February 17, 2021 Board Packet by Capitol Region Watershed District

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, February 17, 2021, 6:00 p.m. held electronically. See note below. Until further notice Board meetings will only be available via telephone and/or the web-based application Go To Meeting. You will not be able to attend meetings in person. You can join the meeting electronically by clinking on this link https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/626615389 and following the directions or dial in using your phone: +1 (646) 749-3112 Access Code: 626-615-389 Please visit www.capitolregionwd.org to get additional CRWD COVID-19 information. Materials Enclosed 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) 20-019, Marshall and Finn Apartments – Amendment (Hosch) B) 21-001, The Enclave at McCarrons Lake Development (Hosch) IV.

Special Reports – Regulations Program Overview and Update (Hosch)

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the February 3rd Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve Accounts Payable/Receivable for January 2021 (Sylvander) C) AR: Appoint Devin Driscoll to the Community Advisory Committee (Doneux) D) AR: Approve Agreement with WeCo for Web Site Accessibility Audit (Van Sant) E) AR: Approve Como Lake Fishery Management Plan (Belden) F) AR: Authorize RFP for Trout Brook Subwatershed Detailed Modeling Project (Zwonitzer)

VI.

Unfinished Business A) Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Update (Gardner) B) 2020 Watershed Steward Awards Update (Bromelkamp) C) Como Lake - Curly Leaf Pondweed Management Update (Belden)

VII.

General Information A) Board of Manager’s Updates

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

A) B) IX.

Wednesday, March 3, 2021 5:00 PM – Workshop and Regular Meeting– Electronic Only Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 PM- CAC Meeting – Electronic Only

Adjournment

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

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Jon Schwartzman Fairway Property Management 700 Raymond Ave, Suite 130 St. Paul, MN 55114

Permit 20-019 Marshall and Finn Apartments-Amendment Consultant: Joey Diederichs Civil Site Group 4931 W 35th Street, Suite 200 St. Louis Park, MN 55416

Description: Amendment to previous approval to demo existing single family homes and construction of proposed townhomes and apartments. Onsite drives/parking will be constructed. Stormwater Management: Two underground infiltration systems. District Rule: —C D F Disturbed Area: 1.7 Acres Impervious Area: 0.76 Acres STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 4 Conditions: 1. Receipt of $3,800 surety. 2. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County. 3. Provide a detail that accurately shows how the 60-inch pipes and 36-inch pipes will be laid out together in Infiltration Basin 1. 4. Remove drawdown risers within pretreatment pipes or provide documentation of their effectiveness.

First Street Second Ave

Aerial Photo Permit Location Permit Report 20-019

Board Meeting Date 2/17/2021

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #: Review date: Project Name: Applicant:

Purpose:

20‐019 January 29, 2021 Marshall and Finn Apartments, Amendment Jon Schwartzman Fairway Property Management 3560 Fairway Court Hopkins, MN 55305 jonsci@msn.com Amendment to previous approval for demo of existing single‐family homes for construction of proposed townhomes and apartments. Permanent stormwater management consists of two underground infiltration basins.

Location: 2097‐2115 Marshall Ave, St. Paul, MN 55104 Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 4 Conditions EXHIBITS: 1. Revised Civil Plans (19 Sheets), by Civil Site Group, dated January 22, 2021, recv. January 22, 2021. 2. Revised Stormwater Management Report, by Civil Site Group, dated January 22, 2021, recv. January 22, 2021. 3. Geotechnical Exploration Report, by Haugo GeoTechnical Services, dated April 14, 2020, recv. June 18, 2020. 4. City Coordination Email between Civil Site Group and City of St. Paul, dated July 24, 2020, recv. July 24, 2020. 5. Approved NPDES Permit, dated August 17, 2020, recv. January 5, 2021. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: Board approval for a previous version of this project was received on July 22, 2020. The permit was not yet issued for remaining conditions. The most current revisions to the project require Board action to amend that approval. W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2020\20-019 Marshall and Finn Apartments\20-019 Permit Report_R5.doc Page 1 of 4

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards  Proposed discharge rates for the 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year events shall not exceed existing rates.  Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.  Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long‐term viability of the infiltration area.  Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non‐point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal. Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Runoff rates for the 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 1.1‐inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious is 32,940 ft2. b. Volume retention required: 32,940 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 3,020 ft3 Table 1. Proposed volume retention through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse). Volume Volume Retention 1.1‐inch 2.5‐inch Retention Runoff Runoff BMP Provided below Required 3 3 ) (ft ) (ft3) outlet (ft (ft3) Infiltration Basin 1 3,347 2,618 5,949 Infiltration Basin 2 377 374 850 3,020 Total 3,724 cf c. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. d. Infiltration volume and facility sizes have been calculated using the appropriate hydrologic soil group classification and design infiltration rate. e. The infiltration areas are capable of infiltrating the required volume within 48 hours. f. It is unknown if stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas. g. Groundwater mounding is not anticipated to affect adjacent properties and buildings. 4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested. 5. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis. 6. A maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County has not been submitted.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2020\20-019 Marshall and Finn Apartments\20-019 Permit Report_R5.doc Page 2 of 4

7. Adequate maintenance access is provided for underground systems. A site‐specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices has been submitted. RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100‐year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard  Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.  A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required. Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property. RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land‐disturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual. Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. 2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition. 3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Total disturbed area is 1.7 acres; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted and is sufficient. W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2020\20-019 Marshall and Finn Apartments\20-019 Permit Report_R5.doc Page 3 of 4

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2020\20-019 Marshall and Finn Apartments\20-019 Permit Report_R5.doc Page 4 of 4

GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: (SEE C4.1 FOR ST. PAUL UTILITY NOTES)

  

 

civilsitegroup.com

HYD., COORD. LOCATION w/ SPRWS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION

STUB SANITARY TO 5' FROM BUILDING IE @ STUB=186.42 COORD. W/MECH'L

STUB SANITARY TO 5' FROM BUILDING IE @ STUB=184.92 COORD. W/MECH'L

18" RCP

49 LF 6" SCH 40 PVC SANITARY SERVICE @ 2.00% 49 LF 6" SCH 40 PVC SANITARY SERVICE @ 2.00%

FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION PER CITY STANDARDS, COORD. W/MECH'L

MAKE CONNECTION TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EX IE (N/S)=±183.54 (FIELD VERIFY) PROP IE (E)=±183.94 COORDINATE WITH CITY

6" DIP FIRE WATER SERVICE AND VALVE, STUB TO WITHIN 5' FROM BUILDING, COORD. W/MECH'L

WET TAP 2" COPPER SERVICE TO 6" DIP WATERMAIN, COORD. w/ CITY, TYP.

2" DIP DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE AND VALVE, STUB TO WITHIN 5' FROM BUILDING, COORD. W/MECH'L

PROJECT

6"x6" TEE GV/SHUTOFF, TYP. COORD. LOCATION w/ SPRWS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION

12" C.I.

.) 12" C.I.

Sewer serv ice(Rec

MAKE WET TAP CONNECTION TO EXISTING WATER MAIN, COORD. WITH CITY

FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION PER CITY STANDARDS, COORD. W/MECH'L

ec.)

service(R

Sewer

Sewer servi ce(Rec.)

18" RCP

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

Sewer servi ce(Rec.)

6" DIP WATER SERVICE

MOHAGEN HANSEN ARCHITECTURE

MAKE CONNECTION TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EX IE (N/S)=±185.04 (FIELD VERIFY) PROP IE (E)=±185.44 COORDINATE WITH CITY

6" DIP FIRE WATER SERVICE AND VALVE, STUB TO WITHIN 5' FROM BUILDING, COORD. W/MECH'L

1000 TWELVE OAKS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 200, Wayzata, MN 55391

4" DIP DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE AND VALVE, STUB TO WITHIN 5' FROM BUILDING, COORD. W/MECH'L

6"x6" TEE

2097-2115 MARSHALL AVE ST. PAUL, MN 55104

GV/SHUTOFF VALVE TYP. COORD. LOCATION w/ SPRWS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION

MARSHALL AND FINN APARTMENTS

VERIFY SIZE OF PROPOSED WATER SERVICES WITH MECHANICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION

DATE

Joseph Diederichs 01/22/2021 LICENSE NO. 55988

ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION 03/13/2020 CITY SUBMITTAL 06/03/2020 CITY RESUBMITTAL 06/17/2020 PRICING SET

UTILITY LEGEND:

54" RCP

07/07/2020

WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL

07/21/2020

WATERSHED REVISIONS

07/28/2020 CITY RESUBMITTAL 10/27/2020 UTILITY REVISIONS 12/11/2020 CITY RESUBMITTAL 01/22/2021 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEWED BY: MP DRAWN BY:KW PROJECT NUMBER: 20025

CIVIL SITE GROUP ASSUMED DATUM:

REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION . . . . . .

. . . . . .

UTILITY PLAN SANITARY & WATER R

Know what's

Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:

Permit 21-001 The Enclave at McCarrons Lake Development

Roger Anderson Airborne Holdings, LLC 13605 1st Ave N #100 Plymouth, MN 55441

Consultant: Brian Field Anderson Engineering of MN, LLC 13605 1st Ave N #100 Plymouth, MN 55441

Description: The land will be sub-divided into 20 lots and two outlots on site. The proposed development will have a 26’ wide private street built to city standards accessing Galtier St. and extending east to west. Stormwater Management: 3 surface infiltration basins District Rule: —C, D, E, F Disturbed Area: 5.078 Acres Impervious Area: 1.76 Acres

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 7 Conditions: 1. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Provide a site-specific maintenance plan that includes items a.-h. on the 2/11/2021 permit report. needed, mulch replacement, and removal of accumulated sediment and debris. 4. Revise plans to address items a.-g. on the 2/11/2021 permit report. 5. Revise HydroCAD model to justify the use of sheet flow lengths over 100 feet for proposed conditions subcatchments 10S, 30S, 50S, and 80S. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual recommends a maximum sheet flow length of 100 feet due to the tendency for flow to channelize beyond 100 feet. 6. Revise model or plans to correspond for the Pond A (Basin A) outlet diameter. Diameter of primary outlet is 15 inches in HydroCAD and 12 inches on Sheet C6 in the plans. 7. Clarify the Lake McCarron’s Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) discrepancy between the wetland delineation (842.39’) and the plan (842.09’). 8.

Galtier

Permit Location

Permit Report 21-001

Aerial Photo

Board Meeting Date: 02/17/2021

Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #: Review date: Project Name: Applicant: Purpose:

21‐001 February 11, 2021 The Enclave at McCarrons Lake Development Roger Anderson Airborne Holdings, LLC 13605 1st Ave N #100 Plymouth, MN 55441 763‐412‐4001 RAnderson@AE‐MN.COM

Construction of a subdivision that includes 20 lots and two outlots. Permanent stormwater management consists of three infiltration basins.

Location: Galtier St. and South McCarrons Blvd, Roseville, MN Applicable Rules: C, D, E, and F Recommendation: Approve with 7 Conditions EXHIBITS: 1. Civil Plans (18 Sheets), by Anderson Engineering, dated 2/3/21, recv. 2/3/21. 2. Stormwater Management Plan, by Anderson Engineering, dated 2/3/21, recv. 2/3/21. 3. Geotechnical Engineering Services Report, by Kilo Engineering, dated 4/13/20, recv 2/3/21. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: The wetland delineation for this development was reviewed and approved by staff under CRWD permit file #20‐010. 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. W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2021\21-001, Enclave at McCarrons Lake\21-001 Permit Report_R2b.doc Page 1 of 5

 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 not 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 1.1‐inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious is 76,689 ft2. b. Volume retention required: 76,689 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 7,030 ft3 Table 1. Proposed volume retention through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse). Volume Volume Retention 1.1‐inch 2.5‐inch Retention Runoff Runoff BMP Provided below Required 3 3 (ft (ft3) outlet (ft ) ) (ft3) Infiltration Basin A 3,169 1,386 3,149 Infiltration Basin B 1,750 958 2,178 7,030 Infiltration Basin C 2,736 4,472 10,164 Total 7,635 ft3 c. Banking of excess volume retention is not proposed. d. Infiltration volume and facility sizes have been calculated using the appropriate hydrologic 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. g. Groundwater mounding is not anticipated to affect adjacent properties and buildings. 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. 6. A maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County has not been submitted. 7. Adequate maintenance access is provided for surface systems. A site‐specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices has not been submitted. RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2021\21-001, Enclave at McCarrons Lake\21-001 Permit Report_R2b.doc Page 2 of 5

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 Zone A floodplain on the north side of McCarrons Blvd on Outlot B according to FEMA. 2. There is no floodplain impact. 3. Compensatory storage is not needed. 4. 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 is a 0.44 acre fresh wet meadow (PEM1B) located in the southwest corner of the property. 2. CRWD staff have reviewed and approved the delineated wetland boundaries under permit file #20‐010. 3. Wetland impacts are not proposed and not anticipated. 4. WCA sequencing has been adequately addressed. 5. Mitigation of wetland impact is not required. 6. A minimum buffer of 25 feet has been provided. 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 not fully protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Total disturbed area is 5.1 acres; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted. W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2021\21-001, Enclave at McCarrons Lake\21-001 Permit Report_R2b.doc Page 3 of 5

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 7 Conditions Conditions: 1. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Provide a site‐specific maintenance plan that includes the following: a. List all stormwater management practices. b. Person(s) responsible for maintenance of stormwater devices(s). c. Frequency of inspection/ indicator that maintenance is needed. d. Description of inspection activities. e. Description of maintenance activities. f. Inspect in winter months to ensure plowed snow is not being stored on infiltration practices. g. Establish a watering plan that extends a minimum of one year after planting. h. Annual maintenance to include trimming vegetation, replacing vegetation where needed, mulch replacement, and removal of accumulated sediment and debris. 4. Revise plans to address the following: a. Correct note on drawing on sheet C5 to read 8:1 max slope around the wetland. See screenshot below:

b. Revise pretreatment for basins A and C. The sump depth shall be four times larger than the outlet pipe per EPA guidance. Outlet pipes for sumps in CBMH‐ 104 and STMH‐402 are 12 inches in diameter, which would require a sump depth of four feet. The manhole skimmer Detail 5 on Sheet C14 refers to a SAFL baffle, but it is unclear if a SAFL baffle will be installed or just a snout. c. Revise Landscaping plan to address the following:

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2021\21-001, Enclave at McCarrons Lake\21-001 Permit Report_R2b.doc Page 4 of 5

i. Specify potted plants or plugs to vegetate infiltration basins. Basin seeding should be avoided. ii. Specify deep rooted, salt tolerant, native plants according to Plants for Stormwater Design (Shaw and Schmidt, 2003). iii. Provide signage that deters snow management from using the infiltration Basin A for snow storage. d. Extend energy dissipation to the toe of the slope where drainage swale enters Infiltration Basin B. e. Revise Sheet C5 to include riprap at FES‐103. Riprap is shown on Sheet C6, but not Sheet C5. f. Revise grading such that the east filtration swale drains to a grated inlet at STMH‐407. As currently proposed overflow from the swale may create a nuisance condition by crossing the adjacent sidewalk. g. Revise rip‐rap placement at FES‐203 such that no rip‐rap is within the wetland. 5. Revise HydroCAD model to justify the use of sheet flow lengths over 100 feet for proposed conditions subcatchments 10S, 30S, 50S, and 80S. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual recommends a maximum sheet flow length of 100 feet due to the tendency for flow to channelize beyond 100 feet. 6. Revise model or plans to correspond for the Pond A (Basin A) outlet diameter. Diameter of primary outlet is 15 inches in HydroCAD and 12 inches on Sheet C6 in the plans. 7. Clarify the Lake McCarron’s Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) discrepancy between the wetland delineation (842.39’) and the plan (842.09’).

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2021\21-001, Enclave at McCarrons Lake\21-001 Permit Report_R2b.doc Page 5 of 5

EOF 851.20

30'

60'

852

BASIN B 100 YR HWL = 851.18 BOT. ELEV. = 849.00 851

850

BLV

EX. WALL TW 850.4 BW 844.6

3 85

PAD 30'x65' LO = 855.0 LL = 851.5

FF = 861.5 G = 859.5

FBW

86 0

85 9

858

857

85 6

LP 855.52

B-3

2.0%

. TY P

2.0%

864

855

854

853

851

85 4

85 5

854

85 2

85 3

856

GALTIER ST.

846

850 84 6

84 8

849

851

R. 857.30 858

R. 857.16

R. 855.77

854

855 I. 853.90

TW 856.80 BW 854.00

852

TW 855.00 BW 851.50

849

4 85

855

2 B-11

HIGH POINT ELEVATION

LOW POINT ELEVATION

TOP WALL ELEVATION RIM ELEVATION

INVERT ELEVATION

EOF

EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION

THE TOTAL DISTURBED AREA IS EQUAL TO 4.15 ACRES. AN MPCA PERMIT IS REQUIRED. PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF FINISHED SURFACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN LEGEND. TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES. LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES SHOWN BASED ON SURVEY AND AS-BUILT INFORMATION AND MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL CONDITIONS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR UTILIZING UTILITY LOCATES PRIOR TO STARTING ANY WORK. NOTIFY CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT AT LEAST 24 HOURS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER BMP'S.

GRADING WITHIN WETLAND BUFFER AREA TO BE 8:1 SLOPE MAX.

BASIN BOTTOM INTENDED FOR INFILTRATION PRACTICES. LIMIT HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN AREA. DO NOT EXCAVATE TO FINAL GRADE, OR WITHIN 3 FEET OF FINAL GRADE, UNTIL CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN FULLY STABILIZED. KEEP SEDIMENT & RUNOFF COMPLETELY AWAY FROM INFILTRATION AREA.

853

863

GOPHER STATE ONE CALL TWIN CITY AREA (651)454-0002 MINNESOTA TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166

PRINT NAME: BRIAN J. FIELD, PE SIGNATURE: DATE: 01/08/2021

LICENSE NO. 57224

REVISION LOG NO. 1

DATE

DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS

2/3/2021 WATERSHED COMMENTS

TOP OF BERM AT ELEVATION 859.20

TOP OF BERM AT ELEVATION 855.40

CONSTRUCT NEW CONCRETE PAD. NO FILL TO BE PLACED BELOW THE DNR 100 YR FLOOD ELEVATION OF 844.09.

WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL FEBRUARY 3, 2021 DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

CHECKED BY: RA

DRAWING TITLE

GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN

DRAWING NO.

PROPER

TY LINE

864

AIRBORNE CONSTRUCTION 13605 1ST AVE N #100 PLYMOUTH, MN 55441

BOTTOM WALL ELEVATION

TW R.

862

CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING:

210 MCCARRONS BLVD ROSEVILLE, MN 55113

KEY NOTES

852

BASIN C 100 YR HWL = 852.46 BOT. ELEV. = 847.00

861

GUTTER FLOW LINE

I. 847.50 848

854

860

EXISTING BUILDING

I. 847.00

859

FILTRATION SWALE W/ UNDERDRAIN 852

TW 859.30 BW 855.70

HP 855.50

TW 855.0 BW 851.5 851

860

MARION STREET

850

R. 852.44 EOF 852.50 4 85

I. 854.30

TW 857.00 BW 855.00

EXISTING BUILDING

3. 850

B-7

R. 858.76

854

2. 9 84

0 86

WO PAD = 854.5 35'x 65'

EXISTING GRADE

CONTRACTOR NOTES 1.

855

864

FINISHED GRADE

R. 847.89

9 85

FBW

8 85

R. 858.42

= 8 86 62.5 0. 5

FBLO

855

PAD 30'x70' LO = 855.0 LL = 851.5

856

857

FF = 861.5 G = 859.5

852

856

FB G

R. 847.51

853

84 5

PA D O 30 = 'x7 85 0 2. ' 5

FBW

WO PAD = 855.5 35'x 70'

852

859

R. 857.10

= = 863 86 .5 1. 5

62.5 =8 FF 860.5 G=

853

PROPERTY LINE

850

855

R. 850.51 FILTRATION SWALE W/ UNDERDRAIN

861

G= FF 862.5 = 86 4.5

851

I. 851.10

85 7

860

G= FF 863.5 = 86 5.5

WO PAD = 856.2 35'x 70'

852

HP 852.50

862

PA W D3 O = 0'X7 85 0 3. ' 5

2 85

FBW

855

0 85

FF = G = 864.1 862 .1

EOF 850.50

0' 0'x7 .5 D3 PA = 852 WO

856

25' WETLAND BUFFER

FBW

846

84 8 7 84

FBW

FF = G = 865.1 863 .1

R. 850.10 84 9

G= FF 864.2 = 86 6.2

B-4

85 1

85 3

PAD WO 30'x70 ' = 85 4.1

R. 860.37

WO PAD = 856.6 35'x 65'

I. 846.50

FBW

847

85 2

FF = G = 866.1 864 .1

85 3

1 85

I. 851.00

EXISTING WETLAND BACK-TO-BACK 100 YR HWL = 851.07 (DELINEATION LINE BY ANDERSON ENGINEERING)

G= FF 864.6 = 86 6.6

854

PAD WO 30'x70 ' = 85 5.1

FBW

863

B-5

B-6

3 86

PROPERTY LINE

864

855

85 5

3:1

I. 847.00

R. 856.60

FBW

FF = G = 866.5 864 .5

HP 863.89

TW/BW 859.00

SOIL BORING LOCATION

SPOT ELEVATION KEY

848

PAD WO 30'x70 ' = 85 6.1

FF = G = 867.0 865 .0

855

TW 859.50 BW 849.70

PROPOSED CONCRETE C&G B-1

0 85

860

1.8

TW/BW 951.8

DELINEATED WETLAND

4 86

FBW

860

EOF 854.40 I. 853.40

TW 860.00 BW 850.00

8 84

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

PAD WO 30'x70 ' = 85 6.5

MC CAR ON SP LAC E

84 7

HA-1

R. 855.50

3 86

PAD WO 30'x65 ' = 85 7.0

864

84 9

THE ENCLAVE AT MCCARRONS LAKE

856

FBW

FF = G = 867.0 865 .0

R. 862.30

2 86

0 85

I. 852.00 BASIN A 100 YR HWL = 854.38 BOT. ELEV. = 852.00

1 86

R. 855.26

5 85

PAD WO 30'x60 ' = 85 7.0

FF = G = 866.0 864 .0

R. 861.67

PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR

849

FBW

PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR

Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC

DRAINAGE ARROW

FILTRATION SWALE W/ UNDERDRAIN

6 85

R. 855.26

855

966 965

850

859

B-2

PAD WO 34'x55 ' = 85 6.0

EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR

855

859

857

FF = 863. 0 G= 861. 0

EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR

DNR DEFINED 100 YR FLOOD ZONE @ 844.09

HP 856.60

859

856

PAD WO 34'x55 ' = 85 4.5

FBW

861

966 965

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION 5

855

PAD 34'x 55' WO = 85 3.0

FF = G = 864.5 862 .5

HP 855.68

INE

855

FBLO

FF = 860.5 G = 858.5

FF = 859.7 G = 857.7

EX. WALL TW 849.8 BW 844.9

TY L

862

2 FBLO

5 85

85 5

85 6

4 85

5 85

PER

3:1

1 FBLO

854

PRO

854

TYP

853

855

858

PAD 30'x70' LO = 854.0 LL = 850.5

851 850

853

B-1

PAD 30'x70' LO = 853.2 LL = 849.7

CONSTRUCTION LIMITS

852

851

852 851

852

850

13605 1st Avenue N. #100 Plymouth, MN 55441 | ae-mn.com P 763.412.4000 | F 763.412.4090

PROPERTY LIMITS FEMA ZONE-A FLOOD ZONE

847

RRO

ORDINARY HIGH WATER 842.09 FEET (NAVD 88)

846

849

85 2

EX. WALL TW 850.6 BW 847.5

853

LEGEND

MCCARRONS LAKE

842

845

856

I. 851.25

CCA

850

S. M

85 5

852

857

2 85

852

C5 PLOTTED: 2/3/21

COMM. NO. 14957

February 17, 2021 IV. Special Reports: Regulations Program Overview and Update (Hosch) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 10, 2021 CRWD Board of Managers Elizabeth Hosch Regulations Program Overview and Update

Background The CRWD Regulatory Division has established a routine of providing regular permit updates and refresher information to the Board of Managers. Some recent Board conversation has raised questions that would be well answered to the full group. Contained within this presentation will be a summary of the CRWD permitting process, including current online permit application function and stormwater sequencing, summary of the national permitting framework for both construction and municipal activities, and introduction into sediment and erosion control practices on the ground. Action Requested For information only, though questions and conversation are welcome.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\Board Memos\2021-02-17, Regulations Program Overview memo.docx

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

February 17, 2021 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of February 3, 2021 Regular Board Meeting

(Sylvander)

Regular Board Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, February 3, 2021, 6:00 p.m. (Regular Meeting) at the office of CRWD, 595 Aldine Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I.

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

Managers Joe Collins Hawona Sullivan Janzen Shawn Murphy, absent w/notice Rick Sanders Mary Texer

Staff Present Public Attendees Mark Doneux, CRWD Bob Simonet, CAC Bob Fossum, CRWD Mark Houle, CRWD Elizabeth Hosch, CRWD Anna Annim-Wilson, CRWD James Mogen, Ramsey County Attorney

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda.

Motion 21-021: Approve the Agenda of February 3, 2021. Texer/Sanders Unanimously Approved II.

Public Comment

No Comments III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates A)

20-035 North End Community Center (Hosch)

Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #20-035 for North End Community Center. The applicant, St. Paul Parks and Recreation will be constructing a new community center. 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 5.5 acres with 1.76 acres impervious surface. Motion 21-022: Approve Permit #20-035 North End Community Center with 4 Conditions:

1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 2. Provide a SWPPP that includes the following: a. Dewatering provisions (if any). b. Perimeter control for stockpiles. c. Plan for temporary and permanent stabilization. d. Silt fence or fabric placed under the grate is not an approved form of inlet protection. e. 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. f. The bottom excavation surface of infiltration areas shall be level without dips or swales. g. During construction, stormwater must be routed around infiltration areas until all construction activity has ceased and tributary surfaces are cleaned of sediment. h. Excavation of infiltration areas shall be completed using a backhoe with a toothed bucket. i. Native soils in infiltration areas shall be de-compacted to a minimum depth of 18 inches. 3. Provide a landscape plan. 4. Provide details for soil amendments in the plan where grading occurs. Comment responses indicate that soil amendments will be implemented, but this is not documented in the plans. Texer/Sanders Unanimously Approved B) 20-035 North End Community Center (Hosch) Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #20-037 for Cleveland Ave. reconstruction. The applicant, Ramsey County Public Works will be reconstructing Cleveland Avenue from Como Avenue in St. Paul to Larpenteur Avenue in Falcon Heights. 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 7.27 acres impervious surface. Motion 21-023: Approve permit #20-037 Cleveland Avenue Reconstruction with 4 Conditions: 1. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 2. Revise plan to address the following: a. Revise infiltration basin detail on Sheet 136 to address the following: i. Add note stating that fabric shall be excluded from the bottom of the infiltration practice. ii. Revise underdrain detail to include two inches of choking stone on the sides of the #57 stone or verify that the choking stone shown extends across the entire crosssection of sand. Alternatively, provide 5 inches of ½ inch washed angular rock surrounding the drain tile. b. Revise Infiltration System B design to prevent surcharging of the system. System outlet (954.62’ – MH 401 W INV) is approximately 3 feet above the top of the rock system (951.66’). 3. Provide specifications/special provisions to verify the following: a. Rock specification for the underground infiltration system on Sheet 139.

b. Underdrain perforations and orientation for filtration system on Sheet 141. c. Clean washed sand specification for filtration system on Sheet 141. 4. Provide calculations or model results to verify rate control is satisfied. Texer/Sanders Unanimously Approved IV.

Special Reports – 2020 Lakes Update (Houle)

Mr. Houle provided an update for the Board of Managers. Mr. Houle reviewed CRWD’s Monitoring Methods, 2020 Climate, Results from Monitoring, Accomplishments in 2020 and 2021 Initiatives. There are five lakes within the boundaries of CRWD: Como Lake, Crosby Lake, Little Crosby Lake, and Loeb Lake in St. Paul, and Lake McCarrons in Roseville. Each lake is collaboratively monitored by Ramsey County Public Works (RCPW), the Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation Division, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and CRWD to evaluate overall health, assess compliance with water quality standards, and determine if each lake supports its designated uses for swimming, fishing, and/or aesthetics. Data has been collected annually on each lake for varying periods of record, with the Como Lake dataset being the longest, dating back to 1984. In 2020, CRWD, in partnership with RCPW and the Ramsey County Soil and Water Conservation Division, collected chemical, physical, and biological data from all five District lakes. Data collected included: dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, temperature, Secchi depth, phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophyte samples, biovolume surveys of vegetation, and continuous water level data. All the lakes data collected in 2020 have been analyzed and summarized. Historical lake data and summer average total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and Secchi depth calculations are also available online via the CRWD Water Data Portal. An update will be given on 2020 lake monitoring, 2020 lake quality in comparison to the historical data record, 2020 accomplishments, and 2021 initiatives. President Collins inquired about Crosby Lakes condition and being able to treat like McCarron and Como Lake. Mr. Houle replied that the flex of flooding and run off from the Mississippi River, Crosby Lake cannot be treated like McCarrons and Como. Manager Texer asked if another herbicidal treatment will be done at Como Lake this year. Mr. Fossum replied that the next board meeting will include more details amount treatment to Como Lake. President Collins asked about chloride in Como Lake. Mr. Houle replied that continuing education of proper application is best way to treat chloride runoff into the lakes. Managers thanked Mr. Houle for his presentation.

No Action Requested V.

Action Items A)

AR: Approve Minutes of the January 20th Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

Motion 21-024: Approve the amended Minutes of the January 20, 2021 Regular Meeting. Texer/Sanders Unanimously approved.

AR: Approve 2021 Lake Monitoring Agreement with Ramsey County (Wein)

Mr. Houle provided a review for the board of managers. Ramsey County Public Works (RCPW) has been conducting in-lake water quality testing on all Ramsey County lakes, including CRWD’s five District Lakes (Como, Crosby, Little Crosby, Loeb, McCarrons). At each lake, water quality data is collected twice monthly from May to September. The data collected includes chemical, physical, and biological parameters that are measured along a depth profile at set sampling locations on each lake. The data is provided by RCPW to CRWD for analysis and reporting. CRWD has provided financial support to RCPW for lake sampling services since 2005. With assistance from the Ramsey County Attorney, RCPW has developed an annual cooperative agreement for all services related to CRWD Lake monitoring. This annual contract from RCPW is being proposed for all 2021 lake water quality sampling and requires approval. The estimated cost for 2021 Baseline and Extended Baseline sampling is $39,447.42.

Motion 21-025: Approve 2021 Lake Monitoring with Ramsey County and authorize Administrator to execute service agreement. Texer/Sanders Unanimously approved. C)

AR: Appoint Lauren Wheeler to the Community Advisory Committee (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux shared that on January 19, 2021 CRWD received an application from Lauren Wheeler with a request to become a member of the Community Advisory Committee. Ms. Wheeler has two years of experience within water resources/drainage engineering and as part of this role, have helped submit various watershed permits on behalf of development projects. As a civil engineer, she is interested in pursuing water resources engineering, and excited at the opportunity to learn more about the watershed process and to gain experience in this area. She believes it is also important to be an active community member and contribute to the health of the neighborhood, and the CAC seems like a great way to do so. Motion 21-026: Appoint Lauren Wheeler to the Community Advisory Committee. Texer/Sanders Unanimously Approved VI.

Unfinished Business A)

2020 Financial Recap (Doneux)

Administrator Doneux reviewed for the Board of Managers the 2020 budget. The 2020 estimated actual revenue was within 1% of the original adopted budget while the expenses were 32% lower than that of the adopted budget. Most of the reduction in expenses was in the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), where projects did not begin or were delayed. One major concern was for the tax levy. Planning for 2021 was amended assuming a lower-than-normal tax levy revenue. At the end of 2020, the final levy revenue was within 1% of the budgeted amount. This is good news considering the 2021 tax levy represents approximately 88% of total revenue. The year end fund balance for both operations and CIP

was better than budgeted and better than late 2020 estimates. The operations fund balance is starting the year above the 50% policy level, however, looks to drop to about 39% at the end of 2021. The CIP fund balance is starting 2021 at just under $5.5 million, well above the $2 million policy amount, though many ongoing CIP commitments lie ahead for the District in the coming years. Overall, the 2020 financial outlook is favorable, nevertheless, we must be thoughtful as the District ramps up our efforts coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic and to the level anticipated in the Watershed Management Plan. No Action Requested VII.

General Information A)

Board of Managers’ Updates

Manager Texer shared that the Legislative Training Session will be on March 14th from 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm. The focus of this year’s training will be on how to educate the Legislative. VIII. Next Meetings A) B) IX.

Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 PM – CAC Meeting – Electronic Only Manager Mary Texer will be attending. Wednesday, February 17, 2021 6:00 PM- Regular Meeting – Electronic Only

Adjournment

Motion 21-027: Adjournment of the February 3, 2021 Regular Board Meeting at 6:55 P.M. Texer/Sanders Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander

February 17, 2021 Board Meeting V. Action Items – B) Accounts Payable & Budget Updated (Sylvander)

DATE: February 11, 2021 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Michelle Sylvander, Office Manager RE: January 2021 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Administrative/Program Budget Report _________________________________________________________________________________ Enclosed are the Accounts Payable/Receivable and the Administrative/Program Budget Reports for the Month of January 2021. Summary of Budget Report: (January Only Expenses) Administrative Budget (100’s) Program Budget (200’s) Project Budget (300’s) Capital Improvement Budget (400’s) Debt Service (500’s)

$ $ $ $ $

104,318.74 106,027.84 21,553.54 93,209.57 0.00

TOTAL

325,109.69

Summary of Accounts Payable/Receivable Report through January 31, 2021: (Past, present and future months) (January 2021 Only)

Accounts Payable Accounts Receivable

$ $

473,225.70 150,440.32

Request Action Approve January 2021 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Budget Report and direct Board Treasurer and President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments. enc:

January 2021 Accounts Payable January 2021 Budget Report

2021 Operations and CIP Monthly YTD Expenditures to Budget

$6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $-

Jan

Feb

March

April

2021 Operations Budget 2021 CIP Budget

May

Jun

July

August

Sept

Oct

Operations Cumulative Expenditures CIP Cumulative Expenditures

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Board Memos\Board Memos 2021\BD Memo AP Budget Report 02172021.docx

Nov

Dec

Capitol Region Watershed District

Check Register For the Period From Feb 1, 2021 - Feb 28, 2021

Date 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21

Payee Anchor Solar Investments, LLC Archkey Technologies Barr Engineering Benefit Extras, Inc. C Lanphear Design Canteen Cinch Web Services City of St. Paul Parks & Recreation City of St. Paul Parks & Recreation City of St. Paul Safety & Inspections City of White Bear Lake Colonial Life Comcast - Business Como Community Council District Dwaynes Lawn & Snow Care Emmons & Olivier Resources Emmons & Olivier Resources Emmons & Olivier Resources Forrest J. Kelley Fortin Consulting, Inc. Friends of the Mississippi Gallagher Gopher State One Growing Green Hearts, LLC Hamline Midway Coalition Hamline University Hamline University Hawona Sullivan Janzen HealthPartners Houston Engineering, Inc. Joseph Collins Lower Phalen Creek Maintenance Team, Inc. Marco - HP McCaren Designs, Inc. Menards MetLife MN Association of Watershed Dist. MSR Design Parkview Center School Public Art St. Paul Ramsey County Soil & Water Conserv. Ramsey County - Attorney Redpath & Company, Ltd. Regents of the University of Minnesota Rymark Staples Business Advantage Syscon, Inc. University of St. Thomas Urban Roots Verison Wireless Viking Industrial Center Walters We All Need Food and Water

2020

8,698.83

2021

Total

$165.43 2,107.01 10,627.30 96.00 297.50 26.97 99.00 85,000.00

$165.43 2,107.01 19,326.13 96.00 297.50 26.97 99.00 85,000.00 10,494.20 39.00 1,705.97 844.20 2,409.38 1,861.75 1,900.00 4,976.76 10,146.05 7,742.73 1,800.00 500.00 9,070.00 562.50 64.85 5,768.19 797.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 1,384.09 16,000.00 9,479.45 1,750.00 4,710.00 8,918.00 97.52 555.28 128.04 960.34 7,500.00 300.00 392.01 5,000.00 8,640.00 467.50 6,931.79 8,999.46 3,485.00 160.42 537.50 6,600.00 15,000.00 1,310.57 761.95 202.57 9,000.00

10,494.20 39.00 1,705.97 844.20 2,409.38 1,861.75 1,900.00 4,976.76 10,146.05 7,742.73 1,800.00 500.00 9,070.00 562.50 64.85 5,768.19 797.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 1,384.09 16,000.00 9,479.45 1,750.00 4,710.00 30.00

8,888.00 97.52 555.28 128.04 960.34 7,500.00 300.00

392.01 5,000.00 8,640.00 467.50 6,931.79 8,999.46 3,485.00 160.42 537.50 6,600.00 15,000.00 1,310.57 761.95 202.57 9,000.00

Page 1 of 2

Check # 21160 21161 21162 21163 21164 21165 21166 21167 21168 21169 21170 21171 21172 21173 21174 21175 21176 21177 21178 21179 21180 21181 21182 21183 21184 21185 21186 21187 21188 21189 21190 21191 21192 21193 21194 21195 21196 21197 21198 21199 21200 21201 21202 21203 21204 21205 21206 21207 21208 21209 21210 21211 21212 21213

Description Solar Leasing Infectious Disease Control Engineereing Expense Employee Benefits Awards Ceremony Invitations Rent - Brewer Machine Website Maintenance CIP Construction on Golf Course BiPOC Parks Ambassadors Alarm Permit Ramsey County GIS Fees Employee Benefits Bundled Services D10 Como 2020 PG Reimbursement Snow Removal Villa Park Pond Outlet 1919 University Ave. Green Roof Villa Park Pond Outlet Office Cleaning Salt Symposium Bronze Sponsor Partner Grant Consultation Fees E-Mail Tickets/2021 Annual Fee Water Curriculum Building Community Through Clean Water Educ. 2020 Clean Water Membership 2021 Clean Water Membershhip Manager Per Diem/Expense Employee Benefits Como Zoo/Golf Course/MS4 Front/5 Year Database Manager Per Diem/Expense Partner Grant Facilities Management/New Garage Doors Staples Restock Monthly Horticulture Services Supplies Employee Benefits 2021 Annual Dues MSR Design for CRWD Office Partner Grant Earth Lab 2020 Como Lake Shoreline Attorney Fees Accounting & Payroll Services Bell Museum MN Water Resource Managed Services Office Supplies Sage Support UST 2nd Year Housing/Surety Refund Partner Grant Cell Phone Services Supplies/Pump Gas Cylinder Trash/Recycling Partner Grant

Capitol Region Watershed District

Check Register For the Period From Feb 1, 2021 - Feb 28, 2021

Date 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21 02/17/21

Payee Wenck Associates, Inc. Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Xcel Energy US Bank SUB-TOTAL: JANUARY A/P:

2020

2021 8,932.00

$123,711.47

JANUARY PAYROLL/BENEFITS: JANUARY TOTAL:

5.37 1,511.40 350.00 2,119.13

8,932.00 4.97 5.37 1,511.40 350.00 6,621.77

$190,786.15

$314,497.62

158,728.08

$349,514.23

$473,225.70

4.97

4,502.64

$123,711.47

Total

Check # 21214 21215 21216 21217 21218 21219

Description Permit Program/Erosion & Sediment Electrical Service-Kittson Street Electrical Service-Maryland Street Gas & Electrical Service Monthly Electric Monthly Credit Card Expense

APPROVED FOR PAYMENT:

2/17/2021

JANUARY, 2021 RECEIPTS Ramsey County Caully Heng Hope Community Academy Enclave at McCarron's Lake 4M Fund-General

$142,172.27 200.00 4,400.00 3,500.00 168.05

JANUARY RECEIPTS:

$150,440.32

Page 2 of 2

Final Tax Levy Settlement - 2020 Water Steward Surety Permit Fee January Interest - General

Capitol Region Watershed District January 31, 2021 Comparison

Check Register Totals Accounts Payable Checks

$314,497.62

Payroll & Benefits

158,728.08

TOTAL:

$473,225.70

2020 Expenditures

($123,711.47)

Surety Returns

($6,600.00)

Pre-Paid Expenses

($17,804.54)

JANUARY ONLY:

$325,109.69

2020 Expenses: See February 17th Check Register for Details:

$123,711.47

Surety Return: University of St. Thomas - Ck. #21208: Pre-Paid Expenses: Colonial Life - Ck. #21171 HealthPartners - Ck. #21188 MetLife - Ck. #21196

Page 1 of 1

$6,600.00 $844.20 16,000.00 960.34 $17,804.54

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST RECAP FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2021 ‐ JANUARY 31, 2021 JOB COST #/NAME 21890 ‐ Safety Program 21895 ‐ Diversity & Inclusion Program 20970 ‐ General Administration 21970 ‐ General Administration 21975 ‐ Aldine Operations 21976 ‐ 1736 Thomas Operations 21978 ‐ MAWD 21980 ‐ Citizens Advisory Committee 21985 ‐ External Funding Opportunities 00000 ‐ Administration Allocation TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: 200 ‐ Administration 208 ‐ Regulatory Program 210 ‐ Grants Program 211 ‐ Monitoring, Assessment & Research 220 ‐ Communications & Engagement 222 ‐ Facility Management Program TOTAL PROGRAMS: 300 ‐ Administration 305 ‐ Como Lake Subwatershed 310 ‐ Lake McCarron's Subwatershed 313 ‐ Loeb Lake Subwatershed 315 ‐ Trout Brook Subwatershed 325 ‐ Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration 332 ‐ Mississippi River Confluence Subwatershed 370 ‐ Watershed Management Plan 375 ‐ Watershed‐Wide Planning, Assessment & Implementation TOTAL PROJECTS: TOTAL OPERATING FUND: 405 ‐ Como Lake BMP's 410 ‐ Lake McCarron's BMP's 413 ‐ Loeb Lake BMP's 415 ‐ Trout Brook BMP's 431 ‐ Mississippi River Gorge Subwatershed BMP's 432 ‐ Mississippi River Confluence Subwatershed BMP's 433 ‐ Mississippi River Downtown Subwatershed BMP's 440 ‐ Special Projects & Grants TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 475 ‐ Watershed‐Wide Capitol Improvement Projects TOTAL DEBT SERVICES:

2021 ANNUAL BUDGET 35,000.00 15,000.00 ‐ 744,700.00 150,000.00 85,800.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 (251,400.00) $799,100.00 165,924.00 556,620.00 929,700.00 761,150.00 792,460.00 420,580.00 $3,626,434.00 85,476.00 170,050.00 100,700.00 20,850.00 211,110.00 162,770.00 46,250.00 ‐ 145,580.00 $942,786.00 $5,368,320.00 412,400.00 ‐ ‐ 950,250.00 96,750.00 911,440.00 610,450.00 ‐ $2,981,290.00 1,054,454.00 $1,054,454.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 818.34 ‐ 5,709.73 80,215.59 17,168.69 406.39 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $104,318.74 ‐ 25,759.05 15,224.75 28,878.83 22,527.58 13,637.63 $106,027.84 ‐ 4,435.75 568.74 ‐ 3,470.16 538.16 4,714.95 220.04 7,605.74 $21,553.54 $231,900.12 88,243.96 287.30 44.20 110.02 4,080.68 ‐ 55.01 388.40 $93,209.57 ‐ ‐

TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

$9,404,064.00

$325,109.69

$9,078,954.31

Unaudited Fund Balance FUND BALANCES @ 12/31/20 Operations 2,900,077.84 Capital Improvement 5,335,106.27 Debt Service 224,314.94 TOTAL FUND BALANCE: $8,459,499.05

2021 Fund Transfers ‐ ‐ ‐ $0.00

Year‐to‐Date Revenue 3,536.30 131.75 ‐ $3,668.05

Year‐to‐Date Expenditures $231,900.12 93,209.57 ‐ $325,109.69

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES 818.34 ‐ 5,709.73 80,215.59 17,168.69 406.39 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $104,318.74 ‐ 25,759.05 15,224.75 28,878.83 22,527.58 13,637.63 $106,027.84 ‐ 4,435.75 568.74 ‐ 3,470.16 538.16 4,714.95 220.04 7,605.74 $21,553.54 $231,900.12 88,243.96 287.30 44.20 110.02 4,080.68 ‐ 55.01 388.40 $93,209.57 ‐ $0.00

BALANCE OF BUDGET REMAINING 34,181.66 15,000.00 (5,709.73) 664,484.41 132,831.31 85,393.61 5,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 (251,400.00) $694,781.26 165,924.00 530,860.95 914,475.25 732,271.17 769,932.42 406,942.37 $3,520,406.16 85,476.00 165,614.25 100,131.26 20,850.00 207,639.84 162,231.84 41,535.05 (220.04) 137,974.26 $921,232.46 $5,136,419.88 324,156.04 (287.30) (44.20) 950,139.98 92,669.32 911,440.00 610,394.99 (388.40) $2,888,080.43 1,054,454.00 $1,054,454.00

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ 0.00% ‐‐‐ 10.77% 11.45% 0.47% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 13.05% 0.00% 4.63% 1.64% 3.79% 2.84% 3.24% 2.92% 0.00% 2.61% 0.56% 0.00% 1.64% 0.33% 10.19% ‐‐‐ 5.22% 2.29% 4.32% 21.40% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.01% 4.22% 0.00% 0.01% ‐‐‐ 3.13% 0.00% 0.00% 3.46% Unaudited Fund Balance @ 01/31/21 2,671,714.02 5,242,028.45 224,314.94 $8,138,057.41

Page 1 of 5

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2021 ‐ JANUARY 31, 2021 JOB COST #/NAME 21890 ‐ Safety Program 21895 ‐ Diversity & Inclusion Program 20970 ‐ General Administration 21970 ‐ General Administration 21975 ‐ Aldine Operations 21976 ‐ 1736 Thomas Operations 21978 ‐ MAWD 21980 ‐ Citizen Advisory Committee 21985 ‐ External Funding Opportunities 10000 ‐ Administration Allocation TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: 20000 ‐ Administration Allocation 20099 ‐ District Permit Program 21000 ‐ District Permit Program 21102 ‐Coordinated Erosion & Sediment Control 21103 ‐ Permittee Post‐Construction BMP Inspections 21104 ‐ Engagement Activities & Permitees 21105 ‐ Rules, Evaluations & Updates 21107 ‐ Illicit Discharge & Elimination 21109 ‐ Industrial Stormwater Permittee Coordination 21111 ‐ Water Reuse Policy Support ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐ Permits 20143 ‐ Stewardship Grants 21143 ‐ Stewardshhip Grants 20144 ‐ Partner Grants 16147 ‐ TWP Blvd. Rain Gardens 21150 ‐ ROW Projects‐Boulevard Rain Gardens 21152 ‐ Stewardship Grant Outreach 21153 ‐ Grant Project Inspection & Maintenance 21155 ‐ Well Sealing Grants 21160 ‐ Large Scale Site Planning Grants 20200 ‐ Baseline Monitoring Data Collection 21200 ‐ Stormwater Monitoring & Data Collection 19205 ‐ Lake Monitoring & Data Collection 20205 ‐ Lake Monitoring & Data Collection 21205 ‐ Lake Monitoring & Data Collection 21215 ‐ Wetland Biological Integrity Monitoring 21220 ‐ Monitoring Database & Reporting Tool 21221 ‐ Monitoring Trend Analysis & Reporting 21225 ‐ Citizen Science Monitoring Program 21228 ‐ Research Program 21230 ‐ BMP Performance Monitoring 20230 ‐ BMP Monitoring 21235 ‐ Emerging Containments & Water Quality 20250 ‐ General Outreach & Communications 21250 ‐ General Communications & Engagement

2021 ANNUAL BUDGET 35,000.00 15,000.00 ‐ 744,700.00 150,000.00 85,800.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 (251,400.00) 799,100.00 165,924.00 ‐ 209,770.00 193,900.00 72,730.00 6,220.00 20,690.00 42,490.00 4,970.00 5,850.00 ‐ ‐ 510,550.00 225,000.00 38,670.00 17,380.00 74,040.00 10,430.00 53,630.00 ‐ 393,120.00 ‐ ‐ 106,460.00 14,390.00 26,280.00 19,450.00 9,250.00 46,850.00 131,350.00 ‐ 14,000.00 ‐ 236,310.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 818.34 ‐ 5,709.73 80,215.59 17,168.69 406.39 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 104,318.74 ‐ 4,094.51 12,497.67 241.69 144.02 ‐ 192.09 406.60 ‐ ‐ 8,182.47 969.68 9,846.47 939.20 766.43 56.39 387.35 1,881.26 ‐ 377.97 6,104.34 19,906.23 ‐ 249.18 691.05 ‐ ‐ ‐ 216.68 513.86 1,148.76 48.73 ‐ 2,722.95 8,450.74

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 818.34 34,181.66 ‐ 15,000.00 5,709.73 (5,709.73) 80,215.59 664,484.41 17,168.69 132,831.31 406.39 85,393.61 ‐ 5,000.00 ‐ 10,000.00 ‐ 5,000.00 ‐ (251,400.00) $104,318.74 $660,599.60 ‐ 165,924.00 4,094.51 (4,094.51) 12,497.67 197,272.33 241.69 193,658.31 144.02 72,585.98 ‐ 6,220.00 192.09 20,497.91 406.60 42,083.40 ‐ 4,970.00 ‐ 5,850.00 8,182.47 (8,182.47) 969.68 (969.68) 9,846.47 500,703.53 939.20 (939.20) 766.43 224,233.57 56.39 38,613.61 387.35 16,992.65 1,881.26 72,158.74 ‐ 10,430.00 377.97 53,252.03 6,104.34 (6,104.34) 19,906.23 373,213.77 ‐ 0.00 249.18 (249.18) 691.05 105,768.95 ‐ 14,390.00 ‐ 26,280.00 ‐ 19,450.00 216.68 9,033.32 513.86 46,336.14 1,148.76 130,201.24 48.73 (48.73) ‐ 14,000.00 2,722.95 (2,722.95) 8,450.74 227,859.26

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 2.34% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 10.77% ‐‐‐ 0.47% 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 13.05% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 5.96% 0.12% 0.20% 0.00% 0.93% 0.96% 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1.93% ‐‐‐ 0.34% 0.15% 2.23% 2.54% 0.00% 0.70% ‐‐‐ 5.06% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.34% 1.10% 0.87% ‐‐‐ 0.00% ‐‐‐ 3.58%

Page 2 of 5

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2021 ‐ JANUARY 31, 2021 JOB COST #/NAME 21252 ‐ Project Communications 21255 ‐ Clean Streets 21260 ‐ Maintenance Workshops for Clean Water 21262 ‐ Youth Outreach Programs 20265 ‐ Sponsorships & Partnerships 21265 ‐ Sponsorships 21267 ‐ Partnerships 20268 ‐ Adopt A Drain 20270 ‐ Website 21270 ‐ Digital Communications 20271 ‐ Master Water Stewards 21271 ‐ Volunteer Programs 17274 ‐ TWP Communications 21275 ‐ Events 21278 ‐ Public Art Program 21279 ‐ Partner Grant Program 21280 ‐ 595 Aldine Communications & Engagement 20285 ‐ Awards Program 21285 ‐ Awards Program 20303 ‐ BMP Database 21303 ‐ BMP Database 21305 ‐ District Owned Facility Management 21310 ‐ Shared Ownership Facility Management 21315 ‐ Partner Owned Facilities 20333 ‐ Public Art Program

2021 ANNUAL BUDGET 28,190.00 46,340.00 15,420.00 20,720.00 ‐ 31,500.00 20,800.00 ‐ ‐ 63,900.00 ‐ 36,260.00 ‐ 24,390.00 31,000.00 170,480.00 51,060.00 ‐ 16,090.00 ‐ 45,930.00 234,150.00 53,440.00 87,060.00 TOTAL PROGRAMS:

30000 ‐ Administration Allocation 21423 ‐ AIS Management 20424 ‐ Como Lake Aquatic Plant Management 21424 ‐ Como Lake Aquatic Plant Management 21425 ‐ Como Lake Fisheries Management 18427 ‐ Como Lake Management Plan 21427 ‐ Shoreline Management 21430 ‐ Street Sweeping Program 21434 ‐ Water‐Based Recreation Management 21436 ‐ Como Subwatershed Infrastructure Management 21440 ‐ Future Stormwater Management Planning 21470 ‐ Lake Vegetation & AIS Management 18476 ‐ Upper Villa Maintenance 21476 ‐ Villa Park Wetland System Evaluation 21479 ‐ Lake McCarron's Shoreline 21480 ‐ Watershed Hydraulic & Hodrologic Modeling 11513 ‐ Loed Lake Stormwater Pond Improvements 20550 ‐ TBI Inspection and Maintenance 21550 ‐ TBI Inspection & Maintenance 14552 ‐ TBI Easement Verification & Documentation 21554 ‐ TBI Model Update

$3,626,434.00 85,476.00 15,740.00 ‐ 12,370.00 9,870.00 ‐ 25,370.00 22,740.00 22,370.00 50,110.00 11,480.00 20,110.00 ‐ 20,480.00 20,000.00 40,110.00 20,850.00 ‐ ‐ 50,850.00 150,140.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 13.25 ‐ ‐ ‐ 36.16 5,500.00 108.39 36.16 397.38 1,749.50 144.64 595.31 96.30 215.07 789.11 764.98 56.39 851.25 ‐ 2,031.50 6,710.76 4,859.21 ‐ ‐ 36.16 $106,027.84 ‐ ‐ 281.62 1,180.94 711.16 1,924.64 80.46 ‐ ‐ 256.93 ‐ 55.01 123.64 ‐ 390.09 ‐ ‐ 64.85 2,028.00 ‐ 965.18

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 13.25 28,176.75 ‐ 46,340.00 ‐ 15,420.00 ‐ 20,720.00 36.16 (36.16) 5,500.00 26,000.00 108.39 20,691.61 36.16 (36.16) 397.38 (397.38) 1,749.50 62,150.50 144.64 (144.64) 595.31 35,664.69 96.30 (96.30) 215.07 24,174.93 789.11 30,210.89 764.98 169,715.02 56.39 51,003.61 851.25 (851.25) ‐ 16,090.00 2,031.50 (2,031.50) 6,710.76 39,219.24 4,859.21 229,290.79 ‐ 53,440.00 ‐ 87,060.00 36.16 (36.16) 106,027.84 $3,520,406.16 ‐ 85,476.00 ‐ 15,740.00 281.62 (281.62) 1,180.94 11,189.06 711.16 9,158.84 1,924.64 (1,924.64) 80.46 25,289.54 ‐ 22,740.00 ‐ 22,370.00 256.93 49,853.07 ‐ 11,480.00 55.01 20,054.99 123.64 (123.64) ‐ 20,480.00 390.09 19,609.91 ‐ 40,110.00 ‐ 20,850.00 64.85 (64.85) 2,028.00 (2,028.00) ‐ 50,850.00 965.18 149,174.82

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 17.46% 0.52% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2.74% ‐‐‐ 1.64% ‐‐‐ 0.88% 2.55% 0.45% 0.11% ‐‐‐ 0.00% ‐‐‐ 14.61% 2.08% 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 2.92% 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 9.55% 7.21% ‐‐‐ 0.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.51% 0.00% 0.27% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 1.95% 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.00% 0.64%

Page 3 of 5

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2021 ‐ JANUARY 31, 2021 JOB COST #/NAME 21570 ‐ NPDES MS4 Stormwater Program 19605 ‐ Lower Phalen Creek/Rush Line 21605 ‐ Phalen Creek Daylighting Feasibility Study 21610 ‐ Willow Reserve Signage & Access 21615 ‐ Wetland Restoration Planning 19621 ‐ Snelling Midway Redevelopment O & M 18622 ‐ Ford Site Planning 18623 ‐ Ford Site Area C 18650 ‐ 2020 Watershed Management Plan 21651 ‐ Partner Agency Plan Review 21652 ‐ GIS Program 21655 ‐ St. Paul Watershed Governance 21656 ‐ District Chloride Assessment & Prevention Plan 21658 ‐ Great River Passage 19662 ‐ 1919 University Avenue 19665 ‐ Science Museum Feasibility

16705 ‐ TWP Como BMP McMurray 21711 ‐ Como Pavillion BMP's 21712 ‐ Gotfried's Pit Improvement 16715 ‐ TWP Como Sr. High 16720 ‐ Willow Reserve Restoration Project 16752 ‐ TWP ‐ McCarrons BMP ‐ Parkview 20820 ‐ TBI Repair ‐ Station 28+65 ‐ 50+72 16853 ‐ Victoria Park 16886 ‐ Lauderdale Subwatershed Stormwater Improvement Project 19890 ‐ Midway Peace Park 20891 ‐ Ford Site 20892 ‐ Science Museum of Minnesota 16917 ‐ Swede Hollow Construction 19940 ‐ Zero Abuse Project 16950 ‐ New Office Facility TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 14960 ‐ Debt & Loan Service TOTAL DEBT SERVICES:

2021 ANNUAL BUDGET 10,120.00 ‐ 53,450.00 30,960.00 78,360.00 ‐ 23,125.00 23,125.00 ‐ 20,100.00 30,470.00 10,060.00 54,950.00 30,000.00 ‐ ‐ $942,786.00 $5,368,320.00 211,700.00 150,000.00 50,700.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 950,250.00 105,480.00 96,750.00 560,000.00 805,960.00 50,450.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ $2,981,290.00 1,054,454.00 $1,054,454.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 412.13 538.16 ‐ ‐ ‐ 99.01 4,615.94 ‐ 220.04 224.17 1,794.37 ‐ ‐ ‐ 110.50 5,476.70 $21,553.54 $231,900.12 88,199.76 ‐ ‐ 44.20 44.20 287.30 110.02 ‐ 4,080.68 55.01 ‐ ‐ 44.20 44.20 300.00 $93,209.57 ‐ ‐

TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

$9,404,064.00

$325,109.69

TOTAL PROJECTS: TOTAL OPERATING FUND:

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 412.13 9,707.87 538.16 (538.16) ‐ 53,450.00 ‐ 30,960.00 ‐ 78,360.00 99.01 (99.01) 4,615.94 18,509.06 ‐ 23,125.00 220.04 (220.04) 224.17 19,875.83 1,794.37 28,675.63 ‐ 10,060.00 ‐ 54,950.00 ‐ 30,000.00 110.50 (110.50) 5,476.70 (5,476.70) 21,553.54 $921,232.46 $231,900.12 $5,136,419.88 88,199.76 123,500.24 ‐ 150,000.00 ‐ 50,700.00 44.20 (44.20) 44.20 (44.20) 287.30 (287.30) 110.02 950,139.98 ‐ 105,480.00 4,080.68 92,669.32 55.01 559,944.99 ‐ 805,960.00 ‐ 50,450.00 44.20 (44.20) 44.20 (44.20) 300.00 (300.00) $93,209.57 $2,888,080.43 ‐ 1,054,454.00 $0.00 $1,054,454.00 $325,109.69

$9,078,954.31

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 4.07% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 19.96% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 1.12% 5.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2.29% 4.32% 41.66% 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.01% 0.00% 4.22% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 3.13% 0.00% 0.00% 3.46%

Page 4 of 5

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2021 ‐ JANUARY 31, 2021 PERMIT NUMBER

PERMIT NAME

PERMITTING BUDGET

13003 17003 18002 18008 18009 18014 18018 18022 19010 19012 19015 19021 19030 20003 20005 20009 20011 20014 20019 20021 20023 20025 20026 20028 20029 20031 21001 21002 21003

MN Pass Como Park Sr. High School Menards Trnasload Terminal Vomela Beacon Bluff Seal Island at Como Zoo Morning Star Payne Building Development Rivoli Phase III Raymond Station UST 2nd Year Housing Waterford Bay Como Animal Hospital Five Star Storage SPPS Service Facility Addition Washington Tech HS Field Improvement Ford Site Redevelopment Randolph Square ‐ Riverbend Business University & Dale Affordable Housing Marshall & Finn Apartments Hope Community Academy 2383 University Highland Bridge Lot 1 Block 3 Hmong Academy Middle School Gillette POP22 Fairview & University Highland Bridge Rowhomes Model The Enclave at McCarrons Lake Mississippi River Boulevard Subdivision St. Paul City School

21000

Sub‐Total: Permits General Permitting

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ TOTAL PERMITS: 209,770.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES

BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING

% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED

187.22 476.25 266.30 156.62 230.41 14.40 185.66 43.21 86.41 225.70 21.60 28.80 476.25 185.67 185.67 235.07 72.01 21.60 598.25 748.25 217.67 57.60 36.00 185.67 193.06 57.62 1,741.25 1,184.25 64.00

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

8,182.47 16,592.18 24,774.65

‐ ‐ $184,995.35

‐ ‐ 11.81%

Page 5 of 5

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST RECAP FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2020 ‐ DECEMBER 31, 2020

19970 ‐ General Administration 20970 ‐ General Administration 20971 ‐ General Administration 20975 ‐ Aldine Operations 21975 ‐ Aldine Operations 20976 ‐ 1736 Thomas Operations 19978 ‐ MAWD 17985 ‐ CRWD History Study 00000 ‐ Administration Allocation

JOB COST #/NAME

2020 ANNUAL BUDGET ‐ 722,700.00 ‐ 64,000.00 ‐ 55,800.00 5,000.00

TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: 200 ‐ Administration 201 ‐ Groundwater 207 ‐ Rulemaking/Rule Revisions 208 ‐ Permitting 210 ‐ Stewardship Grants 211 ‐ Monitoring & Data Collection 220 ‐ Education & Outreach 225 ‐ Technical Resources & Information Sharing 228 ‐ Future Trends: Research and Positioning 230 ‐ Geographic Informatin Systems (GIS) 240 ‐ Safety Program TOTAL PROGRAMS: 300 ‐ Administration 301 ‐ Shoreline & Streambank Maintenance 305 ‐ Como Lake Subwatershed 310 ‐ Lake McCarron's Subwatershed 313 ‐ Loeb Lake Subwatershed 315 ‐ Trout Brook Subwatershed 317 ‐ Crosby Lake Subwatershed 330 ‐ Mississippi River Subwatershed 370 ‐ Watershed Management Plan 390 ‐ Special Projects & Grants TOTAL PROJECTS: TOTAL OPERATING FUND: 405 ‐ Como Lake BMP's 410 ‐ Lake McCarron's BMP's 413 ‐ Loeb Lake BMP's 415 ‐ Trout Brook BMP's 425 ‐ Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration 430 ‐ Mississippi River Subwatersheds BMP's 440 ‐ Special Projects & Grants 450 ‐ Future Trends: Implementation TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 14960 ‐ Debt & Loan Service 15 TOTAL DEBT SERVICES:

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES 17,985.91 735,395.73 4,181.00 116,612.15 1,488.16 48,842.71 1,953.23 7,000.00 ‐ $933,458.89 237,481.88 18,062.17 30,504.60 367,869.49 362,148.64 585,906.61 278,899.14 38,828.71 66,254.35 14,699.76 18,021.94 $2,018,677.29 121,608.00 45,987.41 104,725.12 46,757.19 461.23 84,083.79 8,931.89 143,324.93 129,171.54 122,581.01 $807,632.11 $3,759,768.29 1,788,962.15 241,057.51 39,348.31 10,355.39 330,252.22 607,294.89 207,656.56 64,725.99 $3,289,653.02 1,007,037.81 $1,007,037.81

BALANCE OF BUDGET REMAINING (17,985.91) (12,695.73) (4,181.00) (52,612.15) (1,488.16) 6,957.29 3,046.77 (7,000.00) (357,670.00) ($443,628.89) (1,419.88) (9,782.17) (17,754.60) 22,920.51 424,661.36 71,923.39 269,360.86 26,901.29 54,815.65 35,690.24 17,978.06 $895,294.71 0.00 (37,987.41) 8,814.88 21,962.81 49,418.77 326,276.21 19,928.11 241,795.07 26,338.46 (23,531.01) $633,015.89 $1,084,681.71 (341,352.15) 514,482.49 (25,808.31) 555,894.61 (300,252.22) 737,355.11 1,470,043.44 (14,725.99) $2,595,636.98 50,205.19 $50,205.19

TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

$11,786,983.00

$0.00

$8,056,459.12

$3,730,523.88

TOTAL FUND BALANCE:

Fund Balance @ 12/31/19 1,891,112.34 4,763,226.75 186,690.88 $6,841,029.97

2020 Fund Transfers ‐ ‐ ‐ $0.00

Year‐to‐Date Revenue 4,768,733.79 3,861,532.54 1,044,661.87 $9,674,928.20

Year‐to‐Date Expenditures $3,759,768.29 3,289,653.02 1,007,037.81 $8,056,459.12

FUND BALANCES

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (357,670.00) ‐ $489,830.00 $0.00 236,062.00 ‐ 8,280.00 ‐ 12,750.00 ‐ 390,790.00 ‐ 786,810.00 ‐ 657,830.00 ‐ 548,260.00 ‐ 65,730.00 ‐ 121,070.00 ‐ 50,390.00 ‐ 36,000.00 ‐ $2,913,972.00 $0.00 121,608.00 ‐ 8,000.00 ‐ 113,540.00 ‐ 68,720.00 ‐ 49,880.00 ‐ 410,360.00 ‐ 28,860.00 ‐ 385,120.00 ‐ 155,510.00 ‐ 99,050.00 ‐ $1,440,648.00 $0.00 $4,844,450.00 $0.00 1,447,610.00 ‐ 755,540.00 ‐ 13,540.00 ‐ 566,250.00 ‐ 30,000.00 ‐ 1,344,650.00 ‐ 1,677,700.00 ‐ 50,000.00 ‐ $5,885,290.00 $0.00 1,057,243.00 ‐ $1,057,243.00 ‐

UPDATED 2/10/21

Operations Capital Improvement Debt Service

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ 101.76% ‐‐‐ 182.21% ‐‐‐ 87.53% 39.06% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 190.57% 100.60% 218.14% 239.25% 94.13% 46.03% 89.07% 50.87% 59.07% 54.72% 29.17% 50.06% 69.28% 100.00% 574.84% 92.24% 68.04% 0.92% 20.49% 30.95% 37.22% 83.06% 123.76% 56.06% 77.61% 123.58% 31.91% 290.61% 1.83% 1100.84% 45.16% 12.38% 129.45% 55.90% 95.25% 95.25% 68.35% Unaudited Fund Balance @ 12/31/20 2,900,077.84 5,335,106.27 224,314.94 $8,459,499.05

Page 1 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2020 ‐ DECEMBER 30, 2020 CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ (357,670.00) ‐ $0.00 TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: $489,830.00 20000 ‐ Administration Allocation 236,062.00 ‐ 19000 ‐ District Permit Program ‐ ‐ 20099 ‐ District Permit Program 191,540.00 ‐ 21000 ‐ District Permit Program ‐ ‐ 20101 ‐ Permit Tracking & Database Management 14,850.00 ‐ 19102 ‐ Construction Inspection ‐ ‐ 20102 ‐ Construction Inspection 148,650.00 ‐ 19103 ‐ Permit Closure & Post Construction Inspection/Maintenance ‐ ‐ 20103 ‐ Closure & Post Construction Inspection 35,750.00 ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐ Permits ‐ ‐ 19120 ‐ Evaluate Rules/TAC Meetings ‐ ‐ 20120 ‐ Evaluate Rules/Hold TAC Meetings 12,750.00 ‐ 19130 ‐ Groundwater Protection ‐ Well Sealing ‐ ‐ 20130 ‐ Groundwater Protection ‐ Well Sealing 8,280.00 ‐ 18143 ‐ Stewardship Grants ‐ ‐ 19143 ‐ Stewardship Grants ‐ ‐ 20143 ‐ Stewardship Grants 432,450.00 ‐ 19144 ‐ Partner Grants ‐ ‐ 20144 ‐ Partner Grants 130,200.00 ‐ 20145 ‐ Inspiring Communities Program 20,540.00 ‐ 20146 ‐ SPS Rain Garden Projects 20,150.00 ‐ 16147 ‐ TWP Blvd. Rain Gardens 183,470.00 ‐ 19200 ‐ Baseline Monitoring & Data Collection ‐ ‐ 20200 ‐ Baseline Monitoring Data Collection 327,070.00 ‐ 19205 ‐ Lake Monitoring & Data Collection ‐ ‐ 20205 ‐ Lake Monitoring & Data Collection 105,190.00 ‐ 19210 ‐ Villa Park Monitoring & Data Collection ‐ ‐ 20210 ‐ Villa Park Monitoring & Data Collection 32,900.00 ‐ 19215 ‐ Wetland Bio‐Monitoring ‐ ‐ 20215 ‐ Wetland Bio‐Monitoring 20,050.00 ‐ 20220 ‐ WISKI Database Website 57,480.00 ‐ 20225 ‐ Remote Data Access & Set Up 14,680.00 ‐ 19230 ‐ BMP Monitoring ‐ ‐ 20230 ‐ BMP Monitoring 50,050.00 ‐ 17232 ‐ Midway Office WH Monitoring 30,050.00 ‐ 19250 ‐ General Outreach & Communications ‐ ‐ 19970 ‐ General Administration 20970 ‐ General Administration 21970 ‐ General Administration 20975 ‐ Aldine Operations 21975 ‐ Aldine Operations 20976 ‐ 1736 Thomas Operations 20978 ‐ MAWD 17985 ‐ CRWD History Study 10000 ‐ Administration Allocation

JOB COST #/NAME

2020 ANNUAL BUDGET ‐ 722,700.00 ‐ 64,000.00 ‐ 55,800.00 5,000.00

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 17,985.91 (17,985.91) 735,395.73 (12,695.73) 4,181.00 (4,181.00) 116,612.15 (52,612.15) 1,488.16 (1,488.16) 48,842.71 6,957.29 1,953.23 3,046.77 7,000.00 (7,000.00) ‐ (357,670.00) $933,458.89 ($443,628.89) 237,481.88 (1,419.88) 9,391.68 (9,391.68) 149,180.96 42,359.04 258.00 (258.00) ‐ 14,850.00 76.18 (76.18) 14,969.27 133,680.73 479.66 (479.66) 4,233.60 31,516.40 189,280.14 (189,280.14) 2,802.98 (2,802.98) 27,701.62 (14,951.62) 2,267.25 (2,267.25) 15,794.92 (7,514.92) 206.07 (206.07) 18,471.99 (18,471.99) 223,781.12 208,668.88 983.80 (983.80) 96,763.81 33,436.19 ‐ 20,540.00 3,388.58 16,761.42 18,553.27 164,916.73 29,179.55 (29,179.55) 406,687.63 (79,617.63) 234.60 (234.60) 74,196.29 30,993.71 2,465.02 (2,465.02) 6,910.40 25,989.60 5,301.35 (5,301.35) 1,739.90 18,310.10 17,760.55 39,719.45 1,199.27 13,480.73 7,764.64 (7,764.64) 32,467.41 17,582.59 ‐ 30,050.00 11,032.96 (11,032.96)

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 182.21% ‐‐‐ 87.53% 39.06% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 190.57% 100.60% ‐‐‐ 77.89% ‐‐‐ 0.00% ‐‐‐ 10.07% ‐‐‐ 11.84% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 217.27% ‐‐‐ 190.76% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 51.75% ‐‐‐ 74.32% 0.00% 16.82% 10.11% ‐‐‐ 124.34% ‐‐‐ 70.54% ‐‐‐ 21.00% ‐‐‐ 8.68% 30.90% 8.17% ‐‐‐ 64.87% 0.00% ‐‐‐

Page 2 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2020 ‐ DECEMBER 30, 2020 JOB COST #/NAME 20250 ‐ General Outreach & Communications 20255 ‐ Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 20260 ‐ Municipal Training 19262 ‐ Youth Outreach 20262 ‐ Youth Outreach 20263 ‐ Communications Training 19265 ‐ Sponsorships & Partnerships 20265 ‐ Sponsorships & Partnerships 19268 ‐ Adopt A Drain 20268 ‐ Adopt A Drain 19270 ‐ Website & Social Media 20270 ‐ Website 19271 ‐ Master Water Stewards 20271 ‐ Master Water Stewards 17274 ‐ TWP Communications 19275 ‐ Events 20275 ‐ Events 16277 ‐ TWP ‐ Adopt a Drain 16278 ‐ TWP Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 19279 ‐ Social Media 20279 ‐ Social Media 20280 ‐ 595 Aldine Education & Outreach 19285 ‐ Awards & Recognition Programs 20285 ‐ Awards Program 20300 ‐ Plan Review & Tech Committee 19303 ‐ BMP Database Maintenance/Updates 20303 ‐ BMP Database 20330 ‐ District Research Program 19333 ‐ Public Art Program 20333 ‐ Public Art Program 20334 ‐ 595 Aldine Art 19335 ‐ Diversity & Inclusion 20335 ‐ Diversity & Inclusion 20336 ‐ Climate Change Impacts ‐ Research and Action 19370 ‐ GIS Program Development 20370 ‐ GIS Program Development 19390 ‐ Safety Training 20390 ‐ Safety Training 19395 ‐ Safety Program Updates/Audits 20395 ‐ Safety Program Updates/Audits 20396 ‐ Safety Equipment

2020 ANNUAL BUDGET 259,510.00 10,460.00 14,820.00 ‐ 10,870.00 10,070.00 ‐ 28,420.00 ‐ 18,530.00 ‐ 24,990.00 ‐ 30,840.00 7,140.00 ‐ 15,060.00 4,460.00 6,460.00 ‐ 7,530.00 85,000.00 ‐ 14,100.00 15,050.00 ‐ 50,680.00 50,850.00 ‐ 29,560.00 10,640.00 0.00 10,000.00 20,020.00 ‐ 50,390.00 ‐ 13,430.00 10,630.00 ‐ 11,940.00 TOTAL PROGRAMS: $2,913,972.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $0.00

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 164,090.70 95,419.30 347.93 10,112.07 3,279.11 11,540.89 34.57 (34.57) 2,437.78 8,432.22 ‐ 10,070.00 189.93 (189.93) 19,777.90 8,642.10 2,386.54 (2,386.54) 10,389.23 8,140.77 223.58 (223.58) 11,166.18 13,823.82 34.57 (34.57) 23,889.61 6,950.39 2,765.60 4,374.40 189.81 (189.81) 8,488.51 6,571.49 31.97 4,428.03 ‐ 6,460.00 99.15 (99.15) 4,000.88 3,529.12 6,811.32 78,188.68 6,830.20 (6,830.20) 401.11 13,698.89 1,130.36 13,919.64 553.54 (553.54) 37,144.81 13,535.19 53,812.55 (2,962.55) 172.43 (172.43) 9,077.22 20,482.78 ‐ 10,640.00 2,250.00 (2,250.00) 942.15 9,057.85 ‐ 20,020.00 158.29 (158.29) 14,541.47 35,848.53 108.47 (108.47) 5,880.83 7,549.17 264.72 10,365.28 8,882.87 (8,882.87) 2,885.05 9,054.95 2,018,677.29 $895,294.71

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 63.23% 3.33% 22.13% ‐‐‐ 22.43% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 69.59% ‐‐‐ 56.07% ‐‐‐ 44.68% ‐‐‐ 77.46% 38.73% ‐‐‐ 56.36% 0.72% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 53.13% 8.01% ‐‐‐ 2.84% 7.51% ‐‐‐ 73.29% 105.83% ‐‐‐ 30.71% 0.00% #DIV/0! 9.42% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 28.86% ‐‐‐ 43.79% 2.49% ‐‐‐ 24.16% 69.28%

Page 3 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2020 ‐ DECEMBER 30, 2020 JOB COST #/NAME 30000 ‐ Administration Allocation 19605 ‐ Lower Phalen Creek/Rush Line 19421 ‐ Como BMP Maintenance & Inspection 20421 ‐ Como BMP Maintenance 20424 ‐ Como Lake Aquatic Plant Management 20425 ‐ Como Pond Optic RTC O & M 18427 ‐ Como Lake Management Plan 20427 ‐ Como Lake Shoreline Management 19428 ‐ Como Lake Aquatic Plant Management 19429 ‐ Como Lake Shoreline Management 19470 ‐ AIS Management 18476 ‐ Upper Villa Maintenance 19476 ‐ Upper Villa Maintenance 19477 ‐ TWP ‐ Lake McCarron's Management Plan 20477 ‐ Parkview O & M 20478 ‐ Williams St. Pond O & M 20510 ‐ Willow Reserve Management 19550 ‐ Inspection & Annual Maintenance 20550 ‐ TBI Inspection and Maintenance 14552 ‐ TBI Easement Verification & Documentation 20560 ‐ TBI Subwatershed Study 20570 ‐ NPDES MS4 Stormwater Program 18575 ‐ Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination Program 20575 ‐ Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination 20620 ‐ Green Infrastructure for Innovation Districts 19621 ‐ Snelling Midway Redevelopment O & M 18622 ‐ Ford Site Planning 18623 ‐ Ford Site Area C 18624 ‐ CCLRT BMP Maintenance 19624 ‐ Green Line BMP Maintenance 20624 ‐ Geenn Line BMP Maintenance 20625 ‐ Snelling Midway Site 19630 ‐ Gortner Avenue Feasility Study 19 19631 ‐ Highland Ravine Maintenance 20631 ‐ Highland Ravine BMP Maintenance 18650 ‐ 2020 Watershed Management Plan 19660 ‐ Special Grants ‐ Project Development 20660 ‐ Special Grants ‐ Project Development 19662 ‐ 1919 University Avenue 19665 ‐ Science Museum Feasibility

2020 ANNUAL BUDGET 121,608.00 ‐ ‐ 26,120.00 45,400.00 9,800.00 ‐ 32,220.00 ‐ ‐ 14,100.00 29,160.00 ‐ 10,700.00 9,800.00 4,960.00 49,880.00 ‐ 180,000.00 150,250.00 50,050.00 10,060.00 ‐ 20,000.00 75,070.00 49,570.00 150,900.00 31,300.00 ‐ ‐ 34,530.00 43,750.00 ‐ ‐ 28,860.00 155,510.00 ‐ 99,050.00 ‐ ‐ TOTAL PROJECTS: $1,440,648.00 TOTAL OPERATING FUND: $4,844,450.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $0.00 $0.00

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 121,608.00 ‐ 45,987.41 (45,987.41) 416.30 (416.30) 25,720.42 399.58 5,011.01 40,388.99 3,498.20 6,301.80 17,120.78 (17,120.78) 13,065.36 19,154.64 39,779.46 (39,779.46) 113.59 (113.59) 46.05 14,053.95 16,225.01 12,934.99 18.81 (18.81) 30,467.32 (19,767.32) ‐ 9,800.00 ‐ 4,960.00 461.23 49,418.77 1,898.49 (1,898.49) 76,864.36 103,135.64 ‐ 150,250.00 2,841.62 47,208.38 1,828.60 8,231.40 209.08 (209.08) 441.64 19,558.36 166.17 74,903.83 57,966.79 (8,396.79) 41,971.90 108,928.10 13,951.21 17,348.79 484.50 (484.50) 357.87 (357.87) 27,623.40 6,906.60 568.49 43,181.51 234.60 (234.60) 168.56 (168.56) 8,763.33 20,096.67 129,171.54 26,338.46 22,206.26 (22,206.26) 66,724.93 32,325.07 212.53 (212.53) 33,437.29 (33,437.29) 807,632.11 $633,015.89 $3,759,768.29 $1,084,681.71

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 100.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 98.47% 11.04% 35.70% ‐‐‐ 40.55% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.33% 55.64% ‐‐‐ 284.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.92% ‐‐‐ 42.70% 0.00% 5.68% 18.18% ‐‐‐ 2.21% 0.22% 116.94% 27.81% 44.57% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 80.00% 1.30% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 30.36% 83.06% ‐‐‐ 67.36% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 56.06% 77.61%

Page 4 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2020 ‐ DECEMBER 30, 2020 JOB COST #/NAME 20702 ‐ Como Lake BMP Engineering 19703 ‐ Como Lake In‐Lake Management 16705 ‐ TWP Como BMP McMurray 19706 ‐ Como Lake Alum Treatment 16715 ‐ TWP Como Sr. High 16720 ‐ Willow Reserve Restoration Project 16752 ‐ TWP ‐ McCarrons BMP ‐ Parkview 19790 ‐ Loeb Lake Shoreline Restoration 16815 ‐ TBI Repairs ‐ St. 0+00 ‐ 28+49 20820 ‐ TBI Repair ‐ Station 28+65 ‐ 50+72 19850 ‐ Land Conservation Funding 13852 ‐ Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary 16881 ‐ Green Line Redevelopment BMP's 16886 ‐ Lauderdale Subwatershed Stormwater Improvement Project 19890 ‐ Midway Peace Park 20891 ‐ Ford Site 20892 ‐ Science Museum of Minnesota 19910 ‐ Special Grants 20913 ‐ Project Initiatives 16917 ‐ Swede Hollow Construction 16920 ‐ TWP Grant Administration 19925 ‐ Springboard for the Arts Headquarters 17926 ‐ Adams Spanish Immersion 17929 ‐ Wilder Square Condo 16950 ‐ New Office Facility TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 14960 ‐ Debt & Loan Service TOTAL DEBT SERVICES:

2020 ANNUAL BUDGET 149,840.00 357,550.00 940,220.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 755,540.00 13,540.00 ‐ 566,250.00 30,000.00 ‐ 0.00 500,250.00 20,000.00 749,600.00 74,800.00 402,900.00 1,270,000.00 ‐ 4,800.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 50,000.00 $5,885,290.00 1,057,243.00 $1,057,243.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $0.00 ‐ ‐

TOTAL ALL FUNDS:

$11,786,983.00

$0.00

YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 88.32 149,751.68 10,935.30 346,614.70 1,582,272.44 (642,052.44) 195,528.14 (195,528.14) 137.95 (137.95) 39,348.31 (39,348.31) 241,057.51 514,482.49 ‐ 13,540.00 59.45 (59.45) 10,295.94 555,954.06 ‐ 30,000.00 330,252.22 (330,252.22) 678.54 (678.54) 584,689.69 (84,439.69) 21,926.66 (1,926.66) 1,475.86 748,124.14 44.04 74,755.96 8,566.04 394,333.96 ‐ 1,270,000.00 139,531.65 (139,531.65) 1,367.91 3,432.09 86.38 (86.38) 56,500.00 (56,500.00) 84.68 (84.68) 64,725.99 (14,725.99) $3,289,653.02 $2,595,636.98 1,007,037.81 50,205.19 $1,007,037.81 $50,205.19 $8,056,459.12

$3,730,523.88

% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 0.06% 3.06% 168.29% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 31.91% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 1.82% 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 116.88% 109.63% 0.20% 0.06% 2.13% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 28.50% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 129.45% 55.90% 95.25% 95.25% 68.35%

Page 5 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2020 ‐ DEEMBER 31, 2020 PERMIT NUMBER 9017 9028 10009 10028 11008 11014 11017 11029 12003 12017 12023 13003 14018 14025 14026 14029 14034 14041 15007 15030 16012 16016 16019 16020 16021 16024 16025 16026 16028 16029 16032 16033 17001 17002 17003 17008 17013 17014 17015 17018 17020 17022 17023 17024 18001 18002 18004 18007

PERMIT NAME Knapp‐Raymond Gillette AACC Como Park HS Ramsey County Crisis Center Total Tool Supply AGAPE School Hmongtown Market Schmidt Brewery Cretin‐Derham Hall Cayuga Ford Site Demo MN Pass Frogtown Farms E. 7th Mississippi Market Pleasant Ridge St. Agnes School East 7th Senior Apartments Higher Ground Ramsey County Building Demo Farrington Estates St. Paul Police Facility Willow Reserve Habitat of Humanity Roselawn Cemetary Dorothy Day Place 2300 Territorial Apartments Hmong Academy Expansion Snelling Midway St. Anthony Park Elementary Adams School Boaters Outlet SPJCC Addition AET Campus Expansion Horace Mann Elementary Highland Park Elementary Como Park Sr. High School SPA Expansion Great River Schools Residence Inn Grand Avenue Wheelock Dale Victoria Exchange Street Apartments Transfer Road Storage Regions Birth Center Weyerhaeuser Apts. St. Catherine Library Lot Sylvan Park Improvements Menards Trnasload Terminal Como Paving 2018 Woodlawn Jefferson

PERMITTING BUDGET ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES 416.10 1,238.80 234.80 42.82 847.85 1,030.40 64.80 266.99 177.70 75.60 9,981.33 70.90 113.90 475.10 210.00 291.30 323.20 850.38 187.57 28.36 301.20 85.32 950.14 775.30 270.48 610.37 2,206.62 99.28 440.30 92.92 579.81 147.60 1,419.87 788.32 702.92 415.80 461.02 485.90 340.40 1,103.40 143.07 4,083.46 5,895.23 371.52 254.49 4,045.47 229.50 359.47

BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING

% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED

‐ ‐ ‐

‐

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐

Page 6 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2020 ‐ DEEMBER 31, 2020 PERMIT NUMBER 18008 18009 18011 18012 18013 18014 18015 18016 18017 18018 18020 18021 18022 18023 19001 19004 19005 19006 19009 19010 19011 19012 19013 19014 19015 19016 19017 19020 19021 19023 19024 19025 19026 19028 19029 19030 20001 20002 20003 20004 20005 20007 20008 20009 20010

PERMIT NAME Vomela Beacon Bluff Seal Island at Como Zoo Hendrickson Apartments Scheffer Community Center Beacon Bluff Opus Morning Star Met Council Villa Park Sanitary O'Gara's Mixed Use Cathedral Hill Payne Building Development Albion Senior Community Parkview Filtration Surcharge Rivoli Phase III Roseville Aldi Fairview Avenue Wheelock 4, Western to Rice Midway Peace Park McCarrons Hill St. Thomas Iverson Center Raymond Station Summit Avenue Bridge Reconstruction UST 2nd Year Housing St. Paul Gateway Mixed Use 104 MRB Waterford Bay Dale Street Bridge Reconstruction Urban Academy Addition Harambee Elementary School Audit Como Animal Hospital AgroPur 2019 Lexington Parkway Realingment Lower Landing Tumble Fresh Coin Operated Laundry Hidden Falls Flood Clean Up Como Avenue Trail Project Five Star Storage Dickerman Park Site Improvements Tedesco St. Paving Project SPPS Service Facility Addition Griggs‐Scheffer Street Project Washington Tech HS Field Improvement Xcel County Road B Tamarack Pathway Ford Site Redevelopment Enclave at McCarrons Lake

PERMITTING BUDGET ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES 2,137.33 5,753.30 1,263.16 2,355.53 241.50 3,609.36 99.45 1,411.19 938.80 1,184.56 531.28 110.51 3,978.62 1,296.58 456.35 256.64 2,623.39 1,971.95 1,213.20 1,801.57 3,146.87 1,365.68 552.86 19.04 2,565.36 1,185.51 995.72 1,655.43 120.84 163.92 2,765.32 574.70 4,620.65 966.59 2,992.38 2,658.51 2,389.65 5,870.70 4,371.97 6,183.20 4,791.10 1,403.67 451.29 5,678.85 84.63

BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING

% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Page 7 of 8

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2020 ‐ DEEMBER 31, 2020 PERMIT NUMBER

PERMIT NAME

PERMITTING BUDGET

20011 20013 20014 20015 20016 20017 20018 20019 20020 20021 20023 20024 20025 20026 20027 20028 20029 20030 20031 20032 20033 20034 20035 20036 20037

Randolph Square ‐ Riverbend Business Ford Site Redevelopment Stormwater University & Dale Affordable Housing Ford Site Redevelopment Wetland Ayd Mill Road Hamm's Brewery 2227 University Mixed Use Marshall & Finn Apartments Wilder Square Hope Community Academy 2383 University Seminary Pond Wetland Highland Bridge Lot 1 Block 3 Hmong Academy Middle School Hidden Falls South Gillette POP22 Fairview & University MnDoT SP 6282‐231 TH 94 Highland Bridge Rowhomes Model MnDot SP 6282‐190 Th 94 Exeter Territorial Road Marydale Wetland North End Community Center Lexington Apartments Cleveland Avenue (CSAH 46)

20000

Sub‐Total: Permits General Permitting

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

‐ ‐ TOTAL PERMITS: 191,540.00

CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES

YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES

BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING

% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2,818.17 12,312.51 1,931.04 542.01 2,434.95 1,126.50 2,012.30 1,612.00 2,096.20 2,002.10 3,515.63 616.56 1,710.19 2,921.39 3,226.61 2,553.33 2,276.24 282.90 1,912.57 419.80 1,402.75 135.60 1,034.90 1,842.00 1,146.10

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

0.00 ‐ ‐

189,280.14 158,830.64 348,110.78

‐ ‐ ($156,570.78)

‐ ‐ 181.74%

Page 8 of 8

February 17, 2021 Board Meeting V. Action Items – C. Appoint Devin Driscoll to the Community Advisory Committee

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 9, 2021 CRWD Board of Managers Mark Doneux Appointment of Devin Driscoll to the Community Advisory Committee

Background On February 9, 2021 CRWD received an application from Devin Driscoll with a request to become a member of the Community Advisory Committee. Issues Mr. Driscoll is a member of the Saint Paul Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Committee, a member of the Hamline Midway Coalition Development Committee, and a member of the board of the Minnesota Supreme Court Historical Society. He is an attorney with a developing practice in energy and environmental matters, and a resident of the Hamline Midway neighborhood. He is interested in assisting the District in its work of protecting, managing, and improving the water resources within its boundaries. Requested Action Appoint Devin to the Community Advisory Committee.

enc.: Citizen Advisory Committee Membership Application form for Devin Driscoll.

W:\05 Citizen Advisory Committee\Application Materials\Board Memo Appointed\Bd Memo appointment of Devin Driscoll to the CAC 2-9-21.docx

Capitol Region Watershed District; Citizen Advisory Committee Application

Citizen Advisory Committee Membership Application Form (Please Print) Name: Devin T. Driscoll Address: 1291 Thomas Avenue City: Saint Paul

State: Minnesota

Phone (home): ( 541 ) 729-6159

Phone (work): (

Zip Code: 55104 )

Email: drisc118@umn.edu

Occupation: Attorney, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. Availability: (Would you be able to attend regular meetings and take an active role working with the Capitol Region Watershed District Board of Managers?) I would be available to attend regular meetings and take an active role in working with the CRWD Board.

Experience/Background: (Describe experiences advising government bodies or participating in community groups, neighborhood associations, nonprofit organizations, cooperative societies, clubs, or any other group.) I am a member of the Saint Paul Capital Improvement Budent (CIB) Committee, a member of the Hamline Midway Coalition Development Committee, and a member of the board of the Minnesota Supreme Court Historical Society.

Motivation: As an attorney with a developing practice in energy and environmental matters, and as a resident of the Hamline Midway neighborhood where the CRWD is headquartered, I am keen to take action to assist the Board in its work of protecting, managing, and improving the water resources within its boundaries.

I certify that the above information is correct and authorize further processing of this application. Signed:

Date: 2/8/2021

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

Devin T. Driscoll

1291 Thomas Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55104  (541) 729-6159  drisc118@umn.edu EDUCATION University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, May 2018 Honors:

Order of the Coif; Judge Edward J. Devitt Award, Federal Bar Association Foundation; ALI-CLE Scholarship & Leadership Award; Law School Public Service Program Honors (150+ hours), Minnesota Justice Foundation; Book Award for Best Student – Property; Law in Practice Honors; 2L Journal Writing Honors; “A” Dean’s List (3 years); Dean’s Distinguished Scholarship; Class of 1988 Scholarship

Activities:

Editor-in-chief, Minnesota Law Review (Volume 102); president, Federal Bar Association student chapter; student instructor, Structured Study Group (SSG); admissions ambassador; orientation leader; cast member, Theatre of the Relatively Talentless (TORT)

Publications:

Solving the Problem of Problem-Solving Justice: Rebalancing Federal Court Investment in Reentry and Pre-Trial Diversion Programs, 102 MINN. L. REV. 1381 (2018).

Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN Master of Public Policy, Nonprofit and Public Leadership, May 2011 Providence College, Providence, RI Bachelor of Arts, English and Political Science, magna cum laude, May 2008 EXPERIENCE Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, MN Associate Attorney, January 2020 – Present Biden for President/Virginia Victory 2020 Democratic Coordinated Campaign, Richmond, VA (virtual) Regional Voter Protection Director, August – November 2020 Expanded and defended the right to vote for all eligible Virginians by working with state and local officials to implement new voting-rights laws. Served as de facto data and training director for voter protection team. Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN Lecturer, PA 5122 – Law & Public Affairs, January 2020 – June 2020 (course next scheduled for spring 2022) Chief Judge John R. Tunheim, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN Judicial Law Clerk, September 2019 – August 2020 Associate Justice David L. Lillehaug, Minnesota Supreme Court, Saint Paul, MN Judicial Law Clerk, August 2018 – July 2019 Professor Alexandra Klass, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN Research Assistant, January 2017 – May 2018 Researched national trends regarding public and private financing of electric-vehicle charging infrastructure and assisted in the drafting of an article on the topic. Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, MN Summer Associate, Summer 2017 Worked on a wide variety of projects, with an emphasis on litigation and the energy/environmental practice area. Representative projects included drafting a client memo in response to questions of applicability of environmentalreview challenges; drafting a set of motions regarding a bankruptcy appeal; and drafting a series of documents necessary to dissolve a client’s LLC investment vehicles.

Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN Judicial Extern, September – December 2016 Drafted a report and recommendation (R&R) on a Social Security Administration denial-of-benefits appeal. Collaborated with law clerks on second reads of draft orders and opinions. Assisted Judge Noel during a settlement conference. Observed court proceedings and chambers conferences during all stages of litigation. Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN Administration Division Law Clerk & Certified Student Attorney, June – December 2016 Reported to County Attorney Mike Freeman and his two deputies. Drafted responses to pardon applications for Board of Pardons review. Developed memos on topics ranging from national trends in police training to public safety implications of ridesharing ordinances. Drafted criminal complaints for misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases. Negotiated, under supervision, disposition of those cases. Professor Francis X. Shen, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN Research Assistant, January – December 2016 Researched state and federal trends in prisoner re-entry. Assisted in developing Reinventing Re-entry symposium, in partnership with Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, and Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Oregon. Cicilline for Congress, Providence, RI Senior Advisor, September – November 2014 Hired, trained, and managed team of seven field organizers. Achieved 20-point margin of victory—averaging an eight percent increase across all communities in the district. Pell for Governor, Providence, RI Campaign Manager, January – September 2014 Developed and executed campaign plan, while overseeing a $4 million budget. Hired and managed ten-person senior staff. Also responsible for additional 30-person field staff. Served as media spokesperson. Organizing for Action, Chicago, IL Northeast Regional Director, May – December 2013 Built sustainable volunteer-led issue organizations in multiple states. Coached state coordinators on both skill-based (planning, grassroots finance, political) and programmatic needs essential for success in organizing. Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, Providence, RI Communications Director, January – May 2013 Developed message calendar and handled media relations for campaign, served as spokesperson with national and local media. Created persuasion materials—including television/web ads, surrogate talking points, and op-eds. Obama for America, Providence, RI Rhode Island State Director, November 2011 – November 2012 Recruited, hired and managed three staff and 12 interns. Developed and executed a metrics-driven field plan. Built, trained, and maintained grassroots volunteer teams across state in support of that plan. CURRENT VOLUNTEER SERVICE Minnesota Supreme Court Historical Society Board Member, October 2020 – Present Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Committee, City of Saint Paul Committee Member, January 2020 – Present MEMBERSHIPS American Bar Association Federal Bar Association Eighth Circuit Bar Association Minnesota State Bar Association Hennepin County Bar Association

United States Supreme Court Historical Society Minnesota Supreme Court Historical Society Minnesota Historical Society University of Minnesota Alumni Association (lifetime member)

February 17, 2021 Board Meeting V. Action Items D) Approve agreement with WeCo for Website Accessibility Audit (Van Sant) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 10, 2021 CRWD Board of Managers Mary Van Sant, Communications Associate Approve Agreement with WeCo for Website Accessibility Audit

Background Digital accessibility is a vital component to a website that is helpful for people with disabilities and can improve usability for all users. The CDC reports 26 percent adults in the United States have some type of disability. There are accessibility standards required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Guidelines are outlined in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), published by the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium, an international organization dedicated to internet standards. WCAG 2.0-2.1 are stable, referenceable technical standards with testable success criteria for each guideline. CRWD is required to meet the WCAG 2.0, level AA compliance. Staff recommend the audit include mobile devices to best serve all residents, and to help meet future requirements. Issues CRWD’s WordPress site was launched in March 2019. The site designers and developers followed accessibility guidelines, but there are many facets to digital accessibility and the digital world is constantly changing and evolving. The District has a complex website that is necessary to inform and engage its users, including residents, permittees, and colleagues. Using an automated accessibility scan staff was able to detect several accessibility issues on CRWD’s homepage. Automated scans can only capture 19 of the 59 WCAG 2.1 criteria. A manual accessibility audit will give staff specific and actionable feedback that can be applied to all webpages and other digital media. Staff requested proposals for website accessibility audit services from several companies. WeCo’s Manual Accessibility Audit proposal for capitolregionwd.org includes 83 hours of testing five webpages on desktop, iOS and Android using a variety of devices and browsers. The webpages were selected by staff to represent all aspects of the District’s modular website. The audit will include a report outlining accessibility challenge areas and recommendations for changes to improve accessibility. WeCo Accessibility Services is a Minnesota-based, woman-owned business that employs people living with a disability to offer their expertise on accessibility. WeCo Accessibility Specialists live with one or more disability and represent disabilities related to sight, mobility, hearing, and cognition. WeCo has worked with several government agencies in Minnesota at the state, county, and local level. Staff will schedule the Accessibility Audit for Spring 2021, pending Board approval, with an anticipated completion deadline by fall 2021.

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

This action is under the $20,000 threshold that would normally require Board approval, staff felt that for this new project, it would be important to gain Board understanding and support. This project is budgeted for under Digital Communications. Action Requested Approve a consulting services agreement with WeCo Accessibility Services for an amount not to exceed $16,600 and authorize the Administrator to execute the agreement. enc:

WeCo Accessibility Service Proposal for CRWD Website

W:\07 Programs\Edu-Outreach\Website\Website Accessibility\WeCo\Board Memo_Approve Agreement with WeCo for Website Accessibility Audit.docx

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

ACCESSIBILITY SERVICE PROPOSAL

For Capitol Region Watershed District / Website January 27, 2021 This proposal is valid for 60 days and is structured for digital accessibility.

Let Us Help You Get Accessible This proposal features a combination of WeCo’s accessibility auditing, testing, and training services. These are exclusive WeCo products which are designed to help you build accessibly or to bring your website/software product into an accessible format and keep it there over time. The standards we use to measure and guide your products to accessibility include: •

WCAG 2.1 AA

•

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

•

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

•

*WeCo’s additional Standards of Accessibility™

*WeCo’s Standards of Accessibility™ are common-sense and easy-to-employ standards, crafted by our Accessibility Specialists and Testers, which cover key areas of accessibility and usability that we feel the current standards and laws have missed.

Why Do I Need a Package? Bonuses and Benefits The products in your package are designed to work together to support you/your staff in the process of bringing your website/software to an accessible format or to build accessibility from the start. But there are other benefits and bonuses to your package that might not be obvious at first glance, such as: •

Training your staff on current accessibility requirements and practices. This means that your staff will be able to take what we learn from your audit and/or testing processes and apply accessible changes themselves.

•

Interacting with subject matter experts who live with disabilities, both now and throughout the process, helping your staff understand how to meet the needs of real users.

•

The opportunity to work directly with WeCo’s Accessibility Specialists in making your website/software accessible. Coaching is included in each of our audit and testing products. o You can also purchase additional coaching time with our Specialists to help with remediation and to answer your questions following these coaching sessions.

The contents of this document may contain proprietary information which is the property of © The Wehrman Collaborative, LLC 2021

WeCo’s Mission Based on the principles of building up, moving forward, and focusing on our strengths, WeCo’s mission is to foster accessibility, awareness, and independence for all people, regardless of their disabilities.

WeCo’s Goals • • • •

Improve accessibility by providing high-quality user experience testing focused on how individuals living with disabilities interact with electronic formats and the Internet. Increase awareness regarding the capabilities of people living with disabilities by providing educational outreach. Foster independence by utilizing and compensating the skills of people who may have been overlooked by traditional work environments. Empower our consultants and employees to take ownership of their communities by giving back through volunteer and leadership opportunities.

WeCo’s Manual Accessibility Audit Service A Manual Accessibility Audit will help you understand what areas of accessibility you need to improve and which ones you’re already meeting. It will also give you guidance for making your website/software more accessible. NOTE: We apply the Manual Accessibility Audit Service at the start of existing projects, to check the progress of projects that are being built and as a quarterly monitoring tool for both types, as a part of the Access Approved™ annual service.

How it Works WeCo’s Accessibility Team will review your web pages/software manually, along with current accessibility software, to learn which areas meet WCAG 2.0-2.1 AA and WeCo’s Standards of Accessibility™ and which areas do not. WeCo Accessibility Specialists live with one or more disability and review your project through the eye of an end user living with their specific disability and those represented by Testers on our Certified Test Team such as: Sight-Related: Using current screen reader, screen magnification software, and/or Braille display. Mobility-Related: Using speech recognition software and/or modified mouse, keyboards, or other assistive motor skill devices. Hearing-Related: Paying attention to aspects of your website/software that include sound, such as videos. Cognitive-Related: Paying attention to the unique design challenges of someone living with a cognitive-related disability. WHAT YOU’LL RECEIVE: You’ll receive a complete “checklist” style report of your test target’s challenge areas along with easy-to-understand recommendations for making these areas more accessible to users living with a variety of disabilities. You’ll also receive: • •

A recheck of any remedied challenge areas by your Accessibility Specialist. A 1-hour consultation to review the report, and ask questions, with your Accessibility Specialist.

Manual Accessibility Audit Service Pricing

Projects are estimated by the total hours required for our Accessibility Specialists to conduct your audit and prepare your report and recommendations. Estimates also includes 1 hour of Accessibility Specialist consultation time with you and your staff. NONPROFIT/SMALL BUSINESS PRICE: • •

5 hours: $1,000 ($200 per) 10 hours: $2,000

• • • •

15 hours $3,000 20 hours: $4,000 25 hours: $5,000 30 hours: $6,000

*Nonprofit/Small Business package are priced at $200 per hour, regardless of size

TOTAL MANUAL AUDIT COST: $16,600 for 83 hours $6,200 31 hours desktop audit $5,200 26 hours iOS audit $5,200 26 hours Android audit Estimate also includes: · ·

complete “checklist” style report of your test target’s challenge areas along with easy-tounderstand recommendations for making these areas more accessible to users living with a variety of disabilities. A recheck of any remedied challenge areas by your Accessibility Specialist

An updated report after the recheck is complete

A 1-hour consultation to review the report, and ask questions, with your Accessibility Specialist.

This includes a complete manual accessibility audit for: ELEMENTS - Desktop Page Link Home page https://www.capitolregionwd.org/ About CRWD https://www.capitolregionwd.org/about-crwd/ page Our People - staff https://www.capitolregionwd.org/aboutdirectory crwd/people/ News

https://www.capitolregionwd.org/news/

Projects

https://www.capitolregionwd.org/projects/

ELEMENTS – iOS Page Home page About CRWD page Our People - staff directory

Link https://www.capitolregionwd.org/

Notes Test interactive map feature - "Are you in CRWD?" Test staff directory Our news page is a catchall for blog posts, public notices, meetings and press List view and map view, links to all of our keystone project pages

Notes

https://www.capitolregionwd.org/about-crwd/

Test interactive map feature - "Are you in CRWD?"

https://www.capitolregionwd.org/aboutcrwd/people/

Test staff directory

News

https://www.capitolregionwd.org/news/

Projects

https://www.capitolregionwd.org/projects/

Our news page is a catchall for blog posts, public notices, meetings and press list view and map view, links to all of our keystone project pages 4

ELEMENTS – Android Page Link Home page https://www.capitolregionwd.org/ About CRWD https://www.capitolregionwd.org/about-crwd/ page Our People - staff directory

https://www.capitolregionwd.org/aboutcrwd/people/

News

https://www.capitolregionwd.org/news/

Projects

https://www.capitolregionwd.org/projects/

Notes Test interactive map feature - "Are you in CRWD?" Test staff directory Our news page is a catchall for blog posts, public notices, meetings and press list view and map view, links to all of our keystone project pages

Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT): WeCo is experienced at completing VPAT’s for clients who have a US government requirement to verify accessibility with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. We can add a completed VPAT form to your Accessibility Inventory Audit process for an additional fee.

Total Project Cost: $6,200 31 hours desktop audit $5,200 26 hours iOS audit $5,200 26 hours Android audit

TOTAL PROJECT COST: $16,600

Manual Accessibility Audit estimate also includes · ·

An updated report after the recheck is complete

A 1-hour consultation to review the report, and ask questions, with your Accessibility Specialist.

February 17, 2021 Board Meeting

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 11, 2021 CRWD Board of Managers Britta Belden, Water Resource Project Manager Approve Como Lake Fishery Management Plan

V. E. Action Items—Approve Como Lake Fishery Management Plan (Belden)

Background The Como Lake Management Plan (CLMP) was adopted by the Board of Managers on May 15, 2019 and outlines an adaptive management plan for achieving water quality goals for Como Lake over the next 20 years. As part of the CLMP, actions for fisheries management (Actions L8 and L9) were recommended to assist in meeting the objectives of Goal 1, to manage Como Lake as an ecologically healthy shallow lake: L8. Develop long-term targets for a balanced fishery. Develop and implement a “Como Lake Fishery Management Plan” that defines long-term targets for a diverse, ecologically balanced fishery that can also support and sustain recreational fishing for the community. L9. Conduct fish surveys. Complete regular fish surveys every 2-3 years or as need to determine species abundance and diversity, and to measure progress of efforts to meet and sustain long-term targets for a balanced fishery. Actions L8 and L9 were recommended in the CLMP because of the current imbalance between predatory fish and planktivorous fish (e.g. sunfish). Como Lake has few predatory fish to keep the planktivorous fish in check, which can cause a trophic cascade of effects that can influence lake water quality. Issues The Como Lake Fishery Management Plan was developed by CRWD and Wenck Associates in collaboration with the Minnesota DNR. The overall goal of the plan is to manage the Como Lake’s fish community to complement water quality improvement efforts and aquatic plant initiatives while enhancing the lake’s value as an urban recreational fishery. The plan sets forth an adaptive management framework for shifting the lake to a largemouth bass fishery over time. Increasing the abundance of the largemouth bass population in Como Lake would have multiple benefits, including improving recreational fishing opportunities and improving trophic balance through predator control. In the plan, improving the largemouth bass population is viewed as a longterm goal, with shorter-term goals set forth as part of the adaptive management approach (i.e. water quality improvements, restoration of the vegetation community, evaluation and removal of excess rough fish). Management tools are provided in the plan to achieve both short-term and long-term goals. The plan also provides guidance for routine monitoring of the fish populations so the data can inform decision making. Requested Action Adopt the Como Lake Fishery Management Plan. enc: Como Lake Fishery Management Plan (2/8/2021) W:\06 Projects\Como Lake Projects\Fisheries Mgmt\2020 Como Fisheries Mgmt Plan\Brd Memo_Fishery Mgmt Plan_2-17-21.docx

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

Como Lake Fishery Management Plan Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN February 8, 2021 Prepared by: Wenck Associates, Inc. now part of Stantec

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1 1.0

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

2.0

COMO LAKE FISH COMMUNITY ................................................................... 2-1 2.1 2.2

2.3 2.4 2.5 3.0

Introduction ....................................................................................... 2-1 Como Lake Fisheries Surveys................................................................ 2-1 2.2.1 Recent Trap and Gill Net Surveys .............................................. 2-3 2.2.2 Nearshore Survey ................................................................. 2-13 2.2.3 Supplemental Electrofishing Surveys ....................................... 2-13 Current Fisheries Management ............................................................ 2-14 Recreational Fishing .......................................................................... 2-15 Summary Of the Current Fishery ......................................................... 2-16

FISHERY MANAGEMENT .............................................................................. 3-1 3.1 3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

4.0

Purpose ............................................................................................. 1-1 The Importance of the Fish Community in Shallow Lake Ecology ............... 1-1 Summary of Issues and Objectives ........................................................ 1-1 Fish Management Approach and Tools ................................................... 1-3

Introduction ....................................................................................... 3-1 Current Stressors To the Como Lake Fishery........................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Water Quality ......................................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Limited Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat ........................... 3-2 3.2.3 Overabundance of Planktivorous Fish ......................................... 3-2 3.2.4 Imbalanced Zooplankton Community ......................................... 3-3 3.2.5 Limited and Altered Nearshore Habitat ....................................... 3-3 Fishery Management ........................................................................... 3-3 3.3.1 Short- and Long-Term Goals ..................................................... 3-3 3.3.2 Potential Tools ........................................................................ 3-3 3.3.3 Evaluating the Fish Community ................................................. 3-4 3.3.4 Managing Fish Habitat ............................................................. 3-4 3.3.5 Manipulating the Fish Community .............................................. 3-4 3.3.6 Managing Fishing Pressure ....................................................... 3-4 Como Lake Fishery Management Implementation Plan ............................. 3-9 3.4.1 Evaluating the Fish Community ............................................... 3-10 3.4.2 Managing Fish Habitat ........................................................... 3-10 3.4.3 Manipulating the Fish Community ............................................ 3-10 3.4.4 Managing Fish Pressure .......................................................... 3-10 Summary of Next Steps ..................................................................... 3-14 3.5.1 Year 1.................................................................................. 3-14 3.5.2 Year 2.................................................................................. 3-15 3.5.3 Years 3 and beyond:.............................................................. 3-15

REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 4-1

February 2021

TABLES Table 2.1. Table 2.2. Table 2.3. Table 3.1. Table 3.2. Table 3.3.

Fish species found in Como Lake 1976-2017.1 ............................................. 2-2 Fish survey results 2010-2020. .................................................................. 2-3 DNR stocking efforts on Como Lake 2010-2020.......................................... 2-15 Stressors affecting the fishery in Como Lake................................................ 3-1 Fishery management tools. ....................................................................... 3-5 Fishery restoration implementation plan for Como Lake. ............................. 3-11

FIGURES Figure 1-1: A stepwise approach to fishery management. ............................................ 1-3 Figure 2-1: A stepwise approach to fishery management. ............................................ 2-1 Figure 2-2. Como Lake trap/gill net survey compared to other Lake Class 40 lakes.......... 2-7 Figure 2-3. Como Lake trap/gill net survey compared to other Lake Class 40 lakes.......... 2-8 Figure 2-4. Primary trophic categories commonly sampled in Como Lake. ...................... 2-9 Figure 2-5. Como Lake relative catch per unit effort by trophic category. ..................... 2-12 Figure 2-6. Como Lake relative biomass by trophic category. ...................................... 2-12 Figure 2-7. Largemouth bass (LMB) electrofishing survey results ................................ 2-14 Figure 3-1. A stepwise approach to fishery management. ............................................. 3-1 Figure 3-2. Generalized fishery management action plan.............................................. 3-9

February 2021

Executive Summary The Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) has placed a high priority on improving Como Lake, as it is one of the most recognizable and well-loved water resources in the watershed and the City of Saint Paul. For decades the District has been actively managing Como Lake to improve its historically poor water quality, address invasive submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV), and together with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), enhance its fishery. The Como Lake Management Plan was updated in 2019 and sets forth measurable objectives and management actions for Como Lake. The goal is to achieve an urban shallow lake that is ecologically healthy and supports a variety of year-round recreational opportunities, where phosphorus levels are maintained at sufficiently low levels to minimize algae nuisances; the aquatic plant community is dominated by a diverse assemblage of native species; and a balanced aquatic food web is maintained. The District is currently undertaking various projects to improve water quality and increase water clarity by reducing sediment and nutrients to the lake from both the watershed and internal sources. Chemical treatments are underway to reduce the incidence of invasive curly-leaf pondweed, which will allow the beneficial native SAV to thrive in the increasingly clear lake. This Como Lake Fishery Management Plan is the third component in this integrated approach. A review of existing data reveals that in addition to poor water quality and invasive SAV, the fishery and other biotic communities are unbalanced. There is a lack of top predator fish and an overabundance of fish that feed on zooplankton, which would typically graze on algae and keep it in check. This allows for increased phytoplankton growth, resulting in more frequent and more widespread algal blooms and reduced clarity. The goal of the 2020 Como Lake Fishery Management Plan is to manage the lake’s resident fish community to complement water quality improvement and SAV initiatives while enhancing Como Lake’s value as an urban recreational fishery. This Management Plan sets forth a systematic plan to manage Como Lake to shift the lake over time to a largemouth bass (LMB) fishery. Increasing the abundance of the LMB population in Como Lake would have multiple benefits – most importantly improving recreational fishing opportunities and improving trophic balance through predator control. Improving the LMB population will be viewed as a long-term goal, with shorter-term goals being restoration of the vegetation community, evaluation and removal (if needed) of excess rough fish biomass and establishing a more balanced fishery. LMB establishment success will likely take longer since it is heavily tied to improving water quality, SAV community, and nearshore habitat features. Threaded through this implementation is ongoing monitoring and assessment to determine progress towards interim milestones and long-term goals and to identify any needed interim course corrections. This adaptive management approach is a stepwise, iterative process of implementation that establishes interim milestones that must be met prior to moving on to the next management action. Because fishery management is just one facet of the overall improvement of Como Lake, this approach ensures that all the parts are moving forward toward the District’s goals.

February 2021

1.0 Introduction 1.1

PURPOSE

The goal of the 2020 Como Lake Fishery Management Plan is to manage the lake’s resident fish community to complement water quality improvement and submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) initiatives while enhancing Como Lake’s value as an urban recreational fishery. Accomplishing this requires an appreciation for the dynamic nature of lake and fish population ecology as well as the important social components and feasibility considerations of effectively managing fish populations. Thus, a successful plan requires a structured adaptive approach driven by robust monitoring data. The plan also recognizes the existing recreational uses of Como Lake and the need to maintain recreational opportunities appropriate for a shallow urban lake. The plan aims to move beyond “put-and-take” based on stocking adult top predators to managing for self-sustaining populations. 1.2

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FISH COMMUNITY IN SHALLOW LAKE ECOLOGY

Shallow lakes in the American Midwest are frequently inhabited by a modest diversity of fish species. This diversity represents an important component of the lake ecosystem and the relative abundance of fishes has cascading effects on the trophic food web. Shallow lakes in this region often present alternative stable states where the clear, biologically diverse state is dominated by emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation and the turbid water, low diversity state is dominated by algae. Fish populations can affect the dynamics of trophic cascade in shallow lake ecology in strong ways depending on their abundance and other factors leading to persistence of the turbid state. Therefore, shallow lake management/ restoration often includes biomanipulation of fish populations through various methods (Noonan 1994). Usually these methods focus on actively managing an apex predator species for high abundance and size. 1.3

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES

The issues identified with the Como Lake fish community that are relevant to the management plan include: 1. Put-and-take fisheries are not representative of ecologically balanced fish communities that would naturally occur in a shallow lake like Como: a. Hyperdynamic, exhibiting boom/bust swings in fish abundance tied to successful year classes that have cascading effects through the lake ecosystem. b. Cost-inefficient compared to fisheries sustained by natural reproduction. 2. Relatively poor fish habitat quality due to: a. Highly urban watershed delivering high nutrient and chloride loadings. b. Nuisance curly-leaf pondweed dominance of the submersed aquatic vegetation community and associated herbicide treatments that negatively affect non-target vegetation. c. Disturbed riparian near-shore and emergent vegetation zones with low diversity of vegetation. d. An apparent lack of significant coarse woody debris.

February 2021

1-1

e. Potentially limited spawning habitat for largemouth bass. f. Potential periodic anoxia mitigated by a winter aeration system. g. Potential for summer kill of predator species, such as northern pike, due to high water temperature and low dissolved oxygen. 3. High predation pressure on zooplankton by small-bodied “forage” fishes as well as juveniles of naturally produced species that drive algal dominated primary production and poor water quality sometimes called the “turbid” state (Noonan 1994). 4. Moderate to high abundance (quantity) but relatively low quality (size) of bluegill sunfish and black crappie, which is an issue occurring in many lakes in Minnesota. 5. Current presence of prolific benthivorous (bottom feeding) species known to affect water quality through bioturbation when hyperabundant (black bullhead and common carp). Surveyed black bullhead relative abundance is consistently above normal ranges for ecological class 40 lakes. Common carp relative abundance in Como Lake is low based on historic DNR trap/gill net catch rates, however specific carp population estimates have not been attempted for the lake. Some research has documented that carp recruitment can be controlled by other fish species, such as bluegill, eating the eggs (Silbernagel and Sorensen 2013). Common carp are extremely tolerant species and therefore often have successful recruitment immediately following significant winterkill of less tolerant species such as bluegill. The bluegill population and lack of winterkill in Como Lake may be limiting the abundance of common carp through their feeding activities. With these issues in mind, the 2019 Como Lake Management Plan (CRWD 2019) sets forth a set of measurable objectives and actions for Como Lake. The Goals and Objectives that are relevant to the Fishery Management Plan include: Goal 1: Como Lake will be managed as an ecologically healthy, shallow lake. An ecologically healthy, shallow lake is one where phosphorus levels are maintained at sufficiently low levels (60 µg/L or lower) to minimize algae nuisances; the rooted aquatic plant community is dominated by a diverse assemblage of native species; and a balanced aquatic food web is maintained. Relevant to the fish community, the long-term goal is to achieve natural in-lake fish reproduction. • •

Objective 1F: Establish and maintain native aquatic vegetation to exceed these criteria: species richness > 8 with at least 3 species where the Frequency of Occurrence (FOC) > 20%. Objective 1G: Establish and maintain a fishery with balanced populations of piscivorous, planktivorous, and benthivorous fish.

Goal 2: Maintain healthy shoreline areas that can support a variety of wildlife and contribute to the ecological health of Como Lake. •

Objective 2A: Maintain areas of native vegetation along the shoreline to capture surface runoff, minimize shoreline erosion, and promote wildlife habitat.

February 2021

1-2

Goal 3: Maintain a variety of year-round recreational opportunities that are appropriate for a shallow urban lake. • 1.4

Objective 3A: Continue to provide fishing opportunities. FISH MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND TOOLS

In considering how best to proceed with Como Lake, the USEPA guidance document Fish and Fisheries Management in Lakes and Reservoirs (Baker et al. 1993) was utilized to set forth a systematic and comprehensive approach to lake management. This considers not only fish but other biota, water quality, habitat, and watershed characteristics that provide for a more integrated approach. In general, this approach is similar to the familiar model of Adaptive Management: Assess ► Design ► Implement ► Monitor ► Evaluate ► Adjust Figure 1.1 illustrates the USEPA approach. Section 2 of this report addresses the first four steps in this process; section 3 discusses potential implementation actions and monitoring recommendations.

Assess current status

Characterize lake users and values

Establish priority management objectives

Identify problems, causes, and limiting factors

Figure 1-1: A stepwise approach to fishery management.

February 2021

1-3

Select and implement actions

Monitor results

2.0 Como Lake Fish Community 2.1

INTRODUCTION

This section will focus on the first four steps of the USEPA approach as shown in Figure 2.1. We will analyze the available data for Como Lake to assess its current status and problems and discuss fishery management objectives. In Section 3 we will discuss the stressors that are limiting the fish community and the implementation actions that can be taken to overcome those factors and achieve management goals. The action plan also includes monitoring actions to guide implementation and assess success.

Assess current status

Characterize lake users and values

Establish priority management objectives

Identify problems, causes, and limiting factors

Select and implement actions

Monitor results

Figure 2-1: A stepwise approach to fishery management. 2.2

COMO LAKE FISHERIES SURVEYS

Fisheries surveys on Como Lake have been completed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD). The DNR began conducting fish community surveys in Como Lake in 1976 and CRWD began conducting supplemental surveys following DNR protocols in 2014. The surveys included standard DNR trap and gill net methods and, in 2017, a nearshore fisheries survey. Each standard DNR trap/gill net survey used 3-9 trap net locations and 1-2 gill net locations. The DNR completed a total of 13 trap/gill net surveys from 1976 to 2016, approximately one survey every five years. In addition, due to high net avoidance, supplemental electrofishing surveys were conducted by the DNR in 1996, 2011, and 2017 to assess the LMB population. The historic surveys for Como Lake reveal a fish community common for a hypereutrophic shallow lake that is heavily managed. A total of 20 species have been sampled since 1976 (Table 2.1), four of which (LMB, walleye, channel catfish, and bluegill sunfish) have been stocked into Como Lake at times from 2010-2019 (see Section 2.3), with the main stocking effort during this period being walleye. Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.3 provide a summary and discussion of each survey method that has been conducted by the DNR and CRWD in Como Lake over the most recent 10-year period (2010-2020).

February 2021

2-1

Table 2.1. Fish species found in Como Lake 1976-2017.1 Species

Black bullhead (Ameiurus melas) Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) Brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus) Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) Golden Shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) Goldfish (Carassius auratus) Green Sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) Hybrid Sunfish (Lepomis sp.) Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) Northern pike (Esox Lucius) Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) Rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris) Shortnose gar (Lepisosteus platostomus) Walleye (Sander vitreus) White crappie (Pomoxis annularis) White sucker (Catostomus commersonii) Yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis) Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)

Trophic Category

Year First Observed

Year Last Observed

Survey Type/Metho d

Invertivore-Carnivore

1976

2017

T, G

Invertivore-Carnivore

1976

2017

T, G

Invertivore

1986

2017

T, G

Invertivore-Carnivore

2001

2015

Invertivore-Carnivore

1996

2017

T, G2

Invertivore-Detritivore

1981

2016

T, G

Invertivore-Herbivore

1981

2017

Invertivore-Detritivore

1976

1981

Invertivore-Carnivore

1976

2006

T, G

Invertivore

1976

2017

T, G

Invertivore-Carnivore

1986

2017

T, G, E

Carnivore

1996

2017

T, G

Invertivore

1976

2017

T, G

Invertivore-Carnivore

1976

Carnivore

1991

Invertivore-Carnivore

1986

2017

T, G, E

Invertivore-Carnivore

1981

Invertivore-Detritivore

1981

2015

Invertivore-Carnivore

1988

2017

Invertivore-Carnivore

1990

2017

Data collected from surveys conducted by the DNR, CRWD, and Wenck using standard trap and gill nets methods described in (Schlagenhaft, 1993). 2 T = standard trap net; G = standard gill net; E = electrofishing; N = nearshore methods

February 2021

2-2

2.2.1 Recent Trap and Gill Net Surveys Overview Since 2010, five standard trap net and gill net surveys have been completed: 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Two of these survey efforts (2011 and 2016) were conducted by the DNR while the other surveys (2014, 2015, and 2017) were conducted by CRWD. The 2017 survey conducted by CRWD was done in conjunction with the nearshore (see Section 2.2.2). Over the past five trap and gill net surveys, 15 fish species were sampled in Como Lake and the most dominant species in terms of total biomass were northern pike, black crappie, and black bullhead (Table 2.2). The most abundant fish sampled, in terms of total catch, was black crappie followed by bluegills and black bullhead. Table 2.2. Fish survey results 2010-2020. Species

Trophic Category*

Biomass (lbs)

Count (#)

Average Weight (lbs)

Black bullhead

I-C

144

458

0.31

Black crappie

I-C

148

1,023

0.15

Bluegill sunfish

65.5

473

0.14

Brown bullhead

I-C

0.37

Channel catfish

I-C

66.1

1.89

Common Carp

I-D

7.04

Golden shiner

I-H

4.54

0.13

Hybrid sunfish

3.11

0.24

Largemouth Bass

I-C

2.73

0.68

Northern pike

329

3.46

Pumpkinseed sunfish

6.16

0.10

Walleye

I-C

55.7

1.51

White sucker

I-D

12.7

2.11

Yellow bullhead

I-C

20.7

0.45

Yellow perch I-C 8.39 39 * C = carnivore; I = invertivore; H = herbivore; D = detrivore

0.22

Comparisons to Similar Lakes The DNR uses the Schupp Lake Class system (Schupp 1992) to classify every lake in Minnesota into 44 ecological lake classes. Each lake class grouping varies based on physical and chemical characteristics such as lake size, lake depth, water chemistry, and geographical location within the state since these factors can influence fish species and community assemblages. Fish survey data within each class can be compared to develop normal ranges and assess current/historic fisheries conditions and trends. Como Lake falls into Schupp Lake Class 40, which is generally characterized by shallow (less than 15 feet deep), productive lakes with simple shoreline complexity in the central part of the state. Figures 2.2 and 2.3 show Como Lake’s trap and gill net CPUE and average weight results for the four species with the highest total biomass during recent surveys: black bullhead, black crappie, bluegill, and northern pike. Also shown on these figures are the median (dotted

February 2021

2-3

black line), upper (dotted red line), and lower (dotted blue line) normal range CPUE and average weight values for other Lake Class 40 lakes. Below is a brief discussion of each individual species. Black Bullheads Since 2011, black bullheads have, on average, accounted for 32% of the trap/gill net CPUE and 16% of the total biomass. Compared to other Lake Class 40 lakes, Como Lake black bullhead CPUEs were near the median and lower normal ranges in 2011 and 2014, then increased closer to the upper normal range in 2015 and 2016, before falling back close to the lower normal range in 2017. Bullhead average weights have consistently exceeded the median range with a high in 2014 that was well above the upper normal range. These results tend to suggest that while bullhead numbers in Como Lake fluctuate year to year, average size is typically on the higher end compared to similar shallow lakes. Black bullheads are tolerant of low oxygen environments and are often associated with shallow, turbid lakes with low bluegill CPUEs and little to no submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) (Drake and Pereira 2002; Bajer et al. 2018). Bullheads typically feed on zooplankton and small ﬁsh in addition to benthic invertebrates (Repsys et al. 1976; Leunda et al. 2008). Compared to other species, black bullheads are relatively short lived and their biomass rarely ‘‘builds up’’ in lakes over time (Bajer et al. 2018). This likely explains the fluctuations in bullhead numbers observed in Como Lake. There appears to be strong bullhead year classes in which recruitment was very successful, and other years where mortality rates were higher and/or recruitment was less successful. The up and down year classes are likely the result of environmental conditions (e.g. DO levels, temperature, vegetation coverage, habitat conditions) as well as interactions with other fish species and trophic levels. Both common carp and bullhead can disturb SAV during spawning - carp by thrashing in vegetation and bullheads by removing plants from nest sites (Bajer et al. 2018). However, black bullheads are believed to have lesser ability to uproot SAV or drive large increases in turbidity compared to carp (Braig & Johnson 2003; Fischer et al. 2013). Bajer et al. (2018) suggested that management thresholds for bullheads may be higher than for carp (e.g. 200 kg/ha for severe ecological damage) but this needs to be further veriﬁed using controlled experiments. Given the lack of a true black bullhead population estimate for Como Lake and uncertainties in a management threshold, it is difficult at this time to evaluate Como Lake’s bullhead population and if they are impacting vegetation and/or turbidity levels. Black Crappies Black crappies have averaged 43% of the trap/gill net CPUE and 20% of the total biomass over the past 10 years. Como Lake’s black crappie CPUE consistently exceeds the Lake Class 40 median value and has exceeded the upper normal range on three of the past five surveys (Figure 2.4). Average weight has been at or below the Lake Class 40 median during the past surveys indicating an abundance of small crappies in the system. Of the 528 crappies sampled in 2011 and 2016, only 11 (2%) measured 8-9 inches and only 2 (<1%) measured 10-11 inches. Most of the crappies measured between 0-5 inches (31%) and 6-7 inches (66%). Compared to bluegill and other sunfish species, black crappies are more adapted to open water environments. Vegetation abundance, while important to all fish species, is less important to black crappies compared to species such as bluegills and largemouth bass

February 2021

2-4

(Dibble et al. 1996; Cross and McInerny 2001). Black crappie under 7 inches typically feed on zooplankton and other small aquatic invertebrates, while adult crappie greater than 7 inches primarily eat small fish. Typically, black crappie greater than 10 inches are considered harvestable. Thus, Como Lake’s current black crappie population offers limited opportunity for harvest due to their small size structure. It is not clear what is prohibiting black crappies from reaching full maturity and larger sizes, however possibilities include environmental stressors, limited/poor habitat conditions, lack of food and/or overcompetition with other fish for food and resources. It is possible, although unlikely, that fishing pressure is also a driver of crappie size structure as we would expect some larger individuals desired by anglers to be caught in the trap/gill nets if there were catchable size fish in the lake. Bluegills Bluegill trap/gill net CPUE and biomass for Como Lake has averaged 7% and 11%, respectively, over the past five surveys. Similar to other species, Como Lake’s bluegill CPUE has fluctuated over the most recent surveys. Bluegill CPUE peaked in 2011, then fell below the Lake Class 40 lower normal range in 2014 and 2015, and then increased close to median values in 2016 and 2017. Average weight of bluegills has been between the median and lower normal range in three of the past five surveys (2011, 2016, and 2017) and between the median and upper normal range in the two surveys with the lowest CPUEs (2014 and 2015). Of the 342 bluegills sampled in 2011 and 2016, 264 (77%) measured 0-5 inches and 77 (23%) measured 6-7 inches. Only one fish (<1%) measured greater than 7 inches. Submerged aquatic vegetation is extremely important to bluegills as they depend on SAV throughout their life cycle for spawning, refuge, and foraging (Valley et al. 2004). Young of year bluegill remain in SAV and choose the densest available vegetation to reduce predation risk (Werner et al. 1983; Werner and Hall 1988; Shoup et al. 2003). Bluegill up to 3 inches in length feed primarily on vegetation-dwelling invertebrates. Bluegills longer than 5 inches typically feed on zooplankton (Mittelbach 1981; Werner and Hall 1988), while bluegills in the 3-5 inch range will consume a combination of vegetation-dwelling invertebrates and zooplankton (Werner and Hall 1988). Bluegill 6-8 inches in size are considered desirable by anglers, and therefore Como Lake’s bluegill population offers limited opportunities for harvest of bluegill by anglers. Since bluegill population dynamics are strongly related to SAV abundance and density, it is likely that Como Lake’s current SAV community is a limiting factor to bluegill growth rates, size, and success of certain year classes. Studies have found that the probability of finding a quality largemouth bass or bluegill population is highest between 10% and 60% total cover of SAV. When vegetation covers less than 10% of a waterbody (e.g., turbid systems), bass/bluegill are scarce and production is typically low (Durocher et al. 1984; Bettoli et al. 1992; Maceina 1996; Wrenn et al. 1996; Miranda and Pugh 1997). When vegetation coverage exceeds 40-60% of the entire waterbody, low feeding rates and/or poor growth by these species can occur (Colle and Shireman 1980; Bettoli et al. 1992; Maceina 1996; Wrenn et al. 1996; Miranda and Pugh 1997). Northern Pike Since 2011, northern pike have averaged only 5% of the trap/gill net CPUE but 33% of the total biomass. Como Lake’s northern pike trap/gill net CPUE has declined in recent years from above the upper normal range in 2011, to below the lower normal range in 2017. However, northern pike CPUEs were above the median range in 2014, 2015, and 2016, so

February 2021

2-5

more data will need to be collected to determine if this is part of a long-term trend. Northern pike average weights have remained near or slightly above the upper normal range indicating that good size pike are surviving and flourishing in the lake. A total of 55 northern pike were sampled in the 2011 and 2016 trap/gill net surveys, of which 4 (7%) measured 15-19 inches, 38 (69%) measured 20-24 inches, 11 (20%) measured 25-29 inches, and 2 (4%) measured 30-34 inches. Typically, pike greater than 24 inches present a fun catch for anglers and pike over 30 inches are considered high quality and desirable. Therefore, based on the trap/gill net surveys, Como Lake offers a good northern pike fishing opportunity for anglers. Northern pike are considered ambush predators that feed primarily on other fish, however they will also pursue any living thing up to a third its body length that they are able to consume such as small ducks, mice, rats, frogs, snakes, and crayfish. Since northern pike represent the top of the food chain in most lakes, sustaining healthy numbers and sizes can be an important component in maintaining a balanced fish population and trophic structure. However, research has shown that northern pike do not typically feed on black bullheads (Sammons 1994) and that northern pike are not likely as effective in controlling over abundant centrarchids (i.e. bluegills). In a shallow lake such as Como, an over-abundance of northern pike can create problems with the balance in the fish community. As a result, efforts to alter or enhance the northern pike population within Como Lake are not recommended. Instead, efforts should focus on the establishment of LMB as the top predator within the lake.

February 2021

2-6

Figure 2-2. Como Lake trap/gill net survey compared to other Lake Class 40 lakes. Note: Black bullhead (left) and black crappie (right) CPUE (top) and average fish weight (bottom).

February 2021

2-7

Figure 2-3. Como Lake trap/gill net survey compared to other Lake Class 40 lakes. Note: Bluegill (left) and northern pike (right) CPUE (top) and average fish weight (bottom).

February 2021

2-8

Trophic Structure When reviewing fish survey data, it is often helpful to group individual species into trophic categories. Analyzing the data by trophic categories allows lake managers to assess the fish community as a whole and evaluate potential food web interactions and dynamics. For the purposes of this plan, Como Lake’s fish community was broken into five trophic groups as presented in Goldstein and Simon (1999) and modified in Miranda et. al. (2008). These five categories include: • • • • •

Carnivores which consume whole bodies of other fish Invertivores which consume invertebrates such as midges, zooplankton, and mollusks Planktivores which consume plankton suspended in the water column Herbivores which consume plants including phytoplankton, epilithic algae (i.e. attached algae), or macrophytes Detritivores which consume nonliving organic matter and associated microflora accumulated in the sediment

Figure 2-4. Primary trophic categories commonly sampled in Como Lake.

Note: Individual fish drawings by Duane Raver were downloaded from the US Fish and Wildlife Service website.

February 2021

2-9

It is important to point out that several species common to Como and other Minnesota lakes belong to more than one trophic group during their life cycles. Additionally, feeding preferences of certain species can shift based on environmental factors such as food availability, habitat conditions, and biotic stressors. Table 2.1 summarizes the individual species sampled in Como Lake and their associated trophic category. Figures 2.5 and 2.6 show the recent community structure, as represented by trophic category, sampled by trap and gill nets in Como Lake from 2011-2017. Only relative (i.e. percent of total) catch per unit effort (CPUE) and biomass for each trophic category are presented in these figures since the number of trap nets (3-9) and gill nets (1-2) deployed during each survey event varied from survey to survey. Northern pike is the only sampled fish species that falls entirely within the carnivore trophic category in Como Lake. Thus, carnivore CPUE is generally lower than the other trophic categories, however relative biomass can be quite high due to the large northern pike individuals that are commonly sampled in the trap/gill nets. Northern pike CPUE rates were 5-15 times higher during the 2011-2016 surveys compared to the 2017 survey. As a result, carnivore relative biomass was significantly lower in 2017 compared to previous surveys. Most of the fish species sampled in Como Lake during recent surveys are considered invertivore-carnivores and therefore feed on both invertebrates and other fish depending on age/life cycle, size, available food, and other factors. Invertebrate-carnivore CPUE has ranged from 77% (2017) to 95% (2015) while biomass has ranged from 37% (2011) to 72% (2016). The primary invertebrate-carnivore species sampled recently in Como Lake include black bullhead and black crappie. Black bullheads have accounted for 42% of the invertebrate-carnivore CPUE and 32% of the biomass. Black crappies have accounted for 49% of the invertivore-carnivore CPUE and 33% of the biomass. As discussed in the previous section, the average weight of black bullheads sampled in Como Lake typically exceed the median range of similar lakes, while black crappie average weights are typically below the median range. Other invertebrate-carnivore species sampled in Como Lake include brown bullhead, channel catfish, largemouth bass, walleye, yellow bullhead, and yellow perch. Each of these species have individually accounted for less than 10% of the invertebrate-carnivore category average CPUE since 2011. Channel catfish (15%) and walleye (13%) are the only other invertebrate-carnivore species that accounted for greater than 10% of the invertebrate-carnivore category total biomass. Species that fall entirely within the invertebrate category include bluegill sunfish, pumpkinseed sunfish, and hybrid sunfish. Invertivore CPUE in Como Lake has ranged from <1% (2015) to 22% (2017), while biomass has ranged from <1% (2015) to 35% (2017). Bluegill sunfish are the dominant species within the invertivore trophic group as they have accounted for a majority of this group’s CPUE (84%) and total biomass (89%). As discussed in the previous section, bluegill CPUEs and average weights have fluctuated in Como Lake in recent years as they are highly dependent on SAV abundance/density. Abundance and biomass of invertebrate-herbivore and invertebrate-detritivore species in Como Lake is relatively low. Golden shiner is the only invertebrate-herbivore species recently sampled in Como Lake and, except for one year (2014), has accounted for less than 2% of the annual trap/gill net CPUE and total biomass. Similarly, invertebratedetritivore CPUE and total biomass has accounted for less than 5% of the sampled population. Common carp and white suckers are the only invertebrate-detritivore species sampled in Como Lake since 2011. Common carp have only been sampled once (2015) in

February 2021

2-10

the trap/gill nets during the past five surveys for Como Lake. Common carp tend to avoid trap/gill nets and therefore it is difficult to assess their relative abundance using this gear type. White suckers have been sampled during only two of the last five surveys and, when sampled, their CPUEs are at or below the lower normal range compared to other Lake Class 40 Lakes. Overall, the trophic category analyses presented here suggest that Como Lake’s fish community structure tends to fluctuate from survey to survey, which is quite common for shallow, hypereutrophic lakes in urban environments. There are no community structure guidelines for a healthy shallow lake fishery, however ideally a healthy system would demonstrate low (i.e. <20%) rough fish (i.e. detritivore) biomass, and relatively stable, diverse, and balanced invertivore and carnivore communities. The EPA’s Fish and Fisheries Management in Lakes and Reservoirs Guidance Manual suggests that food web stability functions best in productive, densely vegetated systems when piscivore (i.e. carnivore) ageclass and community structure are diverse and they compose at least 30% of the total fish biomass (EPA 1993). Currently, Como Lake has a high abundance of smaller invertebrate and invertebrate-carnivore individuals and is generally lacking in the number of carnivore and invertebrate-carnivore species (i.e. LMB) that can effectively feed on smaller fish. Thus, increasing the abundance of predator species that can exert top-down grazing pressure on smaller fish should create more balance in Como Lake and promote the establishment of larger fish that feed on insects and fish rather than zooplankton.

February 2021

2-11

Figure 2-5. Como Lake relative catch per unit effort by trophic category.

Figure 2-6. Como Lake relative biomass by trophic category. Note: based on the most recent (2011-2017) trap and gill net surveys.

February 2021

2-12

2.2.2 Nearshore Survey As a supplement to their traditional standardized sampling methods, the DNR has developed nearshore survey methods to capture and identify more non-game components of the fish community (i.e. darter species, shiner species) utilizing backpack electrofishing and beach seining efforts (Bacigalupi et al. 2015). As part of the development of the DNR’s Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) tool, fish species were grouped into five categories for scoring purposes: tolerant species, insectivores, top carnivores, small benthic dwellers, and vegetative dwellers. Lakes smaller than 100 acres in size were not used during the development of Minnesota’s IBI tool and therefore Como Lake cannot be scored using this tool. However, parts of the IBI tool and metrics can be used to qualitatively assess Como Lake’s nearshore fish community. Nearshore surveys may have value as an assessment tool within Como Lake to target certain species. However, in the absence of a specific IBI tool for small, shallow lakes less than 100 acres, the IBI is unlikely to be used to drive management activities within Como Lake. 2.2.3 Supplemental Electrofishing Surveys In addition to the trap/gill net surveys described above, the DNR conducted three supplemental electrofishing surveys in 1996, 2011, and 2017. These surveys were intended to target walleye and largemouth bass. Walleye numbers increased from one fish weighing approximately 4 pounds in 1996 to 12 fish in 2017 that weighed on average about one pound. Walleye were not collected during the 2011 electrofishing survey as the target of this survey was solely for the assessment of LMB. Walleye are currently stocked and managed in Como Lake by the DNR (see Section 2.3). Largemouth bass electrofishing numbers have declined from a high of 11 fish sampled in 1996 (12.9 fish/hour) to one fish sampled in 2011 (2.6 fish/hour) and three fish (3.1 fish/hour) in 2017 (Figure 2.7). These numbers are well below the 50 fish/hour electrofishing target/goal the DNR commonly uses for largemouth bass managed lakes throughout Minnesota. Of the four largemouth bass sampled during the 2011 and 2017 surveys, three measured 6-7 inches and only one measured 15-19 inches. Typically, largemouth bass greater than 16 inches are sought by anglers and therefore Como Lake currently offers limited recreational opportunities for this species. As discussed above, ideal conditions to support largemouth bass are mesotrophic lakes with total SAV frequency of occurrence ranging between 10% and 60%. Thus, restoring and maintaining a healthy SAV community in Como Lake as water quality conditions improve will be critical to supporting largemouth bass.

February 2021

2-13

Figure 2-7. Largemouth bass (LMB) electrofishing survey results 2.3

CURRENT FISHERY MANAGEMENT

Historically the DNR has managed and stocked Como Lake as a so-called “put-and-take” sport fishery. The earliest records show it was stocked in 1950 and then not again until unknown persons stocked fish in 1974 (DNR Fisheries Lake Survey, 1976). Up until 1985, Como Lake frequently winterkilled, which limited fish populations to bullheads, goldfish, and occasional populations of crappies. In 1985 the DNR implemented a full lake rotenone treatment to remove all fish in the lake. An air-lifted aeration system was installed immediately following the rotenone treatment to prevent winterkill. The aeration system continues to be operated to this day by Ramsey County staff during the winter months. The DNR began a stocking program following the rotenone treatment which included LMB, bluegill, and walleye. Around this time the DNR also implemented an experimental regulation requiring the release of bass between 12 and 16 inches long. The purpose of this special regulation was to help increase the size structure of bluegills within the lake. The regulation expired in 1993. Largemouth bass abundance was relatively high when the experimental regulation was in place, however the bass population declined shortly after the regulation expired and stocking efforts shifted toward other species. Recently, stocking efforts have been done through the DNR’s Fishing in the Neighborhood (FiN) Program, which aims to increase angling opportunities in urban lakes. As of 2016, the DNR’s primary management species for Como are bluegills and channel catfish (DNR 2016 Fisheries Survey Report), although limited bluegill stocking has occurred over the last 10 years (Table 2.3) Channel catfish are unlikely to be included in future DNR stocking efforts as there is a limited available supply of this species. The updated lake management plan in 2017 listed walleye and channel catfish as primary management species with bluegill and northern pike listed as secondary management species. In 2018, 350 adult LMB weighing on

February 2021

2-14

average just over one pound were stocked in Como Lake. No surveys have been performed since this stocking event to evaluate the LMB population and the success of these efforts. Put-and-take fisheries are not representative of fish communities that would naturally occur in a lake like Como. These types of stocking programs can be expensive and are often variable in their effectiveness to create long term benefits beyond the season when the stocked fish are added to the lake. The FiN program stocking efforts do provide urban recreational opportunities by adding a resource that can provide a direct and immediate benefit to anglers. Based on the most recent fish community surveys in Como Lake it is not certain if recent stocking efforts are establishing a reproductive fish community that can continue on its own with less direct management. The desired goal for future stocking efforts would be to add target management species in conjunction with water quality and habitat improvements that can establish a self-sustaining fish community that is both ecologically stable for the lake while also continuing to provide recreational benefits to anglers and the local community. Table 2.3. DNR stocking efforts Year Species Walleye 2020 Walleye Walleye 2019 Walleye Largemouth Bass 2018 Walleye Walleye Walleye 2017 Walleye 2016 Walleye Channel Catfish 2015 Walleye Channel Catfish Largemouth Bass 2014 Walleye Walleye Yellow Perch 2013 Walleye Channel Catfish 2011 Channel Catfish Walleye Bluegill Sunfish Channel Catfish 2010 Channel Catfish Walleye 2.4

on Como Lake 2010-2020. Size Number adults 115 yearlings 320 adults 56 fingerlings 2,231 adults 350 adults 259 yearlings 102 yearlings 335 adults 111 yearlings 903 adults 181 yearlings 2,840 adults 130 adults 8 fingerlings 4,108 fry 71,000 adults 1,211 fingerlings 486 yearlings 3,900 adults 124 fingerlings 3,593 adults 24 adults 91 yearlings 3,900 yearlings 4

Pounds 130 80 48 94 467 259 34 62 111 137 302 142 195 5 78 1 284 68 666 281 129 10 286 750 1

RECREATIONAL FISHING

The community surrounding Como Lake presents ideal demographics for the DNR’s FiN program to engage residents in outdoor recreation by providing angling opportunities. A fishing pier was installed by the DNR in 1987 and replaced by a larger pier in 2006. A creel survey (i.e. angler use survey) conducted by the DNR in 1991 estimated that angler use was approximately 163 angler-hours per acre of fishing per year (DNR 2018). A second

February 2021

2-15

creel survey conducted in 2003 estimated that angler use declined significantly to approximately 39 angler-hours/acre/year (DNR 2018). The DNR has determined that Como Lake should support much higher angler use based on its location and the surrounding population. In their 2017 Lake Management Plan, the DNR identified a long-range angler use goal of 200 angler-hours/acre/year and a mid-range goal of 100 angler-hours/ acre/ year. An angler use survey was conducted by the DNR in 2016 using trail cameras to monitor and track progress toward meeting the mid- and long-range angler use goals for Como Lake. 2.5

SUMMARY OF THE CURRENT FISHERY

This section provided an analysis of the historic fish survey results and fishery management for Como Lake with a specific focus on the most recent 10-year period (2010-2020). Below is a summary of the key findings and conclusions from this section: •

Como Lake’s fish community structure (i.e. balance between carnivore, invertivore, and other trophic categories) tends to fluctuate significantly from survey to survey. Carnivore biomass fell below 30% during recent surveys while biomass of other trophic categories have fluctuated significantly.

•

Certain invertivore and invertivore-carnivore species, particularly black bullhead, black crappie, and bluegill, exhibit strong year classes followed by periods of low numbers and recruitment. The black crappie and bluegill population is generally characterized by an abundance of small sized individuals. Small sizes and the boom-bust nature of these species is common for hypereutrophic shallow lakes and is likely the result of environmental conditions/stressors, stocking, and interactions with other fish species and trophic levels.

•

It is unclear if and to what degree species such as black bullhead and common carp are impacting turbidity levels, water quality, and SAV abundance in Como Lake. Black bullheads are typically short-lived so numbers tend to fluctuate in Como Lake, although average weights are generally above the median compared to similar shallow lakes. Common carp trap/gill net catch rates have been low during recent surveys, with only one carp sampled during the past five surveys. Common carp tend to avoid trap and gill nets and therefore more targeted survey techniques (e.g. electrofishing) would be needed to assess carp density and their potential impact. DNR staff have indicated common carp numbers within Como Lake appear to be low and that the bluegill and sunfish populations may be limiting their numbers by consuming carp eggs.

•

Como Lake currently supports good sized northern pike; however numbers were down during the most recent trap/gill net survey. More data will be needed to determine if this is part of a long-term trend. Maintaining a healthy number and size structure of northern pike helps maintain trophic balance and provides recreational opportunities for anglers.

•

The DNR has historically managed Como Lake as a put-and-take sport fishery. Currently, primary management species are bluegills and channel catfish, however several other species are managed through stocking. It is uncertain, based on recent survey data, if stocking efforts are establishing a reproductive fish community that can sustain itself without direct management. Future stocking and management efforts should align with the goals of this plan and other management plans and initiatives currently underway for Como Lake.

•

Supplemental electrofishing surveys conducted by the DNR suggest Como Lake LMB numbers are low and well below DNR’s target for lakes that are managed for LMB.

February 2021

2-16

Improving and sustaining LMB numbers would help improve trophic balance and provide a recreational opportunity for anglers.

February 2021

2-17

3.0 Fishery Management 3.1

INTRODUCTION

Section 2 analyzed the available data for Como Lake to assess its current status and begin identifying potential fishery management objectives. In Section 3 we will discuss the stressors that are limiting the fish community and the implementation actions that can be taken to overcome those factors and achieve management goals. The action plan also includes monitoring actions to guide implementation and assess success (Figure 3.1).

Assess current status

Characterize lake users and values

Establish priority management objectives

Identify problems, causes, and limiting factors

Select and implement actions

Monitor results

Figure 3-1. A stepwise approach to fishery management. 3.2

CURRENT STRESSORS TO THE COMO LAKE FISHERY

The previously completed Como Lake Water Quality Drivers Analysis Study (LimnoTech, 2017) provides a comprehensive review and analysis of all data and management activity done in Como Lake to that date. It identified the primary drivers thought to be the cause of poor water quality and stressed biologic communities, and recommended management actions. A review of that study and the available data (in Section 2 and elsewhere) suggests five primary stressors impacting the fishery, summarized in Table 3.1 and discussed in more detail below. Table 3.1. Stressors affecting the fishery in Como Lake. Stressor Impacts Water Quality Limited SAV Habitat Overabundance of Planktivorous Fish Imbalanced Zooplankton Community Limited and Altered Nearshore Habitat

February 2021

Watershed disturbance and lake eutrophication can limit the fishery to species that can tolerate low oxygen, more turbid conditions. Currently, the native SAV community in Como Lake is limited and curly-leaf pondweed (CLP) infestations may be outcompeting native macrophyte populations and leading to a decline in biodiversity and water quality. Lack of top predators allows planktivorous fish to thrive. Reduced efficiency of phytoplankton grazing results in more frequent and widespread algal blooms. Eutrophication and highly managed lakeshore can impact substrate and limit the amount of submergent and emergent vegetation that is used by fish as habitat for foraging, recruitment, and reproduction.

3-1

3.2.1 Water Quality Como Lake is an urban, shallow lake that has been designated an Impaired water by the State of Minnesota because it does not meet state nutrient concentration standards. High levels of phosphorus can cause excessive blooms of algae that can have multiple impacts on the fishery. Algal blooms reduce water clarity, which can reduce the growth of beneficial aquatic vegetation fish use for predation and spawning. When the algae die off, the detritus is consumed by bacteria, which also consume oxygen dissolved in the water column and at the lakebed. More sensitive fish that are intolerant of nutrient-rich, murky and low oxygen conditions cannot survive. Water quality can also be impacted through bioturbation of bottom sediments due to spawning and bottom-feeding activity of fish, which contribute phosphorus loading to the lake. Como Lake also suffers from high concentrations of chloride from road salt in stormwater runoff. It is widely accepted within the scientific community that the first step toward improving and protecting biotic communities in lakes is through managing nutrients and water quality. In 2020 the District began a multi-year project to improve water quality in the lake through the application of aluminum sulfate, or alum, to reduce and control phosphorus release from the lake’s sediments during periods of low oxygen. 3.2.2 Limited Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Studies suggest that “ideal” SAV conditions for fish are a diverse community with variability throughout the littoral area in SAV patchiness, architecture, biovolume, plant structure, and plant form (Olson et al. 1998; Valley and Bremigan 2002; Valley et al. 2004; Tomcko and Pereira 2006). Lakes with no or minimal SAV, and lakes with excessive amounts of monodominant stands that create inhospitable foraging environments are not desirable. Como Lake’s SAV community is dominated by curly-leaf pondweed (CLP) early in the growing season, covering as much as 80 percent of the lake’s surface area at its peak abundance. Native SAV richness in Como Lake is limited and plant coverage and biovolume is typically low following CLP senescence in early to mid-July. CLP is an invasive species that can dominate a lake’s aquatic macrophyte community. It begins growing in late fall, continues growing under the ice, and dies back relatively early in summer. As with phytoplankton, as it decomposes dissolved oxygen is consumed, creating low oxygen or anoxic conditions. It can also outcompete desirable native plant species that typically grow in early summer. The District undertook an herbicide treatment in 2020 to begin working towards controlling CLP and promoting growth of native plants. 3.2.3 Overabundance of Planktivorous Fish Healthy shallow lakes must maintain a delicate trophic balance of piscivorous (predator) fish, planktivorous/insectivorous fish, zooplankton, and phytoplankton. When this food web becomes unbalanced the lake can experience a trophic cascade. Historic fish data suggests that this can be the case in Como Lake, particularly during periods of strong year classes. The fish community in Como Lake has few large top predators and therefore predation pressure is relatively low. As a result, there are cascading effects on the zooplankton community, which in turn becomes unbalanced.

February 2021

3-2

3.2.4 Imbalanced Zooplankton Community The zooplankton data shows a population that is dominated by small-bodied taxa. The low density of large-bodied zooplankton is likely the result of intense size-selective feeding pressure by plankton-feeding fish leading to increased abundance of small-bodied zooplankton. Small-bodied zooplankton are less efficient grazers on phytoplankton than large-bodied zooplankton. This allows for increased phytoplankton growth, resulting in more frequent and more widespread algal blooms and reduced clarity. 3.2.5 Limited and Altered Nearshore Habitat The shoreline of Como Lake is entirely in public ownership, part of Como Regional Park. The entire shoreline up to the water’s edge has been planted and restored with native vegetation in phases and has been maintained by a combination of hand and mechanical weeding and prescribed burning. Some shoreline zones were stabilized with biologs and erosion control mats for toe and slope stabilization and protection from fluctuating water levels. A 2020 Shoreline Assessment was completed to evaluate current conditions and opportunities for additional restoration. That study also evaluated existing reptile and waterfowl habitat. There is a limited amount of information about quality near-shore emergent vegetation and a lack of information about other types of habitat in the near-shore zone, include the availability of substrate for fish spawning. Further, decades of eutrophication and poor water clarity has limited the abundance and diversity of SAV needed by fish for foraging, refuge, recruitment, and reproduction. 3.3

FISHERY MANAGEMENT

3.3.1 Short- and Long-Term Goals Largemouth bass (LMB) is a species that could thrive in Como Lake as water quality and vegetation conditions improve. Increasing the size and abundance of the LMB population in Como Lake would have multiple benefits – most importantly improving recreational fishing opportunities and improving trophic balance through predator control. Improving the LMB population is viewed as a long-term goal, with shorter-term goals being restoration of the vegetation community, evaluation and removal (if needed) of excess benthivore biomass and establishing a more balanced fishery. LMB establishment success will likely take longer since it is heavily tied to improving water quality, SAV community, and nearshore habitat features. 3.3.2 Potential Tools Table 3.2 contains brief descriptions of fish management tools that may be appropriate for achieving Como Lake goals. The tools are organized into four major fisheries management approaches as outlined in USEPA’s Fish and Fisheries Management in Lakes and Reservoirs Guidance Manual (USEPA 1993): • • • •

Evaluating the Fish Community Managing Fish Habitat Manipulating the Fish Community Managing Fish Pressure

February 2021

3-3

Each potential tool has its advantages and disadvantages and may be more appropriate or less appropriate at various stages during the short and long term. Table 3.3 later in this report proposes an implementation plan of actions and sequencing. The District is separately tackling external and internal phosphorus loading through ongoing programs and projects, and curly-leaf pondweed and aquatic vegetation management via its Como Lake Long-Term Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (Wenck 2020). While this Como Lake Fish Management Plan is a separate analysis, in practice all these management efforts are closely intertwined and will be ongoing simultaneously. 3.3.3 Evaluating the Fish Community Monitoring and evaluation are necessary on an ongoing basis to assess changes in the fish and zooplankton communities so that course corrections can be made if necessary. There are numerous methods for evaluating biota, and it is essential to be strategic on how they are used. Each has its advantages and disadvantage and may be appropriate at different stages of the active management process (Table 3.2). 3.3.4 Managing Fish Habitat The District is taking an integrated approach to lake management, understanding that water quality improvements and SAV management are also integral to fishery management. In urban, highly developed lakes such as Como, evaluating and enhancing disturbed near-shore areas are often important implementation actions that can bolster recruitment of desirable species. 3.3.5 Manipulating the Fish Community An impaired and stressed fish community may require active manipulation through stocking and selective harvesting to reset the fish community. 3.3.6 Managing Fishing Pressure Humans are often a source of stress to the fishery. Actions to change or limit behaviors that are stressful to the community such as catch-and-release regulations or size restrictions may be necessary to allow the fishery to establish and become naturally reproducing.

February 2021

3-4

Table 3.2. Fishery management tools.

Management Approach

Management Activity

Mode of Action

Advantages •

Trap & gill net surveys

Capture-markrecapture surveys

Standardized methods used by DNR to evaluate fish communities in lakes throughout Minnesota. Trap nets consist of placing a lead net that extends perpendicular to shore with a series of hoops and funnels at the end of the net lead that entrap fish. The gill nets consist of multi-sized mesh panels that are typically placed in deeper (~8-12 feet), open water habitats catching fish via gill entanglement.

Survey method whereby target species are captured and marked (e.g. fin clips, external tags, radio tags, passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags, etc.) and released. Recapture survey(s) are then performed and marked fish are documented and used to model target species numbers and biomass

• • • •

• •

• Evaluating the Fish Community

Special electrofishing surveys

Electrofishing in nearshore for target species in nearshore areas and specific habitats (e.g. common carp, largemouth bass)

•

Nearshore surveys

Survey methods developed by DNR to complete assessments of habitats along shoreline areas. Near shore survey data is combined with trap and gill net results to conduct Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) evaluation of lake fish community health. Near shore survey methods include use of minnow seine net and backpack electrofishing unit at distinct locations along the lake shoreline

Creel surveys

Tool used by DNR to assess angler use and or satisfaction for a water body. Can be an important management tool to gather information related to hours of angler use, harvest of target species, and angler satisfaction. Surveys can include a combination of passive observation (such as simply recording how many or how long anglers use the fishing pier) and active interviews with specific questions to collect target data

February 2021

•

• • • •

Provides a general means to qualitatively evaluate fish community structure and presence/absence of certain species Costs are reasonable compared to other survey methods DNR routinely conducts these surveys every ~5 years on recreational lakes throughout the metro and state Previous monitoring efforts can be compared to future efforts to easily track progress/changes in the fish community Results can be compared to other lakes of the same lake class for comparison and to develop reasonable goals/targets “Gold standard” survey method to estimate target species lake-wide numbers and biomass when recapture survey(s) are effective Allows better confidence in management goals, end points, and tracking progress

Disadvantages • • •

•

• • •

Ability to target species that are not collected and/or underrepresented in trap & gill nets surveys Ability to sample specific habitats and times of year when target species are using those habitats Surveys can typically be completed in one day for small/moderate sized lakes where the majority of the lakeshore areas can be surveyed and assessed

• •

Ability to target species that are not collected and/or underrepresented in trap & gill nets surveys Ability to collect young of the year fish from nearshore areas as a potential way to gage reproductive success of target management species (other methods mainly target larger or adult fish) Surveys can typically be completed in conjunction with trap & gill net surveys while adding minimal cost to that year’s field budget.

•

Surveys can be customized to collect the information specific to the goals of the entity overseeing the survey. Once protocols are established, survey can be conducted by anyone, including summer interns to keep costs manageable Provide direct feedback from recreational users of their perspective for lake use One of the only methods to help estimate harvest of target management species

•

3-5

•

• •

Certain species are not captured or are underrepresented by this gear type (e.g. common carp, largemouth bass, minnows and juvenile fish) Surveys do not provide a means to estimate lake-wide numbers and biomass of individual species, or the fish population as a whole May need to supplement more frequent surveys than DNR’s routine schedule (~5 years) to truly evaluate interannual trends and/or success of management activities Potentially high mortality in targeted fish species populations Expensive and labor intensive May require several recapture efforts to provide reliable data Large-scale recapture surveys are unpredictable and may be extremely difficult for some lakes depending on schooling behavior of target species and physical/environmental factors Requires electrofishing boat and specialized equipment Several surveys may be needed within a year or from year to year to build a reliable database and analyze trends Reliable methods, standards, and metrics for analyzing results are limited compared to other methods (i.e. for largemouth bass, may have to rely on results from other systems to establish targets/goals) IBI scoring protocols have not been developed for all Schupp Lake classifications; may need to use a modified or “closest match” scoring protocol to calculate IBI scores A relatively small percentage of shoreline is assessed compared to the special electrofishing surveys. Surveys of this type are unlikely to provide information on adult/catchable size top predator species; therefore, this survey technique would not necessarily replace any of the above listed survey methods Results of survey is dependent on willingness of anglers to share information about their catch and experience. Some measurements can be collected by passive observation (instead of interviews) if needed Information collected is helpful to provide context but is more a qualitative assessment of fish populations compared to quantitative surveys listed above. Can be relatively labor intensive to conduct surveys throughout the summer recreational season.

Management Approach

Management Activity

Mode of Action

Advantages

Disadvantages •

Zooplankton surveys

Evaluate and manage water quality

Zooplankton monitoring conducted in conjunction with water quality and other efforts throughout the year

Monitor and evaluate key water quality parameters that can be direct and/or indirect stressors to fish communities: • Chloride levels • Dissolved oxygen levels • Eutrophication levels (TP, Chl-a, Secchi)

Conduct surveys to evaluate current fish habitat conditions and spawning locations in nearshore areas (e.g. current status of fallen trees, drop offs, emergent vegetation, weedy shallow shorelines, nesting areas, etc.)

Evaluate, improve, and protect nearshore habitat

• • •

• Implement watershed and in-lake activities to improve/protect water quality conditions

Managing Fish Habitat

Provides a means to begin to qualitatively answer specific questions about the lake’s food web dynamics: • Do zooplankton #s and types provide adequate grazing of phytoplankton and support desired water quality goals? • Are zooplankton numbers and types supportive of desired fish community? • Is the fish community negatively impacting zooplankton community through grazing pressure by planktivorous fish?

•

• • •

• Implement projects (e.g. shoreline stabilization, restoring emergent vegetation, complex bundles of tree drops, addition of other course woody habitat, substrate manipulations, addition of artificial structures, lake drawdown) to improve and protect critical habitat areas identified during nearshore habitat and spawning survey

February 2021

• • •

Relatively inexpensive to collect Monitoring these parameters are often already done and supported through other programs/initiatives Provides a means to evaluate state of the lake (i.e. clearwater or turbid-water) and bottom-up pressure on fish community Widely accepted within the scientific community that the first step toward improving and protecting biotic communities in lakes is through managing nutrients and water quality Water quality improvement projects are supported through local/state/federal programs and initiatives Relatively inexpensive survey Assessment will identify current near-shore habitat locations to target for protection Identify areas with minimal and/or degraded habitat that could be target for improvements Providing area for cover, feeding, and/or spawning will directly benefit species currently in the lake as well as those targeted for continued management Materials such as woody debris or substrates (sand and gravel) are readily available and can be easily added to the lake. Likely a relatively inexpensive option, as no direct largescale in-lake management or manipulation would occur Some artificial structures are easy to add and could potentially be removed in the future if natural habitat conditions improve.

3-6

• • •

• •

Sampling can be costly (due to lab costs) compared to other parameters and requires specific equipment (e.g. plankton nets) Zooplankton community structure can be different in different parts of a lake Analysis of results are more qualitative than quantitative Food webs are very complex and therefore data conclusions are often speculative in nature. In many cases, there are likely several potential drivers of changes in zooplankton numbers and community structure (i.e. shifts in water quality, vegetation, fish community, environmental factors, etc.) rather than a singular cause and effect relationship Although some literature and general guidelines do exist, specific metrics/goals connecting water quality and fish tolerance and community response is limited Water quality alone cannot always explain or predict changes in biotic communities

• • •

Can be very costly Limited space to implement projects Can take a long time to achieve final targets/goals

•

Limited guidance/protocols/methods currently exist to survey nearshore habitat conditions Limited guidance in literature with specific details on the appropriate amount of nearshore habitat that should be enhanced/protected

•

• • • • •

Fishing pressure could increase in and around restored areas which could lead to overharvesting if not controlled Simply adding nearshore habitat features does not guarantee that fish will use these features Other management actions such as improving water quality and establishing SAV community often have bigger effects on fish community Need to guard against homogenic substrate additions as too much clean sand or gravel could create a desert like affect in an area May require DNR permits for construction/implementation, and in the case of artificial structures, may require obtaining annual permits for deployment

Management Approach

Management Activity

Mode of Action

Conduct annual SAV point intercept surveys to evaluate SAV habitat conditions

Advantages • •

Surveys are relatively inexpensive SAV surveys are often supported through other programs/initiatives Previous surveys can be compared to future efforts as management occurs to track progress/changes in SAV habitat

Disadvantages •

•

Evaluate, improve, and protect SAV habitat

Establish fish exclusion plots to evaluate the impact of fish, particularly rough fish, on the SAV community

Manage (e.g. mechanical/herbicide treatments, transplanting, etc.) the SAV community as needed to create optimum SAV habitat conditions for fish, which includes: • Widespread coverage of SAV throughout littoral area • Diverse community dominated by native species • Limit excessive growth/density that creates inhospitable foraging environment

• •

Provides a potential means to evaluate to what degree rough fish may be impacting SAV, water quality, and other factors in the lake Establishing exclusion plots are relatively inexpensive

• •

• • • •

Well documented within the scientific community that a robust SAV community is one of the most critical habitat features to support healthy fish and biotic communities Vegetation management (e.g. chemical treatments and mechanical harvesting) is a common practice in Minnesota lakes Management activities are proven to provide short term control and changes to target species

• •

Manipulating the Fish Community

Targeted Fish Stocking

Targeted stocking of selected adult and/or juvenile fish to support desired fish community goals (e.g. stocking piscivorous species such as largemouth bass to promote more balanced food web structure)

February 2021

• •

Addition of adult piscivorous fish to systems that lack top predators will aid in developing a naturally reproducing population. Addition of adult piscivorous fish to systems that lack top predators could provide grazing control on planktivorous fish if stocking is successful If adult fish are protected by special fish regulations (see below) they would also be a recreational resource to lake users.

3-7

• • •

Changes in SAV can be complex and the result of various factors/drivers (e.g. water clarity, water levels, presence of rough fish, environmental factors, etc.) making it difficult to make firm conclusions. Although some literature exists, specific metrics/goals for ideal SAV species, architecture, patchiness, biovolume, and plant structure are rather limited Will require monitoring and maintenance of plots to ensure structures are secure and fish are excluded throughout the monitoring season Other factors/drivers (e.g. water quality, environmental factors) may impact SAV growth in exclusion plots making it difficult to evaluate rough fish impacts Results may be difficult to interpret and/or compromised if large scale SAV management efforts (e.g. fluoridone treatments) are occurring Since SAV growth has various factor/drivers, managing to optimum habitat conditions for fish can be extremely difficult and may not be sustainable unless all other factors/drivers are controlled Continuous management may be needed to manage SAV to meet goals SAV management in which undesirable SAV is removed/treated but is not replaced by new SAV represents a loss of habitat and a major void for certain fish species. This can have dramatic negative effects on lake water clarity, as well as SAV and the overall fish community (Valley et al. 2004; Heiskary et al. 2012; Radomski and Perleberg 2019; Radomski et al. 2019) Stocked species may not survive/flourish/reproduce if habitat conditions are not favorable (e.g. lack of SAV or nearshore habitat) or if major stressors (e.g. water quality) to the fish community are not addressed Could be high costs to acquire adult fish and the supply may be limited at times. Alternate could be to stock younger fish (less cost to purchase) but would need more time for fish to grow and reach reproductive age. Multiple stocking efforts may be needed over several years to ensure a sufficient number of fish become established to create a sustainably reproducing population.

Management Approach

Management Activity

Mode of Action

Advantages

Disadvantages • •

Fish Removals

Fish removals via physical methods (e.g. openwater seining, nearshore seining, channel trapping, box netting, electrofishing), drawdowns, or chemical controls (e.g. rotenone) can be used to “reset” the fish community and/or reduce biomass of invasive and/or undesirable species that can negatively impact water quality and fish community composition

•

If successful, removal activities can have immediate impact on overall lake ecology as overabundance of undesirable species are no longer present, creating availability of resources for consumption /use by target species Reduction in bioturbation of sediments could have direct positive impact on in-lake water quality by reducing internal loading

• • • •

Managing Fishing Pressure

Fishing Regulations limiting or prohibiting harvest of identified species

Work with DNR to implement regulations such as: • “No Kill” rule prohibiting all harvest of specific species • Size restriction limiting harvest to a certain size range or maximum allowable size of fish • Reduce number of fish that can be harvested (i.e. 1 or 2 individuals compared to state harvest rule of 6 fish)

February 2021

•

• • •

Implementing restrictions would protect the adult fish in the lake to allow time for the species to become well established, utilize reproductive areas, grow, and begin naturally reproducing in the system Provides immediate protection for target species Costs for implementation are low, only requiring signs and publication of special regulation within State fishing regulations. This method has proven successful to help establish target species (e.g. largemouth bass) populations in other Minnesota lakes

3-8

• • • • •

Removal activities can be labor intensive and expensive to implement Chemical controls (e.g. rotenone) would impact all species present and is not typically viewed favorably by the public or resource managers Capture and harvest of significant biomass of target species (e.g. black bullhead, common carp) is difficult to predict. Coordination with commercial fisherman can be challenging and other removal methods (e.g. box netting) are less developed and often labor intensive May require multiple removal efforts to reduce biomass of target species Even if removal efforts are successful, future removals may be required if controls are not in place to limit recruitment and reproduction of removed species Will need DNR to consent to and approve all special regulations. Must establish appropriate targets/measures for implementing the regulation and then also for possible removal of the regulations in the future. Potential source of frustration among the fishing community. Education is key – if lake users are not aware of the rules they will not be followed or may be ignored. Enforcement can be difficult based on staff availability (either the DNR or Watershed) and unknown penalties for non-compliance.

3.4

COMO LAKE FISHERY MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Managing the fishery in Como Lake is primarily a four-step process starting with: 1. Improving overall water quality in the lake. 2. Ensuring a healthy native vegetation community by increasing biodiversity and minimizing excessive growth of mono-dominant vegetation stands 3. Enhancing in-lake fish habitat where feasible. 4. When progress has been made with the above, undertaking biomanipulation as necessary to achieve the desired fish community. The long-term goal for fish management in Como Lake is a self-supporting, biodiverse and healthy fish community anchored by LMB, providing plentiful opportunities for angling and supporting other shallow lake management goals in the lake. A healthy and thriving fish community is critical in maintaining a healthy shallow lake. Figure 3.2 depicts the general approach to restoring and managing a healthy biota in Como Lake. Improving and maintaining water quality in the lake will be an ongoing effort. During the first five years or so, the District will continue efforts to manage the vegetation community and to more thoroughly document the baseline fish and zooplankton communities. There will be no active management of the fishery until further surveys/assessments have been conducted (e.g. targeted electrofishing surveys) and improvements to water quality and the SAV community have been achieved. During this time, the District will work together with the DNR to undertake more active fishery management, which may include creel surveys, planned stocking, habitat manipulation, and special regulations. Threaded through this implementation is ongoing monitoring and assessment to determine progress towards interim milestones and long-term goals and to identify any needed interim course corrections. This adaptive management approach is a stepwise, iterative process of implementation that establishes interim milestones that must be met prior to moving on to the next management action. Because fishery management is just one facet of the overall improvement of Como Lake, this approach assures that all the parts are moving forward toward the District’s goals.

Figure 3-2. Generalized fishery management action plan.

February 2021

3-9

The following is a brief description of the focus for the first management cycle (5 years) and guidance for setting the approach for future management cycles (Table 3.3). 3.4.1 Evaluating the Fish Community A thorough monitoring program in Year 1 of implementation is essential to establish baseline conditions and obtain a thorough understanding of the community structure and food web. This includes not only trap and gill net surveys, but also zooplankton surveys, near-shore carp electrofishing, and creel surveys of local anglers to understand user experiences and expectations. Surveys in later years may be repeated at less frequent intervals. 3.4.2 Managing Fish Habitat The focus in the first five years is on improving water quality in the lake and restoring native vegetation. It will be important to assess near-shore conditions and consider habitat improvements, such as restoration of emergent vegetation and addition and/or modification of substrate. As SAV and water quality goals are achieved or are close, implementation will transition to adaptive management. 3.4.3 Manipulating the Fish Community If common carp surveys performed in Year 1 indicate that carp biomass in the lake exceeds accepted guidelines, carp removals may be necessary. The District will partner with the DNR to develop a plan to achieve the desired fishery through targeted stocking. 3.4.4 Managing Fish Pressure A targeted stocking plan may also require adopting differential regulation(s) in Como Lake until the fishery can be self-sustaining. It will also be beneficial to initiate an outreach campaign to educate anglers about the fish management plan and how special regulations can be an effective strategy in ensuring that a self-sustaining LMB fishery is achievable. It will likely take several years for special regulations to be reviewed and approved for implementation by the DNR, therefore the District will begin discussions with the DNR regarding this process in the first year of this plan.

February 2021

3-10

Table 3.3. Fishery restoration implementation plan for Como Lake. Management Approach

Management Activity

Cycle 1 Actions (Years 1-5) Goal(s)

Current Condition

Year 1 •

1) Trap & gill net surveys

2) Electrofishing survey: largemouth bass (LMB)

Evaluate current structure of the fish community and changes over time as management occurs

Surveyed by DNR every 5 years

Conduct summer trap & gill net surveys to establish baseline conditions for year 1 of this plan

Evaluate LMB population; ultimate target/goal of 50 fish/hour during survey

Last surveyed by DNR in 2017

Conduct near-shore LMB electrofishing survey (spring) to establish baseline conditions for year 1 of this plan

•

• •

Implement activities #10 and #11 as necessary based on Year 1 survey results Conduct summer trap net surveys every 2-3 years as management actions are carried out. Gill net surveys will only be conducted every 5 years due to higher mortality rates of large piscivores (e.g. northern pike)

Continue trap net surveys every 2-3 years until goals are achieved. Revert back to 5-year schedule when goals are achieved and/or management actions are ended. Gill net surveys continue on 5year schedule

Implement activities #8 and #9 to evaluate and improve LMB habitat conditions Conduct follow-up surveys to track progress as management occurs

Conduct more near-shore LMB electrofishing surveys as management actions occur

Implement management activity #10 as necessary based on Year 1 survey results Conduct follow-up surveys to track progress when/if management occurs

Establish routine schedule (e.g. every 5 years) to track common carp

3) Special electrofishing survey: common carp

Evaluate common carp biomass

Never been assessed

Conduct summer common carp electrofishing surveys according to methods detailed in Bajer et al. 2009 (three events consisting of 3, 20 minute transects). Additionally, implant PIT tags in captured carp that can be used for capture-mark-recapture analyses

4) Nearshore surveys

Evaluate health of the entire fish community

Last surveyed in 2017

Conduct nearshore surveys using DNR’s IBI methods/protocols to establish baseline conditions for year 1 of this plan

None

Update nearshore survey and IBI scores to track progress after management actions occur

Conduct survey of local anglers to obtain data on fishing pressure as well as local perspective on the overall state of the fishery, fishing amenities, recreational experience, recommendations, etc.. Survey could be completed using a kiosk with comment cards to be filled out by anglers. District staff could develop survey, place cards near fishing access points, collect the cards, and record the results.

Use Year 1 creel survey results to inform and drive activities #11 and #12

None

Monitor zooplankton community using current methods/schedule to establish baseline conditions for Year 1 of this plan

Continue monitoring zooplankton community using current methods/schedule to evaluate changes in community as management occurs

Continue monitoring zooplankton community using current methods/schedule

Evaluate the Fish Community

Evaluate current fishing pressure and desired recreational fishing opportunities

Last Creel Survey in 2003

6) Zooplankton surveys

Evaluate food-web structure

Surveyed in conjunction with water quality

7a) Water quality monitoring

Monitor key water quality stressors to fish community: chloride, DO, eutrophication

5) Creel surveys

Improve Fish Habitat

Cycle 2 Actions (Years 5+)

Years 2-5

7b) Water quality improvements to support fish community

Long-term goals: i) Chloride <230 mg/L* ii) DO >3.5 (critical conditions)**; DO >6.5 (dec. production)** iii) TP = 60 ug/L* iv) Chl-a = 20 ug/L* v) Secchi = 1.0 m* * MPCA State Standard **EPA guidance (EPA 1993)

Routinely monitored throughout summer i) Chloride = will assess current conditions in Year 1 ii) DO = will assess current conditions in Year 1 iii) TP = 71 ug/L (2020) iv) Chl-a = 30 ug/L (2020) v) Secchi = 1.0 m (2020)

February 2021

Monitor water quality using current methods/schedule to establish baseline conditions for Year 1 of this plan • •

Implement activity #7a Further assess current conditions (chloride and DO) and establish realistic/achievable interim water quality goals/targets that will help set benchmarks and guide adaptive management toward the long-term WQ goals to improve fish habitat. Use the updated Como Lake water quality model to run scenarios (TP) of recent/future WQ projects

3-11

• •

• • • •

Continue monitoring water quality using current methods/schedule to evaluate changes as management occurs Develop chloride impact study (per Como Lake Vegetation Mgt. Plan) Adaptive management based on outcomes of activity #7a Continue implementation of alum treatment (per Como Lake Plan) Continue implementation of watershed BMPs (per Como Lake Plan) Continually evaluate DO targets/goals as progress toward eutrophication goals is achieved

• •

Continue monitoring water quality using current methods/schedule Implement activity #7b based on results of water quality monitoring and chloride impact study

Assess data, continue monitoring, implement adaptive management • Ensure internal P load control • Continue implementation of watershed BMPs (per Como Lake Plan) • Implement chloride BMPs

Management Approach

Management Activity

Cycle 1 Actions (Years 1-5) Goal(s)

Current Condition

Year 1 •

8a) SAV surveys

Evaluate SAV habitat conditions

Routinely monitored 2X per year •

8b) Establish and maintain healthy and diverse native SAV community (per Vegetation Mgt. Plan)

9a) Evaluate nearshore habitat

i) CLP <10% FOC* ii) Species Richness >8* iii) Min 3 species with FOC >20%* iv) Overall FOC >20% & <60%** *per Vegetation Mgt. Plan **Wren et al. 1996

2020: i) CLP 35% FOC ii) Species Richness = 3 iii) 1 species (coontail) with FOC >20% iv) Overall FOC = 33%

Evaluate current fish habitat conditions and spawning locations in nearshore areas

Never been assessed

Continue SAV surveys using current methods/schedule to track SAV management activities establish baseline SAV habitat conditions for Year 1 of this plan Establish fish exclusion plot to evaluate impact of fish on SAV community

• •

Implement activity #8a Implement herbicide treatment as necessary based on results of 2020 treatments (per Vegetation Mgt. Plan)

•

Prior to conducting survey, establish nearshore habitat survey methods and habitat goals and targets through discussion with DNR, literature review, etc. Conduct nearshore fish habitat survey to identify current habitat features to protect and potential locations for improvements (e.g. status of fallen trees, drop offs, emergent vegetation, weedy shallow shorelines, nesting areas, shoreline erosion, etc.)

•

Goals need to be developed (see activity #8a)

Never been assessed

•

See year 1 actions and repeat as necessary (per Vegetation Mgt. Plan)

•

Use Year 1 nearshore habitat survey results to inform and drive activity #9b Conduct hydrologic assessment of lake drawdown (per Vegetation Mgt. Plan)

•

Implement activity #9a •

10) Fish Removals

i) common carp biomass <89 lbs/acre ii) other species that can affect SAV and water quality (e.g. black bullhead) below upper quartile range for both CPUE and biomass

i) common carp biomass never been assessed ii) black bullheads below upper quartile range (2017)

11) Fish Stocking

Create a diverse, ecologically balanced fishery that can also support and sustain recreational fishing for the community (per Como Lake Plan) i) Carnivore biomass* >30%

i) Piscivores=18% biomass (2017) ii) 3 LMB caught per hour (2017) iii) see activity #10

Manipulate the Fish Community

February 2021

• • •

Implement activities #1-4 If common carp biomass >89 lbs/acre, install radio tags (~10) and additional PIT tags in fall

•

Implement year 1 actions for activities #1-6 to establish baseline conditions for year 1 of this plan Establish stocking plan in consultation with DNR to achieve stated goals

•

3-12

Continue SAV surveys using current methods/schedule to track changes as activities #7b and #10 are implemented

See Previous

•

9b) Implement projects to improve and protect nearshore fish habitat

Cycle 2 Actions (Years 5+)

Years 2-5

•

Implement projects and strategies to protect and improve nearshore habitat based on outcomes of activity #9a (e.g. shoreline stabilization, restoring emergent vegetation, complex bundles of tree drops, addition of other course woody habitat, substrate manipulations, addition of artificial structures, etc.) Note: Types and amount of nearshore habitat manipulation will be tied to progress of SAV community goals (activity #8b) If common carp surveys indicate biomass >89 lbs/acre, conduct on-ice winter sein to reduce biomass If bullhead trap net surveys indicate bullheads exceed the upper quartile range, consider options to reduce biomass (e.g. onice winter sein, spring trapping)

Begin implementing fish stocking plan

•

Maintain CLP Occurrence to less than 10% (per Vegetation Mgt. Plan) Implement spot herbicide treatments (per Vegetation Mgt. Plan)

None

•

Protect nearshore habitat and spawning locations through signage and/or implementing recreation restriction in these areas Implement findings of lake drawdown assessment (per Vegetation Mgt. Plan)

Continue managing common carp and/or other species to achieve goals through adaptive management

Adjust stocking plan through monitoring and adaptive management

Management Approach

Management Activity

Cycle 1 Actions (Years 1-5) Goal(s)

Current Condition

ii) LMB = Min. of 50 LMB caught per hour** iii) Common carp = see goal i for activity #10 iv) Improve size structure of invertivore-carnivore and invertivore species (e.g. black crappie and bluegills) *based on EPA 2013) **based on goals established for other lakes in Minnesota

Manage Fishing Pressure

12) Implement Special Regulations

Sustain recreational fishing for the community (per Como Lake Plan). See specific goals outlined in activity #11

iv) Recent surveys indicate invertivorecarnivores and invertivores are primarily comprised of small individuals

No special regulations currently in place

February 2021

Year 1 •

Within stocking plan, establish benchmarks that must be met for specific stocking activities to proceed (e.g. activity #9 must be complete and/or goal iv for activity #8b must be met for three consecutive years prior to stocking of adult LMB)

•

Implement Year 1 actions for activity #5 (creel survey) Implement Year 1 actions for activity #11 (develop fish stocking plan) Work with DNR to evaluate and begin process of implementing minimum slot limit of LMB and/or other restrictions to protect the population.

• •

3-13

Years 2-5

• •

Begin implementing fish stocking plan Continue working with DNR on implementing LMB restriction(s)

Cycle 2 Actions (Years 5+)

Adjust stocking plan and fishing regulations through monitoring and adaptive management

3.5

SUMMARY OF NEXT STEPS

This plan presents a four-step process to manage the fishery in Como Lake to achieve the primary goals of maintaining a balanced fishery and year-around recreational fishing opportunities. The four-step process includes: 1) ensuring a healthy native vegetation community; 2) improving overall water quality; 3) enhancing in-lake fish habitat; and 4) biomanipulation of the fish community. Below is a summary and timeline of action items included in this plan for Year 1, Year 2, and Years 3 and beyond. 3.5.1 Year 1 The first year will focus on completing baseline assessments and working with the DNR to develop and implement initial fish management. •

[Winter] District will meet with DNR to review this plan and discuss: o o o

•

Roles/responsibilities for Year 1 baseline data collection surveys and assessments Review stocking plan for Year 1 and discuss how future stocking may change once Year 1 baseline data has been collected, and reviewed Initiate the process of future regulations as necessary to limit/prohibit harvest of LMB and other target species, such as implementing a “no kill” rule, establishing size restrictions or harvest limits, etc.

[Spring/Summer] District and partners will collect Year 1 baseline habitat and fish community data by performing the following surveys and assessments: o o o o o o o o o

Trap and gill net surveys LMB targeted electrofishing survey Common carp targeted electrofishing survey(s) Nearshore fish community survey Creel survey(s) Zooplankton surveys Water quality monitoring SAV surveys Nearshore habitat survey

•

[Fall] District and partners will begin planning common carp biomass removals (if necessary) depending on results of summer surveys.

•

[Fall] District will produce an annual progress report/memorandum that summarizes the results of the Year 1 actions and surveys/assessments. The progress report will serve as an addendum to this plan and will also include a summary of the water quality and SAV management actions and outcomes.

•

[Fall/Winter] District will meet with DNR and other partners to review annual progress report and discuss Year 2 adaptive management plan and action items.

February 2021

3-14

3.5.2 Year 2 Year 2 actions will continue actions begun in Year 1 and focus on assessing conditions against the short-term milestones established for water quality, SAV, and the fishery. •

[Winter] District and partners will lead efforts (if necessary) to conduct on-ice winter seine to reduce benthivore biomass.

•

[Spring/Summer] District and partners will begin adaptive management process based on results of Year 1 baseline data. This could include, but is not limited to: o o

Continued SAV management Projects to protect and improve nearshore habitat

•

[Spring/Summer] District and partners will continue performing water quality monitoring, and SAV and zooplankton surveys.

•

[Fall] District will produce an annual progress report/memorandum that summarizes the results of the Year 2 actions and surveys/assessments.

•

[Fall/Winter] District will meet with DNR and other partners to review annual progress report and discuss Year 3 adaptive management plan and action items.

3.5.3 Years 3 and beyond: Following the first few years of baseline monitoring and focus on water quality and SAV management, the focus will be on evaluating the impacts of shifting conditions on the fishery and other biotic communities. Progress will be evaluated annually against the shortterm benchmarks that when met will signal movement to the next phase of management. •

[Spring/Summer] District and partners will begin adaptive management process based on results of Year 1 and 2 survey/assessments and data collection.

•

[Spring/Summer] District and partners will continue performing water quality monitoring, and SAV and zooplankton surveys.

•

[Fall] District will produce an annual progress report/memorandum that summarizes the results of the Year 3+ actions and surveys/assessments.

•

[Fall/Winter] District will meet with DNR and other partners to review annual progress report and discuss Year 3+ adaptive management plan and action items.

February 2021

3-15

4.0 References Bacigalupi, J., Treml, P., and D. Staples. 2015. Lake IBI Nearshore Sampling Manual Updated May 2015, for use by MNDNR Fisheries Section. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Ecological and Water Resources Division. Brainerd. Bajer, P.G., M.W. Beck, P.J. Hundt. 2018. Effect of non-native versus native invaders on macrophyte richness: are carp and bullheads ecological proxies? Hydrobiologia 817: 379-391. Baker, J.P., H. Olem, C.S. Creagor, M.D. Marcus, and B.R. Parkhurst. 1993. Fish and fisheries management in lakes and reservoirs. EPA 841-R-93-002. Terrene Institute and US Environmental Protection Agency. Bettoli, P.W., M.J. Maceina, R.L. Noble, and R.K. Betsill. 1992. Piscivory in largemouth bass as a function of aquatic vegetation abundance. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 12:509-516. Braig, E. C. & D. L. Johnson, 2003. Impact of black bullhead (Ameiurus melas) on turbidity in a diked wetland. Hydrobiologia 490: 11–21. Colle, D. E. & J. V. Shireman, 1980. Coefficients of condition for largemouth bass, bluegill and redear sunfish in hydrilla-infested lakes. Trans. am. Fish. Soc. 109: 521–531. Cross, T.K., and M.C. McInerny. 2001. Spatial habitat influences on inshore fish communities in a selected Minnesota ecological lake class. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries Investigational Report 494, St. Paul. CRWD. 2019. Como Lake Management Plan. Prepared by LimnoTech for Capitol Region Watershed District, St. Paul, MN. Dibble, E. D., K. J. Killgore, and G. O. Dick. 1996. Measurement of plant architecture in seven aquatic plants. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 11:311±318 Drake and Pereira 2002 (1997 ref in Tomcko) Durocher, P.P., W.C. Provine, and J.E. Kraai. 1984. Relationship between abundance of largemouth bass and submerged vegetation in Texas reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:84-88. Fischer, J. R., R. M. Krogman & M. C. Quist, 2013. Influences of native and non-native benthivorous fishes on aquatic ecosystem degradation. Hydrobiologia 711: 187–199. Goldstein, R. M., and T. P. Simon. 1999. Toward a united definition of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. Pages 123–202 in T. P. Simon, editor. Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Leunda, P. M., J. Oscoz, B. Elvira, A. Agorreta, S. Perea & R. Miranda, 2008. Feeding habits of the exotic black bullhead Ameiurusmelas (Rafinesque) in the Iberian Peninsula:

February 2021

4-1

ﬁrst evidence of direct predation on native ﬁsh species. Journal of Fish Biology 73: 96–114. LimnoTech, 2017. Como Lake: Water Quality Drivers Analysis Study. Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District, St. Paul, MN. Maceina, M. 1996. Largemouth bass abundance and aquatic vegetation in Florida lakes: An alternative interpretation. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 34(34):43-47. Minnesota DNR. Multiple Years. Fisheries Lake Surveys. dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind/showreport.html?downum=62005500 Miranda, L. E. & L. L. Pugh, 1997. Relationship between vegetation coverage and abundance, size and diet of juvenile largemouth bass during winter. N. am. J. Fish. Manage. 17: 601–610. Miranda, L. E., M. D. Habrat, and S. Miyazono. 2008. Longitudinal gradients along a reservoir cascade. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:1851–1865. Mittelbach, G. 1981. Foraging efficiency and body size: A study of optimal diet and habitat sue by bluegills. Ecology 62(5):1370-1386. Noonan, T. A. (1998) Como Lake, Minnesota: The Long-Term Response of a Shallow Urban Lake to Biomanipulation, Lake and Reservoir Management, 14:1, 92-109, DOI: 10.1080/07438149809354113 Olson, M. H., S. R. Carpenter, R. Cunningham, S. Gafny, B. R. Herwig, N. P. Nibbelink, T. Pellett, C. Storlie, A. S. Trebitz, and K. A. Wilson. 1998. Managing macrophytes to improve fish growth: a multi-lake experiment. Fisheries 23(2):6±12. Radomski, P. and D. Perleberg. 2019. Avoiding the invasive trap: policies for aquatic nonindigenous plant management. Environ Values. 28(2):211–232. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 34(34):43-47. Radomski, P., K. Carlson D. Perleberg. 2019. Advancing aquatic vegetation management and for fish in north temperate lakes, Lake and Reservoir Management, 35(4):355363. Repsys, A. J. R. L. Applegate, and D. C. Hales. 1976. Food and food selectivity of the black bullhead, Ictalurus melas, in Lake Poinsett, South Dakota. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 33(4,1):768-775. Sammons, S. M., C. Scalet, and R. Neumann. 1994. Seasonal and size-related changes in the diet of northern pike from a shallow prairie lake. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 9:32 1-329. Schlagenhaft, T. 1993. Manual of instructions for lake survey. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Section of Fisheries Special Publication 147, St. Paul.

February 2021

4-2

Schupp, D. H. 1992. An ecological classification of Minnesota lakes with associated fish communities. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Investigational Report 417, St. Paul. Shoup, D.E., R.E. Carlson, and R.T. Heath. 2003. Effects of predation risk and foraging return on the diel use of vegetated habitat by two size-classes of bluegills. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:590-597. Silbernagel, J.J. and P.W. Sorensen. 2013. Direct Field and Laboratory Evidence that a Combination of Egg and Larval Predation Controls Recruitment of Invasive Common Carp in Many Lakes of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 142:4, 1134-1140 Tomcko, C.M., and D.L. Pereira. 2006. The Relationship of Bluegill Population Dynamics and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Minnesota Lakes. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Investigational Report 538, 2006. Valley, R.D., and M.T. Bremigan. 2002. Effects of macrophyte bed architecture on largemouth bass foraging: implications of exotic macrophyte invasions. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:234-244. Valley, Ray, T. Cross, and P. Radomski. 2004. The role of submersed aquatic vegetation as habitat for fish in Minnesota lakes, including implications of non-native plant invasions and their management. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Publication 160. Werner, E.E., J.F. Gillian, D.J. Hall, and G.G. Mittelbach. 1983. An experimental test of the effects of predation risk on habitat use in fish. Ecology 64:1546-1548. Werner, E. E., and D. J. Hall. 1988. Ontogenetic habitat shifts in bluegill: the foraging ratepredation risk trade-off. Ecology 69:1,352-1,366. Wrenn, W.B., D.R. Lowery, M.J. Maceina, and W.C. Reeves. 1996. Relationships between largemouth bass and aquatic plants in Guntersville reservoir, Alabama. American Fisheries Society Symposium 16:382-393. Wenck 2017. Como Lake Fish Community Surveying. Memo prepared for Capital Region Watershed District. Wenck 2020. Como Lake Long-Term Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Report prepared for Capital Region Watershed District.

February 2021

4-3

February 17, 2021 Board Meeting V. Action Item - F) Authorize RFP for TBI Detailed Modeling (Zwonitzer)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

February 8, 2021 CRWD Board of Managers Nate Zwonitzer, Water Resource Project Manager Authorize Request for Proposals for the TBI Hydraulic, Hydrologic, and Water Quality Detailed Modeling Project

Background CRWD budgeted to conduct additional detailed modeling of Trout Brook Interceptor (TBI) and the 8,150acre Trout Brook subwatershed. This expands on the Atlas-14 model update completed in 2018 by adding spatial resolution to the model particularly in the City of Saint Paul and includes evaluating storm sewer capacity issues and areas of flooding, and watershed pollutant loading. The results will help CRWD and its partners identify and prioritize future mitigation efforts. Issues The TBI Hydraulic, Hydrologic and Water Quality modeling project includes building detailed and calibrated XP-SWMM (hydraulic) and P8 (water quality) models and updating TBI flood prioritization areas. These models will serve as the foundation for future work in the TBI watershed to identify, prioritize, design and build flood mitigation and water quality improvement projects. Though the modeling efforts are time-intensive and costly, they provide critical information to ensure future projects are designed properly and constructed in locations where there is greater need and they will provide the greatest benefit. It is anticipated that this project will cost between $350,000-$500,000 and will be completed around June 2022. CRWD has budgeted $150,000 for this project in 2021 (CRWD Project #315-21554) and will be approaching City and County partners for contributions towards this effort. Additionally, a grant application through the State and Federal Hazard Mitigation Programs may provide up to 75% of the project cost if awarded. However, it may be over 6 months before grant award notifications are sent, and it is critical that a consultant is in-place to begin field work this summer if the project is to be completed next year. This could result in some project expenses (estimated to be between $25,000-$50,000) being ineligible for grant reimbursement. Staff have identified three consultants from CRWD’s approved engineering pool to receive the RFP. Barr Engineering is CRWD’s primary engineer for the TBI system. HZ United LLC has done extensive modeling for MNDOT and is a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE). Finally, HR Green has worked with CRWD on past modeling projects and is included in the RFP. Proposals will be due on March 12, 2021 and consultant interviews with staff and Board Capital Improvements, Projects & Partnerships Committee members will take place the week of March 22-26 if needed. Action Requested Authorize staff to distribute RFP for the TBI detailed modeling project. Enc.

RFP – Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor Detailed XP-SWMM and P8 Modeling

W:\06 Projects\Trout Brook Interceptor\Modeling\2020 Hydraulic-Hydrologic-WQ Modeling\RFP\Board Memo_Authorize RFP for TBI Modeling.docx

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

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO:

Barr Engineering HZ United, LLC. HR Green

FROM:

Nate Zwonitzer, Water Resource Project Manager

DATE:

February 19, 2021

SUBJECT:

Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor Detailed XP-SWMM and P8 Modeling

ATTACHED: Exhibit A – Technical Report: Atlas 14 Trout Brook Interceptor XP-SWMM Model Updates Exhibit B – City of Saint Paul XPSWMM Hydrology & Hydraulics Development Guidance Exhibit C – Example Proposal Budget Spreadsheet Exhibit D – Consultant Services Agreement (Template)

BACKGROUND Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) seeks proposals from interested engineering firms to enhance an existing Hydraulic and Hydrologic XP-SWMM model of the 8,150-acre Trout Brook Interceptor (TBI) subwatershed with additional detail, and to create a P8 model of the same area. Project partners include the Cities of Saint Paul, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Roseville and Maplewood as well as Ramsey County. This project expands on an Atlas-14 model update completed in 2018 by adding spatial resolution to the model particularly in the City of Saint Paul and includes evaluating storm sewer capacity issues, areas of flooding, and watershed pollutant loading. The results will help CRWD and its partners identify and prioritize future mitigation efforts. Please see Exhibit A for a copy of the report detailing the most recent model update. Proposals shall be submitted electronically no later than 4:00 PM, Friday, March 12, 2021 CRWD originally developed an XP-SWMM model of the TBI in 2005. Since then, the model has been updated for several projects and has gone through some calibration. The most recent update (Exhibit A) adjusted precipitation inputs to Atlas 14, calibrated the model to better reflect CRWD monitoring, and identified and prioritized flooding areas. However, the model is relatively coarse and primarily reflects direct impacts to the TBI. CRWD and partners see value in updating this model as it will serve as the foundation for future flood mitigation and water quality improvement efforts.

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

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION CRWD seeks to expand the existing XP-SWMM model for the TBI as well as develop a P8 water quality model. The selected engineering firm will conduct the work necessary to add spatial resolution to the storm sewer model network, confirm and adjust hydrologic divides, create a detailed water quality model, and update existing flood prioritization areas based on outputs of the models. Evaluating the benefits of calibrating the XP-SWMM and P8 models based on CRWD monitoring is part of the project, though completing model calibration is considered optional and will be determined during the evaluation process. Below is the preliminary scope of work for the study that includes tasks, deliverables, timeline, and anticipated level of effort (represented in dollars). Interested engineering firms should prepare a proposal that contains the tasks listed below and include more detail as needed. A detailed budget should also be developed. Instructions for preparing and submitting the proposal are located at the end of this document. PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF WORK Task 1 – Existing Data Collection and Review The selected engineering firm will gather and review the available storm sewer and water quality BMP data. During this review data gaps should be identified along with strategies to address them. Recommended subtasks include: 1. Collection of storm sewer utility data, pond bathymetric data, and record drawings. 2. Evaluate datasets to identify data gaps. 3. Develop strategies to address data gaps. One identified data gap is a lack of invert/elevation data for Maplewood, Roseville, and Falcon Heights which comprise around 30% of the TBI watershed. This will affect resolution of the model network in those areas. 4. Field survey work to fill critical data gaps. This could include relative-depth surveys, average pond depth measurements, and confirming subwatershed divides. CRWD recommends planning for a 5 days of field work for the purposes of this proposal. 5. Kickoff meeting with CRWD and Partners to review project and data gaps. 6. Fill data gaps and establish model pipe network. Deliverables: Figure(s) showing data gaps, Kickoff meeting with CRWD and Partners Optional Task 1a – Bathymetric Surveys CRWD and project partners may elect to collect detailed bathymetric survey data for ponds and lakes within the study area that may significantly affect model outputs. If collected, survey data will be incorporated into water quality modeling. Recommended subtasks include: 1. Work with CRWD and Partners to determine where bathymetric surveys will be beneficial. 2. Determine whether the selected engineer, CRWD, or Partners will conduct surveys. 3. Collect, digitize and incorporate survey data into modeling efforts. Deliverables: Figures showing bathymetric contours for surveyed sites 2

Task 2 – Delineate subwatersheds and develop XP-SWMM inputs Add resolution to subwatershed divides within the TBI watershed and generate hydologic inputs for XPSWMM model. Recommended subtasks include: 1. Delineate subwatersheds to areas of potential surface flooding and catch basin clusters. 2. Review permit data from the City of Saint Paul to identify private sewer connections and rate control structures and adjust subwatershed inputs accordingly. 3. Develop a draft figure of subwatershed divides for CRWD and Partners to review and provide comment. Incorporate one round of revisions into final subwatershed divides. 4. Develop hydrologic inputs using the methodology and data sources from the TBI Atlas 14 update and calibration project (Exhibit A). Deliverables: Figure(s) showing draft subwatershed divides for review Task 3 – XP-SWMM model update Update the previous XP-SWMM model to increase hydraulic and hydrologic resolution. Recommended subtasks include: 1. Incorporate the reviewed pipe network from Task 1. 2. Incorporate subwatershed and hydrologic updates from Task 2. 3. Run the 24-hour, 500-year storm using the MSE3 rainfall distribution to confirm subwatershed storage and overflows. 4. Run the 24-hour, 2-year, 10-year, and 100-years Atlas 14 design events. 5. Develop flooding figures for each design event. 6. Perform preliminary review and comparison of results with flood prioritization areas identified in the TBI Atlas 14 update (Exhibit A) 7. Partial calibration with changes developed in the TBI Atlas 14 update (Exhibit A). 8. Review of precipitation and monitoring data for use in calibration. 9. Compare rating curves from 2018 calibrated model with uncalibrated model to determine level of effort and value of additional calibration (Optional Task 4). Deliverables: Figure(s) showing draft inundation areas, draft XP-SWMM review meeting with CRWD and Partners Task 3a – XP-SWMM model conversion to Saint Paul methodology The City of Saint Paul requires XP-SWMM models be constructed according to guidance outlined in the City of Saint Paul XPSWMM Hydrology & Hydraulics Development Guidance document (Exhibit B). The selected engineering firm will gather and review the available storm sewer and water quality BMP data. Recommended subtasks include: 1. Convert hydrologic modeling parameters into equivalent SCS Curve Number hydrologic parameters. 2. Apply Saint Paul rate control for parcels that have known rate control features or have gone through the Site Plan Review process. 3. Model Atlas 14 design storms outlined in model guidance document (2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25year, 100-year) 3

4. Separate final XP-SWMM model into sub-2,000 element models (due to City license node limit). This task includes developing inflow and tailwater boundary conditions between model areas. Deliverables: XP-SWMM model converted to meet Saint Paul methodology requirements, model review meeting with CRWD and Saint Paul Optional Task 4 – XP-SWMM model calibration Calibrate the XP-SWMM model developed in Task 3 based on monitoring data collected by CRWD. Recommended subtasks include: 1. Review flow and rainfall monitoring data for candidate calibration events. 2. Using flow monitoring data from several locations to attempt recalibration of TBI model. 3. Run the model for the 24-hour 2-year, 10-year, 100-year, and 500-year Atlas 14 storms. 4. Develop inundation figures for the TBI subwatershed based on calibrated model runs. Deliverables: Documentation of calibration efforts and results, meeting with CRWD to review and discuss calibration efforts Task 5 – P8 model development Establish a P8 water quality model for the TBI subwatershed using updated data from the XP-SWMM model. Recommended subtasks include: 1. Use updated XP-SWMM model (or optionally calibrated model) to develop PB hydrologic inputs and hydraulic inputs for BMPs and devices. 2. Group XP-SWMM subwatersheds as needed to address P8 catchment limit. 3. Determine number of P8 Models needed to cover TBI watershed. 4. Create P8 models 5. Run models for continuous 50-year period. 6. Generate figures showing baseline pollutant loading and post-BMP pollutant load removal. 7. Evaluate level of effort and value of P8 model calibration (Optional Task 6) 8. Prepare materials and present findings to CRWD and Partners. Deliverables: Figure(s) showing P8 model results (pollutant yields), review meeting with CRWD and Partners Optional Task 6 – P8 model calibration Use CRWD collected water quality monitoring data to calibrate the P8 models. Recommended subtasks include: 1. Review monitoring data to determine if it can be used for calibration. 2. Convert event-based monitoring into total loading values for monitoring period. 3. Calibrate P8 models to total load for the monitoring period 4. Run models for continuous 50-year period. 5. Generate figures showing baseline pollutant loading and post-BMP removal loading. 6. Prepare materials and present findings to CRWD and Partners.

Deliverables: Figure(s) showing P8 model results (pollutant yields), review meeting with CRWD and Partners. Task 7 – Update TBI flood prioritization Use updated XP-SWMM model to update the flood prioritization analysis developed for the TBI Atlas 14 update (Exhibit A). Recommended subtasks include: 1. Evaluate and re-score the nine TBI flood prioritization areas. 2. Evaluate and score any newly identified flood prioritization areas. 3. Identify next steps for evaluating and identifying flood mitigation efforts in the top three priority areas. Deliverables: Table summarizing updated scoring values for flood prioritization areas Task 8 – Final Report Prepare final report for modeling project. See TBI Atlas 14 update report (Exhibit A) for an example of the anticipated content and level of detail desired. 1. Use CRWD report template to develop a draft report detailing model development and calibration methodology. Report content should include but is not limited to: a. Project Background b. Expansion of XP-SWMM Model c. XP-SWMM Model Calibration d. Flood Prioritization Analysis e. P8 Model Development f. P8 Model Calibration g. Analysis of Pollutant Loading and Existing BMP Performance h. Recommendations 2. Incorporate two rounds of review from CRWD and Partners. 3. Finalize report and figures and share all report material (model files, GIS data) with CRWD and Partners. Task 9 – Project coordination and meetings Coordination with CRWD and partners including meetings and progress updates. Recommended subtasks include: 1. Periodic communications and emails throughout project. 2. Project meetings as follows: a. Kickoff meeting with CRWD and Partners (Task 1) b. XP-SWMM model update and calibration evaluation with CRWD and Partners (Task 3) c. XP-SWMM model conversion update with CRWD and Saint Paul (Task 3a) d. XP-SWMM model calibration with CRWD and Partners (Optional Task 4) e. P8 model update and calibration evaluation with CRWD and Partners (Task 5) f. P8 model calibration with CRWD and Partners (Optional Task 6) g. Final report with CRWD and Partners (Task 8) h. Separate presentations to CRWD Board of Managers and Community Advisory Committee 5

Deliverables: Periodic communications and emails, draft and final report, final XP-SWMM and P8 model files, meetings and presentations ESTIMATED LEVEL OF EFFORT CRWD anticipates the level of effort for this project ranges from $350,000 to $500,000. ANTICIPATED TIMELINE • • • • • • • •

Feasibility Study RFP Distribution – February 19, 2021 Consultant Questions about RFP due to CRWD – March 3, 2021 CRWD Provides Responses to RFP Questions – March 8, 2021 Proposal Submittal Deadline – March 12, 2021 Potential Engineer Interviews with CRWD Review Committee – March 22-26, 2021 CRWD Approves Engineer – April 7, 2021 Feasibility Study Start – April 19, 2021 Study Completion – June 30, 2022

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING AND SUBMITTING PROPOSAL Firms are required to follow the outline below for their proposal. Failure to respond to any of the following technical submittal requirements may disqualify the proposal. Proposals should include: 1. Firm’s name, address, contact person phone number and email address and basic firm information. 2. Description of the firm’s approach to completing the study. 3. List of specific individual(s) who will work on this study and include brief descriptions of their professional qualifications, experience on similar projects and availability. 4. A detailed scope of work, budget, and schedule to complete the study, including billing rates and hours for staff proposed. The proposal must include a budget consistent with the example budget spreadsheet provided in Exhibit C. It is not necessary to complete the exact budget spreadsheet, however, CRWD requires similar pieces of information as shown in this example. Outside costs not identified in the preliminary scope of work shall be listed separately in the budget proposal. 5. Brief descriptions of recent similar projects successfully completed by the firm that demonstrate the ability to develop large-scale detailed models. Provide references for clients. Please submit an electronic copy of your cover letter and proposal. Your proposal may not exceed ten (10) pages in length. The cover letter is separate from the 10 page limit. Staff resumes and project descriptions may be included in the appendices and are not limited in length. Proposals shall be submitted electronically no later than 4:00 PM, Friday, March 12, 2021 to Nate Zwonitzer, CRWD Water Resource Project Manager, nzwonitzer@capitolregionwd.org.

SELECTION PROCESS CRWD’s proposal review committee will review proposals, which will be evaluated based on the following criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4.

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

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