May 6 2020 Regular Meeting Packet Materials by Capitol Region Watershed District

Board Workshop and Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, May 6, 2020, 5:00 p.m. (Workshop) and 6:00 p.m. (Regular Meeting) at the office of the CRWD, 595 Aldine Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. I. II. III.

WORKSHOP AGENDA (5:00 PM) Call to Order of Board Workshop Review of Draft 2020 Watershed Management Plan, Anna Eleria Adjourn Board Workshop

Materials enclosed

Until further notice Board meetings will only be available via telephone and/or the web-based application Go To Meeting. You will not be able to attend meetings in person. You can join the meeting electronically by clinking on this link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/809421837 and following the directions or dial in using your phone: +1 (872) 240-3311 Access Code: : 809-421-837 Please visit www.capitolregionwd.org to get additional CRWD COVID-19 information. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA I.

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins) A) Attendance B) Review, Amendments, and Approval of the Agenda

II.

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

III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates

(Permit Process: 1) Staff Review/Recommendation, 2) Applicant Response, 3) Public Comment, and 4) Board Discussion and Action.)

A) 19-030 Five Star Storage (Hosch) B) 20-001 Dickerman Park Improvements – Review Period Extension (Hosch) IV.

Special Reports – Ford Site Redevelopment Update, Bob Fossum

Action Items A) AR: Approve Minutes of the April 15, 2020 Regular Meeting (Sylvander) B) AR: Authorize Distribution for 60 Agency Review of 2020 Watershed Management Plan (Eleria) C) AR: Approve Lake McCarrons Management Plan (Sellner) D) AR: Adopt Updated COVID-19 Response Plan and Preparedness Plan (Doneux)

VI.

Unfinished Business A) Partner Grant Program Update (Schwantes) B) Como Lake Alum Treatment Update (Doneux) C) 2020/2021 Budget Update (Doneux) E) Ramsey County Facility Management Update (Doneux) F) Procurement and Contracting Guidelines Update (Doneux) Our mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of Capitol Region Watershed District

VII.

General Information A) Board of Manager’s Updates The following portion of the meeting will be closed to evaluate the performance of the District Administrator pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3(a).

Annual Performance Review of District Administrator

Return to open session.

Approval of Annual Performance Review of Administrator

VIII. Next Meetings A) Wednesday, May 13, 2020 7:00 PM – CAC Meeting – Electronic Only B) Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:00 PM- Regular Meeting – Electronic Only IX.

Adjournment

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

Capitol Region Watershed District

Permit 19-030 Five Star Storage

Applicant:

David Hunt Consultant: Steve Johnston FSS Selby Avenue LLC Elan Design Lab, Inc, 3255 42rd St. South 901 N 3rd St Suite 120 Fargo, ND 58104 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Description: This is the second phase of construction of a climate controlled self storage facility. The first phase disturbed 0.77 acres and was below the threshold for CRWD review. The owner has since decided to remove additional buildings on the site and replace them with a new structure triggering this review as a Common Plan of Development. The new design uses parts of the phase 1 stormwater system along with a new underground infiltration / rate control system. Stormwater Management: Two underground infiltration systems and one surface infiltration basin. District Rule: —C D F Disturbed Area: 1.24 Acres Impervious Area: 1.23 Acres

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with 3 Conditions:

1. Receipt of $6,300 surety. 2. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

Selby

Hamline

Permit Location Permit Report 19-030

Aerial Photo Board Meeting Date: 05-06-2020

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

19‐030 April 16, 2020 Five Star Storage David Hunt FSS Selby Avenue LLC 3255 42nd St. South Fargo, ND 58104 952‐484‐4451 david.hunt@design‐buildconsulting.com Removal of existing buildings and construction of a climate‐controlled self‐storage facility. Stormwater management consists of a modification to an underground infiltration system from Phase I and the installation of one new underground infiltration system in Phase II.

Location: 1400 Selby Avenue, St. Paul, MN Applicable Rules: C, D, and F Recommendation: Approve with 3 Conditions EXHIBITS: 1. Civil Plans (C‐000, C‐010, C‐101, C‐201, C‐202, C‐203, C‐301, C‐501, C‐502, C‐503, C‐504, C‐505, L‐101), by Elan Design Lab, dated 4/8/20, recv. 4/9/20. 2. Stormwater Management Report, by Elan Design Lab, dated 4/8/20, recv. 4/9/20. 3. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Manual, by Elan Design Labs, dated 3/16/20, recv. 3/18/20. 4. Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation, by Chosen Valley Testing, dated 4/18/17, recv. 3/18/20. 5. Response to Watershed Comments, by Elan Design Lab, dated 4/8/20, recv. 4/9/20. HISTORY & CONSIDERATIONS: Phase I was installed in 2017 and disturbed approximately 0.77 acres, which was below the threshold for a CRWD permit. The owner now proposes to remove additional buildings on the site and replace them with a new structure (Phase II). Phase II disturbs approximately 0.60 acres and triggers a CRWD review as the Common Plan of Development exceeds one acre. This permit report considers both Phase I and Phase II. W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-030 Five Star Storage\19-030 Permit Report_R3.doc Page 1 of 4

RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Standards  Proposed discharge rates for the 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year events shall not exceed existing rates.  Developments and redevelopments must reduce runoff volumes in the amount equivalent to an inch of runoff from the impervious areas of the site.  Stormwater must be pretreated before discharging to infiltration areas to maintain the long‐term viability of the infiltration area.  Developments and redevelopments must incorporate effective non‐point source pollution reduction BMPs to achieve 90% total suspended solid removal. Findings 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory is used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. The runoff rates for the proposed activity do not exceed existing runoff rates for the 2‐, 10‐, and 100‐year critical storm events. Stormwater leaving the project area is discharged into a well‐defined receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system. 3. Stormwater runoff volume retention is achieved onsite in the amount equivalent to the runoff generated from 1.1‐inch of rainfall over the impervious surfaces of the development. a. The amount of proposed impervious is 53,570 square feet. b. Volume retention required: 53,570 ft2 x 1.1 inches x 1 ft/12 inches = 4,911 ft3 Table 1. Proposed volume retention through abstraction (i.e. infiltration, reuse). Volume Volume 1.1‐inch 2.5‐inch Retention Retention BMP Runoff Runoff Required Provided below 3 ) (ft3) (ft (ft3) outlet (ft3) Underground Infiltration A 259 2,587 5,881 Underground Infiltration B 4,817* 2,040 4,637 4,911 ft3 West Surface Basin 144 189 236 3 Total 5,040 ft * Per 66 foot pipe length shown on plans rather than 68 foot length shown on HydroCAD model. 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 can infiltrate the required volume within 48 hours. f. The stormwater runoff is pretreated to remove solids before discharging to infiltration areas.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-030 Five Star Storage\19-030 Permit Report_R3.doc Page 2 of 4

4. Alternative compliance sequencing has not been requested. 5. The site likely achieves 90% total suspended solids removal from the runoff generated on an annual basis because the volume retention requirement has been satisfied. 6. A maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County has not been submitted. 7. Adequate maintenance access is provided for underground systems. A site‐specific plan, schedule, and narrative for maintenance of the proposed stormwater management practices has been submitted. RULE D: FLOOD CONTROL Standards  Compensatory storage shall be provided for fill placed within the 100‐year floodplain.  All habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to a project site shall comply with District freeboard requirements. Findings 1. There is no floodplain on the property according to FEMA. 2. It is unknown if all habitable buildings, roads, and parking structures on or adjacent to the project site comply with CRWD freeboard requirements. RULE E: WETLAND MANAGEMENT Standard  Wetlands shall not be drained, filled (wholly or in part), excavated, or have sustaining hydrology impacted such that there will be a decrease in the inherent (existing) functions and values of the wetland.  A minimum buffer of 25 feet of permanent nonimpacted vegetative ground cover abutting and surrounding a wetland is required. Findings 1. There are no known wetlands located on the property. RULE F: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Standards  A plan shall demonstrate that appropriate erosion and sediment control measures protect downstream water bodies from the effects of a land‐disturbing activity.  Erosion Control Plans must adhere to the MPCA Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas Manual. Findings 1. Erosion and sediment control measures are consistent with best management practices, as demonstrated in the MPCA manual Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. 2. Adjacent properties are protected from sediment transport/deposition. 3. Wetlands, waterbodies and water conveyance systems are protected from erosion/sediment transport/deposition. 4. Total disturbed area is 1.24 acres; an NPDES permit is required. A satisfactory SWPPP has been submitted. W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-030 Five Star Storage\19-030 Permit Report_R3.doc Page 3 of 4

RULE G: ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND CONNECTION Standard  Stormwater management and utility plans shall indicate all existing and proposed connections from developed and undeveloped lands for all water that drains to the District MS4. Findings 1. New direct connections or replacement of existing connections are not proposed. 2. Prohibited discharges are not proposed. Recommendation: Approve with 3 Conditions Conditions: 1. Receipt of $6,300 surety. 2. Receipt of documentation of maintenance agreement recorded with Ramsey County. 3. Provide a copy of the NPDES permit.

W:\07 Programs\Permitting\2019\19-030 Five Star Storage\19-030 Permit Report_R3.doc Page 4 of 4

UTILITY NOTES

1400 SELBY AVE ST. PAUL, MN 55104

1400 SELBY ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

REVISED SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL

CITY OF ST. PAUL UTILITY NOTES

03/13/2020

REVISED WATERSHED PERMIT

03/31/2020

RESPONSE TO WATERSHED COMMENTS

04/08/2020

UTILITY PLAN 1" = 20'

LEGEND

D E S I G N

Civil Engineering | Landscape Architecture | Construction Services

p f

612.260.7980 612.260.7990

I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA.

Stephen M. Johnston

REGISTRATION NO. 18914

UTILITY PLAN

C-301 R

Know what's below. Call before you dig.

FSD19001

DATE 04/08/2020

May 6, 2020 III. Permits B.) Dickerman Park Improvements 2nd Review Extension Request (Hosch)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

April 29, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Elizabeth Hosch 2nd 60-day Review Period Extension for Permit 20-001

Background The current review period for Permit 20-001 Dickerman Park Improvements expires on 5-9-2020. Issues The applicant requested an additional 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 2nd 60-day review period extension for Permit 20-001 Dickerman Park Improvements to expire July 8, 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.

May 6, 2020 Board Meeting IV. Special Reportsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Ford Redevelopment Update

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

April 30, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Bob Fossum, Division Manager Ford Site Funding Request

Background Since 2015, the District has been working on sustainable stormwater analysis in partnership with the City of St. Paul. More recently, in May 2019, the City requested the Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s assistance with a Design Charrette to further evaluate the stream feature that the developer (Ryan Companies) had initially laid out. CRWD engaged three consultants to participate in a design charrette and then complete analysis and provide concepts and recommendations for the stream design. Many of the recommendations have been included in the final design of the stream feature on the Ford Site. Issues For the May 6, 2020 Board meeting, no action is requested. The purpose of the Special Report is to review the funding request and the background on how the project has evolved over the last several years. Staff are requesting feedback and areas of the request that need clarification in advance of a recommendation and request for action at the May 20, 2020 meeting. Staff have been working with Ryan Companies and City of St. Paul staff on various aspects of the design of the project over the past couple of years. Recently, the City of St. Paul has submitted a funding request for the water features and stormwater system on the Ford Site. (Enclosed) In summary the request includes: 1. Ford Parkway Baseflow Groundwater Capture -- $200,000 2. Southern Stormwater Enhancements -- $595,000 3. Hidden Falls Regional Park Connection -- $1,500,000 (allowance) The first two items of the funding request (Ford Parkway Baseflow Groundwater Capture and Southern Stormwater Enhancements) are consistent with previous planning work between the District, the City, and Ryan Companies. Staff will review those with the Board with the intention of returning to the May 20, 2020 Board meeting with a recommendation to fund items #1 and #2. Item #3 is a very recent opportunity that the City has become aware of to complete a stream and pedestrian connection from the Ford Site to Hidden Falls Regional Park. The City is completing additional analysis of the feasibility

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

and cost of this option. Staff asked for this to be included in the funding request at this time so the District is aware of all potential funding requests while considering items #1 and #2. However, final decision on this part of the request should be delayed until the analysis of feasibility and cost is completed (summer 2020). Staff will review previous analysis and planning work that led to the current design and review the plan as it currently is drafted. Staff will review the funding request and answer questions and review concerns of the Managers. Requested Action Review and comment only. enc:

City of St. Paul Funding Request, dated 4/28/2020 and select attachments: Overall Ford Site Rendering Central Water Feature Renderings Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature Renderings 30% Park & Civic Space Drawings (Applicable Park & Civic Sheets)

W:\06 Projects\Ford Site\Grant Request\Brd Memo--Ford Funding Request 04-30-2020.docx

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

DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS Ricardo X. Cervantes, Director

CITY OF SAINT PAUL Melvin Carter, Mayor

375 Jackson Street Suite 220 Saint Paul, MN 55101-1806

Telephone:

651-266-8989

April 28, 2020 Bob Fossum Capitol Region Watershed District 595 Aldine Street Saint Paul, MN 55104 RE: Ford Site Grant Request Dear Bob: Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) has long supported the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s efforts for water resource innovation at the Ford Site. As the city, and our partner Ryan Companies, advances through design towards construction, we are pleased to have your agencyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interest in financially contributing to implementation of enhanced water resource elements. We have developed a narrative and supporting materials, including plans and renderings, which outlines the joint request for grant funds. The narrative is attached and supporting materials will be sent separately due to file size. As you know, for any approved funds the city will be the partner for entering and administering grant agreements with CRWD. In the interim, any Board resolutions regarding the grant request will provide clear direction to our teams about the status of enhanced water resource design elements. Please know an exciting new infrastructure opportunity was recently identified. This would involve an enhanced water resource and public realm connection between the Ford Site and Hidden Falls Regional Park. The enclosed narrative describes this in more detail and indicates an allowance for capital funds. The allowance is based on coarse unit-cost estimates by Ryan Companies. We hope to bring more clarity to this element in the very near future. If an enhanced public realm connection proves viable it would truly be an iconic stamp on the Ford Site. In closing, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to request grant funds from CRWD for the Ford Site. Please let us know if you need further information or desire a presentation at a Board meeting.

Ford Site Grant Request April 28, 2020 Page 2

Sincerely,

Wes Saunders-Pearce Water Resource Coordinator encl. cc:

Anthony Adams, Ryan Companies Tia Anderson, DSI Nick Koch, Ryan Companies David Kuebler, Ford Site Technical Lead Menaka Mohan, PED Mike Solomon, OFS Ellen Stewart, Parks and Recreation

CAPITOL REGION WATERSHED DISTRICT FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CRWD GRANT REQUEST NARRATIVE April 24, 2020 Project Summary Over roughly a ten-year period, the City of Saint Paul (City) worked with Ford Motor Company (Ford) and area stakeholders to establish the Ford Site Zoning and Public Realm Master Plan (Master Plan) for the former manufacturing plant in Highland Park to guide the future redevelopment of the site. The Master Plan established six new zoning districts, provided the framework for the future public right-of-way and open spaces, provided guidance for private site design, and established development requirements for a Master Developer to bring the new mixed-use development to life. A major component of the Master Plan was to create a centralized green infrastructure corridor that manages surface runoff from the 122-acre Ford Site and restores the headwaters and hydrology of Hidden Falls Creek. This component stemmed from the recommendation of the Sustainable Stormwater Management – Alternatives Analysis for the Future Ford Site Development (Sustainable Stormwater Assessment) report created by Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) and the City in 2016. The Sustainable Stormwater Assessment compared two alternatives for stormwater management of the site, one of which was selected for incorporation into the Master Plan and set forth the discharge requirements from the site to Hidden Falls. Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Ryan) has been working with both the City and Ford since June 2018 to bring the City’s redevelopment vision to fruition. Ryan worked alongside the City to:  Complete additional extensive public outreach to understand the sentiment of residents and area stakeholders  Amend the Master Plan, including the addition of project design standards  Adopt an AUAR document that further guides the site redevelopment and satisfies the state environmental requirements  Approve the FORD plat which split the existing parcel into public right-of-way, public parks, privately-owned but publicly-accessible open spaces, and private development sites  Approve the Redevelopment Agreement (RDA) which outlines the public private partnership between the HRA (City) and Project Paul, LLC (subsidiary of Ryan) along

ď&#x201A;ˇ

with a Site Improvement Performance Agreement that governs the implementation of the project infrastructure. The RDA public/private partnership includes an overall infrastructure investment of: o Streets: $27,375,017 o Site Utilities: $17,772,268 o Mass Earthwork: $6,682,505 o Storm Utilities: $16,488,059 o Green Spaces: $15,644,023 o Total Infrastructure Investment: $83,961,872

In December 2019, Project Paul, LLC purchased the property from Ford; Ryan is currently underway with the overall infrastructure design in order to gain approvals for a Spring 2020 construction start. Stormwater Management Calculations To meet the City and CRWD's rules and requirements, the development will have to manage the rate and water quality of the stormwater runoff. Through the Sustainable Stormwater Assessment, the City and CRWD identified an additional need to slow the rate of stormwater discharging to Hidden Falls to protect the eroding Hidden Falls Creek below the falls, ultimately settling on a goal of reducing runoff rates by as much as 98% in the 2-year event to achieve a more natural flow regime and hydrology for the creek. This is a substantial improvement from existing conditions and even from the City and CRWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s typical stormwater discharge requirements. To achieve this ambitious goal, a district-wide centralized stormwater system focused on treating stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste product, and utilizing district systems that can also serve as recreational functions, was selected for implementation. Ryan Companies (Ryan), with the assistance of Barr Engineering Co. (Barr), has embraced the City and CRWD vision for the redevelopment. Ryan recently submitted the 90% infrastructure design package to both the City and CRWD which showed the significant reduction in runoff rates to Hidden Falls. Table 2-4, taken from the 90% Stormwater Management Report, shows the reduced impervious area and total area directed towards Hidden Falls.

Barr created two stormwater models to show the proposed flow rate conditions. The first model reflects sub-watersheds that are located only within the Ford Site in order to show compliance with the Hidden Falls discharge requirements. The results of the first model are shown in Table 2-5 below. The second model reflects the continuous diversion of baseflow from Ford Pkwy and the addition of offsite tributary areas from the adjacent properties east of the Ford Site. The results of the second model are shown in Table 2-6 below. Table 2-6 shows the substantial decrease in flow rates between existing and proposed conditions.

Stormwater Management Description As mentioned above, the proposed stormwater management system is a proposed district-wide centralized stormwater system focused on treating stormwater as a resource, rather than a waste product, and utilizing district systems that can also serve as recreational functions. The centralized stormwater management system is split into three main areas as outlined below. 1. Central Water Feature â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Central Water Feature is located on privately-owned publicly-accessible land and includes an approximately 7-foot-deep stormwater wet pond surrounded by walking trails, amenity break-out spaces, points of visual interest, and a pedestrian bridge spanning the open water. Ryan anticipates that this body of water will be used in both summer and winter months as an active recreation area for activities such as kayaking, paddle boarding, and ice skating, to name a few. Stormwater is pretreated and treated to remove most total suspended solids and phosphorus before entering the wet pond component through hydrodynamic separators, three underground filtration systems, and/or two surface biofiltration systems. The Central Water Feature discharges south to the Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature through a series of raised overflow weirs, set within a formal plaza space, that also serve as seating elements. While the Central Water Feature is on private property to be owned by an association, the treatment components and outlet for this system will be operated and maintained by the City. 2. Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature is located in City parkland and is focused around a stream component. It is designed towards

primarily passive recreation to link with the existing MRB trails as well as the downstream Hidden Falls Park area. However, the recreation surrounding the stream includes multiple bike and pedestrian trails at different elevations and aesthetics throughout in order to provide touch points to the water and visual corridors for better public interaction with the stream feature. Stormwater is treated to remove most total suspended solids and phosphorus before entering the feature through hydrodynamic separators, two underground filtration systems, one surface biofiltration system, and/or the Central Water Feature system that lies upstream. Stormwater is directed from the Central Water Feature raised overflow weirs, through storm sewer pipe running underneath Montreal Ave, and into a series of large pools at the upper end of the Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature. Each tiered pool overflows into the next through a series of waterfalls and into a lower pool, which eventually daylights into a meandering stream that flows through a ravine of natural limestone. The stream component has a series of small water falls throughout the stream system and also has a large rate control component to restrict flows to Hidden Falls in order to prevent downstream erosion of the existing Hidden Falls and Hidden Falls Creek. This restricted discharge rate from the stream (along with future rate control improvements to adjacent watersheds) will allow the City to restore the eroded Hidden Falls Creek, which ultimately discharges to the Mississippi River. The design intent of the centralized system is to extend the water connection, through visible pools on either side of Montreal Ave, and provide for continuous pedestrian connection to water from the north part of the Central Water Feature all the way to the south edge of Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature and Hidden Falls itself on the south side of Mississippi River Boulevard. This system will be owned, operated, and maintained by the City. 3. Gateway Park Stormwater â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Disconnected from the Central Water Feature and Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature, there will be a smaller stormwater system located in the northwest portion of the development within Gateway Park on City parkland. This system treats stormwater flows for the northwest portion of the site that due to the existing site elevations cannot be drained through the Central Water Feature and Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature, as anticipated by the Master Plan. Ryan and the City propose both active and passive recreation areas within Gateway Park including walking trails, a trail head to the MRB trail system, public art, and break out spaces. The stormwater components within Gateway Park include hydrodynamic separators and two surface biofiltration basins that treat stormwater to remove most total suspended solids and phosphorus before entering a proposed wet pond. The biofiltration basins and wet pond act as rate control features for controlling the release rate to the existing infrastructure. The stormwater is ultimately discharged to an existing storm sewer system in Mississippi River Boulevard and eventually to the Mississippi River.

Components of Funding Request There are some additional stormwater features that Ryan would like to incorporate above and beyond the minimum stormwater requirements that are required by City, CRWD, and the Sustainable Stormwater Assessment goals. These additional features will help improve the water quality through the centralized green infrastructure corridor, will help optimize the levels of stormwater from rainfall events to achieve the most efficient use of the district-wide system, will help improve the water quality of Hidden Falls downstream by maintaining a consistent low flow to the falls, will enhance the public’s interaction with the stormwater components to promote education and sustainability, and will ultimately bring water back to the Ford Site per what was there prior to initial development. The additional stormwater features are organized into three categories below, in which the third opportunity was recently brought forth by the City of St. Paul. 1. Ford Parkway Baseflow Groundwater Capture – There is an existing storm sewer system located in Ford Parkway that maintains a steady base flow of groundwater from adjacent properties, even in dry periods. The design would incorporate diverting the low groundwater flows into the Ford Site and through the centralized stormwater corridor to keep water flowing through the system. A continuous flow of water will limit effects of stagnant water in the Central Water Feature and open water areas of Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature, such as odors and microbial growth, and will help provide a consistent low flow to the southern stream-like feature as well as Hidden Falls and the creek themselves. Beginning in the summer of 2019, CRWD has been monitoring the base flow to identify the quality and quantity of the base flow to determine the feasibility of the stormwater diversion. Results of the monitoring indicate that the quality of the water is sufficient that it would not be required to be treated prior to entering the Central Water Feature and has enough quantity (approximately 100 gpm) to provide a continuous flow through the district-wide system. CRWD, with Barr assistance, used the proposed site stormwater models to determine that the diversion can occur continuously and will not need to be turned off during storm events. Ryan proposes to turn off the diversion for the winter months so that the Central Water Feature can be used for ice skating. 2. Southern Stormwater Enhancements – In 2019, CRWD hosted a design charrette to explore additional ideas for stormwater management and for encouraging public interaction within the southern Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature stormwater management area (also identified as Park C). Ryan proposed to include several of the ideas from the charrette that are above the basic stormwater management system requirements and goals in order to better encourage the public’s interaction with the stream feature. Confluence has been hired by Ryan to be the Master Landscape Architect for the redevelopment and is currently working to merge the City Park programming, the required stormwater

management features, and the stormwater enhancements brought forward in the 2019 charrette. 3. Hidden Falls Regional Park Connection â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The 2019 charrette focused on enhancements within the area of Park C. The ideas brought forward intentionally did not address the connection between Park C and the downstream Hidden Falls Regional Park as the connection was outside of the Redevelopment Agreement scope. It was generally assumed Park C would discharge into an existing trunk drainage system at CP Rail property upstream of Hidden Falls Regional Park. However, after completing the 60% design plans Ryan determined the proposed stormwater outlet of Park C will require installing a new pipe conveyance crossing at Mississippi River Boulevard (MRB) to connect just upstream of the Hidden Falls outfall. With Ryanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s support, the City will retain a consultant to further explore this situation. The project objective is to leverage the need for a proposed excavation to MRB in order to re-imagine and evaluate possible infrastructure alternatives that achieve multiple benefits for connecting the development site to the regional park. The desired outcome is identification of a feasible concept(s) for creating a connection from Park C to Hidden Falls Regional Park which enhances the public realm by continuing a daylighted creek design between the new upstream system and downstream regional park, while also facilitating safe and accessible pedestrian movement. This CRWD grant request includes a financial allowance for a potential enhanced crossing as the City evaluates concepts. Ryan will assist in a pricing exercise to identify the funding delta. If a feasible and fundable concept is identified, it would be a magnificent way to robustly connect the new daylighted creek in Park C to the downstream system, and people to the Mississippi River. The financial allowance was created using cost estimate data from the 2019 charrette.

Funding Request Value The current project infrastructure investment of $83,961,872, includes $38,728,566 in stormwater conveyance, stormwater utility and green space design and construction costs. This current project investment, along with the components of the funding request outlined above, will allow the project team to maximize the potential of the green spaces and storm systems and bring the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Master Plan to fruition. The estimate cost of the enhanced stormwater scope includes: 1. Ford Parkway Baseflow Groundwater Capture $200,000 2. Southern Stormwater Enhancements $595,000 3. Hidden Falls Regional Park Connection $1,500,000 (allowance) Total $2,295,000 In summary, an immediate water resource funding gap of $795,000 for items 1 and 2 must be closed to construct the current design. The project team is developing design and cost for item 3. Ownership and Maintenance The Gateway Park and Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature stormwater management systems are both located within City Park land. They are owned by the City of Saint Paul Parks and Recreations Department (City Parks) and will be maintained by the City Public Works Department, likely by a contractor or contractors hired by the City. The Central Water Feature is located within a private outlot currently owned by Ryan. The land area will eventually be owned by a master association (private entity) but the maintenance will be performed by the City Public Works Department. There are some underground stormwater systems located within public right of way that will be owned and maintained by the City Public Works Department. The stormwater pipes and structures for the Ford Parkway stormwater diversion will all be routed through public right of way, therefore owned and maintained by the City Public Works Department. The pipe will eventually tie into the Central Water Feature which is also maintained by Public Works. The southern Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature stormwater enhancements will all be owned by City Parks department as they fall within City Parks property. Maintenance of each specific enhancement may vary between City Parks and City Public Works, and may be maintained by a contractor or contractors hired by the City. Project Design Renderings Included with this narrative are a series of renderings for the overall project and some of the specific stormwater components. 1. Overall Ford Site Rendering 2. Gateway Park Renderings 3. Central Water Feature Renderings

4. Hidden Falls Headwaters Feature Renderings 5. 30% Park & Civic Space Drawings (Applicable Park & Civic Sheets) 6. 90% Infrastructure Drawings (Applicable Stormwater Sheets)

> >

OUTLOT D LS101

> >

OUTLOT D LS101

OUTLOT D LS102

> >

OUTLOT D

OUTLOT D LS103

> >

OUTLOT D LS102

> >

> OUTLOT D LS103 OUTLOT D LS104

> >

D LOT T U O 04 LS1

> >

01 PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

DATE

REVISIONS

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

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

LAYOUT PLAN

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

SCALE: 1"=100' 0' 25' 50'

100'

200'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN

SHEET NO.

OUTLOT D LS100

> MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS101

N J D

> >

E 6'

> >

N >

CONCRETE

DECORATIVE PAVING

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

POND, SEE CIVIL

FLEX LAWN

TERRACE SEATING FEATURE

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

CIP STAIRS

LIMESTONE BLOCK BOULDERS

CIP RETAINING WALL

MONUMENT FEATURE

LIMESTONE OUTCROP BOULDERS

SEAT WALL

LIMESTONE RIP RAP

TREE GRATE

HANDRAIL / GUARDRAIL

CONCRETE RAMP

WATER OVERFLOW / SEAT ELEMENT FEATURES

J A

D A

G >

01 LS301

BRIDGE A (FAUX), SEE OUTLOT D LS500

LEGEND

01 LS300

CONCRETE

M Q O D T L J

N A

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

HATCH LEGEND

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 1

F J R

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 2

> >

BIOFILTRATION BASIN 20'

SAND TRENCH @ BIOFILTRATION BASIN

20'

P >

J R

HARDWOOD MULCH

D >

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

> >

A L

FLEX / OPEN LAWN

POND (NORMAL WATER LEVEL)

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

SKATE PAVEMENT

O D

J D

MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS102

SCALE: 1"=20'

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

DATE

REVISIONS

MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS101

P >

F >

15'

02 LS300

A >

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

8' TY P

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

5' 10'

20'

40'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

SHEET NO.

OUTLOT D LS101

N P

LEGEND

MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS101

MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS102

N P

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

POND, SEE CIVIL

FLEX LAWN

TERRACE SEATING FEATURE

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

CIP STAIRS

LIMESTONE BLOCK BOULDERS

CIP RETAINING WALL

MONUMENT FEATURE

LIMESTONE OUTCROP BOULDERS

SEAT WALL

LIMESTONE RIP RAP

TREE GRATE

HANDRAIL / GUARDRAIL

CONCRETE RAMP

WATER OVERFLOW / SEAT ELEMENT FEATURES

DECORATIVE PAVING

CONCRETE

N L

HATCH LEGEND

K >

CONCRETE

N >

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 1

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 2

POND (NORMAL WATER LEVEL)

20'

> >

FLEX / OPEN LAWN

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

N >

SAND TRENCH @ BIOFILTRATION BASIN

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

HARDWOOD MULCH

SKATE PAVEMENT

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

L D

17'

15'

03 LS302

H N

> >

MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS102

MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS103

SCALE: 1"=20'

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

DATE

REVISIONS

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

5' 10'

20'

40'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

SHEET NO.

OUTLOT D LS102

N MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS102

> MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS103

E 01 LS302

> >

A D

> >

DECORATIVE PAVING

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

POND, SEE CIVIL

FLEX LAWN

TERRACE SEATING FEATURE

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

CIP STAIRS

LIMESTONE BLOCK BOULDERS

CIP RETAINING WALL

MONUMENT FEATURE

LIMESTONE OUTCROP BOULDERS

SEAT WALL

LIMESTONE RIP RAP

TREE GRATE

HANDRAIL / GUARDRAIL

CONCRETE RAMP

WATER OVERFLOW / SEAT ELEMENT FEATURES

CONCRETE

LEGEND

CONCRETE

F >

HATCH LEGEND

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 1

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 2

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

POND (NORMAL WATER LEVEL)

20'

FLEX / OPEN LAWN

02 LS302

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

D L

SAND TRENCH @ BIOFILTRATION BASIN

20'

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

HARDWOOD MULCH

A F

P L

SKATE PAVEMENT

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

J A

P L

A D

L R 8'

N D 8'

MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS103

L F

MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS104

SCALE: 1"=20'

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

DATE

REVISIONS

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

5' 10'

20'

40'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

SHEET NO.

OUTLOT D LS103

MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS103 MATCHLINE: OUTLOT D LS104

LEGEND

F D L R

R 20'

D 20'

CONCRETE

DECORATIVE PAVING

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

POND, SEE CIVIL

FLEX LAWN

TERRACE SEATING FEATURE

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

CIP STAIRS

LIMESTONE BLOCK BOULDERS

CIP RETAINING WALL

MONUMENT FEATURE

LIMESTONE OUTCROP BOULDERS

SEAT WALL

LIMESTONE RIP RAP

TREE GRATE

HANDRAIL / GUARDRAIL

CONCRETE RAMP

WATER OVERFLOW / SEAT ELEMENT FEATURES

HATCH LEGEND

B CONCRETE

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

B DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 1

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 2

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

POND (NORMAL WATER LEVEL) 02 LS301

FLEX / OPEN LAWN

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

A >

SAND TRENCH @ BIOFILTRATION BASIN

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

HARDWOOD MULCH

SKATE PAVEMENT

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

REVISIONS

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

APP.

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

> DATE

ISSUE NO.

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE

SCALE: 1"=20'

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

5' 10'

20'

40'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

SHEET NO.

OUTLOT D LS104

845.00

840.00

835.00

830.00

FALLS PASSAGE

3.8' TYP. 1.3' TYP. REFINED LIMESTONE OUTCROP BEHIND

TERRACING BEHIND, TYP.

SEE CIVIL FOR SLOPE

825.00

820.00

815.00

SEE CIVIL FOR SLOPE

810.00

805.00

PROPOSED GRADES; SEE CIVIL

SCALE: 1"=5'

SITE SECTIONS - CENTRAL WATER FEATURE

2.5'

10'

20'

850.00

INTERPRETIVE COLUMN

840.00

830.00

2.6' LANDSCAPING BEHIND OPEN LAWN

REFINED LIMESTONE OUTCROPS WITH MIXED VEGETATION DECORATIVE STONE WITH TREES

LANDSCAPE ISLAND WITH VEGETATION

C.I.P. WALL, TYP. FINISH: TBD

WATER'S EDGE WALL

820.00

810.00

POND ELEVATION: 809.00'

800.00

02 DATE

REVISIONS

0' 2.5'

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

SCALE: 1"=10'

SITE SECTIONS - CENTRAL WATER FEATURE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

SITE SECTIONS

SHEET NO.

OUTLOT D LS300

835.00

PERGOLA 42" GUARD RAIL

TREE GRATE WITH STRUCTURAL SOIL AT FALLS PASSAGE

830.00 STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE SEAT WALL & EDGE WALL AT LAWN LAWN 825.00

2.0'

SEE CIVIL FOR SLOPE

6.5'

820.00

REFINED LIMESTONE OUTCROP 1.5'

815.00

810.00

POND ELEVATION: 809.00'

805.00

PROPOSED GRADES; SEE CIVIL

SCALE: 1"=5'

SITE SECTIONS - CENTRAL WATER FEATURE

2.5'

10'

2.5'

10'

835.00

830.00

825.00

820.00

1.0'

POND ELEVATION: 809.00'

1.0'

815.00

1.0'

TERRACED SEATING 2%

810.00

4.0' WIDE TREE PIT CRUSHED GRANITE ZONE

805.00

02 ISSUE NO.

DATE

REVISIONS

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

28.0' WIDE SEATING PLAZA

SCALE: 1"=5'

SITE SECTIONS - CENTRAL WATER FEATURE

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE

4.0' WIDE TREE PIT

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

SITE SECTIONS

SHEET NO.

OUTLOT D LS301

840.00

810.00

FALLS PASSAGE

C.I.P. WALL ARCHITECTURAL LIMESTONE FEATURES

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

20.5' WALKWAY

3.5'

820.00

FALLS PASSAGE

830.00

POND ELEVATION: 809.00'

20.0' WIDE WALKWAY

8.0' WIDE WALKWAY

800.00

SCALE: 1"=10'

SITE SECTIONS - CENTRAL WATER FEATURE

0' 2.5'

20'

10'

FALLS PASSAGE

840.00

830.00

820.00

FALLS PASSAGE

C.I.P. WALL OPEN LAWN

DECORATIVE STONE WITH PLANTINGS BIOFILTRATION BASIN

810.00

20.0' WIDE WALKWAY

POND ELEVATION: 809.00' 20.0' WALKWAY

8.0' WALKWAY

6.0' WALKWAY

8.0' WALKWAY

800.00

SCALE: 1"=10'

SITE SECTIONS - CENTRAL WATER FEATURE

0' 2.5'

20'

10'

840.00

INTERPRETIVE COLUMN LOWER WALK EDGE WALL

830.00

42" GUAR RAIL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

SEE CIVIL FOR SLOPE SEE CIVIL FOR SLOPE

7.8'

820.00

810.00

POND ELEVATION 809.00'

800.00

03 PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

DATE

REVISIONS

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

SITE SECTIONS - CENTRAL WATER FEATURE

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

SCALE: 1"=10' 0' 2.5'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

SITE SECTIONS

20'

10'

SHEET NO.

OUTLOT D LS302

95'-0"

15'-0"

WOOD DECKING STEEL HANDRAILS WITH STEEL CABLE RUNNING EVERY 4"

WOOD DECKING

WOOD BEAMS STEEL HANDRAILS WITH STEEL CABLE RUNNING EVERY 4" WOOD BEAMS STEEL TRUSSES

STEEL TRUSSES

STEEL COLUMNS

WOOD DECKING STEEL HANDRAILS WITH STEEL CABLE RUNNING EVERY 4"

15'-0"

STEEL COLUMNS

95'-0"

SCALE: 1"=10'

SITE DETAILS - BRIDGES - CENTRAL WATER FEATURE BRIDGE

0' 2.5'

10'

20'

72'-0" CAST STONE PIERS CAST STONE BALUSTRADE CAST STONE ENTABLATURE

CAST STONE PIERS

SMOOTH CUT LIMESTONE FACE WALL CAST STONE BALUSTRADE CAST STONE ENTABLATURE

SMOOTH CUT LIMESTONE FACE WALL SMOOTH CUT LIMESTONE FACED ARCH CAST STONE LOWER BASIN

SMOOTH CUT LIMESTONE FACED ARCH CAST STONE LOWER BASIN

CAST STONE PIERS CAST STONE BALUSTRADE CAST STONE ENTABLATURE CAST STONE LOWER BASIN 72'-0"

SITE DETAILS - BRIDGES - BOHLAND WALL

DATE

REVISIONS

0' 2.5'

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

SCALE: 1"=10'

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

10'

20'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

SITE DETAILS - BRIDGES

SHEET NO.

OUTLOT D LS500

FORD PARKWAY

O C

R FO

> >

KW R PA

C C

O Q

A O B A A

C Q

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLD.

Q G

HILLCREST AVE.

PARK A LS101

PARK A LS102

O I

WOODLAWN AVE.

O O

O I Q

BOHLAND

01 ISSUE NO.

DATE

REVISIONS

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

0' 12.5' 25'

APP.

DRAWN BY:

SCALE: 1"=50'

LAYOUT PLAN

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

AVE.

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

50'

100'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN

PARK A LS100 SHEET NO.

10.0'

HATCH LEGEND CONCRETE

8.0'

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

PROPERTY LINE

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 1

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 2

O C

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

C POND (NORMAL WATER LEVEL)

FLEX / OPEN LAWN

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

Q F SAND TRENCH @ BIOFILTRATION BASIN

KW AY

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

PA R

HARDWOOD MULCH

FO RD

SKATE PAVEMENT

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

> F

> >

6.0 '

> I

PROPE

RTY LIN

LEGEND

O 8.0'

Q A O 24.0'

SCALE: 1"=20'

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

30.0'

DATE

REVISIONS

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PCC PAVEMENT

PLAZA SPACE

OPEN LAWN

HAMMOCK GROVE

FILTRATION BASIN

LIMESTONE BAND

POND

SKATE SPOT

BERM

STAIRS

DOCK

RETAINING WALL

SEATING AREA

FUTURE PATIO

LANDSCAPE BED

WATER FOUNTAIN

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

INTERPRETIVE COLUMN

12.0'

18.0'

4.0'

12.5'

4.0'

12.0'

8.0'

4.0'

30.0'

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

5' 10'

20'

40'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

SHEET NO.

PARK A LS101

HATCH LEGEND CONCRETE

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 1

8.0'

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 2

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

12.0'

POND (NORMAL WATER LEVEL)

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVD.

A FLEX / OPEN LAWN

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

SAND TRENCH @ BIOFILTRATION BASIN

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

HARDWOOD MULCH

SKATE PAVEMENT

H O

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

WOODLAWN AVE.

> >

Q 8.0'

PROPERTY LINE

8.0 '

LEGEND

I Q

PROPERTY LINE

12.0'

AVE. BOHLAND

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

DATE

REVISIONS

PCC PAVEMENT

PLAZA SPACE

OPEN LAWN

HAMMOCK GROVE

FILTRATION BASIN

LIMESTONE BAND

POND

SKATE SPOT

BERM

STAIRS

DOCK

RETAINING WALL

SEATING AREA

FUTURE PATIO

LANDSCAPE BED

WATER FOUNTAIN

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

SCALE: 1"=20' 0'

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

5' 10'

20'

40'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

SHEET NO.

PARK A LS102

> >

NTR

5.0'

10.0'

> UE

VEN

A EAL

> > >

> PARK C LS101 PARK C LS102

HIR

R YO

V EA

MO UNT VE

CUR ARD

LEV

BOU

PARK C LS102 PARK C LS103

PARK C LS103 PARK C LS104

01 ISSUE NO.

DATE

REVISIONS

LAYOUT PLAN

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

0' 15' 30'

APP.

DRAWN BY:

SCALE: 1"=60'

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

60'

120'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN

SHEET NO.

PARK C LS100

HATCH LEGEND CONCRETE

POND (NORMAL WATER LEVEL)

R FLEX / OPEN LAWN

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

> >

8.0'

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

HARDWOOD MULCH

SKATE PAVEMENT

> >

12.0'

8.0

8.0'

P >

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 2

> >

> >>

> >

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 1

SAND TRENCH @ BIOFILTRATION BASIN

> >

12.0

> >

UE VEN

A EAL NTR

02 LS300

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

> > >O

12.0

LEGEND

6.0'

N N

SCALE: 1"=20'

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

DATE

REVISIONS

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

5' 10'

20'

40'

CONCRETE

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

ASPHALT PAVING

POND

WATER FALL FEATURE

STREAM CHANNEL

NATURAL LIMESTONE WEIR

CIP RETAINING WALL

CIP STAIRS

LIMESTONE OUTCROP STAIRS

LIMESTONE OUTCROP BOULDERS

LIMESTONE NATURAL TERRACING

LIMESTONE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

FLEX LAWN

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

DOG RUN

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

SHEET NO.

PARK C LS101

HATCH LEGEND L

CONCRETE

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 1

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 2

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

Q POND (NORMAL WATER LEVEL)

L 12

FLEX / OPEN LAWN

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

C P

SAND TRENCH @ BIOFILTRATION BASIN

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

HARDWOOD MULCH

J SKATE PAVEMENT

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

.0'

R YO

H IR KS

NU VE EA

03 LS300

F MO UNT

CUR .0'

ARD LEV

BOU

J C M P

LEGEND

6.0'

> J

P SCALE: 1"=20'

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

CONCRETE

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

ASPHALT PAVING

POND

WATER FALL FEATURE

STREAM CHANNEL

NATURAL LIMESTONE WEIR

CIP RETAINING WALL

CIP STAIRS

LIMESTONE OUTCROP STAIRS

LIMESTONE OUTCROP BOULDERS

LIMESTONE NATURAL TERRACING

LIMESTONE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

FLEX LAWN

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

DOG RUN

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

DATE

REVISIONS

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

5' 10'

20'

40'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

SHEET NO.

PARK C LS102

HATCH LEGEND CONCRETE

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 1

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 2

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

POND (NORMAL WATER LEVEL)

FLEX / OPEN LAWN

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

> J

SAND TRENCH @ BIOFILTRATION BASIN

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

HARDWOOD MULCH

SKATE PAVEMENT

12.0'

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

> P

> Q

> >

6.0'

> > >

>> LEGEND

0' 6.

SCALE: 1"=20'

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

DATE

REVISIONS

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

5' 10'

20'

40'

CONCRETE

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

ASPHALT PAVING

POND

WATER FALL FEATURE

STREAM CHANNEL

NATURAL LIMESTONE WEIR

CIP RETAINING WALL

CIP STAIRS

LIMESTONE OUTCROP STAIRS

LIMESTONE OUTCROP BOULDERS

LIMESTONE NATURAL TERRACING

LIMESTONE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

FLEX LAWN

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

DOG RUN

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

SHEET NO.

PARK C LS103

HATCH LEGEND 0'

CONCRETE

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 1

DECORATIVE PAVING - TYPE 2

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

POND (NORMAL WATER LEVEL)

FLEX / OPEN LAWN

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

SAND TRENCH @ BIOFILTRATION BASIN

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

HARDWOOD MULCH

SKATE PAVEMENT

ASPHALT PAVEMENT

LEGEND

SCALE: 1"=20'

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

DATE

REVISIONS

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

5' 10'

20'

CONCRETE

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

ASPHALT PAVING

POND

WATER FALL FEATURE

STREAM CHANNEL

NATURAL LIMESTONE WEIR

CIP RETAINING WALL

CIP STAIRS

LIMESTONE OUTCROP STAIRS

LIMESTONE OUTCROP BOULDERS

LIMESTONE NATURAL TERRACING

LIMESTONE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES

LIMESTONE BEDROCK SURFACE

FLEX LAWN

LANDSCAPE PLANTING BED

BIOFILTRATION BASIN

DOG RUN

STABILIZED DECOMPOSED AGGREGATE

40'

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

LAYOUT PLAN ENLARGEMENT

SHEET NO.

PARK C LS104

SIDEWALK 825.00 VEGETATION BEHIND 820.00

ARCHITECTURAL LIMESTONE FEATURE

OVERLOOK TRAIL

815.00

STONE OUTCROP FEATURE 810.00

805.00

800.00

795.00

790.00 LOWER WATER LEVEL, TYP.

SCALE: 1"=10'

SITE SECTION - HIDDEN FALLS

0' 2.5'

20'

10'

WATERFALL FEATURE WATERFALL FEATURE

MAIN TRAIL ACCESS

POCKETS OUTCROP VEGETATION

825.00 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CROSSING 820.00

OUTCROP BOULDERS

815.00

STONE OUTCROP FEATURES

810.00

805.00

WATERFALL FEATURE

800.00

UPPER WATER LEVEL, TYP.

795.00

MIDDLE WATER LEVEL, TYP. VEGETATION BEHIND 790.00

LOWER WATER LEVEL, TYP. LOWER WATER LEVEL, TYP.

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

DATE

REVISIONS

SCALE: 1"=10'

PARK C LS300 - SITE SECTIONS - CENTRAL WATER FEATURE

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

0' 2.5'

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

PARK C LS300 - SITE SECTIONS

10'

20'

SHEET NO.

----

40'-0"

12'-0"

CAST SONE CAP ROUGH CUT LIMESTONE FACE CAST SONE CAP

ROUGH CUT LIMESTONE ARCH

ROUGH CUT LIMESTONE FACE

12'-0"

ROUGH CUT LIMESTONE ARCH

40'-0"

SITE DETAILS - BRIDGE - HIDDEN FALLS BRIDGE

DATE

REVISIONS

0' 2.5'

10'

20'

PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

REVISION SCHEDULE ISSUE NO.

SCALE: 1"=10'

APP.

DRAWN BY:

MG / SM / BA / JC

CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT NO.

TM 03/31/2020 20009

530 N THIRD ST, SUITE 120, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55102 PH: 612.333.3702 FAX: 515.288.8359 www.thinkconfluence.com

PRINTED NAME: Terry Minarik

RYAN COMPANIES US, INC FORD SITE REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MN PRELIMINARY PARKS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SIGNATURE: DATE: 03/11/20

LICENSE #: 42242

SITE DETAILS - BRIDGE

SHEET NO.

PARK C LS500

May 6, 2020 Board Workshop V. Action Item A) Approve Minutes of April 15, 2020 Regular Board Meeting (Sylvander)

Regular Meeting of the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) Board of Managers, for Wednesday, April 15, 2020, 6:00 p.m. (Regular Meeting) via telephone and/or the web-based application Go To Meeting. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I.

Call to Order of Regular Meeting (President Joe Collins)

Managers Joe Collins, remote Seitu Jones, remote Shawn Murphy, remote Rick Sanders, remote Shawn Murphy, remote Mary Texer, remote

Staff Present Public Attendees Britta Belden, CRWD - remote No Public Attended Mark Doneux, CRWD Forrest Kelley, CRWD - remote Michelle Sylvander, CRWD - remote Mary Van Sant, CRWD - remote James Mogen, Ramsey County Attorney - remote

Review, Amendments and Approval of the Agenda.

Motion 20-061: Approve the Agenda of April 15, 2020 with no changes. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved II.

Public Comment

No Comments. III.

Permit Applications and Program Updates A) 11-029 Schmidt Brewery â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Closure (Martinkosky)

Mr. Kelley reviewed permit #11-029. This permit was issued for redevelopment of the former Schmidt Brewery into commercial and residential uses and associated infrastructure. Two underground sand filtration systems, one underground retention system and one infiltration system were constructed to treat stormwater. The site is currently stable and the as built has been accepted. The $39,000 surety is available to return. Construction activity is complete for permit #11-029, Schmidt Brewery.

Motion 20-062: Approve $39,000 surety return and Certificate of Completion for permit #11-029, Schmidt Brewery. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved B) 19-030 Five Star Storage – Extend Review Period (Hosch) Mr. Kelley reviewed permit #19-030, Five Star Storage. The current review period for Permit 19-030 Five Star Storage expires on 4-18-2020. The applicant requested an extension to the 60-day review period prior to the expiration. The applicant intends to submit permit application revisions shortly as they continue to sort through permit requirements. Motion 20-063: Approve 2nd 60-day review period extension for Permit 19-030 Five Star Storage to expire June 17, 2020. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved C) 20-007 Xcel CR B (Hosch) Mr. Kelley reviewed permit #20-007 Xcel Energy. The applicant Xcel Energy will replace existing gas pipe. This project will consist of the replacement of 6.5 miles of existing 20‐ to 30‐inch gas pipe with standardized 20‐inch gas pipe. The old piping will be removed, and the new piping installed using open trench and horizontal directional drilling (HDD) boring techniques. 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 .41 acres with .41 acres of impervious surface. Motion 20-064: Approve variance of 1,629 cf from volume retention requirement of Rule C for street impervious. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved Motion 20-065: Approve with 3 Conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Provide a copy of the NPDES permit. Revise SWPPP to include a note stating that silt fence or fabric placed under the grate is not an approved form of inlet protection. Quantify the area of reconstructed impervious within CRWD boundary. Current CRWD assumption is that all disturbed area will be new/reconstructed impervious.

Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved D) 20-008 Tamarack Pathway (Martinkosky)

Mr. Kelley reviewed permit #20-008 Tamarack Pathway. The City of Roseville proposes to convert an existing gravel alley within the City Right of Way to a bituminous pedestrian pathway from Tamarack Park to the Western Avenue cul-de-sac. A portion of the existing gravel alley runs between two wetlands. The project requires a CRWD Erosion and Sediment Control permit (Rule F). Two wetlands are adjacent to the project area. CRWD staff have reviewed the site to determine approximate wetland boundaries and verify the existing gravel alley does not contain any wetland area. The full extent of the paving is contained within the existing gravel alley. Approximately 400 square feet of temporary wetland impacts are proposed to replace an existing drainage structure, mitigation of temporary wetland impacts is not required. Approximately 250 linear feet of existing vegetation and gravel alley are present within the required 25’ wetland buffer. The design width of the trail and gravel shoulder is 9 feet. Approximately 2,250 square feet of buffer are proposed to be impacted. Manager Sanders asked for clarification if the vote was for a variance approval, or approving the permit, and indicated he may have a conflict of interest since he has heard neighbors’ concerns with the trail paving project. Mr. Kelley clarified the request was to approve the buffer variance, and that a permit for erosion and sediment control could then later be approved at the staff level. Attorney Mogen did not see any conflict of interest for Manager Sanders to vote on this variance. Manager Murphy inquired why this permit did not include a location map as other permits usually do. Mr. Kelley replied that it was an oversight since the memo was not a typical application for permit approval with engineer’s report and cover sheet. A variance has been requested from the buffer requirements of Rule E. A. The gravel alley is an existing use currently within the 25’ wetland buffer of both wetlands. B. Not paving the trail will not improve park access, and not improve or maintain buffer quality. C. The alignment of the pathway cannot be adjusted to reduce buffer impact due to wetlands on both sides of the pathway. D. A portion of the existing vegetation is in the center of the gravel alley, preservation is not feasible. E. Replacing the gravel alley with bituminous is anticipated to reduce sediment runoff to the adjacent wetlands. F. Temporary buffer impacts adjacent to the bituminous pathway will be established with native grasses, forbs and flowers. Motion 20-066: Approve the Requested Variance from the 25-foot Buffer Requirements of Rule E for 2,250 square feet of permanent buffer encroachment. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved E) 20-009 Ford Redevelopment (Kelley) Mr. Kelley gave an update on the Ford site redevelopment. Reviewing plans. Ryan Companies is looking to obtain permits. Manager Texer asked about board approval. Mr. Kelley replied that board approval is not required for erosion control.

No motion made. IV.

Special Reports â&#x20AC;&#x201C; No report

No special reports. V. Action Items A)

AR: Approve Minutes of the April 1, 2020 Regular Meeting (Sylvander)

Motion 20-067: Approve the Minutes of the April 1, 2020 Board Workshop. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously approved B)

AR: Approve Accounts Payable/Receivables for March (Sylvander)

Motion 20-068: Approve March 2020 Accounts Payable/Receivable and Budget Report and direct Board Treasurer and President to endorse and disperse checks for these payments. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously approved C)

AR: Approve 2019 Annual Report (Van Sant)

Ms. Van Sant reviewed for the Board of Managers that all metropolitan watershed management organizations are required by Minnesota Statute 103.B to submit an annual Activity Report, Financial Report and Financial Audit to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). Staff have requested feedback from the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) about the general format and contents of the report as well as how best to share this information with residents by April 15, 2020. Staff requests Board feedback as part of the discussion. Manager Texer felt the report was well put together. President Collins added that he liked all the pictures, and Clean Water Legacy logo included. Manager Murphy recommended a summary page for all the projects. President Collins asked if a summary could still be added. Manager Texer suggested a summary page with links to identify location of more detail in the report. Administrator Donuex will have additional discussions with Ms. Van Sant regarding the summary page. Manager Jones added that the language needs to remain easy to understand for diverse audiences reviewing the report. Motion 20-069: Approve the 2019 Annual Report for submission to BWSR. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously approved D)

AR: Approve 2020 Quality Assurance Program Plan (Houle)

Administrator Doneux reviewed in place of Mr. Houle that in 2016, CRWD staff developed and implemented a Quality Assurance and Program Plan (QAPP) to guide the CRWD monitoring program. The QAPP guides the CRWD monitoring program by: a) defining data quality assurance goals and procedures; and b) summarizing the program design, sampling methods, analytical procedures, and data review protocols. The contents of a QAPP ensure that quality assurance objectives and regulatory needs are being met. Monitoring data collected using an approved QAPP have strong credibility with outside parties and allow the District to confidently utilize the data to make regulatory decisions. The first version of the CRWD QAPP was presented at the September 7, 2016 meeting and accepted by the Board of Managers. The QAPP is updated annually to reflect any changes that have been made to the CRWD monitoring program as it relates to staffing, monitoring stations, monitoring procedures, and laboratory protocols. The revised CRWD QAPP was updated to reflect changes that have been made to the monitoring program since the last update of the QAPP in 2019. Manager Texer suggested that next years report include what changes were made in the year. President Collins felt the report was well detailed. Motion 20-070: Accept the 2020 Quality Assurance Program Plan. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously approved E)

AR: Approve Cooperative Construction11 Agreement and Authorize Bidding for Como Golf Course BMPs (Kelley)

Mr. Kelley reviewed that in 2016 CRWD was awarded a $1.76 million grant through BWSR’s Targeted Watershed Program (TWP) for work in the Como and McCarrons sub watersheds. Two of the potential projects identified in the grant application were located on the Como Park Golf Course – expansion of the existing Polar Bear Infiltration basin and installation of an underground infiltration pipe gallery at Hole 7, and an Iron-Enhanced Sand Filtration (IESF) bench along the east shoreline of the Northwest Pond between Holes 3 and 11. Plans for these BMPs are complete, specifications are under final QA/QC review prior to bid advertisement, and the final draft Cooperative Construction Agreement is under review by both the City of St. Paul and CRWD. Staff have coordinated with City of St. Paul Parks and Recreation Department and Public Works, Sewers Division staff to review a Cooperative Construction Agreement for the project and anticipate final approvals the week of April 12th. As part of the agreement, CRWD is providing funding to the Parks and Recreation Department to offset a portion of the costs of the City’s Hole 8 lift station improvement project. Earlier in 2020, CRWD completed an analysis of local groundwater inputs from current and past CRWD projects in Como Park. The analysis supports the commitment of funds to the City as partners in water management in Como Park. Significant components of the agreement are as follows. • CRWD will fully fund, own, operate, and maintain BMPs, and fund half of lift station costs (up to $85,000)

• •

City of St. Paul, Parks and Recreation Department will provide land, and grant temporary and permanent easements for our BMP projects, and fund remainder of, own, and operate the lift station City of St. Paul, Public Works, Sewers Division will issue connection permits and own, operate and maintain new pipe that diverts overflow water around the Zoo BMPs

Bid advertisement is anticipated to start in late April after agreements and easement have been finalized. Construction is currently scheduled for October 2020 through January 2021, with golf course restoration to be completed as soon as weather permits in the spring of 2021. The engineer’s cost estimate is $1.12M, and approximately $660,000 of TWP grant money has been allocated to the project, the remainder being funding by CRWD under 405 Como TWP BMPs, which has a 2020 budget of $940,220. The BMPs are expected to remove a combined 55 pounds of Total Phosphorus annually. Motion 20-071: Approve Cooperative Construction Agreement for Como Golf Course BMPs and Authorize Administrator to Execute Subject to Review and Approval by the Ramsey County Attorney Murphy/Sanders Unanimously approved Motion 20-072: Approve Plans and Authorize Bidding for Como Golf Course BMPs Murphy/Sanders Unanimously approved VI.

Unfinished Business

A) Como Lake Project Updates (Belden) Ms. Belden provided an update for the Board of Managers on the Como Lake herbicide treatment that took place on Monday, April 13th. The lake was treated with fluoridone by boat to treat the curly-leaf pondweed. Signage was posted around the lake for 48 hours. Fluoridone was selected because it has no contact restrictions. The work was completed in just 1 ½ hours at a cost of $5,500. Manager Texer asked if it would be necessary to reapply next year. Ms. Belden replied that the permit for application is good for seven years. Ms. Belden anticipates that another treatment will be necessary next year at this time again. General Information A) Board of Managers’ Updates Admin Doneux shared that there will not be a Board workshop on April 22nd. A Board Workshop will be held on May 6th. Ms. Eleria will be reaching out to each of the Board Managers to review the Watershed Management Plan individually. VII.

Next Meetings A) Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - 5:00 PM- Board Workshop for the Watershed Management Plan B) Wednesday, May 6, 2020 - 6:00 PM -Regular Board Meeting

VIII. Adjournment

Motion 20-073: Adjournment of the April 15, 2020 Regular Board Meeting at 7:10 P.M. Murphy/Sanders Unanimously Approved Respectfully submitted, Michelle Sylvander

May 6, 2020 Board Meeting V. C. Action Items â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Approve Lake McCarrons Management Plan (Sellner)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

April 29, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Joe Sellner, Water Resource Specialist Lake McCarrons Management Plan

Background In 2003, the District adopted its first Lake McCarrons Management Plan. The Plan has served the District and its 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. During March and April, the draft plan was reviewed by the Agency Advisory Group, CAC and, due to Covid-19 concerns, a presentation video of the plan was posted online for public review and comment. Staff will review the Lake McCarrons Management plan as well as feedback received and incorporated into the final plan with the Managers. Fiscal Note: 2019 CRWD Budget Fund 310-19477: Lake McCarrons Management Plan-- $132,400. Action Requested Adopt the Lake McCarrons Management Plan Enc.

Lake McCarrons Management Plan dated April 24, 2020 Lake McCarrons Management Plan feedback and response table

W:\06 Projects\McCarrons\2019 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\Board & CAC\Board Memo LMMP Draft Approval 2020-05-06.docx

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

Lake McCarrons Management Plan

Capitol Region Watershed District Saint Paul, MN April 24, 2020 Prepared by: Barr Engineering Co.

Lake McCarrons Management Plan April 2020

Contents 1

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

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 2.2

Overview and Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Lake McCarrons Management Plan Framework ............................................................................................. 4

Lake and Watershed Characterization ............................................................................................................................... 5 3.1

Lake Water Quality Primer ....................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.1

Density Stratification ................................................................................................................................. 5

3.1.3

Nutrients......................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.2 3.1.4 3.2

3.1.5

Dissolved Oxygen ....................................................................................................................................... 6 The Food Chain............................................................................................................................................ 8 Trophic Status .............................................................................................................................................. 9

Lake McCarrons Characterization ......................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.1 3.2.2

Historical and Current Morphometry ................................................................................................. 9

Water Quality in Lake McCarrons.......................................................................................................11 3.2.2.1

Phosphorus ..........................................................................................................................11

3.2.2.3

Chloride .................................................................................................................................15

3.2.2.2 3.2.3

Lake Bottom Sediments .........................................................................................................................16

3.2.5

Fisheries ........................................................................................................................................................18

3.2.4 3.3

3.3.1

Watershed Boundaries ...........................................................................................................................18

3.3.3

Watershed Characteristics .....................................................................................................................22

3.3.4 3.3.5

3.5

Aquatic Vegetation and Invasive Species .......................................................................................17

Lake McCarrons and its Watershed ...................................................................................................................18 3.3.2

3.4

Dissolved Oxygen ..............................................................................................................15

Watershed Pollutant Sources and Pathways..................................................................................19 3.3.3.1 3.3.3.2

Hydrologic Factors ............................................................................................................22 Historical Management Actions ...................................................................................25

Stormwater Runoff Monitoring and Quality ..................................................................................27 Watershed Modeling and Pollutant Loads .....................................................................................29 3.3.5.1 3.3.5.2

P8 Modeling .........................................................................................................................29 BMP Evaluation ...................................................................................................................30

In-Lake Water Quality Modeling .........................................................................................................................31 3.4.1 3.4.2

Model Calibration .....................................................................................................................................31

Model Results .............................................................................................................................................33

Lake McCarrons Water Quality Standards and Regulations ....................................................................34 i

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Tasks 7 and 8\Final\Lake McCarrons Management Plan_Final.docx

3.5.1 3.5.2 4

4.1

Identification of Issues of Concern .....................................................................................................................38 Goals, Measurable Objectives and Recommended Actions .....................................................................39

Implementation ........................................................................................................................................................................43 5.1

Watershed Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling ...................................................................................................43

5.3

Balanced Fishery Targets ........................................................................................................................................43

5.2 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6

External TP Load Target .........................................................................................................................37

Issues, Goals and Recommended Actions......................................................................................................................38 4.2

Internal TP Concentration Reduction Target .................................................................................35

Update Lake Vegetation Management Plan (LVMP) ...................................................................................43

Shoreline Management Plan.................................................................................................................................43 In-Lake Alum Treatment of Lake McCarrons ..................................................................................................44

Villa Park Performance Improvements..............................................................................................................44 Chloride Source Assessment and Prevention Plan.......................................................................................45 Future BMP Feasibility Studies and CIP Opportunities...............................................................................45

Implementation Plan Summary ...........................................................................................................................45

References ...................................................................................................................................................................................48

List of Tables Table 3-1

Structural BMPs Constructed in Lake McCarrons Watershed Through 2019 .......................... 27

Table 3-3

Available Monitoring Data at Lake McCarrons Watershed Monitoring Locations ................ 28

Table 3-2 Table 3-4 Table 3-5 Table 5-1

Regional Structural BMPs Constructed in Lake McCarrons Watershed Since 2003 .............. 28

Model Subwatershed TP Loads to Lake McCarrons ........................................................................... 31 Comparison of State Water Quality Standards to Lake McCarronsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Ten-Year Average

Water Quality Observations ......................................................................................................................... 35 Lake McCarrons Implementation Plan ..................................................................................................... 47

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Tasks 7 and 8\Final\Lake McCarrons Management Plan_Final.docx

List of Figures Figure 3-1

Relationship between Phosphorus, Algae, and Dissolved Oxygen ................................................. 8

Figure 3-3

Lake McCarrons Bathymetry ........................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 3-2 Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5

Graphic Illustrating Lake Trophic Level Relationships .......................................................................... 8 Lake McCarrons Summer Average Chl-a Versus TP Relationship (1988-2018) ...................... 12 Lake McCarrons Summer Average Secchi Disc Transparency vs. Chl-a Relationship (1988-

2018) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 3-6

Lake McCarrons Historical Summer Average Total Phosphorus (1988-2018) ......................... 13

Figure 3-8

Lake McCarrons Historical Summer Average Transparency (1988-2018) ................................. 15

Figure 3-7 Figure 3-9 Figure 3-10 Figure 3-11 Figure 3-12 Figure 3-13 Figure 3-14 Figure 3-15 Figure 3-16 Figure 3-17 Figure 3-18 Figure 3-19 Figure 3-20

Lake McCarrons Historical Summer Average Chl-a (1988-2018).................................................. 14 Lake McCarrons Chloride Concentration Trendline (Average Water Column

Measurements, 1988-2018) ......................................................................................................................... 16 Lake McCarrons Subwatersheds ................................................................................................................ 20 Lake McCarrons BMP Network ................................................................................................................... 21 Watershed Pollutant Sources and Pathways ......................................................................................... 22 Lake McCarrons Watershed Impervious Map ....................................................................................... 23

Lake McCarrons SSURGO Soils Map ........................................................................................................ 24 Villa Park Wetland Treatment System Features ................................................................................... 26

Agreement between Modeled and Measured Lake Levels in Lake McCarrons ...................... 32 Relationship between Modeled and Measured TP in Lake McCarrons ...................................... 33 Summer (June through September) 2017 Lake McCarrons Water Quality Modeling

Phosphorus Sources and Loads (pounds, %) ........................................................................................ 34 Lake McCarrons Summer (June through September) Epilimnetic vs Hypolimnetic TP

Relationship (1988-2018) .............................................................................................................................. 36

Lake McCarrons Historical Summer Average Hypolimnetic TP (1988-2018) ........................... 37

List of Appendices Appendix A

BMP Evaluation and Watershed Model Calibration Technical Memo

iii

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Tasks 7 and 8\Final\Lake McCarrons Management Plan_Final.docx

Key Terms Algae: Algae are microscopic plants that float in lake water. Algae become nuisances when they become abundant. A particular kind of algae – blue-green algae – are a particular nuisance because they form scums. All algae become more abundant as the level of phosphorus in the water increases. The abundance of algae is determined by measuring chlorophyll – a green pigment – in lake water.

Alum: Alum is a short-hand reference to the chemical aluminum sulfate. Alum, when applied to lakes,

chemically binds with phosphorus to remove it from the water. The precipitate that forms, called a floc,

settles to the lake bottom and forms a chemical barrier that retards phosphorus from being recycled back into the lake.

Anoxic: Devoid of dissolved oxygen. Best Management Practice: One of many different structural or non–structural methods used to treat

runoff, including such diverse measures as ponding, street sweeping, filtration through a rain garden and infiltration to a gravel trench.

Chlorophyll: Chlorophyll is a green plant pigment found in algae. Chlorophyll in lake water is used as a

measurement for the presence of algae. It has been shown that chlorophyll concentration is correlated to the abundance of all algae.

Clarity: The transparency of lake water is easily observable. As the amount of algae increases, the water

clarity decreases. Clarity is measured using a Secchi disk, an 8- inch white or black-and-white disk lowered over the side of a boat until it disappears.

Eutrophic: Eutrophic refers to a nutrient-enriched condition characterized by increased biological

productivity. Eutrophication is the process by which lakes become eutrophic. Eutrophic lakes are generally considered to be impaired.

Impairment: Water bodies are listed as impaired if water quality standards are not met for designated uses including: aquatic life, aquatic recreation, and aquatic consumption.

Iron-Enhanced Sand Filter: Iron-enhanced sand filters are Best Management Practices (BMPs) that

incorporate filtration media mixed with iron. The iron removes several dissolved constituents, including phosphate, from stormwater.

P8: P8 is a model that estimates pollution (like phosphorus) loads in stormwater. P8 stands for ‘Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage through Pits, Puddles and Ponds.’

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Tasks 7 and 8\Final\Lake McCarrons Management Plan_Final.docx

Phosphorus: Phosphorus is considered the limiting nutrient in lakes. This means it is the element (in the lake water) in shortest supply relative to the growth needs of algae. Phosphorus is measured from lake water collected at the middle of the lake.

Protection: This term is used to characterize actions taken in watersheds of waters not known to be impaired to maintain conditions and beneficial uses of the waterbodies.

Source (or pollutant source): This term is distinguished from ‘stressor’ to mean only those actions,

places or entities that deliver/discharge pollutants (e.g., sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, pathogens). Stormwater: Water that is generated by rainfall or snowmelt which causes runoff and is often routed into drain systems for treatment or conveyance.

Thermocline: The thermocline is the area of greatest temperature change that separates the warmer

surface waters from the cool bottom waters in a lake. The depth of a lake’s thermocline varies, normally becoming shallower from spring to summer, then deeper from summer to autumn. At overturn, the thermocline disappears.

Trophic State: Trophic state is the degree of eutrophication, usually expressed on a continuum. Trophic

state is commonly indicated by phosphorus concentration, algae abundances (as chlorophyll) or water clarity (Secchi disk), either singly or in combination.

Water Quality: Refers to the condition of water. Water quality may be described or defined in many ways, ranging from subjective descriptions to legal standards. Water quality includes many aspects. Normally, water quality of lakes refers to the degree of eutrophication or trophic state.

Watershed/Subwatershed: A lake’s watershed is the land area around the lake that contributes surface runoff to the lake. Subwatersheds are small subdivisions of a watershed.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Tasks 7 and 8\Final\Lake McCarrons Management Plan_Final.docx

Acronyms AAG

Agency Advisory Group

BMP

Best management practice

BWSR

Board of Water and Soil Resources

CAC

Citizens Advisory Committee

Chl-a

Chlorophyll-a

CLP

Curly-leaf Pondweed

CRWD

Capitol Region Watershed District

Dissolved oxygen

GIS

Geographic information system

IESF

iron-enhanced sand filter

lbs/yr

Pounds per year

LiDAR

Light detection and ranging

LVMP

Lake Vegetation Management Plan

Âľg/L

micrograms per liter

MnDNR

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

MnDOT

Minnesota Department of Transportation

MPCA

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

MS4

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

NCHF

North Central Hardwood Forest

NPDES

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Program for predicting polluting particle passage thru pits, puddles, and ponds

RCPR

Ramsey County Parks and Recreation

Total phosphorus

TSS

Total suspended solids

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Tasks 7 and 8\Final\Lake McCarrons Management Plan_Final.docx

1 Executive Summary Lake McCarrons has a surface area of 74.5 acres and a maximum depth of 54 feet—small and deep by Metro area norms. Located in the southeast corner of Roseville, the Lake McCarrons watershed covers 1,050 acres and is primarily residential land use. Like many other urban lakes, Lake McCarrons has

previously experienced water quality problems, as documented in the 2003 Lake McCarrons Management Plan [2003 Plan] (The Osgood Group and Barr Engineering Co., 2003).

A 2004 in-lake alum treatment and several watershed improvement projects implemented since 2003

have resulted in significant water quality improvement for Lake McCarrons. As a result, CRWD recognizes

the need for an updated lake management plan that reflects current water quality issues and identifies goals, objectives and recommended actions for watershed and in-lake management to protect and maintain exceptional water quality in Lake McCarrons.

The last ten years of Lake McCarrons growing season (June through September) lake water quality data include an average TP concentration of 18 µg/L, which is well below the MPCA’s 40 µg/L TP criteria and

below the lake’s diatom-inferred historical TP concentrations of 24 to 26 µg/L, which are indicative of presettlement conditions. In addition, the last ten years of mean summer lake water quality data include

average Chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) and Secchi disc transparency measurements for Lake McCarrons that are

significantly better than MPCA’s respective criteria. As a result, it is important to establish Total

Phosphorus (TP) targets that will protect the water quality of the Lake McCarrons.

The Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) is responsible for updating this Lake McCarrons

Management Plan (Plan) for review by the public and the CRWD Board of Managers. An important component of Plan development process was stakeholder engagement to establish goals and

expectations for Lake McCarrons. As part of the process, two stakeholder advisory groups were consulted to ensure all interests and inputs were included in the development of the Plan—the Agency Advisory Group (AAG) and the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC).

Management goals set a vision for Lake McCarrons, and associated objectives provide a mechanism to measure progress towards meeting those goals. The five overarching management goals for Lake McCarrons and its watershed include: •

Goal 1:

Maintain phosphorus and chloride concentrations below target levels in Lake McCarrons and reduce the water quality impact of other pollutants.

•

Goal 2:

Maintain a healthy, balanced aquatic ecosystem in Lake McCarrons.

•

Goal 3:

Promote sustained community stewardship of Lake McCarrons and its watershed.

•

Goal 4:

Reduce the risk of flooding to habitable structures and significant infrastructure surrounding Lake McCarrons and Villa Park.

•

Goal 5:

Support the recreational use of Lake McCarrons by achieving water quality and vegetation conditions consistent with the Lake’s intended uses, including swimming, boating and fishing.

This Plan takes a protective management approach for maintaining exceptional water quality in Lake McCarrons. Specific management actions are anticipated for implementation over the next ten-year

period (2021-2030), which will be combined with regular monitoring to evaluate progress at achieving the desired goals and objectives. This approach will also allow enough time for the Lake to respond to in-lake and watershed management actions and achieve ecological balance.

2 Introduction 2.1 Overview and Purpose Lake McCarrons is a small urban lake located in the southeast corner of Roseville. Park and beach visitors,

as well as lake area residents and neighbors enjoy the pleasant setting surrounding Lake McCarrons. Like many other urban lakes, Lake McCarrons had previously experienced water quality problems. As

documented in the 2003 Lake McCarrons Management Plan [2003 Plan] (The Osgood Group and Barr

Engineering Co., 2003), phosphorus and chlorophyll-a levels routinely exceeded MPCA’s impaired waters criteria during the 1990s.

The Villa Park Ponds and Wetland System was constructed in the mid-1980s for the purpose of improving the water quality of stormwater entering the lake. This highly visible project was touted as a model for

urban stormwater management, but it was quickly discovered that the system requires more maintenance than anticipated. It has been confirmed that the Villa Park system alone—even at their optimal

performance—will not protect the beneficial uses of Lake McCarrons. Internal phosphorus sources must

also be managed to reduce algae growth in the lake. An in-lake alum treatment was completed in 2004 to control internal phosphorus load, but will require continued monitoring to ensure that the TP target is being met.

Invasive species are also of concern. Eurasian watermilfoil was discovered in 2000 and zebra mussels were

discovered in 2019. There are questions regarding what management actions will be needed to maintain a

healthy, balanced aquatic ecosystem and recreational use in Lake McCarrons.

There are concerns about flooding of habitable structures in low-lying watershed areas. Increased

precipitation trends due to climate change have the potential to exacerbate this problem in the future. The Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) is responsible for the development of this plan in

recognition of the issues and concerns noted above. The District also has the motivation and resources to carry out meaningful planning and management actions in cooperation with other agencies and interest groups. The District assembled an Agency Advisory Group (AAG) and requested their assistance with

developing this updated Lake McCarrons Management Plan (Plan) for review by the public and the CRWD

Board of Managers.

Numerous individuals and agency staff invested their time in this effort, and made this Plan a model of

cooperation. The results of their efforts will mean Lake McCarrons can maintain exceptional water quality

and enhanced aesthetics for the public and land owners that enjoy the lake. The primary purpose of the updated Plan is to develop management strategies that will be used as a framework for CRWD, local

partners, and community stakeholders to protect Lake McCarrons over time. CRWD’s approach to

management of Lake McCarrons is described below.

2.2 Lake McCarrons Management Plan Framework This Plan takes an adaptive management approach for maintaining exceptional water quality in Lake McCarrons. Specific management actions are anticipated for implementation over the next ten year

period (2021-2030), which will be combined with regular monitoring to evaluate progress toward

achieving the desired goals and objectives. This approach will also allow enough time for the lake to respond to in-lake and watershed management actions and achieve ecological balance.

The first step in the planning process was to complete the technical evaluations of Lake McCarrons’ long-

term chemical, biological and physical data to determine the primary factors affecting water quality under current conditions. A P8 watershed model (Walker and Walker, 2017) was developed and calibrated to

include the most recent subwatershed delineations, changes in land use conditions, and the numerous

structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) that have been constructed. P8 is a model used to simulate pollutant loading from urban watersheds that also estimates pollutant removal from stormwater

treatment structures (e.g. stormwater ponds). Other technical studies were analyzed and an in-lake water

quality model was developed and calibrated to document the latest scientific understanding of water

quality issues in Lake McCarrons and its watershed (Section 3).

The second step in this Plan process was to set goals for Lake McCarrons. In addition to having a technical

understanding of the Lake’s issues and water quality concerns, a successful lake management plan

requires an understanding of the regulatory requirements and the priorities of the community. To learn

about the community’s concerns, CRWD held discussions with stakeholders to identify additional issues facing Lake McCarrons from their perspective. This input was taken into consideration along with the regulatory requirements to develop management goals and objectives for the Plan (Section 4).

Management actions are actual projects, programs, events, or organized efforts that will work toward achieving the goals and objectives of this Plan. The third step in the process sought to define these

actions and describe how they would effectively achieve the goals and objectives for the lake.

Once actions have been evaluated and defined, the next step in the process is implementation of those

actions (Section 5). This Plan lays out two major categories of management actions—projects and capital

improvements. The details of how each action will be implemented will be further detailed in specific

plans or feasibility study reports that contain more prescriptive detail about what what needs to occur.

The management actions will primarily be carried out over the next ten years (2021-2030) to ensure goals and objectives are met.

3 Lake and Watershed Characterization Available background information and data was consulted to understand the lake and watershed

conditions of the Lake McCarrons watershed. This section examines current available lake water quality and watershed data and the role this data plays in model calibration, setting TP targets, and other implications for lake and watershed management.

The most relevant background information comes from the 2003 Lake McCarrons Management Plan

[2003 Plan] (The Osgood Group and Barr Engineering Co., 2003). This study also drew from recent data

sources including all available water quality monitoring data, fish and plant surveys, along with updated and calibrated watershed and in-lake water quality modeling.

3.1 Lake Water Quality Primer The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of lakes are extremely variable. Lakes vary physically

in terms of light levels, temperature, and water currents. Lakes vary chemically in terms of nutrients, major ions, and contaminants; and vary biologically in terms of biomass structure and function. For the majority of Minnesota lakes, phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for algae growth, and an increase in phosphorus

results in an increase in chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) concentrations and a decrease in water clarity which inhibits

lake use. Eutrophic (or nutrient-rich) lakes can be restored by reducing phosphorus concentrations. This

section is intended to provide a general background on the dynamics of nutrient availability and

assimilation by introducing the basic concepts necessary to understand how lake systems function.

3.1.1 Density Stratification In lakes of the upper Midwest, the water near a lake’s bottom will usually be at 39°F just prior to ice-melt

in the spring (Water on the Web, 2004). As the surface water warms to 39°F , the density of the water

increases causing the surface water to sink and mix with the waters below. Spring turnover occurs when the temperature (and density) of the surface water equals that of the bottom water and continues until the water temperature of the entire lake reaches approximately 39°F. The surface waters continue to

absorb heat, causing the water temperatures to rise above 39°F, resulting in the density of the water to

decrease and become less dense than the cooler water below. For a while, winds may still mix shallower lakes from bottom to top, but eventually the upper water of deeper lakes become too warm and too

buoyant to completely mix with denser deeper water. The relatively large differences in density at higher temperatures are very effective at preventing mixing.

As summer progresses, the temperature (and density) differences between upper and lower water layers become more distinct (Water on the Web, 2004). Deep lakes generally become physically stratified by

temperature into three identifiable layers, known as the epilimnion, metalimnion, and hypolimnion. The epilimnion is the upper, warm layer, and is typically well mixed within itself. Below the epilimnion is the

metalimnion or thermocline region, a layer of water in which the temperature declines rapidly with depth. The hypolimnion is the bottom layer of colder water, isolated from the epilimnion by the metalimnion.

The density change at the metalimnion acts as a physical barrier that prevents mixing of the upper and

lower layers for several months during the summer. The depth of mixing depends in part on the exposure 5

of the lake to wind (its fetch), but is most closely related to the lake’s size. Smaller to moderately-sized lakes (50 to 1,000 acres) typically stratify and become well-mixed to a depth of 10–23 feet in northern

temperate climates.

As the weather cools during autumn, the epilimnion cools too, reducing the density difference between it

and the hypolimnion (Water on the Web, 2004). As time passes, winds mix the lake to greater depths, and the thermocline gradually deepens. When surface and bottom waters approach the same temperature

and density, autumn winds can mix the entire lake; the lake “turns over” again in fall. As the atmosphere

cools, the surface water continues to cool until it freezes. A less distinct density stratification than that seen in summer develops under the ice during winter. This pattern (spring turnover — summer

stratification — fall turnover — winter stratification) is typical for temperate lakes. Deeper lakes with this

pattern of two mixing periods are referred to as dimictic, while shallower lakes with several mixing periods are referred to as polymictic. Dimictic lakes, like Lake McCarrons, as well as polymictic lakes, are common in Minnesota.

3.1.2 Dissolved Oxygen Biological activity peaks during the spring and summer when photosynthetic activity is increased by high solar radiation (Water on the Web, 2004). Furthermore, during the summer most lakes in temperate climates are stratified. The combination of thermal stratification and biological activity causes

characteristic patterns in water chemistry. During summer stratification, the conditions in each layer

diverge. The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration in the epilimnion remains high throughout the summer because of photosynthesis and diffusion from the atmosphere. However, oxygen conditions in the

hypolimnion vary with trophic status. In eutrophic (more productive) lakes, hypolimnetic DO declines

during the summer because it is cut-off from all sources of oxygen, while organisms continue to respire and consume oxygen. The bottom layer of the lake and even the entire hypolimnion may eventually become anoxic, or totally devoid of oxygen.

As microorganisms continue to decompose material in the hypolimnion and bottom sediments, they

consume oxygen, and DO in the water is depleted (Water on the Web, 2004). With ice cover, no oxygen

can diffuse into the lake water, and, if snow covers the ice, it becomes too dark for photosynthesis to

produce oxygen. This condition can cause high fish mortality during the winter, known as "winter kill." Low DO in the water overlying the sediments can exacerbate water quality deterioration; because when the DO level drops below 1 mg O2/L, chemical processes at the sediment-water interface can cause a release of

phosphorus from the sediments into the water. When a lake mixes in the spring, this new phosphorus and ammonium that has built up in the bottom water fuels increased algal growth.

3.1.3 Nutrients Aquatic organisms influence (and are influenced by) the chemistry of the surrounding environment. For example, phytoplankton extract nutrients from the water and zooplankton feed on phytoplankton.

Nutrients are redistributed from the upper waters to the lake bottom as the dead plankton gradually settles to lower depths and decompose (Water on the Web, 2004).

Essential nutrients such as the bioavailable forms of phosphorus and nitrogen typically increase in the spring from snowmelt runoff and from the mixing of accumulated nutrients from the bottom during

spring turnover and decrease during summer stratification as nutrients are taken up by algae. Nutrients

are eventually transported to the bottom water when algae die and settle out (Water on the Web, 2004). Any "new" input of nutrients into the surface water may trigger a "bloom" of algae. Such inputs may be from upstream tributaries after rainstorms, from die-offs of aquatic plants, or from pulses of urban

stormwater. In the absence of rain or snowmelt, an injection of nutrients may occur simply from high

winds that mix a portion of the nutrient-enriched upper waters of the hypolimnion into the epilimnion. A typical lake has distinct zones of biological communities linked to the physical structure of the lake. The littoral zone is the area near shore where sunlight penetrates all the way to the sediment and allows

aquatic plants (macrophytes) to grow. Plants in the littoral zone also provide habitat for fish and other organisms.

Although an in-depth microscopic enumeration of the dozens of species of algae present in a water

column is preferred, measuring the concentration of chlorophyll-a in lake water is easier and provides an

estimate of algal biomass that is used by MPCA in evaluating the trophic state of all lakes. Chlorophyll-a is the green pigment that is responsible for a plant's ability to use sunlight energy to fix carbon dioxide into

carbohydrates. Both chlorophyll-a and Secchi depth (a measure of water transparency) are long-accepted

methods for estimating the amount of algae in lakes and the associated effect on water transparency. Like all other plants, algae require phosphorus to grow and reproduce. Phosphorus enters the water in two ways: •

Externally—from surface runoff entering the water or from groundwater. Humans can have

profound influences on lake chemistry. Excessive landscape disturbance causes higher rates of leaching and erosion by removing vegetative cover, exposing soil, and increasing water runoff

velocity, which in turn, may exacerbate downstream erosion from ravine and bluff sources. Lawn

fertilizers, pet waste, leaf litter, grass clippings, wastewater and urban stormwater inputs all add nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus to watershed runoff. Dry deposition (typically

associated with wind erosion), and atmospheric deposition from direct precipitation on the lake

surface both contribute additional nutrients. •

Internally—from the sediments on the bottom of the lake. Phosphorus already in the lake

naturally settles to the bottom and is periodically re-released from the sediments back into the water under certain conditions.

Even when external sources of phosphorus have been reduced or eliminated through best management practices, the internal recycling of phosphorus can still support explosive algal growth. Internal

phosphorus loading is a large problem in lakes with developed watersheds because of historic inputs of phosphorus from urban storm water runoff. Phosphorus in runoff has concentrated in the sediments of urban lakes as successive years of algal blooms have died and settled to the lake bottoms. This

phosphorus is recycled from the lake sediments into the overlying waters, primarily during summer

periods, when it contributes to the growth of nuisance algal blooms. Figure 3-1 is a simple graphic

explaining the relationship between phosphorus, algae, and Dissolved Oxygen (Water on the Web, 2004).

Figure 3-1

Relationship between Phosphorus, Algae, and Dissolved Oxygen

3.1.4 The Food Chain The biological communities within lakes may be organized conceptually into food chains and food webs

to help us understand how the ecosystem functions. A broad base of primary producers (algae) supports

overlying levels of herbivores (zooplankton), planktivores and much smaller numbers of carnivores

(predators). These individual trophic levels may be idealized as a food chain, but in fact many organisms shift levels throughout their life cycle. For example, a larval fish may initially eat fine particulate material that includes algae before switching to graze on larger zooplankton and ultimately feeding on "forage

fish" or young game fish when it reaches maturity. Figure 3-2 illustrates the lake zones and relationship between the various trophic levels in the food chain of most waterbodies (Water on the Web, 2004).

Figure 3-2

Graphic Illustrating Lake Trophic Level Relationships

3.1.5 Trophic Status Since the early part of the 20th century, lakes have been classified according to their trophic state.

"Trophic" means nutrition or growth. A eutrophic ("well-nourished") lake has high nutrients and high plant growth. An oligotrophic lake has low nutrient concentrations and low plant growth. A mesotrophic lake

falls somewhere between eutrophic and oligotrophic lakes. While lakes may be sorted into a few trophic classes, each lake has a unique constellation of attributes that contribute to its trophic status. The three

main factors that regulate the trophic state of a lake include the rate of nutrient supply, climate, and the morphometry (or shape) of the lake basin.

This study is intended to identify nutrient sources, magnitudes, and resulting in-lake water quality for Lake McCarrons, comparing them to previously established standards, goals or reference conditions. Where

these goals and reference conditions are not met, this Plan establishes target water-quality-improvement management actions that will protect and improve water quality conditions in the lake.

3.2 Lake McCarrons Characterization 3.2.1 Historical and Current Morphometry Figure 3-3 shows the lake bathymetry (depth) data collected by Ramsey County Soil & Water

Conservation Division staff as a part of a vegetation survey on May 20, 2019. The Lake McCarrons water

surface elevation on May 20, 2019 was 841.03 feet MSL. The bathymetric data from the recent survey is

very similar to depths documented by previous reports, including the data resulting from MnDNR

bathymetry. Lake McCarrons has a surface area of 74.5 acres and a maximum depth of 54 feetâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;small and

deep by Metro area norms. The computed lake volume is 1,846 acre-feet, which corresponds with an average depth of 25 feet.

The lake typically has a distinct thermocline at 14 to 16 feet, which separates an upper, mixing layer of

water from a cold, stagnant layer during the summer months. In fact, the lake is so strongly stratified that it does not always turn over in the fall (The Osgood Group and Barr Engineering Co., 2003). Based on

measurements that are typically collected between May and October in most years, Lake McCarrons is

generally mixing at depths between 25 and 30 feet in the spring and fall. Following the alum treatment, approximately 3 years of November monitoring data indicated lake mixing that exceeded a depth of 35 feet. There is no indication, from the available monitoring data, that the epilimnetic phosphorus concentration increases at the time of spring mixing.

25 '

34 '

44 '

36 '

29 '

26 '

12 '

17 '

41 '

Dr Bayv iew

North Mccarron Blvd W

ve hA

51 '

e ac

B dy

21 '

15 '

' 54

Sha

37 '

48 ' 52 '

' 13

31 '

7 6 5 4 49

46 '

Roselawn Ave W

Mccarron St

' 49

rro

22 '

cc a

14 '

' 33

u dr

Center S t

32 '

Bathymetry Contour (Feet)

ff e Av

Lake McCarron Boundary W

; ! N

cCa r

ron

B lv d

225

Feet 1 inch = 225 feet

Wagner St W

Roma Ave W

Galtier St N

e Av

Western Ave N

e Gl

d oo

Woodruff Ave

Hilltop Ave W

43 '

10 '

' 40 30

39 '

16 '

28 '

24 '

oo W

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-03-02 10:35 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\Reports\Plan\Figure 3-3 Lake McCarronS Bathymetry.mxd User: JRV

19 '

Rice St N

' 11

Wagner Pl

53 '

William St

Giesman St h

n ro

t or

ar cc

LAKE MCCARRONS BATHYMETRY Lake McCarronsWater Management Plan Dept Rd Capitol Region Watershed District FIGURE 3-3

3.2.2 Water Quality in Lake McCarrons This section provides an updated analysis of the water quality monitoring data compiled by CRWD to

revisit the 2003 Plan water quality goals and objectives. This analysis includes evaluation of lake water quality monitoring data to determine whether the following 2003 Plan-specific objectives are met: •

Manage phosphorus so summer average lake concentration is 33 µg/L or less

•

Keep winter dissolved oxygen concentrations above 3 mg/L in the top 4 feet of the lake during the winter

In addition, chloride concentrations in the lake were evaluated to determine if a chloride-specific objective should be included (since the MPCA standard for chloride was developed after the 2003 Plan was

completed). The state standard for chloride is defined as not exceeding 230 mg/L chronic state standard for chloride in lakes more than once every three years.

3.2.2.1 Phosphorus The 2003 Plan set a Chl-a goal of 10 µg/L based on an observation that, at higher concentrations, algae

bloom frequencies and their resulting nuisance increased to a level commonly perceived to be ‘impaired’ for swimming (MPCA, 1997). Based on Lake McCarron’s historical relationship between summer average

total phosphorus (TP) and chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) when the 2003 Plan was written, it was determined that a TP goal of 33 µg/L would likely ensure that the Chl-a goal of 10 µg/L would be met on a consistent basis (see Figure 3-4). When recent monitoring data is included in the relationship between TP and Chl-a, the

TP concentration associated with the 10 µg/L threshold is even higher (40 µg/L TP), which is the state

standard for TP in deep lakes in the North Central Hardwood Forest ecoregion. However, diatom-inferred TP concentrations published by Heiskary and Swain (2002) indicate that Lake McCarrons’ TP

concentrations were likely in the range of 24 to 26 µg/L prior to European settlement. This confirms that

the 33 µg/L TP goal is attainable in Lake McCarrons when internal and external TP loadings are controlled, and is still considered to be an appropriate goal for the lake.

Based on the historical relationship between summer average Secchi disc transparency and Chl-a,

Figure 3-5 shows that the current Chl-a goal of 10 µg/L should result in approximately 2.1 meters (7 feet) of Secchi disc transparency (noted by the red lines). This transparency is also higher than the deep lake standard in Lake McCarrons’ ecoregion (1.4 meters).

Lake McCarron’s water quality has improved significantly since the 2003 Plan due to an alum treatment in 2004. Since then, the average summer epilimnetic TP has varied between 12 and 25 µg/L with no

significant trends (Figure 3-6). Since 2004, the average summer Chl-a has routinely been below 5 µg/L

with no significant trends (Figure 3-7). Since the 2004 alum treatment, Figure 3-8 shows that Secchi disc

transparency has varied between 2.5 and 5 meters, which represents an increase to a mesotrophic level or ‘fully-supporting’ conditions for swimming (MPCA, 1997).

50 45

Summer Avg. Chl-a (µg/L)

40 35 30

y = 0.26x0.99 R² = 0.38

25 20 15 10 5 0

Summer Avg. Secchi disc transparency (meters)

Figure 3-4

40 60 Summer Avg. TP (µg/L)

100

Lake McCarrons Summer Average Chl-a Versus TP Relationship (1988-2018)

7 6 5 4 3 2

y = 5.25x-0.40 R² = 0.53

1 0

Figure 3-5

20 30 Summer Avg. Chl-a (ug/L)

Lake McCarrons Summer Average Secchi Disc Transparency vs. Chl-a Relationship (1988-2018) 12

Figure 3-6

Lake McCarrons Historical Summer Average Total Phosphorus (1988-2018)

Figure 3-7

Lake McCarrons Historical Summer Average Chl-a (1988-2018)

Figure 3-8

Lake McCarrons Historical Summer Average Transparency (1988-2018)

3.2.2.2 Dissolved Oxygen A review of the winter lake water quality monitoring indicates that there were only five years over the last fourteen years (2005 through 2018) with dissolved oxygen (DO) dataâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;none of the DO concentrations in the top four feet of Lake McCarrons dropped below 8.8 mg/L during that time. As a result, it does not

appear that winterkill is a serious concern for the lake and this objective does not warrant inclusion in the 2020 Plan.

3.2.2.3 Chloride The 2003 Plan did not set goals/objectives for chloride levels, but Lake McCarrons has narrowly missed

the impaired waters list for chloride, with three individual sample exceedances of the 230 mg/L standard spread over time frames greater than three years. If the increasing trend in average water column

measurements, shown on Figure 3-9 continues, it is likely that the lake will become impaired within the

next ten years. The chloride standard necessitates that the surface, bottom and mid-depth portions of the

lake do not exceed an average chloride concentration of 230 mg/L more than once every three years. As a result, the applicable chloride standards are included as a goal in this Plan.

Figure 3-9

Lake McCarrons Chloride Concentration Trendline (Average Water Column Measurements, 1988-2018)

3.2.3 Lake Bottom Sediments The MPCA and the Science Museum of MN previously analyzed sediment cores from Lake McCarrons to

evaluate long-term changes or trends in certain water quality indicators (Heiskary and Swain, 2002). Their

evaluation indicated that Lake McCarrons probably had much better water quality in pre-settlement times compared to the 1970s and 1990s. Specifically, their data indicate that the lakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s phosphorus

concentration has doubled sometime between the years 1800 and 1970. Their data also show higher and

increasing level of chlorides. The phosphorus increase noted for Lake McCarrons is not unusual for Metro lakes, however, the chloride concentrations in Lake McCarrons are relatively high.

Barr (2003) analyzed Lake McCarronsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sediment to determine areal and depth distribution of mobile

phosphorus and conducted laboratory dose tests with surficial sediment core subsamples to determine appropriate alum application dosages for the 2004 alum treatment.

Wenck (2016a) evaluated the internal sediment phosphorus loading in Lake McCarrons. The study

quantified rates of phosphorus release from intact sediment cores under aerobic and anaerobic

conditions and examined spatial and vertical variations in the sediment’s biologically-available

phosphorus fractions.

CRWD (2019a) published an evaluation of the distribution of alum in Lake McCarrons, alum thickness, and

the characteristics of overlying sediment deposition. The study indicates that there may be an unequal distribution of alum in Lake McCarrons. Potential reasons for the unequal distribution of alum and its

decreasing efficacy were discussed, including: • •

Wind direction, wind speed and/or lake currents could have affected the settling of alum particles

Five days with precipitation in the seven days that followed the alum treatment that included a 0.88” rainfall event

•

The lake’s bathymetry can also play a role in the settling of suspended particles, where the lake

bottom slope directs particles to low lying areas •

An average of 4.9 centimeters of sediment has buried the alum in the last thirteen years, which is approaching the six centimeter depth that was assumed to contribute mobile phosphorus in the lead up to the alum treatment.

3.2.4 Aquatic Vegetation and Invasive Species The 2003 Plan noted that Eurasian watermilfoil had recently infested the lake and stated that ‘we do not yet know to what extent it will be problematic in Lake McCarrons.’ In addition, there was an incomplete baseline to evaluate prior conditions. Curly-leaf Pondweed (CLP) was also present as early as 1996 in

aquatic plant surveys, and has been consistently observed in the lake in all annual surveys completed

since 2013. CLP is of concern because its mid-summer dieback releases phosphorus into the water column at a time when algae are able to take it up.

A lake vegetation management plan (LVMP) is a document the Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources (MnDNR) develops with public input to address aquatic plant issues on a lake. The LVMP is

intended to balance riparian property owner’s interest in the use of shoreland and access to the lake with

preservation of aquatic plants, which is important to the lake’s ecological health. MnDNR (2012)

previously developed a LVMP for Lake McCarrons to prescribe the permitted aquatic plant management actions (mechanical and/or herbicides) for a five-year period, including controls for invasive plants and

restoration of lake shore habitat.

On August 22, 2019 the MnDNR confirmed that zebra mussels were found in Lake McCarrons. Ramsey County staff conducted a targeted search and confirmed a lakewide zebra mussel presence.

The Lake McCarrons Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Plan (Wenck, 2018) was created to define the process

and criteria by which AIS will be managed on Lake McCarrons. The LVMP will need to be updated for Lake McCarrons to define AIS threshold criteria that take seasonality and other factors into account. Section 4 discusses the management plan goals, objectives and recommended implementation plan actions that were developed for CRWD in the context of legacy (established), newly discovered and yet-to-be-

discovered (or threatening) invasive species in the lake.

3.2.5 Fisheries The most recent fisheries survey was conducted in June 2019. The MnDNR assessments evaluate the

fishes’ numbers and weight compared to norms for similar lakes. According to MnDNR’s report, Lake

McCarrons has a variety of fish habitats. The status of the fishery (as of June 2019) is described as follows: Northern Pike have been the primary management species in the lake. The lake has a history of

experiencing partial winterkills that tend to reduce the number of small bluegills back to levels of

abundance that the lake can support. Net catches were slightly better than what was seen in previous

years, with gill net catches of Northern Pike above average and trap net catches of Bluegill also above

average in abundance. Northern Pike averaged 22 inches and Bluegills ranged from 2.7 to 8.1 inches

in length with an average length of 5.2 inches. The largest Black Crappie captured was 11.4 inches in

length. Yellow Perch were captured in low abundance for lakes similar to McCarron. Largemouth Bass are present in the lake however none were captured in the gill or trap nets in 2019. Largemouth Bass

were sampled by night electrofishing with thirty-six Largemouth Bass and two Smallmouth Bass being sampled by electrofishing (36.6 bass/hr on time), which was conducted around the entire shoreline of McCarrons Lake. The Largemouth Bass population size structure on McCarrons Lake is good with

some quality size fish present. The Smallmouth Bass present in the lake are most likely the result of

illegal transport and stocking by overzealous anglers. Anglers are reminded that the practice of non-

permitted fish stocking is prohibited by state law.

The previous fisheries survey was conducted in August 2016, which followed MnDNR standard trap and gill net survey methods (Wenck, 2016b). There were 11 species collected from McCarrons Lake in 2016 with 212 individual fish collected. The most numerous fish collected in 2016 were black crappie (71),

bluegill (63) and northern pike (55). The 2016 fish community appeared to be balanced with the presence of a large top predator community to provide “top-down” influence on the overall fish community, little

to no evidence of a stunted panfish population, and limited benthic species (i.e. bullheads). The presence of large top predator species can be very important in fisheries management as trophic dynamics can

contribute to water quality. There were more species collected in 2016 as compared to the 2014 survey. There was also a notable decrease in bluegill individuals and increase in northern pike in 2016 as

compared to 2014, which supported the idea that the northern pike population is assisting in controlling the bluegill population within the lake.

3.3 Lake McCarrons and its Watershed 3.3.1 Watershed Boundaries Lake McCarrons’ watershed refers to the area that collects and contributes stormwater runoff to the lake. As lands around a lake become urbanized, water runoff systems are altered in ways that increase the

amount of runoff, the amount of pollution carried in the runoff, and the land area contributing runoff. In addition, the increase in hard surface usually results in preventing infiltration that would recharge groundwater.

The watershed boundary was determined using GIS mapping and takes into consideration the local

topography and drainage networks surrounding Lake McCarrons. Seven major subwatersheds within the 18

Lake McCarrons watershed were also defined (Figure 3-10), including two small landlocked areas. A

subwatershed is a localized drainage area within a greater watershed that drains to the lake. The Lake McCarrons subwatershed delineations were determined using GIS and are based on: (1) topography,

(2) storm sewer discharge points (outfalls) to Lake McCarrons, (3) the subsurface storm sewer network

extending upstream of the discharge point, and (4) storm sewer discharge monitoring locations (shown

on Figure 3-10). The storm sewer networks in the McCarrons watershed are complex and incorporate

several types of Best Management Practices (BMPs), as shown on Figure 3-11.

3.3.2 Watershed Pollutant Sources and Pathways Stormwater runoff carries excess pollutants like nutrients and sediment from the watershed to the lake,

making the watershed a pollutant “source”. The characteristics of the watershed have significant influence on the amount of runoff and what pollutants are being delivered to the lake. Figure 3-12 illustrates

watershed processes and pollutant pathways typical to the Lake McCarrons watershed, including:

A. Pollutant Sources: Includes trash, leaves, grass clippings, soil, animal waste, fertilizers, automobile

fluids, road salt, and other chemicals—anything present on the landscape that can be flushed into a storm drain by rain or snowmelt.

Runoff: Occurs when rain or snowmelt flows off the landscape, picking up pollutants and other

material on its path. In urban environments, impervious surfaces like roofs, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, and roads prevent water from soaking into the ground as it naturally would, causing stormwater runoff to generate and flow into storm drains.

C. Stormwater Flows to Lake: Sewers function as underground streams to collect and convey

stormwater— they prevent localized flooding by moving runoff from the landscape downstream.

Storm sewers flow into Lake McCarrons, and as a result transfer runoff carrying pollutants from the

landscape directly to the lake.

WP12-019

DP1008

DP1005

DP1001 DP1003

DP1006

DP1002

DP1007

WP11-031 P1003

DP1004

WP1007

P1001

P1014

P1000

P1002A

WP15-030

William Street Pond

WP10-002 WP1000

P1002B DP14-027 WP14-013

Villa Park Wetland System

WP1008

DPF14-010 P1005

WP14-004

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\MISC\Figure 3-10 Subwatershed to Monitor.mxd

P1006

Alameda Pond (Pond L)

WP14-044 DP14-036

P1004

WP1005

# 0

Upper Villa Water Reuse System (Flow & WQ) P1007UVI

WP1003

DP14-015

DP1000

# 0

WP13-023

# 0

WP13-011b

# 0

P1011WSPI

WP13-012 WP13-011a

WP14-018

INF15-008

WP10-001CP

WP1001

WP12-003CP

Major Subwatersheds Lake McCarrons Outlet

P1009VPO WPF14-011

Municipal Boundary

WP1002

WP13-024

CRWD Monitoring Locations for Calibration

Villa Park Outlet (Flow & WQ) & Overflow

# 0

William Street Pond (WQ & Pond L)

# 0

Upper Villa Inlet WP1004

Villa Park Inlet Villa Park Outlet William Street Pond Inlet

WP03-002CP

Direct to Lake McCarrons

William Street Pond Outlet Non-Contributing

; ! N

300

600

Feet 1 inch = 750 feet

McCarrons Outlet (Q)

# 0 SUBWATERSHEDS Lake McCarrons Management Plan Capitol Region Watershed District Figure 3-10

Rice St N

% , , % , % . ! F G ' " )

7 6 4 5 49

lv d

Shady Beach Ave

Mccarron St

, %

Dry Pond Filtration Infiltration Pipe Splitter Underground WetRoselawn Pond Ave E

Roselawn Ave W

Municipal Boundary P8 Subwatersheds

Center St

; !

Fenton Ave

cCa rron B

0 lv d

Beaumont St N

Woodbridge St

Marion St

William St

Giesman St Giesman St

P8 BMP

n Blvd W

Wagner Pl

rro

" )

Lillehei Dr

Capitol Marion View St N Cir

William St

Farrington St N

Farrington Hand Ave St

Western Ave N

Albemarle St

Hand Ave

Auerbach St

Western Ave N

Irene St

Iren e St

County Road B

. !

Water De

p t Rd

400

800

Feet 1 inch = 792 feet

Abel St N Beaumont St N

Kingston Ave E Gurney St N

Sylvan St N

Abell St

BMP NETWORK Lake McCarrons Management Plan E Larpenteur Ave Capitol Region Watershed District FIGURE 3-11 Gurney St

Woodbridge Ct

N Rice St

N Marion St

7 6 4 5

N Wes tern Ave

W Larpen teur Ave

Marion St N

Dionne St W

Kent St N

Saint Albans St N

Mccarro

Galtier St N

Woodruff Ave

Chandler Ave

cca

Western Ave N

Kent St N

a St N

Dale St N

Ct a le

Glenwood Ave W Wagner St W

N Dale St

N Milton St

N Oxford St

W California Ave

W Larpen teur Ave

Nor th

, %

Skillman Ave W

%% , ,% , . ! , % " ) % " ) !, .

Elmer St W

Galti er St

7 6 4 5

, %

Burke Ave W

, %

Dionne Ave W

Emerald Rdg

Matilda St N

Cohansey St N Top Hill Cir

Saint Albans St N

Grotto St N

Avon St N

Ala me d

Chatsworth Ct

Chatsworth St N

Hilltop Ave W

" )

) " ) "

e Av

Roma Ave W

iew

Reser v oir Woods Cir

Aglen St N

Pinevie w

cen t

u dr

Lexington Ave N

Stuber Rd

Roselawn Ave W

Cre s

% , , % % , ) " ) " " ) . ! , %

v Ba y

rN aD V is t

N Lexington Ave

Ryan Ave W

Alta

W Ruggles Ave

7 6 4 5

, %

a St N

7 6 4 5

Ryan Ave W

d Ala me

Ruggles St W

, %

Shryer Ave W W Moundsview Ave

Shryer Ave W

" )

Eldridge Ave W

oo W

Summer St

" )! . " ) " )" )

Skillman Ave W

ia St N Victor

Roselawn Ave W

Autumn St

, ,% %

,! .G ! F% .

Grotto St N

Nancy Pl Victoria St N

Milton Pl N

Oxford St N

rr Ha

a tL

Draper Ave W

N Victoria St

7 6 4 5 51

Oxford St N

Ryan Ave W

) "" )

Ryan Ave W

" )

a ont L Belm

Cohansey Blvd

Nancy Pl

Lexington Ave N

. !

Oxford St N

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-02-10 17:15 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\Reports\Plan\Figure 3-11 BMP Network.mxd User: GJW

Shryer Ave W

, %

Eldridge Ave W

" )

, %

" )

. !

.% ! ,

4 7 6 5! .

! . " )

Viking Dr

Parker Ave W

, %

County Road B

st Sandhurst Dr W

" )

r le

% , . !

Ryan Ave W

, %

Cir

Parker Ave W

Sa ndhu r

7 6 4 5

e Alb

" " ))

Capitol View Ave

Burke Ave W

Eldridge Ave W

Skillman Ave W

Sandhurst Dr

. !

, %

Garden Ave

Sandhurst Dr W

Minnesota Ave

Sandhurst Dr W

, %% ,

Sa ndhu rst Dr W

S Highway 36 Service Dr

Bossard

" )

ll D r

Minnesota Ave W

, %% , , ,% % , % . !

Sherren St W

Laurie Rd W

% , , % , %

h ep St

Sherren St W

" )

Cope Ave W

So u

Western Ave N

7 6 4 5

Lovell Ave W

t ge S

Lovell Ave W

Grandview Ave W

id g dbr Woo ir C

N Victoria Ave

7 6 4 5

Grandview Ave W

Li llehei Dr

Grandview Ave W

id dbr Woo

Chatsworth St N

Grandview Ave W

Figure 3-12

Watershed Pollutant Sources and Pathways

Phosphorus is the primary pollutant of concern from the Lake McCarrons watershed. Phosphorus enters

lakes from several sources: rainfall and wind, internal recycling, surface runoff, and groundwater seepage.

The measurement of phosphorus in runoff has been the subject of several intensive studies and currently accounts for the majority of all phosphorus entering Lake McCarrons.

Water quality studies have measured phosphorus in runoff, but have not specifically identified the exact source of phosphorus. Typically, phosphorus occurs naturally as part of living matter. As this material cycles and decomposes, phosphorus is released in mineral form or as attached to particles.

3.3.3 Watershed Characteristics Understanding Lake McCarrons watershed characteristics is important for managing runoff to the lake. Each subwatershed has different water and pollutant contributions depending on their land use/ imperviousness, soil types, and past management actions.

3.3.3.1 Hydrologic Factors Currently, the primary land use in the Lake McCarrons watershed is residential. For the creation of this

Plan, subwatersheds were hand-digitized to each modeled BMP and hydrologic inputs were generated

using best-available soil and impervious data sources. Figure 3-13 shows watershed imperviousness based

on a 2015 Ramsey County land use study. Figure 3-14 provides soils mapping based on 2019 SSURGO soil data. Where underlying soil data was not available, HSG Type B soils were assumed. The majority of identified soils demonstrate a moderate potential for infiltration. 22

Matilda St N

Auerbach St

Capitol Marion View St N Cir

Rice St N

William St

Rice St N

Albemarle St

Woodbridge St

Marion St

William St

Giesman St

Municipal Boundary P8 Subwatersheds

7 6 4 5 49

Percent Impervious (U of M) 0

n Blvd W

Av e

eW d Av w oo n e l G

lv d

Wagner Pl

Shady Beach Ave

rro

Mccarron St

50 Roselawn Ave E

Roselawn Ave W

95 100

Center St

; !

Fenton Ave

cCa rron B

lv d

0 W

Water De

p t Rd

Beaumont St N

Hilltop Ave W

cca

400

800

Feet 1 inch = 792 feet

Abel St N

Kingston Ave E Gurney St N

Sylvan St N

Abell St

WATERSHED IMPERVIOUS MAP Lake McCarrons Management Plan E Larpenteur Ave Capitol Region Watershed District FIGURE 3-13 Gurney St

N Rice St

Woodbridge Ct

W Larpenteur Ave

N Albemarle St

N Marion St

Saint Albans St N

Kent St N

7 6 4 5

Marion St N

Dionne St W

N Wes tern Ave

W California Ave

Farrington St N

Giesman St

dr u

Wagner St W

N Dale St

N Grotto St

N Victoria St

N Milton St

7 6 4 5

Farrington Hand Ave St

Western Ave N

Irene St

W Larpenteur Ave

Skillman Ave W

Dionne Ave W

Emerald Rdg

Mccarro

Galtier St N

Roma Ave W

Western Ave N

Cohansey Blvd

a le

Chandler Ave

Chatsworth St N

Aglen St N

Roma Ave W

N Oxford St

Lexington Ave N

Elmer St W

Galti er St

N Lexington Ave

Pinevie w

Burke Ave W

Nor th

County Road B

r wD vi e

Reser v oir Woods Cir W oo

rN aD V is t

Stuber Rd

Roselawn Ave W

Alta

7 6 4 5

a St N

Garden Ave

W Ruggles Ave

7 6 4 5

Ba y

Western Ave N

ia St N Victor

Ryan Ave W

Woodruff Ave

Draper Ave W

Kent St N

Ryan Ave W

d Ala me

Ruggles St W

Dale St N

a St N Ala me d

Shryer Ave W

Roselawn Ave W

Summer St

Shryer Ave W W Moundsview Ave

Iren e St

Grotto St N Avon St N

Chatsworth Ct

a tL

Hand Ave

Saint Albans St N

Grotto St N

Nancy Pl Victoria St N

Milton Pl N

Oxford St N

rrie Ha

Oxford St N

6 4 7 5 51

Western Ave N

Nancy Pl

Chatswor th St N

Lexington Ave N

Ryan Ave W

Skillman Ave W

Ryan Ave W

Oxford St N

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-02-10 17:55 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\Reports\Plan\Figure 3-13 Watershed Impervious Map.mxd User: GJW

Ryan Ave W

cen t

Shryer Ave W

Cre s

7 6 4 5

Viking Dr

r le

Skillman Ave W

W nt L a elmo

Eldridge Ave W

Parker Ave W

7 6 4 5 25

Eldridge Ave W

st Sandhurst Dr W

7 6 4 5

e Alb

Parker Ave W

Cir

Stephani Ct

Burke Ave W

Capitol View Ave Sa ndhu r

t ge S

Sandhurst Dr W

Minnesota Ave

Sandhurst Dr

County Road B

Eldridge Ave W

Bossard

Sandhurst Dr W

ll D

S Highw ay 36 Ser vice Dr

Sherren St W

Sa ndhu rst Dr W

Western Ave N

Laurie Rd W

Minnesota Ave W

Sherren St W

So u

Cope Ave W

7 6 4 5

Sherren St W

Lovell Ave W

Grandview Ave W id dbr Woo

Lovell Ave W

Grandview Ave W

id g dbr Woo ir C

ve N Victoria A

6 4 7 5 51

Grandview Ave W

Lillehei Dr

Grandview Ave W

St N Cohansey

Grandview Ave W

Matilda St N

Auerbach St

Capitol Marion View St N Cir

Rice St N

William St

Rice St N

Albemarle St

Woodbridge St

Marion St

William St

Giesman St

P8 Subwatersheds Open Water no group assigned

7 6 4 5 49

Group A Group A/D

n Blvd W

Group B

eW d Av w oo n e l G

lv d

Wagner Pl

Mccarron St

Ave E Roselawn Group C

Roselawn Ave W

Group C/D Group D

Center St

; !

Fenton Ave

cCa rron B

lv d

0 W

Water De

p t Rd

Beaumont St N

Av e

400

800

Feet 1 inch = 792 feet

Abel St N

Kingston Ave E Gurney St N

Sylvan St N

Abell St

SSURGO SOILS MAP Lake McCarrons Management Plan E Larpenteur Ave Capitol Region Watershed District FIGURE 3-14 Gurney St

N Rice St

Woodbridge Ct

W Larpenteur Ave

N Albemarle St

N Marion St

Saint Albans St N

Kent St N

7 6 4 5

Marion St N

Dionne St W

N Wes tern Ave

W California Ave

Skillman Ave W

Shady Beach Ave

rro

Galtier St N

Hilltop Ave W

Wagner St W

N Dale St

N Grotto St

N Victoria St

N Milton St

7 6 4 5

Farrington St N

Giesman St

dr u

cca

W Larpenteur Ave

Farrington Hand Ave St

Western Ave N

Irene St

Dionne Ave W

Emerald Rdg

Mccarro

Municipal Boundary

Group B/D

Western Ave N

a le

Chandler Ave

Chatsworth St N

Roma Ave W

Western Ave N

Cohansey Blvd

Kent St N

Pinevie w

Elmer St W

Nor th

County Road B

r wD vi e

Reser v oir Woods Cir W oo

Roma Ave W

N Oxford St

Lexington Ave N

Roselawn Ave W

Burke Ave W

Galti er St

N Lexington Ave

Stuber Rd

Ba y

rN aD V is t

Ryan Ave W

Alta

7 6 4 5

a St N

Garden Ave

W Ruggles Ave

Woodruff Ave

ia St N Victor

d Ala me

Ruggles St W

Dale St N

a St N Ala me d

Ryan Ave W

Draper Ave W

Aglen St N

Summer St

Shryer Ave W W Moundsview Ave

Shryer Ave W

Roselawn Ave W

cen t

Iren e St

Grotto St N Avon St N

Chatsworth Ct

a tL

Hand Ave

Saint Albans St N

Grotto St N

Nancy Pl Victoria St N

Milton Pl N

Oxford St N

rrie Ha

Oxford St N

6 4 7 5 51

Western Ave N

Nancy Pl

Chatswor th St N

Lexington Ave N

Ryan Ave W

Cre s

Skillman Ave W

Ryan Ave W

Oxford St N

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.7.1, 2020-02-10 18:03 File: I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\Reports\Plan\Figure 3-14 SSURGO Soils Map.mxd User: GJW

Ryan Ave W

Shryer Ave W

a ont L

7 6 4 5

Viking Dr

r le

Skillman Ave W

Belm

Eldridge Ave W

Parker Ave W

7 6 4 5 25

Eldridge Ave W

st Sandhurst Dr W

7 6 4 5

e Alb

Parker Ave W

Cir

Stephani Ct

Burke Ave W

Capitol View Ave Sa ndhu r

t ge S

Sandhurst Dr W

Minnesota Ave

Sandhurst Dr

County Road B

Eldridge Ave W

Bossard

Sandhurst Dr W

ll D

S Highw ay 36 Ser vice Dr

Sherren St W

Sa ndhu rst Dr W

Western Ave N

Laurie Rd W

Minnesota Ave W

Sherren St W

So u

Cope Ave W

7 6 4 5

Sherren St W

Lovell Ave W

Grandview Ave W id dbr Woo

Lovell Ave W

Grandview Ave W

id g dbr Woo ir C

ve N Victoria A

6 4 7 5 51

Grandview Ave W

Lillehei Dr

Grandview Ave W

St N Cohansey

Grandview Ave W

3.3.3.2 Historical Management Actions While several monitoring, modeling and planning activities have been completed for Lake McCarrons and its watershed, this section is intended to summarize past lake and watershed management actions that have been implemented to directly improve lake water quality.

Historical In-Lake Management Actions As discussed in Section 3.2.2.1, an in-lake alum treatment was completed on Lake McCarrons in 2004. The

alum treatment resulted in the application of 492.3 tons of alum to the lake from October 21st through

the 24th, 2004. This resulted in significant improvement in lake water quality in subsequent years as described in Section 3.2.2.1.

No other in-lake management actions have been completed to improve water quality in Lake McCarrons, but it is expected that future in-lake alum treatments will be warranted when the TP concentration target is no longer met, as described in Section 3.5.1.

Historical Watershed Management Actions The Villa Park Wetland Treatment System is a series of ponds and wetlands constructed in the mid-1980s to treat runoff before it enters Lake McCarrons. Prior to construction of this system, runoff was routed directly through this area in a channel and no ponding or wetland contact occurred. The constructed

ponds and wetlands of the Villa Park Wetland Treatment System are separated by weirs (small dams) that

finally empty into a terminal wetland with an outlet that keeps water levels in the terminal wetland high to

facilitate water detention within the wetland. The first pond in the series was dredged to an area of about

2.4 acres in 2013 and has three inlets. This pond empties into a series of five wetland cells, followed by the

terminal wetland (see Figure 3-15). The terminal wetland also receives input from the ‘ice rink pond’.

Several modifications to the Villa Park Wetland Treatment System and a 100-acre addition to the tributary area have occurred since its original construction. In addition, much of the baseflow runoff has become

‘channelized’—some of the flow through the ponds may be short-circuiting and flowing directly to the outlet. These factors may have accounted for decreased phosphorus removal efficiencies measured in

recent years. The Villa Park Wetland Treatment System was originally considered experimental because it involves the use of detention pond(s) and a constructed wetland in combination to treat stormwater. For this reason, intensive monitoring was conducted before and after the construction (and dredging) of the ponds. The 2003 Plan documented several problems with the treatment efficiency of the Villa Park Wetland Treatment System.

Since the adoption of the 2003 Plan, many structural BMP projects for reducing phosphorus loads from

stormwater runoff have been constructed in the Lake McCarrons watershed by CRWD and other partners. Structural BMPs are engineered systems that are designed to capture and treat stormwater runoff on the landscape such as a rain garden, an underground infiltration system, or a stormwater pond. In the Lake

McCarrons watershed, structural BMP projects that have been constructed through 2019 that cumulatively receive, and provide partial treatment of, nearly all watershed runoff before it enters the lake. Table 3-1

provides a summary of the 71 documented BMPs, by project type, that have been constructed in the Lake

McCarrons watershed through 2019.

Figure 3-15

Villa Park Wetland Treatment System Features

Table 3-1

Structural BMPs Constructed in Lake McCarrons Watershed Through 2019

There have been several notable, large-scale (regional) structural BMP projects constructed in the Lake

McCarrons watershed since 2003 by CRWD and partners. Table 3-2 lists all regional BMP projects in the

Lake McCarrons watershed.

In addition to structural BMPs, significant efforts have occurred over time to reduce Lake McCarrons

watershed TP loads through non-structural projects or practices. Non-structural practices focus on source management, such as proper disposal of pet waste, leaf clean-up efforts, storm drain debris clearing,

street sweeping, or education on best practices. Phosphorus reductions through non-structural practices

have been achieved through participation and promotion from partners, including efforts from citizens.

3.3.4 Stormwater Runoff Monitoring and Quality To measure the volume and quality of stormwater entering Lake McCarrons from the surrounding

watershed, CRWD has monitored several BMPs and subwatershed outlets. Area-velocity sensors and

automated water quality sampler stations are installed near the inlet or outfall locations at each site. The

stations continuously measure discharge and take flow-paced samples during storm events. Samples are

analyzed for a suite of water quality parameters, including nutrients, metals, solids, and bacteria. From this data, total annual discharge volumes and pollutant loads can be calculated to better understand watershed phosphorus contributions to Lake McCarrons.

CRWD compiled historical monitoring data at seven locations within the Lake McCarrons watershed (Figure 3-10). Level, flow, total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations, total phosphorus (TP)

concentrations, and runoff volumes were used to calibrate the existing conditions P8 model (see

Section 3.3.5). Table 3-3 summarizes the monitoring data available at each monitoring location.

Table 3-2

Regional Structural BMPs Constructed in Lake McCarrons Watershed Since 2003

Table 3-3

Available Monitoring Data at Lake McCarrons Watershed Monitoring Locations

Monitoring Location

TSS (mg/L)

TP (mg/L)

Volume (ac-ft)

Level (feet)

Discharge (cfs)

Upper Villa Inlet

Villa Park Inlet

Villa Park Outlet

William Street Pond Inlet

William Street Pond Outlet

X X

Lake McCarrons Outlet Alameda Pond 28

3.3.5 Watershed Modeling and Pollutant Loads 3.3.5.1 P8 Modeling Water quality modeling of stormwater runoff in the Lake McCarrons watershed was conducted using the P8 Urban Catchment Model (Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage thru Pits, Puddles, and Ponds). P8 is a model used for predicting the generation and transport of stormwater runoff and

pollutants in urban watersheds. The model tracks the movement of particulate matter (fine sand, dust, soil particles, etc.) as it is carried by stormwater runoff traveling over land and impervious surfaces. Particle deposition within ponds is tracked to estimate the amount of pollutants (carried by the particles) that

eventually reach a water body versus those that are trapped within BMPs

Barr created a water quality model of the entire Lake McCarrons watershed, to evaluate the water quality performance of existing and proposed ponds and wetlands within the watershed (see Figure 3-11).

Appendix A provides details regarding development of hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality inputs for the P8 modeling.

For some of the lake subwatersheds, existing best management practices (BMPs) and natural waterbodies

provide phosphorus removal prior to runoff reaching the lake. To estimate the removal, P8 simulates

phosphorus inflow loads to each BMP and compares them to the total phosphorus load generated from each subwatershed in the model. Watershed sources of erosion and pond/lake sediment phosphorus

release were excluded from this determination because the P8 model does not explicitly simulate

phosphorus contributions from these sources. Separate estimates of sediment phosphorus release were

determined from the monitoring data and compared with the P8 model loadings tributary to Villa Park wetland (as detailed in Appendix A).

Barr calibrated the existing conditions P8 model to the Upper Villa Inlet and Villa Park Outlet because a

complete record of TSS, TP, and discharge volume is available between 2016 and 2018 at these locations. The model was validated by comparing model results to the William Street Pond TSS and TP

concentrations and Villa Park Inlet TSS and TP loads. Appendix A details the review of collected

monitoring data, calibration of modeled runoff, TSS, and TP load to collected monitoring data, and review and assessment of calibrated model results.

From the P8 model calibration, updated TP load estimates were determined from the Lake McCarrons

watershed for the October 2008 through October 2018 modeling period. Table 3-4 provides a summary of

the Lake McCarrons model outputs for outflow TP loads for each subwatershed. The table includes

subwatershed name (shown on Figure 3-10), subwatershed area and TP load (following completion of

Parkview development). Table 3-4 also lists TP load reductions for each subwatershed, expressed as the

percent TP load reduction to the lake.

Figure 3-10 and Figure 3-11 show that, besides the direct drainage areas surrounding Lake McCarrons,

there are two main tributary areas that drain to the lakeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the Villa Park Wetland and Williams Street Pond. The tributary drainage area to the Villa Park wetland outfall is 732 acres, while the drainage area tributary to the Williams Street Pond outfall is 154 acres. The combined drainage area of both outfalls represents

94 percent of the Lake McCarrons contributing watershed area. The 10-year average annual TP load

estimated from the P8 modeling for the Villa Park wetland outfall and the Williams Street Pond is

202 and 20 pounds, respectively. The combined TP load from both drainage areas is 222 pounds per year, which translates to a 10-year average annual TP loading rate of 0.25 pounds per acre per year, based on the future conditions modeling for the October 2008 through October 2018 modeling period. This TP

loading rate represents nearly a 60 percent TP load reduction, as a result of treatment practices, compared to untreated stormwater runoff within the Lake McCarrons watershed.

3.3.5.2 BMP Evaluation The available monitoring data, including previously published technical evaluations, were combined with the calibrated P8 modeling for the Lake McCarrons watershed to complete current BMP evaluations (see Appendix A). A summary of the BMP evaluation results follows: •

Alameda Pond—despite data indicating that the bottom of the pond has elevated phosphorus concentrations in the summer, 53% of the incoming TP load is removed each year, based on mass-balance monitoring (Taguchi et al., 2019).

•

William Street Pond—despite data indicating that the bottom of the pond has elevated

phosphorus concentrations in the summer, 56% of the incoming TP load is removed each year,

based on mass-balance monitoring (Taguchi et al., 2019). •

Upper Villa Stormwater Reuse Facility—combination of monitoring and modeling data indicate that approximately 47% of the incoming TP load is removed each year.

•

Villa Park Treatment System—inflow and outflow mass balance monitoring data collected

before and after the 2013 dredging of the Villa Park wetland indicate that there does not appear to be a significant increase in the treatment efficiency for TP after the dredging (CRWD, 2019b;

Janke and Finlay, 2015). In addition, the average effluent concentrations of ortho- and dissolved

phosphorus exceed the respective influent concentrations for almost every month between April and October, indicating that sediment phosphorus release is a problem. Overall, the average

effluent TP concentration leaving Villa Park Outlet (0.17 mg/L) is approximately the same as the flow-weighted influent TP concentration (0.17 mg/L).

Table 3-4

Model Subwatershed TP Loads to Lake McCarrons

3.4 In-Lake Water Quality Modeling 3.4.1 Model Calibration An in-lake (as opposed to watershed) water quality model was developed for Lake McCarrons and

calibrated for the 2017 growing season to evaluate the water budget and primary sources of phosphorus loading during the summer period. This is consistent with the time period relevant to lake water quality goals/standards, which apply to the period of June through September. The P8 model output was

incorporated into the lake modeling spreadsheet to account for the watershed runoff components of the water and phosphorus loadings to Lake McCarrons.

Figure 3-16 shows good agreement between modeled and measured lake levels for Lake McCarrons after

adjustments were made to account for a net inflow of groundwater baseflow to the lake with slightly higher magnitudes following snowmelt runoff.

Figure 3-16

Agreement between Modeled and Measured Lake Levels in Lake McCarrons

After the water balance components of the spreadsheet model were calibrated to the observations, the

whole-lake and surface water components of the phosphorus mass balance were developed. Adjustments were made to net phosphorus settling in the lake and internal loading phosphorus release rates until the modeled whole-lake and epilimnetic TP values represented an optimum agreement (based on the NashSutcliffe statistic) with the respective whole-lake and epilimnetic TP measurements during the course of

the 2017 simulation. The summer average epilimnetic TP concentration for 2017 was 19 Âľg/L. Figure 3-17 shows the relationship between modeled and measured TP in Lake McCarrons epilimnion.

Figure 3-17

Relationship between Modeled and Measured TP in Lake McCarrons

3.4.2 Model Results The results from the P8 model were used to estimate TP loading from watershed sources, such as

municipal stormwater sources and other sources of runoff. Figure 3-18 presents a breakdown of

phosphorus loads for Lake McCarrons for the 2017 summer (June through September) season. The loads

are measured in pounds and as a percentage. The largest source of TP load is from watershed runoff,

while the second largest source is internal phosphorus load. While the lake water quality goals are already met, the modeling enables an evaluation of the sensitivity to changes in the TP load, which indicates that a 5 percent reduction from the watershed would result in 1 Âľg/L reduction in the average epilimnetic TP

concentration in Lake McCarrons for 2017. This shows the relative importance of improving the treatment efficiency of the Villa Park wetland treatment system, which currently does not provide a net reduction in the TP load to Lake McCarrons (see Section 3.3.5.2).

Figure 3-18

Summer (June through September) 2017 Lake McCarrons Water Quality Modeling Phosphorus Sources and Loads (pounds, %)

3.5 Lake McCarrons Water Quality Standards and Regulations Lake McCarrons is located in the North Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion and subject to deep lake eutrophication standards, which require TP concentrations be less than 40 µg/L, chlorophyll-a

concentrations be less than 14 µg/L, and Secchi depth be greater than 1.4 meters (4.6 feet). Impairment

occurs when annual average TP and at least one of the following two variables – chlorophyll-a or Secchi

depth -- do not meet state standards (MPCA, 2018). The last ten years of mean summer (June through

September) lake water quality data, shown in Table 3-5, include an average TP concentration of 18 µg/L for Lake McCarrons, which is well below MPCA’s TP criteria and the diatom-inferred TP concentrations

published by Heiskary and Swain (2002). Table 3-5 also shows that the last ten years of mean summer lake water quality data include average Chl-a and Secchi transparency measurements for Lake McCarrons that

are significantly better than MPCA’s respective criteria. As a result, it will be important to protect the

excellent water quality of the Lake McCarrons by establishing TP targets that will, at a minimum, maintain the existing watershed and in-lake conditions.

Table 3-5

Comparison of State Water Quality Standards to Lake McCarrons’ Ten-Year Average Water Quality Observations

Water Quality Variable

North Central Hardwood Forest (Minnesota Lake Standards for Phosphorus, Chl-a, and Transparency)

Diatom-inferred TP concentrations (Heiskary and Swain, 2002) Lake McCarrons’ Ten-Year Average (2009-2018)

Growing Season (June–September) Mean Water Quality Standards and Lake McCarrons Observations TP (µg/L)

Chl-a (µg/L)

Secchi (meters)

<40

<14

>1.4

24-26

3.3

As discussed in Section 3.2.2.1, managing TP so that the summer average lake concentration is 33 µg/L or

less should continue as the primary goal for Lake McCarrons’ water quality, but the following secondary

objectives are also recommended as they can be combined to support the primary TP goal: •

Epilimnetic TP is highly correlated to hypolimnetic TP in Lake McCarrons. Independent analyses confirmed that the summer average epilimnetic TP concentration could return to what it was

before the alum treatment if the average summer hypolimnetic TP concentration exceeds

300 µg/L. As such, if the average summer hypolimnetic TP concentration consistently exceeds the

300 µg/L threshold, then another alum treatment is likely warranted for Lake McCarrons. •

Subwatershed TP loading targets (discussed below) should be developed to determine when enough BMP treatment has been implemented throughout the watershed.

3.5.1 Internal TP Concentration Reduction Target The average hypolimnetic TP concentration prior to the 2004 alum treatment was 441 µg/L with an

average surface water TP concentration of 39 µg/L. Regression of the average summer epilimnetic (surface water) and hypolimnetic TP concentrations (shown on Figure 3-19) indicates that epilimnetic TP

concentrations could begin to return to pre-alum treatment levels when the hypolimnetic TP

concentration returns to approximately 300 µg/L. At this hypolimnetic concentration, Figure 3-19 shows the average summer epilimnetic TP concentration is expected to correspond with the 33 µg/L goal.

Figure 3-19

Lake McCarrons Summer (June through September) Epilimnetic vs Hypolimnetic TP Relationship (1988-2018)

Linear regression of the average summer hypolimnetic TP concentrations since the 2004 alum treatment (shown in red and extrapolated in Figure 3-20), indicates that it will likely be 2032 before the TP

concentration returns to 300 µg/L, which is when it is expected that internal phosphorus loading could be similar to what it was before the alum treatment. This would represent 27 years of alum treatment

effectiveness. It should be noted that, while linear regression provided the best fit to the existing average summer hypolimnetic TP concentrations since the 2004 alum treatment, it is unclear whether this linear response (while not unexpected) would likely continue into the foreseeable future, as shown on

Figure 3-20. Factors that could influence this relationship include significant changes to watershed TP loading, lake residence time, lake stratification and hypolimnetic oxygen demand.

It is recommended that, if the five-year average summer hypolimnetic TP concentration (based on at least ten samples) exceeds the 300 µg/L threshold and the average summer epilimnetic TP concentration

exceeds the 33 µg/L goal for a single year, then another alum treatment is warranted for Lake McCarrons.

Figure 3-20

Lake McCarrons Historical Summer Average Hypolimnetic TP (1988-2018)

3.5.2 External TP Load Target As previously discussed, water quality in Lake McCarrons is currently better than the water quality implied in its 33 Âľg/L TP goal as well as the diatom-inferred TP concentrations published by Heiskary and Swain

(2002). As a result, the external TP load target recommended in this Plan is intended to maintain or

protect the current water quality of Lake McCarrons by maintaining a three-year moving average TP

loading rate consistent with the existing subwatershed TP loading rate of 0.25 pounds per acre per year, derived from the 10-year annual average of the P8 modeling described in Section 3.3.5.

4 Issues, Goals and Recommended Actions 4.1 Identification of Issues of Concern The 2003 Plan developed goals, objectives and recommended management actions based on input from stakeholder advisory groups that did not limit their attention to solely water quality concerns. The 2003 Plan considered any concern relative to the quality, condition, and aesthetic appeal of Lake McCarrons.

Specifically, the 2003 Plan addressed the following topics: water quality improvement, nuisance aquatic plant control, fisheries, recreational use, winterkill, wetland system operation, and coordination among jurisdictions.

CRWD staff are familiar with the 2003 goals, objectives, and management actions that have been

previously implemented or further developed, although several of the goals and objectives require

commitments from outside agencies such as Ramsey County Parks, City of Roseville, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). As a result, the Lake McCarrons Management Plan Agency

Advisory Group (AAG) was convened on June 25, 2019 to identify issues and goals for incorporation into

the 2020 Plan, as well as to discuss expectations and constraints for the Lake McCarrons planning process. At the AAG meeting, primary water concerns in Lake McCarrons were focused on watershed and internal phosphorus loading, chlorides, aquatic plant management (both invasive and non-invasive species),

shoreline erosion, carp, and bacteria (E. Coli, particularly from geese). Water quality concerns about the

Villa Park wetlands were specifically noted. The group also acknowledged the lake’s high level of

recreational use and the importance of its popular beach. Another meeting was held on October 21, 2019 to obtain public feedback on the issues and goals for the 2020 Plan.

Given these issues, the AAG and public outlined the following management goal topics for consideration

in the 2020 Plan: •

Measurable goals

•

Establishment of water quality thresholds (both internal loading and watershed loading) for management action

•

Chloride prevention plan

•

AIS management strategy

•

Aquatic vegetation management

•

Flood management

•

Outreach, including websites and physical outreach elements (signage, kiosks, environmental programs, public art, etc.) at Lake McCarrons, and engagement with Lake McCarrons neighborhood, lakeshore residents, schools, and other community members

•

Maintenance of the lake outlet

•

Management of rough fish (carp)

•

Vegetated shorelines

•

Swimmable, fishable lake that is accessible for recreation

•

Definition of roles and responsibilities among stakeholders

•

Goose control and bacteria concerns

•

Frequency of street sweeping

•

Climate change

•

Maintain Villa Park system and sediment accumulation at lake outfalls

•

Track ongoing achievement of goals/objectives and practice adaptive management

4.2 Goals, Measurable Objectives and Recommended Actions Based on a review of the 2003 Lake McCarrons Management Plan, recent monitoring data, past CRWD implementation activities, and input from the Lake McCarrons Management Plan AAG and the CRWD

CAC, the following goals, objectives, and management actions are recommended for inclusion in the 2020 Plan (goals are shown in bold and management actions are shown in italics, below each objective).

Goal 1: Maintain phosphorus and chloride concentrations below target levels in Lake McCarrons and reduce the water quality impact of other pollutants. A. Maintain in-lake summer average TP epilimnetic concentration less than 33 µg/L. 1.

Continue bi-weekly in-lake water quality sampling.

Maintain subwatershed TP loading rate at or below 0.25 pounds per acre per year. 1.

Manage the release of phosphorus from Villa Park Ponds.

Identify and prioritize BMPs, where applicable (i.e., subwatersheds where the three-year moving average annual TP loading rate objective is exceeded).

C. Maintain summer average hypolimnetic TP concentration below 300 µg/L. 1.

Reevaluate need for another alum treatment annually by reviewing hypolimnetic phosphorus concentrations.

Evaluate phosphorus concentrations in lake sediment cores every five years.

Alum application to inactivate sediment phosphorus when summer average hypolimnetic TP concentration exceeds 300 µg/L.

D. Minimize the frequency of in-lake chloride concentrations exceeding 230 mg/L. 1.

Complete a chloride source assessment and prevention plan for the Lake McCarrons subwatershed.

Promote best winter deicing practices to the community.

Collaborate with agency partners to promote best deicing practices and support innovations in deicing methods.

4. E.

Routinely monitor and analyze chloride concentrations in Lake McCarrons and at storm sewer outlets.

Reduce other non-point source pollutants to the lake (e.g., trash, sediment, and bacteria). 1.

Coordinate efforts with Ramsey County and assign roles and responsibilities.

Provide educational materials to residents to promote best practices.

Conduct a shoreline assessment to identify extent and degree of shoreline erosion and the management actions that should be pursued to improve the McCarrons shoreline (Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District with CRWD funding).

Continue the goose control program (Ramsey County Parks).

Coordinate with community groups to develop a plan for reducing trash from the watershed and improve trash management within the immediate vicinity of Lake McCarrons.

Goal 2: Maintain a healthy, balanced aquatic ecosystem in Lake McCarrons. A. Prevent the introduction of new aquatic invasive species (AIS) and mitigate the impacts of existing invasive populations.

Implement the Lake McCarrons AIS Plan.

Manage established AIS populations in accordance with Lake McCarrons AIS plan.

Maintain or increase abundance and distribution of native submersed aquatic plants throughout the growing season. 1.

Update and implement lake vegetation management plan.

Conduct aquatic vegetation surveys at a minimum frequency of twice per year.

C. Create and maintain stable shoreline buffers around Lake McCarrons. 1.

Develop and implement a Lake McCarrons Shoreline Management Plan

Conduct shoreline assessment to identify extent and degree of shoreline erosion in Lake McCarrons

Based on the shoreline assessment, determine which management actions should be pursued to improve the McCarrons shoreline.

Provide consultation and cost share grants with Ramsey County and homeowners to improve shoreline buffers.

Use lake level, bathymetric information (Ramsey County), and current science regarding causes of shoreline erosion to guide management (CRWD, Roseville and Ramsey County Parks).

D. Maintain a balanced fishery. 1.

Continue implementing the fisheries management plan for Lake McCarrons (MnDNR).

Develop long-term targets for balanced fishery (in partnership with MnDNR).

Complete fish surveys approximately every 5 years (MnDNR), or as needed (CRWD), to determine species abundance and diversity.

Goal 3: Promote sustained community stewardship of Lake McCarrons and its watershed. A. Target communication and education efforts toward Lake McCarrons community. 1.

Continue to provide educational materials and cost sharing for shoreline landscaping to lakeshore owners.

Provide technical assistance to lakeshore owners (Ramsey County Conservation District).

Provide educational opportunities to McCarrons area residents on non-structural practices.

Provide funding for implementing non-structural practices in the McCarrons watershed.

Develop educational resources about Lake McCarrons for school groups and community groups.

Develop and install new educational signage around Lake McCarrons.

Incorporate art and other media as an alternative communication method of Lake McCarronâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s water quality.

Develop and encourage volunteer efforts to protect Lake McCarrons.

Goal 4: Reduce the risk of flooding to habitable structures and significant infrastructure surrounding Lake McCarrons and Villa Park. A. Maintain the Lake McCarrons outlet.

Assign roles and responsibilities between Ramsey County and CRWD.

Evaluate whether a redesigned outlet would be more easily maintained/kept free of debris.

Identify the potential for homes and infrastructure flooding along the shoreline of Lake McCarrons and Villa Park during extreme storm events (e.g. the 100-year and 500-year storm events). 1.

Complete hydrology and hydraulics watershed modeling and communicate results to Roseville and Ramsey County.

Work with partners to reduce flood risk to habitable structures.

Goal 5: Support the recreational use of Lake McCarrons by achieving water quality and vegetation conditions consistent with the Lakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intended uses, including swimming, boating, and fishing. A. Maintain a variety of boating opportunities on Lake McCarrons. 1.

Use lake level, bathymetric information (Ramsey County) and current science regarding causes of shoreline erosion to guide management (CRWD, Roseville and Ramsey County Parks).

Maintain fishing opportunities in Lake McCarrons. 1.

Continue implementing the fisheries management plan for Lake McCarrons (MnDNR).

See management actions in Goal 2.

Enhance and maintain existing designated fishing areas.

C. Maintain wildlife viewing areas around Lake McCarrons D. Maintain conditions suitable for swimming in Lake McCarrons. 1.

See objectives 1A and 1E.

Expand areal extent of E. coli testing in Lake McCarrons (Ramsey County with CRWD funding).

Communicate beach closures due to unsafe bacteria levels (Ramsey County Parks).

5 Implementation This section details the recommended management actions that warrant inclusion in the Implementation Plan for Lake McCarrons, in response to the issues, goals, and objectives outlined in Section 4.

5.1 Watershed Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling It is assumed that this project would be completed by a consultant and would perform watershed

hydrologic and hydraulic modeling to assess flood risk of structures and infrastructure including flooding issues at the intersection of Cohansey Boulevard and Bossard Avenue.

5.2 Update Lake Vegetation Management Plan (LVMP) A lake vegetation management plan (LVMP) is a document the Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources (MnDNR) develops with public input to address aquatic plant issues on a lake. The LVMP is

intended to balance riparian property ownerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interest in the use of shoreland and access to the lake with preservation of aquatic plants, which is important to the lakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ecological health. It is recommended that CRWD work with the MnDNR and the public to update the LVMP for Lake McCarrons to prescribe the

permitted aquatic plant management actions (mechanical and/or herbicides) for a five-year period,

including controls for invasive plants and restoration of lake shore habitat. The first step in this process will involve utilizing a recent aquatic vegetation survey that should be submitted to the MnDNR to

confirm that the survey information can be used as the control for future plant management actions, or if

further data collection is necessary. More fieldwork should be done as needed. Documenting the invasive species should be done as a part of this process.

It is assumed that this project would be completed by a consultant and could also involve the use of a

task force of interested stakeholders that could work over the 2020-2021 timeframe. The LVMP should

also define thresholds of AIS that necessitate active management and define goals under which aquatic plants will provide beneficial ecological and biological functions on Lake McCarrons.

5.3 Balanced Fishery Targets It is assumed that this project would be completed by a consultant that would 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 MnDNR will continue to implement the MnDNR's fisheries management plan for Lake McCarrons.

5.4 Shoreline Management Plan The shoreline management plan is intended to identify the extent and degree of shoreline erosion in Lake McCarrons and guide management decisions intended to minimize erosion. The plan will incorporate upto-date information on lake level, bathymetric information and the current science regarding causes and effects of shoreline erosion. This project will be completed by a consultant that will conduct a shoreline

inventory to determine the amount of shoreline suitable for landscaping and stabilization as well as the shoreline subject to erosion.

5.5 In-Lake Alum Treatment of Lake McCarrons The application of aluminum has two expected mechanisms: (1) aluminum binds with iron-bound

phosphorus in the sediment, thereby forming Al-P, and (2) a residual amount of unbound aluminum

remains in the sediment and is available to bind phosphorus that is released from the decay of organic phosphorus. For most lake systems alum dosing is designed to provide some amount of â&#x20AC;&#x153;excessâ&#x20AC;?

aluminum to bind phosphorus released from decayed Org-P. However, the aluminum added to the

sediment will age over time and be less effective at capturing more phosphorus. If pH and alkalinity

conditions show a significant potential to lower pH below 6.0 during treatment, the treatment plan could be altered to replace a portion of the alum with sodium aluminate in order to buffer the pH or the alum

dose can be applied over two or more phases of applications.

It is assumed that, initially, CRWD staff would reevaluate the need for another alum treatment annually by

reviewing hypolimnetic phosphorus concentrations. After it is confirmed that the internal TP concentration target is exceeded, a project would be completed by a consultant to evaluate phosphorus concentrations

in lake sediment cores and determine the alum dose (and suggested phasing) needed for another alum

treatment.

Based on findings of the sediment core analysis and alum dosing evaluation, an implementation project would be initiated to apply alum to inactivate mobile sediment phosphorus and mitigate internal

phosphorus loading. The recommended alum dose assumed for this implementation item was estimated

based on the volume applied during the 2004 alum treatment. The total estimated costs (including engineering and treatment oversight) for the application of alum to the lake is shown in Table 5-1.

Typically, in-lake alum treatments are effective for 15 to 20 years, but as previously discussed, it is

expected that the effective life of the alum treatment in Lake McCarrons will be 27 years (same as previously estimated for the 2004 alum treatment).

5.6 Villa Park Performance Improvements As noted in Section 3.3.5.2, the BMP evaluation monitoring confirmed that the Villa Park wetland system

experiences sediment phosphorus release during the growing season that compromises the treatment potential. It is assumed that, initially, a project would be completed by a consultant to evaluate the

performance of the Villa Park wetland system and investigate options for improving its functionality. Based on findings of Villa Park performance improvement evaluation, an implementation project would

be initiated to implement recommended measures to improve the functionality of the wetland system. For planning purposes, it is assumed that the improvement project would involve an alum application to

inactivate mobile sediment phosphorus and mitigate internal phosphorus loading from the Villa Park

wetland system. The order of magnitude cost estimated for this implementation item was estimated

based on a similar option considered in the Villa Park Wetland Management Plan (Wenck, 2010). The total estimated costs (including engineering and treatment oversight) for the application of alum to the

wetland is shown in Table 5-1. Typically, pond alum treatments would not be expected to experience an effective lifespan of more than 10 years, depending on the total incoming TP load, but the watershed

configuration for this BMP option includes a significant level of upstream treatment to extend the alum treatment effectiveness.

5.7 Chloride Source Assessment and Prevention Plan The chloride source assessment and prevention plan is intended to evaluate the sources and magnitudes of chloride loading in the Lake McCarrons watershed and assess the potential for reducing deicer

applications from each source area. This project will be completed by a consultant that will inventory the potential sources of chloride, estimate the existing source loadings and potential for reducing deicer application rates within the Lake McCarrons watershed.

5.8 Future BMP Feasibility Studies and CIP Opportunities It is assumed that future feasibility studies would be completed by a consultant that would explore the effectiveness of potential BMPs, including feasibility of existing practices and/or new innovative

treatments, to reduce external/watershed TP loads and help achieve water quality goals outlined in the Plan. Based on the outcomes of BMP feasibility studies and/or redevelopments, future capital

improvement projects (CIPs) will be implemented as opportunities arise. For example, it is expected that future CIP opportunities could include Victoria B Wetland enhancement and Alameda Pond improvements.

5.9 Implementation Plan Summary Table 5-1 summarizes the estimated costs, timeline, and description of the actions recommended for the implementation plan.

The District prioritizes programs, projects, and activities to promote efficient use of finite staff and

financial resources. Each activity included in Table 5-1 has been assigned one of the following three priority levels:

Critical – critical activities are necessary to perform the core functions and statutory duties of the District, as required by law, rule, or statute

Important – important activities are those that are led by the District in support of its goals and

objectives, but are not required by law, rule, or statute, do not rise to the level of “critical”.

Beneficial – beneficial activities are those that are aligned with District goals and objectives but are likely to be deferred to a future date, performed only if an opportunity arises, or be led by District partners, with the District supporting the activity through limited funding, technical assistance, and/or other cooperative efforts.

This classification system is qualitative and intended to serve as a guide for annual work planning and

budgeting. Classification of an activity as critical, important, or beneficial does not, by itself, determine

implementation of an activity relative to other activities or its planned schedule in Table 5-1. The annual work plan may accelerate, delay, delegate, or abandon activities relative to the 10-year implementation 45

plan. For example, activities led by partners may be implemented earlier or later than planned due to changing partner priorities, funding, and schedules.

Table 5-1

PLAN REFERENCE

Lake McCarrons Implementation Plan

PROGRAM/PROJECT TITLE

PROGRAM/PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PRIORITY LEVEL (Critical, Important, Lead Agency Beneficial)

PARTNERS Cities

County

State/ Regional Agencies

Total Cost

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Projects 4.B.1., 4.B.2.

Watershed Hydraulic/Hydrologic Modeling

2.A.1., 2.A.2, 2.B.1., 2.B.2. 2.D.1., 2.D.2, 2.D.3., 5.B.1., 5.B.2., 5.B.3. 1.E.3., 2.C.1., 2.C.2., 2.C.3., 2.C.4, 2.C.5., 3.A.1., 3.A.2., 5.A.1.

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

CRWD

The AIS response plan will define the process and criteria by which AIS will be managed on Lake McCarrons. In addition, the Lake vegetation management plan and lake vegetation management plan will define thresholds of AIS that necessitate active management and define goals under AIS response plan which aquatic plants will provide beneficial ecological and biological functions on Lake McCarrons.

Critical

CRWD

$ 20,000 $ 20,000

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

MnDNR

$ 15,000

Shoreline management plan

Identify the extent and degree of shoreline erosion in Lake McCarrons and guide management decisions intended to minimize erosion. The plan will incorporate up‐to‐date information on lake level, bathymetric information and the current science regarding causes and effects of shoreline erosion. This project will be completed by a consultant that will conduct a shoreline inventory to determine the amount of shoreline suitable for landscaping and stabilization as well as the shoreline subject to erosion. Ramsey County Conservation District may provide (future) technical assistance to lakeshore owners.

Critical

CRWD

Reevaluate the need for another alum treatment annually by reviewing hypolimnetic phosphorus concentrations. Evaluate phosphorus fractions in lake sediment core subsamples every five years for historical comparison and internal load potential.

Critical

CRWD

1.C.1., 1.C.2, 1.C.3. Alum treatment evaluation

$ 30,000

$ 15,000

$ 40,000

$ 20,000 $ 20,000

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. Ramsey County Parks will take lead on continuing goose control program.

Important

CRWD

1.B.1.

Evaluate Villa Park Performance Improvements

Evaluate the performance of the Villa Park wetland system and investigate options for improving its functionality

Important

CRWD

1.D.1., 1.D.2, 1.D.3., 1.D.4.

Chloride Source Assessment and Prevention Plan

Evaluate the sources and magnitudes of chloride loading in the Lake McCarrons watershed and assess the potential for reducing deicer applications from each source area

Important

CRWD

$ 50,000

1.A.1., 5.D.2., 5.D.3.

Any other items from McCarrons LMP ‐ Complete monitoring and research of BMPs, Water Quality, Biological parameters of importance to inform the management decisions for successful implementation of the Lake McCarrons Management Plan. Monitoring/Research

Important

CRWD and Ramsey County

$ ‐

3.A.3., 3.A.5., 3.A.6., 3.A.7., 3.A.8.

Any other items from McCarrons LMP ‐ Implement strategic communications and engagement of the public to support and advocate for the successful implementation of the Lake McCarrons Management Plan. Communications/Engagement

Important

CRWD

$ ‐

Any other items from McCarrons LMP ‐ Facilitate and nurture strong public, private and agency partnerships to successfully implement the Lake McCarrons Partnerships Management Plan.

Important

CRWD

$ ‐

3.A.4., 4.A.1., 5.C.

$ 15,000

Future BMP feasibility studies TBD

1.B.2., 1.E.1., 1.E.2., 1.E.4., 1.E.5., 5.D.1.

$ 30,000

$ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000

$ 225,000 $ 60,000 $ 70,000 $ 40,000 $ ‐ $ 20,000 $ 35,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐

Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Capital Improvements

1.C.1., 1.C.2, 1.C.3. Alum treatment

Based on findings of alum evaluation, apply alum to inactivate mobile sediment phosphorus and mitigate internal phosphorus loading.

Critical

CRWD

1.B.1.

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

CRWD

1.B.2., 4.A.2.

Future CIPs as opportunities arise and/or from McCarrons LMP

TBD based on future opportunities

Important

CRWD

$ 500,000 $ 500,000

$ 150,000

$ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 150,000

$ 1,150,000 $ ‐ $ 500,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 150,000 $ ‐ $ 500,000

6 References Barr Engineering Co. (Barr). 2003. Memorandum to Terry Noonan: Alum Treatment of Lake McCarronsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; Results of Tasks 1 (Sediment Coring and Analysis) and 2 (Alum Dose Determination). Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District. Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD). 2017. William Street Pond Iron-Enhanced Sand Filter Performance Report. Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD). 2019a. Lake McCarrons Sediment Core Analysis. Saint Paul, MN. Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD). 2019b. Villa Park Wetland System Performance Analysis. Saint Paul, MN. Heiskary, S. and E. Swain. 2002. Water quality reconstruction from fossil diatoms: applications for trend assessment, model verification and development of nutrient criteria for Minnesota USA lakes. MPCA. St. Paul MN. Janke, Benjamin and Jacques Finlay. 2015. Analysis of Nutrient Loading and Performance of the Villa Park Wetland, 2006 - 2012. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior. University of Minnesota. Saint Paul, MN. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR). 2012. Lake Vegetation Management Plan. Lake McCarrons. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2018. Guidance Manual for Assessing the Quality of Minnesota Surface Waters for Determination of Impairment: 305(b) Report and 303(d) list. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-iw1-04j.pdf Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 1997. Lake Prioritization for Protecting Swimmable Use. Taguchi, Vinicius, Tyler Olsen, Ben Janke, Heinz Stefan, Jacques Finlay, John Gulliver. 2019. Stormwater Research Summary Banner Objective 3 - Phosphorus Release from Stormwater Ponds. Technical Summary and Supplementary Material. The Osgood Group and Barr Engineering Co.. 2003. Lake McCarrons Management Plan (2003 Plan). Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District. Walker and Walker. 2017. P8. [Online] January 17, 2017. P8 Urban Catchment Model: Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage thru Pits, Puddles, and Ponds. Walker, William and Walker, Jeffrey. http://www.wwwalker.net/p8/ Water on the Web. [Online] 2004. http://www.waterontheweb.org/index.html Wenck. 2018. Lake McCarrons Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan. Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District. Wenck. 2010. Villa Park Wetland System Management Plan. Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District. Wenck. 2016a. Sediment Characterization for Lake McCarrons and Como Lake. Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District.

Wenck. 2016b. Summary (Technical Memorandum) of 2016 Lake Fish Surveys. Prepared for Capitol Region Watershed District.

Appendix A BMP Evaluation and Watershed Model Calibration Technical Memo

Technical Memorandum To: Bob Fossum and Joe Sellner, Capitol Region Watershed District From: Greg Wilson, Heather Hlavaty & Lulu Fang, Barr Engineering Company Subject: Lake McCarrons Management Plan: Task 4 and 5 BMP Evaluation and Watershed Model Calibration Date: November 8, 2019 Project: Lake McCarrons Management Plan As part of Tasks 4 and 5, Barr has developed an existing conditions water quality/quantity P8 model to

evaluate the treatment performance of the existing BMPs in the Lake McCarrons watershed, including, but not limited to, the following BMPs: • • • • • •

1.0

Villa Park Wetland System William Street Pond/IESF Boulevard RWGs

Upper Villa Stormwater Reuse Facility

Available plans for Parkview schools reuse system

Nonstructural BMPs, where applicable

Summary of Data

As part of Tasks 1 through 3, Barr reviewed the background data, GIS and watershed modeling data

provided by the District in the spring of 2019. On March 6, 2019, a data review memo was sent to the

District summarizing the data provided by the District on February 2019. In response to the Summary of Existing Data/Follow-up Requests Memo, the District provided the following additional information: 1.

TH 36 and Rice Interchange (May 6, 2019): a.

10-002 Permit As-built report

NW Pond as-built

SW Pond west basin as-built

b. 28-405 TH36 Rice As-built Storm Sewer Plans d. Proposed Conditions HydroCAD model and results f.

SW Pond east basin as-built

Upper Villa (May 6, 2019):

Villa Park Dredging (May 6, 2019):

As-built Plans

Barr Engineering Co. 4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Bob Fossum and Joe Sellner, Capitol Region Watershed District Greg Wilson, Heather Hlavaty & Lulu Fang, Barr Engineering Company Lake McCarrons Management Plan: Task 4 and 5 BMP Evaluation and Watershed Model Calibration November 8, 2019 2

Post-dredging as-built plans

b. Villa Park Cross Sections (8 pages)

William Street Pond (May 6, 2019):

Updated BMP Summary Spreadsheet (May 6, 2019)

As-built drawing and details

“P8_BMPs_forCRWD_06.05.shp” Shapefile with response to missing data (June 5, 2019)

Permits (June 5, 2019): a.

15-030 Farrington Estates Grading Plan

14-012 Villa Park grading plan

b. 14-015 Mueller Bies as-built and HydroCAD output

8. 9.

d. 16-017G Krook Magnuson Rain Garden plans and project summary

Alameda Pond Level Monitoring Data (July 25, 2019)

Upper Villa Cistern Volume and Depth Monitoring Data (July 31, 2019)

As-built and GIS stormsewer data was requested from the City of Roseville. The following information was provided: 1.

GIS stormsewer database (February 11, 2019)

Rice Street and TH36 CAD stormsewer (May 19, 2019)

Additional as-built plans (June 5, 2019)

As-built plans (May 14, 2019)

As-built and GIS stormsewer data was requested from MnDOT for the study area. The following information was provided: 1.

2.0

GIS stormsewer database (May 24, 2019)

BMP Evaluation

Performance of BMPs within the Lake McCarrons watershed was evaluated by one of two methods: 1)

comparing existing monitoring data between the inlet and outlet of the BMPs, or 2) using the calibrated P8 model to simulate pollutant loading upstream and downstream of the BMP. The BMPs with available

monitoring data provided by the District are listed below: • • •

Villa Park Wetland System William Street Pond/IESF

Upper Villa Stormwater Reuse Facility

The monitoring data provided for these BMPs was also used to calibrate the water quality/quantity P8 model, discussed in Section 3.0 and 4.0 of this memo. Barr developed the P8 model to evaluate the

treatment performance of the remaining BMPs in the Lake McCarrons watershed where monitoring data

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

was not provided. Sections 3.0 and 4.0 describe the methods used to develop and calibrate the model. Results of the BMP evaluation are provided in Section 5.0.

3.0

Water quality model development

Barr created a water quality model spanning 1,060 acres within, and immediately tributary, to Lake

McCarrons, to evaluate the water quality performance of ponds and wetlands within the watershed (see

Figure 1). Using the water quality modeling program P8, the model was developed using data provided by MnDOT, the CRWD, and the City of Roseville. The following subsections outline development of P8 hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality inputs.

3.1

Outlet Hydraulics

Hydraulic inputs required for P8 modeling for all ponds, wetlands, and other BMPs within the watershed were developed from five sources: (1) available as-builts and record drawings; (2) HydroCAD models

provided by the District; (3) the GIS stormsewer data provided by the City of Roseville and MnDOT; (4) the

summary of BMP performance spreadsheet provided by the District; and (5) monitoring data provided by the District.

Where monitoring data or other survey information was available, the device was made into a General

Device and the outlet rating curve was adjusted to match the observed data. The outlets for Alameda

Pond, the Villa Park Sedimentation Pond, the Villa Park Outlet, and the Upper Villa Reuse System were

revised to match the hydraulics of the complex system and to simulate results similar to the monitoring

data. The rating curves were initially created by developing small XP-SWMM models of the outlet with a

simple user-defined inflow at varied flowrates placed at the BMP. Revisions in the P8 general device rating

curves were made to match monitoring data where it exists.

3.2

Storage and Bathymetry

Stage-storage data was redeveloped for all storage areas using 2011 Ramsey County LiDAR data.

Bathymetry data in the provided HydroCAD models was used where it was available. Bathymetric contours from available record drawings were used to define bathymetric storage whenever available, as well. Where bathymetric storage data (i.e., storage below the pond/wetland normal water level) was not

available, bathymetric storage was estimated using National Wetland Inventory (NWI) water area

classifications and uniform depth assumptions. The Particle Removal Scale Factor (PRSF) modifies settling velocities and decay rates to account for device-specific characteristics. A PRSF less than 1.0 can be

assumed to account for poor hydraulic design (outlet next to inlet, promoting short-circuiting of inflows, shallow basins). The default PRSF of 1.0 was decreased to 0.3 for all basins less than 2 feet deep and 0.6

for all basins between 2 and 3 feet deep. For ponds greater than 3 feet deep, the default PRSF of 1.0 was used.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

cca

Matilda St N

Auerbach St

Rice St N

Capitol Marion View St N Cir William St

Rice St N

Albemarle St

Woodbridge St

Marion St

William St

Giesman St Giesman St

Dry Pond

, %

Filtration

, %

Infiltration

. !

Pipe

F G

Splitter

Underground

) "

rron Blv dW

rro

Av e

eW d Av woo n e l G

lvd

Mccarron St

, %

WetRoselawn Pond Ave E

Roselawn Ave W" )

Municipal Boundary P8 Subwatersheds

Center St

; !

Fenton Ave

cCa rr

on B l

vd W

. !

Water De

p t Rd

400

800

Feet 1 inch = 792 feet

Abel St N

Gurney St N

Kingston Ave E

Abell St

BMP OVERVIEW Lake McCarrons Management Plan E Larpenteur Ave Capitol Region Watershed District FIGURE 1 Gurney St

Marion St N

Saint Albans St N

Sylvan St N

N Rice St

W Larpenteur Ave

N Albemarle St

Woodbridge Ct

7 6 5 4

N Marion St

W California Ave

Hand Ave

) "

N Wes tern Ave

7 6 5 4

, %

Dionne St W

Kent St N

7 6 5 4

P8 BMP

Beaumont St N

Hilltop Ave W

,Nor th Mcca %

County Road B

. !

dr u

. %! , ) % " , . !

,% % ,% ,

Wagner Pl

w vi e % ,

Skillman Ave W

Shady Beach Ave

Wagner St W

N Dale St

N Milton St

W Larpenteur Ave

Farrington Hand Ave St

Western Ave N

, %

) "

7 6 5 4

Viking Dr

, %

Elmer St W

Emerald Rdg

Farrington St N

Western Ave N

Irene St

% , ) "

) "

Burke Ave W

Galtier St N

Chandler Ave

Chatsworth St N

Dionne Ave W

N Oxford St

Lexington Ave N

Roma Ave W

) "

Galti er St

N Lexington Ave

Pinevie w Ct

Roma Ave W

, %

Reser v oir Woods Cir W oo

rN aD Vist

Stuber Rd

Roselawn Ave W

cen t

, %

Ba y

Alta

7 6 5 4

a St N

Garden Ave

W Ruggles Ave

7 6 5 4

, %

Cre s

) " , Shryer Ave W % W Moundsview Ave Ryan Ave W Ryan

ia St N Victor

d Ala me

Ruggles St W

Aglen St N

Summer St

!" . )

Skillman Ave W

Ave W

Roselawn Ave W

) "

ale

. !

t rrie Ha

, %

" ) ) "

) "

N Grotto St

, , % %

.G ! F

Draper Ave W

N Victoria St

7 6 5 4

Oxford St N

Ryan Ave W

) "

Ryan Ave W

Shryer Ave W

) "

. !

a ont L

Eldridge Ave W

Western Ave N

, %

Belm

Dale St N

a St N

) "

Shryer Ave W

Ryan Ave W

Avon St N

. ! Ala me d

Chatsworth Ct

) "

Oxford St N

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-02-11 09:43 I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\Reports\Figure 1 Overview Map.mxd

% , Parker Ave W . !

) "

, %

Eldridge Ave W

) "

. !

Parker Ave W

, %

. !

r le

) " " )

7 6 5 4 25

7 6 5 4

. !

Burke Ave W

, %

st Sandhurst Dr W

Minnesota Ave

e Alb

. !

Eldridge Ave W

Skillman Ave W

County Road B

Cir

Irene St

, % , %

Sa ndh u r

Woodruff Ave

Sandhurst Dr W

Western Ave N

Saint Albans St N

Grotto St N

Sandhurst Dr

Kent St N

Nancy Pl Victoria St N

Milton Pl N

W , Sa ndhurst Dr %

Capitol View Ave

Oxford St N

, %

Bossard

Sandhurst Dr W

) "

Sherren St W

,Ser vice % % , Dr , . % !

Cohansey Blvd

Nancy Pl

Chatswor th St N

Lexington Ave N Laurie Rd W

Minnesota Ave W

S Highw ay 36

, % % , , %

Stephani Ct

Sherren St W

ll D

Sherren St W

, %

Western Ave N

7 6 5 4

So u

) "

t ge S

Cope Ave W

Lovell Ave W

Grandview Ave W

id dbr Woo

Lovell Ave W

Grandview Ave W

id g dbr Woo ir C

ve N Victoria A

7 6 5 4 51

Grandview Ave W

Lillehei Dr

Grandview Ave W

St N Cohansey

Grandview Ave W

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

3.3

Hydrologic and Water Quality Inputs

Subwatersheds were hand digitized to each modeled BMP. P8 hydrologic inputs were generated for all subwatersheds using best-available soil and land use data sources (2019 SSURGO soil data, Physical

Features database developed by Ramsey County in 2015, imperviousness analysis by Tim Anderson, Barr Engineering on January 2017, and NWI open water data). Where underlying soil data was not available, HSG Type B soils were assumed. Figure 2 is the result of the imperviousness analysis conducted by Tim

Anderson at Barr Engineering based on the 2015 Ramsey County land use study. Figure 3 is a soils map

based on 2019 SSURGO soil data. Typical NURP50 particle assumptions were used to define water quality

component and input particle parameters in P8, except for the default particle filtration efficiencies, which were modified based on BMP type and/or data supporting the BMP evaluations.

3.3.1

Rain gardens

The summary of BMPs spreadsheet provided by the District includes the location and treatment potential of rain gardens within the Lake McCarrons subwatershed. Where rain gardens exist, but no plans are available, the treatment provided by the BMP was incorporated into the hydrology inputs of the

subwatershed by modifying the impervious runoff coefficient. This method was used to model 17 rain

gardens. The subwatershed impervious runoff coefficient was adjusted by assuming the contained rain garden treated 100% of the “Impervious_Surface_Treated” field in the District Summery of BMPs

spreadsheet. For example, if the rain garden treated 0.5 acres (10%) within a subwatershed with 5 acres of impervious surface, the impervious runoff coefficient was changed from 1.0 to 0.9.

3.3.2

William Street Pond Filtration

The default P8 filtration efficiency is 90% for P0% and 100% for particle fractions P10% through P80%, in

order to reflect the removal which would be expected through infiltration into the ground. However, in

order to simulate pollutant removal via filtration (pollutants not removed being conveyed downstream),

the removal efficiencies can be adjusted to reflect the typical phosphorus filtration efficiency of filtration or iron-enhanced sand filtration systems reported in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) calculator. For modeling and design purposes, the MPCA recommends the following filtration efficiencies. Table 1

1 2

Recommended filtration efficiency

Filtration Type Sand filters and Biofiltration1 Iron-Enhanced Sand Filter2

Filtration Efficiency (% removal) Particulate Particulate Dissolved (P0%) (P10%) (P30% thru P80%) 0% 25% 100% 60% 25% 100%

https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Calculating_credits_for_sand_filter

https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Calculating_credits_for_iron_enhanced_sand_filter

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

ale

Chandler Ave

Matilda St N

Auerbach St

Capitol Marion View St N Cir

Rice St N

Farrington St N

William St

Rice St N

Albemarle St

Marion St

William St

Giesman St

Woodbridge St

7 6 5 4

Percent Impervious (U of M) 0 10

eW d Av woo n e l G

lvd

50 Roselawn Ave E

Roselawn Ave W

Beaumont St N

Mccarron St

95 100

Center St

; !

Fenton Ave

cCa rr

on B l

vd W

Water De

p t Rd

400

800

Feet 1 inch = 792 feet

Abel St N

Kingston Ave E

Gurney St N

Sylvan St N

Abell St

PERCENT IMPERVIOUS MAP Lake McCarrons Management Plan E Larpenteur Ave Capitol Region Watershed District FIGURE 2 Gurney St

N Rice St

Woodbridge Ct

W Larpenteur Ave

N Albemarle St

N Wes tern Ave

Saint Albans St N

Kent St N

7 6 5 4

Marion St N

Dionne St W

N Dale St

W California Ave

N Grotto St

N Victoria St

N Milton St

N Oxford St

P8 Subwatersheds

on Blvd W

Shady Beach Ave

Av e

7 6 5 4

Farrington Hand Ave St

Western Ave N

Irene St rro

Galti er St

W Larpenteur Ave

Municipal Boundary

Wagner Pl

cca

Dionne Ave W

Emerald Rdg

Mccarr

Skillman Ave W

N Marion St

Chatsworth St N

dr u

Wagner St W

rN aD Vist

Roma Ave W

Nor th

County Road B

Hilltop Ave W

Elmer St W

Galtier St N

Pinevie w

Burke Ave W

Giesman St

Reser v oir Woods Cir W oo

Roma Ave W

Western Ave N

Cohansey Blvd

Kent St N

Roselawn Ave W

w vi e

Western Ave N

Stuber Rd

Ba y

Woodruff Ave

Ryan Ave W

Alta

Lexington Ave N

W Ruggles Ave

7 6 5 4

a St N

N Lexington Ave

Dale St N

a St N Ala me d ia St N Victor

d Ala me

Ruggles St W

Irene St

Grotto St N Avon St N

Ryan Ave W

Draper Ave W

Aglen St N

Summer St

Shryer Ave W W Moundsview Ave

Shryer Ave W

Roselawn Ave W

cen t

Skillman Ave W

Ryan Ave W

a tL

Hand Ave

Saint Albans St N

Grotto St N

Nancy Pl Victoria St N

Milton Pl N

Chatsworth Ct rrie Ha

Oxford St N

Ryan Ave W

Western Ave N

Nancy Pl

Chatswor th St N

Lexington Ave N Ryan Ave W

Oxford St N

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-02-11 09:43 I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\Reports\Figure 2 Percent Impervious Map.mxd

Shryer Ave W

Cre s

7 6 5 4

Viking Dr

Skillman Ave W

W nt L a elmo

Eldridge Ave W

r le

Parker Ave W

7 6 5 4 25

Eldridge Ave W

st Sandhurst Dr W

7 6 5 4

Parker Ave W

Cir

Minnesota Ave

e Alb

Eldridge Ave W

Sa ndh u r

Oxford St N

Sandhurst Dr

Stephani Ct

Sandhurst Dr W

Capitol View Ave

Bossard

Sa ndhurst Dr W

t ge S

S Highw ay 36 Ser vice Dr

Sherren St W

Burke Ave W

ll D

Minnesota Ave W

County Road B

7 6 5 4

Western Ave N

Sherren St W

Sandhurst Dr W

Garden Ave

Laurie Rd W

7 6 5 4

So u

Cope Ave W

7 6 5 4

Sherren St W

Lovell Ave W

Grandview Ave W

id dbr Woo

Lovell Ave W

Grandview Ave W

id g dbr Woo ir C

ve N Victoria A

7 6 5 4 51

Grandview Ave W

Lillehei Dr

Grandview Ave W

St N Cohansey

Grandview Ave W

Chandler Ave

Ct ale ND

Av e

eW d Av woo n e l G

lvd

Matilda St N

Auerbach St

Capitol Marion View St N Cir

Rice St N

William St

Rice St N

Albemarle St

Marion St

William St

Giesman St

Western Ave N

Farrington St N

Woodbridge St

Group A Group A/D

on Blvd W

Group B

Mccarron St

Ave E Roselawn Group C

Roselawn Ave W

Group C/D Group D

Center St

; !

Fenton Ave

cCa rr

on B l

vd W

Water De

p t Rd

400

800

Feet 1 inch = 792 feet

Abel St N

Kingston Ave E

Gurney St N

Sylvan St N

Abell St

SOILS MAP Lake McCarrons Management Plan E Larpenteur Ave Capitol Region Watershed District FIGURE 3 Gurney St

N Rice St

N Albemarle St

Woodbridge Ct

W Larpenteur Ave

N Marion St

N Wes tern Ave

Saint Albans St N

Kent St N

7 6 5 4

Marion St N

Dionne St W

N Dale St

N Grotto St

N Victoria St

N Milton St

N Oxford St

W California Ave

Farrington Hand Ave St

Western Ave N

Irene St rro

Galti er St

7 6 5 4

Beaumont St N

Wagner St W

rN aD Vist

W Larpenteur Ave

Open Water no group assigned

Wagner Pl

dr u

cca

Dionne Ave W

Emerald Rdg

Mccarr

P8 Subwatersheds

Group B/D

Hilltop Ave W

Elmer St W

Nor th

County Road B

Municipal Boundary

Skillman Ave W

Shady Beach Ave

Kent St N

Roma Ave W

Giesman St

Reser v oir Woods Cir W oo

Pinevie w

Burke Ave W

Galtier St N

Stuber Rd

Roselawn Ave W

w vi e

Western Ave N

Ba y

Woodruff Ave

7 6 5 4

Chatsworth St N

Aglen St N

Cohansey Blvd

Dale St N

a St N Ala me d ia St N Victor

Roma Ave W

Ryan Ave W

Alta

Lexington Ave N

W Ruggles Ave

cen t

Irene St

Grotto St N Avon St N

Draper Ave W

a St N

N Lexington Ave

Shryer Ave W W Moundsview Ave Ryan Ave W

d Ala me

Ruggles St W

Cre s

Skillman Ave W Shryer Ave W

Roselawn Ave W

Summer St

Ryan Ave W

a tL

Hand Ave

Saint Albans St N

Grotto St N

Nancy Pl Victoria St N

Milton Pl N

Chatsworth Ct rrie Ha

Oxford St N

Ryan Ave W

Western Ave N

Nancy Pl

Chatswor th St N

Lexington Ave N Ryan Ave W

Oxford St N

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-02-11 09:43 I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\Reports\Figure 3 Soils Map.mxd

Shryer Ave W

a ont L

7 6 5 4

Viking Dr

Skillman Ave W

Belm

Eldridge Ave W

r le

Parker Ave W

7 6 5 4 25

Eldridge Ave W

st Sandhurst Dr W

7 6 5 4

Parker Ave W

Cir

Minnesota Ave

e Alb

Eldridge Ave W

Sa ndh u r

Oxford St N

Sandhurst Dr

Stephani Ct

Sandhurst Dr W

Capitol View Ave

Bossard

Sa ndhurst Dr W

t ge S

S Highw ay 36 Ser vice Dr

Sherren St W

Burke Ave W

ll D

Minnesota Ave W

County Road B

7 6 5 4

Western Ave N

Sherren St W

Sandhurst Dr W

Garden Ave

Laurie Rd W

7 6 5 4

So u

Cope Ave W

7 6 5 4

Sherren St W

Lovell Ave W

Grandview Ave W

id dbr Woo

Lovell Ave W

Grandview Ave W

id g dbr Woo ir C

ve N Victoria A

7 6 5 4 51

Grandview Ave W

Lillehei Dr

Grandview Ave W

St N Cohansey

Grandview Ave W

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

The filtration efficiency recommended for iron-enhanced sand filters was used as a starting point. Because monitoring data was provided at the inlet and outlet of the William Street Pond iron-enhanced filtration BMPs, the particle filtration efficiency of the P8 model can be adjusted to reflect the observed data. Optimization of the filtration efficiency values after model calibration is discussed in Section 4.2.2.

4.0

Model Calibration

4.1

Monitoring Data

The District provided monitoring data at seven locations within the Lake McCarrons watershed (Figure 4). Level, flow, total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations, total phosphorus (TP) concentrations, and runoff volumes were used to calibrate the existing conditions P8 model. Figure 5 shows the downstream monitoring location for each subwatershed used to calibrate the model.

Table 2 summarizes the relevant monitoring data available at each monitoring location. Table 2

Available monitoring data at each monitoring location

Monitoring Location

TSS (mg/L)

TP (mg/L)

Volume (ac-ft)

Level (feet)

Discharge (cfs)

Upper Villa Inlet

Villa Park Inlet

Villa Park Outlet

William Street Pond Inlet

William Street Pond Outlet

X X

Lake McCarrons Outlet Alameda Pond

Barr calibrated the existing conditions P8 model to the Upper Villa Inlet and Villa Park Outlet because a

complete record of TSS, TP, and discharge volume is available between 2016 and 2018 at these locations.

Monitoring data provided at the Villa Park Inlet was not used to calibrate the model because flows over

the spillway calculated using Manningâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s equation resulted in a larger measure of uncertainty than at the other two monitoring sites. The model was validated by comparing model results to the William Street

Pond TSS and TP concentrations and Villa Park Inlet TSS and TP loads. The following subsection outlines the review of collected monitoring data, calibration of modeled runoff, TSS, and TP load to collected monitoring data, and review and assessment of calibrated model results.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

William St

Shryer Ave W

7 6 5 4 53

Ryan Ave W

Kent St N

Dale St N

W Moundsview Ave Ryan Ave W

car r

on B

lvd

Rice St N

County Road B

Albemarle St Woodbridge St

Marion St

Elmer St W

Rice St N

No r th

Shryer Ave W

William St

eda Ala m

Skillman Ave W

Giesman St

Irene St

cen t

William Street Pond (WQ & Pond L)

Giesman St

Cre s

# 0

Burke Ave W

Farrington St

# 0

4 7 6 5 7 6 5 4 49

Hand Ave

t La

Villa Park Inlet (Flow & WQ) & Overflow

St N

# 0

on Belm

Western Ave N

Irene St

Alameda Pond (Pond L)

Sandhurst Dr W

Eldridge Ave W

Upper Villa Water Reuse System (Flow & WQ)

7 6 5 4

Cohansey Blvd

Avon St N

36 36

rle Ct Albema

Parker Ave W

7 6 5 4 49

# 0

William Street Pond IESF Study (incl. 2018 data)

Villa Park Outlet (Flow & WQ) & Overflow

# 0

CRWD Monitoring Locations for Calibration

w Dr Bayvie

Mccarron St

cCa r

ron

Blvd

Roma Ave W

Galtier St N

Western Ave N

Wagner St W

Woodruff Ave

Glenwood Ave W

Chandler Ave

300

600

Center S t

Feet 1 inch = 500 feet

McCarrons Outlet (Q)

MONITORING LOCATIONS Lake McCarrons Management Plan Water Dept Rd Capitol Region Watershed District FIGURE 4

e Av

ista

rro

; ! N

aV Alt

ale

cc a

Ave

u dr

Hilltop Ave W

Roma Ave W

oo W

Pinev iew

ac h

Stuber Rd

e dy B Sha

Reser v oir Woods Cir

Ave W Roselawn P8 Subwatersheds

Wagner Pl

Roselawn Ave W

St N eda Ala m

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-02-11 09:43 I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\Reports\Figure 4 Monitoring Locations.mxd

Cir

Viking Dr

Farrington St N

Sa ndh u r

County Road B

Eldridge Ave

Capitol View Cir

Western Ave N

hu nd

Capitol View Ave

r tD

Bossard Dr

Sandhurst Dr W

Grotto St N

Sherren St

# 0

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-02-11 09:43 I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\Reports\Figure 5 Subwatershed to Monitor.mxd

Alameda Pond (Pond L)

# 0

# 0 Upper Villa Water Reuse System (Flow & WQ)

Villa Park Inlet (Flow & WQ) & Overflow

# 0

CRWD Monitoring Locations for Calibration Municipal Boundary Lake McCarrons Outlet Out of Model

William Street Pond (WQ & Pond L) Villa Park Outlet (Flow & WQ) & Overflow

# 0

Upper Villa Inlet Villa Park Inlet

# 0

Villa Park Outlet William Street Pond Inlet William Street Pond Outlet

; ! N

300

600

Feet 1 inch = 750 feet

McCarrons Outlet (Q)

# 0 TRIBUTARY TO MONITORS Lake McCarrons Management Plan Capitol Region Watershed District FIGURE 5

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

4.1.1

Precipitation Data

Rainfall data collected at the Villa Park gauge was provided by the District and used to generate hourly

rainfall input files for P8 for the calibration period (2016 through 2018). A summary of total precipitation collected at the Villa Park gauge and University of Minnesota – St. Paul campus is provided in Table 3

below.

Table 3

Total Annual Precipitation at Villa Park and University of Minnesota – St. Paul

Year

Villa Park Gauge

UMN St. Paul

2016

23.5

26.0

2018

20.9

2017

34.4

30.7 23.3

Daily precipitation values were also plotted against the monitored continuous flow data at the Villa Park and Upper Villa Inlets as shown in Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8. The plots below suggest that the

University of Minnesota – St. Paul precipitation data may be more accurate during events where the Villa

Park gauge may be over or underestimating rainfall. These instances are outlined in yellow below. In the highlighted locations, either the Villa Park gauge readings are lower or higher than expected given the peak flow through the Villa Park and Upper Villa inlets. Because of these discrepancies, and the

differences in total precipitation depths for each year, the model was analyzed using the University of Minnesota – St. Paul precipitation data.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 6

2016 Comparison of Precipitation Data and Monitored Flow

Figure 7

2017 Comparison of Precipitation Data and Monitored Flow

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 8

4.1.2

2018 Comparison of Precipitation Data and Monitored Flow

Outliers

Barr removed pollutant load outlier events prior to calibration. Using methodology developed during

calibration of the I-35W N Tunnel watershed P8 model (Barr, 2017), â&#x20AC;&#x153;outliersâ&#x20AC;? were defined as loading

events that produced pollutant loads greater than two (2) times the standard deviation from the average of events during the calibration period.

4.2

Calibration

Barr calibrated the P8 model to event runoff and pollutant loading collected at the Upper Villa Inlet and Villa Park Outlet monitoring stations. The model was first calibrated to the most upstream monitoring

location, the Upper Villa Inlet. The calibration process is discussed in the following subsections, and is summarized, below:

1) Calibrate event-based total runoff volume to monitored total volume at the Upper Villa Inlet monitoring station;

2) Calibrate to continuous flow data at the Upper Villa Reuse Bypass. The bypass continuous flow data was provided between June and October 2017. This data was used to update the rating curve for the reuse system.

3) Calibrate modeled pollutant load (TSS and TP) to pollutant load observed at the Upper Villa Inlet

monitoring station. Barr extracted a series of events for the TSS and TP load analysis. Because the P8 model is calibrated to interval water volume and pollutant loading, loading interval start and

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

end dates were rounded to the nearest hour to allow for more accurate comparison to the P8 model, which calculates loading hourly.

4) Calibrate modeled TP and DP fraction and filtration efficiency at the William Street Pond ironenhanced sand filters.

5) Validate water runoff volume at the Villa Park Outlet.

6) Validate modeled pollutant load (TSS and TP) to pollutant load observed at the Villa Park Outlet monitoring station using the same method described for the Upper Villa Inlet.

4.2.1

Water Load Calibration

Because sediment and associated pollutant transport in P8 is a function of surface runoff, it is not possible to calibrate pollutant loads without first calibrating water loading. As discussed above, the model was first calibrated to the Upper Villa Inlet. A summary of the event-based monitored and modeled water loads on days with more than 0.25 inches of precipitation for that event are shown in Table 4 and Figure 9. Figure 10 is a 1-to-1 comparison plot of monitored vs. modeled total event volumes in acre-feet. Table 4 Year

2016 2017 2018

Water Load Results at Upper Villa Inlet (pre-calibration) Monitored Total Volume (ac-ft)

Modeled Total Volume (ac-ft)

Percent Difference

62%

63 99

23%

-51%

Total Average Percent Difference

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 9

Event volume comparison for the 2016-2018 calibration years (pre-calibration).

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 10 1-to-1 event volume comparison at Upper Villa Inlet (pre-calibration) The figures above show that event volumes produced in P8 are typically higher than observed event totals

for small magnitude events and lower than observed for larger magnitude events during years 2016 and 2017. In year 2018, modeled event totals are typically smaller than observed for both large and small

magnitude events; however, the overall average water load is 5% greater in the model than observed. There are many P8 model parameters which can be used to adjust modeled TSS and TP loading the water volume. Barr focused on the adjustment of one parameter to calibrate the water loading: â&#x20AC;˘

Depression Storage â&#x20AC;&#x201C; adjusting impervious and pervious depression storage influences smaller magnitude events.

Because the model over predicts volume for smaller events, the impervious depression storage was

increased from 0.02 inches to 0.06 inches. This change produced the following results (Table 5). Figure 11

shows the results of the 1-to-1 calibration changes.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Table 5 Year

2016 2017 2018

Water Load Results at Upper Villa Inlet (calibrated) Monitored Total Volume (ac-ft)

Modeled Total Volume (ac-ft)

Percent Difference

57%

63 99

19%

-58%

Total Average Percent Difference

Figure 11 1-to-1 event volume comparison at Upper Villa Inlet (calibrated)

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

The calibration changes were then validated at the Villa Park Outlet. To simulate the baseflow through the Villa Park system observed from the monitoring data, the watersheds just upstream of the Villa Park Inlet were modeled with percolation to the sedimentation pond upstream of the Villa Park Inlet gauge. The pre-calibration results are shown in Table 6. The calibrated results are in Table 7. Figure 12 shows the

results of the 1-to-1 calibration changes at the Villa Park Outlet. After calibrating the water load, the total

volume during summer months between 2016 and 2018 is the same at the Upper Villa Inlet and over predicted by 1% at the Villa Park Outlet. With these changes, the water load is considered calibrated.

Table 6

Water Load Results at Villa Park Outlet (pre-calibration)

Year

Monitored Total Volume (ac-ft)

Modeled Total Volume (ac-ft)

Percent Difference

2017

253

387

42%

Total Average Percent Difference

20%

2016 2018

Table 7

274 154

283 158

3% 3%

Water Load Results at Villa Park Outlet (calibrated)

Year

Monitored Total Volume (ac-ft)

Modeled Total Volume (ac-ft)

Percent Difference

2017

253

299

17%

2016 2018

274 154

250 137

Total Average Percent Difference

-9%

-12% 1%

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 12 1-to-1 event volume comparison at Villa Park Outlet (calibrated)

4.2.2

Pollutant Load Calibration

To calibrate the TSS and TP load, specific events where the District retrieved composite samples were

compared to the calibrated water load model results. Start and end dates and times from the composite

samples were applied to the model to determine the total TSS and TP load at the monitoring location. The monitoring data was compared to the model with calibrated water load. Review of the results in Figure 13

and Figure 14 shows that, for TSS, the model tends to over-predict event loading for smaller loading

events (associated with smaller, less-intense storm events where loading is driven by runoff and wash-off from impervious surfaces), and tends to under-predict for larger loading events (associated with larger,

more-intense storm events) leading to a total TSS load 21% lower than monitored data. For TP, the model

tends to under predict total event loading for all magnitude events by an average of 19%.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 13 TSS event load comparison at Upper Villa Inlet (calibrated water load)

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 14 TP event load comparison at Upper Villa Inlet (calibrated water load) There are many P8 model parameters which can be used to adjust modeled TSS and TP loading. These parameters include: •

Accumulation Rate – buildup of particles on impervious surfaces (default translates to a median

•

Decay Rate – removal via non-runoff processes.

• • • • •

event mean concentration (EMC) of 100 mg/L TSS).

Washoff Coefficient – used to compute particle washoff. Washoff Exponent – used to compute particle washoff.

Pervious and impervious runoff concentration – TSS and TP concentration associated with generated runoff.

Pervious runoff exponent – relates runoff concentration to runoff intensity.

Water quality component scale factors – multiplier factors used to adjust pollutant loading

generated by P8 (e.g., a TSS scale factor of 0.9 will reduce TSS loading by 10%).

Although all of these factors can be used to adjust pollutant loading, because composite event sampling of runoff at the monitoring locations includes loading from both pervious and impervious surfaces and

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

does not summarize how event concentration changes throughout the course of an event, there is insufficient justification to manipulate many of these model parameters.

For this reason, Barr focused on the adjustment of the water quality component scale factors to calibrate the TSS and TP event loading.

Barr performed multiple iterations adjusting these factors to understand the impact on the model event

loading for both TSS and TP. To address over-prediction of TSS and under-prediction of TP loading at the UV Inlet, Barr adjusted the overall nutrient scale factors. In order to match the dissolved and total

phosphorus influent loads, the mg/kg TP particle fractions were adjusted as shown in Table 8 below.

Table 8

Calibrated water quality component mg/kg scale factors

P0%

TSS (mg/kg) 0

TP (mg/kg) 53000

P30%

1500000

6500

P80%

1500000

Particle Fraction P10% P50%

1000

1500000

11000 3500 0

As discussed in Section 3.3.2, the default iron-enhanced filtration efficiency was revisited after the model was calibrated to water and nutrient load. To match the observed data at William Street Pond, the

filtration efficiencies for P0% was decreased from 60% to 58%, the P10% was decreased from 25% to 5%,

and the P30% through P80% were decreased from 100% to 80%.

The impact of the calibration adjustments on the final calibrated event loading are shown in Figures 15

and 16. The calibration updates reduced the total error in event-based pollutant loads at the Upper Villa

Inlet from -21%, to 3.8% for TSS and from -19%, to 0.7% for TP. Typically, total loading error within 10% is considered reasonable for water quality model calibration (Barr, 2017).

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 15 TSS event load comparison at Upper Villa Inlet (fully calibrated)

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 16 TP event load comparison at Upper Villa Inlet (fully calibrated) The model was also validated at the William Street Pond iron-enhanced sand filters (IESF) where discrete

TP and DP concentration samples were collected in 2016, 2017, and 2018. The average monitored

concentration from the pond was compared to the average TP and DP concentrations generated from the

calibrated P8 model on the day of collection. As mentioned above, the filtration efficiency was adjusted to match the effluent TSS and TP concentrations downstream of the IESFs. Figure 17 and Figure 18 compare

the event-based average concentration of TP and DP leaving the pond through the IES filters. The

calibrated model slightly under predicts the average concentration of TP by 2.5% and under predicts the

average DP concentration by 1.8%. Since these values are within 10%, the calibration is considered

complete.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 17 TP event concentration at William Street Pond Outlet (fully calibrated)

Figure 18 DP event concentration at William Street Pond Outlet (fully calibrated) The calibration changes for TSS and TP loading were validated at the Villa Park Outlet, as well. The

calibrated model under predicts total TSS load at the Villa Park Outlet by 9.7%, which is within the

accepted range of 10%. The Villa Park wetland system experiences phosphorus release during most of the

growing season, resulting in nearly 0% TP reduction from the Villa Park Inlet to the Villa Park Outlet. The monitoring results are further discussed in Section 5.1. Section 5.4.1 describes the changes made to the

model at the Villa Park wetland system in order to simulate the phosphorus release occurring in the

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

wetland. The results presented above confirm that the model has been successfully calibrated and can be used to evaluate existing BMPs within the Lake McCarrons watershed.

5.0

BMP Performance Evaluation

Using results from the calibrated P8 models, and the monitoring data provided by the District, BMP

performance was evaluated. Performance of BMPs within the Lake McCarrons watershed was conducted

by one of two methods: 1) comparing existing monitoring data between the inlet and outlet of the BMPs, or 2) using the calibrated P8 model to simulate pollutant loading upstream and/or downstream of the

BMP, where necessary. The BMPs with available monitoring data provided by the District are listed below: Villa Park Wetland System

•

William Street Pond/IESF

•

Upper Villa Stormwater Reuse Facility

•

5.1

Villa Park Wetland System

Baseflow and storm monitored data from 2007 through 2018 at the Villa Park Inlet and Outlet was

provided by the District. Several of the wetland cells were dredged in 2013. To evaluate the impact of the

dredging on the system performance, the baseflow and storm nutrient data was analyzed before and after

the project (data during and after 2014 was considered post-dredging). Total phosphorus, ortho-

phosphorus, and dissolved phosphorus at the wetland inlet, just downstream of the Sedimentation Pond and downstream of the outlet beneath North McCarrons Boulevard are summarized in the figures and tables below. Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11 show the average treatment for all baseflow and storm

samples. The wetland system releases greater concentrations of phosphorous to Lake McCarrons than

what enters from the Villa Park Inlet. This may be exacerbated by an additional 118 acres of drainage area to the wetland system downstream of the Villa Park Inlet. Table 9

Total phosphorus treatment performance at Villa Park Wetland System Baseflow Influent TP Conc. (mg/L)

Effluent TP Conc. (mg/L)

Average

0.265

0.282

Min

0.010

0.062

Median Max

St. Dev.

0.167 1.780 0.284

0.198 2.240 0.266

Storm

TP Removal Efficiency (%)

Influent TP Conc. (mg/L)

Effluent TP Conc. (mg/L)

-89% -25%

0.222

0.181

0.245

0.056

0.072

1.480 0.165

0.203 0.926 0.147

TP Removal Efficiency (%)

-30% -10% -

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Table 10

Ortho-P treatment performance at Villa Park Wetland System

Influent Ortho-P Conc. (mg/L)

Average

0.039

Baseflow

Storm

Effluent Ortho-P Conc. (mg/L)

Ortho-P Removal Efficiency (%)

Influent Ortho-P Conc. (mg/L)

Effluent Ortho-P Conc. (mg/L)

0.034

0.057

0.053

-153%

Ortho-P Removal Efficiency (%)

-274%

Median

0.022

0.033

-51%

0.026

0.049

-88%

Min

0.003

0.010

0.003

0.011

Max

0.270

0.380

0.220

0.160

St. Dev.

0.045

0.060

0.030

0.034

Table 11

Dissolved phosphorus treatment performance at Villa Park Wetland System Baseflow Influent DP Conc. (mg/L)

Effluent DP Conc. (mg/L)

DP Removal Efficiency (%)

Average

0.043

0.082

-94%

Min

0.010

0.052

Median Max

St. Dev.

0.032 0.156 0.036

0.069 0.160 0.035

-48% -

Storm

Influent DP Conc. (mg/L)

Effluent DP Conc. (mg/L)

0.055

0.073

0.059

0.088

0.010

0.050

0.260 0.048

DP Removal Efficiency (%)

-68% -1%

0.246 0.044

As shown in Table 12, the treatment provided by the wetland system after the 2013 dredging project does

not appear to provide significant benefit to the phosphorus treatment efficiency. However, Table 13

shows that the average effluent concentration does decrease which can be explained by the general

downward trend in influent phosphorus concentration since 2007. This trend is shown in Figure 19, Figure 20, and Figure 21 below.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Table 12

Treatment performance at Villa Park Wetland System pre- and post-dredging Baseflow

TP Removal Efficiency (%)

Ortho-P Removal Efficiency (%) DP Removal Efficiency (%)

Table 13

Storm

2007 to 2014

2014 to 2018

2007 to 2014

2014 to 2018

-89%

-53%

-30%

-53%

-153%

-156%

-274%

-156%

-94%

-92%

-68%

-92%

Effluent Phosphorus (mg/L) at Villa Park Wetland System pre- and post-dredging Baseflow 2007 to 2014

Storm

2014 to 2018

2007 to 2014

2014 to 2018

Effluent TP

0.282

0.192

0.245

0.192

Effluent DP

0.082

0.081

0.088

0.081

Effluent Ortho-P

0.053

0.039

0.057

0.039

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 19 Monitored Total Phosphorus Removal at the Villa Park Wetland System

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 20 Monitored Ortho-Phosphorus Removal at the Villa Park Wetland System

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 21 Monitored Dissolved Phosphorus Removal at the Villa Park Wetland System

The influent and effluent concentrations were also analyzed for seasonal variability. Figure 22 through

Figure 24 show that there is no significant difference in the influent and effluent TP concentrations during

base and storm flow conditions. In the case of ortho-phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus, the average effluent concentration exceeds the influent concentration for almost every month between April and

October. These results show similar trends summarized in the report: 2015 Analysis of Nutrient Loading and Performance of the Villa Park Wetland, 2006-2012 (1).

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 22 Seasonal Variability in Monitored Total Phosphorus Removal at the Villa Park Wetland System

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 23 Seasonal Variability in Monitored Dissolved Phosphorus Removal at the Villa Park Wetland System

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 24 Seasonal Variability in Monitored Ortho-Phosphorus Removal at the Villa Park Wetland System The following figures show the seasonal variability between all years with monitoring data compared to

the years after the 2013 dredging of the Villa Park system. As shown in Figure 25 through Figure 27, and

explained previously, the effluent phosphorus concentrations are typically lower after 2013; however, with

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

the possible exception of ORP, there does not appear to be a significant increase in the treatment efficiency after the dredging of the Villa Park Wetland.

Figure 25 Seasonal and Post-Dredging Variability in Monitored Total Phosphorus Removal at the Villa Park Wetland System

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 26 Seasonal and Post-Dredging Variability in Monitored Dissolved Phosphorus Removal at the Villa Park Wetland System

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 27 Seasonal and Post-Dredging Variability in Monitored Ortho-Phosphorus Removal at the Villa Park Wetland System In 2016, the Villa Park Reuse system was installed to reduce influent TP loading to the Villa Park Wetland System. Also confirmed in the CRWD 2019 Villa Park Wetland System Performance Analysis, the influent TP concentration at the Villa Park outlet has a generally decreasing trend since the 2013 dredging (2).

Additional years of monitoring data would be needed to distinguish the impact of the Upper Villa Reuse system on the influent phosphorus loading to the Villa Park Wetland (see Figures 28 through 30).

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 28 Flow-Weighted Annual Average TP at the Villa Park Wetland System

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 29 Flow-Weighted Annual Average ORP at the Villa Park Wetland System

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 30 Flow-Weighted Annual Average DP at the Villa Park Wetland System

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

5.2

William Street Pond/IESF

Monitored data from 2013 through 2018 at the William Street Pond was used to evaluate performance of the iron enhanced sand filtration system associated with the pond outlet. Total phosphorus, ortho-

phosphorus, and dissolved phosphorus sample concentrations at the pond inlet and downstream of the north and south iron-enhanced sand filters were summarized. Table 14, Table 15 and Table 16 show the respective total phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus, and ortho-phosphate treatment efficiencies of both

iron-enhanced sand filters. As shown in the tables, the north and south filters have removed an average of 57.9% and 45.8% total phosphorus, 47.5% and 35.9% ortho-P, and 61.1% and 34.8% dissolved

phosphorus, respectively, over the last 6 years. These results are similar to the results from the May 2017 William Street Pond Iron-Enhanced Sand Filter Performance Report which analyzed monitoring data from 2013 through 2016. As indicated in the report, and further confirmed below, the north IESF outperforms the south IESF for treatment of all forms phosphorus. Table 14

Total phosphorus treatment performance at William Street Pond Influent TP Conc. (mg/L)

N. Filter Effluent TP Conc. (mg/L)

S. Filter Effluent TP Conc. (mg/L)

N. Filter TP Removal Efficiency (%)

S. Filter TP Removal Efficiency (%)

Average

0.274

0.091

0.116

57.9

45.8

Min

0.101

0.032

0.037

Median Max

0.900

St. Dev. Table 15

0.229

0.159

0.090 0.234 0.039

0.116 0.236 0.048

N. Filter Effluent Ortho-P Conc. (mg/L)

S. Filter Effluent Ortho-P Conc. (mg/L)

Average

0.031

0.005

0.012

Min

0.003

Max

St. Dev.

49.8 -

Ortho-P treatment performance at William Street Pond Influent Ortho-P Conc. (mg/L)

Median

59.0

0.020 0.122 0.029

0.003 0.022 0.004

0.006 0.056 0.013

N. Filter OrthoP Removal Efficiency (%)

S. Filter Ortho-P Removal Efficiency (%)

80.6

62.6

47.5 -

35.9 -

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Table 16

Dissolved phosphorus treatment performance at William Street Pond Influent DP Conc. (mg/L)

N. Filter Effluent DP Conc. (mg/L)

S. Filter Effluent DP Conc. (mg/L)

Average

0.060

0.017

0.026

Min

0.010

Median Max

St. Dev.

0.046 0.187 0.041

0.010 0.122 0.018

0.010 0.129 0.026

N. Filter DP Removal Efficiency (%)

S. Filter DP Removal Efficiency (%)

73.4

66.6

61.1 -

34.8 -

Figure 31, Figure 32, and Figure 33 below show the combined average influent and effluent

concentrations of TP, ortho-P, and dissolved P, respectively, for specific events over the course of the last 6 years. Figure 31 would indicate that since 2013, the influent total phosphorus concentration from the

pond has a generally decreasing trend over time. The effluent concentration leaving the filters appears to be slightly higher in 2017 and 2018. Figure 32 and Figure 33 do not show similar trends in dissolved phosphorus and ortho-phosphate treatment.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 31 Monitored Total Phosphorus Removal at the William Street Pond BMP

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 32 Monitored Ortho-P Removal at the William Street Pond BMP

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Figure 33 Monitored Dissolved Phosphorus Removal at the William Street Pond BMP

5.3

Upper Villa Stormwater Reuse Facility

Influent TP, ortho-phosphate, and dissolved phosphorus monitoring data was collected upstream of the Villa Park Reuse System. However, no monitoring data was collected downstream of the system to

quantify treatment efficiency of the system. Therefore, the calibrated P8 model was used to estimate the

dissolved and total phosphorus reduction associated with the system (see Section 5.5).

5.4 5.4.1

Results Verification Villa Park Outlet

Monitoring results were verified against historical reports and monitoring data. In the case of the Villa

Park Wetland, phosphorus release occurs during the majority of the sampled events. Flow-weighted mean concentrations for a composite TP sample collected at the Villa Park Inlet and the Villa Park Outlet for the same storm event were compared to the P8 model for the same storms. These events and corresponding monitored and modeled flow-weighted mean TP concentrations are provided in Table 17. Red values are P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

instances where phosphorus release is occurs. The summarized events below suggest that the average effluent TP concentration leaving the Villa Park Outlet (0.17 mg/L) is approximately the same as the

influent concentration (0.17 mg/L). In order to simulate this essentially 0% particle settling in the model,

the particle removal scale factor through the Villa Park wetland system was changed from 1.0 to 0.2. With the particle scale removal factor reduced to 0.2, the average effluent modeled TP concentration leaving the Villa Park wetland (0.18 mg/L) is approximately 5% larger than the monitored effluent average concentration (0.17 mg/L). Table 17

Total Phosphorus concentration comparison at the Villa Park Wetland System

Composite Sample Start Date

VP Inlet Obs. TP (mg/L)

8/16/2016

0.20

10/6/2016

0.19

9/21/2016

Monitored Data VP Percent Outlet TP Conc. Obs. TP Reduction (mg/L)

0.17

0.21

-2%

0.17

Modeled Data Obs. Flow Volume (ac-ft)

VP Inlet P8 TP (mg/L)

VP Outlet P8 TP (mg/L)

Percent TP Conc. Reduction 23%

4.80

0.19

0.14

9.58

0.23

0.19

0.20

-8%

10.67

0.18

P8 Flow Volume (ac-ft) 9.02

0.20

-13%

10.46

16%

8.10

4/15/2017

0.22

0.11

49%

2.47

0.26

0.16

37%

2.89

6/11/2017

0.13

0.23

-74%

2.10

0.64

0.14

78%

3.75

8/9/2017

0.14

-1%

0.85

0.20

-1%

3.17

6/28/2017 8/13/2017 8/16/2017 8/26/2017 9/25/2017 6/16/2018 6/26/2018 8/24/2018

5.4.2

0.11 0.13 0.20 0.13 0.30 0.13 0.13 0.19

0.13

-23%

0.15

-17%

0.15

-10%

0.18

-38%

0.19

-3%

0.14 0.20 0.17

34% 32%

-32%

1.09 3.73 6.50 6.14 1.72 7.14 5.42 5.42

0.40 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.37 0.42 0.34 0.38

0.21

46%

3.13

0.19

27%

0.16

21%

11.52

53%

6.50

0.16 0.12 0.20 0.19 0.22

35% 68% 45% 43%

7.62 9.08 1.22 8.30 7.57

Alameda Pond

The treatment from Alameda Pond (P8 device ID: WP14-004) and the William Street Pond (P8 device ID:

WP10-001CP) were compared to the monitoring data summarized in the Objective 3: Phosphorus Release

from Stormwater Ponds technical memo published in 2018 (3). The model was run during the timeframe

that monitoring data was collected (July 2017 through May 2018). The model was run using precipitation data from the Villa Park rain gauge. Table 18 is a summary comparing the model to the technical memo.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Table 18

Total Phosphorus Load comparison at Alameda Pond Memo1

Model

TP Inflow (lbs.)

36.1

42.7

TP Outflow (lbs.)

16.9

11.1

Percent TP Removal

53%

74%

1 – The technical memo reports values in kilograms. These were converted to pounds to match the model output.

5.4.3

William Street Pond

The treatment provided by the William Street Pond was also compared to the results of the technical memo. As shown in Table 19, the model matches closely to the monitoring data. Table 19

Total Phosphorus Load comparison at William Street Pond Memo1

Model2, 3

TP Inflow (lbs.)

10.6

11.6

TP Outflow (lbs.)

4.7

4.6

Percent TP Removal

56%

60%

1 – The technical memo reports values in kilograms. These were converted to pounds to match the model output. 2 – TP Inflow is calculated from the 13 total outflow + 08 sediment + decay terms. 3 – TP Outflow is calculated from the 03 infiltrate + 12 total outflow terms.

5.5

Mapping of Evaluated BMPs

After the model was calibrated, the future Parkview Center School underground detention and filtration

system was added to the model (P8 Device ID: UGS1002). The figures shown below include the treatment provided by this proposed BMP.

Barr calculated average annual TSS and TP pollutant yield generated by device drainage areas for the study area based on a 10-year modeling period (October 2008 through October 2018). Total device

drainage area yield is an estimate of the pollutant load generated by device drainage areas (devicesheds) throughout the modeling period with no consideration of pollutant removal by BMPs. Mapping of total yield can help to identify where pollutant loads are being generated in the watershed by highlighting areas where the areal yield rates are highest.

Effective yield reflects the yield rate after pollutant removal by the various BMPs throughout the

watershed are considered. The intent is to present the loading that actually makes it into the receiving

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

waterbody from that location. For example, if a modeled BMP device removes half of the pollutant load it receives, then the effective yield rate tributary to that device would be half of the total yield rate. In the

case of two or more BMPs occurring in series, effective yield accounts for reduction at the BMP and all downstream BMPs (i.e., the cumulative pollutant reduction). Cumulative pollutant reduction (%) is

calculated based on the assumption that all pollutant outflow from a given BMP or device is further

reduced by the percent pollutant reduction calculated at each downstream device. For example, if loading from an area is first treated by a BMP that removes 50% of the loading it receives and then treated by a

second, downstream BMP that removes 30% of the loading it receives, the cumulative reduction (%) from that location is 65% [100% - (100% - 50%) x (100% - 30%) = 65%]. Effective yield is then calculated by

applying the cumulative reduction (%) to the raw subwatershed yield [(Watershed Yield, lbs/acre/year) x (100% - Cumulative Reduction, %) = Effective Yield (lbs/acre/year)]. Because effective yield mapping indicates where yield is highest after considering the impact of existing water quality features, such mapping can be used to prioritize subwatersheds for future BMP implementation.

No load reduction occurs in P8 pipe devices. If the pipes are located upstream of a BMP that provides

treatment, cumulative pollutant reduction (%) and effective yield will be calculated as described, above. For portions of the watershed where there is no downstream BMP (i.e., no downstream treatment), the effective yield is equal to the raw subwatershed yield.

Effective TP yield and TSS yield (lbs/ac/yr) are shown in Figure 34 and Figure 35, respectively. Pollutant

reduction (%) of TP and TSS by BMPs within each device drainage area are shown in Figure 36 and Figure

37, respectively. Figure 34 through Figure 37 also show areas that were considered non-contributing,

meaning they do not contribute runoff to the downstream storm sewer system during the entire 10-year period.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

" )

, %

, % , %

, , % % % . , !

% , , % , %

" )

, %

! . " ) , %

! .

, %

" )

, % ! .

" )

! .

, %

, % P8 BMP

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-02-11 09:43 I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\Reports\Figure 34 Effective TP Yield.mxd

" ) " ) , % % , ! .

! .

! .G F " )

, %

! .

" )

, %

" )

! ." ) " ) " )

, %

" ) " )

! . " )

" )

, %

,% % ,% ,

, %

. % ! , " ) % , ! .

, % " )

" )

, %

Dry Pond

, %

Filtration

, %

Infiltration

! .

Pipe

F G

Splitter

Underground

" )

Wet Pond

" )

, %

" )

, %

! .

Non-contributing Subwatershed

, % , % Effective TP Yield (lbs/ac/yr)

" )

< 0.1 0.1 - 0.2

; !

300

600

Feet 1 inch = 750 feet

, %

0.2 - 0.5 0.5 - 0.8

! .

0.8 - 1.0 1.0 - 1.2 1.2 - 1.4 1.4 - 1.7

EFFECTIVE TP YIELD Lake McCarrons Management Plan Capitol Region Watershed District Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) FIGURE 34 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

) "

, %

, % , %

, , % % % . , !

% , , % , %

) "

, %

. ! ) " , %

. !

, %

) "

, % . !

) "

. !

, %

, % P8 BMP

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-02-11 09:43 I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\Reports\Figure 35 Effective TSS Yield.mxd

) " " ) , % % , . !

. !

.G ! F ) "

, %

. !

) "

, %

) "

!" . ) " ) ) "

, %

) " ) "

. ! ) "

) "

, %

,% % ,% ,

, %

. % ! , ) % " , . !

, % ) "

) "

, %

Dry Pond

, %

Filtration

, %

Infiltration

. !

Pipe

F G

Splitter

Underground

) "

Wet Pond

) "

, %

) "

, %

. !

Non-contributing Subwatershed

, % , % Effective TSS Yield (lbs/ac/yr) <5 5 - 10

; ! N

) " 0

300

600

Feet 1 inch = 750 feet

, %

10 - 20 20 - 50

. !

50 - 100 100 - 150 150 - 200 200 - 260

EFFECTIVE TSS YIELD Lake McCarrons Management Plan Capitol Region Watershed District Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, Â© FIGURE 35 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

" )

, %

, % , %

, , % % % . , !

% , , % , %

" )

, %

! . " ) , %

! .

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-02-11 09:43 I:\Client\CapitolRegionWD\Projects\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgtmt Plan\Maps\Reports\Figure 36 TP Percent Reduction.mxd

, %

" )

, % ! .

" )

! .

, %

, % P8 BMP

" ) " ) , % % , ! .

! .

! .G F " )

, %

! .

" )

, %

" )

! ." ) " ) " )

, %

" ) " )

! . " )

" )

, %

,% % ,% ,

, %

. % ! , " ) % , ! .

, % " )

" )

, %

Dry Pond

, %

Filtration

, %

Infiltration

! .

Pipe

F G

Splitter

Underground

" )

Wet Pond

" )

, %

" )

, %

! .

Non-contributing Subwatershed

, % , % " ) 0% 0 - 15%

; ! N

Percent TP Removed 0

300

600

Feet 1 inch = 750 feet

, %

15 - 30% 30 - 45%

! .

45 - 60% 60 - 75% 75 - 90% 90 - 100%

PERCENT TP REDUCTION Lake McCarrons Management Plan Capitol Region Watershed District Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) FIGURE 36 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

) "

, %

, % , %

, , % % % . , !

% , , % , %

) "

, %

. ! ) " , %

. !

, %

) "

, % . !

) "

. !

, %

, % P8 BMP

) " " ) , % % , . !

. !

.G ! F

Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.6, 2019-02-11 09:43 \\barr.com\gis\Client\MWMO\Work_Orders\1688\Maps\Reports\Figure 37 TSS Percent Reduction.mxd

) "

, %

. !

) "

, %

) "

!" . ) " ) ) "

, %

) " ) "

. ! ) "

) "

, %

,% % ,% ,

, %

. % ! , ) % " , . !

, % ) "

) "

, %

Dry Pond

, %

Filtration

, %

Infiltration

. !

Pipe

F G

Splitter

Underground

) "

Wet Pond

) "

, %

) "

, %

. !

Non-contributing Subwatershed

, % , %

0% 0 - 15%

; ! N

) " Percent TSS Removed 0

300

600

Feet 1 inch = 750 feet

, %

15 - 30% 30 - 45%

. !

45 - 60% 60 - 75% 75 - 90% 90 - 100%

PERCENT TSS REDUCTION Lake McCarrons Management Plan Capitol Region Watershed District Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, Â© FIGURE 37 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

6.0 Description of Electronic Deliverables Submitted along with this technical memorandum are copies of electronic data related to the Lake

McCarrons watershed modeling update and calibration project. These files include digital copies of the report, model input data, and output files.

6.1

Model Report

The Model Report folder contains the final technical memorandum (i.e., this document) in Microsoft Word and PDF formats.

6.2

Model Input Files •

Hydraulics o

Storage: This folder contains the storage curves created from bathymetry data where provided. The folder also contains the 2011 DNR LiDAR storage curves for each subwatershed where bathymetry data was not provided.

o o

XP-SWMM: Models used to define the rating curves for complex outlets.

McCarrons_P8Hydraulics.xlsx: spreadsheet documenting the P8 device data and assumptions used to develop the model hydraulics.

•

Hydrology o o

Rainfall Data: precipitation files used for the P8 model

Uncalibrated: Includes the spreadsheet used to model the treatment from the rain

gardens discussed in Section 3.3.1 and the spreadsheet to develop the uncalibrated model hydrology inputs.

6.3

Calibrated: Includes the calibrated watershed import spreadsheet for the P8 model.

Model Output Files •

Calibration Results o

Includes the spreadsheets used to summarize the results of calibration at the Upper Villa Inlet, Villa Park Outlet, and William Street Pond Inlet.

•

AvgAnnual o

Includes the spreadsheet used to summarize the calibrated 10-year average subwatershed and device TP and TSS treatment results.

•

Calibrated_Model_Results.xlsx o o

Tabulation of model results shown on Figure 34 through Figure 37.

Table with summary of BMP P8 ID, BMP name, watershed TSS and TP percent reductions, and effective TSS and TP percent reductions.

6.4

GIS Data •

Task5_Model_Data.gdb

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

Geodatabase containing the calibrated subwatershed results and P8 devices used in the model and to generate Figure 34 through Figure 37.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

To: From: Subject: Date: Page:

7.0

References

1. Benjamin D. Janke, Jacques C. Finlay. Analysis of Nutrient Loading and Performance of the Villa Park Wetland, 2006 - 2012. Saint Paul, MN : Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 2015.

2. District, Capitol Region Watershed. Villa Park Wetland System Performance Analysis. Saint Paul, MN :

Capitol Region Watershed District, 2019.

3. Vinicius Taguchi, Tyler Olsen, Ben Janke, Heinz G. Stefan, Jacques Finlay, John S.Gulliver.

Stormwater Research Summary Banner Objective 3 - Phosphorus Release from Stormwater Ponds. 2018.

P:\Mpls\23 MN\62\23621307 Lake McCarrons Mgmt Plan\WorkFiles\Task 5\04_Model Memo\LakeMcCarrons_ModelingMemo_2019-11-08.docx

CRWD Responses to Comments on the Draft Lake McCarrons Management Plan (dated February 2020)

# 1 2 3 4 5

Commenter

10 11 12 13

AAG AAG

Would like to see more specific steps regarding chloride management How do practices in section 4.2 goal 1D fit into implementation plan? Nothing in Table 5-1

Chloride Chloride

Future implementation item: Chloride source assessment and prevention plan. Added chloride source assessment and prevention plan to implementation table. Included a column with matching goal or objective for each implementation item. Related actions lumped together.

No Yes

AAG

Plan for 2020 is to do E. coli testing at 4 additional locations if beach is over limit. Sampling each week of beach closure. Results on county website. In 2020 using trained dog harassment of geese at beach area. In the executive summary on page 3 there is a sentence that reads “It was expected that fish winterkill would occur about once every ten years.” But then later on in section 3.2.2.2 it is stated that under current conditions there is not any expectations of winterkill occurring. Just wondering if the sentence in the executive summary is needed. I agree that there is no longer winterkill concerns out there, with the improved water quality I think it would be a rare event to cause winterkill.

Bacteria

Short-term plan. May adapt or change. Current plan wording is OK.

Bacteria Fishery

Short-term plan. May adapt or change. Current plan wording is OK. Plan wording revised/clarified.

No Yes

AAG AAG

Change - Section

Table 5-1

Section 1 Executive Summary

AAG

Looking at Figure 3-9 for the chloride concentrations it appears that the 2005 value is 1,365 mg/L but the data point depicts Chloride it at ~355, this may be due to scale on the graph?? I also don’t see the data points for the other two exceedances in 2005 and 2013, are these covered by the table?

Fixed figure 3-9

Yes

Figure 3-9

AAG AAG

Section 3.2.5 references the 2014 DNR Fisheries survey. 2019 survey data is now available. Fishery Section 4.1 references management of rough fish (carp) as an issue of concern. Based on the water quality data and netting Fishery surveys I would surmise that the carp population is at a very low level and may have very limited recruitment

Incorporated 2019 MNDNR data and 2016 CRWD (Wenck) data. Noted. Rough fish mgmt was listed as an issue for consideration, but was ultimately not specifically included in the plan.

Yes No

Section 3.2.5

AAG AAG

Ramsey Soil and Water interested in partnership and assisting in fisheries management plan. 5.3 My understanding of the LVMP is that it is more for treatment of invasive plants over 15% of the littoral zone. There is also some push back on using LVMP for native plant management. I’m not discouraging the LVMP, but maybe a Vegetation Plan is better? What will be needed if more than 15% is desirable in a delineation of the target species. We can do that as part of any PI survey. Goal 2-I would like to see some specifics on prevention (e.g funding inspections, creating a system to ensure lake owners follow 21 day dry rule for lifts/docks, etc.) "Section 4 discusses the management plan goals, objectives and recommended implementation plan actions that were developed for CRWD in the context of both legacy and newly discovered invasive species in the lake.” I would add “novel species” or “yet to be discovered” to drive home the point that we must be ready for new species such as Starry Stonewort.

Fishery Vegetation

Consider when developing fisheries management plan Consider when developing vegetation management plan

No No

Vegetation

Consider when developing vegetation management plan

AIS

Refer to AIS plan.

AIS

Included language consistent with AIS plan regarding new, yet to be discovered species.

Yes

If data is available, might be nice to include both cost and estimate TP reductions in Table 3-2 Page 38 – seems like MPCA already has a Twin Cities Metro and Statewide Chloride Management Plan – recommend using and working with MPCA to send folks to their trainings; also Table 5-1 didn’t see anything about chloride in there unless I missed it – should be added or spelled out separately since the types of activities are very different than phosphorus BMPs. Seems like a good time to tackle chloride before it gets worse. Not sure what Roseville is doing and if they’ve gone to any trainings or are using the tool or anything Table 5-1 – concerned about the lag time between the Villa park evaluation and implementation –feasibility studies can get old/outdated (particularly costs) after only a couple years. In Section 3.21 it states "In fact, the lake is so strongly stratified that it does not always turn over in the fall", and then states 2015 was the only year on record in which Lake McCarrons completely turned over by the end of October. The lake freezes over in late November or December. Something appears to be missing for the report comments to be meaningful (Alum significantly reduced internal loading and yet the lake rarely turns over and does not mix hypolimnetic water to the epilimnion?). To what depth does the lake mix to in the fall and spring? Were measurements stopped in October? Does the TP increase at the time of turnover or not? The results from Villa Park were not clear. It appeared from comparing the efficacy of the Villa Park system vs the William Street pond that the Villa Park system was not working and in fact the outflow was discharging higher levels of orthophosphate to Lake McCarrons than the inflow at a number of measured summer periods. This should be more clearly explained and a solution or management objective proposed to change that outcome The outlet was moved from its natural location by the boat landing further to the south in its current location...The natural outlet had no impediments. The current outlet has a tapered concrete inlet that is filled with sand and debris and even has a 8 inch diameter tree growing in it (this does not represent the engineered design to replace the natural outlet) . The lake surface currents were not taken into consideration in designing the outlet...As a result the design capacity of the moved outlet is much less than the natural outlet. There should be a study on the impact of moving the outlet, effects on water discharge, and lake levels.

Historical Management Chloride

Not sure if all data could be compiled to complete table. No Ensure chloride source assessment and prevention plan does not conflict or duplicate efforts of TCMA No chloride plan.

Implementation

Villa Park improvements moved up in implementation timeline.

Yes

Table 5-1

Monitoring, Stratification, TP

Evaluated data to answer lake turnover question and clarified in the plan.

Yes

Section 3.2.1

Villa Park

Implentation items exist in plan for investigating Villa Park improvements and implementing improvements.

Lake Outlet, Lake Levels

Goal 4.A.b and 4.B.a Evaluation of the outlet should be part of H&H modeling.

AAG AAG

16 AAG Public 18

Public 19 Public 20

Plan Change

May be determined by implementation item: Chloride source assessment and prevention plan.

CRWD Response

Chloride

AAG

Keywords

Is there interim condition/goal that CRWD would like to see maintained during mgmt period? (could be below standard)

Comment

AAG

Capitol Region Watershed District, Lake McCarrons Management Plan (4/30/20)

Section 3.2.4

CRWD Responses to Comments on the Draft Lake McCarrons Management Plan (dated February 2020)

Commenter Public

Change - Section

Yes

Public

I am concerned that restrictions like no wake zones are being considered without input from lake front owners. I am not in Boating favor of restrictions on boats

No-wake zone changes are a potential management option if deemed necessary/feasible. A shoreline Yes assessment will first be done to determine if erosion is a serious problem and investigate causes/solutions if so. Roseville and public will be involved in any possible discussion of changes. Nowake zone references removed from plan - inclusion not justified at this point.

Section 5.4. and goal 2,C

Public

How many years/samples would you collect to calculate the average of TP concentrations above 300 ug/L before doing another alum treatment? (Would you look at a five-year average above that amount? 10 samples to get an average? etc.)

TP, Goals

Clarification needed in plan.

Yes

Discussion in section 3.5

Public

a Lake McCarrons Management Plan Agency Advisory Group was formed to help come up with this plan. Who was in the group? Was there a public request for citizens to join in?

Draft Plan Input

Public

I'm not sure the CRWD should be dictating (and paying for) certain types of shoreline for some residents

Shoreline Management

Public

What role does CRWD have in shoreline management?

Shoreline Management

Public

The idea of no-wake zones should be removed from this plan.

Boating, Shoreline Erosion

The agency advisory group consisted of partner agencies and public entities such as Ramsey County, City of Roseville, DNR etc. Input was also solicited from CRWD's established Citizen Advisory Comitte (CAC) and from the general public at a meeting held in October 2019. All shoreline improvement projects on private property are voluntary. CRWD is willing to provide technical and financial assistance to interested property owners. CRWD will conduct a shoreline assessment and draft a shoreline management plan. All shoreline improvement projects on private property are voluntary. CRWD is willing to provide technical and financial assistance to interested property owners. No-wake zone changes are a potential management option if deemed necessary/feasible. A shoreline assessment will first be done to determine if erosion is a serious problem and investigate causes/solutions if so. Roseville and public will be involved in any possible discussion of changes. Nowake zone references removed from plan - inclusion not justified at this point.

Public Public

Plan Change

Revised plan description of shoreline assessment and management.

CRWD Response

Keywords

Include as part of shoreline assessment/management

Public

Comment

There should be a further analysis on the impact of unnaturally high lake levels and water quality. In a lake that has lake Shoreline Erosion, Water Quality levels established over time there is typically a gradual shoreline which aids in biological degradation by wave action and increases the oxygen levels to the lake water. Further the winter expansion of ice is on that gradual shoreline and not into erodible banks The "current science regarding the effect of boating on shoreline erosion" referred to in the report should be evaluated in Boating, Shoreline Erosion the context of natural shorelines and water levels vs high water levels. It should also consider the effects of wind wave action. In other words how much wind wave action affects the shores and shorelines and how much is affected by boating and what type of boating. What is the attenuation of boat waves with distance vs wind waves. Given that lake waves on natural shorelines tend to positively affect water quality, what is the positive effects of boat waves on lake water quality as well as any negative effects. I am curious as to who was on the advisory board for this draft, were they property owners and if so how were they selected Draft Plan Input I have serious concerns about the shoreline management plan, specifically around recommendations for no wake zones. Boating, Shoreline Erosion Lake McCarrons already has restrictions to boating/skiing and any additional restrictions would be detrimental to boating accessibility and value of the lake. The current 300 ft restriction is already more than other lakes with shoreline wake restrictions (100ft-150ft is typical). The goal should be to improve the accessibility of the lake, not reduce it

Capitol Region Watershed District, Lake McCarrons Management Plan (4/30/20)

CAC, Agency Partners, public (meeting October 2019) all given opportunity to provide input. No No-wake zone changes are a potential management option if deemed necessary/feasible. A shoreline Yes assessment will first be done to determine if erosion is a serious problem and investigate causes/solutions if so. Roseville and public will be involved in any possible discussion of changes. Nowake zone references removed from plan - inclusion not justified at this point.

Section 5.4. and goal 2,C

No No Yes

Section 5.4. and goal 2,C

May 6, 2020 Board Meeting V. Action Item - D) AR: Adopt Updated COVID-19 Response Plan and Preparedness Plan (Doneux)

DATE: TO: FROM: RE:

April 30, 2020 CRWD Board of Managers Mark Doneux, Administrator Adoption of Updated COVID-19 Response Plan and Preparedness Plan (Doneux)

Background Capitol Region Watershed District is following the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH) guidance to slow the spread of COVID-19 and reduce impacts to health and safety as well as complying with the Governor’s declaration of a peacetime state of emergency. CRWD’s office was closed to the public starting on Tuesday, March 17, 2020. Staff have been working remotely, except for essential services, and will be available via phone or email. On April 1, 2020 the Board adopted COVID-19 Response Plan and a list of Essential Services consistent with the Governors Emergency Executive Order 20-20. The Board also affirmed that CRWD Board meetings will be conducted electronically. Issues On April 23, 2020 Governor Walz issued Emergency Executive Order 20-40 providing criteria and conditions for Non-Critical Workers Return to Work. This Order allows workers in certain con-critical sectors to return to safe workplaces if a Preparedness Plan is developed and implemented. On April 30, 2020 Governor Walz issued Emergency Executive Order 20-48 – extending the Minnesotans to Stay at Home order to May 18, 2020. We have updated our Response Plan to include this new extension. I have also drafted two other informational documents. One is a timeline and list of actions relating to the State of Emergency and CRWD responses. The other is a document to attempt to begin a process of mapping our way back to normalcy. While there are no timelines on this plan, it allows to start bracketing levels of health concerns and guidance to returning to work. These are included as informational only. Action Requested Adopt Updated COVID-19 Response Plan and Preparedness Plan enc.

Updated COVID-19 Response Plan dated April 30, 2020 Preparedness Plan dated May 1, 2020 CRWD Timeline and Actions Relating to State of Minnesota COVID-19 Declarations Levels of Health Concerns Related to Stay at Home Order and Working at the Office

W:\01 Administration\Facility Management\595 Aldine\Operations\COVID-19\Reference Materials\Board Memo - COVID 19 Response Plan and Preparedness Plan 4-30-20.docx

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

CRWD COVID-19 Response Plan April 30, 2020 Update This update provides an extension to Governor Tim Walz’s Emergency Executive Order 20-48 Extending the Stay at Home Order. CRWD’s office closed to the public on Tuesday, March 17, 2020 until further notice in response to the peacetime emergency declaration by Governor Tim Walz. Staff were encouraged to work from home via their computer, phone and email following the District’s Work Off Site Policy. On March 25, 2020, Governor Tim Walz issued Emergency Executive Order 20-20 Directing Minnesotans to Stay at Home. This updated Response Plan will now require staff to work from home unless performing essential services as approved by their supervisor. On April 8, 2020, Governor Tim Walz issued Emergency Executive Order 20-33 Extending the Stay at Home Order through May 3, 2020. This updated Response Plan will now extend the requirement of staff to work from home unless performing essential services as approved by their supervisor. On April 30, 2020, Governor Tim Walz issued Emergency Executive Order 20-48 Extending the Stay at Home Order through May 18, 2020. This updated Response Plan will now extend the requirement of staff to work from home unless performing essential services as approved by their supervisor or for minimum basic operations and non-critical office-based business work. Capitol Region Watershed District is also following the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH) guidance to slow the spread of COVID-19 and reduce impacts to health and safety. Click here for the most up-to-date information from the MDH. According to the MDH, the best way to avoid the spread of COVID-19 and other viruses is to practice the following: • • •

Wash your hands regularly with soap and water. Stay home if you are sick. Cough and sneeze in your elbow, not your hands. Work Off Site due to District closing office – The District has closed the office due to the Governor’s Emergency Orders. The District will continue to pay staff and expect staff to continue to work following the WOS Policy. The District will allow flexibility in its WOS policy. Specifically, the District will waive or be flexible on the monthly hours and/or annual WOS hours. During this time, no staff are to be in the office unless deemed necessary and essential by your supervisor. If you are to be in the office for an essential function, the exterior doors must remain locked, and the sliding glass doors at the reception area closed and locked. In the event of a delivery during your time in the

office, determine if it is essential (US mail, CRWD delivery) using the lobby door intercom phones. Only open the door once you have determined that it is an essential delivery. Request the delivery be placed on a table in the vestibule. Do not greet the delivery person and do not sign for deliveries. Also, please do not have any personal deliveries made to the office and discontinue any possible future CRWD deliveries until further notice. 2)

Work Off Site for Personal Reasons - Under unique or special circumstances caused by a peace time state of emergency and/or Shelter in Place Order, staff may request the District to be flexible with the WOS policy. Those unique or special circumstances may include: a. School closures b. Day care closing c. Family illness d. Personal health e. Social Distancing

In the event of unique or special circumstances the District will be flexible in both its WOS and PTO policies. The District will not be punitive of staff needing to be out of the office in the event of unique or special circumstances. Staff will utilize WOS to the extent possible. For the purposes of recording time for payroll, staff should enter 80 hours per pay period of WOS. Actual personal time off would be considered PTO.

Meetings a. All CRWD hosted meetings will be canceled, postponed or done virtually. b. Until further notice, discontinue approving external group reservation requests for CRWD meeting space c. Cancel in-person meetings/gatherings hosted by CRWD or partners. These meetings may only be held or attended electronically until further notice. d. Staff will evaluate all existing planned meetings to determine if they should be canceled, postponed or be held electronically. e. If two or more employees were to be in the office at the same time, implement social distancing measures in the office: a. Increase physical space between workers at the worksite by taking advantage of alternative workspaces. b. Eliminate social contact in the workplace (e.g., limit in-person meetings, meeting for lunch in the pantry, etc.).

Travel/Conferences a. Work travel should be canceled until further notice. b. Essential work travel to the office or to a job site will be considered on a case-bycase basis and approved by your supervisor. No personal contacts should be made if work travel was approved. Please see Essential Services list for guidance on what may require you to leave your home for work travel. c. No future, non-essential, work travel should be scheduled at this time d. Employees traveling domestically or internationally for personal reasons are required to contact their supervisor prior to returning to work.

Office Sanitation a. In the event that you do go to the office for essential work, you must sanitize all common areas after use. b. Use of District vehicles is prohibited during this time period.

This updated policy goes into effect on April 30, 2020 and will continue until 11:59 PM on May 17, 2020. The Administrator may, at any time, adjust or modify this policy to adapt to the unique or special circumstances of our community.

COVID-19 Preparedness Plan for Capitol Region Watershed District May 1, 2020 Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) is committed to providing a safe and healthy workplace for all our staff. To ensure that, we have developed the following Preparedness Plan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Managers and staff are all responsible for implementing this plan. Our goal is to mitigate the potential for transmission of COVID-19 in our workplaces, and that requires full cooperation among staff and management. Only through this cooperative effort can we establish and maintain the safety and health of our staff and workplaces. CRWD staff are responsible for implementing and complying with all aspects of this Preparedness Plan. CRWD’s Administrator and Division Managers are in full support of enforcing the provisions of this policy. Our staff are our most important assets. We are serious about safety and health and keeping our staff working at CRWD. Worker involvement is essential in developing and implementing a successful COVID19 Preparedness Plan. The Preparedness Plan was drafted by the Administrator and reviewed by Division Managers and will be updated as guidance changes. Our Preparedness Plan follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) guidelines and federal OSHA standards related to COVID-19 and addresses: • • • • • •

hygiene and respiratory etiquette; engineering and administrative controls for social distancing; housekeeping – cleaning, disinfecting and decontaminating; prompt identification and isolation of sick persons; communications and training that will be provided to managers and staff; and management and supervision necessary to ensure effective implementation of the plan.

Screening and policies for staff exhibiting signs and symptoms of COVID-19 Staff have been informed of and required to self-monitor for signs and symptoms of COVID-19. The following policies and procedures are being implemented to assess staff’ health status prior to entering the workplace and for staff to report when they are sick or experiencing symptoms. Staff must conduct wellness checks, including taking their temperature, prior to coming to work at the office or in the field. If their temperature is at or above 100 degrees F, or they exhibit a cough or shortness of breath, they must remain at home and report their temperature and other symptoms to their supervisor. Staff with any of these symptoms will be required to stay at home for at least 7 days, and for 3 days with no fever

and improvement of respiratory symptoms, whichever is longer. If you have any new symptoms (sore throat, diarrhea, muscle aches, headache), stay home until symptoms resolve. If staff has a family member who is sick or experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, the staff member must stay at home and report their absence to their supervisor. If staff are sick or experience symptoms while at work, staff must inform supervisor and go home immediately. CRWD has implemented leave policies that promote staff staying at home when they are sick, when household members are sick, or when required by a health care provider to isolate or quarantine themselves or a member of their household. CRWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s paid time off and employee leave policy is described in the CRWD Personnel Policy Handbook and further clarified in CRWD COVID-19 Response Plan - April 10, 2020 Update. Accommodations for staff with underlying medical conditions or who have household members with underlying health conditions have been implemented. These accommodations are outlined in CRWD COVID-19 Response Plan - April 10, 2020 Update. CRWD has also implemented a policy for informing staff if they have been exposed to a person with COVID-19 at their workplace and requiring them to quarantine for the required amount of time. CRWD will, to the extent possible, inform staff if they have been exposed to a co-worker with COVID-19 and all individuals exposed along with the positive COVID-19 person must remain in quarantine for 14 days. In addition, a policy has been implemented to protect the privacy of staffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; health status and health information. All staff health status and health information will be kept confidential.

Handwashing Basic infection prevention measures are being implemented at our workplaces at all times. Staff are instructed to wash their hands for at least 20 seconds with soap and water frequently throughout the day, but especially at the beginning and end of their shift, prior to any mealtimes and after using the toilet. All visitors to the facility will be required to wash their hands prior to or immediately upon entering the facility. Some workplaces may have hand-sanitizer dispensers (that use sanitizers of greater than 60% alcohol) that can be used for hand hygiene in place of soap and water, as long as hands are not visibly soiled. Staff will have access to restrooms that will provide soap, water and both paper towels and electric hand dryers for handwashing. Hand sanitizer is also available in the office as well as CRWD vehicles which can be used in place of soap and water. Staff are strongly encouraged to wash or sanitize their hands regularly. Sanitizing supplies will be available in key locations around the office (i.e. entrances/exits).

Respiratory etiquette: Cover your cough or sneeze Staff are being instructed to cover their mouth and nose with their sleeve or a tissue when coughing or sneezing and to avoid touching their face, in particular their mouth, nose and eyes, with their hands. They should dispose of tissues in the trash and wash or sanitize their hands immediately afterward. Respiratory etiquette will be demonstrated in policies and supported by making tissues and trash

receptacles available to all staff. All staff will be informed, in writing, of the respiratory etiquette described above. Staff should wear a cloth mask from home if they are sneezing frequently.

Social distancing Social distancing is being implemented in the workplace through the following administrative controls: Staff shall continue to work from home if their job duties allow them to work remotely. If staff must work in the office, they should schedule time in the office and inform their supervisor and the Administrator. Staff must add a “in-office” to their Outlook Calendar. Staff must work from their workstation and comply with social distancing requirements. No public or partner meetings are allowed in the building. The building is to remain locked at all times. No common/public spaces may be used, specifically, pantry, café, patio, meeting rooms, focus rooms, or the collaboration islands. All staff must maintain social distancing when in the workplace. This means, maintaining at least a six-foot distance from all staff at all times. In the event staff cannot maintain the minimum six-foot distance, cloth masks must be worn. When at workstations, staff may only work together when sitting diagonally and not across or adjacent to one another. Staff on the west side of the office must enter and leave ONLY through the west staff service door. Staff working on the east side of the office must enter and leave through the lobby. The sliding glass doors and glass staff lobby door will be open during this period. Staff on the east side must use the lobby restrooms, one at a time, while staff on the west side must use the in-office staff restrooms. Whenever possible, open/close doors with your sleeve or elbow. Only one person at a time in the copy room or restroom. Only one person may use a District vehicle at a time. Passengers are not allowed. Vehicle use will be assigned as follows: Ford F-150

MRM

Ford F-250

MRM

Focus

Regulatory

Fusion

Regulatory

Edge

Planning, Projects and Grants

Each Division shall assign a single individual to each vehicle. Each vehicle must be sanitized between different drivers.

Staff are prohibited from gathering in groups and confined areas and from using other staffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; personal protective equipment, phones, computer equipment, workstations, or other personal work tools and equipment. Protocols for working in the field, including monitoring, construction site inspections, BMP inspections and maintenance, are defined in Appendix A.

Housekeeping Regular housekeeping practices are being implemented, including routine cleaning and disinfecting of work surfaces, equipment, tools and machinery, and areas in the work environment, including restrooms, the pantry, and meeting rooms. Frequent cleaning and disinfecting will be conducted in hightouch areas, such as phones, keyboards, touch screens, controls, door handles, railings, copy machines, etc. Any commonly used or high touch surfaces, including restrooms, wellness room, copier, exterior doors, security systems, lights/blinds, trash receptacles, public spaces, must be cleaned immediately after use with disinfectant spray or wipes provided by the District. Last one out will wipe down all door handles.

Communications and training CRWDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s COVID-19 Response and Preparedness Plan was communicated via email to all staff on April 30, 2020 and necessary training was provided. Additional communication and training will be ongoing including weekly emails to all staff and provided to all staff who did not receive the initial training. Managers and supervisors are to monitor how effective the program has been implemented by staff. This will be communicated during weekly Division Manager meetings. Management and staff are to implement this new program together and update the training, as necessary. This Preparedness Plan has been certified by CRWD management and was posted throughout the workplace on April 30, 2020. It will be updated, as necessary. Certified by:

Mark Doneux, Administrator

Appendix A -CRWD Staff Protocols for 2020 Shop, Garage, Equipment, Vehicle and Field Work Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) guidelines for preventing the transmission of COVID-19 in workplaces are: CRWD staff need to prepare equipment for deployment in the field, which utilizes the shop and garage areas of the 595 Aldine Office. Equipment will need to be retrieved from storage, sorted, assembled, and programmed prior to deployment. To prepare equipment for deployment while following the above MDH guidelines, staff will work under the following protocols: • • • • • • • •

Limit the number of staff to the minimum needed to complete work. Enter the office through the garage to reduce contact with any other employees in the main office area. Stay in the shop/garage area for duration of work, only leaving to utilize the restroom area closest to the shop Carry out tasks while maintaining 6’ from one another by communicating specifics of movement and work locations within the shop/garage. Use a mask if a task requires staff members to be temporarily less than 6’ from one another. Divide tasks to reduce touching of equipment by more than one staff member. If equipment needs to be touched/used by more than one staff member, equipment will be disinfected prior to a second staff member touching/using it. Disinfect all work areas at the end of the work period, including door handles, tables, tools, and equipment. Protocols for 2020 Station Installation

Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) guidelines for preventing the transmission of COVID-19 in workplaces are:

Social Distancing Field Work – Best Practices • • • • • •

•

Staff will make all attempts to maintain a distance of 6 feet between one another. Staff will wear gloves at all times in the field, be they nitrile or work gloves depending on the situation. Staff members will be assigned the same truck to drive for the duration of the COVID-19 protocols so that they are the only one in contact with that vehicle and the equipment in it. Travel to and from the office and field sites will be done alone in either their personal vehicle or the District vehicle assigned to them for the duration of the COVID-19 protocols. Stations requiring confined space entry will not be installed while COVID-19 protocols are in place. Confined space entry cannot be performed safely with social distancing practices. While out in the field where washing hands is not possible, staff should make use of hand sanitizer frequently, especially after touching common surfaces or tools. Hand sanitizer is stocked in all District vehicles. Equipment and surfaces used will be disinfected using Bleach wipes at the end of each day at a minimum, and more frequently at the discretion of staff.

Best Practices by Station Type FWQ: •

Stations that do not require CSE may be installed. See below for station specifics.

LL/FL/RG: • •

Stations that do not require CSE may be installed. All unique equipment needed for an individual station should be stored in one truck so that each staff member can complete all work involving the equipment in their own truck to minimize contact with surfaces and equipment in the other truck and walking near the other staff member on site. For example, the tripod and scope for surveys will be kept in one truck and the stadia rod in the other.

Sondes: • •

One staff member will operate the boat/canoe while the other staff member calibrates, programs, and deploys the equipment. Staff will always be at opposite ends of the boat to maintain a distance of at least 6 feet.

Station Install List with COVID 19 Safety Notes Name

Type

Notes

Como Lake Level Como Lake Sondes (3)

LL Cont. WQ

Villa Park Sonde

Cont. WQ

VP Inlet Overflow VP Outlet Overflow

FL FL

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety Staff members at opposite ends of the Ramsey County boat with no shared equipment. One staff member will drive the Staff members at opposite ends of the canoe with no shared equipment Normal installation with 6’ of distance and PPE Normal installation with 6’ of distance and PPE

McCarrons Outlet

Normal installation with 6’ of distance and PPE

Villa Park Inlet

FWQ

Normal installation with 6’ of distance and PPE

Villa Park Outlet

FWQ

Normal installation with 6’ of distance and PPE

TBNS-Stream

FWQ

Normal installation with 6’ of distance and PPE

AHUG Level

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

Alameda Pond

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

Arlington-Jackson

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

Lake McCarrons

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

Loeb Lake

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

Crosby Lake

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

Sims-Agate

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

Victoria Park Pond

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

WestminsterMississippi William Street Pond

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

Willow Reserve

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

All Green Line LL SGC Pond i

Solo install possible

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

GC Clubhouse Pond

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

GC Parking Lot Pond

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

GC East Pond

One staff member installs, the other supervises for safety

St. Paul Firestation RG

Rain Gauge

Check with firestation prior to install, solo install possible

TBNS RG

Rain Gauge

Solo install possible

Mosquito Control RG

Rain Gauge

Solo install possible

Western District Police Station RG

Rain Gauge

Check with police station prior to install, solo install possible

Station Field Visit List â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Assuming Social Distancing Guidelines in Place St. Anthony Park East Kittsondale Phalen Creek Trout Brook Outlet Trout Brook-East Branch Trout Brook-West Branch Villa Park Outlet Villa Park Inlet TBNS-Stream AHUG Level Arlington-Jackson Como Lake Level Crosby Lake Golf Course Pond Lake McCarrons Loeb Lake Sims-Agate Victoria Park Pond Westminster-Miss William Street Pond Willow Reserve Pillsbury RG - NORTH Syndicate RG Marion RG - NORTHWEST Aldine SWP

Griggs SWP - NORTH Oxford SWP - SOUTH Albert SWP - EAST Lexington Tree Trench Western Tree Trench McMurray Well Midway Office Piezometer Alameda Pond GC Clubhouse Pond GC Parking Lot Pond GC East Pond TBNS Jenks Pond TBNS Magnolia Pond TBNS Maryland Pond Villa Park Rain Gauge St Paul Firestation 1 TBNS Stream Mosquito Control - University West Western District Police Station - University Central Firestation 18 - University East Como Sonde - Hypolimnetic (Stn 201) Como Sonde - Hypolimnetic (Stn 202) VP-Outlet Conductivity Probe VP Wet Pond DO Sensor â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Hypolimnetic

Protocols for Vehicle Use District vehicles have been assigned to each Division. Within each Division, a single driver will be designated for each vehicle. Staff not assigned to a vehicle to may use a District vehicle after it has been disinfected and has sat unused for a minimum of 48 hours. Staff must disinfect vehicles after each use if they are to be used by others 48 hours later. Disinfection includes wiping down or cleaning all surfaces that the staff member come in contact with during its use. Protocols for Site Inspections Staff must maintain social distancing when making site inspections in the field. Staff must only use their own PPE, ie hardhats, vests, cloves, boots etc during site inspections to avoid cross contamination. When possible, communicate your expected arrival to a site via phone or email. Do not enter job trailers or other buildings. Conduct inspection using social distance guidelines. If site personnel desire a joint walk through, maintain 6 feet of separation at all times. Review inspection findings with site personnel via phone. When leaving a site. sanitize hands prior to entering vehicle, and wipe down mobile inspection device and other equipment as needed. Inspection reports should be completed and sent while working from home.

CRWD Timeline and Actions Relating to State of Minnesota COVID-19 Declarations Date

EO #

State of Minnesota Executive Order

Action

CRWD Response

Capitol Region Watershed District Date Action

March 13, 2020

20-01

Emergency Declaration

Follow MDH Guidelines

Response Plan

April 13, 2020

Closed Office (3/17) Work Office Site Cancelled meetings

March 27, 2020

20-20

Stay At Home Order

Stay at Home unless performing Essential Services

Response Plan Update

April 27, 2020 Board Adopted April 1, 2020

Adopt Update Response Plan Adopt Stay at Home for staff Mandate electronic meetings Adopt Essential Services Delegation to Administrator

April 8, 2020

20-33

Extension of Stay At Home Order

Extended Stay at Home Order through Sunday, May 3rd

Response Plan Update

April 10, 2020

Extended Stay at Home Order through Sunday, May 3rd

April 23, 2020

20-40

Non-Critical Workers Return to Work

Allowing Workers in Certain Non-Critical Sectors to Return to Safe Workplaces

Preparedn ess Plan

April 30, 2020

Clarifies procedures and process for staff returning to office, shop, garage and field for Essential Services, minimum basic operations and noncritical office-based business work.

April 30, 2020

20-48

Extension of Stay at Home Order

Extends Stay at Home Order to May 18, 2020

Preparedn ess Plan

April 30, 2020

Clarifies procedures and process for staff returning to office, shop, garage and field for Essential Services, minimum basic operations and noncritical office-based business work.

Levels of Health Concerns Related to Stay at Home Order and Working at the Office1 Level

Health Concern

High

3 4

Stay at Home Order in Affect Yes

Work from Home Requirement

Criteria for Working in the Office

Yes2

Essential Services

Medium No

Yes3

Low None

Not required No

Clarifies procedures and process for staff returning to office, shop, garage and field for Essential Services, minimum basic operations and noncritical office-based business work. To Be Determined All

No No

1 - Working at the Office includes the shop, garage and field work. 2- Following CRWD April 10, 2020 Response Plan

3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Following CRWD Updated Response Plan and Preparedness Plan

Health and Safety Criterion

Business and Employers: COVID-19 https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/businesses.html CRWD Udpated Response Plan, April 30, 2020 Guidance on EO 20-40 and Business Reopening https://mn.gov/deed/newscenter/covid/safework/non-critical/ CRWD Preparedness Plan, April 30, 2020

To be determined No Criterion

May 6, 2020 Board Meeting VI. Unfinished Business C) 2020/2021 Budget Update (Doneux)

DATE: April 30, 2020 TO: CRWD Board of Managers FROM: Mark Doneux RE: 2020/2021 Budget Update _________________________________________________________________________________ Background Each year the Board of Managers must establish a plan of work for the upcoming year, establish a budget based upon the work plan and establish a levy for the budget. The District should discuss and understand potential impacts from COVID-19 and the extension to property tax payments for non-escrow properties on the 2020 and 2021 budget. Issues Staff has developed a proposed 2021 Work Plan and Budget Schedule. Proposed 2021 CRWD Work Plan and Budget Schedule Date (2020) Action rd June 3 * 2020 Budget Review and Draft 2021 Budget with Board of Managers* June 17th * 2021 Revenue Review * Workshop #1 Board and Staff review Goals, Priorities and General 2020 Work Plan, Budget and Date: July TBD Revenue July 8th * 2021 Work Plan, CIP, Budget and Levy Review – CRWD Board of Managers July 22nd * Approve Preliminary 2021 Budget/Levy for Public Comment & set Public Hearing rd August 3 Publication Date for Legal Notice for Public Hearing th August 10 Publication Date for Legal Notice for Public Hearing August 12th CAC Meeting – Receive Comments on 2021 Budget/Levy th August 19 * Public Hearing (Held at opening of Regular Board Meeting) September 2nd * Board Adopts Preliminary 2021 Budget and Levy September 15th Last day for Preliminary Levy Certification at Ramsey County December 16th * Final Board meeting of 2020 – Adopt Final 2021 Budget and Levy December 30th Last day for Final Levy Certification at Ramsey County * Board Meeting

Due to the COVID-19 crisis, Ramsey County has allowed non-escrowed properties an additional 60 days to pay property taxes. The attached table is an estimate of the percentage of late payments due to this extension. Staff will discuss how the COVID-19 crisis may impact our 2020 budget and review major 2020 expenditures. Requested Action No Action Requested, informational only enc:

Impact of Proposed deferral on May 15 cash flow by Governmental Unit

W:\02 Budget and Finance\Budget - 2021\Board Memo-2021 Budget Work Plan 4-30-20.docx

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

Impact of Payment Deferral of Covid‐19 Affected Taxpayers of Non‐escrow homesteads, small businesses less than $50k in taxes and Residential Non‐homestead less than $20k in taxes On Property Tax Cash Flow by Governmental Unit At 20% Utilization Pay 2020 Taxes on Non‐escrow homesteads, small businesses (less than 50k in taxes) and Res Non‐homestead (less than 20k in taxes) 96,112,840 4,694,854 7,839,625

May 15th Payment Assuming 50% of Total Due 48,056,420 2,347,427 3,919,813

Revised May 15th Expected Payment 38,445,136 1,877,942 3,135,851

Reduction to Expected May 15th Payment (9,611,284) (469,485) (783,962)

At 30% Utilization

Percentage of May 15th Payment Reduction to Total Tax Due 3.5% 3.7% 3.5%

Revised May 15th Expected Payment 33,639,494 1,643,199 2,743,869

Reduction to Expected May 15th Payment (14,416,926) (704,228) (1,175,944)

At 50% Utilization

Percentage of May 15th Payment Reduction to Total Tax Due 5.3% 5.6% 5.3%

Percentage of May 15th Payment Revised May Reduction to 15th Expected Expected May Reduction to Payment 15th Payment Total Tax Due 24,028,210 (24,028,210) 8.9% 1,173,714 (1,173,713) 9.4% 1,959,907 (1,959,906) 8.9%

Government Unit/Type of Tax Ramsey County County Library Regional Rail Authority

Total Taxes on Pay 2020 Tax Statements 270,875,874 12,544,110 22,096,001

State of Minnesota Fiscal Disparity pool Met Council & Met Mosquito

78,888,778 12,346,869 6,173,435 4,938,748 (1,234,687) 106,636,586 18,667,238 9,333,619 7,466,895 (1,866,724) 13,566,899 4,813,514 2,406,757 1,925,406 (481,351)

1.6% 4,321,405 (1,852,030) 1.8% 6,533,533 (2,800,086) 3.5% 1,684,730 (722,027)

2.3% 3,086,718 (3,086,717) 2.6% 4,666,810 (4,666,809) 5.3% 1,203,379 (1,203,378)

3.9% 4.4% 8.9%

Other special taxing districts (watersheds, HRA's, EDA's, Port Authority, etc.)

21,124,471 7,241,828 3,620,914 2,896,731 (724,183)

3.4% 2,534,640 (1,086,274)

5.1% 1,810,457 (1,810,457)

8.6%

Contamination Tax

40,717 40,717 20,359 16,287 (4,072)

10.0% 14,251 (6,108)

15.0% 10,180 (10,179)

25.0%

Arden Hills (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts) Blaine Falcom Heights (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts Gem Lake (inc Spec Asmnts) Lauderdale (inc Spec Asmnts) Little Canada (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts) Maplewood (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts) Mounds View (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts) New Brighton (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts) North Oaks (inc Spec Asmnts) North St Paul (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts) Roseville (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts) Shoreview (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts) Spring Lake Park (inc Spec Asmnts) St Anthony (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts) St Paul (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts) Vadnais Heights (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts) White Bear Lake (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts) White Bear Town (inc TIF and Spec Asmnts)

4,581,773 233,842 2,138,472 652,377 796,604 4,287,325 23,265,220 6,572,412 12,211,630 2,277,980 5,256,220 23,134,452 14,517,816 74,815 4,327,351 194,477,817 5,267,803 7,985,238 4,564,993

1,521,656 60,154 796,008 342,035 260,590 1,465,903 6,592,484 1,423,827 3,941,887 1,329,288 1,763,143 6,801,056 5,855,771 38,946 926,632 55,681,182 1,837,280 2,755,723 1,915,786

760,828 30,077 398,004 171,018 130,295 732,952 3,296,242 711,914 1,970,944 664,644 881,572 3,400,528 2,927,886 19,473 463,316 27,840,591 918,640 1,377,862 957,893

608,662 24,062 318,403 136,815 104,236 586,362 2,636,994 569,531 1,576,755 531,715 705,258 2,720,422 2,342,309 15,578 370,653 22,272,473 734,912 1,102,290 766,314

(152,166) (6,015) (79,601) (34,203) (26,059) (146,590) (659,248) (142,383) (394,189) (132,929) (176,314) (680,106) (585,577) (3,895) (92,663) (5,568,118) (183,728) (275,572) (191,579)

3.3% 2.6% 3.7% 5.2% 3.3% 3.4% 2.8% 2.2% 3.2% 5.8% 3.4% 2.9% 4.0% 5.2% 2.1% 2.9% 3.5% 3.5% 4.2%

532,580 21,054 278,603 119,713 91,207 513,067 2,307,369 498,340 1,379,661 465,251 617,101 2,380,370 2,049,520 13,631 324,321 19,488,414 643,048 964,504 670,525

(228,248) (9,023) (119,401) (51,305) (39,088) (219,885) (988,873) (213,574) (591,283) (199,393) (264,471) (1,020,158) (878,366) (5,842) (138,995) (8,352,177) (275,592) (413,358) (287,368)

5.0% 3.9% 5.6% 7.9% 4.9% 5.1% 4.3% 3.2% 4.8% 8.8% 5.0% 4.4% 6.1% 7.8% 3.2% 4.3% 5.2% 5.2% 6.3%

380,414 15,039 199,002 85,509 65,148 366,476 1,648,121 355,957 985,472 332,322 440,786 1,700,264 1,463,943 9,737 231,658 13,920,296 459,320 688,931 478,947

(380,414) (15,038) (199,002) (85,509) (65,147) (366,476) (1,648,121) (355,957) (985,472) (332,322) (440,786) (1,700,264) (1,463,943) (9,736) (231,658) (13,920,295) (459,320) (688,931) (478,946)

8.3% 6.4% 9.3% 13.1% 8.2% 8.5% 7.1% 5.4% 8.1% 14.6% 8.4% 7.3% 10.1% 13.0% 5.4% 7.2% 8.7% 8.6% 10.5%

ISD 282 ISD 621 ISD 622 ISD 623 ISD 624 ISD 625

2,645,138 57,801,432 23,959,125 35,204,262 39,774,775 149,227,600

870,662 22,689,205 7,565,559 13,253,028 16,132,824 49,651,664

435,331 11,344,603 3,782,780 6,626,514 8,066,412 24,825,832

348,265 9,075,683 3,026,224 5,301,211 6,453,130 19,860,666

(87,066) (2,268,920) (756,556) (1,325,303) (1,613,282) (4,965,166)

3.3% 3.9% 3.2% 3.8% 4.1% 3.3%

304,732 7,941,222 2,647,946 4,638,560 5,646,488 17,378,082

(130,599) (3,403,381) (1,134,834) (1,987,954) (2,419,924) (7,447,750)

4.9% 5.9% 4.7% 5.6% 6.1% 5.0%

217,666 5,672,302 1,891,390 3,313,257 4,033,206 12,412,916

(217,665) (5,672,301) (1,891,390) (3,313,257) (4,033,206) (12,412,916)

8.2% 9.8% 7.9% 9.4% 10.1% 8.3%

Total

1,151,009,908 357,229,778 178,614,895 142,891,919 (35,722,976)

4.7% 89,307,454 (89,307,441)

7.8%

Prepared by: Ramsey County PTRES (CAS) 04‐04‐2020

3.1% 125,030,430 (53,584,465)