

2

18

36

TOTAL:

306

LOCATION: 9 MID

SCIENTIFIC:

COMMON:

FLAT QTY:

PLANTS:

TOTAL:

Sagittaria latifolia

Common Arrowhead

5

18

90

Schoenoplectus acutus

Hardstem Bulrush

8

18

144

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani

Soft stem Bulrush

7

18

126

Sparganium eurycarpum

Common Bur-reed

5

18

90

Pontederia cordata

Pickerel Plant

0

0

0

TOTAL:

450

LOCATION: 13 NORTH

SCIENTIFIC:

COMMON:

FLAT QTY:

PLANTS:

TOTAL:

Sagittaria latifolia

Common Arrowhead

7

18

126

Schoenoplectus acutus

Hardstem Bulrush

8

18

144

Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani

Soft stem Bulrush

7

18

126

Sparganium eurycarpum

Common Bur-reed

4

18

72

Pontederia cordata

Pickerel Plant

0

0

0

TOTAL:

468

54

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

SHORELINE PLANTS 2018 Providers: Shooting Star Native Seeds and Natural Shore Technologies ZONE 13 DATE: 2018

55

SCIENTIFIC NAME:

COMMON NAME:

Tradescantia viginiana

Spiderwort

32

Solidago flexicauilis

Zig Zag Goldenrod

32

Acotus americanus

Sweet Flag

18

Iris versicolor

Blue Flag Iris

18

Elymus canadensis

Canada Wild Rye

64

Sporobolus heterolepsis

Prairie Dropseed

32

Elymus hystrix

Bottlebrush Grass

64

Spartina pectinata

Prairie Cordgrass

64

Sorghastrum nutans

Indian Grass

64

Panicum virgatum

Switch Grass

32

Bouteloua gracillis

Blue Grama

32

Scirpus cyperinus

Woolgrass

18

Carex bebbi

Bebb's Sedge

18

Carex sprengelii

Sprengel's Sedge

32

Vernonia fasciculata

Ironweed

32

Lobelia cardinalis

Blue Lobelia

32

Echinacea pallida

Pale Purple Coneflower

32

Eupatorium perfoliatim

Boneset

32

Echinaceae pupurea

Purple coneflower

32

Symphyotrichum novae-angliae

New England Aster

32

Eurybia macrophyllus

Large-leaf Aster

32

Physostegia virginiana

Obedient Plant

32

Veronicastrum virginicum

Culvers root

32

Liatris pycnostachya

Prairie Blazing Star

32

Aquilegia canadensis

Columbine

32

Eutriochium maculatum

Joe-Pye Weed

32

TOTAL:

QTY:

904 Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

ZONE 9 DATE: 2011 SCIENTIFIC NAME:

COMMON NAME:

Carex comosa

Bottlebrush Sedge

30

Carex crinita

Fringed Sedge

30

Carex lacustris

Lake Sedge

30

Iris versicolor

Blue Flag Iris

30

Scirpus validus

Softstem Bulrush

30

TOTAL:

QTY:

150

ZONE 13 UPLAND (ZONE A & B) DATE: 2011 SCIENTIFIC NAME:

COMMON NAME:

QTY:

Petalostemum purpureum

Purple prairie clover

72

Asclepias tuberosa

Butterfly Weed

72

Bouteloua curtipendula

Side Oats Grama

Astragalus canadensis

Canada Milk Vetch

72

Elymus canadensis

Canada Wild Rye

752

Liatris aspera

Rough Blazing Star

72

Penstemon grandiflorus

Large Beardtongue

72

Rudbeckia hirta

Black Eyed Susan

72

Schizachyrium scoparium

Little Bluestem

752

Sporobolus heterolepis

Prairie Dropseed

752

TOTAL:

648

3,486 ZONE 6 DATE: 2011

SCIENTIFIC NAME:

COMMON NAME:

Carex comosa

Bottlebrush Sedge

30

Carex crinita

Fringed Sedge

30

Carex lacustris

Lake Sedge

30

Iris versicolor

Blue Flag Iris

30

Scirpus validus

Softstem Bulrush

30

TOTAL:

56

QTY:

150

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

ZONE 9 DATE: 2004

57

SCIENTIFIC NAME:

COMMON NAME:

POUNDS:

Bouteloua curtipendula

Side Oats Gramma

3.5

Bouteloua gracilis

Blue Gramma

1.5

Dalea purpureum

Purple Prairie Clover

0.75

Elymus canadensis

Canada Wild Rye

1.25

Agropyron trachycaulum

Slender Wheat Grass

Lolium italicum

Annual Rye Grass

2.5

Hybrid wheat

Regreen

6.25

Poa compressa

Canada Bluegrass

3.5

Schizachyrium scoparium

Little Bluestem

3

Sporobolus cryptandrus

Sand Dropseed

0.75

2

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

ZONE 4 AND 5 DATE: 2004

58

SCIENTIFIC NAME:

COMMON NAME:

POUNDS:

Andropogon gerardii

Big Blue Stem

Anemone canadesis

Canada Anemone

0.08

Asclepias incarnata

Swamp Milkweed

0.12

Aster novae-angliae

New England Aster

0.17

Bromus ciliatus

Fringed Brome

1.5

Bidens cernua

Nodding Bur Marigold

0.17

Calamagrostis canadensis

Blue Joint Grass

0.05

Carex comosa

Bottle-Brush Sedge

0.21

Carex vulpinoidea

Fox Sedge

0.09

Desmondium canadense

Showy Tick Trefoil

0.09

Agropyron trachycaulum

Slender Wheat Grass

1.93

Elymus virginicus

Virginia Wild Rye

1.8

Eupatorium perfoliatum

Boneset

0.14

Glyceria grandis

Reed Mana Grass

0.1

Glyceria striata

Fowl manna Grass

0.05

Heliopsis helianthoides

Early Sunflower

0.12

Iris virginica shrevei

Blue flag iris

0.1

Liatris ligulistylis

Meadow Blazing Star

0.09

Liatris pycnostachya

Prairie Blazing Star (tall)

0.11

Lobelia siphilitica

Great Blue Lobelia

0.03

Lolium italicum

Annual Rye Grass

2.16

Mimulus ringens

Moneky Flower

0.03

Monarda fistulosa

Bergamot

0.15

Panicum virgatum

Switch Grass

0.3

Poa palustris

Fowl Bluegrass

2.06

Rudbeckia hirta

Black-Eyed Susan

Scirpus atrovirens

Green Bulrush

0.05

Scirpus cyperinus

Woolgrass

0.07

Sorghastrum nutans

Indiangrass

1.8

Spartina pectinata

Prairie Cordgrass

0.36

Verbena hastata

Blue Vervain

0.17

Vernonia fasciculata

Ironweed

0.07

Veronicastrum virginicum

Culver's Root

0.03

Zizia aurea

Golden Alexanders

0.07

1.8

0.1

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

GENERAL SEEDING DATE: 2003 SHORT/DRY SEED MIX

59

SCIENTIFIC NAME:

COMMON NAME:

QTY:

Bouteloua curtipendula

Side Oats Gramma

38% PLS

Bouteloua gracilis

Blue Gramma

15% PLS

Schizachyrium scoparium

Little Blue Stem

45% PLS

Koeleria macrantha

June Grass

Sporobolus cryptandrus

Sand Dropseed

0.05 Bulk Wt.

Sporobolus heterolepis

Prairie Dropseed

0.05 Bulk Wt.

Achillea millefolium

Yarrow

2%

Amorpha canescens

Leadplant

10%

Asclepias tuberosa

Butterfly weed

2%

Symphyotrichum ericoides

Heath aster

4%

Coreopsis palmata

Stiff tickseed

2%

Houstonia longifolia

Long-leaved bluets

1%

Lespedeza thunbergii

Bush clover

3%

Liatris aspera

Rough blazing star

4%

Liatris punctata

Dotted blazing star

3%

Lupinus perennis

Wild lupin

5%

Dalea candida

White prairie clover

5%

Dalea candida

Purple prairie clover

16%

Rosa arkansana

Prairie rose

1%

Rudbeckia hirta

Black-eyed Susan

18%

Solidago nemoralis

Gray goldenrod

3%

Solidago ptarmicoides

Upland goldenrod

1%

Solidago rigida

Stiff goldenrod

2%

Solidago speciosa

Showy goldenrod

2%

Verbena stricta

Hoary vervain

14%

Zizia aurea

Golden alexanders

2%

Bouteloua curtipendula

Side Oats Gramma

38% PLS

Bouteloua gracilis

Blue Gramma

15% PLS

Schizachyrium scoparium

Little Blue Stem

45% PLS

Koeleria macrantha

June Grass

Sporobolus cryptandrus

Sand Dropseed

0.05 Bulk Wt.

Sporobolus heterolepis

Prairie Dropseed

0.05 Bulk Wt.

1% PLS

1% PLS

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

WET SEED MIX (WILDFLOWER) SCIENTIFIC: Agastache foeniculum

COMMON: Fragrant giant hyssop

Alisma subcordatum

Water plantain

4%

Allium canadense

Meadow garlic

1%

Anemonastrum canadense

Canada anemone

1%

Asclepias incarnata

Swamp milkweed

2%

Symphyotrichum lanceolatum

Panicled aster

3%

Symphyotrichum novae-angliae

New England aster

3%

Symphyotrichum puniceum

Red-stalked aster

3%

Doellingeria umbellata

Flat-topped aster

1%

Desmodium canadense

Canada tick trefoil

1%

Eutrochium purpureum

Joe-Pye weeds

17%

Eupatorium perfoliatum

Boneset

10%

Euthamia graminifolia

Grass-leaved goldenrod

2%

Helenium autumnale

Sneezeweed

1%

Helianthus giganteus

Giant sunflower

2%

Leucanthemum vulgare

Common oxeye

1%

Hypericum ascyron

Great St. John's wort

2%

Iridaceae

Wild iris

1%

Liatris aspera

Tall blazing star

8%

Monarda fistulosa

Wild bergamot

1%

Dalea candida

White prairie clover

1%

Dalea purpurea

Purple prairie clover

2%

Pycnanthemum virginianum

Mountain mint

1%

Rudbeckia hirta

Black-eyed Susan

6%

Solidago rigida

Stiff goldenrod

2%

Thalictrum pubescens

Tall meadow rue

2%

Verbena hastata

Blue vervain

14%

Vernonia fasciculata

Ironweed

1%

Veronicastrum virginicum

Culvers root

3%

Zizia aurea

Golden alexanders

2%

TOTAL WET GRASS SEED RATE 10#/ ACRE

60

QTY: 2%

100%

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

DUCK POINT Provider: Dragonfly Gardens ZONE 3 DATE: 2003

61

SCIENTIFIC NAME:

COMMON NAME:

QUANTITY:

UNIT SIZE:

Acorus calamus

Sweet Flag

1

48 plants

Agastache foeniculum

Anise Hyssop

1

48 plants

Agastache foeniculum

Anise Hyssop

2

6 pack

Allium cernuum

Nodding Wild Onion

1

48 plants

Pulsatilla patens

Pasque Flower

6

4 pack

Antennaria plantaginifolia

Plantain Pussy Toes

2

32 plants

Asclepias incarnata

Swamp Milkweed

1

48 plants

Asclepias tuberosa

Butterfly Weed

1

48 plants

Aster novae-angliae

New England Aster

1

48 plants

Aster oblongifolius

Aromatic Aster

3

6 pack

Aster oblongifolius

Aromatic Aster

4

6 pack

Aster oolentangiensis

Sky Blue Aster

3

6 pack

Bouteloua curtipendula

Side Oats Grama

11

9 pack

Bouteloua gracilis

Blue Grama

3

72 plants

Bouteloua gracilis

Blue Grama

2

9 pack

Bromus kalmii

Kalm's Brome

1

48 plants

Calamagrostis canadensis

Blue Joint Reedgrass

1

48 plants

Carex bebbii

Bebb's Sedge

2

48 plants

Carex bicknellii

Bicknell's Sedge

2

6 pack

Carex bicknellii

Bicknell's Sedge

1

48 plants

Carex comosa

Bottlebrush Sedge

1

48 plants

Carex hystricina

Porcupine Sedge

1

48 plants

Carex muhlenbergii

Sand-bracted Sedge

2

6 pack

Carex pennsylvanica

Pennsylvania Sedge

2

32 plants

Carex vulpinoidea

Fox Sedge

2

48 plants

Chelone glabra

Turtlehead

1

48 plants

Coreopsis lanceolata

Lance Leaf Coreopsis

2

6 pack

Dalea candida

White Prairie Clover

3

6 pack

Dalea purpurea

Purple Prairie Clover

3

6 pack

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

ZONE 3 DATE: 2003

62

Elymus canadensis

Canada Wild Rye

1

72 plants

Eryngium yccifolium

Rattlesnake Master

2

6 pack

Eupatorium perfoliatum

Boneset

1

48 plants

Geum triflorum

Prairie Smoke

2

48 plants

Geum triflorum

Prairie Smoke

1

4 pack

Glyceria striata

Fowl Manna Grass

1

48 plants

Heliopsis helianthoides

False Sunflower

1

48 plants

Hierochloe odorata

Sweet Grass

3

48 plants

Iris versicolor

Northern Blue Flag Iris

2

48 plants

Iris versicolor

Northern Blue Flag Iris

1

4 pack

Juncus torreyi

Torrey's Rush

1

48 plants

Liatris punctata

Dotted Blazing Star

1

48 plants

Liatris ligulistylis

Norther Plains Blazing Star

2

48 plants

Liatris pychnostachya

Thick Spike Blazing Star

2

48 plants

Lobelia carndinalis

Cardinal Flower

2

48 plants

Lobelia siphilitica

Great Blue Lobelia

1

48 plants

Lupinus perennis

Wild Blue Lupine

1

6 pack

Mimulus ringens

Monkeyflower

1

48 plants

Penstemon grandiflorus

Large Flowered Beardtongue

3

4 pack

Antennaria plantaginifolia

Plantain Pussy Toes

2

6 pack

Phlox pilosa

Prairie Phlox

1

32 plants

Ratibida pinnata

Yellow Coneflower

1

48 plants

Rudbeckia triloba

Brown Eyed Susan

1

48 plants

Schizachyrium scoparium

Little Bluestem

3

72 plants

Scirpus atrovirens

Green Bulrush

2

48 plants

Scirpus cyperinus

Wool Grass

2

48 plants

Sorghastrum nutans

Indian Grass

6

9 pack

Spartina pectinata

Prairie Cordgrass

1

48 plants

Sporobolus heterolepis

Prairie Dropseed

2

48 plants

Verbena hastata

Blue Vervain

3

6 pack

Vernonia fasciculata

Ironweed

1

48 plants

Viola pedatifida

Prairie Violet

6

4 pack

Carex comosa

Bottlebrush Sedge

1

48 plants

Elymus hystrix

Bottlebrush Grass

4

48 plants

Gentiana alba

White Bottle Gentain

3

32 plants Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

ZONE 3 DATE: 2003

63

SCIENTIFIC NAME:

COMMON NAME:

QTY:

Acorus calamus

Sweet Flag

96

Acorus calamus

Sweet Flag

96

Agastache foeniculum

Anise Hyssop

96

Allium stellatum

Prairie Onion

192

Andropogon gerardii

Big Bluestem

360

Anemone cylindrica

Thimbleweed

192

Anemone virginiana

Thimbleweed

144

Asclepias incarnata

Swamp Milkweed

144

Asclepias incarnata

Swamp Milkweed

144

Asclepias tuberosa

Butterfly Weed

192

Aster

Aster

192

Aster ericoides

Heath Aster

48

Aster ericoides

Heath Aster

96

Aster laevis

Smooth Aster

96

Aster lucidulus

Swamp Aster

48

Aster Macrophyllus

Big Leaved Aster

192

Aster oolentangiensis

New England Aster

48

Aster oolentangiensis

Sky Blue Aster

192

Aster puniccus

Swamp Aster

48

Aster umbellatus

Flat Topped Aster

192

Aster umbellatus

Flat Topped Aster

48

Aster umbellatus

Flat Topped Aster

48

Bouteloua curtipendula

Side Oats Grama

648

Bouteloua gracilis

Blue Grama

792

Bromus ciliatus

Fringed Brome

96

Bromus ciliatus

Fringed Brome

96

Bromus kalmii

Kalms Brome

240

Bromus kalmii

Kalms Brome

240

Calamagrostis canadensis

Canada Blue Joint

96

Calamagrostis canadensis

Blue Joint Reedgrass

48

Calamagrostis canadensis

Canada Blue Joint

96

Caltha palustris

Marsh Marigold

24

Carex bebbii

Bebbs Sedge

96 Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

ZONE 3 DATE: 2003

64

Carex comosa

Bottlebrush Sedge

48

Carex comosa

Bottlebrush Sedge

96

Carex hystricina

Porcupine Sedge

96

Carex hystricina

Porcupine Sedge

96

Carex lacustris

Lake Sedge

48

Carex lacustris

Lake Sedge

96

Carex pensylvanica

Penn Sedge

480

Carex stipata

Awl Fruited Sedge

96

Carex vulpinoidea

Fox Sedge

48

Coreopsis palmata

Praire Coreopsis

144

Dervilla lonicera

Honeysuckle

256

Desmodium canadense

Showy Tick Trefoil

192

Desmodium canadense

Showy Tick Trefoil

96

Echineacea pallida

Pale Purple Coneflower

192

Elymus canadensis

Canada Wild Rye

192

Elymus canadensis

Canada Wild Rye

288

Elymus hystrix

Bottlebrush Grass

96

Elymus hystrix

Bottlebrush Grass

192

Elymus hystrix

Bottlebrush Grass

96

Eupatorium perfoliatum

Boneset

96

Eupatorium perfoliatum

Boneset

96

Euthamia graminifolia

Grass Leaf Goldenrod

96

Heliopsis helianthoides

False Sunflower

96

Heuchera richardsonii

Alum Root

96

Heuchera richardsonii

Alum Root

96

Hierochloe odorata

Sweet Grass

48

Hierochloe odorata

Sweet Grass

48

Hierochloe odorata

Sweet Grass

48

Iris versicolor

Blue Flag Iris

32

Iris virginica

Blue Flag Iris

32

Juncus balticus

Baltic Rush

48

Juncus balticus

Baltic Rush

96

Juncus effusus

Soft Rush

48

Koeleria macrantha

June Grass

48

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

ZONE 3 DATE: 2003

65

Koeleria macrantha

June Grass

528

Liatris cylindracea

Few-headed Blazing Star

48

Liatris ligulistylis

Northern Plains Blazing Star

240

Liatris pychnostachya

Meadow Blazing Star

96

Liatris pychnostachya

Meadow Blazing Star

192

Lobelia siphilitica

Great Blue Lobelia

144

Lobelia siphilitica

Great Blue Lobelia

96

Lobelia siphilitica

Great Blue Lobelia

48

Lupinus perennis

Wild Blue Lupine

144

Matteuccia struthiopteris

Ferns

24

Mimulus ringens

Monkeyflower

144

Mimulus ringens

Monkeyflower

144

Monarda fistulosa

Bergamot

96

Panicum virgatum

Switch Grass

48

Penstemon grandiflorus

Large Flowered Beard Tongue

20

Penstemon grandiflorus

Large Flowered Beard Tongue

64

Physostegia virginiana

Obedient Plant

96

Physostegia virginiana

Obedient Plant

48

Polemonium occidentale

Jacobs Ladder

192

Rudbeckia hirta

Black-eyed Susan

192

Schizachyrium scoparium

Little Bluestem

936

Scirpus atrovirens

Green Bulrush

48

Scirpus cyperinus

Wool Grass

48

Scirpus cyperinus

Wool Grass

96

Scirpus fluviatilis

River Bulrush

96

Solidago flexicaulis

Zig Zag Goldenrod

192

Solidago graminifolia

Flat Topped Goldenrod

96

Sorghastrum nutans

Indian Grass

432

Spartina pectinata

Prairie Cordgrass

144

Spartina pectinata

Prairie Cordgrass

144

Thalictrum dasycarpum

Purple Meadow Rue

48

Thalictrum dasycarpum

Purple Meadow Rue

48

Verbena hastata

Blue Vervain

48

Verbena stricta

Hoary Vervain

96 Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

ZONE 3 DATE: 2003

66

Verbena stricta

Blue Vervain

48

Dalea purpurea

Purple Praire Clover

48

Iris versicolor

Blue Flag Iris

24

Tradescantia bracteata

Prairie Spiderwort

48

Verbena stricta

Hoary Vervain

48

Acorus calamus

Sweet Flag

12

Andropogon gerardii

Big Bluestem

360

Bouteloua curtipendula

Side Oats Grama

216

Bouteloua gracilis

Blue Grama

216

Calamagrostis canadensis

Blue Joint Reedgrass

192

Carex vulpinoidea

Fox Sedge

288

Koeleria macrantha

June Grass

384

Panicum virgatum

Switch Grass

504

Schizachyrium scoparium

Little Bluestem

1080

Scirpus acutus

Hard Stem Bulrush

12

Scirpus validus

Soft Stem Bulrush

24

Sorghastrum nutans

Indian Grass

360

Spartina pectinata

Prairie Cordgrass

624

Sporobolus heterolepis

Prairie Dropseed

192

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Appendix C: Como Lake Shoreland Maintenance Matrix created by the City of Saint Paul

DESCRIPTION OF LOW - MEDIUM - HIGH

Low Maintenance Shoreland Area These areas provide wildlife habitat, preservation of the shoreline by creating minimum impact zones, and visual quality or diversity to the landscape. With that in mind it should be stated that even though this level applies to Awild@ areas around the lake not every downed tree or limb will remain on the ground. The decision to remove brush, storm damaged trees or branches, and trees/saplings will be based on the tree care strategies outlined below. There will be an effort to leave some coarse woody debris for habitat purposes, mushroom beds, turtle or waterbird basking, nesting cavities and so on.

­— Vegetation has a more natural look and function. Trees hanging over water allow cooler near-shore water temps for aquatic life.

­— Traditional shade tree form is not the objective ­— Trees maintained on an as-needed basis for safety, disease and insect problems. ­— Low-growing herbaceous or shrub layer is maintained. ­— Views from upland - few and narrowly defined ­— Views from water - of a natural landscape Safety - High priority Tree Health - Moderate priority Tree Aesthetics/Form - Low priority

67

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

Medium Maintenance Shoreland Area

High Maintenance Shoreland Area

These areas should be considered a transition zone from the wild (low maintenance) areas to the high usage (high maintenance) areas. These zones provide wildlife habitat (food sources, nesting), shaded areas for patrons, and a visual transition to the manicured high maintenance areas as well as vies and sight lines to the lake. Thus, medium maintenance will dictate more pruning of trees since there will be more foot and mower traffic. Limbs and branches need to be raised.

Aesthetics will be more important since the trees tend to be out in the open and visible. Therefore, pruning for form and structure will be more common in a medium maintenance area.

These areas are manicured areas allowing access, where appropriate, to the lake and clear views and sight lines of the lake and the surrounding area. As with the low and medium maintenance areas, safety and sanitation will remain high priorities. Pruning for aesthetics plays a much bigger role with efforts to provide views and sight lines to the lake. The visibility of the trees in high traffic areas also makes pruning for form and structure very important. In high maintenance sections raising is not only done to provide mower access and foot traffic but to allow for views below the crowns of the trees.

— Mix of shade tree and more natural looking tree forms and groupings — Tree trimming lighter than in High maintenance.

— Minimal to moderate shrub layer: thinned periodically when present — Slight lines and framed views maintained — Low-growing herbaceous layer maintained.

Safety - High priority Tree Health - High priority Tree Aesthetics/Form -Moderate priority

68

— Tree pruning for form and structure, trees raised for pedestrian traffic, near-lake access ans sight corridors — Shrub layer minimal to absent ­— View corridors maintained — Hard surfaces — Low-growing herbaceous cover (Compass Point) — Ornamental a higher priority

Safety - High priority Tree Health - High priority Tree Aesthetics/Form - High priority

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

69

Como Lake Shoreline Survey 2020

EXHIBIT B Example Proposal Budget Spreadsheet

CRWD Example Consultant Services Proposal Detailed Budget

Hourly Rates

Task 1 - Evaluate Existing Information 1a - Identify and review all relevant technical and background material 1b - Identify large sites and BMP potential locales 1c - Solicit stakeholder input (#1) 1d - Meet with Lake McCarrons Neighborhood Association Sub-Total Balance check Task 2 - Develop Detailed Runoff and WQ Models 2a - Veryify sub-watersehd delineations and infrastructure 2b - Modify Roseville H&H model 2c - Update CRWD P8 model Sub-Total Balance check Task 3 - Ecaluate WQ Impacts and Opportunities 3a - Identify BMP alternatives and costs 3b - Assemble soil information 3c- Identify recommendations to meet goal(s) Sub-Total Balance check Task 4 - Develop an Implementation Plan 4a - Finalize implementation opportunities in meeting #2 with stakeholders 4b - Estimate cost for implementation 4c - Develop schedule for implementation Sub-Total Balance check Total Balance check

$165 Hours

Cost

$134 Hours

Cost

$98 Hours

Cost

$98 Hours

Cost

$84 Hours

Cost

$84 Hours

Cost

2 2 23 4 31

$330 $330 $3,795 $660 $5,115

10 2 15 2 29

$1,340 $268 $2,010 $268 $3,886

6 2 15 2 25

$588 $196 $1,470 $196 $2,450

2 10 2 2 16

$196 $980 $196 $196 $1,568

10 0 4 0 14

$840 $0 $336 $0 $1,176

0 0 0 0 0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Cos t Total

Cost Staf f

Expe nses

& CA DD Staf f Nam e

Fiel d

Data Ana Staf f lys t Nam e

pecia lis t Staf f Nam e

GIS S

Workplan Item

Engin eer -M odele Staf f Nam r e

Proje ct M a na QA/Q ger, C Staf f Nam e Staf f Nam e

Wate r Qua li ty M od Staf f Nam e ler e

McCarrons Sub-watershed #4 Study

$0 $100 $25 $0 $125

$3,294 $1,774 $7,807 $1,320 $14,195

$3,294 $1,874 $7,832 $1,320 $14,320 $14,320

2 2 2 6

$330 $330 $330 $990

6 2 18 26

$804 $268 $2,412 $3,484

6 22 2 30

$588 $2,156 $196 $2,940

8 3 3 14

$784 $294 $294 $1,372

0 0 0 0

$0 $0 $0 $0

32 0 0 32

$2,688 $0 $0 $2,688

$50 $0 $0 $50

$5,194 $3,048 $3,232 $11,474

$5,244 $3,048 $3,232 $11,524 $11,524

8 2 6 16

$1,320 $330 $990 $2,640

4 0 2 6

$536 $0 $268 $804

4 0 2 6

$392 $0 $196 $588

4 2 0 6

$392 $196 $0 $588

2 0 0 2

$168 $0 $0 $168

0 20 0 20

$0 $1,680 $0 $1,680

$0 $100 $0 $100

$2,808 $2,206 $1,454 $6,468

$2,808 $2,306 $1,454 $6,568 $6,568

16 4 2 22

$2,640 $660 $330 $3,630

5 4 2 5

$670 $536 $268 $1,474

5 8 2 5

$490 $784 $196 $1,470

5 2 0 5

$490 $196 $0 $686

0 0 0 0

$0 $0 $0 $0

0 0 0 0

$0 $0 $0 $0

$25 $0 $0 $25

$4,290 $2,176 $794 $7,260

75

$12,375

66

41

$4,214

16

$4,315 $2,176 $794 $7,285 $7,285 $39,697 $39,697

$9,648

66

$7,448

$1,344

52

$4,368

$300

$39,397

EXHIBIT C Consultant Services Agreement Template

Project Name: Budget: Fund: Deadline: Agreement #:

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT The following is an agreement between [Consultant Name] ("CONTRACTOR") and Capitol Region Watershed District (“DISTRICT”).

1. Scope of Services The CONTRACTOR shall provide the base services or tasks specified in ADDENDUM I, attached hereto and made part of this Agreement. ADDENDUM I, [Proposal Name] dated [Proposal Date] and prepared by the CONTRACTOR are incorporated in its entirety into this agreement, and is identified herein as ADDENDUM I. 2. Time The services will be delivered by the CONTRACTOR in the form specified in ADDENDUM I. Work products will be delivered before [Deadline].

3. Payment The cost of services shall be based on time and materials as provided in ADDENDUM I, and the total contract payment shall not exceed [Contract Amount]. Payment will be made within 35 days of receipt of a detailed invoice and approval by the DISTRICT Board of Managers. Interest accrual and disputes regarding payment shall be governed by the provision of Minn. Stat. Section 471.425.

4. Independent Contractor Status It is agreed that nothing contained in this Agreement is intended or should be construed as creating the relationship of agents, contractor, joint venturers, or associates between the parties hereto or as constituting CONTRACTOR as the employee of the DISTRICT for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The CONTRACTOR is an independent contractor and neither it, its employees, agents nor representatives are employees of the DISTRICT. From any amounts due the CONTRACTOR, there will be no deductions for federal income tax or FICA payments, nor for any state income tax, nor for any other purposes which are associated with an employer-employee relationship unless required by law. Payment of federal income tax, FICA payments, and state income tax are the responsibility of the CONTRACTOR. 5. Indemnification CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the DISTRICT, its officials, employees, and agents from any and all liability, loss, costs, damages, expenses, claims or actions, including attorney’s fees, which the DISTRICT, its officials, employees, and agents may hereafter Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.

sustain, incur or be required to pay, arising out of or by reason of any negligent act or omission or breach of this Agreement.

6. Insurance CONTRACTOR shall purchase and maintain such insurance as will protect the DISTRICT from claims which may arise out of or result from operations of the CONTRACTOR including but not limited to the following: General Liability – A minimum of $1,500,000 per occurrence and $1,500,000 aggregate. Such coverage shall include contractual liability insurance either specifically naming this agreement, or on a blanket basis the DISTRICT, its officials, and its employees shall be named as additional insured, with a cross-suits endorsement in favor of the DISTRICT. Auto Liability - $1,500,000 per occurrence and $1,500,000 aggregate. Require “hired and owned” and “hired and non-owned” auto insurance.

Workers Compensation - As required by MN statute.

Professional Liability – A minimum of $1,500,000 per claim and $1,500,000 aggregate. The CONTRACTOR will need to evidence continuation of this insurance at the required limits for at least five years after the project is completed.

The CONTRACTOR shall not commence work until the CONTRACTOR has obtained and filed an acceptable certificate of insurance with the DISTRICT. 7. Conflicts of Interest CONTRACTOR shall disclose this Agreement and CONTRACTOR funding provided under this Agreement to any client of CONTRACTOR’S that may appear to constitute a conflict of interest.

CONTRACTOR shall discuss with the DISTRICT any current or new obligations, which may directly conflict with the firm’s ongoing work under its agreement for consulting services with DISTRICT as soon as it becomes aware of a conflict.

8. Audits and Record Keeping CONTRACTOR shall maintain for at least six (6) years upon completion of services all books, records, documents and other evidence directly related to the performance of this Agreement in accordance with general accepted accounting principles and practices of governmental entities.

Upon request and reasonable notice, CONTRACTOR shall permit the DISTRICT to examine and copy the books, records, documents, and other evidence maintained by CONTRACTOR. 9. Termination DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR shall each have the right to terminate its participation in this agreement at any time without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event the DISTRICT terminates the agreement, the DISTRICT will pay the costs of the services satisfactorily performed prior to the date of termination, as determined by the DISTRICT. DISTRICT shall have the right to receive, use, and (subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Date

2

Practices Act) distribute copies of all materials, work products, reports and documents prepared by CONTRACTOR, pursuant to the agreement with DISTRICT, if such materials, work products, reports and documents were prepared prior to the termination of this Agreement.

10. Merger Agreement It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the Parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supercedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items in this Agreement, which are incorporated or attached, are deemed part of the Agreement. Any alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement and signed by the Parties.

11. Governing Law This Agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of Minnesota.

Venue shall be in the state and federal courts of Minnesota.

12. Amendments, Waiver and Contract Complete 12.1 Amendments. Any amendment to this agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original agreement, or their successors in office.

12.2 Waiver. If DISTRICT fails to enforce any provision of this agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it.

13. Audit Until the expiration of three years after the furnishing of services pursuant to this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR, upon written request, shall make available to the DISTRICT, the State Auditor, or the DISTRICT'S ultimate funding source, a copy of this Agreement, and the books, documents, records, and accounting procedures and practices of the CONTRACTOR relating to this Agreement.

14. Non-Discrimination CONTRACTOR agrees that in the hiring of all labor for the performance of any work under this Agreement, that it will not by reason of race, creed, color, sex, national origin, sexual preference or disability, discriminate against any person who is a citizen of the United States and who qualifies and is available to perform the work to which such employment relates. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with all Federal, State, and local non-discrimination laws and ordinances, in particular the applicable provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. The CONTRACTOR agrees to have in effect an affirmative action program and shall furnish a certificate of compliance with this requirement to the DISTRICT, upon request.

3

15. Data Practices All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for any purposes in the course of the CONTRACTOR's performance of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. 13.01 et seq. or any other applicable state statutes, any state rules adopted to implement the Act and statutes, as well as federal laws and regulations on data practices.

The CONTRACTOR agrees to abide strictly by these statutes, rules and regulations. The work products produced under this Contract will be the sole property of the DISTRICT and shall not be used by the CONTRACTOR for any purpose other than the performance of this agreement or as authorized in writing by the DISTRICT. Use of a brief (e.g. less than one printed page) general description of the work and associated graphics as examples of CONTRACTOR’s work for marketing purposes is acceptable.

16. Non-Assignability The CONTRACTOR shall not assign any interest in this Agreement and shall not transfer any interest in the same, whether by subcontract, assignment or novation, without the prior written consent of the DISTRICT. 17. Unavailability of Funding The purchase of services from the DISTRICT under this Agreement may be subject to the availability and provision of funding from the United States, the State of Minnesota, or other funding sources. The DISTRICT may immediately cancel this Agreement, or a portion of the services to be provided under this Agreement, if the funding for the services is no longer available to the DISTRICT. Upon receipt of the DISTRICT’s notice of cancellation of the Agreement, or of a portion of the services to be provided under this Agreement, the CONTRACTOR shall take all actions necessary to discontinue further commitments of funds to the extent they relate to the Agreement or the portions of this Agreement for which funding has become unavailable.

This agreement is duly executed this _____ day of ____________ 2021.

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

[CONSULTANT NAME]

By: _____________________________

By: _____________________________

Its: _____________________________

Its: _____________________________

Dated: __________________________

Dated: __________________________

W:\01 Administration\Contracts & Agreements\Contract Guidance\Consultant Services Agreement Templates\TEMPLATE_Consultant Services Agreement.docx

4

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

April 29, 2021 CRWD Board of Managers Luke Martinkosky, Forrest Kelley Manufactured Treatment Device (MTD) Crediting Policy

May 5, 2021 V. Action Items D. Approve Manufactured Treatment Device Policy (Martinkosky)

Background A Manufactured Treatment Device (MTD) is a pre-fabricated treatment structure that utilizes filtration or absorptive/adsorptive materials to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. There are many vendors with various options and claims of performance for their products, and CRWD has seen a recent increase in the number of applicants proposing their use on permitted sites.

Issues The Regulatory Division has been working to assess the performance of MTDs, determine how they fit into the Volume Reduction crediting framework of the Rules, and create a Policy to help guide staff and applicants during permit reviews.

Staff have provided the attached technical memo summarizing the review and data analysis completed to assess MTD performance, a draft policy outlining the process for reviewing requests to utilize an MTD for standard or enhahcned filtration, and a draft resolution setting fee and surety collection rates that includes a new maintenance surety for MTDs. The technical memo and draft policy were reviewed by the Board Programs Committee (Sanders, Texer). Staff will review the documents with the Board and answer questions that arise.

Action Requested Adopt The CRWD MTD Stormwater Crediting and Use Policy Adopt the Resolution Setting Fee and Surety Rates for Watershed District Permitting.

enc:

MTD Research – Enhanced Filtration Credit CRWD MTD Stormwater Crediting and Use Policy Resolution Setting Fees and Surety Rates for Watershed District Permitting

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\Manufactured Treatment Device Crediting\MTD Policy\Board Memo MTD Policy.docx

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

Technical Memo

To:

Luke Martinkosky, Capitol Region Watershed District

From:

Todd Shoemaker, PE, CFM, Wenck Associates, Inc. Eric Osterdyk, EIT, Wenck Associates, Inc.

Copy:

Forrest Kelley, PE, Capitol Region Watershed District Elizabeth Hosch, Capitol Region Watershed District

Date:

August 11, 2020

Subject: MTD Research – Enhanced Filtration Credit

INTRODUCTION Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) has received multiple requests to review manufactured treatment devices (MTDs) for conformity with the District’s enhanced filtration media credit. CRWD requested Wenck to research five locally available MTDs, conduct a broader review of national verification programs and how they may apply to CRWD, and recommend a credit value that could be applied toward CRWD’s volume management standard.

The five devices reviewed are the Up-Flo Filter by Hydro International, BayFilter by Baysaver Technologies/Advanced Drainage Systems (ADS), StormFilter by Contech, the Kraken by Bio Clean/Forterra, and the Modular Wetland System by Bio Clean/Forterra. Due to small data sets and variable removal rates between storms, Wenck recommends that CRWD assign interim blanket volume credits for all MTD until further design guidance is given.

BACKGROUND – CRWD RULES CRWD Rule C states that stormwater shall be retained onsite in the amount equivalent to 1.1 inches of runoff over the impervious surfaces of the development. If the applicant cannot provide the full volume through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse), filtration may be used through alternative compliance sequencing. CRWD acknowledges that filtration does not provide equivalent benefit as infiltration and credits filtration as follows: Sand filtration receives 55% volume credit (required runoff volume shall be multiplied by 1.82) Iron-enhanced sand filtration receives 80% volume credit (required runoff volume shall be multiplied by 1.25) Other enhanced filtration media may be considered and credited at the sole discretion of the District.

The basis of the iron-enhanced filtration credit was determined as part of the 2015 rule updates. CRWD based the filtration credits above on the expected total phosphorus (TP) removal of an iron-enhanced sand filter (IESF) when compared to the expected TP removal Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

of an infiltration system in Type C soil. CRWD focused on Type C soil since infiltration would be recommended for soil Types A and B, and not recommended for Type D. CRWD estimated TP removal from an IESF would be approximately 70%. This estimation combined TP removal data for an IESF from the Minimum Impact Design Standard (MIDS) calculator which is based on the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (74%) and monitoring data from Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) (68-69% TP). Comparatively, the MIDS calculator predicts that a bioretention (infiltration) system in Type C soil with a volume of 1.1-inches of runoff over the impervious drainage area will achieve 87% TP removal. CRWD converted predicted TP removal percentage to a volume credit by dividing the expected TP removals of an IESF (70%) by the expected TP removals of an infiltration system (87%). CRWD concluded that an IESF will achieve approximately 80% of the TP removal of an infiltration basin for Type C soils.

Enhanced filtration is not explicitly defined in the CRWD rules. However, if a device is properly designed, maintained, and has undergone adequate third-party verification, the District may grant additional credit above the standard 55% where appropriate.

DATA ANALYSIS Considerations Wenck systematically reviewed all five MTDs with the goal of providing CRWD with a recommended credit value that could be applied toward their volume management standard. This evaluation process considered phosphorus removal efficiencies, third-party verification, and climate/precipitation data.

MTD performance was evaluated based on pollutant removal efficiencies, with a specific focus on TP removal. It is important to recognize that TP consists of two different components: particulate phosphorus (PP), which is attached to or a component of particulate matter, and dissolved phosphorus (DP) which is soluble. It is also important to recognize that MTD phosphorus removal efficiencies are heavily influenced by the ratio of PP to DP within the treated stormwater. See Appendix A for additional discussion and analysis of PP and DP removal efficiencies.

Wenck recommends that CRWD evaluate MTD pollutant removal performance using independent, third-party verification. Third-party verified test results can be used to confirm or refute vendor claims of pollutant removal efficiencies and to provide impartial insight to ensure test results are not influenced by bias. Wenck researched two existing third-party review programs and one nationally standardized review process that is still being developed. Wenck concluded that the State of Washington Department of Ecology’s (DOE) Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE) is the best available third-party verification program for MTDs at this time and results from TAPE studies should be integrated into the CRWD review process. See Appendix A for additional information on Wenck’s evaluation third-party verification programs.

Lastly, Wenck evaluated the differences in climate and precipitation between Minnesota and the MTD testing locations for TAPE certification. Even though the Pacific Northwest and Minnesota are at similar latitudes, climate and precipitation vary due to proximity to the ocean and the impact of mountains. Minnesota has a lower average temperature and average precipitation than the Pacific Northwest; however, Minnesota has approximately 2 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\MTD Research – Enhanced Filtration Credit FINAL.docx

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

four times as much snowfall. Even though the Pacific Northwest experiences higher annual precipitation depths, the 24-hour rainfall depths are generally less than St. Paul. This implies that storm events in the Pacific Northwest occur more frequently and/or have a longer duration than the relatively short, flashy rainfall events in Minnesota. These differences in climate and precipitation may result in additional maintenance for Minnesota installations, which could then negatively impact pollutant removal if maintenance is not adequately conducted. See Appendix A for additional information on climate and precipitation comparisons.

Methods Wenck evaluated MTD pollutant removal performance using submitted TP and DP removal data from the Washington State TAPE studies. Due to small sample sizes, the TAPE program requires a bootstrapping statistical analysis to be completed for the submitted results. This is a statistical test for non-parametric data that relies on random sampling with replacement to determine a confidence interval for small sample sizes. The lower 95% confidence interval from the bootstrapping analysis is compared to the performance goal to determine if the MTD meets the TAPE pollutant removal standards.

Wenck calculated PP influent and effluent concentrations and loads by subtracting the DP values from the TP values. Removal efficiencies were evaluated using four different methods: Lower 95% bootstrap of TP removal percentage Lower 95% bootstrap of PP and DP removal percentage Bootstrap average of influent and effluent PP and DP concentration Bootstrap average of influent and effluent PP and DP load (summation of loads) Lower 95% bootstrap calculations were performed using the TAPE Bootstrap Calculator as required from the TAPE protocol. Average bootstrap values for concentration and load were calculated using the statistical analysis software R. The R program runs a bootstrap analysis by collecting 10,000 random samples with replacement, using a sample size of three. Each random sample is then averaged.

MTD removal efficiencies were then applied to the ratios of PP and DP in stormwater within CRWD to determine an annual TP removal. The ratio of phosphorus in CRWD were determined using monitoring data from 2013 to present. The weighted average of DP and PP in CRWD based on monitoring data is 24% and 76%, respectively. Annual TP removal was converted to a volume credit by dividing by 87% (following the same 2015 calculation to determine IESF credit).

Wenck noted the following data limitations from the above analysis: Small ratio of DP in testing site runoff No Minnesota specific pollutant removal data Design recommendations are not covered in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual Minimum detection limit (MDL) varied across MTDs by testing laboratory Variability in pollutant removal efficiencies between calculation methods Variable results across MTDs o Some showed high TP removal, but low DP removal o Some showed low TP removal, but high DP removal 3 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\MTD Research – Enhanced Filtration Credit FINAL.docx

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

See Appendix B for a summary of each MTD device and performance data considered by the TAPE process.

Results As noted in the Methods subsection above, annual TP removal and volume credit were variable based on the calculation method used. The ranges for both annual TP removal and volume credit based on calculation method are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Range of MTD annual TP removal efficiencies and the calculated volume credit.

Device Annual TP Removal Range (%) Volume Credit Range (%)

StormFilter

BayFilter

Up-Flo

Kraken

Modular Wetland

36-75

44-58

33-50

57-72

56-67

41-86

51-67

38-57

65-83

64-77

*See Appendix C for full evaluation for MTD phosphorus removal and volume credit

The goal of reviewing MTD pollutant removal data was to assign a specific volume credit based on test results; however, the ranges presented in Table 1 are too wide to do this with confidence.

RECOMMENDATIONS Filter Design, Sizing & Maintenance The key considerations when incorporating an MTD into a stormwater management plan are pretreatment, upstream storage, MTDs in series, filter hydraulic loading rate, sediment storage, and expected maintenance interval.

CRWD requires that stormwater must be pretreated to remove solids before discharging to MTDs to maintain long-term viability of the filter and to reduce system maintenance.

Although pretreatment is a requirement within CRWD, no removal credit is given for these systems. Pretreatment is not required for roof or sidewalk runoff since discharge from these locations have minimal solids. Typical pretreatment devices used in CRWD include sumps, SAFL baffles, hydrodynamic separators, grass filter strips, and forebays. CRWD understands that some MTDs will have built-in pretreatment chambers to satisfy this requirement.

Installation of MTD’s in CRWD will likely necessitate upstream storage. CRWD utilizes instantaneous volume (aka the “kerplunk method”) when assigning infiltration/filtration volume credit. This method requires the stormwater runoff storage volume to be provided below the invert of the low overflow outlet of the BMP. The current rules do not allow for “flow-through” treatment or runoff infiltrated/filtered during a rain event to be credited towards the volume reduction requirement. If an MTD has a high-flow bypass, the storage credit would be calculated as the volume retained below the elevation of the lowest bypass.

MTD’s that are designed in series (treatment train approach) may result in additional removal credit, up to enhanced volume credit (80%). The treatment train credit will be evaluated by CRWD on a site by site basis. This would allow the designer to balance the

4 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\MTD Research – Enhanced Filtration Credit FINAL.docx

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

additional cost of two MTDs versus the cost of additional storage. Assuming 50% TP removal for each MTD, see simplified example scenario for credit below: 1 lb/yr TP influent to MTD1  50% TP removal  0.5 lb/yr TP removal by MTD1 0.5 lb/yr TP influent to MTD2  50% TP removal  0.25 lb/yr removal by MTD2 Results in 75% TP removal which would qualify for enhanced treatment volume credit (80%).

Regarding flow rates, CRWD (and the Minnesota Stormwater Manual) requires filtration and infiltration devices to drawdown within 48 hours. Therefore, the maintenance plan submitted for CRWD permit approval should require maintenance of the MTD when drawdown of the storage system upstream of the MTD is longer than 48 hours. For comparison, Wenck reviewed recent MTD installations in CRWD and found the design drawdown time between two and ten hours.

It is possible that vendor recommended flow rates may differ from the flow rates approved through the TAPE protocol. Using higher rates than the TAPE approved rate could then result in lower than expected pollutant removal. Therefore, Wenck recommends that maximum hydraulic loading rates used by designers shall not exceed the flow rates documented in the TAPE approval process: BayFilter = 0.5 gpm/ft2 (same as vendor rate) Modular Wetland System = 1 gpm/ft2 (same as vendor rate) StormFilter = 1.67 gpm/ft2 (vendor brochure lists three flow rates 1 gpm/ft2, 1.67 gpm/ft2, and 2 gpm/ft2; written recommendation from vendor suggests 1 gpm/ft2 for Minnesota) The Kraken = 0.04353 gpm/ft2 (vendor suggests 0.05 gpm/ft2 which is only approved for TSS, not TP removal) Up-Flo with Ribbon Filter = 15 gpm per filter module or 0.8 gpm per square foot of filter ribbon surface area Additional sizing considerations include sediment storage and maintenance interval.

Although MTDs are generally sized by a hydraulic loading rate, public and private entities that maintain permanent stormwater management request that BMPs are designed for annual maintenance. Designer’s shall submit calculations or justification that MTD sediment storage is sufficient to provide for a 1-year maintenance interval.

CRWD should ensure that MTDs receive proper maintenance and function as designed.

Although this memorandum is not intended to be a comprehensive review of MTD or green infrastructure maintenance, it is able to offer some analysis and recommendations based on the maintenance intervals from the TAPE studies. Wenck recommends that CRWD look to the pending STEPP nationally standardized review process as a possible avenue for systematic maintenance comparisons between MTDs. To that end, given that maintenance of MTDs has not been widely evaluated, Wenck recommends a maintenance surety to ensure the MTD achieves the design objectives.

Beyond the financial surety, we recommend that CRWD require applicants to submit an executed maintenance contract for the MTD. The surety amount determination shall incorporate a vendor maintenance evaluation that gives recommended maintenance interval, recommended replacement interval, cost for maintenance/replacement of the 5 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\MTD Research – Enhanced Filtration Credit FINAL.docx

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

filters, and at least one maintenance invoice from a similar site with regards to size, impervious percent, and land use to the one that is being permitted. Maintenance expectations should be clear and evaluated during the design and CRWD application review.

CRWD Volume Reduction Credit Wenck recommends that CRWD grant volume reduction credit for MTDs by following the process listed below: 1. Before consideration by CRWD, the subject MTD shall have received the GULD for phosphorus from TAPE. 2. At the time of request, the project applicant or MTD vendor shall submit to CRWD the Technical Evaluation Report (TER) used in the TAPE study. Data shall include influent and effluent concentrations for TSS, TP, and DP; total runoff volume for each event; and runoff volume that bypasses the MTD for each event. If DP data is not received, volume reduction credit shall be calculated assuming 0% DP removal.

3. Determine PP and DP removal efficiencies. Removal efficiencies for PP and DP shall be applied to the percentages found in CRWD using the following equation: = 0.76 ∗ + 0.24 ∗ a.

4. Annual TP removal can be converted to a volume credit by dividing by 87 (expected TP removal of an infiltration system in Type C soil).

Wenck applied the process listed above to the StormFilter with Phosphosorb Media, BayFilter with EMC Media, Up-Flo with Ribbon Filters, the Kraken, and the Modular Wetland System.

Due to the variable PP and DP removal efficiencies, we do not recommend assigning a specific volume credit for each MTD based on individual testing data at this time.

Instead, we recommend that CRWD assign a blanket interim volume credit for all MTDs until further design guidance is given through the MPCA or STEPP. MTDs that have received the GULD for phosphorus from TAPE are eligible to receive 55% volume credit, equal to standard filtration. If submitted data through TAPE suggests a higher level of TP removal, the MTD may receive a 68% volume credit. An MTD must demonstrate DP removal to qualify for volume credit above 55%. The 68% interim credit for MTDs is halfway between standard and enhanced filtration. This approach allows CRWD to be appropriately conservative while still acknowledging potential positives from these products until additional regulation/guidance for crediting these systems is available.

Using the interim credit system described above, Up-Flo and BayFilter would receive standard filtration credit (55%) and StormFilter, Kraken, and Modular Wetland System would receive 68%. Table 2 provides a summary of MTD performance and maintenance intervals based on TAPE data as well as the recommended CRWD Volume Credit. Refer to Appendix C for the raw data and credit calculations of each MTD as evaluated by the TAPE protocol.

6 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\MTD Research – Enhanced Filtration Credit FINAL.docx

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

Table 2. Comparison of MTD performance and expected maintenance interval.

Device Volume Credit Range (%) CRWD Volume Credit TAPE Reported Maintenance Interval (months)2

Up-Flo

BayFilter

StormFilter

Kraken

Modular Wetland

38-57

51-67

41-86

65-83

64-77

55%1

55%1

68%

68%

68%

3

17

8

1

3

1

This is the minimum filtration volume credit allowed by CRWD rules, see Appendix C for calculated credit.

2 Reported maintenance intervals are specific to the TAPE study sites and are dependent on sitespecific conditions. Different maintenance intervals may be required, depending on site-specific conditions such as sediment characteristics in runoff. Available TAPE data does not allow direct comparisons of maintenance intervals at different sites.

Process for Other MTDs to be Credited Additional MTDs will be reviewed and credited on an application basis. Before consideration

by CRWD, the subject MTD shall have received the GULD for phosphorus from the Washington State TAPE program. Once the applicant provides verification of this certification, the applicant may use the proposed MTD as standard filtration (55% credit/1.82 credit factor) equivalent to a sand filter, if the stormwater MTD(s) are designed in accordance with the recommendation and guidelines of the manufacturer and TAPE protocol.

The applicant may seek acceptance of a higher pollutant removal efficiency by submitting data from the TAPE Technology Evaluation Report (TER) for review by the CRWD Engineer.

Data shall include influent and effluent concentrations for TSS, TP, and DP; total runoff volume for each event; and runoff volume that bypasses the MTD for each event. If DP data is not received, volume reduction credit shall be calculated assuming 0% DP removal. The MTD will be reviewed and credited in the same manner as the other MTDs above.

Lastly, the applicant must submit a $1,000 application review fee for review of alternative BMPs. CRWD will maintain a list of MTDs that have been approved through this process for use by future applicants.

CRWD welcomes any vendor or applicant to submit additional data outside of the TAPE review process to instill confidence in the use and benefit of MTDs. The provided data shall conform with industry standard quality assurance/quality control procedures. All provided data will be considered but may not be included in the CRWD crediting process.

7 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\MTD Research – Enhanced Filtration Credit FINAL.docx

Appendix A: MTD Research for Enhanced Filtration Credit

Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com

Appendix A: MTD Research for Enhanced Filtration Credit PARTICULATE & DISSOLVED PHOSPHORUS When assessing TP removal, it’s important to recognize that TP can be broken down into two different components: particulate phosphorus (PP) which is attached to or a component of particulate matter and dissolved phosphorus (DP) which is soluble. PP consists of larger particle sizes that are more easily removed using sedimentation or a traditional sand filter.

DP consists of very small particle sizes that remain dissolved in water and are not easily removed by sedimentation or traditional sand filtration.

The Minnesota Stormwater Manual assumes filtration systems provide zero DP reduction without the incorporation of iron in the filter media. DP molecules in the water chemically bind to iron particles within the sand filter as water passes through, removing a portion of the DP. An important distinction when determining TP removal is the ratio of PP and DP within stormwater runoff. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual reports that 55% of TP is particulate and 45% is dissolved. Using this ratio, TP removal can be described using the following equation: = 0.55 + 0.45 . The Manual also states that the expected PP removal by an IESF is 85-91% and DP removal is 60%. Substituting these numbers into the equation yields 74% TP removal for an IESF [(0.55*85) + (0.45*60)].

This ratio of PP and DP indicates that CRWD’s enhanced filtration cannot be achieved by PP removal alone (i.e. some level of DP removal is required).

CRWD maintains stormwater monitoring stations throughout the watershed district. Wenck used the CRWD online portal to download data from seven monitoring stations to determine the average annual DP, PP, TP, and TSS concentration in stormwater within the district (Table 1).

Table 1. CRWD Monitoring Data from 2013 to Present.

Parameter CRWD Minimum Subwatershed Average CRWD Maximum Subwatershed Average CRWD Weighted Average

DP % 20% 35% 24%

PP % 65% 80% 76%

TP mg/L 0.19 0.41 0.26

TSS mg/L 111 211 136

CRWD’s monitoring data suggests a much lower percentage of DP in runoff compared to runoff described in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (24% vs 45%). This data also implies that 70% annual TP removal to meet enhanced filtration can be met without removing any dissolved phosphorus. Assuming no removal of DP, a PP removal rate of 93% or higher would achieve the 70% annual TP removal to meet the CRWD enhanced filtration standard and may receive up to 80% volume credit.

THIRD-PARTY VERIFICATION OF MTDS Wenck recommends that CRWD evaluate MTD pollutant removal performance using independent, third-party verification. Third-party verified test results can be used to confirm or refute vendor claims of pollutant removal efficiencies. Test results can be from a thirdWenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

party study or from a study conducted with third-party oversight. The purpose of third-party verification is to provide impartial insight to ensure test results are not influenced by a vendor bias.

Two prominent boards that review such testing include the State of Washington Department of Ecology’s (DOE) Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).

Washington State TAPE The Washington State DOE utilizes a Board of External Reviewers (BER) to provide national expertise in stormwater treatment technologies. The BER acts in a direct review capacity to provide recommendations about each new technology and how well it performs in accordance with the TAPE standards. The TAPE program is used to evaluate new treatment technologies with regards to different performance goals. The TAPE evaluation is primarily based on field-collected data and has separate performance goals for the type of treatment (i.e. pretreatment, basic treatment, phosphorus treatment, etc.). These different performance goals can be approved by the Washington State DOE for one of three designation levels: Pilot Use Level Designation (PULD) – Technologies with sufficient laboratory data but need field verification testing.

Conditional Use Level Designation (CULD) - Technologies that show high likelihood of meeting TAPE performance goals. Testing results are supported by field data that doesn’t conform with TAPE protocol. Laboratory data may be used to supplement, but not substitute for required field data.

General Use Level Designation (GULD) - Technologies whose evaluation report demonstrates confidently it can achieve the TAPE performance goals. Testing results are supported by field data that conforms with TAPE protocol.

The specific TAPE performance goal for phosphorus treatment is 50 percent TP removal for an influent concentration range of 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L and 80 percent total suspended solids (TSS) for an influent concentration range of 100 to 200 mg/L. If study results were submitted prior to March 31, 2019, samples must be collected from a minimum of 12 storm events that meet the influent concentration ranges. If submitting after March 31, 2019, samples must be collected from a minimum of 15 storm events that meet the influent concentration ranges. The TAPE program requires a bootstrapping statistical analysis to be completed for the submitted results. This is a statistical test for non-parametric data that relies on random sampling with replacement to determine a confidence interval for small sample sizes. The lower 95% confidence interval from the bootstrapping analysis is compared to the performance goal to determine if the MTD meets the TAPE pollutant removal standards.

According to the CRWD stormwater monitoring data, the weighted average TP and TSS concentrations in CRWD fall within the TAPE influent concentration ranges (Table 2).

Table 2. CRWD pollutant runoff concentrations from 2013 to Present.

Parameter TAPE Influent Concentration Range CRWD Weighted Average 2 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\Appendix A FINAL.docx

TP (mg/L) 0.1–0.5 0.26

TSS (mg/L) 100-200 136

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

To obtain TAPE approval, vendors submit an application to the Department of Ecology. This application includes a technical evaluation report (TER) which describes study methodologies and results. The TER is reviewed by the board and is assigned a use level designation based on the study criteria with respect to the TAPE protocol.

Limitations of TAPE: The TAPE certification process represents specific influent concentration ranges and does not typically include an assessment of long-term (annual) performance.

There is no specific analysis or standard for maintenance effort or frequency.

Multiple field sites are encouraged, but only one field site is required.

Certification is based on TP removal and does not evaluate DP data.

NJDEP Similar to TAPE, NJDEP provides testing protocols that can be used for independent, thirdparty verification and evaluation of vendor specific performance claims. However, the NJDEP protocol focuses primarily on laboratory-collected data and exclusively tests for TSS removal (not TP) in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D397797 protocol. The New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology (NJCAT) is a public private partnership that serves the role of implementing the NJDEP protocols and advises MTD vendors on what will and won’t be deemed acceptable withing the NJDEP program.

NJDEP has two protocols to evaluate MTDs for TSS removal efficiency: one for hydrodynamic sedimentation (HDS) and one for filtration. Laboratory testing through these protocols evaluates the MTD’s treatment process, determines performance, and assesses expected lifespan.

The NJDEP standard for TSS removal is 50% for an HDS MTD. TSS removal efficiency testing shall be performed at constant flow rate of 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, and 125% of the MTD’s maximum treatment flow rate (MTFR) with an influent TSS concentration between 180 and 220 mg/L. Test sediment particle size needs to be consistent with the NJDEP particle size distribution (PSD).

The NJDEP standard for TSS removal is 80% for a filtration MTD. Test runs shall be a minimum of 30 minutes and a minimum of ten test runs at the MTFR shall be conducted with an influent TSS concentration between 180 and 220 mg/L. Test sediment particle size needs to be consistent with the NJDEP PSD. If test results indicate that the removal efficiency is higher than the respective standards, the certified removal rate will be rounded down to the NJDEP standard. MTDs will not be certified if testing results indicate removal efficiencies below the respective NJDEP standards. Furthermore, the manufacturer is required to provide design limitations as well as a maintenance plan to ensure proper function of the MTD. Limitations of NJDEP: Certification is based on laboratory data and is not required to be field verified.

Certification is for TSS removal and does not assess TP removal.

3 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\Appendix A FINAL.docx

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

Nationally Standardized Review Process The Water Environment Federation (WEF) has started the national Stormwater Testing and Evaluation for Products and Practices (STEPP) initiative. This initiative intends to accelerate the implementation and adoption of innovative stormwater management technologies by establishing a framework for testing and evaluating MTDs. The STEPP initiative was triggered by the end of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program in 2014. WEF realized the need for a nationally standardized process to test, categorize, review, certify, evaluate, verify, and approve stormwater MTDs and formed the STEPP Consortium Group.

The STEPP Consortium Group is led by WEF and includes: ASTM Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) The Water Research Foundation (WRF) Washington State DOE TAPE NJDEP Progress in 2019 was based upon direct engagement with ASTM to initiate the translation of state protocols into a national standard. A previous meeting in 2018 indicated that ASTM could establish national field and laboratory testing standards based upon the TAPE and NJDEP protocols respectively.

There has not been an official date set for a targeted completion of these national standards. However, CRWD should be aware that this initiative exists, and the release of national standards could affect CRWD’s evaluation of MTDs. Additional Local Review Processes Like CRWD, the Basset Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) has also received several requests to review MTDs for use in their watershed. In July 2019, the BCWMC and several other watershed organizations petitioned the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to: Cooperate with and support the implementation of the WEF STEPP verification program, and/or Develop its own statewide program for evaluating and certifying stormwater MTDs. Since both requests will likely take years to complete, the BCWMC developed their own standard process for reviewing and certifying MTDs until additional information is available from the MPCA or the WEF STEPP program.

The BCWMC rules now state that MTDs may be used toward the flexible treatment option (similar to CRWD Alternative Compliance Sequencing) if the applicant provides verification that the proposed stormwater MTDs have achieved the GULD for phosphorus treatment from the Washington State TAPE program. The applicant can then apply 50% TP and 80% TSS removals for stormwater MTDs, if the stormwater MTDs are designed in accordance with the recommendation and guidelines of the manufacturer and TAPE protocol.

The applicant may seek acceptance of a higher pollutant removal efficiency by submitting data from the TAPE Technology Evaluation Report (TER) for review by the BCWMC Engineer.

4 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\Appendix A FINAL.docx

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

Lastly, the applicant must also submit an additional $1,000 pre-application review fee for review of alternative BMPs. The Commission Engineer will maintain a list of MTDs that have been approved through this process for use by future applicants.

The BCWMC does not allow the manufacturer of an MTD to apply for consideration through the commission’s review process without it being part of an actual development project and submittal of a formal BCWMC application.

APPLYING WASHINGTON TAPE TO CRWD Our research indicates that the Washington State TAPE protocol is the best available thirdparty verification for MTDs. Results from these studies should be evaluated and integrated into the CRWD review process. However, there are several differences between the TAPE and CRWD MTD installation locations that need to be addressed.

The main differences between the two locations are the climate and precipitation. Even though the Pacific Northwest and Minnesota are at similar latitudes, climate and precipitation vary due to proximity to the ocean and the impact of mountains.

Table 3 compares average annual temperature, precipitation, and snowfall for Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota. Washington and Oregon have similar average annual temperature, precipitation, and snowfall. Minnesota has a lower average temperature and annual precipitation depth than both Washington and Oregon. Minnesota experiences approximately 70% as much rainfall as Washington and Oregon. Lastly, Minnesota has approximately four times as much snow as Washington and Oregon. These differences in climate may result in additional maintenance for Minnesota installations, which could then negatively impact pollutant removal if maintenance is not adequately conducted.

Table 3. Average temperature, precipitation, and snowfall by state (data obtained from http://www.usa.com/rank/).

State Washington (WA) Oregon (OR) Minnesota (MN)

Average Temperature (°F) 50.5 51.3 43.0

Average Precipitation (in) 38.7 43.6 28.6

Average Snowfall (in) 15.6 10.9 43.4

Table 4 compares 24-hour precipitation depths for five cities in the three states. The four cities from Washington and Oregon are testing locations of MTDs described above from the TAPE analysis. Precipitation depths from these cities are then compared to St. Paul.

Although Washington and Oregon experience higher annual precipitation depths than Minnesota, the 24-hour rainfall depths shown in Table 4 are less than St. Paul (apart from Zigzag, OR). This implies that storm events in Washington either occur more frequently and/or have a longer duration than the relatively short, flashy 24-hour rainfall events in Minnesota.

5 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\Appendix A FINAL.docx

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

Table 4. Precipitation depths for 24-hour rainfall events.

Device Rainfall Event (24-Hour) 2-Year 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year

Up-Flo, Kraken Seattle, WA (in) 1 2.0 2.8 3.6 4.0

BayFilter

StormFilter

Woodinville, WA (in) 1 1.8 2.7 3.3 3.8

Zigzag, OR (in) 2 3.7 5.4 6.4 6.7

1

Data from NOAA Atlas 2, Volume IX Data from NOAA Atlas 2, Volume X 3 Data from NOAA Atlas 14 2

6 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\Appendix A FINAL.docx

Modular Wetland Portland, OR (in) 2 2.6 3.3 4.2 4.7

N/A St. Paul, MN (in) 3 2.80 4.19 6.31 7.43

Appendix B: Review of Specific MTDs

Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com

Appendix B: Review of Specific MTDs

REVIEW OF SPECIFIC MTDS Wenck conducted a detailed review of five MTDs. The paragraphs below summarize each MTD and performance data considered by the TAPE and NJDEP processes.

Up-Flo Filter with CPZ Media by Hydro International The Up-Flo Filter with CPZ media utilizes a vault type system that contains filter modules.

Each filter module houses a filter bags that can be replaced once maintenance is needed.

Stormwater enters the vault and flows up through the angled screen and filter modules.

Trash and gross pollutants settle out in the sump while oils and floatables rise to the surface of the water. Pollutants are removed by the filter module and excess flows are discharged to the outlet using a siphonic bypass. In between storm events, water drains out of the chamber through the filtered drain down port.

The TAPE program has not evaluated the Up-Flo Filter with CPZ Media. Hydro International claims 80% TSS and 72% TP removal based on long-term field-testing data collected by the University of Alabama. TP removal efficiencies were determined based on TSS removal rates and an assumed relationship between phosphorous and very fine particles. The average influent TSS concentration for this study was 64.7 mg/L. Data from ongoing testing by the University of Alabama has been published and presented at several conferences. It is not known if these publications have been peer reviewed.

The Up-Flo Filter with CPZ Media is not explicitly certified by the NJDEP program. However, the Up-Flo Filter with the alternative Filter Ribbon and 450R Filter Ribbon media have been laboratory verified and certified for 80% TSS removal. The Up-Flo filter without specialized media was field verified by NJDEP as well. The impact media type has on TP and TSS removal efficiencies is unknown.

Up-Flo Filter with Filter Ribbons by Hydro International The Up-Flo Filter with Filter Ribbons utilizes the same vault type system as the one with CPZ media described above. However, instead of a media filter bag, this system filters stormwater with ribbon type membrane filters.

The TER narrative was not found online for the Up-Flo Filter with Filter Ribbons; however, the General Use Level Designation summary was used to determine pollutant removal efficiencies. Additionally, the vendor submitted the raw testing data from the TER for Wenck review. The Up-Flo Filter with Filter Ribbons received the general use level designation for basic (TSS) and phosphorus treatment in February of 2019. This designation is given to systems that are sized at a hydraulic loading rate of no greater than 15 gallons per minute (gpm) per filter module or 0.8 gpm per square foot of filter ribbon surface area.

The study was conducted for approximately 11 months between April 2017 to March 2018 in Seattle, Washington. The Up-Flo Filter using Filter Ribbons is designed for a target maintenance interval of 8-12 months; however, the system used for TAPE approval was cleaned twice and filters were completely replaced twice over the 11 month testing period for an average maintenance cycle of approximately three months.

Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

Field monitoring data submitted for TAPE review indicate an average removal of 67% TSS and 59% TP. The average influent concentrations were 45 mg/L and 0.16 mg/L for TSS and TP, respectively. DP comprised approximately 8% of the runoff used for TAPE approval, indicating that approximately 92% of the TP was made up of PP. The system was also certified through the NJDEP review process for 80% TSS removal. Laboratory monitoring data submitted for the NJDEP review indicate 82% TSS removal.

BayFilter with Enhanced Media Cartridges (EMC) Media by Baysaver Technologies The BayFilter with EMC consists of a vault that contains cartridge filters. Stormwater enters the vault and is filtered by the cartridges to remove pollutants. BayFilter cartridges utilize a compound spiral media to allow for an increased filter media surface area in a smaller footprint. When maintenance is required, cartridges can be removed and replaced with new ones.

The TER narrative for the BayFilter with EMC was found online that includes raw testing data for 12 qualifying events that meet the TAPE influent concentration range. The BayFilter with EMC received the general use level designation for basic (TSS) and phosphorus treatment in July of 2019. This designation is given to systems that are sized at a hydraulic loading rate no greater than 0.50 gpm per square foot of filter area.

The study was conducted for approximately 17 months between November 2013 and March 2015 in Woodinville, Washington. The BayFilter was maintained prior to the start of the testing and no maintenance was necessary during the testing timeframe, which spanned two wet seasons.

Field monitoring data submitted for TAPE review indicate an average removal of 86% TSS and 64% TP. It is important to note that the TAPE GULD summary incorrectly indicates that the lower 95% confidence interval for TP removal is 64%. The TER narrative details that the average TP removal is 64% and the lower 95% confidence interval is 60%. The average influent concentrations were 63 mg/L and 0.18 mg/L for TSS and TP, respectively. DP comprised approximately 0% of the runoff used for TAPE approval, indicating that approximately 100% of the TP was made up of PP. The system was also certified through the NJDEP review process for 80% TSS removal. Laboratory monitoring data submitted for the NJDEP review indicate 83.1% TSS removal.

StormFilter with Phosphosorb Media by Contech The StormFilter device is comprised of a vault that contains media-filled cartridges.

Stormwater entering the system percolates through these cartridges, which trap particulates and remove pollutants. Cartridges come in three standard heights of 12, 18, and 27 inches. Increasing the heights of the cartridge allows for an increase in available surface area and volume of media per cartridge.

The TER narrative for the StormFilter with Phosphosorb Media was found online and includes raw testing data for 17 qualifying events. The StormFilter with Phosphosorb Media received the general use level designation for basic (TSS) and phosphorus treatment in April of 2017.

This designation is given to systems that are sized at a hydraulic loading rate no greater than 1.67 gpm per square foot of media surface.

The study was conducted for approximately 37 months between February 2012 and February 2015 in Zigzag, Oregon. During that time, the filter was maintained four times 2 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\Appendix B FINAL.docx

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

resulting in an average maintenance interval of approximately eight months. Contech designs StormFilter systems for a target filter media replacement interval of 12 months.

Field monitoring data submitted for TAPE review indicate an average removal of 88% TSS and 80% TP. The average influent concentrations were 380 mg/L and 0.33 mg/L for TSS and TP, respectively. DP comprised approximately 8% of the runoff used for TAPE approval, indicating that approximately 92% of the TP was made up of PP. StormFilter with Phosphosorb Media was not certified through the NJDEP review process. However, StormFilter with the alternative Perlite Media was certified through the NJDEP review process for 80% TSS removal.

The Kraken by Bio Clean Environmental (A Forterra Company) The Kraken Membrane Filter consists of a vault that contains membrane filter cartridges.

The Kraken vault includes a pretreatment chamber where large particles settle to the bottom and floatable trash is retained by a set of baffles. Water is then filtered by the membrane filter cartridges to remove pollutants. A high-flow bypass is included for storm events that exceed the design flow rate of the system.

The TER narrative for the Kraken was received from the vendor and includes raw testing data for 14 qualifying events that meet the TAPE influent concentration range. The Kraken Membrane Filter received the general use level designation for basic (TSS) and phosphorus treatment in December of 2019. This designation is given to systems that are sized at a hydraulic loading rate no greater than 0.04353 gpm/ft2 of filter area.

The study was conducted for approximately seven months between October 2016 and April 2017 in Seattle, Washington. The system needed to be serviced five times during the seven-month study period for an average maintenance interval between one and two months. The TAPE study concluded that additional testing data is required to determine maintenance requirements.

Field monitoring data submitted for TAPE review indicate an average removal of 85% TSS and 78% TP. The average influent concentrations were 73 mg/L and 0.16 mg/L for TSS and TP, respectively. DP comprised approximately 8% of the runoff used for TAPE approval, indicating that approximately 92% of the TP was made up of PP. The system was also certified through the NJDEP review process for 80% TSS removal in April of 2016.

Modular Wetland System by Bio Clean Environmental (A Forterra Company) The Modular Wetland System is a linear treatment train that includes pretreatment and biofiltration in an open top vault. Large trash and debris are removed through a screen before water is pretreated by pre-filter cartridges. Stormwater is then filtered horizontally through WetlandMEDIA. Plants enhance the process through biological filtration and evapotranspiration. An orifice plate controls flow of water through the WetlandMEDIA to a level lower than the media’s capacity.

The TER narrative for the Modular Wetland System was received from the vendor and includes raw testing data for 16 qualifying events that meet the TAPE influent concentration range. The Modular Wetland System received the general use level designation for basic (TSS) and phosphorus treatment in December of 2019. This designation is given to systems that are sized at a hydraulic loading rate no greater than 1 gpm/ft2 of wetland cell surface area.

3 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\Appendix B FINAL.docx

Luke Martinkosky BMP Inspector Capitol Region Watershed District August 11, 2020

The study was conducted for approximately 14 months between April 2012 and May 2013 in Portland, Oregon. New Pre-Filter media was installed five times during the 14-month study period for an average maintenance interval between two and three months. The TAPE study concluded that additional testing data is required to determine maintenance requirements.

Field monitoring data submitted for TAPE review indicate an average removal of 91% TSS and 65% TP. The average influent concentrations were 146 mg/L and 0.16 mg/L for TSS and TP, respectively. DP comprised approximately 40% of the runoff used for TAPE approval, indicating that approximately 60% of the TP was made up of PP. The Modular Wetland System was not certified through the NJDEP review process for TSS removal.

4 T:\1486 CRWD\0070 2019 Permit Program\02 Rules\MTD Research\Final Report\Appendix B FINAL.docx

Appendix C: MTD Data & Calculations

Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com

Appendix C StormFilter Credit

Total Volume (gal) 442 2,127 1,149 890 572 1,637 1,319 645 971 1,695 1,208 1,300 2,876 1,829 1,648 3,565 701

Flow Bypass Volume (gal) Treated Volume (gal) 0 442 0 2,127 0 1,149 0 890 0 572 0 1,637 95 1,224 89 556 0 971 0 1,695 0 1,208 0 1,300 891 1,985 0 1,829 359 1,289 19 3,546 0 701 Average Concentration Removal Percentage Lower 95% Bootstrapping Concentration Bootstrapping Average Load Bootstraping Average P Ratio N/A CRWD CRWD CRWD

Removal Method TP Only Removal Percentage Bootstrapping Concentration Average Load Average

Influent (mg/L) 0.220 0.310 0.420 0.150 0.170 0.200 0.210 0.170 0.070 0.170 0.280 0.560 0.580 0.320 0.420 0.650 0.690 0.345

Effluent (mg/L) 0.060 0.070 0.070 0.040 0.070 0.040 0.040 0.140 0.025 0.025 0.030 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.130 0.120 0.100 0.068

0.344

0.068

PP Ratio N/A 76% 76% 76%

PP Removal % N/A 70% 81% 83%

StormFilter with Phosphosorb Media Total Phosphorus (TP) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) Removal % Influent (mg/L) 368 100 73% 0 2,496 564 77% 0 1,827 304 83% 0 505 135 73% 0 368 152 59% 0 1,239 248 80% 0 973 185 81% 0 358 295 18% 0 257 92 64% 0.093 1,091 160 85% 0.099 1,280 137 89% 0.026 2,756 246 91% 0.019 4,358 376 91% 0 2,216 346 84% 0.005 2,049 634 69% 0 8,725 1,611 82% 0.005 1,831 265 86% 0.0156 80% 0.028 69% 80% 0.028 2,027 362 82% DP Ratio N/A 24% 24% 24%

DP Removal % N/A -72% 55% 48%

Event TP Removal 69% 36% 75% 75%

Dissolved Phosphorus (DP) Effluent (mg/L) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.025 342 92 0.025 635 160 0.011 119 50 0.0118 93 58 0 0 0 0.012 35 83 0 0 0 0.0116 67 156 0.005 41 13 0.013 0.013

Volume Credit 79% 41% 86% 86%

Measured value was less than minimum detection limit, assumed value to be half of the minimum detection limit per EPA guidance. If ND for influent and effluent, data point was not used.

Data excluded because PP influent is negative

165

86

Removal % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 73% 75% 58% 38% N/A -140% N/A -132% 68% 55% -72% 55% 48%

Influent (mg/L) 0.220 0.310 0.420 0.150 0.170 0.200 0.210 0.170 -0.023 0.071 0.254 0.541 0.580 0.315 0.420 0.645 0.674 0.334 0.334

Particulate Phosphorus (PP) Effluent (mg/L) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 0.060 368 100 0.070 2,496 564 0.070 1,827 304 0.040 505 135 0.070 368 152 0.040 1,239 248 0.040 973 185 0.140 358 295 0.000 -85 0 0.000 456 0 0.019 1,161 87 0.038 2,662 188 0.050 4,358 376 0.038 2,181 263 0.130 2,049 634 0.108 8,658 1,455 0.095 1,790 252 0.063 0.063 1,943

324

Removal % 73% 77% 83% 73% 59% 80% 81% 18% 100% 100% 93% 93% 91% 88% 69% 83% 86% 81% 70% 81% 83%

Appendix C BayFilter Credit

BayFilter with EMC Media

Total Volume (gal) 342,658 214,877 130,383 209,330 604,813 511,942 363,286 430,731 193,376 238,198 140,581 235,788

Flow Bypass Volume (gal) Treated Volume (gal) 0 342,658 19,801 195,076 0 130,383 0 209,330 0 604,813 0 511,942 0 363,286 0 430,731 0 193,376 0 238,198 0 140,581 0 235,788 Average Concentration Removal Percentage Lower 95% Bootstrapping Concentration Bootstrapping Average Load Bootstraping Average P Ratio N/A CRWD CRWD CRWD

Removal Method TP Only Removal Percentage Bootstrapping Concentration Average Load Average

Influent (mg/L) 0.140 0.110 0.320 0.130 0.220 0.073 0.170 0.150 0.140 0.240 0.170 0.290 0.182

Effluent (mg/L) 0.043 0.054 0.140 0.068 0.055 0.021 0.037 0.045 0.067 0.077 0.049 0.120 0.066

0.182

0.067

PP Ratio N/A 76% 76% 76%

PP Removal % N/A 58% 63% 67%

Total Phosphorus (TP) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 181,594 55,775 81,229 39,876 157,937 69,097 103,012 53,883 503,682 125,921 141,467 40,696 233,782 50,882 244,574 73,372 102,481 49,044 216,403 69,429 90,466 26,076 258,841 107,106

188,588

62,639

Removal % 69% 51% 56% 48% 75% 71% 78% 70% 52% 68% 71% 59% 64% 58% 63% 67%

DP Ratio N/A 24% 24% 24%

DP Removal % N/A 0% 0% 0%

Event TP Removal 58% 44% 48% 51%

Influent (mg/L) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0.00

Volume Credit 67% 51% 55% 58%

0.00

Dissolved Phosphorus (DP) Effluent (mg/L) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.54 277,184 880,466 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0

Measured value was less than minimum detection limit, assumed value to be half of the minimum detection limit per EPA guidance. If ND for influent and effluent, data point was not used.

Data excluded because PP influent is negative

0

Removal % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -218% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0% N/A N/A

Influent (mg/L) 0.140 0.110 0.320 0.130 0.220 0.073 0.170 -0.020 0.140 0.240 0.170 0.290 0.182 0.182

Particulate Phosphorus (PP) Effluent (mg/L) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 0.043 181,594 55,775 0.054 81,229 39,876 0.140 157,937 69,097 0.068 103,012 53,883 0.055 503,682 125,921 0.021 141,467 40,696 0.037 233,782 50,882 -0.495 -32,610 -807,094 0.067 102,481 49,044 0.077 216,403 69,429 0.049 90,466 26,076 0.120 258,841 107,106 0.066 0.067 188,588

62,639

Removal % 69% 51% 56% 48% 75% 71% 78% -2375% 52% 68% 71% 59% 64% 58% 63% 67%

Appendix C Up-Flo Credit

Up-Flo with Filter Ribbons

Total Volume (gal) 21,991 9,913 13,097 11,762 10,043 1,593 6,451 8,518 17,488 9,441 1,881 16,628

Flow Bypass Volume (gal) Treated Volume (gal) 15,605 6,386 0 9,913 0 13,097 9 11,752 0 10,043 0 1,593 4 6,447 0 8,518 0 17,488 0 9,441 0 1,881 0 16,628 Average Concentration Removal Percentage Lower 95% Bootstrapping Concentration Bootstrapping Average Load Bootstraping Average P Ratio N/A CRWD CRWD CRWD

Removal Method TP Only Removal Percentage Bootstrapping Concentration Average Load Average

Influent (mg/L) 0.154 0.105 0.360 0.204 0.188 0.148 0.142 0.122 0.112 0.138 0.140 0.140 0.163

Effluent (mg/L) 0.022 0.046 0.100 0.068 0.064 0.096 0.070 0.048 0.056 0.058 0.064 0.100 0.066

0.163

0.066

PP Ratio N/A 76% 76% 76%

PP Removal % N/A 56% 66% 67%

Total Phosphorus (TP) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 3,723 532 3,940 1,726 17,847 4,958 9,075 3,025 7,147 2,433 892 579 3,466 1,708 3,934 1,548 7,414 3,707 4,932 2,073 997 456 8,812 6,294

6,005

2,423

Removal % 86% 56% 72% 67% 66% 35% 51% 61% 50% 58% 54% 29% 59% 50% 60% 60%

DP Ratio N/A 24% 24% 24%

DP Removal % N/A -41% -15% -21%

Event TP Removal 50% 33% 47% 46%

Influent (mg/L) 0.006 0.011 0.010 0.019 0.022 0.014 0.017 0.012 0.016 0.012 0.013 0.012 0.014

Volume Credit 57% 38% 54% 53%

0.014

Dissolved Phosphorus (DP) Effluent (mg/L) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 0.004 145 97 0.019 413 713 0.024 496 1,190 0.022 845 979 0.021 836 798 0.018 84 109 0.011 415 268 0.012 387 387 0.022 1,059 1,456 0.014 429 500 0.011 93 78 0.011 755 692 0.016 0.016 498

603

Removal % 33% -73% -140% -16% 5% -29% 35% 0% -38% -17% 15% 8% -15% -41% -15% -21%

Influent (mg/L) 0.148 0.094 0.350 0.185 0.166 0.134 0.125 0.110 0.096 0.126 0.127 0.128 0.149 0.149

Particulate Phosphorus (PP) Effluent (mg/L) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 0.018 3,578 435 0.027 3,527 1,013 0.076 17,351 3,768 0.046 8,230 2,046 0.043 6,311 1,635 0.078 808 470 0.059 3,051 1,440 0.036 3,547 1,161 0.034 6,355 2,251 0.044 4,503 1,572 0.053 904 377 0.089 8,057 5,602 0.050 0.051 5,526

1,803

Removal % 88% 71% 78% 75% 74% 42% 53% 67% 65% 65% 58% 30% 66% 56% 66% 67%

Appendix C The Kraken Credit

The Kraken

Total Volume (gal) 13,838 21,405 7,342 58,583 125,325 14,088 40,408 36,845 2,750 46,744 19,124 8,857 4,463 9,831

Flow Bypass Volume (gal) Treated Volume (gal) 4,452 9,386 0 21,405 1,906 5,436 33,622 24,961 78,063 47,262 1,985 12,103 24,468 15,940 20,578 16,267 0 2,750 23,338 23,406 0 19,124 352 8,505 1,592 2,871 7,754 2,077 Average Concentration Removal Percentage Lower 95% Bootstrapping Concentration Bootstrapping Average Load Bootstraping Average P Ratio N/A CRWD CRWD CRWD

Influent (mg/L) 0.140 0.062 0.156 0.290 0.166 0.136 0.166 0.216 0.144 0.078 0.066 0.120 0.110 0.264 0.158

Effluent (mg/L) 0.056 0.024 0.052 0.024 0.028 0.024 0.018 0.014 0.074 0.030 0.034 0.070 0.018 0.012 0.035

0.158

0.035

Removal Method TP Only Removal Percentage Bootstrapping Concentration Average Load Average

Data excluded because effluent PP > influent PP

PP Ratio N/A 76% 76% 76%

PP Removal % N/A 69% 82% 85%

Total Phosphorus (TP) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 4,974 1,990 5,024 1,945 3,210 1,070 27,401 2,268 29,698 5,009 6,231 1,100 10,016 1,086 13,301 862 1,499 770 6,911 2,658 4,778 2,461 3,863 2,254 1,195 196 2,076 94

8,871

1,674

Removal % 60% 61% 67% 92% 83% 82% 89% 94% 49% 62% 48% 42% 84% 95% 78% 64% 78% 81%

DP Ratio N/A 24% 24% 24%

DP Removal % N/A 17% 33% 33%

Event TP Removal 64% 57% 70% 72%

Influent (mg/L) 0.011 0.060 0.018 0.019 0.010 0.017 0.016 0.009 0.021 0.007 0.008 0.012 0.011 0.008 0.013

Volume Credit 74% 65% 81% 83%

0.013

Dissolved Phosphorus (DP) Effluent (mg/L) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 0.009 391 320 0.006 4,862 486 0.012 370 247 0.004 1,795 378 0.011 1,789 1,968 0.010 779 458 0.006 965 362 0.004 554 246 0.022 219 229 0.006 620 532 0.009 579 652 0.011 386 354 0.004 120 43 0.004 63 31 0.009 0.009 663

448

Removal % 18% 90% 33% 79% -10% 41% 63% 56% -5% 14% -13% 8% 64% 50% 33% 17% 33% 33%

Influent (mg/L) 0.129 0.002 0.138 0.271 0.156 0.119 0.150 0.207 0.123 0.071 0.058 0.108 0.099 0.256 0.145 0.146

Particulate Phosphorus (PP) Effluent (mg/L) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 0.047 4,583 1,670 0.018 162 1,458 0.040 2,840 823 0.020 25,606 1,890 0.017 27,909 3,041 0.014 5,452 641 0.012 9,051 724 0.010 12,746 616 0.052 1,280 541 0.024 6,291 2,126 0.025 4,199 1,810 0.059 3,477 1,899 0.014 1,076 152 0.008 2,013 63 0.026 0.026 8,090

1,231

Removal % 64% -800% 71% 93% 89% 88% 92% 95% 58% 66% 57% 45% 86% 97% 82% 69% 82% 85%

Appendix C Modular Wetland System Credit

Modular Wetland Systems

Total Volume (gal) 1,168

6,309 5,210 5,785 4,597 3,119 3,096 11,259 6,524 1,422 3,522

Flow Bypass Volume (gal) Treated Volume (gal) 0 0 407 761 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 6,119 2,370 2,840 572 5,213 0 0 762 3,835 918 2,201 0 0 51 3,045 3,555 7,704 131 6,393 440 982 543 2,979 Average Concentration Removal Percentage Lower 95% Bootstrapping Concentration Bootstrapping Average Load Bootstraping Average P Ratio N/A CRWD CRWD CRWD

Removal Method TP Only Removal Percentage Bootstrapping Concentration Average Load Average

Influent (mg/L) 0.092 0.140 0.150 0.090 0.180 0.180 0.098 0.130 0.100 0.093 0.257 0.103 0.098 0.398 0.165

Effluent (mg/L) 0.026 0.010 0.062 0.038 0.062 0.079 0.010 0.041 0.039 0.036 0.054 0.083 0.039 0.130 0.041

0.212 0.159

0.100 0.056

0.159

0.056

PP Ratio N/A 76% 76% 76%

PP Removal % N/A 54% 64% 65%

Total Phosphorus (TP) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 0 0 403 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,169 1,830 1,054 108 2,565 809 0 0 1,350 523 2,141 450 0 0 1,130 450 11,607 3,791 3,993 992

Removal % 72% 93% 59% 58% 66% 56% 90% 68% 61% 61% 79% 19% 60% 67% 75%

2,391

1,128

3,333

1,121

53% 65% 56% 65% 66%

DP Ratio N/A 24% 24% 24%

DP Removal % N/A 62% 71% 73%

Event TP Removal 56% 56% 66% 67%

Influent (mg/L) 0.010 0.000 0.069 0.016 0.047 0.073 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.123 0.114 0.062 0.064 0.064

Dissolved Phosphorus (DP) Effluent (mg/L) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 0.005 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.024 0 0 0.005 0 0 0.013 0 0 0.025 1,691 579 0.080 634 860 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.025 2,977 605 0.025 424 93 0.025 699 282 0.018 0.018 1,445

Volume Credit 64% 64% 76% 77%

Measured value was less than minimum detection limit, assumed value to be half of the minimum detection limit per EPA guidance. If ND for influent and effluent, data point was not used.

Data excluded because of negative effluent PP

388

Removal % 50% #DIV/0!

65% 69% 72% 66% -36% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

80% 78% 60% 71% 62% 71% 73%

Influent (mg/L) 0.082 0.140 0.081 0.074 0.133 0.107 0.039 0.130 0.100 0.093 0.257 0.103 0.098 0.398 0.042 0.150 0.133 0.133

Particulate Phosphorus (PP) Effluent (mg/L) Influent Load (mg) Effluent Load (mg) 0.021 0 0 0.010 403 29 0.038 0 0 0.033 0 0 0.049 0 0 0.054 2,478 1,251 -0.070 419 -753 0.041 2,565 809 0.039 0 0 0.036 1,350 523 0.054 2,141 450 0.083 0 0 0.039 1,130 450 0.130 11,607 3,791 0.016 1,016 387 0 0 0.075 1,692 846 0.048 0.048 2,729

951

Removal % 74% 93% 53% 55% 63% 50% 279% 68% 61% 61% 79% 19% 60% 67% 62% 50% 64% 54% 64% 65%

CRWD Manufactured Treatment Devices Stormwater Crediting and Use Policy

Adopted XX/XX/2021 Background: Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Rule C, Stormwater Management, requires stormwater be retained onsite in the amount equivalent to 1.1 inches of runoff over the impervious surfaces of the development. If the applicant cannot provide the full volume through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse), filtration may be used through alternative compliance sequencing. CRWD acknowledges that filtration does not provide equivalent benefit to infiltration and credits filtration as follows: -

Sand filtration receives 55% volume credit (required runoff volume shall be multiplied by 1.82) Iron-enhanced sand filtration receives 80% volume credit (required runoff volume shall be multiplied by 1.25) Other enhanced filtration media may be considered and credited at the sole discretion of the District.

Enhanced filtration is not explicitly defined in CRWD rules. However, if a device is properly designed, maintained, and has undergone adequate third-party verification, the District may grant additional credit above the standard 55% where appropriate.

CRWD has received multiple requests to review manufactured treatment devices (MTDs) to determine qualification as enhanced filtration media. CRWD staff have reviewed product information, existing stormwater treatment certification programs, analytical data, site information, and sampling methodologies to determine how to appropriately credit MTDs under Rule C. CRWD reviewed other MTD crediting programs and determined the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Technology Assessment Protocol (TAPE) provided the most complete evaluation of MTDs for the purpose of crediting these technologies for use. The TAPE program evaluates new stormwater treatment technologies using field-collected data and has specific phosphorous related performance goals. An MTD receiving the General Use Level Designation (GULD) in this program has demonstrated with a high degree of confidence it can achieve the TAPE performance goal (50% removal of total phosphorous (TP) for influent concentrations ranging from 0.1 – 0.5 mg/L and 80% removal of total suspended solids (TSS) for influent concentrations between 100 – 200 mg/L.). The GULD further certifies all the data was collected under consistent protocols as approved by the TAPE Program.

Policy: This policy provides guidance to applicants and staff to ensure consistent design and evaluation of stormwater treatment systems under existing CRWD rules. Full compliance with CRWD rules is required when an MTD is proposed.

1. All MTDs requesting enhanced filtration crediting must first receive GULD for phosphorous treatment through the Ecology TAPE program.

2. All MTDs requesting consideration for enhanced filtration credit must submit a request for review by CRWD. The request shall include the following: a. The Technical Evaluation Report(s) (TER) used in the TAPE study. Data shall include: i. influent and effluent concentrations for TSS, TP, and dissolved phosphorous (DP); ii. total runoff volume for each event; and iii. runoff volume that bypasses the MTD for each event. b. If dissolved phosphorous (DP) data is not received, volume reduction credit shall be calculated assuming 0% DP removal. c. Additional data outside of the TAPE program may also be provided. Additional data will be considered at CRWD’s sole discretion. Additional data shall conform with industry standard quality assurance/quality control procedures.

3. An MTD that has received GULD status through the TAPE program is eligible to receive the standard filtration 55% volume credit.

4. If the submitted data demonstrates the removal of DP, the MTD will be assigned a 68% volume credit (required runoff volume shall be multiplied by 1.47).

5. CRWD shall maintain a list of all such MTDs qualifying for enhanced filtration credit.

6. CRWD shall maintain a list of all such MTDs qualifying for standard filtration credit.

7. Development projects applying for a CRWD permit proposing to use an approved MTD for filtration credit must design the MTD such that the treatment flow rate does not exceed the flow rate approved through the TAPE program.

8. Prior to issuing a permit for a development project proposing to use an approved MTD for filtration credit, CRWD must review and approve a maintenance plan. The maintenance plan must include: a. Requirements to maintain the MTD when drawdown of the storage system upstream of the MTD exceeds 48 hours. b. Recommended maintenance intervals, the maximum design maintenance interval is 1-year. The designer shall submit calculations or justification that MTD sediment storage is sufficient. c. Recommended filtration media replacement interval. d. Cost estimate for maintenance/replacement of filter media.

The maintenance plan shall be recorded with Ramsey County and run with the property.

9. A maintenance surety, to be returned after 5 years of satisfactory maintenance and MTD performance will be collected. The surety amount is set by Board Resolution and will approximate the expected cost for 5 years of maintenance. Up to 20% of the total surety is

available to be returned each year following receipt of an annual inspection/maintenance report.

10. An executed maintenance contract for the MTD with a qualified vendor must be received

by CRWD prior to permit closure and before the project can begin the 5 years of satisfactory maintenance and MTD performance period. \\crwd01-dc01\company\07 programs\permitting\manufactured treatment device crediting\mtd policy\draft final mtd crediting policy 2021.docx

Resolution # 21 Date Adopted: May 6, 2021

Resolution Capitol Region Watershed District

In the matter pertaining to: Setting Fees and Surety Rates for Watershed District Permitting Board Member __________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by Board Member ___________ .

WHEREAS, the District originally adopted watershed district rules on September 6, 2006, and adopted revised rules on June 5th, 2019, and WHEREAS, the District implements a permitting program to ensure compliance with watershed district rules, and WHEREAS, MN Statute 103D.345 authorizes the District to charge a permit application fee and field inspection fee to cover actual costs related to the investigation of the area affected by the proposed activity, analysis of the proposed activity, services of a consultant, and any required subsequent monitoring of the proposed activity, and WHEREAS, consultant billing and staff time is reviewed to determine proposed fees; and WHEREAS, the District conducts inspections and collects sureties to ensure compliance during construction and proper BMP performance before permit closure; and WHEREAS, stormwater BMPs require post-construction maintenance for long term performance; and WHEREAS, Manufactured Treatment Devices often require increased maintenance frequency to properly function as designed.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the District adopts the attached fee and surety schedule; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the District periodically review, and the Board adopt the fee and surety schedule based on analysis of actual field inspection costs.

Vote: Approved/Denied Manager Yeas* Nays Collins Murphy Sanders SullivanJansen Texer Total 4 *Approval must receive minimum of 3 Yeas

Absent

Abstain

Requested By: Recommended for Approval: Approved by Attorney: Funding Approved:

Luke Martinkosky Mark Doneux James Mogen N/A

Supporting Documentation Incorporated By Reference Date Document Prepared By May 6, 2021 Fee/Surety Schedule CRWD June 6, 2019 Final Rules CRWD

Resolution Adoption Certified By The Board of Managers: By: _______________________________________________

Date:___________________________

FEE AND SURETY SCHEDULE

NOTE: Fees and sureties shall not be collected for public projects.

FEES Permit Inspection Fees shall be paid with submittal of an application to the District.

Erosion Control Permit Only Rule F Only

$500

Stormwater Management, Wetland Management, and Flood Control Permits* Rule C, or Rule D, or Rule E

$1500

Illicit Discharge and Connection Rule G

$500

*An additional $500 fee will be charged to applicant if the project involves a Wetland Replacement or Banking Plan.

SURETIES Description of Activity 1. Grading associated with Development (Rule F)

$2,000/acre+

2. Stormwater Management Facilities (Rule C)

$5,000/acre+

3. Manufactured Treatment Device Maintenance +

Cash Surety Amount

$10,000 +$3,000/acre

A minimum surety amount of $500 shall be collected for all projects.

Sureties shall be paid in full prior to issuance of a District permit in the form of a check. The surety will be used to ensure the completion of work in accordance with the permit. The permit inspection fee includes two standard inspections, one at the beginning of the project and upon completion of the project. Sureties can be utilized for additional site inspections. After the District has completed inspections and determined that the project was constructed in compliance with the permit conditions, a certificate of completion is issued, and the remaining surety will be returned to the applicant.

The maintenance period for MTDs will commence upon permit closure, and will be held for 5-years.

Up to 20% of the total maintenance surety is available to be returned each year following receipt of an annual inspection/maintenance report.