march 4, 2015 crwd board packet

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

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board Of Managers, for Wednesday,

March 4, 2015 6:00 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota.

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

I. Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

A) Attendance

B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

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

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

Board Discussion and Action.)

A) Public Hearing for Proposed Rule Revisions (Kelley)

B) Permit # 14-037 YMCA (Kelley)

C) Permit # 15-002 2700 University – Extension (Kelley)

D) Permit # 15-005 Murray Middle School (Kelley)

E) Permit # 15-006 Xcel Gas Phase III (Kelley)

F) Permit # 15-011 Ziittel Greenhouse Demolition (Hosch)

G) Permit # 15-012 Pierce Butler Route – Extension Building Demolition (Hosch)

H) Permit Close Outs (Hosch)

IV. Special Reports– 2014 Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor Inspection Report, Barr Engineering

V. Action Items

A) AR: Approve Minutes of the February 18th Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

B) AR: Approve Work Plan and Budget for Ford Site Stormwater Evaluation (Fossum)

C) AR: Approve Cooperative Construction Agreement with the City of Roseville and Authorize

Bidding for the Upper Villa Park Stormwater Improvement Project (Kelley)

VI. Unfinished Business

A) Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project Update (Eleria)

B) 2015 Lake McCarrons Aquatic Plant Harvesting (Zwonitzer)

VII. General Information

A) Administrator’s Report

VIII. Next Meetings

A) Wednesday, March 11, 2015 CAC Meeting

B) Wednesday, March 18, 2015 CRWD Board Meeting

IX. Adjournment W:\04 Board of Managers\Agendas\2015\March 4, 2015 Agenda Regular Mtg.docx

Materials Enclosed

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

DATE: February 27, 2015

TO: CRWD Board of Managers

FROM: Forrest Kelley, PE Regulatory and Construction Program Manager

RE: Draft Rules Public Hearing

Background

At the February 4, 2015 Board Meeting, the Managers approved distribution of the draft amended rules

for 45-day review and public comment.

Issues

The public comment period began on February 6, 2015 and will end March 23, 2015. The public hearing

is intended provide a chance for stakeholders to present issues, concerns, or other discussion pertaining to

the proposed rule amendments. Staff will review the comments received to date, and answer any questions

the Board may have. A copy of the proposed rule amendments is available by contacting staff, and will

be provided at the meeting.

Requested Action

Hold a Public Hearing on Draft Rule Amendments.

W:\07 Programs\Rules\2015\Brd Memo Rules Public Hearing 2015-02-27.docx

March 4, 2015

Regular Board Meeting

III. Permits A) Draft Rules Public

Hearing

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2014\14-037 YMCA\14-037 YMCA_Permit Review_03.doc Page 1 of 4

Capitol Region Watershed District

Permit Report

CRWD Permit #: 14-037

Review date: February 27, 2015

Project Name: YMCA Midway

Applicant: Doug Ducharme

YMCA Twin Cities

30 South 9th Street

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Purpose: Redevelopment of an existing YMCA into a new and expanded

YMCA facility and parking lot.

Location: Parcel bound on the south by Dickerman Park, on the east by North

Wheeler Street, and private property to the north and west.

Applicable Rules: C, D, and F

Recommendation: Approve with 3 Conditions

EXHIBITS:

1. Combined YMCA Plans, by LSE Architects, dated 2/23/15, recd. 2/24/15.

2. Stormwater Calculations, by Pierce Pini and Associates, Inc., dated 2/6/15, recd.

2/11/15.

3. Response to Comments Memorandum, by Pierce Pini and Associates, Inc., dated

2/23/15, recd. 2/24/15.

4. HydroCAD Model, by Pierce Pini and Associates, Inc., dated 2/23/15, recd.

2/24/15.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS:

None.

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

Standards

Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed

existing rates.


Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount

equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.

Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to

maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area.

Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point

source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid

removal.

Findings

1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze

runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels.

2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for

the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project

area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a

public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount

equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the

impervious surfaces of the development.

a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 43,909 square feet.

b. Volume retention:

Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)

3,293 BMP Volume Below

Infiltration Trench 3,613 cf

Infiltration Basin 1,161 cf

Total 4,774 cf

(1” event) 3,044 cf

(2” event) 6,087 cf

c. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed.

d. Infiltration volume and facility sizes have been calculated using the

appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design

infiltration rate.

e. The infiltration areas are capable of infiltrating the required volume

within 48 hours.

f. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to

infiltration areas. However, the sump depth is not consistent with the

Minnesota Stormwater Manual recommendations.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested.

5. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from

the runoff generated on an annual basis if the volume control standards are

met.

6. A recordable executed maintenance agreement has not been submitted.

Adequate maintenance access is provided for surface and underground

systems.


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. Compensatory storage is not needed.

3. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the

project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT

Standard

Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have

sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the

inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.

A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground

cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings

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

RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

Standards

A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control

measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land-

disturbing activity.

Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in

Urban Areas Manual.

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. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has

been submitted and satisfies NPDES requirements.

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION


Standard

Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and

proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water

that drains to the District MS4.

Findings

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

proposed.

2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions

Conditions:

1. Receipt of $5,000 surety and documentation of recorded maintenance agreement

with Ramsey County.

2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

3. Increase catch basin CB J sump depth to a minimum of 3 feet on sheet C300. The

Minnesota Stormwater Manual recommends a minimum sump depth of 3 feet for

pretreatment sumps.




FROM: Forrest Kelley, PE, Regulatory and Construction Program Manager

RE: 15-002 2700 University Review Extension Request

Background

The 60-day review period for Permit 15-002 will expire on March 13, 2015.

Issues

The applicant has requested the review period be extended. Information regarding the site soil

conditions and potential for contamination from past uses is currently being compiled by staff. It is

anticipated the permit will be up for review by the Board on March 18th.

Requested Action

Approve a 60-day extension to the review period of permit 15-002 to expire May 12, 2015

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-002 2700 University\Brd Memo 2700 University Extension.docx

March 4, 2015

Regular Board Meeting

III. Permits C) 15-002 2700

University Review Extension

Request

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-005 Murray Middle School

Permit Report 15-005 Board Meeting Date: 03/04/2015

Applicant: Kelly Wilcox S. Paul Public Schools 1930 Como Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55108

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 6 Conditions: 1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 2. Revise Plans to be consistent. On sheet C-200, the MH 111 note states that the pipe to the north is an 8

inch PVC. The note for this pipe on sheet C-200 states it is 24 inches. The note on sheet C-503 states it is 24 inches.

3. Provide a cross section or typical detail of the surface basin that includes the following: a. Planting media shall be 80% sand, 20% compost. b. Basin bottom elevation. c. Specify sod to vegetate the detention basin. Basin seeding should be avoided.

4. Revise plans according to the Permit Report items a-f. 5. Revise SWPPP according to Permit Report items a-h. 6. Provide a site specific plan, schedule and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater

management practices. VOLUME BANK REQUEST: Approve creation of a volume reduction bank for St. Paul Public Schools, and deposit of 6,792 cubic feet.

Consultant: Kraig Klund TKDA

444 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101

Description: Reconstruction of school parking lot Stormwater Management: Underground infiltration system District Rule: —C D F Disturbed Area: 1.07 Acres Impervious Area: 0.77 Acres

Permit Location

Aerial Photo

Buford

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report

CRWD Permit #: 15-005 Review date: February 27, 2015 Project Name: Murray Middle School Applicant: Kelly Wilcox

Saint Paul Public Schools 1930 Como Ave. St. Paul, MN 55108 651-744-5550 [email protected]

Purpose: Reconstruction of a school parking lot. Location: 2200 Buford Ave Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 6 Conditions VOLUME BANK REQUEST: Approve creation of a volume reduction bank for St. Paul Public Schools, and deposit of 6,792 cubic feet. EXHIBITS:

1. Permit Application, by TKDA, dated 2/4/15, recd. 2/6/15. 2. Submittal Requirements Memo, by TKDA, dated 2/4/15, recd. 2/6/15. 3. Drainage Report, by TKDA, dated 2/4/15, recd. 2/6/15. 4. Construction Plans, by TKDA, dated 1/28/15, recd. 2/6/15. 5. Declaration for Maintenance, by TKDA, dated 2/4/15, recd. 2/6/15.

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-005 Murray Middle School\15-005 Murray Middle School_Review_02.doc Page 1 of 5

Standards Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events shall not exceed

existing rates. Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount

equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site. Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to

maintain the long-term viability of the infiltration area. Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non-point

source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal.

Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze

runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for

the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development.

a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 33,715 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)

2,529 BMP Volume Below Underground Infiltration 9,321 cf

c. The applicant has proposed banking of excess volume retention of

6,792 cubic feet. d. Infiltration volume and facility size has been calculated using the

appropriate hydrological soil group classification and design infiltration rate.

e. The infiltration area is capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours.

f. Stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested. 5. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from

the runoff on an annual basis. 6. An agreement exists between SPPS and CRWD for maintenance of permitted

stormwater BMPs. Adequate maintenance access is not provided for the underground system.

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.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard

Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.

A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the

project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. 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 not consistent with best

management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas.

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

erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has

been submitted and does not satisfy NPDES requirements. 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 6 Conditions Conditions:

1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 2. Revise Plans to be consistent. On sheet C-200, the MH 111 note states that the

pipe to the north is an 8 inch PVC. The note for this pipe on sheet C-200 states it is 24 inches. The note on sheet C-503 states it is 24 inches.

3. Provide a cross section or typical detail of the surface basin that includes the following:

a. Planting media shall be 80% sand, 20% compost b. Basin bottom elevation. c. Specify sod to vegetate the detention basin. Basin seeding should be

avoided. 4. Revise plans to include the following:

a. Note that, “poor soils shall be excavated to soils conducive to infiltration and backfilled with clean washed sand.”

b. Provide grading plans for the detention basin consistent with the XPSWMM model.

c. Update the orifice diameter in the proposed CB 105 to 12 inches to be consistent with the XPSWMM model.

d. Extend the silt fence perimeter control along the east edge of the property. It appears that runoff may leave the site at several locations along this border.

e. Specify additional inspection ports for the underground system approximately 20 feet from the south end of the system. Adequate maintenance access is needed to ensure the longevity of the system.

f. Specify and show a permanently stabilized emergency overflow for the surface basin.

5. Revise SWPPP to include the following: a. A temporary construction entrance at all locations construction access will

take place. b. Infiltration perimeter control and erosion control practices shall remain in

place until the final completion of the project or vegetation has been established (whichever is later).

c. Installation of infiltration practices shall be done during periods of dry weather and completed before a rainfall event. Placement of engineered soils shall be on dry native soil only.

d. Excavation of infiltration areas shall be completed using a backhoe with a toothed bucket.


e. Native soils in infiltration areas shall be de-compacted to a minimum depth of 18 inches prior to placing engineered soil.

f. The bottom excavation surface of infiltration/filtration areas shall be level without dips or swales.

g. Engineered soil shall remain uncontaminated (not mixed with other soil) when installed.

h. During construction, stormwater must be routed around infiltration areas until all construction activity has ceased and tributary surfaces are cleaned of sediment.

6. Provide a site specific plan, schedule and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices.

VOLUME BANK REQUEST:

Approve creation of a volume reduction bank for St. Paul Public Schools, and deposit of 6,792 cubic feet.


2/27/2015 Volume Banking Credits

Account: St. Paul Public Schools

Transaction Requested Approved Permit Project Deposit Withdrawal Balance (cf)

Deposit 3/4/2015 Pending 15-005 Murray Middle School 6,792 6,792

6,792 0 6,792

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-006 Xcel Gas Phase III


Applicant: Brian Black Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 4 Conditions: 1. Receipt of $22,250 surety. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Provide erosion control between any work areas and the basin located south of Sycamore and north

of the railroad. 4. Revise SWPPP to include the following:

a. Erosion control practices shall remain in place until the final completion of the project or vegetation has been established (whichever is later).

b. During construction, stormwater must be routed around infiltration areas until all construction activity has ceased and tributary surfaces are cleaned of sediment.

Variance Request: Approve variance from Rule C Stormwater Management requirements.

Consultant: Tony Wendland Xcel Energy

825 Rice Street St. Paul, MN 55117

Description: Replacement of natural gas distribution pipeline Stormwater Management: The applicant has requested a variance from the requirements of Rule C District Rule: C D F Disturbed Area: 4.85 Acres Impervious Area: 4.45 Acres

Permit Location

Aerial Photo

Maryland

Summit


CRWD Permit #: 15-006 Review date: February 27, 2015 Project Name: Xcel Gas Phase III Applicant: Brian Black

Xcel Energy 414 Nicollet Mall, MP-4 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-330-6249 [email protected]

Purpose: Phase III of a gas line replacement. This phase includes

replacement of approximately 4 miles of gas line. Location: St Albans Street South between Pleasant Ave and Sherburne Ave.

Sherburne Ave between St. Albans St North and Park St. Park Street between Sherburne Ave and West Maryland Ave.

Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 4 Conditions Variance Request: Approve variance from Rule C Stormwater Management

requirements EXHIBITS:

1. Excel East Metro Pipeline Replacement Project (2015) Memo – project description, by Excel Energy, dated 1/30/15, recd. 1/30/15.

2. Excel East Metro Pipeline Replacement Project (2015) Memo – request for variance, by Excel Energy, dated 1/30/15, recd. 1/30/15.

3. Construction Plans, by WSB and Associates, Inc., dated 7/29/15, recd. 1/30/15. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: In 2013, the Capitol Region Watershed District approved a variance from Rule C for Phase I of this project on the basis that the property that Xcel Energy was working on was owned by another entity (Permit 13-012). Xcel complied with Rule C on all property

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-006 Xcel Gas Phase III\15-006 Xcel Gas Phase III_Review_01fjk.doc Page 1 of 4

under their ownership and improved drainage patterns through impervious disconnects, vegetated conveyances, and treatment to the maximum extent practicable. The newly replaced impervious surfaces that triggered stormwater requirements were turned back to the local road authority that remains responsible for managing stormwater runoff from those impervious surfaces. Similarly, in 2014, the Capitol Region Watershed District approved a variance from Rule C for Phase II of this project on the basis that the property that Xcel Energy was working on was owned by another entity (Permit 14-011). 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 not used to analyze

runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. The applicant has stated that there will be no net increase of impervious area

as a result of this project. Therefore, runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well-defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system.

3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is not achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from one inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. The applicant has requested a variance from complying with this requirement on the basis that Xcel is not the property owner of the disturbed impervious.

a. The amount of proposed impervious onsite is 193,971 square feet. b. Volume retention: Volume Retention Required (cu. ft.) Volume Retention Provided (cu. ft.)

14,548 A variance is requested.

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has been requested. a. The applicant has not partially complied with the volume retention

standard on site. (variance requested). b. The applicant has not partially complied with the volume retention

standard at off-site locations. (variance requested).


c. The project is linear according to the CRWD definition. d. The applicant has not submitted money to be contributed to the

Stormwater Impact Fund (variance requested). 5. Best management practices do not achieve 90% total suspended solids

removal from the runoff generated by a NURP water quality storm (2.5” rainfall) or on an annual basis. (variance requested).

6. The applicant has completed the Alternative Compliance Sequence and has requested a Variance from Rule C for the volume reduction due to the lack of land ownership or control over the impervious surfaces being replaced in-kind.

7. A recordable executed maintenance agreement is not required. 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. It is not known if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or

adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements, but there is no change in the existing drainage patterns or volumes.

RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard

Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.

A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required.

Findings 1. There may be a wetland located east of the gas pipeline alignment, south of

Sycamore and north of the railroad. 2. Delineated wetland boundaries have not been submitted nor reviewed by

CRWD staff. RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL





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

erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has

been submitted and does not satisfy NPDES requirements. 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 4 Conditions Conditions:

1. Receipt of $22,250 surety 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Provide erosion control between any work areas and the basin located south of

Sycamore and north of the railroad. 4. Revise SWPPP to include the following:

a. Erosion control practices shall remain in place until the final completion of the project or vegetation has been established (whichever is later).

b. During construction, stormwater must be routed around infiltration areas until all construction activity has ceased and tributary surfaces are cleaned of sediment.

Variance Request:

Approve variance from Rule C Stormwater Management requirements


Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-011 Ziittel Greenhouse demolition


Applicant: Binh Huynh Saint Paul Regional Water Services 1900 Rice Street Maplewood, MN

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: For informational purposes only. Staff issued permit 2/25/15.

Consultant: Michael Michaud City of St. Paul, OFS/RE/DESION

25 West 4th Street Suite 1000 Saint Paul, MN 55102

Description: Demolition of greenhouses and associated structures, stabilize disturbance. Stormwater Management: None, erosion and sediment control only District Rule: — F (Staff review, ESC only) Disturbed Area: 1.4 Acres Impervious Area: 0 Acres

Permit Location

Aerial Photo

Roselawn

Rice


CRWD Permit #: 15-011 Review date: 2/23/15 Project Name: Ziittel Greenhouse demolition Applicant: Saint Paul Regional Water Services Purpose: Demolition of greenhouses and associated structures, stabilize

disturbance Location: East side of Rice Street, north of Roselawn, old Ziittel greenhouse

property Applicable Rules: F Recommendation: Staff approve and issue permit #15-011 EXHIBITS:

1. Permit Application, by City of St. Paul, OFS/RE/DESION, not dated, rec’d 2/10/15

2. Site Demolition Plan, by St. Paul Design Group, dated 9/22/14, rec’d 2/17/15 3. Boundary Survey by BDM Consulting, Engineers, and Surveyors, dated 5/27/05,

rec’d 2/17/15 4. Erosion and Sediment Control spec, by City of Saint Paul, undated, rec’d 2/10/15

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: This application includes only demolition of existing structures. Future development of the property by St. Paul Regional Water Services will be handled through St. Paul Public Works and will include any applicable stormwater treatment facilities at that time. RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL




W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-011, Ziittel Greenhouse demo\15-011 Permit_Review.doc Page 1 of 2



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

erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff approve and issue permit #15-011.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-011, Ziittel Greenhouse demo\15-011 Permit_Review.doc Page 2 of 2

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit 15-012 Pierce Butler, building demos


Applicant: Eriks Ludins City of St. Paul, Dept. of Public Works 25 West 4th Street Suite 1500 Saint Paul, MN 55102

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: For informational purposes only. Staff issued permit 2/25/15.

Consultant: Michael Michaud City of St. Paul, OFS/Real Estate Section

25 West 4th Street Suite 1000 Saint Paul, MN 55102

Description: Demolish buildings in preparation for future extension of Pierce Butler to the east Stormwater Management: None, erosion and sediment control only District Rule: — F (Staff review, ESC only) Disturbed Area: 1.76 Acres Impervious Area: 0 Acres

Permit Location

Aerial Photo

Pierce Butler Route


CRWD Permit #: 15-012 Review date: 2/24/15 Project Name: Pierce Butler Route – Extension, Building Demolition Applicant: City of Saint Paul, Public Works Purpose: Building demolition in preparation for future extension of Pierce

Butler to the east. Location: North of Pierce Butler Route, West of Dale. Applicable Rules: F Recommendation: Staff issue and approve permit 15-012 EXHIBITS:

1. Permit Application, by City of St. Paul, OFS/Real Estate Section, not dated, rec’d 2/23/15

2. Site Demolition Plan, by St. Paul Design Group, dated 9/22/14, rec’d 2/17/15 3. Project narrative, by City of St. Paul, OFS/Real Estate Section, dated 2/9/15, rec’d

2/9/15 4. Site Plan, by City of Saint Paul, dated 8/18/14, rec’d 2/23/15

HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: This application includes only demolition of existing structures. Future development of the property by the City of St. Paul will be handled through St. Paul Public Works and will include any applicable stormwater treatment facilities at that time. RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL




W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-012, Pierce Butler Route - Extension, Building Demos\15-012 Permit_Review.doc Page 1 of 2



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

erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Project site is greater than 1 acre; an NPDES permit is required.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff approve and issue permit #15-012.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2015\15-012, Pierce Butler Route - Extension, Building Demos\15-012 Permit_Review.doc Page 2 of 2




FROM: Elizabeth Hosch, BMP Inspector

RE: Permit Closeouts

Background

Construction activity is complete for permits 09-015, A-1 Auto, 09-026, Brookfield Renewable Power,

and 10-030, Villa Park Erosion.

Issues

A-1 Auto permit #09-015

Final inspection has been conducted to confirm final stabilization following demolition work that took

place in 2009. No stormwater treatment was required for this work. CRWD has initiated conversation

with the City regarding ongoing erosion and sediment control for the site’s normal business operation.

No surety was received for this permit.

Brookfield Renewable Power permit #09-026

Final inspection has been conducted to confirm flood wall and erosion repair work in late 2009, early

2010. No stormwater treatment was required for this work. Submitted surety is available for return in

the amount of $500.

Villa Park Erosion permit #10-030

Final inspection has been conducted confirming complete construction and final stabilization for trail

rehabilitation and erosion repair along the Villa Park sediment pond. No stormwater treatment or surety

were required for this work.

Action Requested

Approve Certificate of Completion for permit #09-015, A-1 Auto.

Approve Certificate of Completion and $500 surety return for permit #09-026, Brookfield Renewable

Power.

Approve Certificate of Completion for permit #10-030, Villa Park Erosion.

cc: Jim Mogen, Ramsey Country Attorney’s Office

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\Board Memos\2015-3-4 Permit Closeout Board Memo.docx

March 4, 2015

III. Permit Applications

(H) Permit Close Outs

(Hosch)


DATE: February 27, 2015 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Anna Eleria, Water Resource Project Manager RE: TBI 5-Year Inspection and TBI Realignment Warranty Inspection

Background In summer 2014, CRWD’s Board of Managers authorized Barr Engineering to conduct a full system inspection of the conditions within the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (TBI). The estimated cost of inspection services was $86,410. The last inspection of TBI was conducted in June 2007. Issues More than 31,000 feet of the TBI system was visually inspected from July to November 2014. The interior of the tunnel was inspected for invert integrity, settlement, sediment, cracks, voids and other defects. Enclosed is the draft report prepared by Barr that summarizes the inspection findings, highlights changes in tunnel conditions from previous inspections, rates the condition of TBI sections and recommends future repairs. Staff will review the inspection findings and recommendations with the Board. The one-year warranty inspection for the realigned TBI sections near 35E-Cayuga and adjacent older sections was also conducted last year. Staff observed new cracks in the haunches and crown of the new sections and expansion of existing fractures in the older sections. It was determined that CRWD’s contractor, Veit, was not responsible for these defects. Instead, CRWD and Barr staff suspected MnDOT construction activities could have impacted TBI and have met with MnDOT staff to discuss our concerns. CRWD staff will update the Board on this issue and actions taken to date. Action Requested None, for your information encs: 2014 TBI Inspection Report (w/o Appendices) - Draft W:\06 Projects\Trout Brook Interceptor\TBI Inspections\2014 Inspection\Board Memos\BM TBI Inspection Work Order 03-04-15.docx

March 4, 2015 Board Meeting IV. Special Report – TBI 5-year Inspection and TBI Realignment

Warranty Inspection (Eleria)

2014 Trout Brook Storm

Sewer Interceptor

Inspection Report


Saint Paul, MN

February 2015

2014 Trout Brook Storm

Sewer Interceptor

Inspection Report

BY CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT

Barr Engineering Co.

Saint Paul, Minnesota

February 2015

\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\62\2362944\WorkFiles\TBI Engineer\Inspections\2014\TBI 2014 Report\TBI Storm Sewer Condition Assessment_2-9-15.docx

i

2014 Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor Inspection Report

February, 2015

Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Inspection Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Access .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Schedule and Inspection Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 NASSCO Rating System Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Structural Defects ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.1 Cracks ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4

3.1.1.1 Circumferential Cracks ................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.1.2 Longitudinal Crack .......................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1.1.3 Spiral Crack ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

3.1.1.4 Multiple Cracks ................................................................................................................................................. 4

3.1.1.5 Hinge Crack ....................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.2 Fractures ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5

3.1.2.1 Circumferential Fracture ............................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.2.2 Longitudinal Fracture ..................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.2.3 Spiral Fracture ................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.2.4 Multiple Fractures............................................................................................................................................ 5

3.1.2.5 Hinge Fracture .................................................................................................................................................. 5

3.1.3 Holes ............................................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.4 Joints............................................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.5 Surface Damage ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.5.1 Aggregate Visible ............................................................................................................................................ 6

3.1.5.2 Reinforcement Visible .................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.5.3 Surface Spalling ................................................................................................................................................ 6

3.1.5.4 Surface Roughness Increased ..................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.5.5 Surface Aggregate Projecting .................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.6 Lining Features ........................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.6.1 Bulges ................................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.7 Point Repair ................................................................................................................................................................. 6


ii

3.1.7.1 Patch Repair ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.7.2 Patch Repair Defective .................................................................................................................................. 7

3.1.8 Brickwork ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.8.1 Missing Brick ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.8.2 Mortar Missing ................................................................................................................................................. 7

3.2 Operations and Maintenance Defects .................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.1 Water Infiltration........................................................................................................................................................ 7

3.2.1.1 Infiltration Stain ................................................................................................................................................ 7

3.2.1.2 Infiltration Dripper .......................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.1.3 Infiltration Gusher ........................................................................................................................................... 7

3.2.1.4 Infiltration Runner ........................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2.1.5 Infiltration Weeper .......................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2.2 Deposits ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

3.2.2.1 Attached Deposits ........................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2.2.2 Settled Deposits ............................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2.3 Roots .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8

3.2.3.1 Fine ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

3.2.4 Obstacles/Obstructions........................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.4.1 Tunnel Material in Invert .............................................................................................................................. 9

3.2.4.2 Object Wedged in Joint ................................................................................................................................ 9

3.2.4.3 External Pipe or Cable in Sewer ................................................................................................................. 9

3.2.4.4 Built Into Structure .......................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.4.5 Construction Debris ........................................................................................................................................ 9

3.2.4.6 Other Objects .................................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.5 Vermin ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9

3.3 Construction Features ................................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.1 Taps ................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

3.3.1.1 Factory Made ..................................................................................................................................................10

3.3.1.2 Break-In Hammer Tap .................................................................................................................................10

3.3.2 Intruding Sealing Material ...................................................................................................................................10

3.3.2.1 Sealing Ring .....................................................................................................................................................10

3.3.3 Lines ..............................................................................................................................................................................10

3.3.3.1 Line Left .............................................................................................................................................................10

3.3.3.2 Line Right ..........................................................................................................................................................10


iii

3.3.3.3 Line Up ...............................................................................................................................................................10

3.3.4 Access Points .............................................................................................................................................................10

3.3.4.1 Manhole ............................................................................................................................................................10

3.3.4.2 Catch Basin .......................................................................................................................................................10

3.4 Miscellaneous Features ..............................................................................................................................................11

3.4.1 Dimension/Diameter/Shape Change ...............................................................................................................11

3.4.2 General Observation ..............................................................................................................................................11

3.4.3 Survey Abandoned .................................................................................................................................................11

3.4.4 Water Level ................................................................................................................................................................11

3.5 PACP Grades ...................................................................................................................................................................11

3.6 PACP Condition Grading System ............................................................................................................................11

3.6.1 Grading of Continuous Defects .........................................................................................................................12

4.0 Inspection Findings ...........................................................................................................................................................13

4.1 Presentations of Observations ................................................................................................................................13

4.2 Grade 4 Defects .............................................................................................................................................................14

4.3 Grade 5 Defects .............................................................................................................................................................14

4.4 Comparison with Previous Inspections ................................................................................................................15

5.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................19

5.1 2014 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................19

5.1.1 TBI Mainline Recommendations ........................................................................................................................19

5.1.2 East Extension Recommendations ....................................................................................................................20

5.1.3 West Extension Recommendations ..................................................................................................................20

6.0 Limitations of Assessment ..............................................................................................................................................21

7.0 References ............................................................................................................................................................................22


iv

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Inspection Access Points .................................................................................................................................. 2

Table 4-1 Pipe Rating Index (PRI) Summary .............................................................................................................. 13

Table 4-2 Summary of Overall Pipe Ratings (OPR) and Pipe Rating Index (PRI)......................................... 13

Table 4-3 Summary of Grade 4 Defects ...................................................................................................................... 14

Table 4-4 Summary of Grade 5 Defects ...................................................................................................................... 14

Table 4-5 Comparison to Past Inspections – TBI Mainline ................................................................................... 16

Table 4-6 Comparison to Past Inspections – TBI Mainline Continued ............................................................ 17

Table 4-7 Comparison to Past Inspections – East Extension ............................................................................... 17

Table 4-8 Comparison to Past Inspections – West Extension ............................................................................. 18

List of Appendices

Appendix A – Structural and O&M PRI Figures

Appendix B – PACP Code Summary Chart

Appendix C – PRI and OPR Tables

Appendix D – Selected Photos and Photo CD

Appendix E – Inspection Data Tables and Inspection Raw Data CD

Appendix F – CCTV Inspection


v

Certifications

I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly

Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota.

2-9-15

Joseph Welna

PE #: 49911

Date


1

1.0 Executive Summary

Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) retained Barr Engineering Company (Barr) to conduct a

condition inspection of the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (TBI). The TBI includes three primary

branches:

1. TBI Mainline (approximately 23,200 feet)

2. West TBI Extension (approximately 5,100 feet)

3. East TBI Extension (approximately 3,000 feet)

TBI Mainline begins at the Mississippi River and extends along I-35E to Lake Como. The West Extension

joins the Mainline south of Arlington Avenue and runs northwest to Larpenteur Avenue. The East

Extension joins the Mainline north of Maryland Avenue and runs northeast to Arlington Avenue.

Tunnel conditions were documented using the Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP)

developed by the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO). The NASSCO coding

allows for quantification of tunnel conditions and comparison of tunnel condition to past and future

inspections.

Overall the majority of the TBI was found to be in fair condition with a few areas designated as good and

poor condition with notable changes observed since the last condition inspection (CNA, 2007). Changes in

tunnel condition are attributed to repairs made to TBI since the 2007 report as well as deterioration of the

tunnel over time. As a result, the following recommendations were made prioritizing the most critical

segments.

• TBI Mainline – Repair missing mortar on the limestone block section of the tunnel between

stations 0+00 to 28+49.

• TBI Mainline – Repair visible steel reinforcement and concrete degradation on concrete section of

the tunnel between stations 28+65 to 50+72 and 135+06 to 180+29.

• The repair of less significant defects including crack sealing and miscellaneous concrete repair is

recommended in the above critical sections to take advantage of a contractor mobilization.

A more detailed discussion of these recommendations is included in section 5 of the report. Also included

herein is a summary of any noted deficiencies, a comparison of the current tunnel condition to the last

inspection conducted in 2007, and further discussion of the recommended improvements.


2

2.0 Inspection Summary

Approximately 31,334 feet of the TBI tunnel system were inspected over 11 days. The inspections were

conducted with a three-person team performing the inspection in the tunnel and one to two-members

performing surface attendant duties. A measuring wheel was utilized to establish stationing in the tunnel

as well as to verify existing stationing as necessary. Stationing wa marked in the tunnel using survey spray

paint. Deficiencies were recorded in field books and later input into Granite XP software for processing.

Photos were taken along each TBI extension and are included on a CD in Appendix D.

2.1 Access

Access to the TBI was achieved through existing manholes and CRWD-owned access vaults. Field

reconnaissance was performed prior to the inspections to evaluate the safety of each access point and to

plan out primary and secondary access/egress points. Access locations were selected to avoid heavy

traffic areas and active construction along I-35E/Cayuga. In areas with limited and or difficult access, a

safety standby contractor (Rescue Resources, Inc.) was onsite to perform emergency rescue if required.

Table 2-1 summarizes the access points for each inspection and identifies the tunnel interval supported by

Rescue Resources Inc.

Table 2-1 Inspection Access Points

TBI Branch Tunnel Station Interval Primary Access Point

Rescue

Resources

Support

TBI Mainline

STA 0+00 to 39+25 CRWD Access Vault (STA 10+85) Yes

STA 39+25 to 69+00

Manhole in median in front of

MNDOT maintenance office (STA

76+00)

Yes

STA 69+00 to 95+00 CRWD Access Vault (STA 95+00) No

STA 95+00 to 121+00 CRWD Access Vault (STA 95+00) Yes

STA 121+00 to 145+00 Manhole in front lawn of Carlin

Horticulture Supplies (STA 126+00) Yes

STA 145+00 to 178+07 Manhole in intersection of Cottage

Ave and Albemarle St. (STA 145+00) No

STA 178+07 to 198+00 Manhole near intersection of Arundel

St. and Maryland Ave. (STA 188+00) No

STA 198+00 to 232+14 Closed circuit television Inspection N.A.

East Extension STA 0+00 to 30+20 CRWD Access Vault (STA 95+00) Yes

West Extension

STA 0+00 to 34+00 Manhole in Rice & Arlington

Ball Fields (STA 3+50) No

STA 34+00 49+50 Manhole in Rice & Arlington

Ball Fields (STA 12+00) No


3

2.2 Schedule and Inspection Summary

Inspections were conducted between July and November of 2014. A portion of the TBI Mainline (STA

198+20 to 232+14) was inspected with closed-circuit television (CCTV) by InfraTech on August 19th and

August 29th of 2014. The CCTV footage is included in Appendix F. Table 2-2 summarizes the inspection

extents as well as the days required for each TBI extension.

Table 2-2 Summary of Tunnel Inspections

TBI Branch Station Interval Inspected Length Inspected (ft)1 Inspection Days

2

Mainline3 STA 0+00 to 232+14 23,214 8

East Extension STA 0+00 to 30+20 3,020 1

West Extension STA 0+00 to 51+00 5,100 2

Total 31,334 11

1 TBI Mainline STA 198+20 to 232+14 was inspected with CCTV by others.

2 TBI Mainline CCTV insp. was performed over two days and is included in the Mainline inspection day total. 3Mainline includes Mainline-A realignment (STA 53+08A to 61+08A).


4

3.0 NASSCO Rating System Definitions

Tunnel conditions were documented using the PACP developed by the NASSCO. PACP coding allows for

quantification of tunnel conditions and comparison of past and future inspections. PACP rating

recommendations include a numeric value (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) based on the type of observed feature or

defect. The advantage of the numeric classification system is a quantifiable rating which can be used to

prioritize repair and/or maintenance for each tunnel. Additionally, progressive degradation of a feature

(such as an infiltration weeper transitioning into an infiltration gusher) can be tracked in future

inspections. The following sections present a description of features identified during the inspection for

reference. All features fall under one of four categories: structural, operations and maintenance,

construction features, or miscellaneous. These four categories are further divided into groups. See

Appendix B for PACP code summary tables.

All clock positions reported are associated with the direction of the inspection with 12:00 at the crown and

6:00 at the invert position. All inspections were conducted walking upstream (increasing stationing)

excluding the CCTV inspection. However, the CCTV inspection clock positions were transposed during

data processing to be consistent with the other inspections.

3.1 Structural Defects

The structural category of defects includes various types of defects where the tunnel has been damaged

or is otherwise defective. There are 13 groups within the structural defect category, of which 8 were

encountered. Only the groups encountered are summarized below.

3.1.1 Cracks

A crack is a break in the liner that is visible but not physically open. A crack allows groundwater infiltration

and exfiltration. The sections of the liner adjacent to the crack are in place and not able to move.

3.1.1.1 Circumferential Cracks

A circumferential crack (CC) is a crack that runs in a circular pattern perpendicular to the axis of the tunnel.

3.1.1.2 Longitudinal Crack

A longitudinal crack (CL) is a crack that runs parallel to the axis of the tunnel.

3.1.1.3 Spiral Crack

A spiral crack (CS) is a crack that changes position as it advances along the tunnel. Spiral cracks often start

in a longitudinal direction then change clock orientation.

3.1.1.4 Multiple Cracks

Multiple cracks (CM) are a combination of more than one crack that intersects. The cracks multiple

designations are utilized because it is not practical to code each crack separately.


5

3.1.1.5 Hinge Crack

A hinge crack (CH) occurs when two or more longitudinal cracks occur at the same footage. Hinge cracks

are almost always attributed to excessive vertical loading on the tunnel that causes the tunnel to be

stressed circumferentially. A number is included after the code that designates how many cracks are

included in the hinge crack. For example, a CH3 feature consists of three longitudinal cracks parallel to the

axis of the tunnel.

3.1.2 Fractures

A fracture is a crack that has become visibly open and a gap can be seen. A fracture allows more

groundwater infiltration/exfiltration than a crack. The sections of the liner adjacent to the fracture are in

place and not able to move.

3.1.2.1 Circumferential Fracture

A circumferential fracture (FC) is a fracture that runs in a circular pattern perpendicular to the axis of the

tunnel.

3.1.2.2 Longitudinal Fracture

A longitudinal fracture (FL) is a fracture that runs parallel to the tunnel axis.

3.1.2.3 Spiral Fracture

A spiral fracture (FS) is an individual fracture that runs both parallel and perpendicular to the tunnel axis.

3.1.2.4 Multiple Fractures

Multiple fractures (FM) are a combination of both longitudinal and circumferential fractures that intersect.

3.1.2.5 Hinge Fracture

A hinge fracture (FH) occurs when two or more longitudinal fractures occur at the same footage. Hinge

fractures are almost always attributed to excessive vertical loading on the tunnel that causes the tunnel to

be stressed circumferentially. A number is included after the code that designates how many fractures are

included in the hinge fracture. For example, a FH2 feature consists of two longitudinal fractures parallel to

the axis of the tunnel.

3.1.3 Holes

A hole refers to a section or portion of the tunnel where the tunnel material is missing and pieces have

become completely dislodged from the tunnel wall. There are two modifiers used to further describe the

hole; when soil is visible beyond the defect (HSV) and when a void is visible beyond the defect (HVV).

3.1.4 Joints

This group is used to describe defects at joints. The codes may be used in conjunction with operational

and maintenance codes such as infiltration and cracks.


6

3.1.5 Surface Damage

This group is used to describe a wide range of tunnel material surface damage defects. Additional

modifiers may be used to describe the cause of the damage. These modifiers are mechanical (M),

chemical (C), and not evident (Z).

3.1.5.1 Aggregate Visible

Aggregate visible (SAV) refers to more serious damage where the tunnel aggregate is visible due to the

cement in the concrete tunnel material being worn away exposing the aggregate.

3.1.5.2 Reinforcement Visible

Reinforcement visible (SRV) refers to damaged concrete tunnels where tunnel material is missing or

improperly constructed that enable the reinforcement to be visible.

3.1.5.3 Surface Spalling

Surface spalling (SSS) refers to a tunnel that has experienced spalling as a result of tunnel movement or

expansion action of corroded reinforcement. Surface spalling may also be the result of defective or

damaged tunnel material.

3.1.5.4 Surface Roughness Increased

Surface roughness increased (SRI) refers to slight surface damage where the surface of the tunnel or

brickwork is slightly worn or deteriorated.

3.1.5.5 Surface Aggregate Projecting

Surface aggregate projecting (SAP) refers to surface damage where some of the tunnel aggregate is

visible and projecting above the surface of the remaining concrete matrix.

3.1.6 Lining Features

This group of codes is used to describe features of the sewer liner.

3.1.6.1 Bulges

Bulge (LFBU) refers to intruding defects that when the liner was placed or constructed, results in a bulge

where the defect is located.

3.1.7 Point Repair

This group of codes is used to record where a repair has been made in the tunnel.

3.1.7.1 Patch Repair

Patch repair (RPP) refers to a section of tunnel where a point has been patched or repaired.


7

3.1.7.2 Patch Repair Defective

Patch repair defective (RPPD) refers to a section of tunnel where a patch was attempted over a hole or

other defect and the patch appears to be defective.

3.1.8 Brickwork

This group of codes is used to describe brick tunnel liners

3.1.8.1 Missing Brick

Missing brick (MB) refers to one or more bricks missing from the tunnel liner.

3.1.8.2 Mortar Missing

Mortar missing (MM) refers to when the mortar used between the brickwork has receded or fallen out.

Several modifiers may be used to further describe the extent of the defect; small (S), medium (M), and

large (L). Small indicates less than one half inch of surface loss. Medium indicates one half to two inches of

surface loss. Large indicates the total mortar loss of being greater than two inches.

3.2 Operations and Maintenance Defects

The operations and maintenance category of defects includes various types of foreign objects and

material that are found in tunnels during inspections that may interfere with conveyance performance.

There are 6 groups within the structural defect category, of which 5 were encountered. Only the groups

encountered are summarized below.

3.2.1 Water Infiltration

Infiltration is the ingress of groundwater into tunnels and tunnels through a defect or permeable section

of the tunnel wall.

3.2.1.1 Infiltration Stain

An infiltration stain (IS) refers to no moisture present during the time of inspection, but a watermark

indicates water has entered in the past.

3.2.1.2 Infiltration Dripper

Infiltration dripper (ID) refers to water dripping through a defect or faulty joint or tunnel wall. Continuous

flow is not observed.

3.2.1.3 Infiltration Gusher

Infiltration gusher (IG) refers to water entering a tunnel under pressure through a defect or faulty joint. A

solid stream of water is observed flowing out of the defect.


8

3.2.1.4 Infiltration Runner

Infiltration runner (IR) refers to water running into the tunnel through a faulty joint or defect in the tunnel

wall. A continuous flow is observed.

3.2.1.5 Infiltration Weeper

Infiltration weeper (IW) refers to the slow ingress of water through a defective or faulty joint or tunnel

wall. No visible drips are observed.

3.2.2 Deposits

This group is used to report a range of deposits that may be found in tunnel systems. Deposits can cause

flow turbulence and partial blockages that can result in a decrease of hydraulic capacity.

3.2.2.1 Attached Deposits

Attached deposits (DA) refers to material attached to the wall of the tunnel. Attached deposits can be

further broken down into encrustation (DAE) and other deposits (DAZ). Attached encrustations consist of

deposits left by the partial evaporation of infiltrating groundwater containing dissolved salts. These

deposits will normally be concentrated alongside weeping or dripping joints or fractures. Other deposits

(DAZ) refers to deposits which are not suitably classified by the above codes.

3.2.2.2 Settled Deposits

Settled deposits (DS) refer to material that has deposited into the invert of the tunnel. Settled deposits are

often distributed throughout a tunnel length and will be most evident in sections with a flatter grade.

Settled deposits can be further broken down into fine deposits (DSF), gravel deposits (DSGV), and other

deposits (DSZ). Fine deposits consist of sand and silt particles. Gravel deposits consist of coarse sediments

and other deposits refers to a settled deposit which is not suitably classified by the above codes.

3.2.3 Roots

This group of codes is used to describe the ingress of roots through defects in the tunnel liner,

connections, or manholes. Several modifiers are used to further describe the instances where roots are

discovered. Barrel (B) refers to root entering the pipeline through the main body of the tunnel. Joint (J)

refers the root entering the pipeline through a joint between tunnel sections.

3.2.3.1 Fine

Fine roots (RF) refer the occasional intrusion of fine roots. Such roots are insufficient to cause a reduction

to overall available tunnel cross-sectional area. However, the fine roots are evidence that roots have found

the tunnel and may eventually grow and cause more damage and obstruction.


9

3.2.4 Obstacles/Obstructions

This group is used to record the presence of large and medium sized obstacles that are likely to cause a

serious obstruction to flow and reduction in hydraulic capacity. Smaller items (gravel) are noted under the

‘Deposits’ category.

3.2.4.1 Tunnel Material in Invert

Tunnel material in invert (OBM) refers to large or medium sections of the tunnel lying in the invert.

3.2.4.2 Object Wedged in Joint

Object wedged in joint (OBJ) is used to describe any object that is wedged in the joint of the tunnel.

3.2.4.3 External Pipe or Cable in Sewer

External pipe or cable in sewer (OBP) refers to ‘third party’ objects that have been inserted inside the

tunnel after construction or parts of cleaning equipment broke off and left in the tunnel.

3.2.4.4 Built Into Structure

Built into structure (OBS) is used to describe an object that existed prior the sewer/manhole being

constructed.

3.2.4.5 Construction Debris

Construction debris (OBN) refers to construction material being left in the tunnel.

3.2.4.6 Other Objects

Other objects (OBZ) is used to describe obstacles or obstructions where this is not a code, but are

explained in the ‘comments’ of the inspection notes.

3.2.5 Vermin

Vermin (V) is used to record only when vermin are actually observed. Vermin other (VZ) is used to

describe vermin observed other than rats or cockroaches, and the details are noted in the “comments”.

3.3 Construction Features

The construction feature codes describe conditions associated with the methods used to construct

tunnels. There are 4 groups within the operational and maintenance code, but only the features

encountered in the inspection are included below.

3.3.1 Taps

This group describes various types of taps including connections, wyes, and laterals. Modifiers may be

added to further describe the tap. These modifiers include intruding (I), active (A), capped (C), abandoned

(B) and defective (D).


10

3.3.1.1 Factory Made

Factory made taps (TF) refer to purpose-made or a pre-formed tunnel fitting that was built into the tunnel

during construction.

3.3.1.2 Break-In Hammer Tap

Break-in taps (TB) refer to a rough hole that has been broken in the side of the tunnel and a pipe inserted

without use of a special fitting for connecting or sealing the lateral pipe.

3.3.2 Intruding Sealing Material

This group describes situations where the joint sealing material between two tunnel sections is intruding

into the sewer. Additional modifiers are used to describe whether or not the intruding sealing ring is

Hanging (H), Broken (B), or Loose/Poorly Fitting (L).

3.3.2.1 Sealing Ring

Sealing Rings (ISSR) refers to the sealing ring or gasket between tunnel sections being visible.

3.3.3 Lines

This group of codes is used to describe a visible change in direction of the tunnel.

3.3.3.1 Line Left

Line left (LL) refers to when the tunnel’s alignment deviates to the left. The direction is referenced walking

upstream.

3.3.3.2 Line Right

Line right (LR) refers to when the tunnel’s alignment deviates to the right. The direction is referenced

walking upstream.

3.3.3.3 Line Up

Line up (LU) refers to when the tunnel alignment deviates upward. The direction is referenced walking

upstream.

3.3.4 Access Points

This group of codes is used to describe access points into the tunnel.

3.3.4.1 Manhole

A manhole (AMH) is a structure designed to provide access to the tunnel for maintenance and inspection.

3.3.4.2 Catch Basin

A catch basin (ACB) is an entry point for water into the tunnel. Catch basins are typically located along the

street, curb or low point in a parking lot.


11

3.4 Miscellaneous Features

The miscellaneous codes include features and defects that are not included in the other categories. Only

codes used in the inspection are included.

3.4.1 Dimension/Diameter/Shape Change

Dimension/Diameter/Shape change (MSC) is refers to when the tunnel liner changes cross-section in

some way.

3.4.2 General Observation

General observation (MGO) is used in conjunction with the “comments” section to record additional

information that is not covered under PACP coding.

3.4.3 Survey Abandoned

Survey abandoned (MSA) is used to describe the instance where the survey could not be completed due

to some obstruction or blockage in the tunnel. Further details are recorded in the ‘comments’ section.

3.4.4 Water Level

Water level (MWL) is used to describe the depth of water in the sewer at the time of inspection. After the

initial entry, only changes of at least 10% of the cross-section should be recorded. A modifier (S) is used

to describe a sag or dip in the tunnel, and if noted, are considered to be a structural defect and rated

accordingly.

3.5 PACP Grades

Grades are assigned for defects encountered within both the structural and O&M categories as follows:

5 – Most Significant Defect

4 - Significant Defect

3 - Moderate Defect

2 – Minor to Moderate Defect

1 – Minor Defect

3.6 PACP Condition Grading System

The PACP condition grading system is based on the number and severity of defects observed during the

inspection. There is no single condition grading system that fully describes all of the important aspects of

a tunnel; therefore, the PACP condition grading system uses more than one method of tunnel segment

rating. The Overall Pipe Rating (OPR) and the Pipe Rating Index (PRI) were used for this inspection.


12

The OPR is a number used to benchmark pipes against past and future inspections. The higher the OPR,

the more defects the pipe has. In order to calculate the OPR, the grade score must be calculated. The

grade score is calculated for each NASSCO condition grade by multiplying the number of defect

occurrences by the respective condition grade (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) as shown in Equation 1.

Equation 1

DefectsofNumberTotalRatingDefectScoreGrade ×=

After the grade score is calculated, the OPR can be calculated by summing the grade scores of each

condition grade 1 through 5 as shown in Equation 2.

Equation 2

OPR = Grade Score1+Grade Score2+Grade Score3+Grade Score4+Grade Score5

The PRI can be described as a weighted average of the grade scores over the length of pipe of interest. It

is calculated by dividing the OPR by the total number of defects as shown in Equation 3. The PRI value has

a range of 0 to 5 and the grade definition corresponds to the NASSCO feature grade where 5 is the most

severe. A PRI of 0 indicates the pipe has no defects. The OPR and PRI are calculated separately for both

structural and O&M defects.

Equation 3

DefectsofNumberTotal

RatingPipeOverallPRI =

3.6.1 Grading of Continuous Defects

The PACP continuous defect feature is used to denote where long portions of a pipe are affected by the

same defect. However to develop a grade for the pipe segment, a mechanism is needed to translate a

continuous defect into an equivalent number of point defects. The equivalent number (quantity) of

“uninterrupted” continuous defects is calculated by dividing the length of the continuous defect by five.


13

4.0 Inspection Findings

Several methods of tunnel condition quantification are provided with this report including the following:

1. Structural and O&M Pipe Rating Index Figures (Appendix A).

2. PRI and OPR values for each TBI extension and per 1,000 Feet of tunnel (Appendix C).

3. Inspection data in tabular format (Appendix E).

4.1 Presentations of Observations

All of the methods of tunnel condition quantification included above present the inspection data in a

different way. The PRI values are used to assign a condition descriptor for each TBI extension as shown in

Table 4-1. A description of the PRI and how it is calculated is found in section 3.6. The PRI values are

calculated for both structural and O&M defects. Appendix A presents a graphical representation of the

PRI values per 1,000 feet for each TBI extension for both structural and O&M categories.

Table 4-1 Pipe Rating Index (PRI) Summary

PRI Value Tunnel Condition

0-1 Good

2-3 Fair

4 Poor

5 Urgent

The overall pipe rating (OPR) is another method of evaluating the condition of a tunnel. A description of

the OPR and how it is calculated is included in section 3.6. The OPR is most beneficial when used as a

comparison to past and future inspection OPR values. A summary of the OPR and PRI values for each TBI

extension is included in Table 4-2. Detailed tables that break down the extensions into 1000-ft segments

are included in Appendix C.

Table 4-2 Summary of Overall Pipe Ratings (OPR) and Pipe Rating Index (PRI)

TBI Branch

Structural

OPR

O&M

OPR

Overall

OPR

Structural

PRI

O&M

PRI

Overall

PRI

Mainline 7,711 6,663 14,374 3 2 2

Mainline-A 152 0 152 2 0 2

East Extension 1,386 717 2,103 3 2 3

West Extension 1,676 1,777 3,453 2 2 2


14

4.2 Grade 4 Defects

In total, 160 grade 4 defects were observed in TBI Mainline, 0 in Mainline-A, 17 in the East Extension, and

14 in the West Extension. A summary of these defects including the type of defect are provided in Table

4-3.

Table 4-3 Summary of Grade 4 Defects

TBI Branch

Grade 4

Defect

Quantity Defect Type Notes

Mainline 160 IR, MB, FM,

RPPD, CH2

Infiltration Runner, Missing Brick, Multiple

Fracture, Defective Point Patch Repair, Hinge

Crack (2). IR is the most reoccurring.

Mainline A

(realignment) 0 None None

East Extension 17 FM, RPPD, IR Multiple Fracture, Defective Point Patch Repair,

Infiltration Runner. IR is the most reoccurring.

West Extension 14 IR, RPPD Infiltration Runner, Defective Point Patch

Repair. IR is the most reoccurring.

4.3 Grade 5 Defects

In total, 329 grade 5 defects were observed in TBI Mainline, 0 in Mainline-A, 20 in the East Extension, and

32 in the West Extension. A summary of these defects including the type of defect are provided in Table

4-4.

Table 4-4 Summary of Grade 5 Defects

TBI Branch

Grade 5

Defect

Quantity Defect Type Notes

Mainline 331 HVV, SRV, IG,

HSV

Hole Void Visible, Surface Reinforcement

Visible, Infiltration Gusher, Hole Soil Visible.

SRV is the most reoccurring.

Mainline A

(realignment) 0 None None

East Extension 20 SRV, IG Surface Reinforcement Visible, Infiltration

Gusher. SRV is the most reoccurring.

West Extension 32 IG, HSV, SRV

Infiltration Gusher, Hole Soil Visible, Surface

Reinforcement Visible. SRV is the most

reoccurring.


15

4.4 Comparison with Previous Inspections

Previous inspections of the tunnel were performed by MSA Consulting in 1995 and CNA in 2002 and 2007.

The 2007 CNA report uses a tunnel condition rating system of good, fair, poor, or urgent. In the 2007

report, these ratings are applied to various intervals along the TBI and included in a table as comparison

to the previous inspection in 2002. This table has been carried forward in the 2014 report in order to

identify any areas that have changed significantly between inspections. The 2014 ratings were determined

using PACP guidelines. The 2007 report conducted by CNA used a modified version of the PACP

guidelines. Because of this, minor differences in tunnel ratings and classification may exist between the

inspections.

It is important to note that two significant construction projects have occurred on the TBI mainline since

the 2007 inspection that have implications on the comparison tables below. First, a rehabilitation project

conducted in the winter of 2008 repaired several sections classified as urgent or poor in the 2007 report.

Additionally, the TBI realignment (Mainline-A) was constructed in 2013 that replaces station 52+80 to

station 60+36 of the old alignment with a precast box section so no comparison of this interval is

provided. Subsequently, these sections now have improved ratings in the 2014 report.

The tunnel system was evaluated in 1,000 foot increments. The increments do not exactly align with the

intervals provided in the 2007 report and therefore were applied to best match the existing intervals.

Some of these intervals overlap the 1,000 foot increments so a condition range may be provided. In the

tables provided below, a comparison between the 2002, 2007, and 2014 inspections is made, highlighting

the changes in conditions of each TBI extension.


16

Table 4-5 Comparison to Past Inspections – TBI Mainline

Station

2002

Report

CNA

2007

Report

BARR

2014

Report Discussion of Tunnel Condition Change

0+00 to 19+93 Fair Fair Fair STA 0+00 to 19+93 - condition is consistent with 2007 report.

19+93 to 23+00 Good

Good

Fair

STA 19+93 to 23+00 & 23+15 to 32+33 – was previously rated

as good is downgraded to fair condition. This is attributed to

increased grade 4 and 5 defects recorded in the 2014

inspection. The defects consist mostly of reinforcement visible

(SRV), infiltration runners (IR) as well as missing blocks in the

invert and tunnel wall. STA 23+00 to 23+15 – was previously

rated as poor due to a defective access vault (2007 CNA), is

upgraded to fair condition. This is attributed to repairs made on

the defective access vault as part of the 2008 rehabilitation.

23+00 to 23+15 Poor

23+15 to 28+49 Fair Fair

23+15 to 23+55*



Poor

STA 32+33 to 42+73 – was previously rated as good to fair is

downgraded to poor condition. This is attributed to increased

grade 4 and 5 defects recorded in the 2014 inspection. The

defects consist mostly of reinforcement visible (SRV), infiltration

runners (IR) as well as multiple fractures (FM), and holes with

soil visible (HSV).

32+62 to 33+34*

33+34 to 33+62 Good Good


42+73 to 59+45 Fair Fair Fair to

Poor

STA 42+73 to 59+45 – was previously rated as fair is

downgraded to fair to poor condition. This is attributed to



(SRV), infiltration runners (IR) as well as defective patches

(RPPD), and multiple fractures (FM). Rating applies up to STA

52+80 where the Mainline-A realignment begins.

59+45 to 90+00 Fair

Fair

Classification applies starting at STA 60+36 where the Mainline-

A realignment ends. STA 60+80 to 88+20 – was previously

rated as poor but has been upgraded to fair condition. This is

attributed to in-pipe repairs completed as part of the 2008

rehabilitation including crack sealing and minor concrete repair.

STA 88+20 to 92+00 – was previously rated as poor to urgent

but has been upgraded to fair condition. This is attributed to

the Sag 2 repairs between STA 89+94 to 90+00 completed as

part of the 2008 rehabilitation including the installation of

resistance piers and a concrete curb.

59+45 to 60+80**

Good

60+80 to 88+20**

Poor

88+20 to 90+00**

Urgent

88+45 to 90+00* Poor

90+00 to 92+00 Poor Poor

Fair

STA 90+00 to 95+10 – was previously rated as poor to urgent is

upgraded to fair condition. This is attributed to the Sag 1 and

Sag 2 repairs between STA 93+16 to 95+20 and 89+94 to

90+00 respectively, completed as part of the 2008

rehabilitation. STA 95+10 to 112+76 - condition is consistent

with 2007 report.

92+00 to 112+76 Fair

92+00 to 94+50* ** Poor Urgent

94+50 to 95+10**

Poor

95+10 to 112+76**

Fair

*Designates segments between main sections (2002)

**Designates segments between main sections (2007)


17

Table 4-6 Comparison to Past Inspections – TBI Mainline Continued

Station

2002

Report

CNA

2007

Report

BARR

2014

Report Discussion of Tunnel Condition Change

112+76 to 136+16 Fair Fair Fair

STA 112+76 to 136+16 - condition is consistent with 2007

report. 112+76 to 136+16*

136+16 to 198+24 Fair Fair to

Poor

STA 136+16 to 198+24 – was previously rated as fair is

downgraded to fair to poor condition. This is attributed to



(SRV), infiltration runners (IR) as well as multiple fractures (FM),

and holes with soil visible (HSV).

169+50 to 171+28* Poor

136+16 to 168+73**

Fair Fair to

Poor

168+73 to 171+13**

Good Fair to

Poor

171+13 to 185+82**

Good Fair

185+82 to 186+94**

Poor Fair

186+94 to 198+24**

Good Fair

198+24 to 207+03 Good Good Fair

STA 198+24 to 207+03 – was previously rated as good is

downgraded to fair. This is attributed to increased grade 2 and

3 defects recorded in the 2014 inspection. The defects consist

mostly of infiltration weepers (IW), deposits attached

encrustation (DAE), and surface aggregate visible (SAV).

207+03 to 220+00

Good No comparison available.

220+00 to 230+00

Good No comparison available.

230+00 to 232+14

Fair No comparison available.


**Designates segments between main sections (2007)

Table 4-7 Comparison to Past Inspections – East Extension

Station

2002

Report

CNA

2007

Report

BARR

2014

Report Repairs/Problems




3 defects as well as a few grade 4 and grade 5 defects recorded

in the 2014 inspection. The defects consist mostly of infiltration

weepers (IW), deposits attached encrustation (DAE), defective

patches (RPPD) and multiple cracks (CM).

0+00 to 15+65

*(15+92 to 30+20) Good Good Fair



3 defects as well as a few grade 4 and grade 5 defect recorded

in the 2014 inspection. The defects consist mostly of infiltration

weepers (IW), infiltration gushers (IG), deposits attached

encrustation (DAE), defective patches (RPPD) and multiple

cracks (CM).



18

Table 4-8 Comparison to Past Inspections – West Extension

Station

2002

Report

CNA

2007

Report

BARR

2014

Report Repairs/Problems

0+00 to 17+62 Fair Fair Fair STA 0+00 to 17+62 - condition is consistent with 2007

report.



downgraded to fair. This is attributed to increased grade 2

and 3 defects as well as a few grade 4 and grade 5 defects

recorded in the 2014 inspection. The defects consist mostly

of surface reinforcement visible (SRV), infiltration runners

(IR), defective patches (RPPD), deposits attached

encrustation (DAE), and multiple cracks (CM).



downgraded to fair. This is attributed to increased grade 2

and 3 defects as well as a few grade 4 and grade 5 defects

recorded in the 2014 inspection. The defects consist mostly

of surface reinforcement visible (SRV), and multiple cracks

(CM).


19

5.0 Recommendations

Section 5 provides recommendation for ongoing maintenance and/or repair of the TBI system based on

the inspection summarized in Section 4.

5.1 2014 Recommendations

The frequency of inspection should be based on tunnel age, condition, and risk assessment. Currently

there is not a regulatory standard for pipe inspection frequency; however, given the results of the

inspection, and comparison to past inspections, maintaining the five year inspection interval is

recommended. Based on the five year inspection program, the next inspection will occur in 2019. Because

the TBI system is relatively large, it may not be practical to repair all of the deficiencies at once so a

phased approach is recommended that initially targets the most critical areas.

5.1.1 TBI Mainline Recommendations

The TBI mainline has three segments that Barr recommends minor to moderate rehabilitation that are

described below. The repair recommendations along with a time frame to conduct the repairs is included

in Table 5-1.

• Rehabilitation is recommended between stations 0+00 to 28+49. The observed deficiencies occur

in the limestone block portion of the tunnel and includes missing mortar (MMM) between the

blocks. MMM equates to a grade level of 3 in the PACP coding and is described as a “moderate

defect”. However, this region is in close proximity to the railroad tracks and is subject to frequent

vibrations from the overhead traffic. Although this section has been in service for many years,

these combined conditions could further deteriorate the condition and accelerate spalling and

dislodge blocks.

• Rehabilitation is also recommended between stations 28+65 to 50+72 and 135+06 and 180+29.

The deficiencies in these segments occur in reinforced concrete segments of the tunnel and

include surface reinforcement visible (SRV). SRV equates to a grade level of 5 in the PACP coding

and is described as “a most significant defect”. Several of the areas of visible reinforcement are

the result of concrete spalling and deterioration.

• Other less significant repairs including crack sealing, minor concrete repair, and sediment removal

could be conducted in these segments to maximize efficiency of the rehabilitation mobilization to

improve the overall rating of each tunnel segment.


20

Table 5-1 Mainline – Recommended Repairs

Station

Defect

Code Description of Defect Discussion and Recommendation

0+00 to 28+49 MMM

Mortar between

limestone block is

missing.

Installation of new mortar between existing

limestone block is recommended. Rehabilitation

should occur prior to the next five year inspection.

28+65 to 50+72 SRV Surface Reinforcement Visible

Sealing the exposed rebar with epoxy is

recommended. Some areas may require concrete

repairs in areas where degradation has occurred.

Rehabilitation should occur prior to the next five

year inspection.

135+06 to 180+29 SRV Surface Reinforcement Visible

5.1.2 East Extension Recommendations

There are no immediate recommendations for the east extension of the TBI. The east extension should be

continued to be monitored as part of the five year inspection program.

5.1.3 West Extension Recommendations

There are no immediate recommendations for the west extension of the TBI. The west extension should

be continued to be monitored as part of the five year inspection program.


21

6.0 Limitations of Assessment

The assessment, interpretation, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein are based on the

observations from recent inspections performed by Barr utilizing the PACP and NASSCO rating system.

Using generally accepted engineering methods and practices, the assessments performed have

characterized the tunnel conditions within the limitations of the scope of work as defined by Capitol

Region Watershed District.


22

7.0 References

1. CNA Consulting Engineers. “Trout Brook Storm Tunnel System Inspection and Assessment

Report.” Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District and TKDA. September 2007

2. FHWA. “23 CFR Part 650 / FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2008-0038. National Pipe Inspection

Standards – Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comments.” Federal Register: July

22, 2010. vol. 73, Number 140.

3. NASSCO. “Pipeline Assessment Certification Program – reference Manual 6.0.1.” November

2010.

Appendix A

Structural and O&M PRI Figures

Como Lake

Mississippi River

Lake McCarrons

94

94

35E

61

61

52

952A

5

5

49 55

34

33

27

58

33

56

51

31

53

30

32

35

36

Trout Brook Storm SewerInterceptor - West Extension

Trout Brook Storm SewerInterceptor - Mainline

Trout Brook Storm SewerInterceptor - East Extension

Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor - Realignment (2012-13)

Sag Repairs (2008-09)

00+00

-10+00

-20+00

10+00

20+00

30+00

40+00

50+00

60+00

70+00

80+00

90+00

100+00

110+00

120+00

130+00140+00150+00

160+00

170+00

180+00

190+00200+00210+00220+00230+00

00+00

10+00

20+0030+00

40+00

51+00

20+00

30+20

00+00 10+00232+14

61+08A

53+08A

Barr

Foo

ter:

Arc

GIS

10.

2.2,

201

5-01

-16

16:5

2 Fi

le: I

:\Clie

nt\C

apito

lReg

ionW

D\M

aps\

TBI_

Stor

m_T

unne

l_R

epor

t\Fig

01 P

ipe

Rat

ing

Inde

x As

sigm

ent -

Stru

ctur

al.m

xd U

ser:

jjl2

Figure 1

PIPE RATING INDEX ASSIGNMENTSTRUCTURAL

Trout Brook Storm SewerInterceptor 5-Year Inspections

Capitol Region Watershed DistrictSt. Paul, Minnesota

1,750 0 1,750Feet

Stationing

Structural Pipe Rating IndexGood

Fair

Poor

Trout Brook Storm SewerInterceptor - Mainline(Not Inspected)

Image Source: FSA (2013)

Como Lake

Mississippi River

Lake McCarrons

94

94

35E

61

61

52

952A

5

5

49 55

34

33

27

58

33

56

51

31

53

30

32

35

36

Trout Brook Storm SewerInterceptor - West Extension

Trout Brook Storm SewerInterceptor - Mainline

Trout Brook Storm SewerInterceptor - East Extension

Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor - Realignment (2012-13)

Sag Repairs (2008-09)

00+00

-10+00

-20+00

10+00

20+00

30+00

40+00

50+00

60+00

70+00

80+00

90+00

100+00

110+00

120+00

130+00140+00150+00

160+00

170+00

180+00

190+00200+00210+00220+00230+00

00+00

10+00

20+0030+00

40+00

51+00

20+00

30+20

00+00 10+00232+14

61+08A

53+08A

Barr

Foo

ter:

Arc

GIS

10.

2.2,

201

5-01

-16

16:5

1 Fi

le: I

:\Clie

nt\C

apito

lReg

ionW

D\M

aps\

TBI_

Stor

m_T

unne

l_R

epor

t\Fig

02 P

ipe

Rat

ing

Inde

x As

sigm

ent -

Ope

ratio

n an

d M

aint

enan

ce.m

xd U

ser:

jjl2

Figure 2

PIPE RATING INDEX ASSIGNMENTOPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Trout Brook Storm SewerInterceptor 5-Year Inspections

Capitol Region Watershed DistrictSt. Paul, Minnesota

1,750 0 1,750Feet

Stationing

O & M Pipe Rating IndexGood

Fair

Poor

Trout Brook Storm SewerInterceptor - Mainline(Not Inspected)

Image Source: FSA (2013)


Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday,

February 18, 2015 6:05 p.m. at the office of the CRWD, 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4, St. Paul, Minnesota

REGULAR MEETING

I. A) Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

Managers

Joe Collins

Seitu Jones absent w/notice

Shirley Reider

Mike Thienes absent

w/notice

Mary Texer

Staff Present

Mark Doneux, CRWD

Bob Fossum, CRWD

Elizabeth Hosch, CRWD

Forrest Kelley, CRWD

Michelle Sylvander, CRWD

Jim Mogan, Ramsey County

Attorney

Public Attendees

Todd Shoemaker, Wenck

B) Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda

President Collins asked for additions or changes to the agenda. No changes were requested.

Motion 15-035: Approve the February 18, 2015 agenda.

Texer/Reider

Unanimously approved

II. Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda

There were no public comments.

III. Permit Applications and Program Updates

A) Permit #13-025 Vandalia Redevelopment Renewal Request (Kelley)

Mr. Kelley reviewed Permit #13-025 Vandalia Redevelopment Renewal Request. The applicant is First & First.

The permit was approved with 8 conditions on October 2, 2013. The permit has not been issed and the project

has not broken ground. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting an extension of the permit. The work

did not commence due to the owners seeking grant funding from Metropolitan Council. The funding has been

approved and the applicant has submitted updated plans.

Motion 15-036: Approve updated permit #13-025 with 6 conditions for revised plans.

1. Receipt of $8,150 surety and recorded maintenance agreement.

March 4, 2015 Board Meeting

V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes

of February 18, 2015

DRAFT Regular Board Meeting

(Sylvander)


2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

3. Extend erosion control and project limits to include the proposed sanitary sewer and water main located

outside the delineated disturbed area and erosion control.

4. Provide a detail for the underground system.

5. Provide a detail for the underground system outlet structure.

6. Revise specification in plan set that rock placed around underground system shall be washed, angular,

non-carbonate rock.

Reider/Texer


B) Permit # 14-039 Randolph Avenue (Kelley)

Mr. Kelley reviewed Permit #14-039 Randolph Avenue. The applicant Ramsey County Public Works is

reconstructing Randolph Avenue from Brimhall to Syndicate with two tree trench systems. 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 10.99 Acres with 8.29 Acres of impervious surface.

Motion 15-037: Approve permit #14-039 Randolph Avenue with 2 Conditions:

1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID.

2. In HydroCAD, include the weir in the outlet structure and route it to the 15” orifice.

Reider/Texer


President Collins asked why the cost are so high. Mr. Kelley replied that because the project is smaller in size

there is no discount for material volume. Mr. Shoemaker was surprised by the costs as well.

C) Permit # 14-041 Higher Ground 60-day Review Extension (Kelley)

Mr. Kelley reviewed Permit #14-041 Higher Ground 60-day Review Extension. The applicant is requesting the

review period be extended. District and City staff have been working with the project team to determine how

much they can narrow Main Street in order to provide improved pedestrian safety.

Motion 15-038: Approve a 60-day extension to the review period of Permit #14-041 to expire on April 21,

2015.

Reider/Texer


D) Permit Close Outs (Hosch)

Ms. Hosch reviewed Permit #09-006 St. Thomas Rec Center and Permit #10-004 St. Thomas Anderson Student

Center. Final inspections were conducted in the fall of 2011. All temporary BMPs have been removed and

soils stabilized. Construction as-builts have been submitted and the BMPs were installed as approved.

Maintenance Agreements for the onsite stormwater management practices have been recorded with Ramsey

County.


$17,250 and $13,800 of surety were required for these projects. $9,200 will be retained to cover work under

permit #13-009. $21,850 is available for return.

Ms. Hosch reviewed the Midway Center permit #08-010: This permit approval expired before it was issued and

the project has not been constructed. There are no current plans for development or construction activity.

Submitted surety is available for return in the amount of $8,750.

Motion 15-039: Approve Certificates of Completion and combined $21,850 surety return for permits #09-006

(St. Thomas Rec Center) and #10-004 (St. Thomas Anderson Student Center).

Reider/Texer


Motion 15-040: Approve $8,750 surety return for expired permit approval #08-010 (Midway Center).

Reider/Texer


E) Permit Program/Rules Update (Kelley)

Mr. Kelley reviewed a TAC meeting was held on January 29, 2015 to discuss revisions and discuss comments.

The Board authorized distribution of revised rules for a 45-day review and comment period to begin on February

6th to March 23, 2015. A public hearing is set for March 4, 2015.

III. Special Reports

No Special Reports

V. Action Items

A) AR: Approve Minutes of the February 4, 2015 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

Motion 15-041: Approve Minutes of the February 4, 2015.

Reider/Texer


B) AR: Accounts Payable (Sylvander)

Motion 15-042: Approve the January 2015 Accounts Payable/Receivable and direct Treasurer and Board

President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments.

Texer/Reider


C) AR: Approve Mid-Term Watershed Plan Review Agreement (Fossum)

Mr. Fossum reviewed that on September 1, 2010, the Board of Managers adopted the District’s Watershed

Management Plan (WMP). The plan covers the term from 2010—2020. As the District is currently at the half-


way point in the term of the WMP, it is a good time to evaluate implementation of the plan and consider

adjustments (if any) to the WMP.

Staff have worked with EOR, Inc. to develop a scope of work to complete a mid-term review of the District’s

2010 WMP. The scope of work includes three phases: Data Gathering, Evaluation of WMP Progress, and

Final Report.

Mr. Fossum reviewed with the Managers the Scope of Work, Schedule and Budget to complete the project.

Fiscal Note: 2015 approved budget includes project: 370-15100 Watershed Plan Audit--$60,000.

Motion 15-043: Authorize the Board President and Administrator to execute an Agreement for the 2010

Watershed Management Plan Mid-Term Review with EOR, Inc. not to exceed $38,500; subject to the review and

approval of the Ramsey County Attorney.

Reider/Texer


VI. Unfinished Business

A) Upper Villa Stormwater Improvement Project Update (Kelley)

Mr. Kelley reviewed the Upper Villa Stormwater Improvement Project planned near the B-Dale Club. Mr. Kelley

stated that the project is moving very quickly. Bids for the project will be reviewed at the March 4th Board of

Managers Meeting with construction scheduled to begin in late October. A number of activities planned at the

site are making the construction schedule very tights. The City of Roseville will be sharing the cost of the project.

B) Ford Site Update (Fossum)

Mr. Fossum provided a review of the former Ford Site. The City of St. Paul has requested additional stormwater

management at this site. Administrator Doneux and Mr. Fossum have been attending a number of public meetings

with the City of St. Paul and the Parks and Recreation Department. The focus of the meetings has been to restore

the surface water features. Manager Texer asked how this will affect staff time. Administrator Doneux replied

that more projects will be delegated to consultants. Administrator Doneux also commented that the former Ford

site was originally in the 2015 budget. Funding will be allocated in a budget amendment.

C) Willow Reserve Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux provided an update on the Willow Reserve. Administrator Doneux reviewed the history

of the site. The land was purchased in the 1970’s as a bird sanctuary. The ownership of the land is split between

the City of St. Paul and the Parks and Recreation Department. The former Larson Greenhouse site is being looked

at for a development by Habitat for Humanity. The City of St. Paul has the intention to develop the site. HUD

money has been invested in this site for a housing development. This area has been submitted to the University

of Minnesota for a capstone study project. The goals of this area are to maximize the urban wildlife and improve

water quality.

Motion 15-044: Hire the Blue Stem Heritage Group to update the 2015 history of the Willow Reserve.

Texer/Reider



Administrator Doneux noted that a trail network around the reserve has been talked about. Administrator Donuex

said the foundation of the homes would need to be elevated two feet above the flood plain level. President Collins,

stated that a professional contractor has been assigned to the development. Manager Texer asked about the

Governor’s proposed 50 foot buffer impact this project. Administrator Doneux reviewed a map showing how the

buffer would change the size of the area to be developed.

D) 2015 Legislative Update (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux provided an update provided by MAWD on February 5, 2015 regarding the 2015

Legislature. Administrator Doneux shared a spreadsheet with the Clean Water Fund Recommendations compared

to the Governor’s Clean Water Fund Recommendations. Legislature and interest groups are just beginning to

analyze the recommendations and how it would impact their own funding. MAWD is still in the process of

analyzing the Governor’s recommendations on the Clean Water Fund spending.

Administrator Doneux reviewed the Governor’s agenda for the Buffer Initiative. The Managers discussed

feelings about how the required riparian buffer is defined. Item c. stated: Cutting/haying/grazing/mowing

allowed. The Managers agreed that cutting/haying/grazing/mowing should not be allowed.

Administrator Doneux shared that Ray Bohn from Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts (MAWD) has

announced that his wife Peggy Bohn will retire this year. Ray plans to retire in the next three to five years.

VII. General Information

A) Administrators Report

1) Administrator Approved or Executed Agreements

a) Stewardship Grant Agreement for two rain gardens at St. Paul United Church, 900 Summit Ave. –

not to exceed $5,486.

b) Amendment No. 1 to Work Order No. 7 with Barr Engineering for TBI for additional costs and work

for an on-site condition survey - not to exceed $2,737 for a total of $89,147.

c) Partner Grant Agreement with Citizens League for the work of Como Active Citizen Network -

$3,000.

2) Board Approved or Executed Agreements

a) Memorandum of Understanding with Saint Paul Parks and Recreation and Public Works

Departments for the Como Regional Park Stormwater Management Plan.

b) Special Grant Agreement with Roseville Parks and Recreation Department for Villa Park

Restoration activities - $22,410.

3) General updates including recent and upcoming meetings and events

a) “The High Price of Cheap Groundwater: Are We Flushing Our Future Downstream?” hosted by

FMR is Thursday, March 26 at 7:00 pm at the Science Museum of Minnesota.

b) The Saint Paul Parks Cleanup will be held Saturday April 18 from 9 – 11:30 am.

c) The 21st Annual Great River Gathering is May 14, 2015 at Saint Paul Rivercentre. Early registration

($65) ends March 13, 2015. President Collins plans to attend.

d) Legislative Reception, Breakfast & Day at the Capitol is planned by MAWD on March 11th and

March 12th. President Collins and Manager Texer plan to attend.


VIII. Next Meeting

A) Wednesday, March 4, 2015 Board Meeting

B) Wednesday, March 11, 2015 CAC Meeting, President Collins plans to attend.

Motion 15-045: Adjournment of the February 18, 2015 Regular Board Meeting at 7:35 p.m.

Texer/Reider

Unanimously Approved

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle Sylvander

DATE: February 27, 2015 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Bob Fossum, Program Manager RE: Ford Site Stormwater Evaluation Background Ford's former Twin Cities Assembly Plant will be redeveloped in the coming years on more than 135 acres of land situated along the Mississippi River. The City of St. Paul’s vision for the site is that it will be a livable, mixed-use neighborhood that looks to the future with clean technologies and high quality design for energy, buildings and infrastructure. This site will support walking, biking and transit, and provide services, jobs and activities that every generation can enjoy. Issues The City of St. Paul has requested assistance in taking the next step in planning for stormwater management, green infrastructure, and water feature development on the Ford Site. Previously, in 2009 the City of St. Paul contracted with Barr Engineering Co. to complete preliminary evaluations of stormwater management alternatives at the Ford site. District and City staff have worked with Barr Engineering to develop a scope of work for additional analysis to inform planning efforts. Staff will review the proposed scope of work with the Managers. Requested Action Approve scope of work and budget for Ford Site Stormwater Evaluation; and authorize Administrator to execute a consultant services agreement with Barr Engineering Co. for an amount not to exceed $35,000. enc: Ford Site Planning Assistance Request Letter from Wes Saunders-Pearce, dated 2/10/2015 Proposal for Ford Site Stormwater Evaluation from Barr Engineering, dated 2/27/2015 cc: Wes Saunders-Pearce, City of St. Paul, w/o enc. Nathan Campeau, Barr Engineering, w/o enc. W:\06 Projects\Ford Site\2015 Stormwater Feasibility\Brd Memo - Barr Ford Site SOW 2-27-15.docx

March 4, 2015 Action Item V. B)

Ford Site Stormwater Evaluation


An Equal Opportunity Employer

DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS

Ricardo X. Cervantes, Director

CITY OF SAINT PAUL

Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor

375 Jackson Street, Suite 220

Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-1806

Telephone: 651-266-8989

Facsimile: 651-266-9124

Web: www.stpaul.gov/dsi

February 10, 2015

Mr. Bob Fossum


1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4

Saint Paul, MN 55108

RE: Ford Site Planning Assistance

Dear Bob,

In recent months, City staff has initiated various activities to guide the future use and design of

the Ford redevelopment site. Included among these activities is an evaluation of ‘public realm’

needs – which includes all forms of public infrastructure and public open space. As you know,

stormwater planning is integral to this effort.

We would like to partner with your agency to refine our stormwater planning for the Ford site.

Technical evaluations are necessary to test our conceptual ideas for stormwater management. We

request assistance from the Capitol Region Watershed District to help us perform analyses that

will explore preliminary form and feasibility for a multi-function, visible stormwater feature.

Hopefully you agree that partnering to leverage your resources and expertise will strengthen our

efforts to define a high-amenity green infrastructure system for the Ford redevelopment site.

We look forward to your involvement in our planning effort.

Sincerely,

Wes Saunders-Pearce

Water Resource Coordinator

cc: Merritt Clapp-Smith, PED

Mark Doneux, CRWD

February 27, 2015

Mr. Bob Fossum

Program Manager


1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4

Saint Paul, MN 55108

Re: Proposal to Provide Ford Plant Site Redevelopment Green Infrastructure Services, Phase 1

Dear Bob:

Thank you for the opportunity to propose in assessing the feasibility of implementing green infrastructure

practices at a redeveloped Ford Plant Site in Saint Paul. This proposal describes the scope and budget to

develop green infrastructure and stormwater concepts for a redeveloped Ford Plant Site, incorporating

principles of sustainability, building off the 2009 Sustainable Stormwater Feasibility Report, written by

Barr for the City of Saint Paul.

The project is broken into two (2) phases. This proposal is specifically for Phase 1; however, Phase 2 as

conceptualized is discussed as well. This scope of work was requested at and is based on discussions at a

meeting between Barr, Capitol Region Watershed Distict (CRWD) and the City of Saint Paul (City) held

on February 20, 2015.

The Phase 1 objective is to advance project definition and scoping for public green infrastructure features

by using a rapid-assessment screening to evaluate design parameters such as subwatershed routing,

feature scale, amenities and multiple benefits. The Phase 2 objective is to further advance definition of

the project green infrastructure sustainability profile, to provide a means of tracking degree of success in

achieving that profile, and to inform planning efforts .

Phase 1, Task 1: Review Existing Stormwater Documents, Data, and Develop Assumptions

Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) will review existing reports that the City has developed for the Ford Plant

Site Redevelopment, including:

1. 2009 Sustainable Stormwater Report, by Barr, as starting point for analysis

2. 2014 Hidden Falls Creek Report (to be provided to Barr), for rate control parameters on discharge

from site

3. West Side Flats Master Plan Update (Draft) for green infrastructure plan:

http://www.stpaul.gov/DocumentCenter/View/75923

4. City Street Design Manual (Draft) for possible street cross sections:


5. Ford Plant Redevelopment Scenarios (No.s 2 and 5), to be provided by City

6. Road Map to Sustainability St. Paul Ford Site (2011)



Bob Fossum, CRWD

February 27, 2015

Page 2

cc: Wes Saunders-Pearce, City

W:\Business Units\WR\Proposals\2015\P027.15 CRWD Ford Plant Site Redevelop Ph 1\Ford Plant Proposal v3.docx

Barr will develop a list of assumptions to inform the analysis in Phase 1, Task 2, and circulate to CRWD

and the City for review and approval.

Deliverables: Barr will provide a 2-3 page memo documenting the report and data review and a final list

of design criteria and project constraint assumptions. This may be incorporated into the memo for Phase

1, Task 2. These assumptions will be used for this iteration of design, with the intent to revisit

assumptions in the future when City decisions and design iterations are available to incorporate.

Phase 1, Task 2: Develop Modeling of Proposed Conditions

Using the assumptions regarding one conceptual ultimate development pattern (imperviousness, drainage,

soils, one conceptual right-of-way arrangement, etc.), Barr will develop one (1) coarse XP-SWMM model

of proposed conditions of the entire redeveloped Ford Plant Site, as well as an existing residential area

(approximately 40 acres in size) that is also tributary to Hidden Falls. Stormwater treatment facilities will

be conceptualized at a coarse level and incorporated into the XP-SWMM hydrology/hydraulic/water

quality model to:

1. Meet water quality goal of MIDS-level treatment (filtration basins ONLY)

2. Meet rate control goal set by Hidden Falls Creek report (City rate control standard will be

considered, but it is assumed that the Hidden Falls Creek rate control goal is more stringent)

3. Investigate the feasibility of providing fully integrated Shared Stacked Green Infrastructure

(SSGI) with all public and private treatment occurring in the public realm.

4. Develop conceptual sizing (stormwater treatment facilities volume), footprint area and

functionality for green infrastructure stormwater treatment and rate control features.

5. Identify key functional tradeoffs with alternative subwatershed routing and green infrastructure

configurations.

6. Identify qualitive benefits of a central stormwater feature (e.g., habitat, aesthetic, economic)

compared to an underground, gray infrastructure approach.

Deliverables: Barr will provide a 3-4 page memo documenting the assumptions of and providing the

results of the modeling effort. Up to four (4) graphics will be created, up totwo plan views of a proposed

treatment system and up to two cross sections at a location agreed upon by CRWD and the City. These

graphics will be presented at a public meeting in Phase 1, Task 4.

Phase 1, Task 3: Scope AutoCASE evaluation

Collaborating with Impact Infrastructure, LLC, Barr will perform a 1-day exercise to begin scoping

necessary project definition and relevant input data required for a meaningful feasibility AutoCASE®

deployment for stormwater and green infrastructure systems to inform Phase 2.

Phase 1, Task 4: Meetings and Project Management

The ultimate deliverable of Phase 1 will be presented a public meeting. The following meetings are

included in the scope at this time:

A. Up to four (4) meetings to provide updates and review progress with the work group

B. Meeting with CRWD and City to prepare for public meeting

C. Public Meeting in May 2015

Deliverables: Barr will prepare a slide show presentation and two graphics poster boards (if requested)

for the public meeting in May.

Bob Fossum, CRWD

February 27, 2015

Page 3



Phase 1 Schedule

Task 1: March 13, 2015

Task 2: Mid April 2015

Task 3: Late April/Early May 2015

Task 4: A. Througout project

B. Late April/Early May 2015

C. Mid May 2015

Phase 1 Budget

The scope detailed above shall be performed on a time and materials basis not to exceed the total budget

listed below, unless approved by you:

Task 1 $4,200

Task 2 $15,700

Task 3 $4,700

Task 4 $10,400

Total $35,000

Phase 2

The following Phase 2 scope of work is preliminary. Full scoping of Phase 2 may best be performed

toward the end of Phase 1. The intent of Phase 2 is to characterize the benefits, costs, value and the

overall sustainability profile of proposed green infrastructure for Ford Plant redevelopment using the ISI

Envision rating system as a profiling framework (http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/). The goal of

Phase 2 is to advance previous goal-setting and visioning for the site into a point-based set of metrics that

can be accounted for and allocated to responsible parties (e.g. City, Developer, etc.) during future AUAR

and Zoning work. The focus of Phase 2 at this time is analyzing infrastructure systems in the public

right-of-way, in particular green infrastructure for stormwater and high-level available energy,

transportation and public realm goals identified in previous site planning work. A four-step workflow is

proposed:

1. Phase 2, Task 1 - Review sustainability indicators/characterizations available in reports and

visioning work performed for the Site.

2. Phase 2, Task 2 - Perform an indicator mapping exercise to translate available vision, goals and

metrics into a single point-based ISI Envision sustainability performance profile.

3. Phase 2, Task 3 - Identify possible trade-offs or balances between grey and green stormwater

infrastructure systems. Identify design features to characterize using sustainability analytical

tools to develop preliminary quantitative estimates for relevant ISI Envision point categories.

4. Phase 2, Task 4 - Peform an exercise with the City to suggest what Envision category and

performance level may be the responsibility of the City, Developer, etc. The goal of this

allocation step is to help the City and their team identify the who/what/when aspects of achieving

the overall sustainability vision for the site by way of assigning different Envision category points

to different parties’ work scopes and implementation timelines.

http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/

Bob Fossum, CRWD

February 27, 2015

Page 4



Phase 2 Schedule

Middle-Late 2015

Phase 2 Budget

$35,000 - $75,000 (depending on level of detail and scope of infrastructure systems reviewed)

Please contact us if you have any questions about our costs or scope of work.

Sincerely,

Nathan Campeau, P.E., ENV SP

Matt Metzger, P.E., ENV SP

Name (Last, First) Leuthold, Kurt Campeau, Nathan Metzger, Matthew Dougherty, Brendan Holt, Eric Klein, Steven McKinney, Michael

Initials KAL NDC MRM BHD EBH SMK MBM

Billing Rate $165.00 $135.00 $130.00 $70.00 $95.00 $190.00 $85.00

Project Role Project Manager Envision Lead Graphics Landscape Arch Technical Advisor Modeler

Phase 1, Task 1: Review Existing Stormwater Documents, Data, and Develop Assumptions

Review reports, develop assumptions for modeling, confirming with City and CRWD 2 8 8 4 22 2,790.00$ 20.00$ 2,810.00$

Short Memo 2 4 4 10 1,390.00$ 1,390.00$

0 -$ -$

0 -$ -$

Subtotal 4 12 0 0 0 0 4 32 4,180.00$ 20.00$ -$ 4,200.00$ 12%

Phase 1, Task 2: Develop Modeling of Proposed Conditions

Develop Model Inputs 3 4 2 12 21 2,315.00$ 2,315.00$

Size infrastructure, 1 XP-SWMM run 4 7 4 21 36 3,910.00$ 3,910.00$

Develop Graphics 4 6 8 20 20 8 66 6,490.00$ 6,490.00$

Develop memo, documenting qualitative benefits 2 6 6 2 8 24 2,980.00$ 5.00$ 2,985.00$

Subtotal 13 23 20 20 20 2 49 147 15,695.00$ 5.00$ -$ 15,700.00$ 45%

Phase 1, Task 3: Scope AutoCASE evaluation

Brainstorm with I.I. 4 6 12 22 3,030.00$ 20.00$ 3,050.00$

Develop scope for Phase 2 2 4 6 12 1,650.00$ 1,650.00$

Subtotal 6 10 18 0 0 0 0 34 4,680.00$ 20.00$ -$ 4,700.00$ 13%

Phase 1, Task 4: Meetings and Project Management

4 update meetings (travel, attendance and prep) 2 10 10 22 2,980.00$ 155.00$ 3,135.00$

Prep meeting for Public Meeting (travel, attendance and prep) 3 4 4 11 1,555.00$ 50.00$ 1,605.00$

Public Meeting (travel, attendance and prep) 6 8 8 22 3,110.00$ 50.00$ 3,160.00$

Project Management 4 8 4 16 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$

Subtotal 15 30 22 0 0 4 0 71 10,145.00$ 255.00$ -$ 10,400.00$ 30%

Project Subtotal 38 75 60 20 20 6 53 284 34,700.00$ 300.00$ -$ 35,000.00$

Contingency %

Project Total 35,000.00$

Project Name: Ford Plant

Client Name: CRWD

Date: 2/25/15

Approved by: Kurt Leuthold

Percentage

of Total

Subtotal

Labor Expenses

Sub

Contractors

Project

Total

Subtotal

Hours

DATE: February 27, 2015 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Forrest Kelley, PE Regulatory and Construction Program Manager SUBJECT: Lake McCarrons Upper Villa Project Authorize Bidding and Approve Joint Powers Agreement Background The District was awarded a $275,000 Clean Water Partnership grant in 2012 for the identification, design, and construction of volume reduction practices in the Lake McCarrons subwatershed. In January of 2014, the District was awarded an additional $360,000 towards construction of the combined infiltration/harvest and reuse BMP underneath the Upper Villa Park Softball field. Issues SRF Consulting Group has completed 90% plans, and CRWD and Roseville staff have reviewed the plans and provided comments to be incorporated into the final plan set. Project specifications are nearing finalization in anticipation of review by the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office. Roseville staff anticipate approval of the Joint Powers Agreement at the March 9th City Council Meeting District staff will review the project plans and proposed schedule, and will provide an updated cost estimate at the meeting. Requested Action Approve the Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Upper Villa Park BMP Project Joint Powers Agreement with the city of Roseville and direct Board President and Administrator to execute the agreement. Authorize Bidding for the Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Upper Villa Park BMP Project Subject to review and approval by the Ramsey County Attorney and City of Roseville approval of the Joint Powers Agreement. enc: Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Upper Villa Park BMP Project Draft Joint Powers Agreement with

Roseville Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Upper Villa Park BMP Project Schedule Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Upper Villa Park BMP Project Plans W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\Lake McCarrons Subwatershed CWP Grant\Bidding and Specs\Brd Memo Lake McCarrons bid Advertisement 03-04-15.docx

March 4, 2015 Board Meeting V. Action Items, C) Lake

McCarrons Upper Villa Project – Authorize Bidding and Approve

Joint Powers Agreement


JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the Capitol Region Watershed District a Minnesota watershed district established under the authority of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D (the CRWD), and the city of Roseville, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the City), pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat. §103D.335, subd. 2, and §471.59.

Recitals

WHEREAS, the CRWD and the City have been planning to conduct stormwater infiltration and reuse for irrigation improvements to the field at Upper Villa Park by completing the Upper Villa Stormwater Volume Reduction project (the Project); and WHEREAS, the Project contemplates and includes installation of an underground stormwater cistern and irrigation system, an underground infiltration system, and site restoration; and WHEREAS, the Project has been identified in the “Lake McCarrons Subwatershed BMP CWP Project Subwatershed Analysis” report dated January 9, 2013, and prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc.; and WHEREAS, these constructed improvements are proposed at the Upper Villa Park adjacent to the B-Dale Club at 2100 Dale Street in the city of Roseville, See Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the City and the CRWD have agreed to participate in financing the total cost of the Project, and such participation for the City as is defined herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits that each party shall derive herefrom, the parties agree as follows: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to define the funding shares, direction, management and control, contracting, supervision, and liability of the parties in connection with the Project. 2. Funding. Pursuant to estimates prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. dated INSERT DATE (See Exhibit “B”) the preliminary estimate of the cost of the Project is $1,000,000. The CRWD shall be responsible for payment of the sum of $817500. The City shall pay $182,500, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3. 3. Cost Overrun. In the event actual design and construction costs exceed $800,000, the City shall pay an additional 10%, to a maximum additional contribution of $182,500. Regardless of actual cost, the City’s maximum contribution shall be $200,750. The CRWD shall be responsible for additional costs not paid by the City. 4. Project Management. The CRWD shall manage and direct the Project on its own behalf and on behalf of the City. The CRWD shall cause to be prepared all construction plans and specifications;

shall prepare bid specifications and let the Project for public bidding; shall award the construction and related contracts; shall enter into construction and other contracts on its behalf; and shall direct and manage completion of the Project. The CRWD reserves the right to reject all bids. 5. Extra Work. All extra work orders or substantial changes to the Project made during construction of the Project shall be subject to approval by change order in writing signed by the City and the CRWD prior to such construction. 6. Construction Permits. Each party having jurisdiction for any construction permits or other permits required for construction of the Project agrees to provide those permits, in accordance with applicable law, with no fee or expense made to the Project. 7. Records and Reports/Payment by City. All parties agree to maintain records of costs pertaining to the Project in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and relevant internal record keeping and accounting procedures. Upon completion of the Project, the CRWD will submit a payment request to the City, payable in full within sixty (60) days of the billing date. Completion of the Project will be as determined by the City and the CRWD at a final project walk-through and when all punchlist items have been satisfactorily addressed by the Contractor. 8. Maintenance and Safety During Construction. Work site maintenance and safety will be the responsibility of CRWD and its contractor during the construction project. 9. Employees. It is further agreed that any and all employees of CRWD and all other persons engaged by CRWD in the performance of any work or services required, volunteered, or provided for herein to be performed by CRWD, shall not be considered employees of City, and that any and all claims that may arise under the Worker’s Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of City. 10. Non-Discrimination. The provisions of Minn. Stat. §181.59, and of any applicable local ordinance relating to Civil Rights and Discrimination, shall be considered a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein 11. Indemnification. The City and CRWD agree that liability under this Agreement is controlled by Minn. Stat. §471.59, subd. 1a and that the total liability for the participating cities shall not exceed the limits on governmental liability for a single use of government as specified in §466.04, subd. 1. CRWD agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City against any and all claims, liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement and caused by or resulting from negligent acts or omissions of CRWD or those of CRWD’s employees or agents. City agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CRWD against any and all claims liability, loss, damage, or expense arising under the provisions of this Agreement for which City is responsible and caused by or resulting from negligent acts or omissions of City and or those of City’s employees or agents. Under no circumstances, however, shall a party be required to pay on behalf of itself and the other party any amount in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, applicable to any one party. The limits of liability for both parties may not be added together to determine the

Page 2 of 6

maximum amount of liability for either party. The intent of this paragraph is to impose on each party a limited duty to defend and indemnify each other subject to the limits of liability under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. The purpose of creating this duty to defend and indemnify is to simplify the defense of claims by eliminating conflicts among the parties and to permit liability claims against both parties from a single occurrence to be defended by a single attorney. 12. Project Property Ownership. Upon completion of the Project, all infrastructure constructed and all property utilized in connection with the Project shall be the property of the City, and the CRWD shall have no interest in or claim thereto. 13. Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of the last date of signature of the parties below. This Agreement shall expire and be of no further force or effect upon completion of the Project, except that the provisions of paragraphs 7 and 12 shall survive expiration of the Agreement. 14. Severability. Should any provision of this Agreement be deemed unenforceable or illegal by a court of competent jurisdiction and cannot be modified to become enforceable, such provision shall become immediately null and void leaving the remainder of this Agreement in full force and effect. 15. Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota without regard to its conflict of laws provisions. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this agreement, or its breach, shall be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 16. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, taken together, shall be deemed one and the same instrument. CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT By: __________________________ Joe Collins, President Date Recommended for Approval: By: __________________________ Mark Doneux, Administrator Date

Page 3 of 6

CITY OF ROSEVILLE BY: Daniel J. Roe, Mayor AND: Patrick J. Trudgeon, City Manager

STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me this __ day of _______________, 2015, by Daniel J. Roe and by Patrick J. Trudgeon, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Roseville, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public

Page 4 of 6

EXHIBIT A Project Plans for Upper Villa Park Stormwater Reuse and Volume Reduction Project

Page 5 of 6

EXHIBIT B Estimated Costs for Construction of Upper Villa Park Stormwater Reuse and Volume Reduction Project

Upper Villa Park Costs and Funding Costs Engineering and Bidding $ 200,000 Construction $ 800,000 Project Total $ 1,000,000 Funding MPCA Grant $ 275,000

BWSR Grant $ 360,000 Total Grant $ 635,000

CRWD* $ 182,500 Roseville* $ 182,500 Total Local Match $ 365,000 Project Total $ 1,000,000

Page 6 of 6

Lake McCarrons Upper Villa Park Project Schedule (DRAFT) 2/27/15

16-Feb 23-Feb 2-Mar 9-Mar 16-Mar 23-Mar 30-Mar 6-Apr

Upper Villa Park ProjectLegal Review

90% Draft Plans/Spec2/20/2015

Staff Review Final

Board Update--unfinished business 2/18/15 Brd MtgRoseville Council approves Coop Agreement 2/16 Cncl MtgCAC Reviews Project

3/11/2015CRWD Board approves Coop Agreement 3/4 Brd MtgCRWD Board authorizes bidding 3/4 Brd MtgBidding Period

March 13--April 3Bids Due

4/3/2015Award Project

4/15/2015Begin Construction

10/15/2015Construction Substantially Complete 12/31/2015Final Project Completion

6/1/2016


DATE: February 27, 2015 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Anna Eleria, Water Resource Project Manager RE: Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Feasibility Study Update

Background In late July 2014, CRWD’s Board of Managers approved Barr Engineering as the consultant for the Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Feasibility Study in Lauderdale, MN. The goals of the study are to identify opportunities for implementing green infrastructure practices in both public and private (former Luther Seminary property) realm along Eustis Street and have construction coincide with Ramsey County’s 2015/2016 Eustis Street Project. The street work will include mill and overlay and construction of a new, 5-foot sidewalk on the east side of Eustis Street from Idaho Avenue south to the existing sidewalk. The feasibility study began without the involvement of the property owner of the former Luther Seminary property because the real estate transaction extended through fall 2014. Issues Barr Engineering has completed its site analysis and developed preliminary green infrastructure concepts along Eustis Street. These concepts were presented to the study partners including the new owner of the former Luther Seminary property, Aspen Waste Systems, in early February. The partners are currently reviewing the concepts and will be providing feedback in March. Enclosed is one of the preliminary concepts, which staff will review briefly at the Board meeting. After feedback is received from the study partners, CRWD will provide another update to the Board. Action Requested None, for your information only enc: Preliminary Design Concept for Eustis Street Green Infrastructure Practices W:\06 Projects\Lauderdale\Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Project\Board Memos\BM Eustis Street Study Update 03-04-15.docx

March 4, 2015 VI. Unfinished Business - A)

Eustis Street Stormwater Improvement Feasibility Study

Update (Eleria)




FROM: Nate Zwonitzer, Urban BMP Specialist

RE: 2015 Lake McCarrons Vegetation Harvesting

Background

In 2013, the Lake McCarrons Homeowner Association requested funding from CRWD to facilitate

vegetation management on the west end of the lake. In 2014, CRWD coordinated permitting and two

rounds of harvesting for 31 homeowners. The total project cost was $27,150 (not including staff time),

and $2,055 was paid by homeowners. At the time, CRWD was clear with homeowners that 2014 was a

trial year and the CRWD Board would be reevaluating its involvement in harvesting activities for 2015.

Issues

Generally, there are three reasons to pursue vegetation harvesting; invasive species control, water quality

improvement, or recreational/aesthetic improvements.

1. Invasive Species Control

Harvesting is a common method for controlling growth of Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) and curlyleaf

pondweed. On the west end of Lake McCarrons, EWM is present but in relatively small quantities that

don’t require harvesting for control. EWM is likely being outcompeted by the more prevalent native

coontail. Coontail is an ecologically beneficial aquatic plant that is edible for waterfowl, provides cover

for fish, and supports insects that serve as a source of food. In some cases, such as at the west end of

McCarrons, coontail can grow to densities considered to be a nuisance.

2. Water Quality Improvement

Since plants require phosphorous for growth, removing plants through harvesting should also remove

phosphorous and potentially improve water quality. Aquatic vegetation is typically 90% water, and about

0.3% of the dry weight can be attributed to phosphorous. It is estimated that on average only 0.4-0.5 grams

of phosphorous/m2/yr are removed via harvesting. When other factors such as density of growth are

included, harvesting over the 4.4 acre area on McCarrons is estimated to result in a reduction of 1-5

lbs./TP/yr. At a cost of roughly $30,000 per year, this equates to $6,000-$30,000/lb.TP/yr. Typical

stormwater BMPs are much more cost effective because after high initial installation cost the BMP will

continue to achieve annual reductions with relatively small additional costs (maintenance). Harvesting is

significantly less cost effective due to the fact that harvesting (and its associated cost) must be done every

year to achieve the reduction. Harvesting may be further less cost-effective since the estimate does not

factor in that some amount of phosphorous is released by the plants when they are cut, harvesting disturbs

the lake sediment which can make previously stored phosphorous available in the water column, some of

the phosphorous in rooted plants likely came from lake sediments and not the water column, or that some

of the phosphorous removed through harvesting would have otherwise been sequestered in the lake bottom

during vegetation senescence.

March 4, 2015

VI. B) 2015 Lake McCarrons

Vegetation Harvesting

(Zwonitzer)

2

3. Recreational/Aesthetic Improvement

A third reason for harvesting is to improve the aesthetic/recreational state of a waterbody. Some

aesthetic/recreational benefits are achieved through harvesting on Lake McCarrons, but those benefits are

limited to a small portion of the lake and the people living directly adjacent. A large majority of the lake

is too deep to support nuisance plant growth. Due to DNR regulations and the nature of the plant growth,

harvesting only impacted about 6% of the lake surface. Though harvesting may have provided some

aesthetic improvement or made access to the lake a little easier, the primary benefactors were the small

number of homeowners on the west end of the lake. There was little or no improvement for the general

public.

Conclusion

It appears that vegetation harvesting on Lake McCarrons is not needed for invasive species control, is not

a cost-effective means of improving water quality, and has very limited benefit to the general public. There

are plenty of examples of public agencies conducting aquatic vegetation harvesting. St. Paul coordinates

harvesting for Lake Como and Lake Phalen to control EWM and improve lake-wide recreational access.

In most cases, near-shore harvesting is managed by individual homeowners or a lake association. For

example, the City of Burnsville manages curlyleaf pondweed on Crystal Lake, but adjacent homeowners

are responsible for coordinating and paying the contractor for harvesting within 150 feet of their shore.

Another opportunity for CRWD to help protect the lake may exist through an aquatic invasive species

management grant coordinated by Ramsey County. Staff will be learning more about these grant funds

and how they can be used in the near future.

Next Steps

To help determine the best approach for harvesting on Lake McCarrons in 2015, two tables are provided

below. The first table is a summary of harvesting areas and costs for 2014, including an estimated cost/ft2.

This table ignores that the first round of harvesting in 2014 was reduced due to permit delays and reflects

what was originally planned. Table 2 provides additional detail about payments in 2014 as well as three

potential approaches for harvesting in 2015. Each approach includes an estimated payment breakdown

and the role of CRWD staff.

Channel Area (ft2, no permit) 72,600

Level 1 (ft2, no permit) 67,480

Level 2 (ft2, permit required) 53,250

Total Area/Round (ft2) 193,330

Harvesting Cost/Round

(excludes permit fees and CRWD

staff time) $16,261

Harvesting Cost/ft2 $0.084

Table 1. Harvesting Summary (single round)

3

Table 2. Potential Harvesting Options and Payment Breakdown (2 Rounds of Harvesting)

2014 Actual 2015 Option 1 2015 Option 2 2015 Option 3*

CRWD Owners CRWD Owners CRWD Owners CRWD Owners

Channel (no permit) $12,197 $0 $12,197 $0 $12,197 $0 $0 $12,197

Level 1 (no permit) $11,337 $0 $11,337 $0 $0 $11,337 $0 $11,337

Level 2 (permit required) $4,691 $4,255 $0 $8,946 $0 $8,946 $0 $8,946

CRWD Staff Time $6,000 - $4,000 - $4,000 - $2,000** -

Total $34,224 $4,255 $27,533 $8,946 $16,197 $20,283 $2,000** $32,479

Permit Coordination Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes

Contractor Coordination Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes

*Option 3 could include a grant from CRWD to help fund the effort (lump sum or $/ft2)

**CRWD staff could assist homeowners/association with mapping, data etc.

Requested Action:

Provide direction to staff regarding Lake McCarrons vegetation harvesting in 2015

\\CRWDC01\Company\06 Projects\McCarrons\2014 Veg Harvest\Board Meetings\Board Memo McCarrons Harvesting 3-4-15_DRAFT.docx



TO: CRWD Board of Managers and Staff

FROM: Mark Doneux, Administrator

RE: March 4, 2015 Administrator’s Report

1) Administrator Approved or Executed Agreements

a) Stewardship Grant Agreement for one rain garden at 666 Hauge, Saint Paul - $1,670.

b) Agreement with the University of Minnesota to conduct winter sampling at AHUG - $4,299.86.

c) License Agreement with BNSF to run power to Trout Brook monitoring sites.

d) Agreement with Century College to provide safety training to CRWD staff - $2,563.

e) Cooperative Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Green Roofs Council for improvements to their

demonstration green roof trailer. - $500.

2) Board Approved or Executed Agreements

a) There are no new agreements.

3) General updates including recent and upcoming meetings and events

a) Legislative Reception and Day at the Capitol is March 11 – 12 at Embassy Suites in Saint Paul.

Registration is $100 through March 6 and $125 after. Visit the MAWD website for more details.

b) “The High Price of Cheap Groundwater: Are We Flushing Our Future Downstream?” hosted by FMR

is Thursday, March 26 at 7:00 pm at the Science Museum of Minnesota. Visit FMR’s event page for

more details.

c) The Saint Paul Parks Cleanup will be held Saturday April 18 from 9 – 11:30 am. Learn more here.

d) The 21st Annual Great River Gathering is May 14 at Saint Paul Rivercentre. Early registration ($65)

ends March 13. Learn more at Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation’s website.

e) Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary planting and opening celebration with Great River Greening is May 30.

The volunteer planting event is coordinated by Great River Greening and the opening celebration will

be held afterwards. Find out more at GRG’s volunteer event page.

4) CRWD events and meetings

a) Next CAC meeting is Wednesday, March 11, 2015 from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

b) Next Board meeting is Wednesday, March 18, 2015 from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m.

W:\04 Board of Managers\Correspondence\Administrator's Report 2015\Administrator's Report 3-4-15.docx

http://www.mnwatershed.org/index.asp?Type=B_EV&SEC=%7bBDB6B043-3E6D-4989-8060-2ADA52DC68AA%7d&DE=%7b2543CF33-7F52-49F1-8F2C-E05811031895%7d

http://www.fmr.org/participate/events/science_museum_FMR_2015

http://stpaul.gov/index.aspx?nid=1043

http://www.riverfrontcorporation.com/news-events-whats-new/21st-annual-great-river-gathering/

http://www.greatrivergreening.org/vol-events/

march 4, 2015 crwd board packet

Documents

regular board meeting

crwd board meeting

kelley f permit

permit applications

regular meeting agenda

ymca kelley c permit

draft rules public hearing

cac meeting b