cac april 9, 2014 packet

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

Citizen’s Advisory Committee

7:00 PM, Wednesday, April 9, 2014 - Capitol Region Watershed District Office

Agenda

7:00 I) Welcome, Announcements and Updates – Introductions

7:05 II) Public Comment for issues not on the Agenda (3 minutes per person)

7:08 III) Approval of the Agenda

7:09 IV) Approval of Minutes

Approval of the March 12, 2014 Minutes

7:10 V) District Initiatives for Review, Comment and Recomendations

A) Election of Officers

B) Monitoring Program Review, Bob Fossum

C) Curtiss Pond Improvement Project, Bob Fossum

8:00 VI) CAC Initiatives

A) Discuss the Development of CAC Orientation Packet

B) Discuss the fall 2014 “Event”

8:45 VII) Project and Program Updates

A) 2014 Rule Revisions

8:50 VIII) CAC Observer Update

8:55 IX) Discussion

A) New & Old Issues

B) Identify CAC Observer for April 16th

and May 7th

Board of Managers Meetings

C) May 14th

CAC Agenda Overview

D) 2014 Meeting Schedule

9:00 X) Adjourn

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

Materials

Enclosed

1

Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting

Wednesday, March 12, 2014 – 7:00 p.m.

CAC Members Present:

Gwen Willems

Michelle Ulrich

Steve Duerre

Bill Barton

Mike MacDonald

Richard Weil

Pat Byrne

Members absent: Katheryn Swanson, w/notice

David Arbeit, w/notice

Janna Caywood, w/notice

Ted McCaslin, w/notice

Others Present:

Mark Doneux, CRWD

Michelle Sylvander, CRWD

Lindsay VanPatten, CRWD

Nate Zwonitzer, CRWD

Gustavo Castro, CRWD

Mary Texer, Board Manager

Nathan Campeau, Barr

Engineering

Welcome, Announcements, and Updates

Ms. Willems opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. with a request for any announcements.

Administrator Doneux noted that a “Charter” committee was formed by managers Shirley Reider, and Mary

Texer along with CAC members David Arbeit, and Gwen Willems. To better define the mission, goals and

responsibilities of the CAC the committee met to review the framework of the CAC. One of the key goals

that came out of the meeting was to present more projects and programs before the CAC for review and

comments. These projects and programs, along with CAC comments, will go before the Board of Managers

for review.

Public Comments

There were no public comments.

Approval of Agenda

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

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

McDonald/Ulrich

Unanimously approved

Approval of the January 15, 2014 CAC Minutes

Ms. Willems requested any changes or corrections to the minutes.

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

Draft

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

2

Duerre/McDonald


District Initiatives

A) Feasibility Report: Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor Drainage Improvements at Cottage

Ave. and Farrington St., (Nathan Campeau, Barr Engineering Co.)

Administrator Doneux introduced Mr. Nathan Campeau with Barr Engineering. Administrator Doneux

reviewed how an area located near Cottage Avenue and Farrington Street has occurred flooding from

rainwater runoff. Mr. Campeau shared his feasibility report presentation showing this area before

improvements were made. The inlet in this area would often get clogged with garbage and items being

dumped. In the summer of 2013 repairs were made to the berm and large rocks were placed around the inlet.

Soon after the repairs were made a large rainfall tested the improvements and showed to hold up well to

amount of storm water runoff for this area. The improvements have made a difference with the flooding in

this area. An area located just north east of the inlet is still experiencing some flooding in a residential

backyard. Mr. Campeau reviewed four options that could be implemented to reduce the flooding problems

in this area. The first option would be to replace the current inlet with a beehive style inlet. This would

allow more runoff to enter the storm drain. Option number two would be to place a beehive style inlet further

upstream. This option would capture more stormwater runoff before it would reach the current inlet. The

third option would be to build a raingarden. This option does cost more and would not prevent flooding.

The forth option is a combination of a beehive style inlet and a raingarden. Administrator Doneux requested

comments for the Board of Managers to review before approval. Mr. Barton suggested that the area is a

wetland and a flooding easement be arranged with the home. Mr. Byrne suggested obtaining flooding or

ponding easements rather than building a project. A lengthy discussion of options occurred. The CAC

thanked Mr. Campeau for his presentation.

CAC 14-039 Motion: To request a flooding easement in the area located near Cottage Avenue and

Farrington Street and in the event easements are not feasible the pursue option.

Barton/Duerre

Opposed by Byre

B) Stewardship Grant Program Improvements (Zwonitzer)

Mr. Nate Zwonitzer and Mr. Gustavo Castro reviewed improvements made to the current Stewardship Grant

Program. The Stewardship Grant program offers financial assistance to property owners interested in

implementing stormwater BMPs on their property. A typical project would receive funding for rain gardens,

rain barrels, permeable hardscapes and swales. Most grant awards are under $10,000 and cover 100% of the

material costs or 50% of the total project costs. Mr. Zwonitzer and staff have been reviewing the grant

program. Goals were set to identify improvements. The first goal was to provide exceptional level of

education and outreach. Mr. Castro reviewed a sample packet that would be given to every property owner.

The packet would include information about CRWD, Citizen Advisory Committee, upcoming events, grant

program information and more details on projects identified for their property. The second goal is to

improve design efficiency. A “Clean Water Plan” will be developed for every property. The plans will

include basic project information such as total cost, water quality treatment ranking and whether additional

design services are available. The third goal is to develop a more equitable grant award system based on

project benefit. Instead of focusing on the project cost, the calculator factors in size, area treated, rainfall

depth treated and provides a bonus based on the promotional or educational value of the project. Mr. Duerre


3

stated that the packet was great. Administrator Doneux replied that the forms would be available on the

website as well. The CAC members were very pleased with the suggested changes. The members of the

CAC thanked Mr. Zwonitzer and Mr. Gustavo for their work and presentation.

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

Duerre/Byre


CAC Initiatives

A) Discuss the Development of CAC Orientation Packet

Ms. Willems reviewed the development of the CAC Orientation Packet. The orientation packet committee

consists of: Michelle Ulrich, Steve Duerre, and Gwen Willems. A rough draft of the orientation packet was

available for review. The key areas for the CAC to focus on editing would be: CAC Framework, CAC

Expectation, CAC Contribution, and CAC Bios. The framework section can be a stand-alone document to

convey the overall purpose and function of the Committee. The expectations section includes the State

Statue and CAC By-Laws. Additional information can be added here for CAC membership expectations.

The contribution section needs a list of contributions that the CAC has made over the years. The CAC Bios

section needs to include a 2-3 sentence personal bio from each CAC member. A draft will be presented to

the Board. The Committee will accept comments from the CAC and bring back the next draft of the packet.

B) Discuss basic elements of fall 2014 “Event”

The Freshwater Society has been known for having good speakers that would be able to talk about

groundwater, climate or storm water reuse topics. Administrator Doneux has contacted Steve Woods with

the Freshwater Society. An event is already scheduled on September 18, 2014 with the Moos Family

Lecture series. The speaker has helped lead worldwide research that uses NASA satellites to measure

changes in the Earth’s stores of groundwater.

CAC 13-041 Motion: To request the Board of Managers to support sponsorship of an event with the

Freshwater Society on September 18, 2104.

Weil/Byren


Project and Program Updates

A) CRWD Office Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux will provide an update at the April meeting.

CAC Observer Update

No update was given.

Discussion –

A) New & Old Issues

There was no discussion.


4

B) Identify CAC Observer for March 19th Board of Managers Meeting and the April 2nd, 2014

Board of Managers Meeting

No members were identified.

C) April 9th

CAC Agenda Overview

Ellen Anderson was suggested to be scheduled for the April 9th

meeting. Administrator Doneux will

continue trying to arrange a date when she can come back and speak with the CAC. A monitoring report will

be presented at the April 9th

meeting.

Adjourn –

CAC 14-042 Motion: To adjourn.

Byrne/Weil


The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle Sylvander

W:\05 Citizens Advisory Committee\Minutes\2014\February 12, 2014 Draft Minutes.doc

1

Capitol Region Watershed District

Citizen Advisory Committee

2014 Agenda Plan

Updated: April 3, 2014

Pervious Parking Lot

Permit Program Update

Education Program Update

Groundwater Management Pan Update

W:\05 Citizens Advisory Committee\Agendas\2014\2014 CAC Agenda Plan 3-6-14.doc

CAC Meeting Date District Initiatives CAC Initiatives

January 15, 2014 Lakes Analysis

Audubon Certification

2014 CAC Meeting Plan

February 12, 2014

Partner Grant Review

BMP Database Review

CAC Orientation Packet

Discuss 2014 “Event”

March 12, 2014

-Farrington/Cottage Drainage Study

-Stewardship Grant Program Updates

-Adopt CAC Duties and

Responsibilities

-Event Planning

How to Be Effective with the

Legislature (Date Pending)

-CAC Orientation Packet

April 9, 2014

-Monitoring Program Review

-Curtiss Pond Improvement Project

-Election of Officers


-Event Planning

May 14, 2014

-2013 Monitoring Report

-Awards Program Development


June 11, 2014

Tour of District Projects

July 16, 2014

2015 Work Plan Development CAC Orientation Packet

August 13, 2014

CAC Orientation Packet

September 10, 2014

October 8, 2014

November 12, 2014

December 10, 2014

2015 Reappointment

Recommendations

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

DATE: April 3, 2014

TO: CRWD CAC

FROM: Bob Fossum, Water Resource Program Manager

Britta Suppes, Monitoring Program Coordinator

SUBJECT: Monitoring Program Review

Background

Capitol Region Watershed District established a Monitoring and Data Collection Program in 2004. Over the

program’s 9 year history incremental improvements and enhancements have been made. In 2013, the District

sought to complete a comprehensive review of the program to analyze, and if necessary refocus the goals,

approach, methods, and deliverables of the Program.

Issues

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

first step in the review was a staff retreat that took place the morning of November 1, 2013 at the Wilder

Foundation Offices. Elizabeth Beckman facilitated the discussion and the following District staff participated

in the retreat: Anna Eleria, Britta Suppes, Forrest Kelley, Mark Doneux, Corey Poland, Joe Sellner, Nate

Zwonitzer, Gustavo Castro, Stephanie Herbst, and Bob Fossum.

District staff will present the draft Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Recommendations to the CAC.

Requested Action

Provide comment and recommendations to the Board of Managers on Monitoring Program Review and 2014-

2016 Recommendations.

enc: Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Recommendations

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

April 9, 2014 CAC Meeting

V. Action Items, A) Monitoring

Program Review

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

Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Recommendations Capitol Region Watershed District established a Monitoring and Data Collection Program in 2004. Over the program’s 9 year history incremental improvements and enhancements have been made. In 2013, the District sought to complete a comprehensive review of the program to analyze, and if necessary refocus the goals, approach, methods, and deliverables of the Program. Program Review

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

1. What do we do well? 2. Why monitor in CRWD? 3. How can our monitoring data be used in other CRWD programs? 4. Who are the audiences for our data? 5. What do our audiences need to effectively make use of our data? 6. Who are potential new monitoring program partners who could strengthen our work? 7. What changes can we make to improve the efficiency of our data collection? 8. To best use our finite resources, where are areas we could reduce or eliminate collection

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

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

Program Evaluation and Recommendations

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

2

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

Recommendation 1 Previously, in Annual Monitoring Reports, the District stated the goal/objective of the monitoring program as follows:

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

It is recommended that the District adjust the goal/objective of the Monitoring Program as follows: CRWD monitors waters within the District to: identify problem areas, quantify subwatershed runoff pollutant loadings, evaluate effectiveness of BMPs, provide data to calibrate hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality models, and educate and increase awareness. Recommendation 2 Improve staff organization and training Recommendation 3 The District should better incorporate monitoring data into the following work of the District. Specifically, better utilizing monitoring data within the following programs should be evaluated:

a) BMP Performance b) Focus CIPs, grants and education c) In-lake management decisions d) Spatial Analysis e) MS4 permit, specifically TMDL compliance/progress

Recommendation 4 Based on the idea that a true partnership needs to mutually benefit all parties, 5 specific partners should be prioritized for actively developing or enhancing our monitoring partnerships over the next 3 years. The 5 priority partners are:

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

3

The District would continue to actively communicate with several other entities and partner with them as appropriate partnerships present themselves but would not actively attempt to develop/nurture partnerships during the next three year period. Recommendation 5 Install AC Power and Remote Data Access to baseline sites (6). This would improve the monitoring program as follows:

a. Temperature control (heating & cooling) b. Year-round monitoring c. Reduced frequency of site visits d. Analyze and report data more quickly e. Improved data quality

Recommendation 6 Improve methods and efficiency of sample preparation and lab analysis, including:

a. Submittal requirements and procedures b. Laboratory results reporting c. Bottle Cleaning

Recommendation 7 Evaluate and consider discontinuing monitoring at the following locations:

a. Trenches (T5E, T4W, T4E) b. Golf Course Pond Inlet and Outlet c. AHUG Outlet d. Como 3 Subwatershed e. Level Loggers—do we need this many deployed? What is data being used for?

Recommendation 8 Evaluate and consider discontinuing analysis of the following chemical parameters:

a. Nitrogen b. Metals with non-detects (Ni, Cr)

Recommendation 9 For baseline sites, adjust sampling frequency as follows:

a. Fewer baseflow samples (1x per month vs 2x per month) b. Focus sampling towards larger storm events only

Recommendation 10

4

Expand Lakes Monitoring and conduct more complete analysis. Additional data to be collected and analyzed include:

a. Biological data i. Fisheries

ii. Macrophytes iii. Phyto/Zooplankton

b. Temperature c. Ice cover/Ice out d. Sediment

Recommendation 11 Evaluate and consider discontinuing Qualitative Lakes Data Collection. Consider utilizing volunteers to accomplish this work. Recommendation 12

Develop a comprehensive monitoring database that could more effectively manage the large data sets of the District. Recommendation 13 Complete a comprehensive evaluation of and implement improvements to the District’s reporting methods. The evaluation should focus on improvements to: format, frequency, analysis types, generation of figures & tables, data cleaning. Recommendation 14 Historically, the District has focused on more typical stormwater parameters such as phosphorus and total suspended solids. The District should consider expanding its analysis of other stormwater parameters, including:

a. Bacteria/microbial source tracking b. Chloride c. Trash d. PAHS

Recommendation 15 Consider monitoring and/or analysis of previously unmonitored subwatersheds. This effort should focus on:

a. Subwaterhseds with land uses/source areas different than previously monitored locations b. Utilize modeling to simulate loading

5

Recommendation 16 Consider expanded stand-alone sub-watershed reports that would contain a more comprehensive look at the subwatershed. This could include reports for the Como Lake and/or Trout Brook Subwatersheds. Recommendation 17 Consider additional BMP monitoring, such as:

a. Research based BMP monitoring b. “Microsite” monitoring (roofs, parking lots, greenspace, construction sites, private

BMPs) c. Climate change adaption monitoring

6

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

# Name 2014 2015 2016 Estimated Additional Cost1 New goal/mission statement for Monitoring Program -$ 2 Improve staff organization and training 5,000$ 3 Incorporate data into other District programs -$ 4 Develop enhanced monitoring partnerships 2,500$ 5 Install AC power at baseline sites Budgeted for in 20146 Sample preparation and lab improvements 5,000$ 7 Evaluate discontinuing some existing monitoring sites -$ 8 Evaluate discontinuing some existing chemical analysis -$ 9 Adjust sampling frequency for baseline sites -$

10 Expand Lakes Monitoring to include additional biological data Budgeted for in 201411 Evaluate discontinuing qualitative Lakes data collection -$ 12 Develop a comprehensive monitoring database Budgeted for in 201413 Improvements to monitoring reports -$ 14 Consider expanding analysis to others stormwater parameters Budgeted for in 201415 Consider monitoring of previously unmonitored subwatersheds -$ 16 Consider stand-alone subwatershed reports (Como, Trout Brook) -$ 17 Additional BMP monitoring -$

12,500$

7

Appendix 1—Monitoring Program Review Retreat Summary

W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\0 Projects\2013 Program Evaluation\Monitoring Program Review and 2014-2016 Workplan, 03-27-2014.docx

8

Monitoring program evaluation, Retreat Summary and Initial Recommendations Retreat held 11/1/2013 Document drafted 11/19/2013

1. What do we do well? Responses to this question can be categorized into 3 categories: Data Collection, Data Analysis/Reporting, Other

Data Collection o Collecting data. o Developing methods that work in CRWD. o Adapt to challenges of monitoring in an urban watershed o Working on a team in the field. o Handling lots of physical/manual labor successfully. o Maintain equipment….make sure it’s in working order and appropriate for the task. o Efficiency in field work…we have lots of tasks to do and they all get done

Data Analysis/Reporting o QA/QC of data. o Managing a lot of data. o Reporting data. o Sharing with other practitioners….transparent with process and data. o Making a complete analysis of data...automated samplers and loading calculations. o Calculating loads…it takes time. This is unique and important because it plays into cost-

benefit analysis. o

Other o Adequately funding the different steps of the program….monitoring is made a budgetary

priority. o Recently open to innovation, encouraging innovative thought, open to staff suggesting

ways to do things better. o We want to be leaders in our field and make it happen...this generates pride in our work. o We generate lots of data, but perhaps more important is its quality…it is research grade

and usable by other partners. o Communication between field staff and coordinator (weekly meetings, regular

communication, open lines of dialogue) this is key to getting work done well.

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

9

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

Overall the current goal encapsulates the program well with the exception of monitoring serving to educate and increase awareness within the District. Potential new program mission statement: (in bulleted list to make review/discussion easier, final will be narrative) CRWD monitors waters within the District to:

a) Identify problem areas b) Quantify subwatershed runoff pollutant loadings c) Evaluate effectiveness of BMPs d) Provide data to calibrate hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality models e) Educate and increase awareness

3. How can our monitoring data be used in other CRWD programs? The responses to this question can be placed in one of 6 categories listed below.

Permitting a. Determine Rules (Requirements and Standards…1”?). b. Subwatershed-specific rules (Como TMDL). c. Permit sites – problem areas, i.e. illicit discharges. d. BMP Performance. e. Identify suitable designs of BMP construction sites. f. Construction site inspection and permitting

Subwatershed (new) a. Focus project dollars. b. Address “hot spots”.

TBI a. Model/calibrate/validate. b. Safety for operations and maintenance. c. MS4 Permit. d. Trout Brook conveyance questions.

Education a. Show impacts, good and bad. b. Link behaviors with water quality improvements.

10

c. Influence public decision making in relation to other watersheds Capital Improvement Projects

a. To focus our CIPs, grants and education geographically. b. Determine maintenance requirements and frequency. c. Assist BMP design and placement.

Other a. Support research opportunities. b. Climate change adaptation. c. In-lake management. d. Guide wetland management plan. e. Spatial analysis (GIS, modeling, etc.)

Recommendation: 5 priorities areas to incorporate monitoring data in the next 3 years.

f) BMP Performance g) Focus CIPs, grants and education h) In-lake management decisions i) Spatial Analysis j) MS4 permit, specifically TMDL compliance/progress

4. Who are the audiences for our data?

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

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

External--Local o MPCA. o Other CRWD cities. o Scientific community, academia, graduate students. o Stormwater professionals. o Developers (a potential audience). o Artists. o Teachers. o Advocates. o Nonprofit staff. o Landscape professionals. o Snowplow drivers, winter maintenance workers (Saint Paul snowplow fleet drivers and

their supervisors, Kevin Nelson, Matt Morreim). o Contractors. o Legislators/policymakers.

11

o District planning councils. o Other decision makers.

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

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

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

Data Understanding o Data they can understand. o Summaries. o Pie charts. o To know how to ask for the data, i.e. we need to help them know what’s available, and

may need us to prompt them re: what they want/need. o Point person to ask questions re: data, “handholding.” o Presentation of data in different formats. o Condensed versions of data. o More concise or simplified versions of data for the layperson. o Symbols, images to show data. o Interactive presentations. o Translation/interpretation. o Interpreted data: “What does it mean?” o Clean recommendations for management: “How do I use this data as an audience

member?” o Caveats or disclaimers for data. o Clear definitions of QAQC…people need assurance of how the data was collected, e.g.

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

Data Delivery

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

12

o Different ways to query data on website, or monitoring database. o Consistent way to give data away to everyone, even if they are a nontraditional client. o Nontraditional delivery methods, marketing, advertising formats. o Deliver data in a more timely way, sometimes it is needed immediately by a client,

especially illicit discharges. o Raw data available. o A place to provide feedback and/or to interact with the data.

6. Who are potential new monitoring program partners who could strengthen our work? Each potential partner was put into one of 6 categories for partner types: 1. Academic/Research:

a. University of Minnesota i. St. Anthony Falls Lab (SAFL)

ii. Ecology Evolution Behavior (EEB) iii. Entomology iv. Water Resource Center

b. University of New Hampshire c. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) d. Water Environment Federation (WEF) e. Local Road Research Board

2. State/NAT’L Govt:

a. MPCA b. DNR c. MnDOT d. EPA e. USGS f. NWS g. Port Authority

3. Cities/Counties/Municipalities:

a. City of St. Paul i. Public Works, Sewer Division

ii. Regional Water Services b. City of Roseville c. City of Falcon Heights d. Ramsey County

i. Conservation District ii. Public Works

e. Other major cities within the region (e.g. Milwaukee)

13

4. Other Watershed Districts: a. MWMO b. RWMWD c. WCD d. MCWD

5. Citizens/Groups/NGOs

a. CLNN b. Citizen volunteers c. Non-profit/advocacy groups d. Private landowners with BMPs

6. Private Sector

a. Media/Communication b. Private engineering companies (e.g. Barr) c. Vendors of BMPs

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

6. University of Minnesota 7. City of St Paul 8. Ramsey County (CD and PW) 9. RWMWD 10. MWMO

The others in the list above we would actively communicate and partner with as appropriate partnerships present themselves but we would not actively attempt to develop/nurture partnerships during the next three year period.

7. What changes can we make to improve the efficiency of our data collection? 8. To best use our finite resources, where are areas we could reduce or eliminate collection

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

Based on the response to Questions 7-9 priority items (Top 5) were listed for Changes, Deletions, and Additions to the monitoring program (without sacrificing data quality): TOP 5 Changes:

1. AC Power and Remote Data Access to baseline sites

14

a. Temp control (heating & cooling) b. Year-round monitoring c. Reduced frequency of site visits d. Analyze and report data more quickly e. Improved data quality

2. Staff organization and training 3. Monitoring Database development 4. Reporting Improvements (Format, Frequency, Analysis types, Generation of figures & tables,

data cleaning) 5. Sample Preparation and Lab Efficiency

a. Submittal requirements and procedures b. Laboratory results reporting c. Bottle Cleaning

TOP 5 Deletions:

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

2. Parameter removal: a. N b. Metals with non-detects (Ni, Cr)

3. Qualitative Lakes Data Collection (volunteers instead?) 4. Adjust Sampling Frequency:

a. Fewer baseflow samples (1x per month vs 2x) b. Larger storm events only

TOP 5 Additions:

1. Lakes Monitoring Data expansion and more complete analysis a. Biological data

i. Fisheries ii. Macrophytes

iii. Phyto/Zooplankton b. Temperature c. Ice cover/Ice out d. Sediment

2. Expanded analysis of other stormwater parameters a. Bacteria/microbial source tracking b. Chloride c. Trash d. PAHS e. Emerging contaminants

15

3. Monitoring of new subwatersheds a. Sub-WSs with different land use/source areas b. Utilize modeling to simulate loading c. Detailed, stand-alone reports by subwatershed

i. Como ii. Trout Brook

4. BMP Monitoring a. BMP research based monitoring b. “Microsite” monitoring (roofs, parking lots, greenspace, construction sites, private

BMPs) c. Climate change adaption monitoring

5. Detailed sub-watershed reports a. Expanded subwatershed monitoring and more detailed reports by subwatershed

Hot topics:

Reporting wetland data Groundwater data Lake monitoring – biochemical and chemical Mississippi River Emerging contaminants

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

DATE: April 3, 2014

TO: CRWD CAC

FROM: Bob Fossum, Water Resource Project Manager

SUBJECT: Curtis Pond Improvement Project

Background

Curtiss Field Pond, located in Falcon Heights, regularly flood during moderate rainfall events which limits the

use of the park, park infrastructure, and presents a safety concern for the City. In 2011, the City requested our

assistance in determining the causes of the problems and identifying possible solutions to mitigate the flooding.

In 2012 the District completed the Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Feasibility Study. The study

recommended a project to increase the stormwater storage and infiltration area with in the park. During 2013

and early 2014 the District has been completing final design of the project.

Issues

District staff will present the draft Curtiss Pond Plans, Cost Estimate, and Project Financing to the CAC.

Requested Action

Provide comment, questions and/or concerns to the Board of Managers on the Curtiss Pond Improvement

Project.

enc: Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Plans

Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Cost Estimate

Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Financing Plan

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

April 9, 2014 Board Meeting

V. Action Items, B) Curtiss Pond

Improvement Project Update

(Fossum)

Houston

Houston

Houston

Houston

HoustonEngineering Inc.

Houston

ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE

CURTISS POND PROJECT1‐Apr‐14

Item Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Price

2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 2101.618 REMOVE SHRUBS SQ FT 100 5.00$ 500.00$ 2104.503 SAW CUT AND REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 1162 1.25$ 1,452.50$ 2104.602 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL DISABLED PARKING SIGN EACH 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION (CV)(P) CU YD 3900 8.00$ 31,200.00$ 2105.607 HAUL AND DISPOSAL SOIL (LV) CU YD 3000 10.00$ 30,000.00$ 2015.525 TOPSOIL BORROW CU YD 170 25.00$ 4,250.00$ 2015.525 CLAY BORROW FOR CLAY PLUG CU YD 4 30.00$ 120.00$ 2015.535 PLACE SALVAGED TOPSOIL (P) CU YD 253 4.00$ 1,012.00$ 2105.601 WATER CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (LV) (CLASS 5) CU YD 30 25.00$ 750.00$ 2451.607 0.75" ‐ 2" WASHED ROCK FOR DETENTION SYSTEM (P) CU YD 1330 35.00$ 46,550.00$ 2501.515 24" RC PIPE APRON EACH 1 850.00$ 850.00$ 2503.511 24" CS PIPE SEWER LIN FT 4 70.00$ 280.00$ 2503.511 24" RC PIPE SEWER LIN FT 8 45.00$ 360.00$ 2506.601 CMP DETENTION SYSTEM LUMP SUM 1 189,000.00$ 189,000.00$ 2506.602 WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE EACH 1 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ 2511.515 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, NON WOVEN SQ YD 1300 5.00$ 6,500.00$ 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 1523 3.50$ 5,330.50$ 2557.501 TEMPORARY 6FT CHAIN‐LINK FENCE LIN FT 495 15.00$ 7,425.00$ 2557.517 TEMPORARY 12FT VEHICULAR GATE W/LOCK EACH 1 750.00$ 750.00$ 2563.602 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2564.537 PROJECT SIGN EACH 2 1,500.00$ 3,000.00$ 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE PA LIN FT 110 3.50$ 385.00$ 2573.505 SILT FENCE , TYPE TB LIN FT 85 20.00$ 1,700.00$ 2573.535 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LUMP SUM 1 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 2574.604 SOIL BED PREPARATION SQ YD 2320 0.50$ 1,160.00$ 2575.502 COVER CROP SEED MIXTURE 21‐112 POUND 48 4.00$ 192.00$ 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 25‐151 POUND 58 4.00$ 232.00$ 2575.563 HYDRAULIC MATRIX, FIBER BONDED HYDRO‐MULCH SQ YD 2190 0.85$ 1,861.50$ 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CATEGORY 2 SQ YD 130 4.00$ 520.00$ 2575.530 INLET PROTECTION EACH 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 3803.501 4" PVC SCH. 80 ELECTRIC CONDUIT LIN FT 16 20.00$ 320.00$

SUBTOTAL BASE BID 379,200.50$

10% CONTINGENCY 37,920.05$

TOTAL BASE BID 417,120.55$

Bid Alternate #1

2557.501 4FT CHAIN‐LINK FENCE LIN FT 522 10.00$ 5,220.00$ 2557.517 8FT VEHICULAR GATE W/LOCK EACH 3 600.00$ 1,800.00$

SUBTOTAL ALTERNATIVE #1 7,020.00$

Bid Alternate #2

2104.501 REMOVE EXISTING CHAIN‐LINK FENCE LIN FT 80 5.00$ 400.00$ 2104.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS SQ FT 1610 1.67$ 2,688.70$ 2104.503 SAW CUT AND REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 166 1.25$ 207.50$ 2104.509 REMOVE BASKETBALL HOOP EACH 1 500.00$ 500.00$ 2015.525 TOPSOIL BORROW CU YD 30 25.00$ 750.00$ 2574.604 SOIL BED PREPARATION SQ YD 200 0.50$ 100.00$ 2575.502 COVER CROP SEED MIXTURE 21‐112 POUND 5 4.00$ 20.00$ 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 25‐151 POUND 5 4.00$ 20.00$ 2575.563 HYDRAULIC MATRIX, FIBER BONDED HYDRO‐MULCH SQ YD 200 0.85$ 170.00$

SUBTOTAL ALTERNATIVE #2 4,856.20$

Curtiss Pond Improvement Project Costs and Financing 4-1-2014

CostsConstruction, Contingency $424,000Base Engineering (Houston Eng. Inc.) $81,600Design and Installation--OptiRTC (Geosyntec) $70,000

Total $575,600

Financing CRWD $375,600Falcon Heights $200,000

Total $575,600

cac april 9, 2014 packet

Documents

cac minutes

cac comments

cac initiatives

cac members present

cac observer update

cac agenda overview

cac members david arbeit

approval of agenda