Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-04 PACKET 12.A.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE . 12L PREPARED BY: Engineering Jennifer Levitt ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Workshop: South Washington Water Supply Work Group Update BUDGET IMPLICATION BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ PLANNING ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Jennifer Levitt, December 13, 2011, Antea USA, Inc., November 16, 2011, Bolton & Menk, Inc., November 16, 2011, Antea USA, Inc., November 29, 2011 ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Metropolitan Council Request for Proposal ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS sad ity mi strator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER HACOUNCIL FORMS \Council 12- 21- 11\Council Action Form Workshop So Wash Water Supply.doc CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator From: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Date: December 13, 2011 Subject: Workshop: South Washington Water Supply Work Group Update BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION: The Cities of Cottage Grove and Woodbury established a work group with the focus and purpose to develop and implement a comprehensive water supply plan for southern Washington County that addresses water quality and quantity issues. The work group consisted of representatives from the Minnesota Department of Health, Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council, Washington County, South Washington Watershed District and the Valley Branch Watershed District. The group recognized the challenges of planning for future water supply needs with the presence of PFCs, a projected drop in the groundwater table, and environmental features of significance such as trout streams. It was key to focus on ensuring that water supplies are of high quality, available for the needs of future generations and sustain the existing ecosystems. The group gained strong momentum with the State Agencies and it was determined that the Metropolitan Council would be the lead agency for the project. A proposal was drafted and funds were found to fund the project, please see the "South Washington Water Supply Technical Analysis Request for Proposal" for the detailed project outline. Before the proposal received final approval for funding the Commissioner's office of the PCA saw similarities in the proposal and the work that is underway by the State as it related to the natural resources damages lawsuit. The State's legal council approved AnteaGroup and Bolton & Menk to meet with the South Washington Water Supply Work Group. The companies presented their preliminary scope of services to the work group on November 7, 2011. A request was made of the two companies to provide the work group a detailed scope of work for the project. Enclosed is the work plans for the two companies. The companies on November 29, 2011 also provided a work plan schedule with key milestones. The schedule outlined the interaction the two companies would have with the work group. It was determined that the work group would expand to include Oakdale, Lake Elmo, South St. Paul, Newport, St. Paul Park, Hastings, and Inver Grove Heights. The work that is outlined to be completed for the State is a comprehensive and detailed review of water supply issues for communities that are impacted by PFCs. The information and analysis that is completed for this project will serve as a benefit to the communities. f Metropolitan Council v South Washington Water Supply Technical Analysis Request for Proposal Purpose: Conduct technical analysis to support water supply decision making for southern Washington County. Background: The communities of Cottage Grove and Woodbury in the eastern Twin Cities Metropolitan Region (South Washington) are facing challenges in planning for future water supply needs. Projected increases in population will increase the demand for potable water from existing water supply wells and new sources. The amount of drawdown in the Prairie du Chien /Jordan aquifer system associated with increased use over this timeframe is uncertain, but recent Metro Model 2 results suggest that significant drawdown, greater than 50% of the available head, may occur in the area. Local surface water features including a trout stream rely on groundwater to maintain their ecosystems, and private wells rely on the same aquifers that are used to meet municipal demands. In addition to potential quantity issues, groundwater in the area contains perfluorocarbons (PFCs) that were released during the latter half of the 20 century. PFCs are recalcitrant, highly soluble synthetic organic compounds. The groundwater concentrations found in much of the study area are below Minnesota Department of Health standards (Health Risk Limits, or HRLs); however, these HRLs could change in the future as research continues into the effects of these chemicals on human health. From the standpoint of development of future water supply wells, avoiding areas with contaminated groundwater is preferable to dealing with the uncertainties associated with using water that has PFC concentrations at or below HRLs. More information is needed about PFC migration and the impact that water supply system management decisions will have on future aquifer declines. Significant work has been conducted in the area to evaluate water resources. The Cottage Grove Nitrate Study completed in 2003 was initiated to evaluate the increasing trend of nitrate concentrations in the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers in southern Washington County. A project titled Integrating Groundwater & Surface Water Management - South Washington County completed in 2005 examined the relationship of groundwater and surface water features in the area. Another project completed in 2005 titled Intercommunity Groundwater Protection: 'Sustaining Growth and Natural Resources in the Woodbury /Afton Area resulted in a groundwater model to evaluate potential impacts of projected groundwater withdrawals on the Valley Branch trout stream. The model developed for that project, known as the South Washington County Groundwater Model, has since been updated and is available for additional studies. The information generated by this project will be used to support the development of a water supply management plan. One aspect of the management plan that this project will inform is the development of "decision points" at which time decisions about various drinking water supply alternatives would can be made, such as installing new wells, adding PFC treatment processes to wells, connecting to other municipal water supplies, etc. ww W.metrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651) 602 -1000 . Fax (651) 602 -1550 • TTY (651) 291 -0904 An Eg l Opportunity Employer Metropolitan Council Tasks: 1. Estimate PFC residence times and transport characteristics in the South Washington area for the purpose of predicting concentrations at existing and future municipal wells, and to inform the placement and timing of future capital investment in water supply and treatment. • Develop or modify a groundwater model or conduct alternative analysis building on existing tools to evaluate PFC mass transport. • The analysis should encompass existing PFC plumes and source zones in the South Washington area. • Estimate PFC residence times and spatial /temporal distribution patterns in South Washington aquifers. • Test a variety of groundwater withdrawal and demand scenarios and evaluate the evolution of PFC plumes overtime. • Conduct a mass transport uncertainty analysis (e.g., can the assessment reproduce the current plume(s) based on known sources ?) 2. Estimate aquifer drawdown associated with projected population growth rates, population distribution, and planned groundwater withdrawals. • Use appropriate tools to estimate drawdown in South Washington aquifers under various temporal and spatial demand scenarios (seasonal, maximum day, long -term, various well locations and aquifers, etc.). • Estimate potential impact of aquifer drawdown on surface water features (e.g., Valley Branch) and private wells. 3. Recommend criteria or indicators to monitor and compare against management goals (the development of management goals is outside the scope of this project). Recommended indicators should consider: • Infrastructure costs (wells, storage, distribution, treatment, interconnections, etc.) • Water quality (MDH and EPA guidelines for PFCs, nitrate, and other contaminants and compounds) • Aquifer levels (how much change in total head is acceptable ?) • Valley Branch flow • Well capture zones 4. Develop a data collection, analysis and monitoring plan that can be used to evaluate progress in meeting the goals of the water supply management plan. Estimate costs for implementing the data collection, analysis and monitoring plan and describe the benefits of plan implementation (e.g., reduction in data uncertainty, etc.) Based on the tasks described above, propose management activities in a decision- making matrix format that will form the core of the water supply management plan. Development of a complete water supply management plan is not part of this scope. w .metrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North . St. Paul, MN 55101 -1505 . (651) 602 -1000 . Fax (651) 602 -1550 . TTY (651) 291 -0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer 'v Metropolitan Council v 6. Determine future dates (decision points) at which time all factors should be analyzed and decisions made regarding development of water supply system infrastructure. 7. Incorporate input for the above activities from the existing work group which includes cities, watershed districts, county and state agencies. 8. Submit quarterly summaries to Council staff. Attend South Washington Water Supply Technical Work Group meetings as needed (assume every two months). Periodically prepare and give presentations to the Work Group (assume 4 total). Deliverables: 1. For Tasks land 2, develop and deliver a MODFLOW -based groundwater flow and mass transport model, or other tools if appropriate. Provide all electronic files, with supporting metadata, developed during this Task. 2. Technical memorandum describing development and implementation of groundwater flow and mass transport model, other tools, and modeling results. 3. Report containing the data collection, analysis and monitoring plan. The format of this plan should be developed in consultation with the South Washington Water Supply Technical Work Group. 4. Report containing management activities in a decision - making matrix format that will form the core of the water supply management plan. This report should be developed in consultation with the South Washington Water Supply Technical Work Group. Timeline: The project must be completed by December 31, 2012. w .metrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101 -1805 • (651) 602 -1000 • Fax (651) 602 -1550 • TTY (651) 291 -0904 An Equo( Opportunity Employer Metropolitan Council u Comprehensive Water Supply Plan for South Washington County Goal — Develop and implement a comprehensive water supply plan for southern Washington County that addresses water quality and quantity issues and ensures that sufficient supplies of high quality water are available for the needs of future generations and ecosystems. Background Several factors point to the need for a comprehensive water supply plan for southern Washington County. Perfluorinated compounds have been found widespread in the groundwater. There is a trout stream that relies on discharge of groundwater to maintain its sensitive ecosystem. There is significant growth planned for the area and a limited recharge area for the groundwater aquifers. A comprehensive approach to development and management water resources may be most effective and efficient to ensure all these issues are addressed. This effort would include development of: 1) a plan that identifies water sources to meet future needs while protecting natural resources 2) a process to regularly evaluate success toward meeting plan objectives and implement adjustments as needed Tasks - Convene and facilitate stakeholder input process. In addition to regular stakeholder input on the project a technical advisory workgroup would need to be convened to provide input on the technical analysis - Develop management objectives, using measureable criteria - Assemble current and projected water use, supply system, water quality, public health and natural resource information - Assess gaps in information - Develop a range supply scenarios (potential wells, interconnections, demand reduction, etc) that reflect the views of stakeholders and meet management objectives - Conduct technical analysis to determine the effects of various scenarios on water resource quantity and quality - Conduct engineering seeping projects on various options - Develop and implement a data collection and monitoring plan to support both predictive modeling and evaluation of management objective effectiveness - Prepare a management plan that outlines implementation of selected water supply scenario(s), monitoring requirements, comparison of monitoring results to management criteria, alternatives if criteria exceeded, plan for periodic update of analysis and plan w .rnetrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101 -1805 . (651) 602 -1000 . Fax (651) 602 -1550 . TTY (651) 291 -0904 Art Et al Oypomiilty Employer anteagroup Antea USA, Inc. 5910 Rice Creek Parkway, Suite 100 Shoreview, Minnesota 55126 USA www.anteagroup.com November 16, 2011 Mr. Brian Davis Metropolitan Council 390 Robert Street North St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Subject: South Washington County, Minnesota Dear Mr. Davis: The purpose of this correspondence is to respond to your request from our meeting on November 7, 2011, and your November 8 letter, regarding the groundwater modeling effort for South Washington County, Minnesota. Specifically, you requested our written scope of work for the activities we are providing the State of Minnesota (State). We did not have a written scope of work prepared for our work with the State based on the nature of our retention, but have prepared this letter summarizing our scope to respond to your request. Antea Group has been retained to provide the State with services that include several activities which overlap the proposed South Washington County request for proposal related to groundwater modeling efforts. Specifically, we have been asked to: • Develop an estimate of PFC residence times and transport characteristics in the South Washington area: • Predict concentrations.of PFCs at existing and future municipal wells • Develop a groundwater model or use existing model(s) to evaluate PFC mass transport • Estimate PFC spatial /temporal distribution patterns o Evaluate groundwater withdrawal and demand scenarios and evaluate PFC plumes over time • Estimate aquifer drawdown associated with projected population growth rates, population distribution, and planned groundwater withdrawals • Utilize the model to estimate drawdown in South Washington County aquifers under various temporal and spatial demand scenarios • Depending on the results of the initial groundwater modeling, identify potential well sites and available aquifer formations located outside of the initially predicted PFC plumes overtime. Estimate aquifer drawdown associated with projected population growth rates, population distribution, and planned groundwater withdrawals for these wells. If potential well sites can be identified outside of the plumes, perform additional modeling of the PFC plumes over time to predict if these wells would remain uncontaminated of PFCs in the future at the planned groundwater withdrawals. • Undertake uncertainty analyses of the mass transport represented in the groundwater model • Estimate potential impacts of aquifer drawdown on surface water features • Coordinate and confer with Bolton & Menk regarding their work related to infrastructure improvements and preparing cost estimates related to any new wells, distribution and treatment facilities, or interconnections. We believe that by completing these items in our work for the State, we will be able to meet the key objectives in the scope of work contained in the South Washington County Water Supply Group request for proposal. DC: 4205324 -1 Inogen'�o,��,oa Mr. Brian Davis Metropolitan Council November 16, 2011 Page 2 Our work for the State will culminate in an expert report that is due in July of 2012 under the current schedule and expert testimony that is expected to be provided during the summer of 2013. The State has indicated that we will be able to provide the MODFLOW -based groundwater flow and mass transport model, which will include all the electronic fifes and supporting metadata developed during this activity, to the Metropolitan Council and to the South Washington County Water Supply Group. We will also be able to work with both yourself and the members of the Group during the model development process, and I feel that you will be very familiar with our activities and our results on an ongoing basis between now and July 2012. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information regarding this information. Sincerely, Bob Karls Senior Consultant /Project Director RMIC /JRE /ces Z john ' Estes Senior Project Manager CC: Robert Roche, Minnesota Attorney General's Office. BOLTON 8r- M r-= N K I �I� Consulting Engineers & Surveyors / ` 1960 Premier Drive • Mankato, MN 56001 -5900 Phone (507) 625 -4171 • Fax (507) 625 -4177 www.bolton- menk.com November 16, 2011 Mr. Brian Davis, Ph.D., P.G., P.E. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 390 Robert Street North St. Paul, MN 55101 -1805 RE: State of Minnesota vs. 3M Company Natural Resources Damages Lawsuit BMI Project No.: M21.104140 Dear Mr. Davis, ILL Per the request of the South Washington County Water Supply Work Group, this letter describes Bolton & Menk's assignment for the State of Minnesota's lawsuit concerning Perfluorochemical (PFCs) groundwater contamination in the east Metropolitan Area, as there is no pre - existing written scope of work for the assignment. We hope this information is beneficial to the Work Group in understanding the work that we are undertaking. We will focus on the area where the underlying groundwater aquifers have become contaminated with PFCs or are likely to become contaminated in the future based on the groundwater modeling work to be completed by Antea Group. Bolton & Monk's work will include study of infrastructure improvements and preparing cost estimates related to any new wells, distribution and treatment facilities, or interconnections. The Study Area is expected to include at least these communities: 1. City of Woodbury 2. City of Cottage Grove 3. City of Oakdale 4. City of Lake Elmo 5. City of South St. Paul 6. City of Newport 7. City of St. Paul Park 8. City of Hastings 9. City of Invergrove Heights The City of Afton, Denmark Township, and Grey Cloud Island Township currently do not own and operate community water systems. These communities may be studied later in our work, depending on the results of the Antea Group's groundwater modeling. Our work will include study and analysis of the existing community water systems and future water system needs through at least Year 2040. DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer Mr. Brian Davis November 16, 2011 Page 2 Our work is expected to involve (5) major tasks, in addition to preparation of an expert report and expert testimony: 1. Preliminary Research Analysis, 1 Alternative Water Supply Analysis, 3. Water Distribution Systems Interconnections Analysis, 4. Individual Source Water Treatment Plants Analysis, 5. Centralized Water Treatment Plants Analysis. 1.0 PRELIMINARY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS We have begun preliminary research and analysis to understand the groundwater contamination issues and the affected water systems. The subtasks are expected to include the following: 1.1 Review previous reports, articles, and other documents related to the PFC contamination in the Study Area 1.2 Request information and data from individual communities in Study Area 1.3 Prepare preliminary GIS mapping for the overall Study Area and for each community within the Study Area 1.4 Analyze future estimated water demand projections 1.5 Meet with St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) staff to discuss their present and future water system capacities for potentially supplying treated water through potential interconnections 1.6 Meet with each of the individual communities located within the Study Area and review their community water system in detail 1.7 Review water system mapping for potential interconnections 1.8 Confer and coordinate with Antea Group 1.9 Review best available water treatment technologies for PFCs 1.10 Review the City of Oakdale's Water Treatment Plant and historical raw, intermediate, and finished water laboratory data with respect to PFC concentrations and water treatment removal rates 2.0 ALTERNANTIVE WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS Depending on the results of our work above, the first major task will be determining if alternative water supply sources exist that should not to be affected by future PFC groundwater contamination for each community, and it is expected to include the following subtasks: 2.1 Confer and coordinate with Antea Group 2.2 Determine need for future wells to meet projected water demands for individual communities based on localized aquifer pumping capacities 2.3 If aquifer analysis and groundwater modeling results predict that new well sites could be constructed outside of the contaminant plumes, analyze water distribution system and Mr. Brian Davis . , November 16, 2011 Page 3 hydraulics of existing water distribution systems for future well connections 2.4 Prepare GIS mapping showing locations of proposed wells, wellhouses, and raw water distribution system piping for individual community water systems 2.5 Estimate costs of new wells, wellhouses, and raw water distribution piping from wells for individual community water systems 2.6 Review the Mississippi River and St. Croix River as alternative water sources. 3.0 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM INTERCONNECTIONS ANALYSIS Depending on the results of our work above, we will meet with St. Paul Regional Water Services ( SPRWS) staff to determine if their surface water treatment plant, pumping stations, storage facilities, and distribution system currently have adequate capacity, or will have adequate capacity in the future, to sell treated water to communities located within the Study Area. We will also determine which communities could potentially be served by SPRWS based on SPRWS's future water system capacity and the projected water demands for each community. Subtasks are expected to include: 3.1 Study potential interconnections and determine feasible locations based upon available land, easements, and potential easements identified by each of the interconnecting communities 3.2 Prepare GIS mapping for existing and potential interconnecting watermains for Study Area 3.3 Determine system operating pressures (hydraulic grade lines) and operating conditions for each existing water distribution system 3.4 Develop potential trunk water distribution system layouts between interconnecting communities based on future water projections and input from communities 3.5 Obtain available hydraulic distribution system models from communities that have prepared models, convert models to common modeling platform (software), and analyze models to determine minimum size of interconnecting watermains, predicted water pressures, and hydraulic balance (equal filling of reservoirs, etc.) through extended period simulations 3.6 Produce illustrations for hydraulic modeling results for system pressures and extended period simulations based on future water projections 3.7 Determine required booster station pumping capacities and potential locations for water booster pumping stations and metering vaults at interconnections based on future water projections and input from communities 3.8 Estimate costs of potential watermain interconnections, utility easements, booster pumping stations, and metering vaults to meet future water demands 3.9 Study and estimate long term operation and maintenance costs of water booster pumping stations and metering vaults at interconnections Mr. Brian Davis November 16, 2011 Page 4 4.0 INDIVIDUAL SOURCE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS ANALYSIS Depending on the results of our work above, we will study and analyze individual source water treatment plants at each existing and future well as an alternative to constructing a centralized water treatment plant in each community. Depending on the layout of each community water system, smaller individual source water treatment plants could be determined to be less costly than a centralized water treatment plant after analyzing the raw watermains and associated costs to pump each existing and future well across developed properties to a centralized water treatment plant. Subtasks for the Individual Source Water Treatment Plant Analysis Phase are expected to include: 4.1 Conduct research for best available treatment technologies to treat PFCs at each existing and future water source (well) versus a centralized water treatment plant 4.2 Estimate possible pumping capacity reductions at existing wells or high service pumping facilities as a result of pumping losses through potential treatment technologies 4.3 Study potential locations for individual source water treatment plants at each existing and future well based on available land and the community's ability to purchase the land 4.4 Study and estimate additional Metropolitan Council wastewater fees for each community to collect and treat backwash wastewater from individual source water treatment plants 4.5 Estimate construction costs for individual source water treatment plants at each well or existing water treatment facility for each community including raw watermains and associated infrastructure improvements between wells and individual source water treatment plants 4.6 Study and estimate long term operation and maintenance costs for individual source water treatment plants for each community 4.7 Prepare GIS mapping for the locations of the proposed individual source water treatment plants for each community 5.0 CENTRALIZED WATER TREATMENT PLANTS ANALYSIS As an alternative to individual source water treatment plants located at each well, and depending on the results of our work above, we will study and analyze centralized water treatment plants for each community including the raw water piping that would be required between each well and a centralized water treatment plant. Subtasks for the Centralized Water Treatment Plants Analysis Phase are expected to include the following: 5.1 Conduct research for best available treatment technologies to treat PFCs at a centralized water treatment plant versus individual source water treatment plants 5.2 Study potential locations in individual communities for centralized water treatment plants based on proximity to existing wells and major trunk watermains in the distribution system and available land 5.3 Analyze size and routing of raw watermains from individual wells to centralized water treatment plants including associated infrastructure improvements 5.4 Study and estimate additional Metropolitan Council wastewater fees for each community to collect and treat backwash wastewater from a centralized water treatment plants Mr. Brian Davis November 16, 2011 + Page 5 5.5 Estimate construction costs for a centralized water treatment facility for each community including raw watermain costs and associated infrastructure improvements between each existing well and future well and the centralized water treatment plants 5.6 Study and estimate long term operation and maintenance costs for a centralized water treatment plant for each community 5.7 Prepare GIS mapping for the location of a centralized water treatment plant for each community including raw watermains between existing and future wells and the centralized water treatment plant We hope that this letter addresses the questions asked at the November 7, 2011 meeting and in your November 8 follow -up letter. We look forward to discussing this matter with you at the next Work Group meeting on November 30, 2011. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK INC. Greg F. Johnson, P.E. Senior Environmental Engineer C: Robert Roche, Minnesota Attorney General's Office Robert Brown, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Antea USA, Inc. 5910 Rice Creek Parkway, Suite 100 Shoreview, Minnesota 55126 USA www.anteagroup.com November 29, 2011 Mr. Brian Davis Metropolitan Council 390 Robert Street North St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Subject: South Washington Water Supply Technical Analysis — Key Milestone Meetings South Washington County, Minnesota Dear Mr. Davis: The purpose of this correspondence is to propose milestones in relation to the South Washington Water Supply Technical Analysis. These draft milestones are proposed for discussion with the technical work group during our meeting on November 30. We would appreciate your comment and distribution to the work group when you feel it appropriate. January 31, 2012 • Presentation and review of community water usage data — Bolton & Menk • Presentation and review base maps of existing utilities and existing expansion plans for utilities — Bolton & Menk • Presentation and review of updated Washington County steady state ground water model and key assumptions — Antea Group • Presentation and discussion of most current ground water contaminant distribution — Antea Group • Discuss projected future water demand — led by Bolton & Menk with contribution from all • Discuss alternate water sources, water treatment alternatives — led by Bolton & Menk with contribution from all February 15, 2012 • Update study of infrastructure improvements - new wells, distribution and treatment facilities, or interconnections - review updated data and discussion based on input received during the January 31, 2012 technical work group meeting - Bolton & Menk • Update with any modifications to the updated Washington County steady state ground water model from input received during the January 31, 2012 technical work group meeting — Antea Group Tentative - March 15, 2012 Interim check step regarding study of infrastructure improvements - new wells, distribution and treatment facilities, or interconnections - Bolton -Menk Transient Washington County ground water model presentation discussed with technical work group — using projected future water demands — Antea Group Washington County ground water model presentation initial contaminant transport model discussed with technical work group — using projected future water demands — Antes Group Inogel f Mr. Brian Davis Metropolitan Council November 29, 2011 Page 2 Tentative - April 30, 2012 • Draft model results and alternatives analysis presented to the technical work group — Discussion with all Tentative - May 30, 2012 o Draft model results and alternatives analysis based on technical work group discussion from April 30 Milestone meeting— Bolton and Menk /Antea Group July 13, 2012 Report due to State Report to the technical work group Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information regarding this information. Sincerely, Bob Karls John Estes Senior Consultant /Project Director Senior Project Manager Robert Brown Bolton and Menk Greg Johnson Bolton and Menk RMK /JRE /ces