Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, January 15, 2020, 6:00 p.m. (Regular Meeting) at the office of the CRWD, 595 Aldine Street, St. Paul, Minnesota.
I.
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 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)
19-029 Como Avenue Trail Project – Hosch
IV.
Special Reports –2019 Lakes Report (Wein)
V.
Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the January 2, 2020 Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Approve Accounts Payable/Receivables for December (Sylvander) C) AR: Approve Amendment with SRF for Parkview Construction Administration (Zwonitzer)
VI.
Unfinished BusinessA) 2020 Watershed Management Plan (Eleria) B) Area C Ford Site Update (Fossum) C) Ford Site Redevelopment (Fossum) D) Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary (Fossum) E) Watershed Steward Awards Update (Bromelkamp)
VII.
General Information A) Board of Manager’s Updates
VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, February 5, 2020 5:00 PM – Workshop and Regular Meeting B) Wednesday, February 12, 2020 7:00 PM - CAC Meeting IX.
Adjournment
Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
Capitol Region Watershed District Applicant:
Permit 19-029 Como Avenue Trail Project
Don Pflaum City of St. Paul Public Works 25 W. 4th Street, 1500 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102
Consultant: Eric Nelson Alliant Engineering 733 Marquette Avenue Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402
Description: Construction of a 1.6 mile segment of the Saint Paul Grand Round shared use trail along north side of Como Avenue between Raymond and Hamline Avenues. Includes road reconstruction, storm sewer and utility work, and ADA pedestrian upgrades. Stormwater Management: 2 infiltration trenches District Rule: - C, F Disturbed Area: 10.27 Acres Impervious Area: 6.35 Acres
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 2 Conditions: 1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 2. Revise Plans to address the following: a. Add note to cross-section detail on Sheet 162 in plans stating that fabric shall be excluded from the bottom of the infiltration practice. b. The sump depth in structures MH 229, MH 225, MH 323, and MH 319 shall be four times larger than the outlet pipe per EPA guidance. The perforated spreader pipe is 12-inches, which requires a 4-foot sump.
First Street Second Ave
Aerial Photo Permit Location
Permit Report 19-029
Board Meeting Date: 01-15-2020
Capitol Region Watershed District Permit Report CRWD Permit #: Review date: Project Name: Applicant: Purpose:
19‐029 January 8, 2020 Como Avenue Trail Project Don Pflaum City of St. Paul Public Works 25 W. 4th Street, 1500 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 651‐266‐9147 don.pflaum@ci.stpaul.mn.us Construction of a 1.6‐mile segment of the Saint Paul Grand Round shared use trail along north side of Como Avenue between Raymond and Hamline Avenues. Includes road reconstruction, storm sewer and utility work, and ADA pedestrian upgrades. Stormwater management includes two underground infiltration trenches.
Location: Como Avenue from Raymond Avenue to Hamline Avenue, St. Paul, MN Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 2 Conditions EXHIBITS: 1. 90% Civil Plans (353 Sheets), by Alliant, not dated, recv. 12/9/19. 2. 90% Revised Civil Plans (Sheets 160, 161, 162, 163, 170, 171, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191) by Alliant, not dated, recv 1/2/20. 3. Permit Narrative, by Alliant, dated 12/3/19, recv. 12/9/19. 4. Tables T‐1 & T‐2, by Alliant, not dated, recv. 12/9/19. 5. Tables T‐2 & Table 3, by Alliant, not dated, recv. 1/2/20. 6. Existing HydroCAD Report, by Alliant, dated 12/31/19, recv. 1/2/20. 7. Proposed HydroCAD Report, by Alliant, dated 12/31/19, recv. 1/2/20. 8. Existing Drainage Area Map, by Alliant, dated 12/30/19, recv. 1/2/20. 9. Proposed Drainage Area Map, by Alliant, dated 12/30/19, recv. 1/2/20. 10. Geotechnical Exploration and Review, by AET, dated 9/23/19, recv. 12/9/19. 11. Additional Geotechnical Exploration, by AET, dated 11/19/19, recv. 12/9/19. 12. NPDES Permit, by MPCA, dated 12/30/2019, recv. 1/2/20. 13. Peak Storm Discharge at Gibbs Ave Correspondence, by City of St. Paul, dated 1/3/20, recv. 1/3/20. W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-029 Como Ave Trail Project\19-029 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 1 of 4
HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: None. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards Proposed discharge rates for the 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year events shall not exceed existing rates. Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site. Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long‐term viability of the infiltration area. Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non‐point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal. Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Runoff rates for the proposed activity exceed existing runoff rates for the 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year critical storm events at the Gibbs Outlet. However, runoff rates for the overall site decrease. The applicant has received confirmation from the City that the storm sewer at the Gibbs Outlet has capacity to absorb the small increase in rate at this location. 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 276,606 square feet. b. Volume retention required: 276,606 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 25,356 ft3 Table 1. Proposed volume retention through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse). Volume Volume Retention 1.1‐inch 2.5‐inch Retention BMP Provided below 3 Runoff (ft ) Runoff (ft3) Required (ft3) outlet (ft3) Infiltration Trench 1 12,808* 5,666 12,877 Infiltration Trench 2 13,038* 15,102 34,322 25,356 Total 25,846 cf* *Volumes include perforated pipe storage, which was not calculated by applicant.
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.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-029 Como Ave Trail Project\19-029 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 2 of 4
g. The Hantush groundwater mound spreadsheet predicts a mound depth of approximately 0.7’ at the house footprint on 1516 Como Avenue. MnTopo shows surface elevation of 927’ at house. Based on soil boring B‐19, there is at least 11 feet of separation between basement and groundwater mound. h. The Hantush groundwater mound spreadsheet predicts a mound depth of approximately 0.9’ at the house footprint on 1340 Como Avenue. MnTopo shows surface elevation of 928’ at house. Based on soil boring B‐18, there is at least 11 feet of separation between basement and groundwater mound. 4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested. 5. Best management practices achieve 90% total suspended solids removal from the treated runoff generated on an annual basis. 6. A memorandum of agreement for maintenance of stormwater facilities exists between the City of St. Paul and the CRWD. Adequate maintenance access is provided for the underground systems. RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100‐year floodplain. All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is unknown if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. However, adequate conveyance has been provided to prevent flooding. 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
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-029 Como Ave Trail Project\19-029 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 3 of 4
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 10.27 acres; an NPDES permit is required. A SWPPP has been submitted. 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 2 Conditions Conditions: 1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 2. Revise Plans to address the following: a. Add note to cross‐section detail on Sheet 162 in plans stating that fabric shall be excluded from the bottom of the infiltration practice. b. The sump depth in structures MH 229, MH 225, MH 323, and MH 319 shall be four times larger than the outlet pipe per EPA guidance. The perforated spreader pipe is 12‐inches, which requires a 4‐foot sump.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-029 Como Ave Trail Project\19-029 Permit Report_R2.doc Page 4 of 4
January 15, 2020 Board Meeting
DATE: TO: FROM: RE:
January 3, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Sarah Wein, Monitoring Coordinator 2019 Lakes Update
IV. Special Reports – 2019 Lakes Update (Wein)
Background 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. Issue In 2019, 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 of the lakes data collected in 2019 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 2019 lake monitoring, 2019 lake quality in comparison to the historical data record, 2019 accomplishments, and 2020 initiatives. Requested Action None. W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\2019 Monitoring\2019 Lakes\Board Meeting_01152019\Board Memo_2019 Lakes 01-15-20.docx
January 15, 2020 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of January 2, 2020 Annual and Regular Board Meeting
(Sylvander)
Regular Board Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Thursday, January 2, 2020, 6:00 p.m. (Regular Meeting) at the office of CRWD, 595 Aldine Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I.
A)
Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)
Managers Joe Collins Seitu Jones, absent w/notice Shawn Murphy Rick Sanders Mary Texer B)
Staff Present Public Attendees Mark Doneux, CRWD Mike MacDonald, CAC Forrest Kelley, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD James Mogen, Ramsey County Attorney
Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda.
Motion 20-001: Approve the Agenda of January 2, 2020. Texer/Sanders Unanimously Approved II.
Public Comment
III.
Permit Applications and Program Updates A)
14-024 Highland Ravine Stabilization – Closure (Hosch)
Mr. Kelley reviewed permit #14-024 Highland Ravine Stabilization. This permit was issued to stabilize three eroding ravines in the Highland Park neighborhood in St. Paul. No stormwater treatment was required for this erosion and sediment control permit. The site is currently stable, and the project is currently in the maintenance phase. No surety was required for this public project. Motion 20-002: Approve Certificate of Completion for permit #14-024, Highland Ravine Stabilization. Texer/Sanders Unanimously Approved
IV.
Special Reports – No Special Reports
V.
Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the December 18, 2019 Annual Meeting and Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander)
One change was noted, the correct Board of Managers per diem should be $125 not $75. Motion 20-003: Approve the Amended Minutes of the December 18, 2019 Annual Meeting and Regular Board Meeting. Texer/Sanders Unanimously approved B) AR: Adopt Resolution for Cost Cap and Stormwater Impact Fund Contributions (Kelley) Mr. Kelley provided a review of the amendments to the cap on cost for Linear Projects and Stormwater Impact Fund. The Joint Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met September 19, 2018 to discuss proposed amendments to District Rules. Draft Rules were distributed for informal comment in January of 2019, the Board authorized distribution of the draft amended rules for 45-day review ending on April 22, 2019, and the Rules were adopted on June 5, 2019. During the Joint Rules TAC meetings, Mr. Kelley shared how staff presented cost data that indicated the current cost cap ($30,000/impervious acre) and stormwater impact fund contribution ($40,000/impervious acre) amounts were insufficient to achieve water quality performance goals, and proposed increases to $75,000/impervious acre and $100,000/impervious acre, respectively. In order to allow time to plan and budget for upcoming projects, it was agreed the increase would not take effect until 2020. Mr. Kelley provided a review of the volume bank credits. Motion 20-004: Adopt Resolution Setting the Cap on Cost for Linear Projects at $75,000/impervious acre. Texer/Sanders Unanimously approved Motion 20-005: Adopt Resolution Setting the Stormwater Impact Fund Contribution Rate at $100,000/impervious acre. Texer/Sanders Unanimously approved
VI.
Unfinished Business No updates were made.
VII.
General Information A)
Board of Managers’ Updates
A Community Forum is scheduled to take place at Gloria Dei Lutheran Church on Thursday, Jan. 9, 2020 at 7:00pm. The forum is being hosted by Representative Dave Pinto. The presenters include Whitney Clark the Executive Director of Friends of the Mississippi, Bob Fossum from Capitol Region Watershed District, Mary DeLaittre from Great River Passage and Rep. Rick Hansen from Environment and Natural Resource Finance Division. VIII. Next Meetings A) B) C) D) E) IX.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020 5:00 PM CAC Meeting, President Collins will attend Thursday, January 9, 2020 7:00 PM Community Forum at Gloria Day Wednesday, January 15, 2020 6:00 PM Board Meeting Thursday, January 23, 2020 Awards Ceremony 6:7 reg ceremony 7:00 – 8:00 Wednesday, February 5, 2020 6:00 PM Board Meeting
Adjournment
Motion 20-006: Adjournment of the January 2, 2020 Regular Board Meeting at 6:10 P.M. Sanders/Texer Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander
January 15, 2020 Board Meeting V. Action Items – B) Accounts Payable & Budget Update (Sylvander)
DATE: January 9, 2020 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Michelle Sylvander, Office Manager RE: December 2019 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Administrative/Program Budget Report _________________________________________________________________________________
Enclosed are the Accounts Payable/Receivable and the Administrative/Program Budget Reports for the Month of December 2019. Summary of Budget Report: (December Only Expenses) Administrative Budget (100’s) Program Budget (200’s) Project Budget (300’s) Capital Improvement Budget (400’s) Debt Service (500’s)
$ $ $ $ $
TOTAL
$
(200,532.52) 327,601.68 136,154.78 838,816.33 0.00 1,102,040.27
Summary of Accounts Payable/Receivable Report through December 31, 2019: (Past, present and future months) (December 2019 Only)
Accounts Payable Accounts Receivable
$ $
1,271,529.31 3,212,993.01
Request Action Approve December 2019 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Budget Report and direct Board Treasurer and President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments. enc:
December 2019 Accounts Payable December 2019 Budget Report
2019 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
May
Jun
July
August
Sept
Oct
2019 Operations Budget
Operations Cumulative Expenditures
2019 CIP Budget
CIP Cumulative Expenditures
W:\02 Budget and Finance\Board Memos\Board Memos 2020\BD Memo AP Budget Report 01152020.docx
Nov
Dec
Capitol Region Watershed District
Check Register For the Period From Jan 1, 2020 - Jan 31, 2020
Date 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20
Payee Anchor Solar Investments, LLC Applied Ecological Services, Inc. ATC Group Services, LLC Avision Young Barr Engineering Benefit Extras, Inc. BNSF Contractor C Lanphear Design Christine Baeumier City of St. Paul - Natural Resources Colonial Life Comcast - Business Como Community Council District 10 DVS Renewal Dwaynes Lawn & Snow Care Ford Motor Company Forrest J. Kelley Fortin Consulting, Inc. Frogtown Farm Gallagher Gopher State One Hamline Midway Coalition HealthPartners Holiday Fleet Houston Engineering, Inc. In Progress Jeane Thorne, Inc. Joseph Collins Landbridge Ecological Maintenance Team, Inc. Marco - Minolta Mary Texer McCaren Designs, Inc. Menards MetLife MSR Design Nelson Cheese & Deli Outdoor Lab Parkview Center School Ramsey County - Attorney Redpath & Company, Ltd. Rick Sanders Rymark S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. Seitu Jones Shawn Murphy SRF Consulting, Inc. St. Paul Parks & Recreation St. Paul Regional Water Services Staples Business Advantage Syscon, Inc. Ultimate Events
2019 $163.20 2,613.75 1,877.00 2,027.13 26,813.22 200.00 382.50 375.00 9,120.56 808.14 780.22 2,011.59 96.25 134,000.00 1,800.00 3,000.00 7,000.00 700.00 5.40 2,000.00 100.00 2,401.75 13,190.00 3,268.20 1,579.95 10,108.18 109.38 53.32 2,730.93 539.11 53.68 960.61 7,404.65 228.00 5,609.87 1,912.50 4,610.77 1,469.24 2,437.50 791,881.14 1,960.03 2,234.55 10,017.62 4,995.66 254.86 443.40 237.50 255.01
2020
800.00 775.00
1,212.21
1,900.00
28,717.34
116.00 900.00
107.88
Page 1 of 2
Total $163.20 2,613.75 1,877.00 2,827.13 26,813.22 775.00 200.00 382.50 375.00 9,120.56 2,020.35 780.22 2,011.59 96.25 1,900.00 134,000.00 1,800.00 3,000.00 7,000.00 700.00 5.40 2,000.00 28,717.34 100.00 2,401.75 13,190.00 3,268.20 1,579.95 10,108.18 109.38 53.32 2,730.93 539.11 53.68 960.61 7,404.65 344.00 900.00 5,609.87 1,912.50 4,610.77 1,469.24 2,437.50 791,881.14 1,960.03 2,234.55 10,017.62 4,995.66 362.74 443.40 237.50 255.01
Check # 20359 20360 20361 20362 20363 20364 20365 20366 20367 20368 20369 20370 20371 20372 20373 20374 20375 20376 20377 20378 20379 20380 20381 20382 20383 20384 20385 20386 20387 20388 20389 20390 20391 20392 20393 20394 20395 20396 20397 20398 20399 20400 20401 20402 20403 20404 20405 20406 20407 20408 20409 20410
Description Solar Leasing Professional Services-November/December Professional Services Mgmt. Fees/Cap Plumbing TBI/Trout Brook/Mgmt.Plan/Ford Site Employee Benefits Safety Training Course Design Work Public Art Consultant Service Agreement Como Pond Buffer Restoration Employee Benefits Voice Mail & Internet Como Lake Clean-Up Tabs for Vehicles Snow Removal/Ice Surety Return Office Cleaning Winter Maintenance/Smart Salting Cultivating Water Ambassadors HR Audit E-Mail Tickets Building Community Throughout Employee Benefits Fuel for Vehicles Como Zoo/Golf Course Stormwater Our Sacred Water Temporary Receptionist Manager Per Diem/Expense Habitat Restoration Lock Box & Door Handle Copier Lease/Contract Manager Per Diem/Expense Monthly Horticulture Services Supplies Employee Benefits Pocket Park Renderings & Signage Workshop/Meetings/Trays Remove Trash/Clear Inlets of Ice Water Project Attorney Fees December Accounting & Payroll Manager Per Diem/Expense Managed Services Filtration Project Manager Per Diem/Expense Manager Per Diem/Expense BMP Final Design Parks Ambassadors Water Service/Automatic Fire Service Office Supplies Sage Support/2019 Payroll Close-Out Awards Ceremony
Capitol Region Watershed District
Check Register For the Period From Jan 1, 2020 - Jan 31, 2020
Date 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20 01/15/20
Payee Urban Roots Verizon Wireless Walters Windmill Design Xcel Energy Xcel Energy US Bank
SUB-TOTAL: DECEMBER A/P DECEMBER PAYROLL/BENEFITS: DECEMBER TOTAL:
2019
2020
Total
15,000.00 2,476.62 404.51 2,444.40 21.13 20.52 7,031.22
1,094,219.77
15,000.00 2,476.62 404.51 2,444.40 21.13 20.52 7,031.22
34,528.43
20411 20412 20413 20414 20415 20416 20417
Description Youth Conservation Interships Monthly Cell Phone Service Trash/Recycling Maintenance & Security Electrical Service-Maryland Avenue Electrical Service-Kittson Street Monthly Credit Card Expense
$1,128,748.20
142,781.11 $1,237,000.88
Check #
142,781.11 $34,528.43
$1,271,529.31
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT:
1/15/2020
DECEMBER, 2019 RECEIPTS Ramsey County Leauge of MN Cities 4M Fund-General 4M Fund-Bonds
$3,200,760.19 878.00 8,653.25 2,701.57
DECEMBER RECEIPTS:
$3,212,993.01
Page 2 of 2
2nd Half - Tax Levy Settlement 2019 Dividend December Interest - General December Interest - Bonds
Capitol Region Watershed District December 31, 2019 Comparison
Check Register Totals Accounts Payable Checks
$1,128,748.20
Payroll & Benefits
142,781.11
TOTAL:
$1,271,529.31
2020 Expenditures
($34,528.43)
Surety Return
($134,000.00)
Pre-Paid Expenses:
($960.61)
DECEMBER ONLY:
$1,102,040.27
2020 Expenditures: Avision Young - Ck.# 20362 (partial) Benefit Extra - Ck. #20364 Colonial Life - Ck. #20369 (partial) Dwaynes Lawn & Snow Care - Ck. #20373 HealthPartners - Ck. #20381 Nelson Cheese & Deli - Ck. #20395 (partial) Outdoor Lab - Ck. #20396 St. Paul Regional Water - Ck. #20407 (partial)
$800.00 775.00 1,212.21 1,900.00 28,717.34 116.00 900.00 107.88 $34,528.43
Surety Return: Ford Motor Company - Ck. #20374
$134,000.00 $134,000.00
Pre-Paid Expenses: MetLife - Ck.#20393
Page 1 of 1
$960.61 $960.61
CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST RECAP FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 ‐ DECEMBER 31, 2019
TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: 200 ‐ Administration 201 ‐ Groundwater 207 ‐ Rulemaking/Rule Revisions 208 ‐ Permitting 210 ‐ Stewardship Grants 211 ‐ Monitoring & Data Collection 220 ‐ Education & Outreach 225 ‐ Technical Resources & Information Sharing 228 ‐ Future Trends: Research and Positioning 230 ‐ Geographic Informatin Systems (GIS) 240 ‐ Safety Program TOTAL PROGRAMS: 300 ‐ Administration 301 ‐ Shoreline & Streambank Maintenance 305 ‐ Como Lake Subwatershed 310 ‐ Lake McCarron's Subwatershed 315 ‐ Trout Brook Subwatershed 317 ‐ Crosby Lake Subwatershed 325 ‐ Wetland, Stream & Ecosystem Restoration 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:
2019 ANNUAL BUDGET ‐ 660,840.00 ‐ 61,200.00 5,000.00 (289,200.00) $437,840.00 190,872.00 6,480.00 22,300.00 398,590.00 819,880.00 637,770.00 611,620.00 32,680.00 145,080.00 50,390.00 38,460.00 $2,954,122.00 98,328.00 8,000.00 102,410.00 201,700.00 344,410.00 28,710.00 ‐ 256,120.00 242,180.00 87,320.00 $1,369,178.00 $4,761,140.00 1,172,200.00 742,320.00 82,980.00 110,000.00 30,000.00 834,090.00 719,780.00 175,000.00 $3,866,370.00 1,059,503.00 $1,059,503.00
TOTAL ALL FUNDS:
$9,687,013.00
$1,102,040.27
$7,831,480.71
$1,855,532.29
Fund Balance FUND BALANCES @ 12/31/18 Operations 2,211,785.43 Capital Improvement 2,050,966.04 Debt Service 156,132.97 Building/Bond Proceeds 2,847,820.80 TOTAL FUND BALANCE: $7,266,705.24
2019 Fund Transfers ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ $0.00
Year‐to‐Date Revenue 3,509,889.97 2,673,329.56 1,020,371.31 ‐ $7,203,590.84
Year‐to‐Date Expenditures $3,798,200.28 2,079,171.49 1,016,025.94 938,083.00 $7,831,480.71
18970 ‐ General Administration 18 19970 ‐ General Administration 19 19795 ‐ Aldine Operating Expense 19976 ‐ Thomas Operations 19978 ‐ MAWD 00000 ‐ Administration Allocation
JOB COST #/NAME
CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ (204,325.71) 2,643.08 920.09 230.02 ‐ (200,532.52) 190,872.00 52.05 279.57 16,916.42 67,457.66 22,768.44 25,154.30 431.06 965.54 402.32 2,302.32 $327,601.68 98,328.00 ‐ 1,790.02 6,122.30 4,992.29 47.39 190.46 7,875.87 16,204.20 604.25 $136,154.78 $263,223.94 16,403.81 802,944.22 5.40 ‐ 2,403.12 4,427.58 3,967.46 8,664.74 $838,816.33 ‐ ‐
YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES 13,490.72 675,768.55 71,832.80 15,641.87 2,228.07 ‐ $778,962.01 190,872.00 6,677.05 11,958.53 387,701.49 475,765.28 532,653.76 422,006.35 28,270.08 31,590.78 12,687.98 9,280.66 $2,109,463.96 98,328.00 ‐ 174,943.82 94,739.49 119,271.19 14,642.71 1,029.20 215,185.69 188,316.61 3,317.60 $909,774.31 $3,798,200.28 204,904.02 1,046,516.91 463.10 ‐ 17,164.32 465,995.15 148,301.04 1,133,909.95 $3,017,254.49 1,016,025.94 $1,016,025.94
BALANCE OF BUDGET REMAINING (13,490.72) (14,928.55) (71,832.80) 45,558.13 2,771.93 (289,200.00) ($341,122.01) ‐ (197.05) 10,341.47 10,888.51 344,114.72 105,116.24 189,613.65 4,409.92 113,489.22 37,702.02 29,179.34 $844,658.04 0.00 8,000.00 (72,533.82) 106,960.51 225,138.81 14,067.29 (1,029.20) 40,934.31 53,863.39 84,002.40 $459,403.69 $962,939.72 967,295.98 (304,196.91) 82,516.90 110,000.00 12,835.68 368,094.85 571,478.96 (958,909.95) $849,115.51 43,477.06 $43,477.06
% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ 102.26% ‐‐‐ 25.56% 44.56% 0.00% 177.91% 100.00% 103.04% ‐‐‐ 97.27% 58.03% 83.52% 69.00% 86.51% 21.77% 25.18% 24.13% 71.41% 100.00% 0.00% 170.83% 46.97% 34.63% 51.00% ‐‐‐ 84.02% 77.76% ‐‐‐ 66.45% 79.78% 17.48% 140.98% 0.56% 0.00% 57.21% 55.87% 20.60% 647.95% 78.04% 95.90% 95.90% 80.85% Unaudited Fund Balance @ 12/31/19 1,923,475.12 2,645,124.11 160,478.34 1,909,737.80 $6,638,815.37
Page 1 of 8
CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 ‐ DECEMBER 31, 2019 2019 ANNUAL BUDGET ‐ 660,840.00 ‐ 61,200.00 5,000.00 (289,200.00) TOTAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION: $437,840.00 20000 ‐ Administration Allocation 190,872.00 18000 ‐ District Permit Program ‐ 19000 ‐ District Permit Program 202,640.00 19101 ‐ Permit Tracking & Database Management 14,150.00 18102 ‐ Construction Inspection ‐ 19102 ‐ Construction Inspection 147,250.00 18103 ‐ Permit Closure & Post Construction Inspection/Maintenance ‐ 19103 ‐ Permit Closure & Post Construction Inspection/Maintenance 34,550.00 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐ Permits ‐ 16120 ‐ Rules & Annual TAC Mtg. 16 ‐ 18120 ‐ Evaluate Rules/TAC Meetings ‐ 19120 ‐ Evaluate Rules/TAC Meetings 22,300.00 19130 ‐ Groundwater Protection ‐ Well Sealing 6,480.00 17143 ‐ Stewardship Grants ‐ 18143 ‐ Stewardship Grants ‐ 19143 ‐ Stewardship Grants 427,650.00 16144 ‐ Partner Grants ‐ 18144 ‐ Partner Grants ‐ 19144 ‐ Partner Grants 126,340.00 18145 ‐ Inspiring Communities Program 20,490.00 16146 ‐ RSVP Rain Garden 16 ‐ 18146 ‐ Rain Garden Projects 24,090.00 16147 ‐ TWP Blvd. Rain Gardens 213,310.00 18148 ‐ MN Greencorps Member ‐ 19148 ‐ MN Greencorps Member 8,000.00 18200 ‐ Baseline Monitoring & Data Collection ‐ 19200 ‐ Baseline Monitoring & Data Collection 331,880.00 19205 ‐ Lake Monitoring & Data Collection 102,610.00 18210 ‐ Villa Park Monitoring & Data Collection ‐ 19210 ‐ Villa Park Monitoring & Data Collection 28,470.00 18215 ‐ Wetland Bio‐Monitoring ‐ 19215 ‐ Wetland Bio‐Monitoring 17,670.00 19220 ‐ WISKI Database Website 46,720.00 19225 ‐ Remote Data Access & Set Up 12,510.00 18230 ‐ BMP Monitoring ‐ 19230 ‐ BMP Monitoring 49,540.00 18970 ‐ General Administration 19970 ‐ General Administration 19975 ‐ Aldine Operations 19976 ‐ Thomas Operations 19978 ‐ MAWD 10000 ‐ Administration Allocation
JOB COST #/NAME
CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ (204,325.71) 2,643.08 920.09 230.02 ‐ ($200,532.52) 190,872.00 ‐ 11,858.33 ‐ ‐ 26.16 ‐ 498.64 4,533.29 ‐ ‐ 279.57 52.05 ‐ ‐ 14,267.11 134.94 ‐ 51,355.80 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,699.81 ‐ ‐ ‐ 21,983.97 609.37 ‐ 11.45 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 163.65
YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 13,490.72 (13,490.72) 675,768.55 (14,928.55) 71,832.80 (71,832.80) 15,641.87 45,558.13 2,228.07 2,771.93 ‐ (289,200.00) $778,962.01 ($341,122.01) 190,872.00 ‐ 6,102.03 (6,102.03) 158,087.62 44,552.38 1,386.06 12,763.94 74.26 (74.26) 15,670.43 131,579.57 296.99 (296.99) 9,910.29 24,639.71 196,173.81 (196,173.81) 88.77 (88.77) 44.83 (44.83) 11,824.93 10,475.07 6,677.05 (197.05) 74.67 (74.67) 2,482.18 (2,482.18) 308,780.25 118,869.75 134.94 (134.94) 1,267.11 (1,267.11) 94,451.66 31,888.34 1,638.20 18,851.80 465.25 (465.25) 916.52 23,173.48 61,648.95 151,661.05 221.79 (221.79) 3,683.76 4,316.24 19,154.43 (19,154.43) 360,182.17 (28,302.17) 46,117.77 56,492.23 1,844.51 (1,844.51) 10,283.26 18,186.74 4,370.00 (4,370.00) 2,127.16 15,542.84 8,589.28 38,130.72 4,460.23 8,049.77 2,229.31 (2,229.31) 46,210.13 3,329.87
% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ 102.26% ‐‐‐ 25.56% 44.56% 0.00% 177.91% 100.00% ‐‐‐ 78.01% 9.80% ‐‐‐ 10.64% ‐‐‐ 28.68% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 53.03% 103.04% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 72.20% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 74.76% 8.00% ‐‐‐ 3.80% 28.90% ‐‐‐ 46.05% ‐‐‐ 108.53% 44.94% ‐‐‐ 36.12% ‐‐‐ 12.04% 18.38% 35.65% ‐‐‐ 93.28%
Page 2 of 8
CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 ‐ DECEMBER 31, 2019 JOB COST #/NAME 15231 ‐ AHUG Exfiltration Monitoring 17232 ‐ Midway Office WH Monitoring 18250 ‐ General Ed & Outreach 19250 ‐ General Outreach & Communications 18251 ‐ General Communications 19255 ‐ Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 19260 ‐ Municipal Training 18262 ‐ Youth Outreach 19262 ‐ Youth Outreach 19263 ‐ Communications Training 18265 ‐ Sponsorships & Partnerships 19265 ‐ Sponsorships & Partnerships 18268 ‐ Adopt A Drain 19268 ‐ Adopt A Drain 17270 ‐ Website & Social Media 19270 ‐ Website & Social Media 18271 ‐ Master Water Stewards 19271 ‐ Master Water Stewards 17274 ‐ TWP Communications 19275 ‐ Events 16277 ‐ TWP ‐ Adopt a Drain 16278 ‐ TWP Leaf & Litter Clean Ups 17279 ‐ Social Media 18279 ‐ Social Media 19279 ‐ Social Media 19280 ‐ 595 Aldine Education & Outreach 18285 ‐ Awards & Recognition Programs 19285 ‐ Awards & Recognition Programs 17300 ‐ Local & Agency Plan Review & Tech Committee 18300 ‐ Plan Review & Tech Committee 19300 ‐ Plan Review & Tech Committee 18303 ‐ BMP Database Maintenance/Updates 19303 ‐ BMP Database Maintenance/Updates 18330 ‐ District Research Program 19330 ‐ District Research Program 19333 ‐ Public Art Program 18334 ‐ Public Art Program ‐ Aldine 19334 ‐ Public Art Program ‐ Aldine 19335 ‐ Diversity & Inclusion 19336 ‐ Climate Change Impacts 18370 ‐ GIS Program Development 19370 ‐ GIS Program Development 19390 ‐ Safety Training 19395 ‐ Safety Program Updates/Audits 19396 ‐ Safety Equipment
2019 ANNUAL BUDGET 18,560.00 29,810.00 ‐ 270,690.00 ‐ 10,370.00 14,740.00 ‐ 10,640.00 10,990.00 ‐ 28,040.00 ‐ 21,360.00 ‐ 37,730.00 ‐ 30,410.00 6,980.00 35,720.00 5,370.00 6,370.00 ‐ ‐ 7,260.00 100,000.00 ‐ 14,950.00 ‐ ‐ 17,000.00 ‐ 15,680.00 ‐ 50,200.00 29,120.00 ‐ 25,960.00 20,000.00 19,800.00 ‐ 50,390.00 13,540.00 12,400.00 12,520.00 TOTAL PROGRAMS: $2,954,122.00
CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES ‐ ‐ ‐ 17,004.87 ‐ ‐ 3,000.00 ‐ 342.50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,784.68 ‐ 305.46 123.82 297.55 ‐ 34.47 ‐ 226.87 26.37 ‐ 1,007.71 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 431.06 ‐ ‐ 965.54 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 402.32 ‐ 2,302.32 ‐ $327,601.68
YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 9,524.48 9,035.52 17,561.03 12,248.97 3,507.17 (3,507.17) 206,636.19 64,053.81 19,152.29 (19,152.29) 31.09 10,338.91 3,470.55 11,269.45 66.42 (66.42) 4,752.55 5,887.45 44.64 10,945.36 684.36 (684.36) 17,688.61 10,351.39 456.40 (456.40) 4,727.29 16,632.71 17,837.73 (17,837.73) 12,754.12 24,975.88 780.78 (780.78) 18,953.07 11,456.93 2,697.43 4,282.57 28,072.78 7,647.22 ‐ 5,370.00 1,497.25 4,872.75 0.00 0.00 44.36 (44.36) 4,118.14 3,141.86 64,866.26 35,133.74 7,987.66 (7,987.66) 1,179.21 13,770.79 562.83 (562.83) 227.73 (227.73) 3,641.24 13,358.76 244.33 (244.33) 23,593.95 (7,913.95) 106.59 (106.59) 2,341.96 47,858.04 8,427.16 20,692.84 18,330.95 (18,330.95) ‐ 25,960.00 2,384.12 17,615.88 ‐ 19,800.00 121.13 (121.13) 12,566.85 37,823.15 2,770.16 10,769.84 4,020.74 8,379.26 2,489.76 10,030.24 2,109,463.96 $844,658.04
% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 51.32% 58.91% ‐‐‐ 76.34% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 23.55% ‐‐‐ 44.67% 0.41% ‐‐‐ 63.08% ‐‐‐ 22.13% ‐‐‐ 33.80% ‐‐‐ 62.33% 38.65% 78.59% 0.00% 23.50% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 56.72% 64.87% ‐‐‐ 7.89% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 21.42% ‐‐‐ 150.47% ‐‐‐ 4.67% 28.94% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 11.92% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 24.94% 20.46% 32.43% 19.89% 71.41%
Page 3 of 8
CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 ‐ DECEMBER 31, 2019 JOB COST #/NAME 30000 ‐ Administration Allocation 19405 ‐ St. Paul Natural Resources Intern Program 19605 ‐ Lower Phalen Creek/Rush Line 18421 ‐ Como BMP Maintenance & Inspection 19421 ‐ Como BMP Maintenance & Inspection 19425 ‐ Curtis Pond Opti RTC O & M 18427 ‐ Como Lake Management Plan 19428 ‐ Como Lake Aquatic Plant Management 19429 ‐ Como Lake Shoreline Management 16430 ‐ TWP Como Lake Project Development 19470 ‐ AIS Management 18476 ‐ Upper Villa Maintenance 19476 ‐ Upper Villa Maintenance 16477 ‐ TWP ‐ Lake McCarron's Project Development 19477 ‐ TWP ‐ Lake McCarron's Management Plan 18550 ‐ Inspection & Annual Maintenance 19550 ‐ Inspection & Annual Maintenance 14552 ‐ TBI Easement Verification & Documentation 17554 ‐ TBI Hydraulic/Hydrolic Model Calibration & Update 19570 ‐ NPDES MS4 Stormwater Program 18575 ‐ Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination Program 19620 ‐ Green Infrastructure for Innovation Districts 17621 ‐ Snelling Midway Redevelopment 19621 ‐ Snelling Midway Redevelopment 17622 ‐ Ford Site Planning 18622 ‐ Ford Site Planning 18623 ‐ Ford Site Area C 18624 ‐ CCLRT BMP Maintenance 19624 ‐ Green Line BMP Maintenance 19630 ‐ Gortner Avenue Feasility Study 19 18531 ‐ Highland Ravine BMP Maintenance 19631 ‐ Highland Ravine Maintenance 18650 ‐ 2020 Watershed Management Plan 18655 ‐ Strategic Plan 16660 ‐ TWP Grant Admin 16 19660 ‐ Special Grants ‐ Project Development 19665 ‐ Science Museum Feasibility
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 19820 ‐ TBI Repair ‐ Station 28+65 ‐ 50+72 19850 ‐ Land Conservation Funding
2019 ANNUAL BUDGET 98,328.00 8,000.00 ‐ ‐ 26,070.00 9,500.00 42,920.00 ‐ ‐ 23,920.00 39,300.00 30,000.00 ‐ ‐ 132,400.00 ‐ 100,500.00 216,000.00 ‐ 7,910.00 20,000.00 60,800.00 ‐ 29,750.00 ‐ 119,200.00 10,000.00 ‐ 36,370.00 ‐ ‐ 28,710.00 242,180.00 ‐ ‐ 87,320.00 ‐ TOTAL PROJECTS: $1,369,178.00 TOTAL OPERATING FUND: $4,761,140.00 224,600.00 947,600.00 ‐ ‐ 70,360.00 742,320.00 12,620.00 ‐ 110,000.00 30,000.00
CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 98,328.00 ‐ 190.46 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 409.44 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6,122.30 ‐ 4,542.53 53.69 ‐ ‐ 396.07 166.33 ‐ 47.39 ‐ 2,412.09 3,946.89 ‐ 1,030.05 273.12 ‐ 47.39 16,204.20 ‐ ‐ 307.79 296.46 $136,154.78 $263,223.94 582.15 2,774.53 ‐ ‐ 13,047.13 802,944.22 ‐ 5.40 ‐ ‐
YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 98,328.00 0.00 ‐ 8,000.00 1,029.20 (1,029.20) 34.25 (34.25) 24,962.39 1,107.61 3,333.33 6,166.67 114,069.03 (71,149.03) 13,388.36 (13,388.36) 18,052.00 (18,052.00) 1,104.46 22,815.54 732.54 38,567.46 7,726.71 22,273.29 13,165.15 (13,165.15) 40.72 (40.72) 73,074.37 59,325.63 6,683.92 (6,683.92) 78,214.26 22,285.74 31,966.68 184,033.32 160.81 (160.81) 444.00 7,466.00 1,801.52 18,198.48 22,581.57 38,218.43 643.24 (643.24) 2,894.91 26,855.09 93.19 (93.19) 105,586.10 13,613.90 10,883.38 (883.38) 757.90 (757.90) 62,872.69 (26,502.69) 8,872.71 (8,872.71) 100.97 (100.97) 14,541.74 14,168.26 180,672.01 61,507.99 7,644.60 (7,644.60) 39.39 (39.39) 1,281.43 86,038.57 1,996.78 (1,996.78) 909,774.31 $459,403.69 $3,798,200.28 $962,939.72 8,030.83 216,569.17 119,928.16 827,671.84 16,821.65 (16,821.65) 5,750.40 (5,750.40) 54,372.98 15,987.02 1,046,516.91 (304,196.91) ‐ 12,620.00 463.10 (463.10) ‐ 110,000.00 ‐ 30,000.00
% OF BUDGET EXPENDED 100.00% 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 95.75% 35.09% 265.77% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 4.62% 1.86% 25.76% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 55.19% ‐‐‐ 77.83% 14.80% ‐‐‐ 5.61% 9.01% 37.14% ‐‐‐ 9.73% ‐‐‐ 88.58% 108.83% ‐‐‐ 172.87% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 50.65% 74.60% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1.47% ‐‐‐ 66.45% 79.78% 3.58% 12.66% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 77.28% 140.98% 0.00% ‐‐‐ 0.00% 0.00%
Page 4 of 8
CAPITOL REGION WATERSHE DISTRICT JOB COST DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2019 ‐ DECEMBER 31, 2019 JOB COST #/NAME 13852 ‐ Tirllium Site Water Resource 16881 ‐ Green Line Redevelopment BMP's 16886 ‐ Lauderdale Subwatershed Stormwater Improvement Project 19889 ‐ Gortner Avenue Feasibility Study 19890 ‐ Midway Peace Park 18910 ‐ Special Grants 19910 ‐ Special Grants 16912 ‐ Selby Milton Victoria 19913 ‐ CRWD Opportunity Fund 16917 ‐ Swede Hollow Construction 15918 ‐ Midway Stadium Redevelopment 16918 ‐ North Lake Como Restore 16920 ‐ TWP Grant Administration 17925 ‐ Highland Park Sr. High 17926 ‐ Adams Spanish Immersion 19935 ‐ NW University & Dale 19940 ‐ Zero Abuse Project 16950 ‐ New Office Facility TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT: 14960 ‐ Debt & Loan Service TOTAL DEBT SERVICES:
2019 ANNUAL BUDGET ‐ 603,090.00 51,000.00 ‐ 180,000.00 ‐ 366,900.00 ‐ 350,000.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,880.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 175,000.00 $3,866,370.00 1,059,503.00 $1,059,503.00
CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES 2,403.12 544.55 3,775.66 ‐ 107.37 ‐ 3,586.31 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 381.15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,664.74 $838,816.33 ‐ ‐
TOTAL ALL FUNDS:
$9,687,013.00
$1,102,040.27
YEAR‐TO‐DATE BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES BUDGET REMAINING 17,164.32 (17,164.32) 440,676.17 162,413.83 20,569.27 30,430.73 1,394.90 (1,394.90) 3,354.81 176,645.19 2,652.03 (2,652.03) 64,198.08 302,701.92 77,759.70 (77,759.70) ‐ 350,000.00 781.49 (781.49) 122.17 (122.17) 40.72 (40.72) 2,036.81 843.19 ‐ 0.00 81.44 (81.44) 312.54 (312.54) 316.06 (316.06) 1,133,909.95 (958,909.95) $3,017,254.49 $849,115.51 1,016,025.94 43,477.06 $1,016,025.94 $43,477.06 $7,831,480.71
$1,855,532.29
% OF BUDGET EXPENDED ‐‐‐ 73.07% 40.33% ‐‐‐ 1.86% ‐‐‐ 17.50% ‐‐‐ 0.00% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 70.72% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 647.95% 78.04% 95.90% 95.90% 80.85%
Page 5 of 8
CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1, 2019 ‐ NOVEMBER 30, 2019 PERMIT NUMBER 7008 7013 8016 8032 9009 9011 10003 10009 10020 10025 10027 10029 11017 11029 12003 12007 12012 12017 12021 12023 13003 13015 13025 13032 14003 14007 14008 14009 14017 14018 14020 14025 14027 14029 14041 15007 15008 15013 15030 15034 15038 15039 15040 16004 16007
PERMIT NAME
PERMITTING BUDGET
Hubbard‐Griggs RSVP Griggs/Jefferson 208 Payne Avenue St. Joseph's Hospital Victoria Street Magnolia‐Earl CCLRT Como Park HS Como Pool SPRWS Reservoir Lafayette Bridge I94 & 280 Hmongtown Market Schmidt Brewery Cretin‐Derham Hall Brightfarms Greenhouse TIES Cayuga 180 Grotto Ford Site Demo MN Pass Maryland Arkwright Vandalia Redevelopment Montreal Avenue State Trunk Highway 5 Resurface SPPS 360 Colborne Pave. Rehab. LT Ballpark Stormwater Permit Waters of Highland St. Paul Academy Frogtown Farms Primrose School E. 7th Mississippi Market HealthPartners MOB St. Agnes School Higher Ground Ramsey County Building Demo Victoria Street Roseville Jamestown Homes Farrington Estates TH 94 & West 7th Highland Mixed Use Permit Sunrise Banks Office Building Luther Seminary Xcel Pipeline 2016 Community School of Excellence
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES
YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES
‐ 76.18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 380.92 ‐ 372.85 ‐ ‐ 209.29 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
55.69 530.99 55.69 55.69 31.50 74.25 93.19 566.40 92.91 156.22 875.52 1,417.10 1,520.60 295.62 368.26 56.03 1,960.70 5,721.78 514.35 2,993.89 145.51 541.08 1,906.52 225.58 92.82 74.66 55.99 27.85 2,752.33 449.99 102.09 559.09 124.26 205.58 55.99 104.50 295.04 142.88 331.66 225.09 37.34 111.36 2,311.23 31.50 152.27
BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING
% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Page 6 of 8
CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1, 2019 ‐ NOVEMBER 30, 2019 PERMIT NUMBER 16009 16010 16012 16016 16019 16020 16021 16023 16024 16025 16026 16027 16028 16029 16030 16032 16033 17001 17002 17003 17004 17008 17009 17010 17013 17014 17015 17016 17017 17018 17020 17021 17022 17023 17024 17025 18001 18002 18003 18004 18006 18007 18008 18009
PERMIT NAME Jackson Street Wheelock Parkway St. Paul Police Facility Willow Reserve Habitat of Humanity Roselawn Cemetary Dorothy Day Place 2300 Territorial Apartments Linwood Lower School Hmong Academy Expansion Snelling Midway St. Anthony Park Elementary River East School Adams School Boaters Outlet Willow Reserve No‐Loss SPJCC Addition AET Campus Expansion Horace Mann Elementary Highland Park Elementary Como Park Sr. High School St. Thomas Stadium & Field SPA Expansion Jackson Street Reconstruction Swede Hollow Great River Schools Residence Inn Grand Avenue Wheelock Dale Victoria Smith Avenue Bridge Dickerman Park Exchange Street Apartments Transfer Road Storage Macalaster Theater Building Regions Birth Center Weyerhaeuser Apts. St. Catherine Library Lot Rice Park Revitalization Sylvan Park Improvements Menards Trnasload Terminal Marydale Park Improvements Como Paving 2018 Wheelock 2018 Woodlawn Jefferson Vomela Beacon Bluff Seal Island at Como Zoo
PERMITTING BUDGET ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES
YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES
‐ ‐ 19.04 52.33 46.60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 38.09 448.96 ‐ ‐ 39.25 ‐ ‐ 38.09 ‐ ‐ 78.48 ‐ ‐ 170.06 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 76.18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 38.09 ‐ ‐ ‐ 38.09 143.89 91.56 ‐ ‐ 130.79 223.99 ‐
37.12 37.34 245.51 281.51 546.58 7,729.18 3,694.74 735.36 1,548.40 13,984.31 52.32 54.99 1,776.03 55.69 39.25 1,781.92 1,724.69 142.22 833.96 750.43 18.00 2,326.61 414.92 220.72 1,564.04 941.49 919.97 298.48 18.57 4,773.96 5,390.05 1,368.28 5,750.12 7,044.67 690.14 866.40 169.88 1,955.52 253.64 579.60 130.03 187.26 4,909.02 5,598.94
BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING
% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Page 7 of 8
CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMITS FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1, 2019 ‐ NOVEMBER 30, 2019 PERMIT NUMBER
PERMIT NAME
PERMITTING BUDGET
CURRENT MONTH EXPENDITURES
YEAR‐TO‐DATE EXPENDITURES 120.66 941.16 6,879.81 2,295.18 5,992.53 195.52 337.04 1,377.24 1,773.81 1,251.87 1,269.64 287.77 4,117.09 2,068.86 1,096.63 1,452.31 2,321.15 3,292.55 3,345.29 3,197.18 4,193.65 855.10 3,619.02 3,362.50 3,034.24 2,168.15 3,166.80 201.56 2,994.80 2,692.08 2,643.60 1,713.90 1,568.15 1,897.77 2,131.38 878.70 104.65 1,721.40 78.48 574.20 455.74 831.60 732.60
18010 18011 18012 18013 18014 18015 18016 18017 18018 18019 18020 18021 18022 18023 19001 19002 19003 19004 19005 19006 19007 19008 19009 19010 19011 19012 19013 19014 19015 19016 19017 19018 19019 19020 19021 19022 19023 19024 19025 19026 190028 19096 19097
CRWD 595 Aldine 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 Ford TCAP Railyard Excavation Albion Senior Community Parkview Filtration Surcharge Rivoli Phase III Roseville Aldi Fairview Avenue TH94 Mill & Overlay Victoria Park Play Area Wheelock 4, Western to Rice Midway Peace Park McCarrons Hill Luther Seminary South Campus Island Station Redevelopment 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 GTA Building Scheffer Community Center‐Phase I Harambee Elementary School Audit Como Animal Hospital Johnson Parkway AgroPur 2019 Lexington Parkway Realingment Lower Landing Tumble Fresh Coin Operated Laundry Hidden Falls Flood Clean Up Water Street West Side West Side Flats
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 91.56 39.24 ‐ 65.40 239.94 26.16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 78.48 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 104.64 104.65 ‐ 130.74 ‐ 130.81 13.08 104.66 ‐ ‐ ‐ 52.33 ‐ 104.65 ‐ 78.48 ‐ 455.74 ‐ ‐
19000
Sub‐Total: Permits General Permitting
‐ ‐ $202,640.00
4,533.29 11,858.33 16,391.62
TOTAL PERMITS:
BALANCE OF PERMIT BUDGET REMAINING
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 196,173.81 ‐ 164,189.65 ‐ 360,363.46 ($157,723.46)
% OF PERMIT BUDGET EXPENDED ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 177.83%
Page 8 of 8
January 15, 2020 Board Meeting V. Action Items C) SRF Amendment for Additional Parkview Construction Administration (Zwonitzer)
DATE: TO: FROM: RE:
January 8, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Nate Zwonitzer, Water Resource Project Manager Approve Amendment with SRF for Additional Construction Administration for the Parkview Center School BMP
Background In 2016 CRWD was awarded a $1.76 million grant through BWSR’s Targeted Watershed Program (TWP) for work in the Como and McCarrons subwatersheds. One of the potential projects identified in the grant application was a regional BMP at Parkview Center School located at the intersection of County Road B and Dale Street in Roseville. Phase one of project construction started in October and was completed in December of 2019. Phase two, which includes final connections to the County Road B storm sewer and site restoration will occur in the spring of 2020. Issues CRWD staff requested assistance from SRF for several time sensitive items that came up between contractor selection for the Parkview Project and the beginning of construction. They included additional assistance with researching contractors, permit coordination, adding a construction camera, and plan modifications including upsizing the filter vault. SRF has submitted the enclosed proposal for completing the additional tasks at a cost of $25,038. Staff recommend approving a contract amendment with SRF for the additional construction administration with funding from #410-16752 which has a 2019 budget of $742,320. Requested Actions Approve Amendment #8 to the consultant services agreement with SRF for construction administration of the Parkview Center School Filtration BMP for an amount not to exceed $25,038 and authorize the Administrator to execute the amendment and additional amendments up to $10,000. Enc: Parkview Center School BMP Project Proposal for Misc. Additional Professional Services – Amendment 8 dated December 23, 2019 \\crwd01-dc01\company\06 Projects\McCarrons\Parkview Center School TWP\Board Items\Board Memo Parkview SRF Amendment 8_1-15-20.docx
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
SRF 10569.01
December 23, 2019
Mr. Nate Zwonitzer Water Resources Project Manager Capitol Region Watershed District 595 Aldine Street St. Paul, MN 55104 Subject:
Parkview Center School BMP Project Proposal for Misc. Additional Professional Services - Amendment 8
Dear Mr. Zwonitzer: As discussed, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. is pleased to provide this proposal for additional professional services for the referenced project. Scope of Services Several extenuating issues came up during the construction administration phase of this project that have required the following additional services beyond those in our current contract, including: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
City and County permit submittals Late plan changes Contractor selection process Change Order #1 Addition of a construction camera
These five items occurred under aggressive schedules and as such were completed prior to executing this amendment and are listed under Task 1. Task 2 is additional work needed to inspect grading and turf establishment for the ballfield that will occur in the spring of 2020. Our proposed scope of services consists of the tasks listed below. Task 1.
Additional Pre-Construction Activities (completed)
Several activities were needed prior to bidding and during bidding that were outside the original scope of work. 1. Assembled and submitted City and County permit applications to obtain permits. 2. Incorporated late plan and specification changes to add second pre-bid meeting and address comments from the County (Addendum #1 and #2). 3. Analyzed potential bid alternates to add field grading (Bid Alternate #1). 4. Added Bid Alternate #1 to construction documents.
www.srfconsulting.com 1 Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 | Minneapolis, MN 55447-4453 | 763.475.0010 Fax: 1.866.440.6364
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Nate Zwonitzer Capitol Region Watershed District
January 2, 2020 Page 2
5. Performed shop drawing reviews which included significant coordination with the supplier to evaluate various configurations to resize the treatment system. Negotiated with supplier to find the best option for the CRWD. 6. Assisted with evaluating the bidders, including additional meetings beyond what was scoped for CA. 7. Developed and executed Change Order #1. 8. Provided construction camera research, coordination, installation, maintenance and removal. Task 2.
Construction Administration Additional Work (yet to complete)
1. Additional observation time for the Bid Alternate #1 construction activities (field grading/etc.). Assumptions The following assumptions have been used to develop the scope of services and fee estimate in addition to those found in the tasks. -
Hours associated with the construction camera includes labor for coordination time with camera vendor, one site visit for location determination, one site visit to install and another to uninstall. Expenses include camera service fee for 2 months at $549/month and solar station lease at $1,848 for a 2-month term. Based on the current contractor schedule we believe the overall construction timeline will be reduce by roughly 4 weeks (or about 40%) which reduces the amount of time our inspector will spend on the site. As discussed, this savings has been offset by providing a more experienced inspector at the onset. o This contract amendment has been adjusted down by $5,000 based on this savings.
Schedule We will complete the aforementioned scope of work within a timeframe mutually agreed upon with you, once we receive a notice to proceed. Basis of Payment/Budget We propose to be reimbursed for our services on an hourly basis for the actual time expended. Direct project expenses, such as printing, supplies, reproduction, etc., will be billed at cost and mileage will be billed at the current allowable IRS rate for business miles. Invoices are submitted on a monthly basis for work performed during the previous month. Payment is due within 30 days. Based on the scope of services detailed above, we estimate the not-to-exceed cost of our services to be $25,038, which includes both time and expenses. A detailed Proposed Budget (Attachment A) is attached. Changes in the Scope of Services It is understood that if the scope or extent of work changes, the cost will be adjusted accordingly. Before any out-of-scope work is initiated, however, we will submit a budget request for the new work and will not begin work until we receive authorization from you.
Mr. Nate Zwonitzer Capitol Region Watershed District
January 2, 2020 Page 3
Standard Terms and Conditions This proposal will be subject to the terms and conditions of the current CRWD Consultant Services Agreement 17-041 for the Parkview Center School Stormwater BMP Feasibility Study dated April 18, 2017. Notice to Proceed A separate letter of authorization, mailed or emailed to our office, will serve as our notice to proceed. The email address is dfilipiak@srfconsulting.com. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to working with you on this additional portion of the project. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
David W. Filipiak, PE (MN) Principal DF/gs Attachment A – Proposed Budget Spreadsheet \\vs-mpls1\ProjData\Projects\10000\10569-01\_ProjectManagement\Scope\Amendment 8\10569_Parkview_Amend8_Misc.docx
Capitol Region Watershed District Parkview Center School Stormwater BMP - Amendment 8 SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
hourly rates
$222 hours
$138 cost
hours
$122 cost
hours
$98 cost
hours
$226 cost
hours
$108 cost
hours
$199 cost
hours
Cost Tota l
Tota l
Tota l
Expe nses
Staf f ho
Staf f Co st
urs
Con stru Russ ction A dmi Coo nistr ns atio n
Elec tric Stev al Engin eM cHe eer nry, P.E.
Con stru Zach ction A d The len/ ministra Just in M tion oelle r
Prin cip Bob al, Cons t. Ad Moo min re .
Engi nee Jaco r b Bi erm an
Seni or Dev Enginee in Po r wer , P.E .
Workplan Item
Proj ect Leah Manag er Giffo rd, P .E.
Prin cip Dav al-in-ch a id Fi lipia rge k, P. E., C FM
Attachment A DRAFT Scope
$120 cost
hours
cost
hours
cost
Task 1. - Additional Pre-Construction Activities (completed) 1. Assembled and submitted City and County permit applications to obtain permits.
2
$276
5
$610
7
$886
$886
2. Incorporated late plan and specification changes to add second pre-bid meeting and address comments from the County (Addendum #1 and #2).
4
$552
10
$1,220
14
$1,772
$1,772
3. Analyzed potential bid alternates to add field grading (Bid Alternate #1).
2
$276
4
$488
6
$764
$764
4. Added Bid Alternate #1 to construction documents.
4
$552
14
$1,708
18
$2,260
$2,260
24
$3,224
$3,224
20
$2,904
$2,939
15
$1,962
$1,962
5. Performed shop drawing reviews which included significant coordination with the supplier to evaluate various configurations to resize the treatment system. Negotiated with supplier to find the best option for the CRWD.
2
$444
6
$828
16
$1,952
6. Assisted with evaluating the bidders, including additional meetings beyond what was scoped for CA.
4
$888
4
$552
12
$1,464
7. Develop and execute Change Order #1.
1
$222
2
$276
12
$1,464
4
$552
16
$1,952
12
$1,176
3
$597
$2,946
35
$4,277
$7,223
12
$1,176
3
$597
$2,981
139
$18,049
$21,030
$120
28
$3,888
$4,008
8. Provided construction camera research, coordination, installation, maintenance and removal.
$35
Deliverables: Addendum #1 and #2, Change Order 1 Assumptions: Expenses include camera service fee for 2 months at $549/mo and solar station lease at $1,848 for a 2 month term. Hours includes labor for coordination time with camera vendor, one site visit for location determination, one site visit to install and another to uninstall. Sub-Total
7
$1,554
28
$3,864
89
$10,858
2
$444
4
$552
20
$2,440
Task 2. Construction Administration Additional Work (yet to complete) 1. Additional observation time for the Bid Alternate #1 construction activities (field grading/etc.).
2
$452
2
$452
2
$452
Deliverables:
Assumptions Sub-Total Project Total
2
$444
4
$552
20
$2,440
9
$1,998
32
$4,416
109
$13,298
12
$1,176
Page 1 of 1
3
$597
$120
28
$3,888
$4,008
$3,101
167
$21,937
$25,038
January 15, 2020 Unfinished Business VI. B. Ford Area C Update
DATE: TO: FROM: RE:
January 9, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Bob Fossum, Division Manager Ford Area C Update
Background Ford Area C is located west of Mississippi Blvd. immediately adjacent to the Mississippi River. For many years, Ford used this parcel to dump waste products from their manufacturing processes. More recently the site was capped with a paved parking lot. The MPCA has been working with Ford to investigate the content and magnitude of the material that is located on Area C. On October 18, 2018, Barr Engineering completed a Technical Evaluation (enclosed) and provided recommendations for additional monitoring to fully characterize the magnitude and extent of contaminant migration at the site. Issues On October 23, 2019, Ford Motor Company responded to the recommendations that were made in Barr’s Technical Evaluation Memo (see enclosed memo from Arcadis). Barr and staff have reviewed those responses and have compiled a table that summarizes the recommendation and response to them (see enclosed memo with table). Staff will review the table with the Managers and discuss next steps. Additionally, staff will be meeting with MPCA and Ford on Monday, January 13, 2020 to further discuss CRWD’s recommendations for monitoring and data collection. Staff will review the outcomes of that meeting with the Managers. Requested Action None, review and comment only. enc:
Technical Memo from Barr Engineering, dated October 1, 2018 Arcadis/Ford Response Memo, dated October 23, 2019 Technical Memo from Barr Engineering with table, dated December 17, 2019
W:\06 Projects\Ford Site\Area C\Response to Arcadis\Board Memo Area C 01-09-2020.docx
Technical Memorandum To: From: Subject: Date: Project:
Bob Fossum – Capitol Region Watershed District Evan Christianson, Jim Eidem, and Dan Fetter Ford Plant Area C Review October 1, 2018 23621278.00
This technical memorandum summarizes Barr’s review of several documents related to Area C disposal area at the Ford Motor Company’s, Twin Cities Assembly Plant (TCAP) in St. Paul, Minnesota. The documents reviewed included:
Area C ‐ Comprehensive Site History and Investigation Report dated May 2017 (Arcadis, 2017a) 2017 Fourth Quarter Groundwater Sampling Summary (Arcadis, 2018) 2017 comment letters to MPCA (and MPCA’s responses) from Capitol Region Watershed, Friends of the Mississippi River, National Park Service, and District City of St. Paul/Landmark Environmental
The reports and comments address a variety of topics, but this memo presents Barr’s review and comments primarily related to the groundwater to surface water migration pathway at Area C near the Mississippi River.
1.0 Background Area C (Site) is a former waste disposal area located in the Mississippi River valley gorge, west of Mississippi River Boulevard (Figure 1). Waste disposal in Area C included dumping an unknown volume of industrial waste (including paint sludge, old paints and solvents, and drummed materials) and other solid waste and excavated materials from TCAP. The industrial waste was covered by an unknown volume of construction debris and soil fill associated with projects at Lock and Dam No. 1, TCAP, and road maintenance / construction projects. The debris and soil fill reportedly included concrete, sandstone, sand, construction rubble and earthen fill (Arcadis, 2017a). The industrial waste is estimated to be as close as 325 feet of the Mississippi River on the northern portion of the Site and within 40 feet of the southern Area C property boundary. Area C is approximately 14 acres in size and the footprint of the industrial waste area is estimated to be approximately 3.7 acres.
2.0 Report Review Barr’s review focused on a number of aspects related to the groundwater to surface water migration pathway, as discussed in the following sections.
Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com
To: From: Subject: Date: Page:
Bob Fossum – Capitol Region Watershed District Evan Christianson, Jim Eidem, and Dan Fetter Ford Plant Area C Review October 1, 2018 2
Suitability of Analytical parameters The list of analytes for groundwater sampling appears to be fairly comprehensive. The TCAP operations and related waste disposal activities involves a long term history. According to Arcadis, there is limited information available regarding historical disposal practices. Based on similar auto assembly sites, the following additional groundwater analytical parameters may be helpful to assess potential risks to the river:
Per‐ and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS) 1,4‐dioxane Glycols
Per- and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of contaminants that are an emerging concern and can be found in groundwater near disposal sites with histories similar to the Area C. The TCAP site historically operated nickel plating and metal etching operations (Arcadis, 2007). PFAS chemicals are known to have been used in such operations for corrosion prevention, mechanical wear reduction, and wetting agents/flume suppressants (ITRC, 2017). Wastes derived from the metal plating and etching operations containing PFAS may have been disposed in the Area C disposal area. The Mississippi River between Upper St. Anthony Falls and the St. Croix River is listed as impaired for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in both fish tissue and the water column. The potential loading of PFAS to the Mississippi River from the Area C site should be evaluated. Historically, 1,4-dioxane was used as solvent stabilizer. 1,4-dioxane may have been present in the solvents disposed within Area C, including in drums that reportedly remain within the waste today. Glycols (anti-freeze) were presumably used at TCAP and may have been disposed in Area C. These analytical parameters should be considered by MPCA for future groundwater monitoring events. Suitability of Groundwater Monitoring Network The monitoring network established for the Site may not fully allow for suitable characterization of the groundwater to surface water pathway. Groundwater is implied to flow nearly parallel to the southern boundary of the Area C parcel and it appears that the monitoring network has been limited by staying within the southern property boundary. Water quality samples from wells AMW-24 and AMW-25, along the southern boundary, identify groundwater with concentrations greater than Class 2B surface water standards for several contaminants, which could include potential migration off-site to the south.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621278 Ford Plant - Area C Review\WorkFiles\Final Area C Memo.docx
To: From: Subject: Date: Page:
Bob Fossum – Capitol Region Watershed District Evan Christianson, Jim Eidem, and Dan Fetter Ford Plant Area C Review October 1, 2018 3
Historically, a channel of the Mississippi River was located directly west of the industrial waste area, and below the current construction debris fill of Area C (Figure 2). This channel area was presumably cutoff from the main river channel during construction of Lock and Dam No. 1 and/or construction of the steam plant. The channel area was subsequently filled in as part of the disposal of waste within Area C. Remnants of the old channel are still visible in Hidden Falls Park from LIDAR imagery (Figure 2). The permeability of sediments within the old channel are unknown and the potential for this area to act as a zone of preferential groundwater flow has not been evaluated. The potential southern extent of the groundwater impacts cannot be verified without additional monitoring wells located on the City of St. Paul parkland located directly south (Hidden Falls Park). Groundwater may flow off-site to the south and eventually reach the Mississippi River. Plume maps for the various contaminants of concern have not been presented. Based on the data presented in the Arcadis report, it is difficult to discern the lateral extent and center of plume mass for the various constituents. Additionally, the stability of the plume for the various constituents has not been established. An updated cross section has been prepared through Area C along the presumed groundwater flow direction presented in the Acradis reports (see Figure 3). The St. Peter Sandstone thickness increases along the eastern edge of Area C and western edge of the main TCAP parcel (near Mississippi River Blvd). The water table in this area resides within the St. Peter Sandstone and is hydraulically connected laterally to the unconsolidated alluvial sediments. It appears that Arcadis’s conceptual site model is to treat these hydrostratigraphic units separately in developing groundwater flow maps and hydraulic head contours. Conceptually, groundwater flow within the St. Peter Sandstone migrating to Area C and the Mississippi River would be better characterized if these units were considered together. Groundwater samples from wells located near / up gradient of Area C, completed in the St. Peter Sandstone (e.g., AMW-05B, AMW07, AMW-29 and AMW-30), have consistently had metals concentrations (e.g., aluminum, cobalt, copper, nickel, and zinc) above Class 2B surface water standards. The migration of these metals within the St. Peter Sandstone and eventual discharge to the Mississippi River has not been fully evaluated. The hydraulic connection between the unconsolidated alluvial sediments and the St. Peter Sandstone below the industrial waste has not been defined. Due to the relatively high permeability of the St. Peter Sandstone, and lack of evidence of a confining unit between the alluvial sediments and the St. Peter Sandstone, the potential exists for downward migration of contaminants below the industrial waste into the St. Peter Sandstone, both for dissolved phase constituents and potentially a DNAPL related to reports of solvent disposal. Well AMW-07 is the only well open to the St. Peter Sandstone near the edge of Area C. This well is located to the north (side-gradient) of the industrial waste and has had consistent concentrations of aluminum and cobalt concentrations above surface water quality standards since 2014.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621278 Ford Plant - Area C Review\WorkFiles\Final Area C Memo.docx
To: From: Subject: Date: Page:
Bob Fossum – Capitol Region Watershed District Evan Christianson, Jim Eidem, and Dan Fetter Ford Plant Area C Review October 1, 2018 4
Additional wells should be installed in the St. Peter Sandstone downgradient of the Area C waste disposal area and nested with monitoring wells screened in the alluvial sediments. These wells should be sampled to define the vertical extent of the plume at Area C and to determine vertical hydraulic gradients / vertical flow directions. Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates Hydraulic conductivity estimates are not well documented and in some cases appear to have been derived incorrectly. In Section 3.2, a geometric mean hydraulic conductivity value is reported as 2x10-3 cm/sec, yet this value is less than the reported range of 5x10-3 cm/sec to 9x10-2 cm/sec. Hydraulic conductivity estimates were derived using grain-size distribution and the Hazen equation. Hydraulic conductivity estimates using this approach are rough approximations as best. The Hazen equation is generally appropriate for coarser sands; some of the reported d10 values are less than the generally accepted range of 0.1 to 3.0 mm for use with the Hazen equation (Fetter, 2001). Hydraulic conductivity is one of the key parameters for evaluating groundwater discharge and risk to the Mississippi River. Relying on rough approximations derived from the Hazen equation could potentially lead to inaccuracies in estimating groundwater discharge to the Mississippi River. Slug tests conducted in the site monitoring wells may result in more accurate hydraulic conductivity estimates. Effectiveness of Concrete Cap (Parking Lot) Approximately fifty percent of the delineated area of industrial waste is covered by a concrete parking lot (referred to as a cap in the Arcadis report). The effectiveness of this parking lot at reducing infiltration of water through the waste has not been evaluated. However, the industrial waste has relatively high concentrations of DRO, GRO, and lead in sample taken above the water table, but the existing downgradient water table wells have relatively low concentrations for those constituent, which may indicate the cap is having a positive effect to reduce contaminant leaching from the industrial waste. The long term effectiveness and durability of this parking lot is unknown. The current integrity of the parking lot and effectiveness at reducing infiltration should be evaluated and documented. A long term maintenance plan or construction of a cap designed specifically for long-term remedial purposes should be considered if the waste is to remain in place. Effect of Mississippi River Flooding The report suggests that river flooding occurs laterally through the waste and its effect on the buried industrial waste is somewhat delayed relative to river stage changes. The MPCA has asked Ford to conduct additional groundwater monitoring to evaluate how the water table beneath the industrial waste fluctuates in response to changing river conditions. Transducers were deployed in four monitoring wells completed in the unconsolidated alluvial sediments (MW-19, MW-21, MW-25, and MW-26) and in one
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621278 Ford Plant - Area C Review\WorkFiles\Final Area C Memo.docx
To: From: Subject: Date: Page:
Bob Fossum – Capitol Region Watershed District Evan Christianson, Jim Eidem, and Dan Fetter Ford Plant Area C Review October 1, 2018 5
monitoring well completed in the St. Peter Sandstone (MW-29) and the data is expected be reported later in 2018. Influence of the Ford Dam (Lock and Dam no. 1) and Potential for Removal
With the closing of the Upper and Lower St. Anthony locks in 2015, commercial shipping in the Mississippi River gorge has ceased. The lack of shipping has resulted in the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate if the Lower St Anthony Dam and the Ford Dam (Lock and Dam No. 1) should be decommissioned and removed. The potential effect on Area C resulting from removal of the Ford Dam has not been evaluated. Groundwater levels and flow directions could change, and the frequency of flooding could potentially increase without the dam. This could also affect nearby plumes related to the TCAP. Concern Regarding Drums of Industrial Waste Drums of industrial waste are reportedly present at Area C, representing a potential long-term and significant source of contaminants for the groundwater to surface water pathway. MPCA typically seeks removal of drummed industrial wastes, based on experience with other sites in Minnesota. Specific information is not available regarding the number of drums or contents, but could potentially include any of the typical waste streams generated at an auto assembly plant over many years (e.g., solvents, paint sludges/wastes, petroleum products, other automotive fluids, acids, caustic lye, and PCBs [in transformer fluid], etc.). Drummed waste represent potential primary wastes that are subjected to migration as the drums weather. Analytical testing from the industrial waste materials identify that more than 50% of the Industrial waste samples exceeds RCRA TCLP limits for lead, making it RCRA characteristically hazardous. There is no information to assess the condition of the drums currently, or the risk of future releases as containers might degrade. As a result, groundwater monitoring should continue as long as the drums and related wastes are present at Area C. Seeps
The report does not include discussion of seep distribution and / or seep sampling results in Area C. Seepage, if present along the river bank, would represent direct discharge into the river and should be sampled and accounted for in the discharge evaluation. If seeps are identified on the bluff east of Area C, they should also be sampled.
3.0
Groundwater / Surface Water Interaction
The Arcadis report evaluated the surface water to groundwater pathway and potential impact to the Mississippi River using a tiered approach recommended in the MPCA’s Surface Water Pathway Evaluation
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621278 Ford Plant - Area C Review\WorkFiles\Final Area C Memo.docx
To: From: Subject: Date: Page:
Bob Fossum – Capitol Region Watershed District Evan Christianson, Jim Eidem, and Dan Fetter Ford Plant Area C Review October 1, 2018 6
User Guide (MPCA, 2006). While this guidance is proper for the Site, documentation within the Arcadis report is incomplete and in some areas indicates misapplication of the guidance and hydrogeology principals. Calculation of groundwater discharge The plume discharge to the river was calculated incorrectly. Discharge should be calculated with the following equation (Darcy’s Law): ܳ ൌ ܣܫܭ Where: K is the hydraulic conductivity A is the cross sectional area of flow I is the hydraulic gradient.
Discharge in the Arcadis report was calculated as: ܳ ൌ ܣݒ Where: v is groundwater velocity A is the cross sectional area of flow,
The calculation used by Arcadis is appropriate for flow in an open pipe; it is not appropriate for flow within a porous media. The error should be corrected and the risk for all constituents reevaluated. Note that this correction will result in a lower discharge estimate to the river. Mixing zone The lowest seven-day consecutive flow in a ten year span (i.e. 7Q10 discharge) of the Mississippi River was used to determine downstream concentrations of contaminants in the river. It is not clear if a mixing zone was considered for the analysis; as presented, the entire 7Q10 river discharge was used. The MPCA guidance has conflicting information on the requirements of a mixing zone. Section 4.2.1.2.2 of MPCA (2006) list guidelines for mixing zones, which include:
1. Mixing zone shall permit acceptable passageway for the movement of fish 2. Total mixing zone should contain no more than 25 percent of the cross‐sectional area and/or volume of the stream, and shall not extend over more than 50 percent of the stream width
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621278 Ford Plant - Area C Review\WorkFiles\Final Area C Memo.docx
To: From: Subject: Date: Page:
Bob Fossum – Capitol Region Watershed District Evan Christianson, Jim Eidem, and Dan Fetter Ford Plant Area C Review October 1, 2018 7
Using the entire 7Q10 discharge of the Mississippi River to determine downstream concentrations without a mixing zone may understate the risk to the surface water. Justification for not using a mixing zone should be provided or a mixing zone should be established and the risk for all constituents reevaluated. Vertical Extent of Aquifer Contamination The vertical extent of the plume is not defined. The risk to the Mississippi River cannot be evaluated until the vertical extent of the plume has been established. Greater concentrations of contaminants may be present at depth and a thicker plume will affect estimates of groundwater plume discharge to the river. As discussed above, additional wells should be installed in the St. Peter Sandstone to delineate the vertical extent of the plume at Area C.
4.0 Summary and Recommendations The incomplete definition of vertical and horizontal extent of impacted groundwater at and downgradient of the waste in Area C is a potentially significant data gap. The Area C groundwater monitoring network primarily includes water table monitoring wells completed in the unconsolidated sediments (with the exception of two relatively shallow nested wells). The thickness of the unconsolidated sediments, elevation of the St. Peter Sandstone, and water quality at the base of the unconsolidated sediments and in the St. Peter Sandstone beneath and downgradient of the industrial waste are unknown. Further, water quality monitoring results indicate concentrations of multiple constituents (e.g., ethyl benzene, xylenes, cyanide) above Class 2B criteria and petroleum concentrations (reported as diesel range organics) greater than 10,000 micrograms per liter at the southern property boundary. The lack of vertical and horizontal delineation of groundwater impacts likely result in underestimates of contaminant flux into the Mississippi River and/or beneath the property located south of the Site. Additional investigation, including the installation and sampling of deeper monitoring wells and/or vertical aquifer water quality profile borings is recommended. Figure 4 shows locations of recommended additional monitoring locations to fill in data gaps identified and discussed above. At each of these locations well nests are recommend, including wells at the base of the unconsolidated sediments and in the St. Peter Sandstone. Locations A and B are proposed to be located adjacent to existing wells AMW-26 and AMW-25 respectively. These additional wells are also shown on the cross section (Figure 3). Locations C and D are proposed to be located offsite to the south in Hidden Falls Park. Location C is proposed to be within the historic Mississippi River Channel and location D near the bluff. Other recommendations regarding the additions to the groundwater quality monitoring parameters (including PFAS and 1,4-dioxane), better characterizing hydraulic conductivity at the site, and correcting discharge estimates and mixing zone calculations are noted above.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621278 Ford Plant - Area C Review\WorkFiles\Final Area C Memo.docx
To: From: Subject: Date: Page:
Bob Fossum – Capitol Region Watershed District Evan Christianson, Jim Eidem, and Dan Fetter Ford Plant Area C Review October 1, 2018 8
5.0 References Arcadis, U.S., Inc., 2007. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Twin Cities Assembly Plant (TCAP), St. Paul Minnesota. Arcadis U.S., Inc., 2018. 2017 Fourth Quarter Groundwater Sampling Summary; Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, St. Paul, Minnesota. Arcadis U.S., Inc., 2017a. Area C – Comprehensive Site History and Investigation Report II, Twin Cities Assembly Plant, St. Paul, Minnesota. Arcadis U.S., Inc., 2017b. Area C Groundwater Sampling Work Plan, Twin Cities Assembly Plant, St. Paul, Minnesota. Fetter, C.W. 2001. Applied hydrogeology 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2017. History and Use of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). MPCA, 2006. Working Draft, Surface Water Pathway Evaluation User’s Guide, January 30, 2006, 74p.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621278 Ford Plant - Area C Review\WorkFiles\Final Area C Memo.docx
Ford Main Parcel
ip siss Mis
Mississippi River
iver pi R
Ford River Parcel
d Bl v
A'
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-06-25 13:33 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Users\EGC\Ford-AreaC\Figure1.mxd User: egc
Area C
A Hidden Falls Park
Approximate Extent of Industrial Waste (Arcadis, 2017) Cross Section Location
Ford Property Boundary
; ! N
Industrial Waste Extent from Arcadis (2017) See Arcadis (2017) or boring and well locations Parcel Data from Ramsey County
0
100
200
Feet
AREA C AND CROSS SECTION LOCATION Ford Plant Area C Review Capitol Region Watershed District FIGURE 1
AMW-30 AMW-05
@ A
@ A
Ford Main Parcel
AMW-05B
AMW-07
AMW-29
@ A B-1 , % AMW-21 @ A AMW-22 B-2 , % B-6/MW-6A @ , AMW-22B %
@ A
AMW-26
@ B-4 A , %
@ A Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-09-06 16:59 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Users\EGC\Ford-AreaC\Figure_Previous_Channel.mxd User: egc
AMW-20
@ A
AMW-23 AMW-23B
AMW-24 B-3
%A , @
AMW-05B AMW-05
AMW-07
@ A B-1 AMW-21 , % @ B-2 A AMW-22B AMW-22 , % ,B-6/MW-6 % @ A
AMW-29
@ A
@ B-4 A , %
Area C
AMW-25
, @% A B-5
AMW-19
@ A @ A
AMW-24 B-3
AMW-23 AMW-20 AMW-23B
Hidden Falls Park
AMW-25 B-5
%A , @
, @% A
@ A
Hidden Falls Park
LIDAR IMAGERY HILLSHADE
Ford Property Boundary
Ford Main Parcel
@ A
@ A
Approximate Extent of Industrial Waste (Arcadis, 2017)
@ A
AMW-26
Area C AMW-19
AMW-30
Area C Monitorings Wells
@ A
Existing, St. Peter
@ A , %
Existing, Unconsolidated Historical, Unconsolidated
1923 AIR PHOTO
; ! N
0
100 200
Feet
AREA C EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND HISTORICAL 1923 AIR PHOTO Ford Plant Area C Review Capitol Region Watershed District FIGURE 2
A
Southwest
Northeast
CONCENTRATED CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
760
DEBRIS FILL
OSTP 740
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
10-year flood: 707 ft msl
BAMW-19
100-year flood: 717 ft msl 50-year flood: 714 ft msl
780
760
DEBRIS FILL
740
800
PLATTEVILLE FORMATION
ASB-1001
ASB-1007
AMW-26 (projected)
ASB-1003
780
820
A
ASB-1010
PAVEMENT
\\barr.com\projects\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621278 Ford Plant - Area C Review\WorkFiles\Reports By Others\ARCADIS\Barr cross section prep_ABW_2018-06-08
A’
DEBRIS FILL
800
720
AMW-29
Mississipi River Blvd
820
720
Tunnel 1A
CONCRETE
Solvent odor
700
700
PID: 15.2 ppm
Typical Elevation: 687.2 ft msl
DEBRIS FILL
DRO: 110 μg/l
DRO: 82 JB μg/l 680
SAND SAND
OSTP
DRO < 95 μg/l Metals > SWQS
Samples of industrial waste typically exhibit strong solvent odors and very high levels for PID readings, DRO (up to 37,000 mg/kg), lead (up to 13,000 mg/kg). 55% of industrial waste samples exceed TCLP limits for lead.
680
LEGEND Geologic Contact
Construction Debris 0
Inferred Geologic Contact Approximate Water table
Industrial Waste
Monitoring Well Screen Soil Boring/Piezometer
Proposed Addtional Well
120
Approximate Horizontal Scale in Feet 6X Vertical Exaggeration
*Groundwater elevations collected 12/11/2017 (ARCADIS Q4 Groundwater Monitoring Report- Table 1) SWQS = Class 2B surface water quality standards
FIGURE 3 GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A' Ford Plant St. Paul, MN
Mississippi River
AMW-07
AMW-29
@ A
@ A ip siss Mis
B-1
, %
AMW-21
@ A @% A ,
B-2
, %
iver pi R
AMW-22 B-6/MW-6 AMW-22B
Area C
d Bl v
A
AMW-26
@ !A .
Ford Main Parcel
B-4
, %
AMW-25
Ford River Parcel AMW-19
B
@! . A Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-09-07 09:32 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Users\EGC\Ford-AreaC\Figure_Additional_Monitoring.mxd User: egc
B-3 AMW-24
AMW-20
, @% A B-5
,A % @
D
. !
AMW-23
@ A @ AMW-23B A
@ A
C
. !
Hidden Falls Park
Industrial Waste Extent from Arcadis (2017) See Arcadis (2017) or boring and well locations Parcel Data from Ramsey County
Approximate Extent of Industrial Waste (Arcadis, 2017) Ford Property Boundary
Area C Monitorings Wells
@ A @ A , % . !
Existing, St. Peter Existing, Unconsolidated Historical, Unconsolidated
Potential Additional Wells/Well Nests
; ! N
0
100
200
Feet
AREA C EXISTING, HISTORICAL, AND POTENTIAL NEW WELLS Ford Plant Area C Review Capitol Region Watershed District FIGURE 4
MEMO
To:
Copies:
Amy Hadiaris, MPCA
Chuck Pinter, Ford EQO Kris Hinskey, Arcadis
Arcadis U.S., Inc. 430 First Avenue North Suite 720 Minneapolis Minnesota 55401 Tel 612 339 9434
From:
Fax 612 336 4538
Ryan Oesterreich, Arcadis Date:
Arcadis Project No.:
October 23, 2019
MN000632
Subject:
Response to Comments on Area C Comprehensive Report from Capital Region Watershed District
The following is response to comments on the technical memo prepared by Barr on behalf of Capitol Region Watershed District on October 1st, 2018. The technical memo included some background and discussion in addition to comments so the sections that included specific comments or recommendations have been excerpted below. Suitability of Analytical parameters The list of analytes for groundwater sampling appears to be fairly comprehensive. The TCAP operations and related waste disposal activities involves a long term history. According to Arcadis, there is limited information available regarding historical disposal practices. Based on similar auto assembly sites, the following additional groundwater analytical parameters may be helpful to assess potential risks to the river:
•
Per‐ and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS)
•
1,4‐dioxane
•
Glycols
Per- and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of contaminants that are an emerging concern and can be found in groundwater near disposal sites with histories similar to the Area C. The TCAP site historically operated nickel plating and metal etching operations (Arcadis, 2007). PFAS chemicals are known to have been used in such operations for corrosion prevention, mechanical wear reduction, and wetting agents/flume suppressants (ITRC, 2017). Wastes derived from the metal plating and etching operations containing PFAS may have been disposed in the Area C disposal area. The Mississippi River
Page:
1/10
MEMO
between Upper St. Anthony Falls and the St. Croix River is listed as impaired for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in both fish tissue and the water column. The potential loading of PFAS to the Mississippi River from the Area C site should be evaluated. Historically, 1,4-dioxane was used as solvent stabilizer. 1,4-dioxane may have been present in the solvents disposed within Area C, including in drums that reportedly remain within the waste today. Glycols (anti-freeze) were presumably used at TCAP and may have been disposed in Area C. These analytical parameters should be considered by MPCA for future groundwater monitoring events. Response: PFAS, dioxane and glycols have not historically been included as potential contaminants of concern (COC) at the site and should not be included moving forward. 1,4-dioxane was used as a solvent stabilizer primarily in 1,1,1-TCA, which is not a primary COC at the TCAP site. Glycols do not have an applicable Class 2B Surface Water Standard (Class 2B standard) so evaluation of glycols would not result in a change to the ongoing feasibility study evaluation. Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates Hydraulic conductivity estimates are not well documented and in some cases appear to have been derived incorrectly. In Section 3.2, a geometric mean hydraulic conductivity value is reported as 2x10-3 cm/sec, yet this value is less than the reported range of 5x10-3 cm/sec to 9x10-2 cm/sec. Hydraulic conductivity estimates were derived using grain-size distribution and the Hazen equation. Hydraulic conductivity estimates using this approach are rough approximations as best. The Hazen equation is generally appropriate for coarser sands; some of the reported d10 values are less than the generally accepted range of 0.1 to 3.0 mm for use with the Hazen equation (Fetter, 2001). Hydraulic conductivity is one of the key parameters for evaluating groundwater discharge and risk to the Mississippi River. Relying on rough approximations derived from the Hazen equation could potentially lead to inaccuracies in estimating groundwater discharge to the Mississippi River. Slug tests conducted in the site monitoring wells may result in more accurate hydraulic conductivity estimates. Response: The calculated geometric mean from the CRA text should be 2x10-2 cm/s rather than 2x10-3 as noted in the report. Correcting the geometric mean conductivity value reported in the text does not affect the surface water calculations because the most conservative (highest) reported conductivity value of 9x10-2 cm/s was used in those calculations. Approximations, which are generally conservative, are included throughout the surface water pathway evaluation including in the hydraulic conductivity estimate and results in downgradient plume concentrations that are well below Class 2B standards. Calculation of groundwater discharge The plume discharge to the river was calculated incorrectly. Discharge should be calculated with the following equation (Darcyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Law): Q = KIA Where: K is the hydraulic conductivity A is the cross sectional area of flow I is the hydraulic gradient.
Discharge in the Arcadis report was calculated as: arcadis.com Page:
2/10
MEMO
Q=vA
Where: v is groundwater velocity A is the cross sectional area of flow, The calculation used by Arcadis is appropriate for flow in an open pipe; it is not appropriate for flow within a porous media. The error should be corrected and the risk for all constituents reevaluated. Note that this correction will result in a lower discharge estimate to the river. Response: Arcadis agrees that the Darcy flux is more appropriate for calculating discharge to the river than the linear groundwater velocity. The calculations reported in Table 11 of the Tier 2 evaluation (Appendix N) were revised to use the Darcy flux values to calculate discharge to the river. Using the Darcy flux results in a corrected potential downstream contribution for each contaminant from Area C that is 30% of the originally reported contribution, as shown in the inset table below.
Original downstream contribution (ug/L)
Corrected downstream contribution using Darcy flux (ug/L)
MPCA Class 2B Surface Water Standard (ug/L)
Barium
0.061
0.018
700
Cobalt
0.003
0.001
5
Iron
2.278
0.684
600
Manganese
0.709
0.213
800
0.00007
0.00002
0.0069
Thallium
0.002
0.001
0.56
Vanadium
0.0002
0.00005
132
Cyanide (free)
0.004
0.001
5.2
Compound
Mercury (total)
After incorporating this correction, all calculated values for the downstream contribution of impacts from Area C to the Mississippi River remain well below Class 2B standards. Mixing zone The lowest seven-day consecutive flow in a ten year span (i.e. 7Q10 discharge) of the Mississippi River was used to determine downstream concentrations of contaminants in the river. It is not clear if a mixing zone was considered for the analysis; as presented, the entire 7Q10 river discharge was used. The MPCA guidance has conflicting information on the requirements of a mixing zone. Section 4.2.1.2.2 of MPCA (2006) list guidelines for mixing zones, which include:
1. Mixing zone shall permit acceptable passageway for the movement of fish 2. Total mixing zone should contain no more than 25 percent of the crossâ&#x20AC;?sectional area and/or volume of the stream, and shall not extend over more than 50 percent of the stream width
Using the entire 7Q10 discharge of the Mississippi River to determine downstream concentrations without a mixing zone may understate the risk to the surface water. Justification for not using a mixing zone should be provided or a mixing zone should be established and the risk for all constituents reevaluated. arcadis.com Page:
3/10
MEMO
Response: A mixing zone of 25% of the cross-sectional area was added to the calculation. The modified mixing zone and the revised calculation of groundwater discharge from the comment above were used to reevaluate the groundwater discharge to surface water pathway. The updated potential downstream contribution from Area C is included in the table below compared to the originally calculated contribution and the Class 2B standard. The updated mixing zone and groundwater discharge calculations will be carried forward when addressing comments below.
Original downstream contribution (ug/L)
Corrected downstream contribution using Darcy Flux and mixing zone (ug/L)
MPCA Class 2B Surface Water Standard (ug/L)
Barium
0.061
0.073
700
Cobalt
0.003
0.003
5
Iron
2.278
2.735
600
Manganese
0.709
0.851
800
0.00007
0.00008
0.0069
Thallium
0.002
0.003
0.56
Vanadium
0.0002
0.0002
132
Cyanide (free)
0.004
0.005
5.2
Compound
Mercury (total)
After incorporating this correction, all calculated values for the downstream contribution of impacts from Area C to the Mississippi River remain well below Class 2B standards. Suitability of Groundwater Monitoring Network Note: This comment includes several different assertions relating to the groundwater monitoring network. For clarity, responses have been added within the comment to address each assertion when it is made. Part 1: The monitoring network established for the Site may not fully allow for suitable characterization of the groundwater to surface water pathway. Groundwater is implied to flow nearly parallel to the southern boundary of the Area C parcel and it appears that the monitoring network has been limited by staying within the southern property boundary. Water quality samples from wells AMW-24 and AMW-25, along the southern boundary, identify groundwater with concentrations greater than Class 2B standards for several contaminants, which could include potential migration off-site to the south. The potential southern extent of the groundwater impacts cannot be verified without additional monitoring wells located on the City of St. Paul parkland located directly south (Hidden Falls Park). Groundwater may flow off-site to the south and eventually reach the Mississippi River. Response: Groundwater elevation data collected during quarterly monitoring events and reported in the Area C quarterly reports has consistently shown that during typical non-flood conditions groundwater flow at Area C is generally to the west, approximately parallel to the southern property boundary rather than to the arcadis.com Page:
4/10
MEMO south. Under those conditions, Section 7.2.3.1.3.a of the MPCA guidance recommends using â&#x20AC;&#x153;the maximum ground water plume concentrations that are expected or are just upgradient prior to discharging to a surface water receptorâ&#x20AC;?. Consistent with that guidance and the identified flow direction, Arcadis used the highest detected concentration of each analyte identified in wells AMW-19, AMW-20, AMW-22 and AMW-22B, which are the wells closest to the Mississippi River. Although it is not supported by the conceptual site model developed for Area C, the potential risk associated with concentrations at all wells on the site, including AMW-24 and AMW-25 to the south to the south of Area C could be estimated by including that analytical data in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 discharge calculations. Specifically, the resulting downstream concentrations were recalculated using the maximum concentrations for each constituent at all wells around Area C rather than just the wells closest to the discharge point. Also, additional data was included to capture groundwater analytical results collected through August of 2019. Expanding the width of the plume to account for the different groundwater flow direction was also considered, but the previous calculations already included a width of 850 feet which is the full potential width of Area C and would not be increased if the flow was assumed to be to the southwest. The updated potential downstream contribution from Area C is included in the table below compared to the previously calculated contribution and the Class 2B standard. These values also include the modified discharge calculations and mixing zone assumptions discussed above. Original downstream contribution (ug/L)
Downstream concentration including Darcy flux, mixing zone and all wells (ug/L)
MPCA Class 2B Surface Water Standard (ug/L)
Barium
0.061
--*
700
Cobalt
0.003
0.003
5
Iron
2.278
4.862
600
Manganese
0.709
1.064
800
0.00007
0.0001
0.0069
Thallium
0.002
0.003
0.56
Vanadium
0.0002
--*
132
Cyanide (free)
0.004
--*
5.2
Ethylbenzene
--
0.036
132
Xylenes
--
0.052
5.2
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
--
0.002
2.1
Anthracene
--
0.0004
0.035
Fluoranthene
--
0.0012
1.9
Phenanthrene
--
0.002
3.6
PCBs
--
0.00004
0.000029
Compound
Mercury (total)
* Analyte no longer exceeds Tier 2 screening when using updated analytical results and well network The conservative inclusion of all wells in the data set results in a slight increase in the predicted concentration of some analytes and the addition of several new analytes to the analysis. All compounds arcadis.com Page:
5/10
MEMO continue to be below applicable Class 2B standards with the exception of PCBs, which slightly exceed the standard. PCBs were detected in two of the 128 samples collected to date (Aroclor 1242 at a concentration of 0.14 ug/L at AMW-24 in May 2018 and Aroclor 1254 at a concentration of 0.073 ug/L at AMW-20 in August 2018). The limited detections of PCBs in groundwater around Area C indicate they are not consistently present in groundwater or discharged to the Mississippi River. Despite the general lack of risk identified by the groundwater to surface water pathway evaluation, Ford agrees to the installation of off-site monitoring wells to provide additional information to the south of Area C. The location of the proposed off-site wells will be discussed after addressing additional comments below. Part 2: Plume maps for the various contaminants of concern have not been presented. Based on the data presented in the Arcadis report, it is difficult to discern the lateral extent and center of plume mass for the various constituents. Additionally, the stability of the plume for the various constituents has not been established. Response: Plume maps are not provided because the constituents exceeding applicable surface water standards are not consistently detected across the site. Concentration stability is being evaluated as additional data is collected. Part 3: An updated cross section has been prepared through Area C along the presumed groundwater flow direction presented in the Arcadis reports (see Figure 2). The St. Peter Sandstone thickness increases along the eastern edge of Area C and western edge of the main TCAP parcel (near Mississippi River Blvd). The water table in this area resides within the St. Peter Sandstone and is hydraulically connected laterally to the unconsolidated alluvial sediments. It appears that Arcadisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conceptual site model is to treat these hydrostratigraphic units separately in developing groundwater flow maps and hydraulic head contours. Conceptually, groundwater flow within the St. Peter Sandstone migrating to Area C and the Mississippi River would be better characterized if these units were considered together. Groundwater samples from wells located near / up gradient of Area C, completed in the St. Peter Sandstone (e.g., AMW-05B, AMW07, AMW-29 and AMW-30), have consistently had metals concentrations (e.g., aluminum, cobalt, copper, nickel, and zinc) above Class 2B standards. The migration of these metals within the St. Peter Sandstone and eventual discharge to the Mississippi River has not been fully evaluated. Response: Metals detected in the St. Peter Sandstone are considered indicative of conditions upgradient of Area C, not representative of any contributions from Area C, and are outside the scope of this report. An evaluation of the contribution of metals in the St. Peter Sandstone to the Mississippi River was included in the 2018 Supplemental Groundwater Monitoring Report for the Main Parcel using the same groundwater to surface water evaluation method. Results of that evaluation demonstrated the metals detected in the St. Peter Sandstone would not result in an exceedance of any MPCA Class 2B standards. Part 4: The hydraulic connection between the unconsolidated alluvial sediments and the St. Peter Sandstone below the industrial waste has not been defined. Due to the relatively high permeability of the St. Peter Sandstone, and lack of evidence of a confining unit between the alluvial sediments and the St. Peter Sandstone, the potential exists for downward migration of contaminants below the industrial waste into the St. Peter Sandstone, both for dissolved phase constituents and potentially a DNAPL related to
arcadis.com Page:
6/10
MEMO
reports of solvent disposal. Well AMW-07 is the only well open to the St. Peter Sandstone near the edge of Area C. This well is located to the north (side-gradient) of the industrial waste and has had consistent concentrations of aluminum and cobalt concentrations above surface water quality standards since 2014. Additional wells should be installed in the St. Peter Sandstone downgradient of the Area C waste disposal area and nested with monitoring wells screened in the alluvial sediments. These wells should be sampled to define the vertical extent of the plume at Area C and to determine vertical hydraulic gradients / vertical flow directions. Response: As discussed with the MPCA during development of this scope of work, no new wells were proposed for the St. Peter Sandstone because groundwater sampling from the unconsolidated alluvial sediments are the most likely to be impacted in the event of a release from Area C. Results of the investigation work completed to characterize the industrial waste did not provide any evidence to suggest a release of DNAPL. Additionally, as demonstrated by the consistent groundwater flow direction towards the Mississippi River, the river is a gaining stream during non-flood conditions, which means an upward hydraulic gradient would be present. Therefore, there is no groundwater transport mechanism that would result in migration of a dissolved phase deeper into the St. Peter Sandstone. Although it is not supported by the conceptual site model developed for Area C, the potential risk associated with dissolved phase impacts in the St. Peter Sandstone discharging to the Mississippi River could be estimated by using additional conservative assumptions in the Tier 2 discharge calculations. Specifically, the resulting downstream concentrations were recalculated using the thickness of both the unconsolidated overburden and the full potential thickness of the St. Peter Sandstone in the vicinity of Area C, which could be as great as 190 feet. These values also include the modified discharge calculations and mixing zone assumptions discussed above.
Original downstream contribution (ug/L)
Downstream concentration including Darcy flux, mixing zone, all wells and full St. Peter thickness(ug/L)
MPCA Class 2B Surface Water Standard (ug/L)
Barium
0.061
--*
700
Cobalt
0.003
0.033
5
Iron
2.278
53.32
600
Manganese
0.709
11.66
800
0.00007
0.0009
0.0069
Thallium
0.002
0.033
0.56
Vanadium
0.0002
--*
132
Cyanide (free)
0.004
--*
5.2
Ethylbenzene
--
0.40
132
Xylenes
--
0.57
5.2
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
--
0.022
2.1
Anthracene
--
0.0043
0.035
Compound
Mercury (total)
arcadis.com Page:
7/10
MEMO
Fluoranthene
--
0.014
1.9
Phenanthrene
--
0.017
3.6
PCBs
--
0.00047
0.000029
* Analyte no longer exceeds Tier 2 screening when using updated analytical results and well network As noted above, downward migration of DNAPL or dissolved phase impacts is not supported by the CSM developed for the Site, but even if the highest concentration of any compound that has been detected at any well at Area C was assumed to be present throughout the full thickness of the combined overburden and St. Peter Sandstone (209 feet) and across the full width of the site, the calculated downstream concentration in the Mississippi River would not exceed Class 2B standards for any compound except PCBs. As previously noted, the limited detections of PCBs in groundwater do not indicate a discharge to the river. Despite the general lack of risk identified by the groundwater to surface water pathway evaluation under these conservative assumptions, Ford agrees to installation of bedrock monitoring wells to provide additional information to characterize the vertical gradient and potential impacts in the St. Peter Sandstone. The location of the proposed off-site bedrock wells will be discussed after addressing additional comments below. Effectiveness of Concrete Cap (Parking Lot) Approximately fifty percent of the delineated area of industrial waste is covered by a concrete parking lot (referred to as a cap in the Arcadis report). The effectiveness of this parking lot at reducing infiltration of water through the waste has not been evaluated. However, the industrial waste has relatively high concentrations of DRO, GRO, and lead in sample taken above the water table, but the existing downgradient water table wells have relatively low concentrations for those constituent, which may indicate the cap is having a positive effect to reduce contaminant leaching from the industrial waste. The long term effectiveness and durability of this parking lot is unknown. The current integrity of the parking lot and effectiveness at reducing infiltration should be evaluated and documented. A long term maintenance plan or construction of a cap designed specifically for long-term remedial purposes should be considered if the waste is to remain in place. Response: Potential use of the concrete cap as a means to limit long-term infiltration will be considered as part of the Feasibility Study if needed. Effect of Mississippi River Flooding The report suggests that river flooding occurs laterally through the waste and its effect on the buried industrial waste is somewhat delayed relative to river stage changes. The MPCA has asked Ford to conduct additional groundwater monitoring to evaluate how the water table beneath the industrial waste fluctuates in response to changing river conditions. Transducers were deployed in four monitoring wells completed in the unconsolidated alluvial sediments (MW-19, MW-21, MW-25, and MW-26) and in one monitoring well completed in the St. Peter Sandstone (MW-29) and the data is expected be reported later in 2018. Response: Flood monitoring is ongoing. Results will be included in the Area C quarterly reports.
arcadis.com Page:
8/10
MEMO
Influence of the Ford Dam (Lock and Dam no. 1) and Potential for Removal
With the closing of the Upper and Lower St. Anthony locks in 2015, commercial shipping in the Mississippi River gorge has ceased. The lack of shipping has resulted in the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate if the Lower St Anthony Dam and the Ford Dam (Lock and Dam No. 1) should be decommissioned and removed. The potential effect on Area C resulting from removal of the Ford Dam has not been evaluated. Groundwater levels and flow directions could change, and the frequency of flooding could potentially increase without the dam. This could also affect nearby plumes related to the TCAP. Response: Evaluation of groundwater data and development of a Feasibility Study is being completed for the conditions that currently exist and are reasonably expected to exist in the near future. If major changes like removal of Lock and Dam No. 1 occur then the effect of that change on Area C would be evaluated at that time. Concern Regarding Drums of Industrial Waste Drums of industrial waste are reportedly present at Area C, representing a potential long-term and significant source of contaminants for the groundwater to surface water pathway. MPCA typically seeks removal of drummed industrial wastes, based on experience with other sites in Minnesota. Specific information is not available regarding the number of drums or contents, but could potentially include any of the typical waste streams generated at an auto assembly plant over many years (e.g., solvents, paint sludges/wastes, petroleum products, other automotive fluids, acids, caustic lye, and PCBs [in transformer fluid], etc.). Drummed waste represent potential primary wastes that are subjected to migration as the drums weather. Analytical testing from the industrial waste materials identify that more than 50% of the Industrial waste samples exceeds RCRA TCLP limits for lead, making it RCRA characteristically hazardous. There is no information to assess the condition of the drums currently, or the risk of future releases as containers might degrade. As a result, groundwater monitoring should continue as long as the drums and related wastes are present at Area C. Response: No additional information about the potential presence of drummed waste is available. The potential need for a groundwater monitoring program will be included in the forthcoming Feasibility Study. Seeps
The report does not include discussion of seep distribution and / or seep sampling results in Area C. Seepage, if present along the river bank, would represent direct discharge into the river and should be sampled and accounted for in the discharge evaluation. If seeps are identified on the bluff east of Area C, they should also be sampled. Response: No seeps have been identified along the riverbank. Seeps identified on the bluff east of Area C were evaluated in the Technical Memorandum to Summarize the Seep and River Sampling Events dated February 22nd, 2011. Vertical Extent of Aquifer Contamination The vertical extent of the plume is not defined. The risk to the Mississippi River cannot be evaluated until arcadis.com Page:
9/10
MEMO
the vertical extent of the plume has been established. Greater concentrations of contaminants may be present at depth and a thicker plume will affect estimates of groundwater plume discharge to the river. As discussed above, additional wells should be installed in the St. Peter Sandstone to delineate the vertical extent of the plume at Area C. Response: This comment is addressed above in Part 4 of the Suitability of Groundwater Monitoring Network comment. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on review of the comments received on the Area C Comprehensive Report additional monitoring wells will be installed at the locations shown in the attached Figure 1. The proposed wells will have the following objectives: •
AMW-27 will be installed at the water table to provide groundwater analytical data in the area where a historical river channel has been identified to determine if the fill within that channel is acting as a potential preferential flow path for groundwater.
•
AMW-28 will be installed at the water table to provide analytical data further south of Area C to determine if impacts identified at AMW-24 and AMW-25 are potentially flowing south.
•
AMW-19B, -26B and- 27B will be installed in the unconsolidated overburden just above bedrock to provide additional data in the deeper portion of the unconsolidated deposits.
•
AMW-19R, 26R, 27R and 28R will be installed approximately 30 feet into bedrock to provide additional analytical and hydraulic gradient data in the St Peter Sandstone.
The proposed wells will be added to the existing groundwater monitoring program. At least one of the existing groundwater transducers will be relocated to a bedrock well to begin collecting long-term hydraulic gradient data.
arcadis.com Page:
10/10
806 6 80
D D 2 79
D
78 8
D
D
D 6 79
D
802
79 8
D 794
D
80 0
D
804
78 2
D D
D
AMW-25 D 70
D
@ A
77 4
77 4
784
778
D 776
786
780
D 79 0
D
D
SI Tunnel 1A S IS S I M Mined Sand Tunnel Entrance Barrier Wall Location (Feature 150)
R PPI
B LV
R IV E
2
! .! .
D
D
AMW-28R
AMW-28 D
4 70
D
772
D
@ A
D
718
D
D
D
D
D
71 0
@ A
AMW-20
@ A
D
D
D
702
AMW-19
D
694 690
AMW-19R
! . 5!
740
@ A
D
D
D
D
@ A @ A
@ A @ A
732
760
76 4
722
D
D
D
718
D
D 712
Elevation Contours (Feet Mean Sea Level)
D
Concrete
D
720
Tunnel 1A
724
70 4
708
St. Peter Monitoring Well
Mississippi River/ Retention Pond
D
@ A
Asphalt
D
Unconsolidated Soils Monitoring Well
Fence
726
@ A
D
Grass
714
Proposed New St. Peter Bedrock Well
D
Buildings
AMW-23B 716
Proposed New Shallow Overburden Well
Ford P roperty Boundary
D 706
Proposed New Deep Overburden Well
D
740
!5 !. !.
AMW-23
730
LEGEND:
! . . !! 5
@ A
! . 5!
D
1 inch = 140 feet
744
Feet
748
706
AMW-22
69 6 69 2
280
750
734
AMW-22B
2 70
140
D
752
68 8
0
742 74 6
766
736
754
738
8 72
756
770
710 704
70 2
D
736
D
758
768
782
70 0
AMW-27R AMW-27B
D
708 706
AMW-27
D
71 0
D
774 D
@ A
D
@ A
D
772 D
6 77
70 4
D
778
69 8
780 762
71 4
0 71
CITY: MPLS, MN DB: MG LD: RO FORD ST. PAUL Path: Z:\GISProjects\_ENV\Ford\Ford Ranger\ArcMap\2019\10-2019\AreaC_ProposedGroundw aterMonitoringWells.mxd User Name: msmiller Date Saved: 10/22/2019 10:21:09 AM
D
D
0 77
712 700
AMW-26B
6 74
738
70 2
AMW-26
AMW-21
6 71
0 72 70 6
77 4
742
6 71 70 8
734
8 71 72 0
WASTEWATER COLLECTION ASTS
722 720 714 712
RETENTION POND
72 6
4 72
70 8
AMW-26R 736
AST
D
73 4
2 73 72 8
D 0 77
73 742 6
73 0
AREA C PARKING
D
734
74 4 74 73 6 8
ST E A M PL A NT
AMW-05B
AMW-24
D
74 0
772
AMW-07
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AREA
D
6 73
73 4
SMOKE STACK
2 D70
706
DD
772
AMW-19B
700 698
688
Twin Cities Assembly Plant Ford Motor Company St. Paul, Minnesota
Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Wells
FIGURE
1
Technical Memorandum To: From: Subject: Date: Project:
Bob Fossum – Capitol Region Watershed District Evan Christianson, Jim Eidem, and Dan Fetter Ford Plant Area C—Update Review Summary December 17, 2019 23621278.00
This technical memorandum presents Barr’s review of Arcadis’s October 23, 2019 Memo providing
responses to Barr’s Oct. 1, 2018 memo for the Ford Area C disposal area. Barr’s has reviewed several documents related to Area C disposal area at the Ford Motor Company’s, Twin Cities Assembly Plant (TCAP) in St. Paul, Minnesota. The documents reviewed included:
• • • • •
Arcadis 2011 seep and surface water sampling summary (Arcadis, 2011) Area C - Comprehensive Site History and Investigation Report dated May 2017 (Arcadis, 2017a) Arcadis Groundwater Sampling Summaries for 2nd Quarter 2018 (Arcadis, 2018) and 1st and 2nd Quarter 2019 (Arcadis, 2019a) Arcadis’s Response to Comments on Area C Comprehensive Report from Capital Region Watershed District (Arcadis, 2019b) 2017 comment letters to MPCA (and MPCA’s responses) from Capitol Region Watershed, Friends of the Mississippi River, National Park Service, and District City of St. Paul/Landmark Environmental
The reports and comments address a variety of topics, but Barr’s 2018 review and comments primarily related to the groundwater to surface water migration pathway at Area C near the Mississippi River.
Recognizing the relatively long time passing between new sampling events, reporting, and the recent
Arcadis response to Barr’s 2018 memo, the attached table and figures have been prepared to summarize
discussion topics.
References Arcadis, U.S., Inc., 2007. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Twin Cities Assembly Plant (TCAP), St. Paul Minnesota.
Arcadis U.S., Inc., 2011. Technical Memorandum to Summarize the Seep and River Sampling Events. February 22, 2011.
Arcadis U.S., Inc., 2018. 2017 Fourth Quarter Groundwater Sampling Summary; Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Arcadis U.S., Inc., 2017a. Area C – Comprehensive Site History and Investigation Report II, Twin Cities Assembly Plant, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com
To: From: Subject: Date: Page:
Bob Fossum â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Capitol Region Watershed District Evan Christianson, Jim Eidem, and Dan Fetter Ford Plant Area Câ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Update Review Summary December 17, 2019 2
Arcadis U.S., Inc., 2017b. Area C Groundwater Sampling Work Plan, Twin Cities Assembly Plant, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Arcadis U.S., Inc., 2018. 2018 Second Quarter Groundwater Sampling Summary; Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Arcadis U.S., Inc., 2019a. 2019 First Quarter Groundwater Sampling Summary; Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Arcadis U.S., Inc., 2019b; Response to Comments on Area C Comprehensive Report from Capital Region Watershed District; October 23, 2019.
Arcadis U.S., Inc., 2019c. 2019 Second Quarter Groundwater Sampling Summary; Ford Twin Cities Assembly Plant, St. Paul, Minnesota.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621278 Ford Plant - Area C Review\WorkFiles\2019 Update Memo\Final\Ford Area C-Upated Response Memo.docx
Table 1 Status of Barr’s Discussion Topics Area C Disposal Area, Former Ford Plant, St. Paul Minnesota
Topic from Barr’s Oct. 1, 2018 Memo 1. Additional analytical parameters:
Response in Arcadis’s October 23, 2019 Memo
Barr’s updated comment (Dec. 2019)
•Per- & polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS)
Do not include these going forward since parameters have not historically been included as potential contaminants of concern (COC)
PFAS is an emerging contaminant and by that definition has not been a COC for historical investigations at most sites, and so that isn’t sufficient reason to exclude it from testing now. Recommend PFAS sampling as part of groundwater monitoring.
•1,4-dioxane
Not warranted based on limited presence of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane. 1,4-dioxane was used as a solvent stabilizer primarily in 1,1,1-TCA, which is not a primary COC at the TCAP site.
Acknowledged. The request was based on ‘strong solvent odors’ indicated in the borings logs related to the industrial waste. MPCA has clarified that the odors are believed to be associated with hydrocarbon solvents (e.g., mineral spirits/DRO) rather than chlorinated solvents, and there is limited presence of chlorinated solvent constituents in groundwater samples
•Glycols
Glycols do not have an applicable Class 2B Surface Water Standard so evaluation of glycols would not result in a change to the ongoing feasibility study evaluation.
Acknowledged.
2. Expand groundwater monitoring network, including locations in Hidden Falls park south of Area C and vertically nested locations at Area C
Provided updated justification for current monitoring network and updated discharge calculations for river based on existing data. Do not acknowledge concerns with vertical gradients or southern flow potential, but Agrees to expand monitoring network
It is not clear why Arcadis choose different locations at 27 and 28 rather than proposed by Barr on the south side of Area C at locations C and D (see attached figures). Proposed locations C and D are recommended and could be accessed.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621278 Ford Plant - Area C Review\WorkFiles\2019 Update Memo\Final\Table 1-Updated Summary of Discussion Topics.docx
Table 1 Status of Barrâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Discussion Topics Area C Disposal Area, Former Ford Plant, St. Paul Minnesota We also recommend river elevations be based on US ACE gage data at the dam. See also response 7 below 3. Correct/update hydraulic conductivity (HC) estimates, conduct slug tests
Corrections made. No further estimate or measurement of HC necessary based on overall conservative nature of groundwater to surface water pathway evaluation
Accurate estimates of hydraulic conductivity from slug testing would help support the FS evaluation process and the next two topics. The expanded network in 2 above may lead to further evaluations and outcomes.
4. Groundwater discharge calculation
Updated. Continues to indicated river SWQS are met
These should be updated as data is available from expanded network and monitoring occurs during flood conditions, and it should be incorporated into future monitoring
5. Mixing Zone calculation
Updated. Continues to indicate river SWQS are met
These should be updated as data is available from expanded network and monitoring occurs during flood conditions, and it should be incorporated into future monitoring
6. Long-term Effectiveness of Concrete Cap (Parking Lot)
Will be evaluated in FS
Acknowledged. An opportunity to review and comment on the draft FS is also requested.
7. Effect of Mississippi River Flooding
Flood monitoring is ongoing. Results will be included in the Area C quarterly reports
A reverse in groundwater flow direction was indicated in the March 2019 data, including downward gradients from water table wells compared to St. Peter wells, and water table flow direction to the southeast. (also see next comment)
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621278 Ford Plant - Area C Review\WorkFiles\2019 Update Memo\Final\Table 1-Updated Summary of Discussion Topics.docx
Table 1 Status of Barrâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Discussion Topics Area C Disposal Area, Former Ford Plant, St. Paul Minnesota 8. Influence of the Ford Dam (Lock and Dam no. 1) and Potential for Removal
Evaluation of groundwater data and development of a Feasibility Study is being completed for the conditions that currently exist and are reasonably expected to exist in the near future. If major changes like removal of Lock and Dam No. 1 occur then the effect of that change on Area C would be evaluated at that time.
The uncertainty of future river conditions (increased flood events and potential removal of the lock and dam) should be discussed in the feasibility study for Area C when assessing remedial alternatives that involve the continued long term presence of the waste in Area C.
9. Concern Regarding Drums of Industrial Waste
No additional information about the potential presence of drummed waste is available. The potential need for a groundwater monitoring program will be included in the forthcoming Feasibility Study.
The FS process should not be finalized until results from the expanded groundwater monitoring network are available. An opportunity to review and comment on the draft FS is also requested.
10. Seeps
No seeps have been identified along the riverbank. Seeps identified on the bluff east of Area C were evaluated in the Technical Memorandum to Summarize the Seep and River Sampling Events dated 2/22/2011.
The seep sample was upstream of the dam. It is not clear if seeps have been, or could be, identified near Area C.
11. The vertical extent of the plume is not defined
See Suitability of Groundwater Monitoring Network above in 2.
See 2.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621278 Ford Plant - Area C Review\WorkFiles\2019 Update Memo\Final\Table 1-Updated Summary of Discussion Topics.docx
Mississippi River
AMW-07
AMW-29
@ A
@ A ip siss Mis
B-1
, %
AMW-21
@ A B-2
AMW-22
, %
@% A , B-6/MW-6
iver pi R
AMW-22B
Area C
@ ! .A
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2019-11-05 11:19 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Users\EGC\Ford-AreaC\Figure_Additional_Monitoring_Arcadis_Locations.mxd User: egc
A
AMW-19B
AMW-27 AMW-27B
@! A .B
D E E D
AMW-19
AMW-23B
@ A
AMW-20
AMW-23
D Proposed, St. Peter E
D Proposed, Unconsolidated E
! .
D E D E E D
@ A @ A
ARCADIS Proposed Wells
Barr Proposed Additional Wells/Well Nests
B-4
, %
AMW-25
Ford River Parcel AMW-19R
d Bl v
AMW-26R DAMW-26R DE AMW-26E
Ford Main Parcel
@ A
B-3 AMW-24 AMW-28
AMW-27R
C
D
! .
E D D AMW-28R E
Hidden Falls Park
Area C Monitorings Wells
@ A , %
B-5
,A % @
! .
@ A
, %
Industrial Waste Extent from Arcadis (2017) See Arcadis (2017) or boring and well locations Parcel Data from Ramsey County
Existing, St. Peter Existing, Unconsolidated Historical, Unconsolidated Ford Property Boundary
Approximate Extent of Industrial Waste (Arcadis, 2017)
; ! N
0
100
200
Feet
AREA C EXISTING, HISTORICAL, AND POTENTIAL NEW WELLS Ford Plant Area C Review Capitol Region Watershed District
Mississippi River
AMW-07
AMW-29
@ A
@ A ip siss Mis
B-1
, %
AMW-21
@ A B-2
AMW-22
, %
@% A , B-6/MW-6
iver pi R
AMW-22B
Area C
@ ! .A
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2019-11-05 11:19 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Users\EGC\Ford-AreaC\Figure_Additional_Monitoring_Arcadis_Locations.mxd User: egc
A
AMW-19B
AMW-27 AMW-27B
@! A .B
D E E D
AMW-19
AMW-23B
@ A
AMW-20
AMW-23
D Proposed, St. Peter E
D Proposed, Unconsolidated E
! .
D E D E E D
@ A @ A
ARCADIS Proposed Wells
Barr Proposed Additional Wells/Well Nests
B-4
, %
AMW-25
Ford River Parcel AMW-19R
d Bl v
AMW-26R DAMW-26R DE AMW-26E
Ford Main Parcel
@ A
B-3 AMW-24 AMW-28
AMW-27R
C
D
! .
E D D AMW-28R E
Hidden Falls Park
Area C Monitorings Wells
@ A , %
B-5
,A % @
! .
@ A
, %
Industrial Waste Extent from Arcadis (2017) See Arcadis (2017) or boring and well locations Parcel Data from Ramsey County
Existing, St. Peter Existing, Unconsolidated Historical, Unconsolidated Ford Property Boundary
Approximate Extent of Industrial Waste (Arcadis, 2017)
; ! N
0
100
200
Feet
AREA C EXISTING, HISTORICAL, AND POTENTIAL NEW WELLS Ford Plant Area C Review Capitol Region Watershed District
Mississippi River
AMW-07
AMW-29
@ A
@ A ip siss Mis
B-1
, %
AMW-21
@ A B-2
AMW-22
, %
@% A , B-6/MW-6
iver pi R
AMW-22B
Area C
@ ! .A A
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2018-09-07 09:32 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Users\EGC\Ford-AreaC\Figure_Additional_Monitoring.mxd User: egc
AMW-19B
AMW-27 AMW-27B
@! A .B
D E E D
AMW-19
AMW-23B
@ A
AMW-20
AMW-23
D Proposed, St. Peter E
D Proposed, Unconsolidated E
! .
D E D E E D
@ A @ A
ARCADIS Proposed Wells
Barr Proposed Additional Wells/Well Nests
B-4
, %
AMW-25
Ford River Parcel AMW-19R
d Bl v
AMW-26R DAMW-26R DE AMW-26E
Ford Main Parcel
@ A
B-3 AMW-24 AMW-28
AMW-27R
C
D
! .
E D D AMW-28R E
Hidden Falls Park
Area C Monitorings Wells
@ A , %
B-5
,A % @
! .
@ A
, %
Industrial Waste Extent from Arcadis (2017) See Arcadis (2017) or boring and well locations Parcel Data from Ramsey County
Existing, St. Peter Existing, Unconsolidated Historical, Unconsolidated Ford Property Boundary
Approximate Extent of Industrial Waste (Arcadis, 2017)
; ! N
0
100
200
Feet
AREA C EXISTING, HISTORICAL, AND POTENTIAL NEW WELLS Ford Plant Area C Review Capitol Region Watershed District