The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-08-19 PACKET 02.B.E2EQlJEST OF CIT( C�UNCIL P,C�IOhI COUNCIL AGENdA MEEl'ING ITEM # C7ATE 8/19/98 _ .p� ,3• PREPARED BY Administration E2yan Schr ORIGINATPNG DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR .a.4.«d.�..�.m.��tr��.�..��.�.��..«4..a�«.kA�� COUNCIL AC710N REQUEST: South Washington Gounty Watershed District Presentation and Discussion BUDGET IMPLICATION BUDGETED AMOUNI' ACTUAL AMOUNT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS � MEMO/LE7TE62: 1} Memo from Ryan Schroeder dated 8l13198 2) Memo from Kim Lindquist dated 8l13/98 3) Letter from Bonestroa Ftosene Anderlik & Associates dated 8/3/98 4) fUlemo from Emmons & Olivier Resources dated 8/5/98 ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATlON: ❑ LEGAL F2ECONIMENDATIOIV: ❑ OTHER: ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS � ; c�/� y��' City Administrator Date 4\'I o# d R# 3 4 rt rt Ye rt A 6 O d Y 8 n b F d d 4 t# k b rt N F R 4 1r N R A A 4# A< R& Ye ir COl1P�ClL ACTIOPJ °fA4CEN: ❑ APPFZOVED ❑ DE�a�o ❑ o�rHER �:IGRCIUPS�PLAtJNitJG�99381CITlCOUfd\Watershed prese�4atian-�ug99 cover.doc Memo to: Mayor and Council From: Ryan R. Schroeder Subj.: Watershed Presentation Date: August 13, 1998 As Council is aware, the South Washington County Watershed District held a public hearing on August 5, 1998 regarding scope of services on the Central Draw Overflow Study. At the conclusion of the meeting the District apparentiy authorized work regarding this study. The Watershed District has requested an opportunity to provide a presentation to Council regarding their current activities. It is expected that they will provide a 15-minute presentation with opportunity for questions afterward. MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, Cify Administrator FROM: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director DATE: August 13, 1998 RE: Watershed District Update As the Council is aware, the South Washington Watershed District Board approved a scope of services for the Central Draw Outlet Study at their August 5, 1998, public hearing. The finalized scope of services was not available until the night of the meeting and therefore, City staff and Council did not have time to adequately review the proposal. A letter was sent, and Counciimember Kohis personaliy requested a delay in scope authorization to permit the City time to review the proposal. Although approved by the Board, consistent with the attached, Boardmembers did indicate that the City could make comment, which the Board would take under advisement. Since the Board representatives will be attending the August 19 Council meeting to make a presentation, it may be beneficiai for the Council to raise any concems about the Central Draw Study. Staff has reviewed the Scope of Services and found that the Study is broken into four subject areas: Aiternatives, Environmental, Public, and Financial. The Alternatives portion of the study deals with the investigation of alternate pipe alignments and other "non-structural" drainage alternatives such as increasing infiltration basins and compiete infiltration and storage of runoff. The Environmentai section of the study will assess environmental impacts of the alternatives using the City's NRI and other state agency information. Bonestroo, as the project manager, is recommending a public advisory group be part of the study process. Because the infiltration study is already ongoing and there is a citizen group established for that study, they propose using the same advisory group. Finally, the Financial section of the study relates to the financial implications associated with partnering with the MCES and the cost allocation between tne two parties. In my opinion, the scope of services appears to hit the issues the City would generally be concerned about, particularly the investigation of alternate drainage solutions. What is unclear is how run-off from Cottage Grove is being factored into the design and evaluations of the different central draw alternatives. Although the City has a draft Su�face Water Management Plan, it does not encompass the eastern portion of the community. Apparently, when projecting future flows, some assumptions were made about required ponding areas within areas of Woodbury and Cottage Grove not covered by an existing surtace water management Watershed District August 13, 1998 Page 2 plans. This mea�s future research and evaluation of aitematives wiil be based upon these generalized assumptions and that in the future the City could be locked into certain flows to ensure infrastructure can handie run-aff. It would seem prudent to develop a mare specific drainage plan for eastern Cottage Grove to improve the information by which future decisions are made. Further, that analysis wouid allow the City Council to criticaily look at the Watershed DistricYs assumptians and address whether they appear consistent with Gity goals and policies. If the Council feels this issue shouid be addressed, a revision to the study scope should be requested. The one concern I have is the tone of the scope that has also been reflected in previous Board discussions regarding the issue. Much of the previous discussion has centered on partnering with the MCES and the future alignment of the interceptor and central draw pipe. Cottage Grove has continued to question the necessity of the pipe and has questioned whether Woodbury has adequately fu�filied its obiigations to take care of its own drainage. Some of the "non-structural" drainage options, such as increasing the number of infiltration basins, would mean that Woodbury is taking on more of their drainage and reducing the amount of runoff that would pass through Cottage Grove. My concern is that the emphasis of the Scope, and Board, may be more toward the "structural" pipe solution and less dedicated toward looking at creative problem solving. For example, the phraseology in the Scope appears to draw conciusions prior to inception of the study. On page 10, 4.2 the task states, "The joint construction of the MCES Interceptor and the CDO will result in a substantially lower total project cost for both organizations." This sentence seems to indicate that the Board has already decided that partnering wiil be the superior cost saving option without any investigation into ali drainage alternatives. Furthermore, on page 2 of the Scope, the document indicates that a piped outiet will "likely be needed" to accommodate ffows above 50 cfs. ft is disconcerting that these conciusions are reached within the scope of the study prior to implementation of the study. The Board should be aware that the credibility of the study will suffer, and the final study recommendation less powerful, if the study is perceived to favor one position prior to its implementation. Bonestroo � Rosene Anderlik & Associ�tes Engineers & Architects August 3, 1948 Bonescoo, Ros ne. Anoetl•k and Asso<iarrs I c s Affirmar e Act,on/Eq� J OfPOrtun y£mpl. -, Pr ncipals: Oom G. Bone [roo PE. • Joseph C A tle I,Y, PF. Ma n L Sor aiz, ..� R'char� E Turne PE. G!enn R CooY. PE � Rooert G. Schu� <h[ PE. • Jerry A. 6ourCC^. Pc' � Ro�ert W. 2osene P_. antl Susan M. Ebetlin, CPA., Senlo� Co sW[an> � Asmciate Prinopa! : Hoveartl A. Sanford. PE. Keith A. Gordo PE. • Rober[ R. Pfe`ferle. PE. � PicM1drtl W FGS[er ?E. � DdviO O. LoskO.a. FE. • Rober[ C RusSeK n.I.A. • Ma�k A. Hanson, FE • Mlchz=l T Rautmznn, PE. � teC N.Fiela, FE. • Kenne:l: P AnCe o.i, PE. • MaC< R. Rolfs. PE. � S.dney P Willlzmson PE. LS • Rober[ F Kotsm�th • Pgnes M Ring • �l1icbzel P Rau. PE. � � Ailan Rick S<hn C[ PE. O/(Ites: St Paul. Rochese'. Wtilmar and S�_ Cloua, Mt3 •;NiiNaukee. CJI WeD;lte: wwwbonesvoo.ccm Board of Managers South Washington Watershed District 8301 Valley Creek Road Woodbury, MN 55125 Re: Scope of Services, Central Draw Overtlow Study SWWD Project PJ-1.1 BRA File No. 450-98-003 Deaz Managers: Enclosed is a revised scope of services for the Central Draw Overflow Shzdy. The scope reflects Phase I of the overall study and incorporates revisions based on input from the 7uly 22 Workshop and subsequent discussions between ourselves and Emmons-Olivier Resources. The Central Draw Overflow Study is part of a dual track approach to solutions for the Central Draw. One track, the Infiltration Management (IMS) Study, is looking at methods of maximizing the use of infiltration in the Central Draw Subdistrict. The Central Draw Overflow (CDO) Study wili look at all possible options for stormwater that cannot be handled through infiitration, focusing on the area south of CD-P86. A preliminary set of goals for the overall Central Draw Program, as reflected in the scopes of the two tracks, is: • Maximize infiltration while protecting property and natural resources. • Provide a cost effective, environmentally sensitive solution for the Central Draw. • Keep all options open for as long as possible. • Provide information in a timely manner to support decision making. Phase I of the Central Draw Overflow Study includes looking at all possible options for the overflow from the Central Draw in order to provide the SWWD Board with sufficient information to decide whether to partner with the MCES on a joint project. Phase I ends in approximately Februazy or March, 1999, with a preliminary recommendation for a Central Draw solution. Phase II would then cTevelop the recommended option to a feasibility level of detail. The timing and scope of Phase II will depend upon the results of Phase I and the subsequent decision regarding partnering with the MCES. A preliminary scope for Phase II was previously developed and discussed with the Boazd, but is not included in this submittal. u 2335 WeSt Highway 3G ■$t. Paul, MN 55113 � G12-63G-4600 • Fax: 612-63G-7311 Boazd of Managers South Washington Watershed District 8301 Valley Creek Road Woodbury, MN 55125 Page 2. Re: Scoge of Services, Central Draw Overflow Study SWWD Project PJ-1.1 BRA File No. 450-98-003 Two key additions to the Phase I scope are described below: IMS/CDO Advisory Committee August 3, 1998 The current IMS Advisory Committee (possibly expanded a bit) will be asked to serve a similaz function for the CDO Study. The joint committee will provide maximum coordination between the two tracks, as well as conserve financial and human resources. Phase I Midpoint Check-in Phase I will look at all possible options for the Central Draw Overflow. When the MCES selects an interceptor alignment (approximately December), the Board wili be provided information on the SWWD's options along the selected interceptor alignment. At this point, the Boazd could decide whether to proceed with partnering on MCES' schedule or to follow a separate path for completion of Phase I on the SWWD's schedule. We aze recommending a budget of $130,000 for the revised Phase I scope. We will present the scope at the public hearing on August 5, 1998. Respectfully submitted, � afia-��+ .J;,� �.sc�fi.�.wc�k� Robert G. Sch ntcht, P.E. Scope af Services Central Draw Overflow Study Introduction Attached is the scope of services for Phase I of the Central Draw Overflow (CDO) Study. The goals of the study are to (1) evaluate all altematives for a range of potential design flows, (2} put the SWWD Board in a position to make a decision whether to continue evaluating a partnership with the MCES and their South Washington County Interceptor (SWCI), and (3) set the SWWD up to proceed to the next phase of the project, depending on the results and decisions coming out of this study. Phase I is the preliminary evaluation of the alternatives for the CDO and coordination with the MCES. This phase is scheduled to be completed in March 1999. The end result af the first phase will be recommended alternatives for ihe CDO for various flow regimes, and a recommendation regarding coordination with the MCES. Midway ttuough the first phase (approximately December) the $oazd will be provided information regazding CDO aligrunent alternatives revolving around the rivo potential MCES alignments (County Road 19 and Kimbro Avenue). At that point, the MCES is expected to have chosen an alignment and the Board will be able to evaivate the CDO options relative to the MCES selected alignment. A decision would then be made whether to continue exploring partnership with the MCES or whether to foliow an independent path. If the Board elects to continue with MCES, Phase I would be completed by February or Mazch of 1999 with a recommendation to the Board regarding a CDO aitemative. If the Boazd elects not to continue with the MCES, then the Phase I schedule would be pushed back to allow more time for i�ltration data to be developed. If the Central Draw Overflow Study continues into Phase II, the work would involve further developmenT of the recommended altematives to a feasibility level of detail, and completion of a cost sharing agreement with MCES. Ifthe SWWD Board decides at the end of Phase I not to partner with the MCES, then Phase II would proceed at a schedule established by the SWWD Board. This study will be closely coordinated with the on-going Infiltration Management Study (IMS). The recommendations coming out of the IMS regazding infiltration capacity will determine the final design flow for the CDO. Until the infiltration capacity and conesponding design flow are estahlished, a range of potential design flows will be considered in this study. The IMS Advisory Committee will be used for the CDO Advisory Committee to ensure synergy beriveen the two projects, as described in the Public Section. The scope of services is divided into four major work efforts that must all be completed simultaneously to enable the SWWD Board to reach a decision regazding the Central Draw Overflow. The four major work efforts are: South WashinQton Watershed Disirict 1. Alternatives 2. Environmental 3. Public 4. Financial These efforts and tasks associated with each are detailed in ihe scope of services. A summary is presented below. Altema2ives Potential alternatives will be evaluated in further detail, with preliminary design details and cost estimates being prepared. The potential alternatives include those in the SWWD Watershed Management Plan (WMP) as well as additional ones developed more recently. The MCES Interceptor Study has identified at least one new altemative that was not included in the WMP. The IMS may lead to new lower-flow alternatives that were not identified in the WMP, and other aiternatives may be developed as part of the public process. Since the IMS has not yet determined a recommended infiltration capaciry, a range of potential design flows will be considered. These will likely be as follows: • 0 to 50 cfs: Significant infiltration capacity. A piped outlet may not be needed. Other alternatives (e.g., timed release of runoff to coincide with low flow periods) may be feasibie. • 50 to 100 cfs: Intermediate infiltration capacity. A piped outlet in combination with overland flow will likely be needed. This outlet will be smaller than tbat contemplated in the WMP. • 100 cfs or more: Lower infiltration capacity. A piped outlet in combination with overland flow will likely be needed. This outlet will be similaz in magnitude to that contemplated in the WMP. The end result of Phase I will be recommended alternatives for the CDO for the various flow ranges. Environmental A preliminary environmental evaluation will be completed for each of the potential alternatives. Particular attention will be paid to sensitive azeas as identified in the Cottage Grove Natural Resources Plan. Agencies and the City of Cottage Grove will be involved in this environmental evaluation. South Washington Watershed District Central Draw Overflow Study, Phase I, Scope of Services 2 Public The Central Draw Overflow Study will be closely scrutinized by residents of the affected communities, by agencies, and by elected officials. It is important that all the affected interests be informed of the work, have a clear understanding of what's being evaluated, and be given the opportunity to provide input to the process. During Phase I, the IMS Advisory Committee will be used to bring the affected interests into the project and to provide further coordination with the IMS. Financial Phase I of the CDO Study wiil involve preparing cost estimates in sufficient detail for the Board to make preliminary decisions regarding partnering with the MCES. It will also look at cost allocations between the two parties. Budget We recommend a budget of $130,000 for Phase I of the Central Draw Overflow Study. A breakdown of hours and costs is attached. Proiect Team The following personnel and firms make up the project team. Project Manager — Project Engineers — Project ScientisCs — IMS Liaison, Assistance with design and evaluation of altematives, Assistance with environmental review and public involvement — Attorney — l. Alternatives Bob Schunicht, BRAA Dan Edgerton, Robert Barth, Todd Blomstrom, Erik Peters, BRAA John Smyth, Steve McComas, Paul Bockenstedt, Renee Rawn, BRAA Doug Bergstrom, Northern Environmental Tony Demazs, EOR Brett Emmons, Cecilio Olivier, Jennifer Swenson, EOR Jack Clinton For Phase I, we wili take the design of the Central Draw Overflow alternatives to a"pre- feasibility" level of study. We will use the alternatives analysis presented in the South WashinQton Watershed District watershed management plan, expand or revise the alternatives based on new information or ideas, and develop the design to a greater level of detail. , Alternatives presented in the Watershed Management Plan include: • Going through the Cottage Grove Ravine • Going along County Road 19 • Through the Regional Pazk • Around the Regionai Park • Going through Cottage Grove's existing East Draw stormwater system • Complete storage of the runoff • Treatment of the runoff and reuse as potable water Other alternatives or combination of altematives to the study will include: • Using the existing Cottage Grove system during "sunny days" in combination with Gables Lake storage and pumpin�/overflow into the East Draw wetland • Acquisition and active management of CD-P86 • Continued active management of CD-P85 and other landlocked basins • Coordination with Woodbury on the operation of the Bailey Lake lift station • Pursuing and implementing other infiltration retrofitting projects • Complete storage and infiltration of runoff All short term and intermediate measures including projects out of the IMS will be s2udied and taken inCo consideration. An additional alternative developed in the MCES Interceptor study is an alignment along the top of the Cottage Grove Ravine. This shallower alignment could go either through or azound the Regionai Park. Preliminary results from the Infiltration Management Study will be factored into the design as both the IMS and the CDO Study proceed. We will then use our hydrologic model of the system to revise the design flows accordingly. Until a recommended infiltration capacity is developed as part of the IMS, we will evaluate alternatives for various flow ranges, as discussed previously. MCES data and results will be used to refine the design. The product will be updated designs of all the alternatives, including cost estimates. Based on the results of the Phase I analysis, recommended alternatives for each flow range will be presented. Midway through the Phase I analysis, the SWWD Boazd will have su�cient information with which to decide on whether to proceed with the investigation into partnering with the MCES. South Washington Watershed District Central Draw Overflow Study, Phase I, Scope of Services 4 Phase I 1.1 Update Design Flows The hydrologic model of the system wiil be revised, as appropriate; to develop updated design flows for the outlet. Until a recommended infiltration capacity is developed as part of the IMS, we will look at various flow ranges. As discussed previously, these will likely be 0-50 cfs, 50-100 cfs, and 100+ cfs. These flow ranges will be updated as necessary to reflect the preliminary results of the Infiltration Management Study. Any proposed changes to the surface water system wili be incorporated into the model. In addition, Woodbury is currently updating its land use plan as part of an overall comprehensive planning effort for the city. Any impacts of land use changes will be incorporated into the model. 1.2 Evaluate Aiternatives A pre-feasibility level of design will be developed for each alternative. Data and results from the MCES Interceptor Study will be collected. Aeriai photos and 10-foot contours of the study area will be assembled, and selected field surveying will be performed to supplement the contour information where needed. The issue of a pumped vs. gravity system will be revisited. More detailed analysis of a pumping station and force main will be perfomied. Life cycle costs of pumping, including operation, maintenance, and replacement, will be considered. New alternatives, particularly related to the low flow range, will also be investigated. These could inciude diversions at low flow rates to existing systems with excess capacity, timing the release of runoff for low flow periods downstreazn, and providing emergency overflow routes. The product of this task will be pian and profile drawings of each aiternative at a 1" = 500' scale. Detailed cost estimates will also be prepazed. For pumped alternatives, the present worth of operation, maintenance, and replacement costs wiil be included in the total cost. 13 Determine Permit Requirements Permits and a�3provals needed for each alternative will be determined. These may include: South Washington Watershed District Central Draw Overflow Study, Phase I, Scope of Services S • Washington County — for work in county �oad right-of-way • Washington County�et Councii — for work in Regional Park • MPCA — for discharge into Mississippi River • Cottage Grove — for Wetland Conservation approvals • Corps of Engineers/NIPCA - for activities affecting wetlands • DNR— for activities affecting protected waters • MPCA/Department of Health — for activities affecting groundwater • MPCA — for erosion control activities 2. Environmental An assessment of environmental issues pertaining to each alternative will be performed. This will involve both a literature seazch and supplemental field invesYigation to fill in any gaps. The primary goai will be to define key impacts that may affect the Board's decision on the selected alternative. A secondary goai wili be to obtain regulatory agency buy-in for the selected altemative. A number of agencies will have review and permitting authority over portions of the project, and it is crucial that their concerns be addressed. In particular, the MPCA will be concemed about water quality impacts to the Mississippi River and both the Met Council and Washington County will be concerned about impacts to the Regional Park and the lake/wetiand in the park. A final goal will be to set the SWWD up to efficiently prepaze an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), which would be required should the Board decide to proceed with a project. EAWs have very specific requirements, and the CDO Study should be performed in such a manner that much of the work here will be transferable to a future EAW. If partnering becomes the preferred avenue, a key question will be how to coordinate with the MCES on this work. The MCES will be preparing an EAW for the South Washington County Interceptor. The SWWD may wish to prepare a joint EAW with the MCES, at least in any overlapping portions of work. 2.1 Data Collection and Literature Search As part of the Cottage Grove and Woodbury Natural Resources Inventories and environmental assessments for the MCES, we have already collected considerable data on the ecologicai resources in the study area. In addition, we have the U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Nationai Wetland Inventory for the study area. Additional information will be collected from the DNR Natural Heritage Database and the County Biological Survey. This type of information includes sightings of rare species and communities of significant ecological qualiry. We will also contact the Minnesota Historical Society for a listing of cultural or azchaeological resources along each alignment. South Washington Watershed District Central Draw Overflow Study, Phase I, Scope ofServices 6 2.2 Field Investigation of Ecologicai Resources As mentioned in Task 2.1, we have already collected much field data in the study azea. The purpose of this task is to fill in any gaps that may exist in the field or literature data already collected. In particular, if new alternatives are developed, this may require field investigation of ecological resources. The fieid work will generally involve a site visit, inventory of natural communities, and search for threatened and endangered species. Dominant species, the quality of the natural communities, and any appazent impacts or signs of degradation will be noted. 23 Evaluate Environmental Impacts Given the existing condition of the ecological resources in the study area, as determined in Tasks 21 and 2.2, potential environmental impacts of the proposed altemaCives will be evaluated. The discussion of impacts will be keyed to items that would need to be addressed in a future EAW: • Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologicaily Sensitive Resources • Surface Water Resources • Groundwater Resources • Erosion and Sedimentation As part of this task, impacts on the ecological resources of the Cottage Grove Ravine and the Regional Park will be addressed. In particulaz, an evaluation of impacts of the discharge on the lake/wetland in the Regional Park will be performed. Potential impacts include water quality, water quantity (amount and duration of "bounce"), and thermal impacts. Samples will be taken from the lake/wetland as well as the upstream waterbodies (Bailey Lake, CD-P85). Irnpacts of flow in open channels will also be addressed, particulazly in the Regional Pazk and the outfall to the Mississippi River. Given the large discharges expected, it is imperative that geomorphologically stable, non- eroding channels be maintained. Water quaIity impacts will also be investi$ated. These include impacts to both the Regional Pazk lake/wetland and the Mississippi River. Future NPDES requirements for outfalls to the river will be investigated, including discussions with the MPCA. South Washinpton Watershed District Construction erosion will also be discussed. For a project of this magnitude, proper BMPs and erosion control,methods are critical, so as to minimize downstream sedimentation of natural resources. Protection of groundwater resources wiil be addressed as part of the separate Groundwater Monitoring Study. We will incorporate the results of that study into this task. 2.4 Obtain Regulatory Agency Input As part of this task, we will review the project with inTerested regulatory agencies, including the DNR, MPCA, Department of Health, Washington Soil and Water Conservation District, Washington County, and Met Council. The goal wiil be to obtain input on their concerns, address these concerns through avoidance and mitigation, and obtain buy-in for one or more aiternatives. We anticipate 4-6 informal meetings with various agencies, in addition to the Advisory Committee meetings discussed in Section 3. 3. Public The IMS Advisory Committee will be used as the CDO Advisory Committee in order to provide maximum coordination as well as to conserve financial and human resources. Bonestroo staff will facilitate the CDO Advisory Committee meetings and provide technical support for the Committee's work. Our approach to facilitating the work of this Committee will emphasize a purposeful process leading to recommendations that those involved aze committed to support and implement. The Committee will meet approximately every 6-8 weeks during Phase I(up to 5 total meetings). The Committee's tasks will include the following: 3.1 Identify and Review Alternatives (2-3 meetings) Meetings will include an introductory meeting to define the study and the role of the Advisory Committee, and 1-2 additional meetings to review CDO alternatives and their characteristics. Technical staff will describe the alternatives and provide detail on costs, technical, social arid environmental issues. 3.2 Evaluate Alternatives (up to 2 meetings) The Advisory Committee wiIl develop criteria for evatuating the altematives, and rank the alternatives based on these criteria. Bonestroo staff will facilitate this process, and provide additional technical information as'needed to evaluate the altematives. Discussions will South WashinQton Watershed District include potential coordination of the alternatives with other infrastructure projects in south Washington County. , 3.3 to the SWWD Board at the end of Phase I(1-2 The Advisory Committee will make a recommendation on the preferred altematives for each flow range to the SWWD Board, and include a rationale for the alternatives. We will complete a report that includes the recommendations and discusses the Advisory Committee's rationale, including the technical, social, and environmental elemenCS of the preferred alternatives. 3.4 Working Meetings Several one-on-one meetings in addition to the Advisory Committee meetings wiil be needed during the course of the study with environmental agencies or other key organizations to discuss coordination of the Central Draw Outlet with other infrastructure projects, or to discuss environmental or other impacts. Bonestroo staff will coordinate and facilitate these meetings, based on the request of the Advisory Committee and S WWD Board. 4. Financial The CDO project, including infiltration and overflow, potentially represents a large capital investment for south Washington County. There is also a potentiaily lazge operation and maintenance component for these facilities. The allocation of these costs and the resulting charges to residents of the watershed is an extremely sensitive issue, as we leamed in the fali of 1996. As a result of the public and community reaction, the SWWD Board stated a preference for a rural-friendly stormwater utility as the most equitable method of recovering the costs of the CDO project. The Board atso left open for future discussion the allocation of costs between the CDO subwatershed and the remainder of the watershed. Phase I of the CDO Study will provide cost estimates for all potential overflow alternatives and take a preliminary look at cost sharing and alloca2ion issues. 4.1 Estimate Costs The Central Draw Outlet includes both an infiltration and overflow component. We will estimate both capital and operation and maintenance costs for the CDO alternatives. We will mesh these costs with those for infiltration facilities coming out of the IMS. South Yi'ashin2ton Watershed District 4.2 MCES Cost Sharing Agreement The joint construction of the MCES Interceptor and the CDO will result in a suhstantially lower Yotal project cost for both organizations. The question that remains is "How will that savings be split?" — Should it be 50/50? Should it be based on depth of excavations and resulting restoration and easement costs? Or a combination of the above? This task includes meetings with the MCES, developing alternative cost shazing formulas, and preparing a recommendation for consideration by the SWWD Board. South Washington Watershed District d � N C s o a � a v � � m 3 rn o a m °�' �" O 3 � 0 � c d U d m m d � n m � 0 t- v � o o r i. �',.. o mn�n o. = u� � rn'i 0 o ° o n v � N �n ° m m ° n �d m H ' w w w p u' h � 0 n c� m�o �o 'o V N p�o m ai 1� � (D lD lD �� ` T H f0 N � o o � � o 0 0 0 U `m O O p C�'J N �°� Y N � `o N N V C N��. O O o� O o � a` °' o � °O�°o 0000 �� !'� o- [•`I[`tiv�CiCi �� ml`°I`°�m�n � N N W N W N � jp O `o `o y `o `o o � U `a `n d `o c.o x N N h h N'..��. (7 N�.6 L'C � E h Y � 3 ,o �. C N> � N d R 2 2 9� "m d� o� E m m y� i.,a 4 m t0 �` a�y ?' � m o 0 6 c �' �� c �' @ � W ~ y m m y c ¢ v� E' m LL.°.�� Eo>_°? ¢ dErn �'yc o rn?"E o mo 2 c v m� o s � wm i- v> `m > m d> o� a m> v� '" o 0 OWa cOLLWQ �� W � �(.)U �- N C5 W � N l7 C �' " N M Q V ' a- N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � � � N N N N N M M t7 CJ t`h V V V � Emmons & Olivier Resources Date: AugusY 5, 1998 To: South Washington Watershed District Managers From: Brett Emmons and Cecilio Olivier Re: Central Draw Study Options V , � � �, �, � �� "L � �'�, N �� , � Based on recent conversations and in response to the memo by Jim Wessman, dated July 27` we wouid like to suggest an alternative to the scope of services presented for the Central Draw Overflow Study by Bonestroo. Our suggestion would be to have Bonestrods efforts concentrated on the OuUet Alternatives and Met Council Interceptor planning. EOR would then concentrate its efforts on a Runoff Reduction Study. The Runoff Reduction Study would examine methods to prevent and minimize excess iunoff in the subwatershed which includes, but is not limited to, infiltration. EOR will be able to expand the Infiltration Management Study currently being done wiYh a more deCailed CenCral Draw Runoff Reduction Study. This more deCailed scope could include: 1} CooTdination with VJoodbury on the operation of the Bailey Lake lift station and upstream ponds. This will be very important to actively manage and optimize the storage and pumping at South Bailey Lake. 2) Acquisition and active management of CD-P86. Planning will need Yo be done in order to buy the land of CD-P86 as well as planning for active management of the basin. This will need to be addressed immediately if the purchase is in the near future. Coordination with possible mining activities need to be addressed. 3) Continued active management of CD-P85 and other landlocked basins. This is addressed within the Infiltration Management Study. 4) Pursuing and irnplementing other infiltration retrofitting projects. 5) Complete storage and infiltration oP runoff. This may be a possibility that would include land-use regulations and development standards for on-site infiltration ponds. 6) Other options such as using irrigation at parks, farms, open spaces and private property as a means of controlling pond levels. '7) Development of greenway plans or parks and open spaces to provide for stormwater infiltration/holding ponds. We could provide more a more detailed scope of the work at one of the next watershed meetings so that this work would progress as the Alignment Alternatives are developed. 3394 Lake Elmo Ave. N. • P.O. Box 84 • Lake Elmo, MN 55042 •(651) 770-8448 • Fax (651) 770-2552