HomeMy WebLinkAboutLake-Cornelia-and-Lake-Edina-Water-Quality-Study-Appendices_2019Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina
Water Quality Study
Use Attainability Analyses for Lake Cornelia (updated from 2010)
and Lake Edina (first version)
Prepared for
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
July 2019
4300 MarketPointe Dr • Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55435
952.832.2600 • www.barr.com
viii
List of Appendices, Attachments, or Exhibits
Appendix A Existing Pond Information—Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina
Appendix B Lake Cornelia System Fisheries Assessment (2018)
Appendix C In-Lake Model Water Balance Results
Appendix D External Loading Management Concentration Plots
Appendix E Internal Loading Management Concentration Plots
Appendix F Combined (Internal + External) Management Concentration Plots
Appendix G Combined (Internal + External) Management Loading Bar Plots
Appendix H Opinions of Probable Cost
Appendices
Appendix A
Existing Pond Information—Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina
Watershed BMP TypeNormal Pool Area(acres)Existing Dead Storage (acre‐ft)Existing Flood Pool Area (acres)Existing Flood Pool Storage (acre‐ft)Existing OutletCommentsNC_130 Infiltration Basin0.00101.522.82 OverflowNC_135 Infiltration Basin0.00101.194.04 OverflowNC_6 Infiltration Basin0.00101.417.12 OverflowNC_2 Pond3.726.14.9212.96 42" PipeNC_5 Pond0.670.964.319.95 48" PipeNC_72 Pond0.310.90.410.41 10' WeirNC_88 Pond0.390.8600 6" Pipe Normal outflow to NC_3; Overflow to NC_4NC_4 Pond3.5812.625.1134.76 65" PipesNC_3 Pond6.1224.358.819.92 (3) 3/4" orificesNC_62 Lake18.772.8236.34115.2 12" Pipe North CorneliaNC_78 Pond1.755.261.921.09 12" PipeNC_30 Pond9.9332.411.3317.96 24" PipeNC_4A_RG1 Infiltration Basin0.0700.160.17 12.5' WeirNC_4A_RG2 Infiltration Basin0.0600.130.14 12.5' WeirNC_4A_UG1Underground Storage 0.0006 0.00130.0250.084 15" PipeNC_4A_UG2 Underground Storage 0.0006 0.00130.0170.058 4" PipeTable A‐1 North Cornelia Existing Pond Information Appendix A: Page 1
Watershed BMP TypeNormal Pool Area(acres)Existing Dead Storage (acre‐ft)Existing Flood Pool Area (acres)Existing Flood Pool Storage (acre‐ft)Existing OutletCommentsSC_1 Lake33.15 162.7449.46353.54 54" Pipe South CorneliaSC_2 Pond002.8068.24 9" PipeSC_3 Pond0.571.624.913.74 18" PipeTable A‐2 South Cornelia Existing Pond Information Appendix A: Page 2
Watershed BMP TypeNormal Pool Area(acres)Existing Dead Storage (acre‐ft)Existing Flood Pool Area (acres)Existing Flood Pool Storage (acre‐ft)Existing OutletCommentsLE_1 Lake24.6368.0737.31149.15 36" Pipe Lake EdinaLE_38 Pond0.240.321.68.25 36" PipeLE_44 Infiltration Basin0.00101.475.48 OverflowLE_51 Infiltration Basin008.2142.09 OverflowLE_54 Infiltration Basin001.585.21 OverflowTable A‐3 Lake Edina Existing Pond Information Appendix A: Page 3
Appendix B
Lake Cornelia System Fisheries Assessment (2018)
Lake Cornelia System Fisheries Assessment
Prepared By: Joshua Maxwell - Water Resources Coordinator,
Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
Prepared For: Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
October 9, 2018
Appendix B: Page 1
Survey Details
During the summer of 2018, the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) assisted
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District in conducting a fish assessment of Normandale Lake, Lake Cornelia,
and ponds connected to Cornelia. The fish surveys were based on research and methodology established
by the University of Minnesota (UMN) in the Riley Chain of Lakes Carp Management Plan drafted in
2014 (Bajer, 2014), and the Purgatory Creek Carp Management Plan drafted in 2015 (Sorensen, 2015).
Common carp populations within both lakes were of specific concern due to the negative impacts large
populations can cause within lakes in MN. Adult carp populations were monitored by conducting, three,
20-minute electrofishing transects per lake, three times between late July and October. If the total biomass
estimate of carp is above 100kg/h in a lake, significant water quality degradation can occur. Young of the
year (YOY) carp are monitored by placing five, 24-hour small mesh fyke net sets per lake between July
and September. If YOY carp were captured during this event, it meant successful recruitment occurred,
which can lead to a larger future carp population. Bluegill abundance was also important to assess
because they can keep a carp population under control by consuming carp eggs during the spawn. In the
case of both sampling techniques, all other fish species were enumerated and summarized. The following
document is an overall summary of the fish assessment results on the Lake Cornelia system.
Appendix B: Page 2
Fyke Netting
District staff completed fyke net surveys on Lake Cornelia and
Pool Pond on July 27th, 2018 and July 24th respectively. In
Lake Cornelia, three nets were set in both the upper and lower
sections of the Lake. Due to the small size of Pool Pond, only
four nets were set. The fyke net results for Cornelia can be
seen in Table 2 and 3. Table 1 contains results for Pool Pond.
Both Lake Cornelia and Pool Pond experienced a partial winter
kill over the 2017-2018 winter season. Evidence of the
winterkill was highlighted by the fyke net catch results,
including limited year classes present of all fish species,
specifically game fish, and lack of diversity of commonly
found fish species for the region. Based on the results, it
appears that South Cornelia had a more severe winterkill. Only
black bullheads, golden shiners, goldfish, and three bluegill
sunfish were found. More Centrarchid species were found in North Cornelia, including pumpkinseed
sunfish, black crappie, green sunfish, and bluegills. The diversity of the Pool Pond fish population was
similar to what was seen in North Cornelia, although the overall number of fish captured increased.
Overall, 27 painted turtles and 21 snapping turtles were captured in the fyke nets on Cornelia. Goldfish
were captured in low numbers on both North and South Cornelia. During the survey. One YOY carp was
captured in North Cornelia and 14 were captured in Pool Pond which indicates that some recruitment
occurred in the system in 2018.
Table 1: Pool Pond Lake Fyke Net Results
Species Number of fish caught in each category (inches)
0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ Total Fish/Net
black bullhead 115 20 135 33.8
bluegill sunfish 18 18 4.5
common carp 14 14 3.5
golden shiner 28 1 29 7.3
green sunfish 316 6 322 80.5
hybrid sunfish 31 2 33 8.3
pumpkinseed 246 246 61.5
Table 2: South Cornelia Lake Fyke Net Results
Species Number of fish caught in each category (inches)
0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ Total Fish/Net
black bullhead 75 82 1 159 53
bluegill sunfish 1 2 3 1
goldfish 16 16 5.3
golden shiner 16 1 17 5.7
painted turtle 11 3.7
snapping turtle 10 3.3
Figure 1 – Large snapping turtle
from North Cornelia fyke nets.
Appendix B: Page 3
Electrofishing
Boat electrofishing was conducted across three dates on Lake Cornelia. During two of the surveys all fish
captured were identified and measured. The third survey targeted carp only. Each of the ponds were
electrofished one time in which all species were identified and measured. The common carp population
estimates were devloped based on research conducted on shallow and deep lakes within the RPBCWD
and may not accurately reflect actual population estimates for stormwater ponds. Additionally, only one
sampling event was conducted on each pond which is lower than the three sampling events recommended.
Fish captured via electrofishing mirrored that which was captured within the fyke nets for each
waterbody. No large fish were captured due to the recent winterkill. Below is a brief description of what
native fish were found across the electrofishing surveys:
Pool Pond - pumpkinseed sunfish, green sunfish, and golden shiners were the most abundant
native fish (Exhibit 1).
Lake Cornelia – black bullheads were the most abundant native species; very limited game
species captured (Exhibit 2 - South; Exhibit 3 - North).
Northwest Pond – black bullheads were the most abundant native fish captured with no gamefish
captured (Exhibit 4).
Francis (East) Pond – fathead minnows and golden shiners were the most abundant native fish
with only four sunfish captured (Exhibit 5).
Non-native fish species captured during the electrofishing surveys
included both goldish (Carassius auratus) and common carp.
Similar to common carp, goldfish swim along the bottom of lakes
and rivers, uprooting vegetation, disturbing sediment and releasing
nutrients that trigger excess algal growth. They feed broadly, eating
algae, small invertebrates, plant material, and fish eggs. Within the
Lake Cornelia system goldfish were found in large numbers (989
fish captured; Table 4). They were the most abundant fish species
captured and have an established breeding population. Most of the
goldfish captured were YOY or one year old, however, fully-grown
fish up to 365 mm (14.4 in) were captured. For a maximum
potential size reference, the world's longest goldfish measured 474
Table 3: North Cornelia Lake Fyke Net Results
Species Number of fish caught in each category (inches)
0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ Total Fish/Net
black bullhead 148 161 1 676 225.3
black crappie 2 2 0.67
bluegill sunfish 31 31 10.3
common carp 1 1 0.33
goldfish 9 9 3
golden shiner 63 23 90 30
green sunfish 20 20 6.7
hybrid sunfish 12 12 4
pumpkinseed 12 12 4
painted turtle 16 5.3
snapping turtle 11 3.7
Figure 2 – Goldfish from Northwest
Pond.
Appendix B: Page 4
mm (18.7in; Guinness Book of
World Records). The Northwest
pond had the highest catch rate
of goldfish at 468 fish/hour
which may be the main source
for Lake Cornelia (combined 400
fish/hour).
Adult (>300 mm) common carp populations within the Lake Cornelia system were found in relatively low
in numbers, which is likely a result of the recent winterkill (Table 5). That said, Francis (East) Pond had a
very high concentration of carp at 23 fish, or a biomass estimate of 219.5 kg/h. The biomass estimate is
significantly higher than the 100 kg/h threshold and can result in degraded water quality. No carp were
captured in Northwest Pond or North Cornelia. Similar to migration patterns seen within the RPBCWD,
fish in the Cornelia system appear to be migrating to the furthest waterbody upstream to spawn. Francis
(East) Pond is one of the furthest upstream ponds along with the two ponds not surveyed north of Lake
Cornelia and just east of Northwest Pond. Francis (East) Pond appeared to have depths which may allow
carp to overwinter, however this was based on only a visual observation. Carp often spawn in the most
upstream sections of a system and return to the larger and deeper waterbodies to overwinter.
Summary
Overall the fish sampled in the Lake Cornelia system were small in size and species richness was limited.
This is most likely a result of the 2017-2018 winterkill and past winterkills that have occurred. The low
number of bluegill and other Centrarchid species captured from the surveys reflect a limited population
that may not be able to control common carp and goldfish recruitment effectively. The frequency of
winterkills and the availability of connected shallow waterbodies that winterkill which act as YOY
nurseries, are most likely preventing bluegills from effectively controlling carp and goldfish within the
system. This is highlighted by the number of yoy common carp captured in Pool Pond via fyke nets, the
large number of carp captured in Francis (East) Pond, and the very large number of golfish captured in
Northwest Pond. The 2018 survey suggests that Francis (East) Pond is currenlty the main source of carp
for the Lake Cornelia system, however it is uncertain whether carp migrated to and were trapped in the
pond, or if they are overwintering in the pond. The two ponds directly east of Northwest Pond may be
another source carp population or be acting as a nursery, however they were not sampled in 2018. Due to
Table 4: Lake Cornelia System Goldfish Electrofishing Results
Species Number of goldfish caught in each category (inches)
0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 Total Fish/Hour
North Cornelia 227 2 52 2 310 221
Northwest Pond 155 92 3 250 468
Pool Pond 39 2 41 123
South Cornelia 283 3 90 12 388 194
Francis Pond 0 0
Total 704 99 145 14 989 198
Table 5: 2018 Common Carp Biomass Estimates for Normandale Lake
Lake # of Fish Fish per
Hour
Density per
Hectare
Average
Weight (kg)
Carp Biomass
(kg/h)
Threshold
(kg/h)
Francis (East) Pond 23 60 285.64 0.77 219.50 100
Pool Pond 1 3 17.17 1.45 24.86 100
NW Pond 0 0 0 0 0 100
North Cornelia 0 0 0 0 0 100
South Cornelia 4 2 12.46 1.51 18.82 100
Appendix B: Page 5
the limited number of Cetrarchid species captured, carp will be able to freely reproduce in Francis (East)
Pond and distribute throughout the Cornelia system.
It is apparent that goldfish have established breeding populations in most waterbodies within the Lake
Cornelia system. The highest concentration of goldfish did occurr in the very shallow Northwest Pond.
With the high numbers of goldfish in the system, along with their abiltiy to survive in extememly low
oxygen conditions, goldfish maybe degrading water quality more than carp at this time. Winterkill
frequency is most likely the main control of carp and golfish populations in the Cornelia system.
References:
Sorensen, P., P. Bajer, and M. Headrick. 2015. Development and implementation of a sustainable strategy
to control common carp in the Purgatory Chain of Lakes. Prepared for Riley Purgatory Bluff
Creek Watershed District. University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN. Accessed online from:
http://rpbcwd.org/files/6414/9382/4422/SorensenBajerandHeadrick2015_Development_of_carp_
control_in_the_Purgatory_Creek_Chain_of_Lakes.pdf
Bajer, P.G., M. Headrick, B.D. Miller, and P.W. Sorensen. 2014. Development and implementation of a
sustainable strategy to control common carp in Riley Creek Chain of Lakes. Prepared for Riley
Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN. Accessed
online from: http://rpbcwd.org/files/3414/3561/7194/Carp_management_report_2014.pdf
Appendix B: Page 6
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: Pool Pond Boat Electrofishing Results
Species Number of fish caught in each category (inches)
0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ Total Fish/Hour
black bullhead 12 2 14 42
common carp 1 1 3
goldfish 39 2 41 123
golden shiner 53 53 159
green sunfish 47 47 141
pumpkinseed 75 75 225
Exhibit 2: South Lake Cornelia Boat Electrofishing Results
Species Number of fish caught in each category (inches)
0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ Total Fish/Hour
black bullhead 31 57 88 66
bluegill sunfish 1 1 2 2
common carp 3 1 4 2
mudminnow 1 1 0.75
goldfish 283 3 90 12 388 194
golden shiner 14 14 11
green sunfish 20 21 16
hybrid sunfish 1 1 0.75
pumpkinseed 13 13 10
Exhibit 3: North Lake Cornelia Boat Electrofishing Results
Species Number of fish caught in each category (inches)
0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ Total Fish/Hour
black bullhead 62 103 1 235 261
bluegill sunfish 1 1 1
goldfish 227 2 52 2 310 221
golden shiner 9 2 11 12
green sunfish 19 19 21
hybrid sunfish 1 1 1
pumpkinseed 14 14 16
Appendix B: Page 7
Exhibit 4: Northwest Pond Boat Electrofishing Results
Species Number of fish caught in each category (inches)
0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ Total Fish/Hour
black bullhead 22 21 43 81
goldfish 155 92 3 250 469
mudminnow 1 1 2
Exhibit 5: Francis (East) Boat Electrofishing Results
Species Number of fish caught in each category (inches)
0-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30+ Total Fish/Hour
bluegill sunfish 1 1 3
common carp 6 21 2 29 78
fathead minnow 71 71 185
golden shiner 22 2 24 60
pumpkinseed 3 3 8
Appendix B: Page 8
Appendix C
In-Lake Model Water Balance Results
Figure C-1 North Cornelia (2015) Water Balance
Figure C-2 North Cornelia (2016) Water Balance
Appendix C: Page 1
Figure C-3 North Cornelia (2017) Water Balance
Figure C-4 South Cornelia (2015) Water Balance
Appendix C: Page 2
Figure C-5 South Cornelia (2016) Water Balance
Figure C-6 South Cornelia (2017) Water Balance
Appendix C: Page 3
Figure C-7 Lake Edina (2015) Water Balance
Figure C-8 Lake Edina (2016) Water Balance
Appendix C: Page 4
Figure C-9 Lake Edina (2017) Water Balance
Appendix C: Page 5
Appendix D
External Loading Management Concentration Plots
Figure D-1 In-lake phosphorus concentrations that resulted from external management efforts in North Cornelia in 2015
Figure D-2 In-lake phosphorus concentrations that resulted from external management efforts in North Cornelia in 2016
Appendix D: Page 1
Figure D-3 In-lake phosphorus concentrations that resulted from external management efforts in North Cornelia in 2017
Figure D-4 In-lake phosphorus concentrations that resulted from external management efforts in South Cornelia in 2015
Appendix D: Page 2
Figure D-5 In-lake phosphorus concentrations that resulted from external management
efforts in South Cornelia in 2016
Figure D-6 In-lake phosphorus concentrations that resulted from external management efforts in South Cornelia in 2017
Appendix D: Page 3
Figure D-7 In-lake phosphorus concentrations that resulted from external management efforts in Lake Edina in 2015
Figure D-8 In-lake phosphorus concentrations that resulted from external management efforts in Lake Edina in 2016
Appendix D: Page 4
Figure D-9 In-lake phosphorus concentrations that resulted from external management efforts in Lake Edina in 2017
Appendix D: Page 5
Appendix E
Internal Loading Management Concentration Plots
Figure E-1 In-Lake Phosphorus Concentration Changes that resulted from internal management efforts in North Cornelia in 2015
Figure E-2 In-Lake Phosphorus Concentration Changes that resulted from internal management efforts in North Cornelia in 2016
Appendix E: Page 1
Figure E-3 In-Lake Phosphorus Concentration Changes that resulted from internal management efforts in North Cornelia in 2017
Figure E-4 In-Lake Phosphorus Concentration Changes that resulted from internal management efforts in South Cornelia in 2015
Appendix E: Page 2
Figure E-5 In-Lake Phosphorus Concentration Changes that resulted from internal management efforts in South Cornelia in 2016
Figure E-6 In-Lake Phosphorus Concentration Changes that resulted from internal management efforts in South Cornelia in 2017
Appendix E: Page 3
Figure E-7 In-Lake Phosphorus Concentration Changes that resulted from internal management efforts in Lake Edina in 2015
Figure E-8 In-Lake Phosphorus Concentration Changes that resulted from internal management efforts in Lake Edina in 2016
Appendix E: Page 4
Figure E-9 In-Lake Phosphorus Concentration Changes that resulted from internal management efforts in Lake Edina in 2017
Appendix E: Page 5
Appendix F
Combined (Internal + External) Management Concentration Plots
Appendix F
Combined (Internal + External) Management Concentration Plots
Figure F-1 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in North Cornelia in 2015 under various combinations of internal and commercial infiltration management efforts
Figure F-2 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in North Cornelia in 2016 under various combinations of internal and commercial infiltration management efforts
Figure F-3 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in North Cornelia in 2017 under various combinations of internal and commercial infiltration management efforts
Figure F-4 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in South Cornelia in 2015 under various combinations of internal and commercial infiltration management efforts
Figure F-5 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in South Cornelia in 2016 under various combinations of internal and commercial infiltration management efforts
Figure F-6 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in South Cornelia in 2017 under various
combinations of internal and commercial infiltration management efforts
Figure F-7 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in Lake Edina in 2015 under various combinations of internal and commercial infiltration management efforts
Figure F-8 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in Lake Edina in 2016 under various combinations of internal and commercial infiltration management efforts
Figure F-9 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in Lake Edina in 2017 under various combinations of internal and commercial infiltration management efforts
Figure F-10 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in North Cornelia in 2015 under various combinations of internal management efforts and a spent lime/CC17 treatment cell
Figure F-11 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in North Cornelia in 2016 under various combinations of internal management efforts and a spent lime/CC17 treatment cell
Figure F-12 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in North Cornelia in 2017 under various combinations of internal management efforts and a spent lime/CC17 treatment cell
Figure F-13 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in South Cornelia in 2015 under various combinations of internal management efforts and a spent lime/CC17 treatment cell
Figure F-14 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in South Cornelia in 2016 under various combinations of internal management efforts and a spent lime/CC17 treatment cell
Figure F-15 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in South Cornelia in 2017 under various combinations of internal management efforts and a spent lime/CC17 treatment cell
Figure F-16 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in Lake Edina in 2015 under various combinations of internal management efforts and a spent lime/CC17 treatment
cell
Figure F-17 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in Lake Edina in 2016 under various combinations of internal management efforts and a spent lime/CC17 treatment cell
Figure F-18 In-lake phosphorus concentrations in Lake Edina in 2017 under various combinations of internal management efforts and a spent lime/CC17 treatment
cell
Appendix G
Combined (Internal + External) Management Loading Bar Plots
Figure G-1 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to North Cornelia in 2015 with various combinations of internal and external commercial infiltration management
Figure G-2 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to North Cornelia in 2016 with various combinations of internal
and external commercial infiltration management
Appendix G: Page 1
Figure G-3 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to North Cornelia in 2017 with various combinations of internal and external commercial infiltration management
Figure G-4 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to South Cornelia in 2015 with various combinations of internal
and external commercial infiltration management
Appendix G: Page 2
Figure G-5 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to South Cornelia in 2016 with various combinations of internal and external commercial infiltration management
Figure G-6 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to South Cornelia in 2017 with various combinations of internal and external commercial infiltration management
Appendix G: Page 3
Figure G-7 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to Lake Edina in 2015 with various combinations of internal and external commercial infiltration management
Figure G-8 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to Lake Edina in 2016 with various combinations of internal and external commercial infiltration management
Appendix G: Page 4
Figure G-9 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to Lake Edina in 2017 with various combinations of internal and external commercial infiltration management
Appendix G: Page 5
Figure G-10 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to North Cornelia in 2015 with various combinations of internal and external spent lime/CC17 management
Figure G-11 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to North Cornelia in 2016 with various combinations of internal and external spent lime/CC17 management
Appendix G: Page 6
Figure G-12 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to North Cornelia in 2017 with various combinations of internal and external spent lime/CC17 management
Figure G-13 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to South Cornelia in 2015 with various combinations of internal and external spent lime/CC17 management
Appendix G: Page 7
Figure G-14 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to South Cornelia in 2016 with various combinations of internal and external spent lime/CC17 management
Figure G-15 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to South Cornelia in 2017 with various combinations of internal
and external spent lime/CC17 management
Appendix G: Page 8
Figure G-16 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to Lake Edina in 2015 with various combinations of internal and external spent lime/CC17 management
Figure G-17 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to Lake Edina in 2016 with various combinations of internal and external spent lime/CC17 management
Appendix G: Page 9
Figure G-18 Remaining Total Phosphorus Load to Lake Edina in 2017 with various combinations of internal and external spent lime/CC17 management
Appendix G: Page 10
Appendix H
Opinions of Probable Costs
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00
Alum + Sodium Aluminate Gallon 45,669 $ 2.55 $ 116,358.00
$ 131,358.00
Bid and Contract Documents LS 1 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
pH Monitoring and Oversight LS 1 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
$ 146,358.00
$ 14,636.00
$ 161,000.00
$ 145,000.00
$ 194,000.00
Assumptions
‐ Includes treatment of North and South Cornelia
‐ Dose equivalent to 29,238 gallons alum for North Cornelia and 16,431 gallons alum for South Cornelia
‐ Non‐tax exempt unit rate for alum/sodium aluminate assuming 1:2 volume ratio
‐ Engineering assistance with bid administration and contract documents
‐ Two engineering staff members for 2 full days of observation of alum application and pH monitoring.
‐ Assuming Class 2 opinion of cost with accuracy range of ‐10% to +20% standards established by the Association
for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE).
‐ Estimated total cost is reported to the nearest thousand dollars
-10%
+20%
Total =
2019 UAA for Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina
Subtotal =
Subtotal =
Contingency (10%)
ALUM SEDIMENT TREATMENT FOR LAKE CORNELIA
ENGINEERS OPINION OF COST
Appendix H: Page 1
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
Subsurface Filtration BMPs CF 625,432 $ 15.00 $ 9,381,480.00
Construction Contingency (30%)EA 1 $ 2,814,444.00 $ 2,814,444.00
$ 12,195,924.00
Engineering and Design (30%)EA 1 $ 3,658,780.00 $ 3,658,780.00
$ 15,855,000.00
$ 11,099,000.00
$ 23,783,000.00
Assumptions
‐ All commercial parcels located on soils with good infiltration capacity (HSG A and B soils) will have filtration
‐ BMPs sized to capture 1.1" of runoff from impervious surfaces
‐ Assuming Class 5 opinion of cost with accuracy range of ‐30% to +50% standards established by the Association
for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE).
‐ Estimated total cost is reported to the nearest thousand dollars
‐ Assume all filtration BMPs will be subsurface due to being located on commercial parcels.
2019 UAA for Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina
COMMERCIAL FILTRATION BMPS (WATERSHED-WIDE)
Total =
-30%
+50%
ENGINEERS OPINION OF COST
Subtotal=
Appendix H: Page 2
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
Subsurface Infiltration BMPs CF 625,432 $ 15.00 $ 9,381,480.00
Construction Contingency (30%)EA 1 $ 2,814,444.00 $ 2,814,444.00
$ 12,195,924.00
Engineering and Design (30%)EA 1 $ 3,658,777.20 $ 3,658,777.20
$ 15,855,000.00
$ 11,099,000.00
$ 23,783,000.00
Assumptions
‐ Assume all infiltration BMPs will be subsurface due to being located on commercial parcels.
‐ All commercial parcels located on soils with good infiltration capacity (HSG A and B soils) will have infiltration
‐ BMPs sized to capture 1.1" of runoff from impervious surfaces
‐ Assuming Class 5 opinion of cost with accuracy range of ‐30% to +50% standards established by the Association
for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE).
‐ Estimated total cost is reported to the nearest thousand dollars
+50%
2019 UAA for Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina
Total=
-30%
COMMERCIAL INFILTRATION BMPS (WATERSHED-WIDE)
ENGINEERS OPINION OF COST
Subtotal=
Appendix H: Page 3
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
Aeration System and Materials EA 2 $ 24,430.00 $ 48,860.00
Mobilization/Site Work EA 1 $ 11,275.00 $ 11,275.00
Operations Support and Troubleshooting EA 1 $ 4,900.00 $ 4,900.00
Electrical Install EA 2 $ 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00
$ 85,035.00
$ 8,510.00
$ 93,545.00
$ 28,070.00
$ 122,000.00
$ 86,000.00
$ 183,000.00
Direct Oxygen Injection System Design Assumptions
‐ Floating barge that can sustain frozen conditions
‐ Oxygen supply (qty 1 Topaz Ulta, 110VAC)
‐ Small air supply compressor
‐ One pair of 12" and 24" ADS rise and down tubes
Other Assumptions
‐ Assuming Class 5 opinion of cost with accuracy range of ‐30% to +50% standards established by the Association
for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE).
‐ Estimated total cost is reported to the nearest thousand dollars
‐ Sediment oxygen demand of 1.2 g m‐2 d‐1 and applying to 4 ft ad 6 ft contours in North and South respectively (50 kg O2
consumed/d), and a minimum of 1.0 SCFM O2 to each lake.
Total =
2019 UAA for Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina
Subtotal =
Construction Contingency (10%)
DIRECT OXYGEN INJECTION SYSTEM FOR LAKE CORNELIA
ENGINEERS OPINION OF COST
‐ Housing, sound proofing, wiring, temperature control (fan, thermostat, heater), plumbing, mooring, and cable (8AWG3‐1
submersible well cable)
Subtotal =
Engineering and Design (30%)
-30%
+50%
Appendix H: Page 4
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
Macrophyte Surveys and Analyses LS 2 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000.00
Endothall Treatment Gallons 114 $ 74.91 $ 8,539.60
$ 10,539.60
$ 1,054.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 11,000.00
$ 15,000.00
Assumptions
‐Includes treatment of North and South Cornelia
‐ Includes one pre‐treatment and post‐treatment plant survey
‐Assumes the City of Edina conducts all coordination, including monitoring and reporting that may be
required as part of permitting (e.g., temperature monitoring, herbicide residual monitoring, post‐treatment
aquatic plant surveys in August, water quality monitoring).
‐Dose of 5 ppm active ingredient for 7.4 acres
‐Total gallons applied is 114 gallons of Aquathol K (Endothall treatment)
‐ Class 2 opinion of cost with accuracy range of ‐10% to +20%
‐ Estimated total cost is reported to the nearest thousand dollars
-10%
+20%
Total =
2019 UAA for Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina
Subtotal =
Contingency (10%)
CURLY-LEAF PONDWEED TREATMENT OF LAKE CORNELIA
ENGINEERS OPINION OF COST
Appendix H: Page 5
PREPARED BY: BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY SHEET: 1 OF 2
BY: KJN2 DATE: 2/15/2019
CHECKED BY: KMP DATE: 3/13/2019
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST APPROVED BY: JMK2 DATE: 5/7/2019
PROJECT:2019 Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina UAA ISSUED:DATE:
LOCATION:Nine Mile Creek Watershed District ISSUED:DATE:
PROJECT #:23/27‐0634.00 ISSUED:DATE:
OPINION OF COST ‐ SUMMARY ISSUED:DATE:
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Project Cost
Spent Lime/CC17 Treatment Chamber
Conceptual Design
Cat.ESTIMATED
No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST ITEM COST NOTES
A Mobilization/Demobilization (10%)LS 1 $31,690.00 $31,690.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
B Traffic Control LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
C Stabilized Rock Construction Entrance/Exit Each 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
D Inlet Protection Each 4 $250.00 $1,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
E Orange Construction Fencing LF 450 $4.00 $1,800.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
F Flotation Silt Curtain (Swimming Pool Pond, North Cornelia) LF 200 $15.00 $3,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
G Silt Fence LF 200 $4.00 $800.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
H Erosion Control Blanket SY 233 $4.00 $933.33 1,2,3,4,5,6
I Hydromulch SY 233 $2.00 $466.67 1,2,3,4,5,6
J Street Sweeping HR 20 $175.00 $3,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
K Utility Relocation LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
L Bituminous Pavement Removal (Parking Lot & Trail)SY 656 $4.00 $2,622.22 1,2,3,4,5,6
M Sawcut Bituminous Pavement (Full Depth)LF 640 $3.00 $1,920.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
N Clearing and Grubbing AC 0.1 $50,000.00 $5,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
O Remove and Salvage Topsoil SY 233 $5.00 $1,166.67 1,2,3,4,5,6
P Excavation & Disposal (for Spent Lime Structure)CY 833 $15.00 $12,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
Q Backfill and Compaction (for Spent Lime Structure)CY 540 $10.00 $5,396.30 1,2,3,4,5,6
R Grading SY 233 $4.00 $933.33 1,2,3,4,5,6
S Bituminous Pavement Installation (Parking Lot & Trail)SY 479 $30.00 $14,380.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
T Wetland Restoration AC 0.1 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
U Upland Native Restoration AC 0.1 $3,000.00 $300.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
V Turf Re‐Establishment (Restoration)AC 0.1 $2,000.00 $200.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
W 48" weir manhole (Swimming Pool Pond Control Mod.)Each 1 $1,320.00 $1,320.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
X 72" pre‐cast manhole with Casting Each 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
Y Manhole Filter Each 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
Z6" CPEP 90 Degree Elbow Each 16 $25.00 $400.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
AA 6" CPEP Slotted Draintile (Smooth Interior)LF 240 $10.00 $2,400.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
BB 6" CPEP Dual‐Wall (Smooth Interior)LF 240 $10.00 $2,400.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
CC 6" CPEP Cleanout Cap Each 8 $10.00 $80.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
DD 15" RCP (Furnish and Install ‐ wet meadow)LF 300 $45.00 $13,500.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
EE 15" FES Each 3 $550.00 $1,650.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
FF 15" FES Trach Rack Each 2 $550.00 $1,100.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
GG MnDOT Class III RipRap with Filter Fabric TON 30 $80.00 $2,400.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
HH Granular Filter Aggregate TON 3 $56.00 $168.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
II Remove Existing Storm Sewer LF 16 $18.00 $288.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
JJ Modify Existing Storm Sewer (Manhole Tie‐In)Each 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
KK Spent Lime Material CY 111 $26.00 $2,888.89 1,2,3,4,5,6
LL CC17 Material CY 111 $30.00 $3,333.33 1,2,3,4,5,6
MM Spent Lime Grate SY 312 $100.00 $31,177.78 1,2,3,4,5,6
NN Reinforced Concrete ‐ Slab SY 312 $250.00 $77,944.44 1,2,3,4,5,6
OO Reinforced Concrete ‐ Wall SY 203 $400.00 $81,333.33 1,2,3,4,5,6
PP Steel Grating Support Beams LB 1,000 $6.00 $6,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $348,000.00
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%)$104,000.00
ENGINEERING AND DESIGN (30%)$136,000.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $588,000.00 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
‐30%$412,000.00 5,8
50%$882,000.00 5,8
Notes
ESTIMATED ACCURACY RANGE
1 Limited design work completed (conceptual level)
2 Quantities Based on Design Work Completed.
3 Unit Prices Based on Information Available at This Time.
4 Minimal Soil and Field Investigations Completed.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327634\WorkFiles\Lake Cornelia\2018 UAA\All Cost Estimates\SpentLimeFilter_Cornelia_KJN2.xlsx 1Appendix H: Page 6
6 Estimated costs are for construction and do not include maintenance, monitoring, or additional tasks following construction.
8 Estimated costs are reported to nearest thousand dollars.
5 This Design Level (Class 5, 0 ‐ 2% design completion per ASTM E 2516‐116) cost estimate is based on screening/conceptual discussion. Costs will change
with further design. Time value‐of‐money escalation costs are not included. A construction schedule is not available at this time. Contingency is an
allowance for the net sum of costs that will be in the Final Total Project Cost at the time of the completion of design, but are not included at this level of
project definition. The estimated accuracy range for the Total Project Construction Cost as the project is defined is ‐30% to +50%. The accuracy range is
based on professional judgement considering the level of design completed, the complexity of the project and the uncertainties in the project as scoped. The
contingency and the accuracy range are not intended to include costs for future scope changes that are not part of the project as currently scoped or costs
for risk contingency. Operation and maintenance costs are not included.
7 Furnish and Install pipe cost per linear foot includes all trenching, bedding, backfilling, compaction, and disposal of excess materials
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327634\WorkFiles\Lake Cornelia\2018 UAA\All Cost Estimates\SpentLimeFilter_Cornelia_KJN2.xlsx 2Appendix H: Page 7
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT COST COST
Crosswind 4 Wheel Regenerative Air Sweeper EA 3 $ 210,000.00 $ 630,000.00
Annual Vehicle Maintenance EA 4 $ 4,800.00 $ 19,200.00
Annual Labor (for four sweepers)HRS 4070 $ 75.00 $ 305,250.00
Annual Fuel (for four sweepers)GAL 2,660 $ 3.00 $ 7,980.00
$ 963,000.00
$ 96,300.00
$ 1,060,000.00
$ 742,000.00
$ 1,590,000.00
Assumptions
‐ Sweepable public street curb miles = 67.3 miles
‐ Sweepable parking lots = 80.4 miles
‐ Sweeper operation speed = 4.5 mph
‐ 1.5 hours of labor needed for every 4 hours of sweeping time
‐ Total transit (brush off) are about 3 times total swept miles
‐ Average fuel consumption is 5 mpg
‐ Sufficient staffing
‐ Sweeping occurs on a weekly basis May through November (~30 weeks)
‐ Maximum number of hours worked in one week by one worker = 40 hours
‐ Assuming Class 5 opinion of cost with accuracy range of ‐30% to +50% standards established by the Association
for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE).
‐ Estimated total cost is reported to the nearest thousand dollars
-30%
+50%
Total
2019 UAA for Lake Cornelia and Lake Edina
Subtotal =
Contingency (10%)
WEEKLY STREET AND PARKING LOT SWEEPING (WATERSHED-WIDE)
ENGINEERS OPINION OF COST
Appendix H: Page 8
Lake Edina Eurasian Watermilfoil and Curly-lear Pondweed Management Cost Estimate*
Item Description Unit Cost Cost Per Year
Prepare Bids/Specs (1)$5,000 $5,000
Treatment design (5 years)$2,000 $2,000
MnDNR Permitting (5 years)$1,000 $1,000
Temperature Measurements (5 years)$3,000 $3,000
Aquatic Plant Monitoring (5 years)$3,400 $3,400
Herbicide Residue Monitoring (5 years)$2,300 $2,300
Data Processing/Reporting to Mn DNR (5 years)$4,200 $4,200
Herbicide Application $1,000 to $4,000 $1,000 to $4,000
Mobilization $3,000 $3,000
$24,900 to $27,900
$2,490 to $2,790
$27,930 to $30,690
Assumptions:
Subtotal
Contingency (10%)
Total
*Assumes post-treatment water quality monitoring is not required by MnDNR as a permit
condition.
Assume plans and specs similar to Normandale Lake Endothall treatment project are prepared for
Lake Edina. Since Edina is a small lake and the treatment will be less than 15% of littoral area, less
complicated plans and specs may suffice. Janna will decide the specifics required for Lake Edina
Plans and Specs.
Assume temperature measurements will be required. Temperature measurements would not be
required for a small scale ProcellaCOR treatment.
Assume 3 plant surveys per year - pre-treatment, June, and August. Assume plant surveys are
subcontracted to Endangered Resource Services, LLC. Assume $500 of Barr costs for contracting,
coordination, and data QA.
Assume herbicide residue monitoring required. Herbicide residue monitoring will not be required
for ProcellaCOR or diquat. Hence this cost will not occur if ProcellaCOR or diquat are used for the
treatment.
Assume water quality monitoring is not required. MnDNR may or may not require water quality
monitoring. Likely not required if either ProcellaCOR or diquat are used. May not be required for
2,4-D or endothall when 15% of littoral area or less are treated.
Assume data reporting to MnDNR is required. MnDNR may not require reporting of data for
treatments of 15% or less. If 2,4-D or endothall are used, we would ask to apply a dose that
would attain a lake wide lethal effect. The MnDNR likely would require reporting for these
treatments, but may not require reporting for diquat treatment.
Appendix H: Page 9