Subject: Special Meeting - Shell Rock River Watershed District

A special meeting was held by the SRRWD to discuss several key issues facing the Board of Managers. Here is a summary:

1. Rapid Dewatering vs. Confined Detention Facility a. Barr Engineering is currently on hold. They have no engineering contract in place at this

time. They are waiting on the SRRWD to act on a $446,000 proposal to bring the Dredging project through 90% design and permitting (with an additional $100,000 fee if an Environmental Impact Statement is needed). Barr needs the district to select a method of dewatering. As you may already know, these are the two methods:

i. Confined Detention Facility (CDF) This is a traditional process where a dike is built around a large piece of land (approximately 160 acres would be needed within 5 miles of town) where the dredged material is pumped and the large particles like sand and silts are removed from the water. Unfortunately, due to the properties of the dredged material from Fountain Lake and the strict permitting guidelines expected, a treatment facility will need to be installed and operated after primary settling to polish the water before returning it to the lake. The return water will be cleaner than the water already in the lake.

ii. Rapid Dewatering System (RDS) A modular treatment train that dewaters the sediment at the lakes edge (or other site close to the lake) and produces a truckable material that can be spread, stockpiled, or otherwise disposed of as weak fill (non-buildable), possible soil amendment, or topsoil.

b. Barr Engineering presented two scenarios for CDF. One included a CDF facility within 3 miles of the lake, and one within 5 miles of the lake. The extra two miles of distance would add $5 million in cost. They also presented two scenarios for RDF. One included onsite disposal of the solids (placing the material permanently on the treatment site (approximately 50 acres 15 deep would be needed) and the other option included costs to truck the material off the treatment site to a location within 5 miles. The material would then be dumped and not spread. This is not a very viable option in my opinion because I dont believe there are enough end users willing to accept that volume of material without any spreading and placement provisions.

c. The four options were all developed using similar assumptions and were meant to be a conservative estimate of the total project costs under each scenario. The total project costs ranged from $34 million to $44 million. This far exceeds the $15 million dollar price tag the District has been using. None of the options include the use of the Districts Dredge, booster pumps, or piping. This was a frustrating detail to the managers because they purchased the dredge based on the assumption it would save the district money. The actual act of removing the material from the lake is only estimated to be 20% to 26% of the total cost of the project. Barr Engineering believes the project can be accomplished more efficiently using a larger dredge (14). This would lead to a dredging project that would take approximately 2 years assuming 24 hour, 6 day per week operation from June through October of each season. If the Districts dredge was used it would take 5-7 years to complete the work. The extended portion of time to complete the work would lead to higher prices for land leases/easements, maintenance and operating costs of the equipment, etc. The savings of using the Districts own dredge may be lost to inefficiencies in other areas.

d. One of the major costs that are now being included in the project cost estimates is a water treatment facility to treat the return water from a CDF before it reaches the lake. This facility is estimated to cost $10,000,000, plus $1,000,000 for engineering, and $420,000 in operation and maintenance of the facility. These costs are necessary due to the strict water quality requirements foreseen by Barr that will be imposed by the permitting authorities.

e. I have attached the spreadsheet showing the cost breakdowns for each of the various items.

f. I believe the District will be asking several important questions of the City: i. Can the water treatment facility be constructed in such a way that it could serve

a beneficial use to the City after it has served the needs of the District. This would be either a wastewater pretreatment system or improvements to our WWTP.

ii. Is there property near the landfill or airport that could be used as a site for an RDS and permanent placement of dredged spoil materials.

iii. Depending on where an RDS process was staged, what are the possible implications when damage to local roads occurs due to the heavy hauling activities that will follow.

g. I believe the District will be asking Barr to: i. Complete a project cost estimate with the assumption that a contractor would

use the equipment currently owned by the District and no additional dredges. 2. Stables Flood Mitigation Project

a. The Commissioner of the DNR has stated the district will not receive another extension for the money they received unless there is movement on the project. Therefore the District motioned to distribute RFPs for a design firm to complete the design work necessary to produce bidding documents. These proposals are due back before the next board meeting. The board plans to take action at that meeting awarding a design contract for the work. This will allow them to show progress to the DNR and receive another extension (this would be their fourth annual extension).

b. The District would use this project as their political pressure towards the County to move ahead with assistance to make the sewer and water portion of the project a reality.

3. SWCD Cost Share a. Mark Schaetzke from SWCD requested the District provide $5,000 towards a feed lot

pollution prevention project where a feedlot is discharging water near upper or lower Twin lake. The SWCD saw an opportunity to increase treatment beyond the NPDES requirements and have a great impact on water quality. The District was reluctant to provide the assistance because of the worry there will be many more requests by feedlots to participate and they are already stretched thin. The money would come from the $50,000 cost share program they already have in place. This is a program I dont believe they exhaust every year.

4. County Ditch Petition a. The petition has still not been received by the District and they are not taking

action. They anticipate the request will be for the District to accept authority over a ditch that land owners want improved. The District doesnt have this authority anywhere else in the county, they have always let the County handle all ditch law and improvements.