Board Workshop Agenda of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, March 4, 2020 4:00 p.m. (Workshop) at the office of the CRWD, 595 Aldine Street, St. Paul, Minnesota.
BOARD WORKSHOP AGENDA The Board Workshop is a meeting with the Board of Managers of the Capitol Region Watershed District and Department Heads and key staff from the City of St. Paul. A quorum will be present however the meeting is informational only and no actions will be taken by the Board.
I.
Call to Order of Board Workshop (President Joe Collins) A) Introductions B) Workshop Goals and Objectives
II.
Open Forum A) Watershed Management Plan – Key Elements B) Como Lake – 2020 Implementation Activities C) Facility Management D) Wetland Management E) Regulatory Issues F) Watershed Management in St. Paul
III.
Adjournment
Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, March 4, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. (Regular Meeting) at the office of the CRWD, 595 Aldine Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Materials enclosed
I.
Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) A) Attendance B) Review, Amendments, and Approval of the Agenda
II.
Public Comment – For Items not on the Agenda (Please observe a limit of three minutes per person.)
III.
Permit Applications and Program Updates (Permit Process: 1) Staff Review/Recommendation, 2) Applicant Response, 3) Public Comment, and 4) Board Discussion and Action.) A) Permit 18-007 Woodlawn-Jefferson – Closure (Martinkosky) B) Permit 20-001 Dickerman Park Site Improvements – Extend Review Period (Hosch)
IV.
Special Reports – Green Line Performance Analysis, Sarah Wein
V.
Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the February 19, 2020 Regular Board of Managers Meeting (Sylvander)
VI.
Unfinished Business A) Lake McCarrons Management Plan Update (Sellner) B) Alternative Site Permitting (Kelley) C) Ford Site Update (Fossum) D) Trout Brook Nature Sanctuary (Fossum)
VII.
General Information A) Board of Manager’s Updates
VIII. Next Meetings A) Thursday, March 5, 2020, 4:00 PM – Board Workshop – Watershed Management Plan B) Wednesday, March 11, 2020, 7:00 PM – Citizen Advisory Committee C) Thursday, March 19, 2020 6:00 PM – Regular Board Meeting IX.
Adjournment
Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District
March 4, 2020 III. Permit Applications A.) Permit Close Outs (Martinkosky) DATE: TO: FROM: RE:
February 25, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Luke Martinkosky Permit Closeouts
Background Construction activity is complete for permit #18-007 Woodlawn Jefferson Issues Woodlawn Jefferson #18-007 This permit was issued for street reconstruction of Woodlawn Ave., Jefferson Ave., and Mount Curve Blvd. Stormwater is treated with a weir redirecting low flow to a SAFL baffle on Jefferson Ave. and withdrawal of 12,961 cubic feet from the volume bank. The site is currently stable and the as-built has been accepted. No surety was required for this public project.
Action Requested Confirm withdrawal of 12,961 cf from the St. Paul Public Works volume bank and Certificate of Completion for permit #18-007 Woodlawn Jefferson.
Z:\07 Programs\Permitting\Board Memos\2020-03-04 Permit Closeout Board Memo.docx
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
March 4, 2020 III. Permits B.) Dickerman Park Improvements Review Extension Request (Hosch)
DATE: TO: FROM: RE:
February 24, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Elizabeth Hosch 60-day Review Period Extension for Permit 20-001
Background The current review period for Permit 20-001 Dickerman Park Improvements expires on 3-10-2020. Issues The applicant requested an extension to the 60-day review period prior to the expiration. The applicant has requested the additional time to complete the required conditions. Requested Action Approve 60-day review period extension for Permit 20-001 Dickerman Park Improvements to expire May 9, 2020.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2020\20-001, Dickerman Park improvements\Brd Memo Extension request 20-001 Dickerman Park Improvements.docx
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
March 4, 2020 Board Meeting IV. Special Reports Green Line Performance Analysis (Wein)
DATE: TO: FROM: RE:
February 25, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Sarah Wein, Monitoring Coordinator Green Line Performance Analysis
Background The Green Line is a light rail line connecting the Minneapolis and Saint Paul downtowns that became operational in 2014. Planning of the light rail system included stormwater management and was an opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) in a highly urbanized, impervious, and visible transportation corridor. These BMPS became known as the Green Line (previously referred to as CCLRT, or Central Corridor Light Rail Transit) Green Infrastructure (GI) practices and were developed in conjunction with the Metropolitan Council, Ramsey County, and the City of Saint Paul. These practices included rain gardens, stormwater planters, tree trenches, and infiltration trenches. Since 2014, CRWD Monitoring, Research, and Maintenance Division staff have been collecting data at various monitoring locations along the Green Line. The goal of this monitoring is to quantify volume and pollutant load reduction of the side street rain gardens and stormwater planters located in the boulevards of seven different side streets along the Green Line in Saint Paul. This monitoring data also allows staff to track BMP performance over time to help understand performance changes and inform maintenance, as well as compare the designed (modeled) vs. actual (monitored) performance. Issue The District now has 5 full years of monitoring data that includes precipitation, stormwater quality, and rain garden/stormwater planter level data. These data were used to determine the performance of the side street rain gardens and stormwater planters. These results were presented at the Minnesota Water Resources Conference in October 2019, and the report “Green Line Side Street Best Management Practices Performance Analysis” was recently completed. A synopsis of this report detailing the performance of these BMPs from 2014 – 2018 will be presented. Requested Action None, information only Enc: Green Line Side Street Best Management Practices Performance Analysis (electronic only; printed copy available upon request) W:\07 Programs\Monitoring & Data Acquisition\2020 Monitoring\2020 Board & CAC Presentations\Board_Green Line Performance Analysis_03-042020\Board Memo_Green Line Performance Analysis_03-04-20.docx
Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
Green Line Side Street Best Management Practices Performance Analysis
Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN February 2020
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
Table of Contents List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................1 List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................1
1.
Goal ......................................................................................................................................2
2.
Background ..........................................................................................................................2
3.
Analysis Methods.................................................................................................................6
4.
Results ................................................................................................................................10
5.
Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................14
6.
References ..........................................................................................................................15
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
List of Figures Figure 1: Map of the Green Line Green Infrastructure side street BMPs ........................................3 Figure 2: Analysis flow chart depicting the use of event volume vs. treatment volume .................8 List of Tables Table 1: BMP locations and watershed characteristics of side street BMPs ...................................5 Table 2: Modeled performance of BMP side street practices ..........................................................5 Table 3: Annual total number of days monitored for level logger stations .....................................6 Table 4: Rain gauge assignment for each side street BMP ..............................................................7 Table 5: Franklin station TP and TSS monthly mean concentrations (mg/L) .................................9 Table 6: Average annual percent of precipitation during annual monitored period ........................9 Table 7: Designed vs. actual storms captured and annual volume treated by practice ..................11 Table 8: Designed vs. actual annual TP and TSS removal by practice .........................................11 Table 9: Total runoff and TP and TSS captured from 2014 – 2018 by practice............................13
1
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
1. Goal After design and construction of the Green Line light rail was completed in 2014, the Green Line Green Infrastructure Practices Construction Report was finalized. This report modeled the performance of the various stormwater planters and rain gardens located in the boulevards of seven different side streets adjacent to the light rain corridor. The goal of this Green Line Side Street BMP Performance Analysis is to calculate the same performance aspects from the Construction report using monitored data from equipment installed in a subset of the side street practices. These values can then be used to compare monitored BMP effectiveness to the modeled results, as well as determine overall project effectiveness of runoff reduction and TP/TSS removal. 2. Background The Green Line is a two-way light rail line connecting the Minneapolis and Saint Paul downtowns that became operational in 2014. Planning of the light rail system included stormwater management and was an opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) in a highly urbanized, impervious, and visible transportation corridor. These BMPS became known as the Green Line (previously referred to as CCLRT, or Central Corridor Light Rail Transit) Green Infrastructure (GI) practices and were developed in conjunction with the Metropolitan Council, Ramsey County, and the City of Saint Paul. Construction of the Green Line GI practices occurred in two phases in 2011 and 2012. The entire project consisted of nine side street rain gardens and stormwater planters, two side street infiltration trenches, and more than five miles of tree trench with over 1000 trees located along the length of the corridor. After design and construction of these practices occurred, the Green Line Green Infrastructure Practices Construction Report was completed (CRWD, 2014). This report examined the five stormwater planters and four rain gardens located in the boulevards of seven different side streets adjacent to the light rail corridor. Figure 1 shows the location of these side street practices.
2
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
Figure 1: Map of the Green Line Green Infrastructure side street BMPs
3
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
Of these side street stormwater planters and rain gardens, four of the five stormwater planters and three of the four rain gardens were installed with standpipe wells to better understand performance using direct monitoring. The stormwater planter and rain garden not selected for monitoring were not included simply from an efficiency perspective because there was another planter/garden on the same street that was being monitored. Table 1 gives the location, BMP type, and watershed characteristics for each monitored side street practice (Barr Engineering Co., 2013). As part of the Green Line Green Instructure Practices Construction Report, the performance of each practice was modeled using P8 software (for filtration practices) and the Minimally Impacted Design Standards (MIDS) calculator (for infiltration practices). The modeled results included the annual total percentage of storms captured, percent of annual runoff volume treated, and pounds of annual total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) removed for each practice (Table 2). With five years of direct monitoring data, CRWD staff can compare modeled vs. monitored BMP effectiveness, as well as determine overall project effectiveness of runoff reduction and TP/TSS removal.
4
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
Table 1: BMP locations and watershed characteristics of side street BMPs Location Aldine Albert NE
BMP Type Stormwater Planter Stormwater Planter
Tributary Area (Acres) Impervious Total
Imperviousness 1" Runoff Volume (x0.9) Treatment Volume Treatment Over Impervious (%) (Cubic Feet) (Cubic Feet) Area (Inches)
0.12
0.16
75%
399
171
0.4
0.32
0.50
63%
1,029
144
0.1
Syndicate
Rain Garden
0.37
0.53
70%
1,209
410
0.3
Pillsbury
Rain Garden
0.25
0.25
98%
800
662
0.7
1.15
1.60
72%
3,757
637
0.2
0.17
0.18
94%
555
600
1.0
1.28
1.35
95%
4,182
2,793
0.6
Griggs Oxford Marion SW
Stormwater Planter Stormwater Planter Rain Garden
Table 2: Modeled performance of BMP side street practices Location
Treatment Type
Storms Captured (%)
Annual Runoff Volume Treated (%)*
Annual Volume Treated (cf)
Annual Total Phosphorus Removal (lbs)
Annual Total Suspended Solids Removal (lbs)
Aldine Albert NE Syndicate Pillsbury Griggs Oxford Marion SW
Infiltration Infiltration Infiltration Infiltration Filtration Infiltration Infiltration
58% ~10% 45% 80% 28% 88% 74%
66% 30% 57% 86% 38% 90% 80%
8,181 10,364 22,210 20,815 36,154 15,116 101,278
0.15 0.2 0.42 0.39 0.35 0.29 1.89
28 36 76 70 103 52 442
5
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
3. Analysis Methods Data Collection Monitoring began in 2013 after construction of the side street BMP practices was fully completed and occurs annually from roughly mid-April through mid-November (as soon as possible after temperatures have warmed and the ground has thawed, and as late as possible before temperatures drop and the ground freezes). Level data are collected at the seven practices listed in Tables 1 & 2: the Aldine, Albert NE, Griggs, and Oxford stormwater planters, and the Syndicate, Pillsbury, and Marion SW rain gardens. Monitoring wells were installed in these seven practices during initial construction. Level loggers are installed in these wells to monitor the level of water in the practice every minute during storm events. Table 3 shows the total number of annual monitoring days from 2014 – 2018 for the level logger stations. Table 3: Annual total number of days monitored for level logger stations Year
Date Installed
Date Total Days Uninstalled Monitored
2014 4/15 10/21 2015 4/22 11/4 2016 4/8 11/2 2017 4/25 10/24 2018 5/11 10/22 Average Annual Days Monitored
189 196 208 182 164 187.8
Automatic tipping-bucket rain gauges are installed at three locations along the Green Line. These locations were selected at western (Metropolitan Mosquito Control District), central (Western District Police Station), and eastern (Saint Paul Firestation 18) points along the corridor in order to capture the changes in precipitation that occur as a storm event moves through an area. The rain gauges were installed for the same periods of time as the level loggers shown in Table 3. Three locations were chosen to install full water quality monitoring stations to monitor flow and water quality at the outlets of small subwatersheds with differing land use types: industrial (Franklin), residential (Dickerman Park), and commercial (MLK). These stations were monitored from the fall of 2014 through the fall of 2017 (with the exception of one station, Dickerman Park, which was only monitored through 2016 because of construction that began in the park in 2017). Data collected here included 5-minute level and velocity data during storm events, as well as water quality samples collected during storm events that were analyzed for a suite of parameters.
6
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
Data Analysis Event totals from the three rain gauge stations were calculated for each storm event from 2014 – 2018 in the Kisters WISKI data management software. Totals from the most representative rain gauge (the nearest gauge located west of the station) were used to calculate runoff for the side street BMPs (Table 4). If event totals for a gauge were unavailable, the next gauge located to the west of the station was used, and if no green line rain gauge data was usable, data collected by the Minnesota Climatology Working Group at the University of Minnesota St. Paul campus was used (MCWG, 2018). Table 4: Rain gauge assignment for each side street BMP Side Street BMP Aldine SWP Albert SWP - NE Syndicate RG Pillsbury RG Griggs SWP Oxford SWP Marion RG - NW
Rain Gauge Used Metro Mosquito Control Western District Police Western District Police Metro Mosquito Control Western District Police Western District Police Fire Station 18
Using the event rainfall data and the total impervious tributary area for each practice, total event runoff volumes were calculated for each event for each station. For each event, peak event level was compared to the overflow level of each practice to determine in which events the peak event level exceeded the overflow level, and therefore which events were not fully captured by the practice (Figure 2). For events in which peak level remained below the overflow level, the entire volume of the event was used in the calculation for total volume captured. For events in which peak level exceeded the overflow level, the total treatment volume (Table 1) of the practice was used instead (Note: for events where peak level exceeded overflow level but the event volume was less than the treatment volume of the practice, the event volume was used). This is known to be an underestimate of the total volume captured for events in which overflow occurred, as the majority of the stations are infiltration practices and still infiltrate water as overflow occurs. This is, however, assumed to be a more accurate representation than using the total event runoff volume for these event totals.
7
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
Figure 2: Analysis flow chart depicting the use of event volume vs. treatment volume
By summing the event volumes from events where peak level remained below the overflow level and events where overflow occurred, the volumes of total annual runoff and total annual retention for 2014 – 2018 were calculated for each practice. The average annual volume of water treated was also determined by dividing the 2014 – 2018 total volume by 5 years of monitoring. All TP and TSS data from all three full water quality stations (Dickerman Park, Franklin, and MLK) were analyzed. The MLK station was directly across the street from the reconstruction of the Capitol building, as well as construction of the new Senate building during much of the monitoring time period. Therefore, high TSS values were noted throughout the dataset. While some of these data points were determined to be outliers, other high values were deemed representative of the runoff at the station. These data, however, were not deemed to be representative of normal conditions at the station when construction is not occurring, and therefore were not utilized for load calculations. Additionally, the Dickerman Park station only had roughly two years of monitoring data as a result of construction occurring in the park which rendered the location inaccessible for monitoring. Therefore, the dataset from this station was not as robust as the datasets from the Franklin and MLK stations and was not utilized for load calculations. The Franklin station had the most robust and accurate dataset and was therefore used for all TP and TSS loading calculations for the Side Street BMPs. Monthly means were calculated for TP and TSS data from the Franklin station (using all event data collected from 2014 – 2017) and applied to the total event runoff volumes to determine a TP/TSS load for each event (Table 5). These loads were combined to determine annual totals, as well as the total load removed from 2014 – 2018. The average annual load removed from each practice was also determined by dividing the 2014 – 2018 total load removed by 5 years of monitoring.
8
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
Table 5: Franklin station TP and TSS monthly mean concentrations (mg/L) Month Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
TP (mg/L) n 8 8 6 5 10 11 9
Mean 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.11
TSS (mg/L) n 7 8 6 5 10 11 9
Mean 151.4 171.1 213.2 168.4 77.5 48.3 61.9
All volume and load calculations described above are understood to be underestimates of actual annual amounts, as the data collected only represents runoff events monitored from roughly midApril through mid-November. Consequently, values calculated with actual data in the Results section below do not fully capture what is happening year-round in the practices. Designed values, however, represent an entire year of modeled removal in all practices. To better compare the designed and actual data, the designed data were scaled to the average annual percent of rainfall that occurred during the annual monitoring periods (Table 6). Table 6: Average annual percent of precipitation during annual monitored period Year of Monitoring 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
UMN Total Annual UMN Precipitation % of Precipitation Precipitation Monitored Period during Monitored during Monitored (inches) Period (inches) Period 4/15/14 - 10/21/14 29.26 88% 33.16 31.33 4/22/15 - 11/4/15 24.71 79% 37.8 4/8/16 - 11/2/16 31.32 83% 30.42 4/25/17 - 10/24/17 25.47 84% 25.07 5/11/18 - 10/22/18 21.45 86% Average Annual % of Precipitation during Monitored Period 84%
9
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
4. Results The following were calculated using actual (monitored) data and compared to designed (modeled) results: • • • • •
Storms captured (%) Average Annual Runoff Volume Treated (%) Total (2014 – 2018) and Average Annual Runoff Volume Treated (cf) Total (2014 – 2018) and Average Annual Total Phosphorus Removal (lbs) Total (2014 – 2018) and Average Annual Total Suspended Solids Removal (lbs)
Overall, monitored data shows that the side street BMPs captured a greater percentage of storms than the modeled data predicted (Table 7). This was the case for every practice. In the modeled data, this percentage is found by looking at the total storage volume of each practice, and then determining an event size (in inches) at which this volume would be exceeded based on the extent of the treatment area. Next, this event size was compared to the Twin Cities precipitation frequency graph from Issue Paper B in the MPCA’s Minnesota Stormwater Manual to determine the percentage of storms that are at or below the event size calculated for each practice. The modeled percentage of storms captured, therefore, was based more off of general precipitation patterns during an average year in the Twin Cities. Conversely, the percentage of storms captured looking at monitored data was determined by comparing the level of the practice during an actual storm event and comparing to the known overflow level. Therefore, the monitored data gave a more accurate representation of storm capture on an annual basis. Monitoring data showed that an overall average annual volume reduction for all practices of roughly 235,000 cf was achieved (Table 7). This was also greater than the predicted total from the designed data. With respect to annual TP/TSS load removal, the data show differing results for TP and TSS (Table 8). Actual monitored TP data show fewer pounds removed compared to designed data, while actual TSS data show more pounds removed compared to designed data. This is directly related to the differences in the TP/TSS concentrations being used in the MIDS calculator, as well as differences in the total designed and monitored volumes treated. Overall, average annual TP and TSS removal was 2.0 lbs and 1,529 lbs, respectively.
10
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
Table 7: Designed vs. actual storms captured and annual volume treated by practice
Location
Treatment Type
Storms Captured (%) Designed
Aldine SWP Albert NE SWP Syndicate RG Pillsbury SWP Griggs SWP Oxford SWP Marion SW SWP All Practices Total
Infiltration Infiltration Infiltration Infiltration Filtration Infiltration Infiltration --
58% ~10% 45% 80% 28% 88% 74% 62%
Storms Captured (2014-2018) (%) Actual
Annual Volume Treated (%) Designed
Average Annual Volume Treated (%) Actual
Annual Volume Treated (cf) Designed (% of monitored period)
Average Annual Volume Treated (cf) Actual
93% 97% 61% 99% 72% 100% 92% 88%
66% 30% 57% 86% 38% 90% 80% 64%
94% 89% 58% 96% 61% 100% 94% 84%
6,872 8,705 18,656 17,484 30,369 12,697 85,074 179,859
5,557 42,622 18,274 22,925 55,458 7,972 82,215 235,023
Table 8: Designed vs. actual annual TP and TSS removal by practice
Location
Treatment Type
Aldine SWP Albert NE SWP Syndicate RG Pillsbury SWP Griggs SWP Oxford SWP Marion SW SWP All Practices Total
Infiltration Infiltration Infiltration Infiltration Filtration Infiltration Infiltration --
Annual Total Phosphorus Removal (lbs) Designed (% of monitored period) 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.6 3.1
Average Annual Total Phosphorus Removal (lbs) Actual 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.7 2.0
Annual Total Suspended Solids Removal (lbs) Designed (% of monitored period) 24 30 64 59 87 44 371 678
11
Average Annual Total Suspended Solids Removal (lbs) Actual 37 283 122 154 341 54 538 1,529
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
Overall reductions in runoff volume and TP/TSS loads from 2014 – 2018 for each station are shown in Table 9. During the monitored period, the total combined TP and TSS loads removed from all practices was 10.2 lbs and 7,644 lbs, respectively. The best performing stations for all three reduction parameters were Aldine, Albert, Pillsbury, Oxford, and Marion. All of these practices had reductions that were greater than 88% for all runoff volumes and TP/TSS loads. Oxford SWP did not have any overflow events and captured all storm events monitored from 2014 – 2018. The Syndicate and Griggs practices, however, had percent reductions that ranged from 53% - 59% for all parameters. Both of these stations had significantly more overflow periods than the other side street practices. This is, however, the result of design limitations for these sites. Both of these BMPs are still performing better than designed (Tables 2 and 9).
12
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
Table 9: Total runoff and TP/TSS captured from 2014 – 2018 by practice
Location
Total Event Runoff (2014-2018) (cf)
Aldine Albert NE Syndicate Pillsbury Griggs Oxford Marion SW Totals
29,625 239,362 157,505 119,972 457,108 39,858 436,622 1,480,053
Total Captured % Reduction Runoff in Runoff (2014-2018) volume (cf) 27,783 213,109 91,371 114,625 277,292 39,858 411,077 1,175,115
94% 88% 58% 95% 59% 100% 94% 58% - 100%
Total TP Runoff (2014-2018) (lbs)
Total Captured TP Runoff % Reduction (2014-2018) in TP (lbs)
0.3 2.1 1.4 1.1 4.0 0.4 3.8 13.0
0.2 1.9 0.8 1.0 2.3 0.4 3.6 10.2
13
95% 88% 57% 95% 55% 100% 93% 55% - 100%
Total TSS Runoff (2014-2018) (lbs) 194 1,596 1,048 797 3,015 270 2,882 9,802
Total Captured TSS Runoff % Reduction (2014-2018) in TSS (lbs) 184 1,416 608 771 1,704 270 2,691 7,644
95% 89% 57% 96% 53% 100% 94% 57% - 100%
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
5. Conclusions and Recommendations Tables 7 and 8 above show that the Green Line Side Street BMPs are exceeding performance design for volume reduction and TSS removal, but not meeting performance design for TP removal. The differences in designed vs. actual values are understood to mainly be the result of differences in input values to the models, however, not in poor initial design of the practices. Overall, Table 9 shows that these practices capture a large percentage of annual storm events, treat a large volume of runoff that would otherwise discharge directly into storm sewers, and remove a significant amount of TP/TSS from the majority of annual runoff events. This analysis demonstrated the importance of using direct monitoring data to understand system performance and to inform future designs of similar projects. While using modeled data in project design is beneficial, it is not going to be as accurate a representation of the actual load removal. In this case, the designed data overestimated the amount of TP and underestimated the amount of TSS in runoff along this ultra-urban corridor. Direct monitoring data showed that overall there is less TP and more TSS in runoff from urban transportation corridors like the Green Line. This is verified anecdotally given the surrounding land uses: fewer trees and less green space will result in less organic debris entering runoff, and larger areas of impervious surfaces are going to contribute more sand/solids debris. Better understanding these differences in runoff characteristics can help project managers better design future BMP projects in similar areas and circumstances. The Marion SW and SE rain gardens were designed to be operated as either filtration or infiltration practices. They were initially set up to operate as infiltration practices and have been operating as such since installation. Based on the low percentage of events in which overflow occurred at the Marion SW rain garden (17 of 211 storm events from 2014 – 2018, or 8% in 5 years), both rain gardens should continue to operate as infiltration basins, and further monitoring data will help determine future operation. Finally, the various Green Line GI practices have been monitored since they became operational in the fall of 2013. Monitoring of the practices is a low overall cost and time commitment for the District’s monitoring program. Additionally, extended monitoring for projects like this is oftentimes rare, as many monitoring programs do not have the time or funds to allocate to longterm BMP monitoring. CRWD prioritizes monitoring unique BMP projects and recognizes the importance of extended monitoring to understand long-term maintenance needs and project performance. Therefore, staff recommends continued monitoring of the Green Line Green Infrastructure side street BMP practices.
14
Capitol Region Watershed District – Monitoring, Research, & Maintenance Division
6. References Barr Engineering Co., 2013. Task 2 BMP Performance and Cost Memo. Report prepared for the Capitol Region Watershed District, Saint Paul, MN. Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2014. Green Line (CCLRT) Green Infrastructure Practices Construction Report. Saint Paul, MN. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2019. MN Stormwater Manual: MIDS Calculator. Accessed online from: https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/MIDS_calculator Minnesota Climatology Working Group (MCWG), 2018. St. Paul Campus Climatological Observatory: 15-minute precipitation data. Saint Paul, MN. Accessed online from: http://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/index.htm
15
March 4, 2020 Board Meeting V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of February 19, 2020 Board Workshop (Sylvander)
Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, February 19, 2020, 6:00 p.m. (Regular Meeting) at the office of the 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 Shawn Murphy Rick Sanders Mary Texer
B)
Staff Present Mark Doneux, CRWD Anna Eleria, CRWD Bob Fossum, CRWD Elizabeth Hosch, CRWD Michelle Sylvander, CRWD
Public Attendees Cheryl Braun, CAC Nathan Campeau, Barr Engineering Joe Welna, Barr Engineering Erik Henery, AECOM
Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda.
No changes were made. Motion 20-023: Approve the Agenda of February 19, 2020. Texer/Murphy Unanimously Approved II.
Public Comment
No public comments were made. III.
Permit Applications and Program Updates A)
11-008 Total Tool Supply – Closure (Hosch)
Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #11-008 for Total Tool Supply. This permit was issued for site remediation, building expansion, and new building construction at Pierce and Concordia in St. Paul. An underground infiltration trench was constructed to treat stormwater. The site is currently stable and the as-built has been accepted. CRWD staff will be meeting with facilities staff in the spring to establish routine inspection and maintenance activities. $6,000 surety is available to return.
Motion 20-024: Approve $6,000 surety return and Certificate of Completion for permit #11-008, Total Tool Supply. Texer/Jones Unanimously Approved B)
13-016 Lowertown Ballpark – Closure (Hosch)
Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #13-016 the Lowertown Ballpark. This permit was issued for the demolition of pavement, utilities, and existing buildings in advance of constructing CHS field. Only erosion and sediment control provisions were accounted for, with stormwater requirements met under subsequent permit (#14-008, Lowertown Stormwater) not yet closed out. The initial demo work has been well completed, with remaining few stabilization questions to be addressed under #14-008. No surety was required for this public project. Motion 20-025: Approve Certificate of Completion for permit #13-016, Lowertown Ballpark. Texer/Jones Unanimously Approved C)
19-026 Tumble Fresh Coin Operated Laundry – Review Period Extension (Hosch)
Ms. Reviewed permit #19-026 Tumble Fresh Coin Operated Laundry. The current review period for this permit will expire on 2-27-2020. The applicant has requested an additional extension to the 60-day review period prior to the expiration. Permit application revisions are expected by February 14 and work is anticipated to begin on April 1, 2020. Motion 20-026: Approve 2nd 60-day review period extension for Permit 19-026 Tumble Fresh Coin Operated Laundry to expire April 27, 2020. Jones/Texer Unanimously Approved D)
19-030 Five Star Storage – Review Period Extension (Hosch)
Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #19-030 Five Star Storage. The applicant has requested an extension to the 60-day review period prior to the expiration. The applicant intends to submit permit application revisions by Feb. 21, 2020 following review by the City of St. Paul’s site plan review process. Motion 20-027: Approve 60-day review period extension for Permit 19-030 Five Star Storage to expire April 18, 2020. Jones/Texer Unanimously Approved
E)
20-003 SPPS Service Facility Addition (Hosch)
Ms. Hosch reviewed permit #20-003 SPPS Service Facility Addition. The applicant, Saint Paul Public Schools is renovating an existing service facility building. Addition to renovation of existing service facility building. Site work includes expanding parking by 45 spaces, replacement of water service, storm sewer and stormwater BMP's. Permanent stormwater management consists of one infiltration/filtration basin. The applicable rules are Stormwater Management (Rule C), Flood Control (D), and Erosion and Sediment Control (Rule F). The disturbed area of this project is 2.49 acres with 1.15 acres of impervious surface. Motion 20-028: Approve Permit 20-003 Service Facility Addition with 7 Conditions: 1. Provide plans signed by a professional engineer per the Minnesota Board of AELSLAGID. 2. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. 3. Verify that the building at neighboring 1926 Como Ave does not have a basement. Alternatively, provide a groundwater mounding calculation that clearly indicates there will be no groundwater mounding impact to the structure. 4. Revise civil plans to address items a.-d. in the January 31, 2020 permit report. 5. Revise SWPPP to address items a.-g. in the January 31, 2020 permit report. 6. Notify CRWD 24 hours prior to on-site soil testing that will determine infiltration feasibility. 7. If infiltration is not feasible, address items a.-b. in the January 31, 2020 permit report. Texer/Jones Unanimously Approved IV.
Special Reports – TBI Inspection and CIP Report (Anna Eleria\Barr Engineering)
Ms. Eleria reviewed that 8,150 acres from Falcon Heights, Roseville, St. Paul and Maplewood drains into the TBI. The oldest section of TBI was built in the 1880’s, with the majority of tunnel being built in the 1940’s and 50’s. Ms. Eleria introduced, Mr. Nathan Campeau and Mr. Joe Welna from Barr Engineering to review TBI inspection findings and compare to findings from five years ago. Mr. Joe Welna reviewed that notes from the 2014 inspection were used as a base line for the 2019 inspection. Mr. Welna shared examples of types of cracks, fractures, and examples of corroding reinforcement. A map highlighting the sections in poor condition was reviewed. Mr. Nathan Campeau reviewed the recommendations made by Barr Engineering. The last ½ mile of TBI is currently owned and maintained by St. Paul. This section of tunnel has not been inspected since it was built in the 1980’s. The tunnel is submerged and causes inspections to be more difficult. Ms. Eleria shared that the City of St. Paul has suggested CRWD take over the ownership of the last ½ mile of TBI. The City of St. Paul is having this section of tunnel inspected for the first time this year. CRWD has a strong interest in inspection reports of the last ½ mile of TBI. Manager Jones inquired about the advantages and disadvantages of owning this section of tunnel. Mr. Campeau replied that it would be beneficial to CRWD to have more control over maintenance and data monitoring. The disadvantage would be the cost of maintenance. Based on the inspection and changes observed in tunnel condition since 2014, the majority of TBI was found to be in “fair” condition with few areas designated as being in “good” or “poor” condition. It is recommended that two sections of TBI be repaired over the next ten years. The first TBI section (St. 28+65 to 50+72) is approximately 2,200 feet in length and located near Phalen Boulevard and Cayuga Boulevard in Saint Paul. The second section recommended for repair (St. 135+06 to 180+29) is approximately 4,500 feet in length starting from
Rice/Arlington Avenue to near Willow Reserve. The most common deficiencies in these sections include exposed reinforcement and concrete spalling/deterioration. The CIP also outlines operational activities including expanding TBI hydraulic/hydrologic modeling, sub watershed analyses, minor maintenance work, and other general TBI engineering services. From 2020 to 2030, staff are anticipating $5.5 million in TBI operations and capital budget. Motion 20-029: Adopt 2019 TBI Inspection Report and Capital Improvement Plan. Jones/Texer Unanimously approved V.
Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the February 5, 2020 Regular Board of Managers Meeting (Sylvander)
Motion 20-030: Approve the Minutes of the February 5, 2020 Regular Board Meeting. Texer/Sanders Unanimously approved B) AR: Approve Accounts Payable/Receivables for January (Sylvander) Motion 20-031: Approve January 2020 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Budget Report and direct Board Treasurer and President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments. Texer/Sanders Unanimously approved VI.
Unfinished Business A)
Ford Site Redevelopment Update (Fossum)
Administrator Doneux shared that an informational presentation will be held on Feb. 20th at Gloria Dei Lutheran Church from 6:00-8:00pm regarding the Ford Site Redevelopment. Several managers may be attending. CRWD will not be presenting. B) St. Paul Directors Meeting Update (Doneux) Administrator Doneux reviewed the agenda planned for the March 4th City of St. Paul Directors Meeting. Administrator Doneux shared that workshop helps to keep the City of St. Paul and CRWD in close coordination with our projects. Manager Murphy added that he is looking forward to the cross communication. VII.
General Information
A)
Board of Managers’ Updates
Board Managers, except Manager Jones, are planning to attend the Legislative day at the Capital on March 18th and 19th. Manager Murphy inquired about a presentation by Minnesota Erosion Control Association regarding micro plastics. Administrator Doneux said he will email Managers a link to the presentation, that they should let Ms. Sylvander know if they are interested in attending. VIII. Next Meetings A) B) C) D) IX.
Thursday, February 20, 2020 MPCA informational meeting regarding Ford site to be held at Gloria Dei Lutheran Church 6:00 – 8:00P PM. Wednesday, March 4, 2020 4:00 PM – City of St. Paul Workshop and Regular Meeting Wednesday, March 11, 2020 7:00 PM – CAC Meeting – Manager Jones will attend March 18th and 19th – Day at the Capitol, MAWD Legislative briefing
Adjournment
Motion 20-032: Adjournment of the February 19, 2020 Regular Board Meeting at 7:20 P.M. Texer/Sanders Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander
March 4, 2020 Board Meeting VI. A. Unfinished Business Lake McCarrons Management Plan Update (Sellner)
DATE: TO: FROM: RE:
February 24, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Joe Sellner, Water Resource Specialist Lake McCarrons Management Plan Update
Background In 2003, the District adopted its first Lake McCarrons Management Plan. The Plan has served the District and it partners well over the past 15 years and has guided work to allow Lake McCarrons to maintain high water quality. Issues Staff have been working with Barr Engineering staff to draft a new Lake McCarrons Management Plan. With the input of stakeholders including the public, CAC, Board of Managers, and an agency advisory group, a draft of the Lake McCarrons Management Plan has been created. Additionally, Barr was tasked with developing watershed and in-lake models to evaluate total phosphorus (TP) goals and help future management of Lake McCarrons. During March, the draft Plan will be reviewed by the Agency Advisory Group and CAC and will be presented at a public meeting on March 16th at Galilee Lutheran Church in Roseville. Staff will review the draft implementation items from the plan as well as the modeling results with the Managers. Fiscal Note: 2019 CRWD Budget Fund 310-19477: Lake McCarrons Management Plan-- $132,400. Action Requested Provide comment and feedback on the draft Lake McCarrons Management Plan implementation items. Enc.
Lake McCarrons Implementation Plan Table
W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\2019 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\Board & CAC\Board Memo LMMP Draft 2020-02-24.docx
Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
Table 5-1
FUND
313
Lake McCarrons Implementation Plan
PROGRAM/PROJECT TITLE
PROGRAM/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PARTNERS
PRIORITY LEVEL (Critical, Important, Beneficial)
Cities
County
State/ Regional Agencies
Total Cost
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Fund and Project Budget Notes
Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Projects
A
Watershed Hydraulic/Hydrologic Modeling
Perform watershed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling to assess flood risk of structures and infrastructure including flooding issue @ intersection of Cohansey Boulevard and Bossard Avenue
Critical
X
X
B
The AIS response plan will define the process and criteria by which AIS will be managed on Lake McCarrons. In addition, the lake Lake vegetation management plan and AIS vegetation management plan will define thresholds of AIS that necessitate active management and define goals under which aquatic response plan plants will provide beneficial ecological and biological functions on Lake McCarrons.
Critical
X
X
C
Balanced fishery targets
Develop targets for a balanced fishery that provides angling opportunities, ensures a diversity of gamefish, and provides ecological and water quality benefits in Lake McCarrons. CRWD and the DNR will continue to implement the DNR's fisheries management plan for Lake McCarrons. (Draft LMP‐Issues and Goals Memo)
Critical
X
X
D
Shoreline management plan
Conduct a shoreline inventory to determine the amount of shoreline suitable for lakescaping as well as the shoreline subject to erosion. Create and maintain stable shoreline buffers around Lake McCarrons and assist the City of Roseville in determining where and when no‐ wake zones should be established by sharing lake level, bathymetric information, and current science regarding the effect of boating on shoreline erosion.
Critical
X
X
E
Alum treatment evaluation
Reevaluate the need for another alum treatment annually by reviewing hypolimnetic phosphorus concentrations. Evaluate phosphorus concentrations in lake sediment cores every five years and determine a TP concentration threshold that, if reached, would trigger the need for another alum treatment.
Critical
X
X
F
Future BMP feasibility studies TBD
The feasibility study should explore the effectiveness of potential BMPs to reduce external/watershed loads and help achieve water quality goals outlined in the Lake McCarrons Management Plan. The feasibility of existing practices and/or new innovative treatments should also be considered.
Important
X
X
G
Evaluate Villa Park Performance Improvements
Evaluate the performance of the Villa Park wetland system and investigate options for improving its functionality
Important
X
H
Any other items from McCarrons LMP ‐ TBD TBD based on final draft lake management plan
Important
X
$ ‐
hire consultant
X
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
hire consultant
X
$ 15,000
$ 15,000
X
X
hire consultant
$ 15,000
hire consultant
$ 15,000
$ 15,000
hire consultant
$ 40,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
hire consultant
$ 40,000 X
$ 15,000
$ 40,000
hire consultant
$ ‐ $ 145,000 $ 20,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 40,000 $ 20,000 $ 35,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐
413
Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Capital Improvements
A
Alum treatment
Based on findings of alum evaluation, apply alum to inactivate mobile sediment phosphorus and mitigate internal phosphorus loading.
Critical
X
B
Implement Villa Park Performance Improvements
Based on findings of Villa Park performance improvement evaluation, implement measures to improve the functionality of the wetland system
Important
X
C
Future CIPs as opportunities arise and/or from McCarrons LMP
TBD based on final draft lake management plan
Important
X
$ 500,000 $ 500,000
X
X
$ 150,000
$ 500,000
prepare Contract Documents and hire contractor
$ 500,000
prepare Contract Documents and hire contractor
$ 150,000
$ 1,150,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 500,000 $ ‐ $ 500,000 $ 150,000 $ ‐ $ ‐
1
Implement one small BMP just in case something comes up or some major maintenance is required of existing BMPs.
March 4, 2020 VI. Unfinished Business B. Alternative Permitting Process DATE: TO: FROM: RE:
February 26, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Forrest Kelley, Division Manager Alternative Permitting Process
Background Large redevelopment projects pose uniques challenges and opportunities for stormwater management practice review, permitting, implementation, inspection, and close-out. Issues Typical redevelopment projects fit well into the standard permit application and review process. However, recent and upcoming projects like Snelling-Midway and the Ford site have highlighted an opportunity to better coordinate similar regulatory oversight activities with the City of St. Paul Public Works Department to ensure project success. Developments like these are unique in many aspects. Aside from the scale of project and the duration over which construction will occur, public-private partnerships exist so that developer’s contractor can construct public infrastructure and right of way improvements, to be turned over to the City as a public asset. The Shared Stacked Green Infrastructure approach allows for regional stormwater facilities to be implemented in lieu of individual systems on each parcel within the development. However, existing procedural conflicts and issuing only one CRWD permit for the entire site resulted in delays to infrastructure turnover and project close outs at Snelling-Midway. Staff propose an alternative permit process and have laid out a potential framework for the Ford Site that could serve as a model for future large projects and provide insight to help move forward on SnellingMidway infrastructure close-out. Staff will review this draft approach with the Board, and will seek input from City staff to ensure compatibility with their ordinance permitting process for the Ford Site. Action Requested None Requested, for Review and Comment Only Enc:
Draft Ford Site Permitting Process Memo Draft Ford Site Permitting Exhibit Snelling-Midway Infrastructure Exhibit
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2020\FORD SITE\Ford Site Permitting Process\Board Memo Alternative Permitting Process 20-02-26.docx
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
DATE: TO: FROM: RE:
February 26, 2020 CRWD Staff, City of St. Paul Site Plan Review Staff, Ryan Companies Forrest Kelley, Regulatory Division Manager Ford Site Permitting Process
Background Ryan Companies recently purchased the 122 acre Ford Site property in St. Paul. Permit 12-023 Ford Site Demolition was recently transferred from Ford Motor Company to Ryan, and 30% design plans were reviewed by CRWD in January. Sixty percent design drawings were submitted on January 21st, 2020. Issues The scale, complexity and duration of the project necessitate a modified approach to issuing permits for stormwater management and erosion and sediment control. Coordination with City departmental review, approval, inspection and close out will be critical to minimize potential conflicts and duplication. CRWD staff propose the following draft process and seek review and comment to ensure a smooth permitting process. Erosion Control: Permit 12-023. Transferred to Ryan on 1/17/2020 and provides for surface demolition, stockpiling of materials, and minor grading for retaining wall removal. $134,000 surety check was recevied from Ryan, and a surety return check was issued back to Ford for the same amount. This was based on 67 acres of land disturbance. Does not include approval for site mass grading or utility installation work. Permit 20-0XX. Upon submittal, review, and approval, a new permit will be issued to Ryan Companies for mass grading of the site in preparation for utilities, right of way improvements, and building sites. Additional surety will be required to accommodate the expanded land disturbance beyond the original 67 acres for plant demolition. The site-wide erosion and sediment control permit will remain active until all sites have been permanently stabilized or permit requirements have been transferred to other parties. Additional remaining surety for the full site disturbance will be collected. Stormwater Management: Resolution 20-00X. The CRWD Boad of Managers will approve a resolution adopting a Ford Site Stormwater Master Plan for the entire site, and authorizing staff to review, approve, and certify compliance on subsequent submittals for individual phases of construction consistent with the Master Plan.
Our Mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District.
Phase 20-0XXA Phased approvals for the public infrastructure will be coordinated and consistent with City of St. Paul Storm Sewer Ordinance Permits. Sureties will be collected based on the amount of impervious surface being constructed for each phase. Upon completion of work associated with a phase approval, Ryan shall submit a request for review of record drawings. If found to be constructed per plan, or at a minimum, consistent so as not to materially deviate from the overall adopted Stormwater Master Plan, CRWD staff shall issue a certificate of compliance, and partial surety may be returned to the applicant. Permit 20-0XX. Individual permits for private development parcels must be applied for, reviewed, and approved following the standard permit application process.
Assumptions: Stormwater treatment facilities (concrete storage, filtration vaults, filtration basins, ponds, etc.) will be constructed and may function at partial capacity for a time period during construction of surrounding drainage area. Final close out and function testing will not occur until all upstream areas have been stabilized and potential for construction sediment has been eliminated. Construction activity will continue after certificates of compliance have been issued. Maintenance, repair, or replacement of stormwater treatment facilities may be required to restore function due to impacts from construction activity. This work will be the responsibility of the Ryan Companies, or upstream site permit holders. Transfer of ownership of land does not relieve existing permit holders from maintaining site compliance unless a permit transfer form has been reviewed and approved by the District.
W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2020\FORD SITE\Ford Site Permitting Process\Ford Site Permitting Process.docx
2
Ford Site Alternative Permit Process
FORD SITE - ST. PAUL, MN
STORM SEWER ORDINANCE PERMIT PHASING PLAN: 2020-2021 CRWD 2-27-2020
11/22/2019
OP SERIES 1
LEGEND PROPOSED
OP SERIES 2
PROPERTY BOUNDARY CURB
OP SERIES 3
BITUMINOUS - TRAIL
Site-Wide Erosion OP SERIES 4 Control Permit and Adopted SERIES 5 StormwaterOPMaster Plan BITUMINOUS - ALLEY
CONCRETE HIGH QUALITY FINISH MATERIAL (PAVERS, ETC.) NORMAL WATER LEVEL
OP SERIES 6 OP SERIES 7 OP SERIES 8
HIGH WATER LEVEL PERMANENT POOL PONDING FILTRATION MEDIA RETAINING WALL
Infrastructure Phased Approval ROW/Public OP SERIES 9 Space - Consistent with City Ordinance Permits OP SERIES 10 BEDROCK WALL
STORM SEWER PIPE STORM INLET
STORM MANHOLE
OP SERIES 11
FLARED END SECTION UNDERGROUND FILTRATION SYSTEM (TBD)
OP SERIES 12
SANITARY SEWER PIPE
08/29/2019
Parcel Development - Stand-Alone Permits
WATER MAIN/SERVICE
FIRE SERVICE
UTILITY PLAN
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
Snelling Midway - Mutliple Layers of Infrastructure and Land Ownership
One Permit Number for All Work