Proposal to Provide Professional Planning Services for the Root River Watershed District

Transcription

1 December 8, 2014 engineering planning environmental construction 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN Phone (507) Fax (507) Jennifer Ronnenberg Water Management Coordinator Fillmore SWCD 900 Washington ST. NW Preston, MN Re: Proposal to Provide Professional Planning Services for the Root River Watershed District Dear Ms. Ronnenberg, We are pleased to submit this proposal to the six County Boards, six SWCD Boards, and the Crooked Creek Watershed District who will collectively prepare the Root River One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P). We present to you a team of scientists, engineers, planners, modelers, GIS experts and public meeting facilitators who have spent their careers working on Minnesota water quality issues. The bulk of our team is from Southeastern Minnesota and is knowledgeable familiar with the root River Basin and local water quality challenges, a significant advantage given the project s short time frame; there is no time to educate a consultant on the landscape, land use, extensive planning and analytical efforts that precede the Root River One Watershed Plan. WSB, through its 60 plus years operating as McGhie and Betts in Rochester, enters the project with this local background and a deep knowledge and understanding of the Root River Basin. We also understand the importance of defining fitting priorities, marketing the available options and systematically implementing actions that make a difference At its heart, our proposed 1W1P approach seeks the coordination of public and private efforts to both remedy water quality impairments and to protect un-impaired waters. This need for coordination occurs due to the scale, and the diversity of Root River Basin water resources, the multitude of jurisdictions, stakeholders, and the need for effective implementation designed to meet shared watershed goals. 1W1P seeks to align local planning and the desire for clean water with the State and Federal strategies and resources. That said, local is how water planning will be done in the Root River 1W1P Pilot. Our team understands the landscape and complex hydrogeology of the glaciated plateau and of the karst. We are expert in the State and Federal programs and the law and we understand how important local control and individual actions are to achieve State water quality standards. WSB knows how local SWCDs and Counties work with farmers and each other; we know how rural watershed restoration depends upon Local, State and Federal cooperation, funding and willing landowners and we know how to move watershed restoration and protection projects from concept to reality. This is knowledge you should expect from the consultant you hire. Not everything can be done at once, but, when you finish the Root River 1W1P every stakeholder in the Root River Basin will be able to identify Root River watershed and sub-watershed priorities, identify the pollutants of concern, recognize the pollutant s source and understand the a menu of options targeted to the chosen priorities. We believe that 1W1P needs to come to an actionable resolution in short Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com

2 engineering planning environmental construction 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN Phone (507) Fax (507) order, to wind down the perpetual planning, eliminate random or uncoordinated actions, and to make earnest headway in Root River protection and restoration. We approach the Root River 1W1P project with this philosophy front and center. Thank you for this unique opportunity. We look forward to your favorable consideration of our proposal. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Bob Barth Project Manager Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com

3 P R O P OSAL TO PRO VIDE: PROFESSIONAL Planning SERVICES FOR THE ROOT RIVER WATERSHED D E C EMBER 8, 2014 One Watershed, One Plan Table of Contents Project Understanding...1 Scope of Work...3 Personnel...12 Experience...15 Cost...22 Contact: Bob Barth bbarth@wsbeng.com 1648 Third Avenue SE, Rochester, MN Phone (507) Fax (507) wsbeng.com

4 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Plan of Action for Local Government Unites The Root River One Watershed, One Plan (1W1P) must follow the form outlined by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in its guidance for pilot watersheds. We understand that at its foundation the Root River Plan will follow the Priority Concerns Watershed Implementation Plan where BWSR prescribes that: This plan leverages the existing process for developing a plan based on priority concerns typically associated with current county water planning; but shifts the scope of the plan to a watershed boundary and elevates requirements for prioritizing, targeting and measuring implementation actions. The Root River 1W1P is a pilot project, therefore there are no finished examples of this type of plan. However, BWSR has provided a template which we will use. Local communities and Conservation Districts already have a large investment in well formulated Water Plans. WSB is proposing to build the Root River 1W1P from the existing plans, a large and growing body of assessment, monitoring and modeling, stakeholder participation and our knowledge and experience of the hydrogeological landscape and associated land use. WSB aims to build a locally influenced plan that acknowledges and follows state and federal mandates, but a plan that also best represents and considers the interests of the citizens, and how they want to manage their watershed. Our primary sources of information about pollutant stressors will include the Root River Monitoring and Assessment Report (MPCA 2012) and the pending Root River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS). We will also rely on important new data derived from a large body local karst studies, dye trace studies, Decorah Edge Studies and new research on the hydrostratigraphic approach to hydrogeological characterization; such as the new Minnesota Geologic Survey Studies, Geologic Controls on Groundwater and Surface Water Flow in Southeastern Minnesota and its Impact on Nitrate Concentrations in Streams: Local Project Area Report and Hydrogeological Properties of the St. Lawrence Aquitard, Southeastern Minnesota. County Water Plans already identify multiple priorities, Project Understanding / 1

5 but the existing plans are aligned along County boundaries. Our challenge will be to sort out the Root River priorities, find the consistent themes, fit them into the sub-watersheds with similar hydrogeological character, identify significant sub-watershed needs and then define the shared and locally defined goals and standards. Together we can use science, engineering, mapping, graphics and facilitation to help stakeholders cooperate in the identification of gaps, motivating action, seeking funding and implementing meaningful and measurable progress. The Root River Plan will thus set priorities based on local planning precedent. Implementation items will follow from the priorities and will be targeted in hydrogeological reaches and similar land use patterns that acknowledge the different water quality issues in the glaciated plateau, the Upper Carbonate Plateau, the Decorah Edge, the Prairie du Chein Plateau, the St. Lawrence Edge and the Cambrian sands. Differing hydrogeography requires differing targets for water quality protection. The implementation items will have measurable inputs (buffer width, septic systems upgraded, acres wetland restored, aquifer recharge areas protected or restored, multi-aquifer wells sealed, miles of stream bank stabilized, etc. and a variety of water quality metrics). It is necessary that calculable outcomes be accurately measured. The project also provides us an opportunity to use the International Watershed Institute s (IWI) PTMapp which promises to put an easy-to-use tool into the hands of watershed managers, staff and stakeholders. IWI will run the PTMapp and we will work with them to install a hydrostratigraphic component to the hydrogeography. WSB will also run a concurrent water quality model to validate the PTMapp results and the resultant priorities. The Root River watershed, with its unique geology, rural beauty, productive farms, valuable forests and cold water streams lends itself to incorporating multiple benefits, particularly in water quality, agricultural productivity, ecosystem restoration and recreational uses. We see a strong connection between the dramatically varied landscape, varied agricultural land uses, forestry and recreation. It argues for considering the full spectrum of water quality benefits for an implementation plan. We will not have the Root River WRAPS complete for the beginning of this project, however, we believe that coordinating the completion of the WRAPS with the 1W1P will proved a strategic benefit to marketing a locally inspired implementation plan. Based on our knowledge and experience we know that the main resource concerns across the glaciated uplands, karst plateaus, and the steam and river valleys are sediment and erosion control, flood control, nutrient management, stormwater management, and drinking/source water protection There needs to be action on erosion and sediment control, on both fields and stream banks; flood threats would benefit from flow control, stream buffers, upland storage and wetland restoration and both aquifer protection and stream health will require widespread and diligent nutrient management. Not all the challenges will be priorities in every sub-watershed, but cooperation and understanding among all the Root River residents and stakeholders are critical. Our approach to generating watershed understanding is heavily focused on open communication, cooperative participation, and widespread use of accessible maps and graphics that make complex and often daunting data accessible to every level of interest and understanding. Professional public outreach and facilitation will be supported by scientists, water resource engineers, graphic designers and GIS experts who are personally familiar with the Root River Basin and who know how to tell a compelling and memorable story. WSB s connection to the Root River, our roots in the rural, agrarian and small town life of the region, and our understanding and concern for the unique water resources of the Basin motivate our desire be become part of the Root River 1W1P team. Project Understanding / 2

6 SCOPE OF WORK Part 1: Preparation for Plan Writing Preparation for plan writing involves the identification of pertinent watershed information from previous plans and studies. Importantly, it also involves the identification of priority issues from amid the issues identified in the existing County Water Plans and other documents. We will work through our stakeholders and project partners to summarize pertinent issues and associate them with pollutant stressors and specific water resources. The steps and criteria used by stakeholders to determine priority issues will be thoroughly documented and presented in the Plan. During Part 1, we will introduce the concept of the Priority Concerns Watershed Implementation Plan: the template for the Root River 1W1P. We will explain to stakeholders how this plan builds upon the County Water Plans by increasing the scale to watershed-wide, and by elevating the discussion of implementation as a process where we prioritize, target, act, and then measure. WSB will develop concepts that incorporate state and federal mandates, while integrating the interests of local values. As a local firm, with personnel living in the watershed district, we are deeply familiar with the importance of a plan that considers the best interests of both the community and the watershed. Task 1: Aggregate Existing Watershed Physical/Spatial Data 1.1 Create Usable, Presentation-quality Map Projects The RFP lists 17 specific map products as pertinent to this project. We plan to provide these at a minimum. The Root River 1W1P should communicate succinctly the watershed s priority issues. WSB will provide quality-driven visuals that will aid and engage stakeholders. We expect that the Planning Work Group, Policy and Advisory Committees, and public will benefit from additional maps, and that the concepts and narrative that need additional visual support will emerge as we progress through the project. WSB has budgeted up to 30 maps the project initiates. Within the plan we will present maps in two forms: 1) inset in the narrative so they are available to support the narrative and, 2) in larger format in appendices to present more detail. The GIS projects we create to make the map products and any shape files we use to create them will be provided at the end of the project. 1.2 Meeting Facilitation We anticipate two meetings with the Planning Workgroup. The first will serve as a kickoff meeting, where we introduce the project team and then segue into a discussion of what data we will be collecting, from what sources, and how we intend to use that data in the plan. We will summarize the County Water Plans through a gaps analysis: where do they overlap on issues, what issues are not identified. The second meeting will concern maps, and the necessary steps that WSB will perform in order to create a compelling narrative of the watershed. This gap analysis will be distributed as a table to the Planning Workgroup. We will also present a Scope of Work / 3

7 template for the implementation priorities for the group to review. We will expect comment on the format at the second meeting. The implementation priorities will include Plan Administration and Coordination activities as well as Plan Implementation Programs. The latter will include diverse elements such as operation and maintenance, capital improvements, data collection and monitoring, public outreach and education, incentive programs, regulation and enforcement, grant writing, and other elements deemed necessary by the project stakeholders. WSB finds it necessary that local priorities should drive the content. The WSB team has a significant local component that will be particularly useful in developing the Implementation Program. We understand the on-the-ground reality of how conservation services need to be marketed and delivered to landowners through existing local and state agencies and how this service delivery can be tapped and funded to achieve the Root River 1W1P goals. We will also discuss the number and format for the public meetings and how best to promote these to maximize attendance. The second meeting will highlight the way WSB presents data to achieve our purpose of setting goals and then prioritizing, targeting, acting and measuring. Our purpose is to determine the role of maps and other visuals in creating better understanding of current watershed conditions and, looking forward, what we propose in the Implementation Program. We emphasize that quality maps contribute to the narrative by aiding and engaging stakeholders. After the first Planning Workgroup meeting, we propose to hold a number of public kickoff meetings. Given the size of the Root River Watershed, we propose that there be three public kickoff meetings, each one at a different location. The Planning Workgroup will advise us on whether this is the correct number, and what locations are the most valuable. We also plan for one meeting with the Advisory Committee after the public kick-off meetings. We would take a part of this meeting to create an overarching Mission or Vision. This is not required of a 1W1P but recommended, if possible. The Advisory Committee serves as a forum for exchanging information on plan progress, and as another means to completely engage state agencies in the plan s preparation. 1.3 Review Existing Plans The Root River 1W1P strives for a systemic, watershed-wide approach driven by local government so we need to spend a good amount of time reviewing existing County Water Plans and other local plans to determine how to put local priorities in the driver seat. This thorough review will result in the gap analysis presented to the Planning Workgroup. Task 2: Prioritization, Modeling, and Targeted Mapping 2.1 Develop Watershed Priorities Our first step is to identify priority resources. Without a concept of what constitutes a priority resource we cannot select priority sub-watersheds for action. Certainly, the main tributaries and the main stem Root River would fall under the priority resource umbrella. We may also decide tributaries that pass through public conservation lands such as State SNAs that also constitute a priority resource. Whatever the criteria used, we will document how consensus was built among the stakeholders as to what constitutes a priority resource. Our review of existing plans will turn up a number of existing priorities and potentially a number of gaps, which we will have shared with the Planning Workgroup. Here the group will reach an agreement on watershed priorities. This consensus will be facilitated by our aggregating past priorities from prior County Plans and refreshing our understanding with new stressor data from the monitoring report, modeling, and Scope of Work / 4

8 WRPPs. WSB intends to anticipate emerging issues due to weather, changing agricultural practices, urbanization, and other demographic trends (larger farms, fewer farmers, for instance), and emerging pollutants and stressors that seem to regularly appear. The end result of this task will be an affinity map/diagram of existing priorities which demonstrates the hierarchy of priorities as they appear in the existing local plans, in the partially complete Root River WRAPS, and draft the Root River Turbidity TMDL, and other plans such the Root River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan. We will also prepare a subwatershed map that shows priority areas for the implementation program which we can then carry into the modeling analysis. The gaps analysis begun in task 1 will be expanded to include the latest information from the in progress Root River WRAPS and Root River Turbidity TMDL. Typically TMDL implementation plans and WRAPS include general priorities and strategies for improving water quality, but not the specific locations where these would occur. This would be consistent with the level of detail we will have reached at this stage of the Root River 1W1P. In fact, the Root River 1W1P may lead in developing these priorities for later incorporation into the other two efforts. As we prepare the Root River Plan we will avoid confusing watershed priorities with highly impaired waters. Certainly, restoring water quality to impaired waters will be a type of priority but not the only type since we must consider protecting important waters from impairment, restoring public waters for public uses, and restoring impaired waters that are close to achieving state water quality standards. We will provide tabular lists in addition to the maps of potential priorities. We will categorize these priorities as well. Obvious categories would be nutrient or sediment reduction. Less obvious categories would consider other benefits that might be achieved in acting on these priorities such as ecological and recreational benefits Map Watershed Priorities This task begins with the sub-watershed priority map identified developed in task 2.1. We anticipate we could use multiple modeling processes to map target areas for the implementation program. There are a number of existing models or models under development that would suffice to map watershed priorities. The key to this task is to avoid a protracted discussion on models and focus on the goal: identifying the best chances for improving water quality in the Root River watershed. Logically, a simplified modeling and evaluation tool that can be put in the hands of watershed managers gives us the best chance of achieving this goal. This tool would help us identify the best sub-watershed and best location to place a project and calculate the pollutant reduction of different BMPs and conservation practices. The International Watershed Institute s (IWI) PTMapp development team will run the tool based on information provided by the maps of watershed priorities that we develop in task 2.1. PTMapp promises to put an easy to use tool into the hands of watershed managers and staff. This tool can target specific fields within priority sub-watersheds to deploy BMPs and conservation practices and can track the watershed wide water quality benefit the practices provide. To validate the output from the PTMapp tool we will run concurrent analysis using another Scope of Work / 5

9 modeling tool among the multiple tools available to us. We could use the HSPF model and customize the model to simulate BMPs and conservation practices. Katy Thompson among our team has experience doing this for several projects. WSB will also consider using P8, or an agricultural watershed model such as Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). Though SWATs primary purpose is predicting long-term impacts of agricultural practices in large watershed basins, it can be used to assess the effectiveness of BMPs. PTMapp generates reports that fit with the 1W1P framework of prioritization, targeting, acting, and measuring. PTMapp will place projects in the field to estimate their value in reducing pollution. In this way we can prioritize project locations. The final outcome of this task will be a list of targeted implementation items focused on field level improvements. These will be mapped and tabulated within the Implementation Program described earlier. 2.3 Meeting Facilitation We anticipate two meetings with the Planning Workgroup as part of this task. The first will be to determine how the concurrent modeling will take place. The second will occur prior to presenting the priority sub-watersheds and targeted action items to the Policy and Advisory Committees. We then expect a joint meeting of the Policy and Advisory Committees to refine the sub-watershed priorities. As we determine priority sub-watersheds and the categories into which the 1W1P priorities fall, we will probably recognize that logical sub-watershed management areas emerge. For instance the upper watershed may be a logical management area with its flatter topography, hydric soils, and more prevalent agriculture. Within the driftless portion of the watersheds other logical management areas could also emerge, perhaps organized upstream to downstream or tributary to main stem. However these management areas take shape, we will facilitate a discussion among the joint committee about how to delineate these. Our final part of this task will be presenting the refined priorities to the Policy Committee for their review and acceptance. Part 2: Development of Draft Plan Watershed priorities drive the entire plan. In Part 2 we will build a draft plan from the foundation of watershed priorities identified in Part 1. Task 3: Set Initial Measurable Goals 3.1 Organize Goals and Build Consensus WSB will first develop a descriptive list of issues and concerns from the priority issues that emerged from previous tasks and mapping efforts. This list will be supported by narrative that details the steps used to establish priorities from the many issues and concerns originally considered, and why this priority among so many rose to the top. When we develop watershed priorities we are, in a sense, developing watershed goals and goals have always been a part of County Water Plans and Watershed District. However, in the Root River 1W1P these goals must be measurable. We will develop goals at multiple scales. Some, like reducing nutrient transport, might be Scope of Work / 6

10 watershed-wide. Some might be focused on sub-watersheds and specific tributaries. Other goals might fall to a specific county or SWCD due to unique conditions or concerns within these local jurisdictions. The Root River Watershed is a large area that includes many political jurisdictions. WSB will strive for a balance between watershed-wide implementation priorities and locally focused priorities. Our 1W1P template calls for goals for each identified priority issue, which we propose to do. 3.2 Facilitate Meetings on Goals Through the meetings we will build consensus on the Root River Watershed measurable goals. We anticipate four meetings with the Planning Workgroup and/or Advisory Committee to build goal consensus. After this consensus, we take these initial goals to the Policy Committee for their acceptance. We will use the descriptive list of watershed goals and their measurable outcomes to elicit the consensus from the stakeholder groups. Clearly, the overall implementation program will reflect goals for which no measurable results can be determined. This does not mean these should be discarded, but only that the practicality of measuring should be directly addressed. Task 4: Develop Targeted and Measurable Implementation Plan and Schedule The 1W1P framework achieves a Plan that leads to measurable results. To the extent that existing County Water Plans and other plans contain actions that are cost-effective, targeted, and measurable we will bring these into the Root River 1W1P. 4.1 Create 10-year Implementation Plan The Implementation Plan and schedule must answer some basic questions such as: What is the action? Where does the action occur? What roles will be played by the responsible government unit, State agencies, private parties, non-profits etc.? Cost and funding sources for the action When will the action occur: implementation schedule? How the action and its outcomes will be measured? WSB will organize the targeted implementation schedule in a form guided by the questions above and will present this to our project stakeholders. Other activities support the Targeted Implementation Schedule and the overall watershed goals. These programmatic activities include: Plan Administration and Coordination How will the partnership for the Root River 1W1P evolve into a more permanent entity? What will be the policy or decision-making entity? Will the Advisory Committee continue or will its functions transfer to some other entity? How will different levels of government collaborate and cooperate? How will multiple local jurisdictions collaborate and cooperate? Where will the money come from? To what extent will each local jurisdiction work alone on implementation within its jurisdiction and to what extent collaboratively with other local jurisdictions on watershed- Scope of Work / 7

11 wide or locally focused actions. How will progress on implementing the plan be assessed and how frequently will this occur? What is the procedure for plan amendments? What formal agreements guide water management within the Root River Watershed. What new agreements might be needed? Plan Implementation Programs What incentive and cost share programs exist or are planned? How will these help achieve watershed goals? What capital improvements are planned? Are there opportunities for watershed-wide collaboration on improvement projects and opportunities related to public drainage systems? Who is responsible for operation and maintenance and what new activities will occur due to the implementation program and who will be responsible for these new activities? How do existing regulations and enforcement pertain to the Targeted Implementation Schedule? What new activities will support achieving watershed goals? Is there additional watershed data needed? What is the schedule for obtaining it? What current and long-term watershed monitoring is recommended? How will it be implemented and used? What does the public education and outreach program look like? What role will it plan in achieving watershed goals? The plan administration and coordination content has appeared in similar form in County Water Plans, Watershed Districts, and Local Water Plans for quite some time. However, the current guidance provides more concrete direction on what must be achieved. The project partners will find our expertise particularly useful in answering these long-term administrative questions. We have a long history working among multiple local jurisdictions and understand completely how these entities currently coordinate and cooperate and how this can be improved. Our team understands the funding aspect of rural watershed management and we have successfully secured over five million dollars in grants for watersheds in the past four years. We have prepared numerous capital improvement plans for local government and continually update these for annual budgeting review. On the regulatory end we have prepared or are currently preparing 35% of the municipal MS4 permit updates in Minnesota. This points to our solid reputation in understanding regulation and leading public education and outreach efforts. 4.2 Facilitate Meetings on Implementation Plan In Task 4.1 we create a Targeted Implementation Schedule, most likely in tabular form. We also need to create narrative that addresses the questions posed in our Task 4.1 discussion. The Planning Workgroup needs to review these items before a joint meeting with the Policy Committee and Advisory Committee to review and finalize these items. We anticipate that one meeting with the Planning Workgroup is not sufficient to work through these materials so we propose on additional meeting so this work task can be better staged. Scope of Work / 8

12 Part 3: Completed Draft Plan Document Task 5: Complete Draft Plan and Submit for Review We want to achieve a locally-influenced understanding of watershed issues and proposed actions through the use of accessible maps and graphics that are supported by a simple and straight-forward narrative. WSB believes this approach will suit the watershed and the stakeholders with a visually compelling and informative excutive summary. 5.1 Required Elements 1W1P The Priority Concerns Watershed Implementation Plan template has elements required by BWSR. These include: Executive Summary Analysis and Prioritization of Issues Establishment of Measurable Goals Targeted Implementation Schedule Implementation Programs Plan Appendix Land and Water Resources Inventory Our approach to the executive summary is to begin its development at the end of the project and make it as concise a summary as possible. WSB intends on creating the document to be accessible to the public. The summary will cover: Purpose, mission or vision statement Map of the planning area Summary of priority issues and goals Summary of proposed implementation actions and programs Description of the process used to identify measurable goals and targeted implementation items Responsibilities of participating local governments We would also add to the executive summary the roles of cooperating agencies and private entities in implementing the plan. We will have substantially completed the Analysis and Prioritization of Issues in task 2 through both the mapping and modeling exercises and the tables that supported stakeholder discussion on this element. In this part of our work plan we will create Plan narrative around this subject. We will incorporate what we can glean from the Root River Turbidity TMDL and the Root River WRAPS and incorporate them into this section of the plan. Our descriptive list of measurable goals becomes the basis for narrative in The Establishment of Measurable Goals section of the Root River Plan. Goals may be organized into themes which themselves are not measurable but the individual goals within the theme must be. When WSB develops this section, the time-frame over which desired outcomes can be measured will be considered. Watershed restoration and protection projects can be completed relatively quickly, given adequate funding. However the measurement of the project results (reduction in pollutant concentrations) may take decades to measure due to the persistence of certain pollutants in the Scope of Work / 9

13 environment or the scales at which certain stressors (such as hydrologic flow) get measured. The tabulation of the Targeted Implementation Schedule completed earlier will form the foundation for supporting narrative and mapping within this section. We will first map capital improvements and BMPs at the sub-watershed and field scale for the 10-year Implementation Plan. Geographically focused projects beyond this time-frame will be identified and described in narrative and tables. For projects lying outside the 10-year planning horizon we would provide a summary map. Some specific projects might such as conservation practices might be harder to locate with geographic specificity. In such cases we will rely on tabulation of these projects with specific project metrics and utilize the priority sub-watershed mapping to adequately describe the action and the measurable outcome. We will have already written the Implementation Program narrative within task 4.1 as a response to the questions posed within that task s description. We will incorporate that narrative into this required section of the Root River 1W1P. As much as possible we intend to cover required elements of the Land and Water Resources Inventory by reference to other documents. However, we will need to summarize what these documents contain and this will require narrative within the Root River 1W1P. Many of the 17 prescribed map products of Task 1.1 support the Land and Water Resources Inventory and we intend that these maps should appear in two locations: 1) within the body of the report and 2) as a supplemental appendix to the report in larger format. For this reason we must also provide some narrative for the Land and Water Resources Inventory to at least support the inclusion of these maps within the body of the report. 5.2 Review and Respond WSB will distribute the draft report to all internal reviewers either electronically, in hard copy, or both formats depending on the preferences of individual reviewers. We will receive comments from reviewers and respond to these comments. The response to comments will be separate from the draft plan since some comment responses may not lead to changes within the plan. We will then initiate a more formal review process for stakeholders to receive their comments and will likewise respond to these comments in a formal document separate from the draft plan. After the draft plan is revised, public hearings will be held. At 5.3 Facilitate Meetings WSB recommends the consideration of two meetings to work through the review process. At the first we will kickoff the review process by describing to the Planning Workgroup how the Root River 1W1P meets state requirements for these plans. At the second we will be prepared to justify our response to comments and receive guidance as to whether additional or a modified response is appropriate. A third meeting with the Policy Committee or Planning Workgroup will be used to summarize comments and responses and/or prepare for the public hearings. The fourth meeting will be a presentation to the Policy and Advisory Committees where we expect them to accept the draft plan. Our fee proposal assumes four public hearings. We expect we will have four individuals at these public hearings and that we will be expected to formally present the Root River 1W1P to the public. Scope of Work / 10

14 Task 6: Complete Plan We will meet with the Planning Workgroup to discuss comments received at the public hearing and how to incorporate these into the plan. We will make these changes and prepare the final plan document. We will provide the project partners the following: Indexed.pdf of the draft and final Plan 100 hard copies of the draft and final Plan Project directory with electronic documents used in the preparation of the Plan GIS shapefiles, projects, and images used in the creation of the Plan. On Meetings We anticipate a variety of meeting formats which may include Presentation and discussion Open house Small group breakouts Surveys Public hearing and testimony We also expect that a number of our staff will participate in meetings depending on the subject matter. Our most common attendees will be Bob Barth, Jeff Broberg, Luke Lunde, Molly Patterson-Lundgren, and Paul Wotzka. Entering the project we think it premature to determine what type of meetings will occur and when. We think it better to use one of our initial meetings to explore this topic with the Policy Workgroup and thus get stakeholder input into how the meetings unfold. We can say that we expect to prepare meeting agenda and minutes, visuals, tables, and other documents and expect that a minimum of seven copies of printed materials will be needed for each meeting. We expect to give a number of presentations supported by boards or electronic visuals, typically maps. Boards and maps will be large format to be visible to potentially large groups. Most meetings we expect that two of our staff would attend. Schedule Activity JAN 15 FEB 15 MAR 15 APR 15 Aggregate Information X X X X Kick-off Meeting X X X Prioritize & Target X X X X Measurable Goals X X X X X X X Implement Schedule X X X X X X X X Draft Plan Documents X X X MAY 15 Formal Reviews X X JUN 15 Public Hearings X X Final Plan Document JUL 15 AUG 15 SEP 15 OCT 15 NOV 15 DEC 15 JAN 16 FEB 16 MAR 16 APR 13 X Our schedule refl ects that which was presented in the RFP. We do not have specific modifications to recommend. Scope of Work / 11

15 PERSONNEL Bob Barth Project Manager Bob specializes in watershed management. He will be the Root River 1W1P s primary writer and editor, and the overall project manager. Bob develops and implements capital improvement plans for many local governments. Importantly for the Root River 1W1P, he is a proficient stormwater modeler (hydrology, hydraulics and water quality) and is able to synthesize complex data and modeling output and make it easy to understand for the stakeholder group. Bob also performs loading calculations and can determine the cost benefit of certain projects intended to reduce nutrient and TSS loading. He understands that loading calculations depend on scale. For instance, at the sub-watershed scale HSPF and other modeling software predict average loading conditions. At the field scale there are a multitude of landscape features that can drastically alter this loading calculation. This understanding of scale in needed in our parallel modeling efforts to determine the field level implementation priorities. Bob understands the hydrologic impact of tile drainage and the differing points of view regarding tile drainage and its impact on both hydrologic flow and pollutant loading and has implemented modeling techniques to account for delayed peaking due to the sponge effect created by agricultural drain tile. Bob and our entire team are implementation driven and will make sure goals are connected to action and action gets connected to the appropriate funding. Bob will set up algorithms for estimating BMP costs based on different scales and use these with load reduction calculations to establish cost benefit on a whole suite of potential projects at differing tributary area and project extents scales. Bob has prepared a number of Atlas 14 Updates to comprehensive plans for local governments and understands how extreme weather vents can be accounted for in comprehensive planning and risk management analyses. Jeff Broberg Professional Geologist Jeff lives and works in the Driftless Area and is a well-known speaker and geologic field-trip-trip leader on the Driftless Area and the cold water streams in the region. He provides scientific and practical expertise in the assessment and mitigation of pollutant pathways in agricultural and small town settings in SE MN and has a deep understanding of how the geology, hydrogeology and water quality of the Root River Basin is defined by surface water-groundwater interaction. Jeff understands how the variability of the Root River hydrogeological landscape Personnel / 12

16 drives both land use and defines the range of potential implementation actions that will be developed within the plan. He also understands the on-the-ground reality of how conservation services need to be marketed and delivered to landowners through existing local and state agencies and how this service delivery can be tapped and funded to achieve the Root River 1W1P goals. His knowledge of community and landowner willingness to undertake watershed improvement projects is critical to this plan s success. Jeff s experience as a Driftless Area landowner has given him an understanding of the multiple barriers to private landowners partaking of water quality programs and he has the experience and perspective to promote and stimulate action to overcome this resistance. Jeff s experience, hydrogeological knowledge and public communication skills will be used to develop an approach to local partnerships based on the way things actually work in the Root River Watershed. Jeff will also collaborate with watershed partners and stakeholders to develop actions on appropriate land use and agricultural BMPs to reduce field-scale and sub-watershed scale pollution and will serve as our team s expert on emerging pollutants and stressors, and actions necessary to meet the water quality challenges posed by them. Luke Lunde Water Resource Scientist Luke will be heavily involved in synthesizing watershed priorities gleaned from County Water Plans, the emerging Root River Turbidity TMDL, the Monitoring and Assessment report, and other documents. He will organize these priorities into categories and, working with stakeholders, develop goals around these priorities. Ultimately Luke s natural resources implementation expertise will lead to the identification of cost-effective, targeted and measurable actions to achieve these goals. Luke s familiarity with the variable Root River Watershed landscape, interaction of surfacewater/groundwater, the Counties and SWCDs, landowner perceptions, and potential funding sources allows him to develop actions at geographically specific locations while identifying who will be responsible for that action. Luke will help develop the 10-year Improvement Plan and will lead discussions on how best management practices such as wetland restoration and streambank stabilization/restoration fit into the overall program. Luke understands public private partnerships, having worked extensively with MN Trout Unlimited, MNDNR, MPCA, County NRCS and local Watershed Districts. He understands grant writing having written and successfully secured over five million dollars in the past four years in grants from the Conservation Partners Legacy and Lessard Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, Clean Water Fund for Shell Rock River Watershed District. The grant funding has been used in land acquisition and implementation of natural resource projects that restore native habitat and water quality to the Shell Rock River Watershed. Paul Wotzka Water Resource Engineer Paul has 27 years of experience working as a hydrologist specializing in water quality issues and modeling in southeastern Minnesota. He has designed and conducted field and small watershed scale water quality studies examining surface runoff and leaching of pesticides, nutrients, and sediment from agricultural and urban landscapes. He has utilized this work in conducting TMDL studies and calibration of FLUX, AGNPS, and ADAPT models. Currently, he is facilitating the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) process in the Zumbro and Cannon River Watersheds. Paul s understanding of the 1W1P process through his water quality and WRAPS work with other watersheds in SE Minnesota as well as his farming experience will be an invaluable asset for this work in the Root River Watershed. Personnel / 13

17 Molly Patterson Lundgren Community Engagement Specialist Molly will assist our staff with meeting facilitation and other public communication. As the former Wabasha City Planner, she understands southeast Minnesota environmental issues such as floodplain encroachment, frac sand operations, and agricultural contamination in this karst topography. Molly will assist in producing written and oral communication that appeals to a diverse stakeholder group. Molly also has a strong understanding of how the recreational assets of southeast Minnesota are perceived and used and how any program of land conservation or alteration which benefits water quality might also augment other public lands and recreational opportunities within the region. Molly will connect the dots between water quality and other benefits particularly in recreation and tourism. Bill Bleckwenn, RLA Landscape Architect Bill has extensive experience in natural resource management and planning. He is a registered landscape architect, state-certified wetland delineator, and land planner. On the Root River 1W1P, Bill will assist the project team by linking the Targeted Implementation Plan to other beneficial uses such as connectivity of terrestrial and aquatic resources, habitat restoration, potential benefits to the SNA program or other public lands, protection of rare and endangered species etc. Bill will have a large role in preparing the Land and Water Resources Inventory - a role to which he brings unique qualifications having recently worked for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) completing a Strategic Plan for the Scientific and Natural Area Program. Bill will also assist in making the Root River 1W1P address implementation through public engagement, funding, policy development, and strategies to address recent climate extremes. Katy Thompson Modeling Expert Katy is a hydraulic and water quality modeling expert brought into the team to conduct the parallel modeling analysis to validate IWI s use of the PTMapp for setting watershed priorities and evaluating the effectiveness. Katy has experience modifying public domain models such as HSPF to achieve specific project goals such as calculating the effect of individual BMPs on the overall watershed loading. Katy will be tasked to present our modeling approach once we reach that point in the project. Ben Ogren GIS Specialist Ben will create analytical tools and aides in the form of maps and visuals. He will also manage the necessary data, and will review existing watershed reports and priorities contained in these reports. Ben will also implement precision mapping techniques to identify conservation areas based on slope, soil type, and tributary watershed. Personnel / 14

18 EXPERIENCE The 1W1P program has recently emerged, so we have not had opportunity to prepare a plan in this form. However we have prepared a number of Watershed Plans according to requirements outlined in statute and rule and are in the process of preparing the Shell Rock River Watershed District Plan. Watershed Management Plan 2008, Minor Amendment 2013 Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization Watershed Management Plan Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization Kristin Asher City of Richfield Public Works kasher@cityofrichfield.com RBWMO%20Final%20Plan%20 July% pdf WSB prepared the 3rd generation Watershed Management Plan for the RBWMO. The RMWMO plan is on a 10-year cycle though amendments occur periodically. The RBWMO is comprised of local member cities who are very involved in the operation of the WMO. The WMO board is comprised of the City Council of each community. This Watershed Management Plan includes goals and policies for a WMO that provides oversight to the local government units. The WMO implements all components of the plan through local government staff, local permit programs, and through the review of local water plans and annual review of local government operations. This approach allows the required oversight of local government by the WMO without the duplication of processes that would occur with a WMO permitting program. The Minor Amendment in 2013 involved updates to the implementation plan. Experience / 15

19 Watershed Management Plan 2007, Update 2013 Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization Eric Macbeth City of Eagan Water Resources Coordinator gunclubwmo/gclwmo%20watershed%20 Management%20Plan.pdf WSB provided direction and prepared the GCLWMO 3rd Generation Watershed Management Plan. This plan was unique for the GCLWMO in that this plan was the first activity undertaken by an entirely new citizen represented WMO board. The GCLWMO had replaced all WMO board positions that had previously been held by City staff with residents from each of the member communities. The process involved numerous planning meetings with the new board to share the history of the WMO s role, options for the future roles of the WMO, and a thorough review of the rules and requirements that affect the content and language of the WMO goals, policies, and the final plan contents. The GCLWMO Watershed Management Plan was developed to meet all the BWSR requirements with a goal of providing added value to the local governments. Experience / 16

20 Watershed Management Plan 2011 Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION 2011 watershed MANAGEMENT PLAN for the lower mississippi river watershed management organization AUGUST 2011 WSB prepared the 3rd Generation Watershed Management Plan for the LMRWMO. Preparation of the plan included an extensive effort with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). The TAC included individuals from the city, county, state, and regulatory agencies. The CAC was made up of residents within the WMO who were interested in learning about and contributing to improving water resource management within the LMRWMO was challenged with balancing current regulations with anticipated regulations in the near future. WSB s project team developed a plan that balanced the current and future needs of the WMO and its member cities. lowermisswmo/pdfs/2011%20lower_ Mississippi_River_WMO_adopted_plan.pdf Surface Water Management Plan Woodbury, MN The Board of Managers of the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization would like to commend and thank you for your excellent work developing the Organization s 3rd Generation Watershed Management Plan. Your professionalism, organization, attention to detail and open accessibility throughout the process was greatly appreciated. Board members found you both articulate and easy to work with you proved to be especially patient with our questions and were good listeners. The resulting Watershed Management Plan is a product the Organization is proud to use as a guiding document for the next ten years. We would recommend you both to similar organizations looking for thoughtful, qualified consultants to develop watershed management plans. Thank you, again, for your hard work. Mary Lou Sabin, LMRWMO Chair Brian Watson, Administrator Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District brian.watson@co.dakota.mn.us Experience / 17

21 Pickwick Creek, Winona County, Minnesota Details of work performed include: installation of bank hide structures, stabilizing eroded banks using rip rap rock, bank sloping to reconnect the stream to its flood plain, tree removal, correction of stream channel dimensions for improved stream function, installation of rock weirs to maintain and improve pool depth, build road and stream crossings for cattle and equipment access. In addition we built five non-game ponds for frogs, turtles and birds and restored one wetland shore land bird area. The non-game projects were funded separately through TUDARE. Pine Creek, Winona County, Minnesota Details of work performed include: installation of bank hide structures, stabilizing eroded banks using rip rap rock, bank sloping to reconnect the stream to its flood plain, tree removal, correction of stream channel dimensions for improved stream function, installation of rock weirs to maintain and improve pool depth, build road and stream crossings for cattle and equipment access. Wedge Creek, Freeborn County, Minnesota Details of work performed include: installation of two non-game structures for turtles, stabilizing eroded banks using rip rap rock, bank sloping to reconnect the stream to its flood plain, tree removal, correction of stream channel dimensions for improved stream function, installation of cross channel logs, log deflectors and rock weirs to maintain and improve pool depth, build stream crossings for vehicle and equipment access and completed two wetland restorations within the floodplain corridor of the project. The wetlands function to retain sediment during flood events and non-game habitat for frogs, turtles and shore birds. White Watershed Project WSB staff conducted the GIS mapping of sensitive features for livestock producers located within the South Branch Whitewater River Watershed (SBWRW). MBESI was contracted by the Whitewater Joint Powers Board (WWJPB) to educate livestock producers on sensitive features and manure setback requirements in an effort to reduce bacteria levels in the SBWRW; one objective of the Bacteria Reduction Project. The watershed is 93 square miles in size and extends across portions of Olmsted and Winona Counties in southeastern MN. The watershed is predominantly agricultural in use consisting of approximately 85% farmable land that is heavily row cropped. Livestock production in the watershed is dominated by dairy and beef. Experience / 18

22 Surface Water Management Plan Woodbury Sharon Doucette Environmental Planner ci.woodbury.mn.us WSB staff prepared the 2009 Plan and are now updating this Plan to incorporate new NPDES Permit requirements for infiltration, Minimum Impact Design Standards, and Atlas 14 updates to design rainfall events. A committee of City residents provided input into the Plan s goals and policies. Woodbury experiences unique constraints to its stormwater and surface water management system. From the stormwater perspective, its major sub-watershed is landlocked and relies on expansive infiltration basins and large regional reservoirs. The high level of management necessary in a landlocked system necessitated the development of very detailed operating plans for the major basins within this sub-watershed. Its second major constraint is its discharge to the St. Croix River, an Outstanding Resource Value Water designated in Minnesota statute. WSB staff planned a unique infiltration conveyance system within the Plan update that actually reduces existing runoff volume for the Atlas year event. The capital improvement plan and implementation plan developed for the City include over 100 separate items and over $100M in investments over the next 20 years. The financial impact of such expenditure has been planned considering the time value of money with early revenue funding later projects. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: City of Alexandria 704 Broadway Alexandria, MN WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN Martin Schulz City Administrator mschultz@rea-alp.com Comprehensive Stormwater Water Management Plan Alexandria, MN Due to the important water resources within Alexandria, the City was seeking a unique surface water management plan. WSB worked extensively with City staff and the Stormwater Task Force to provide baseline data of the City s specific issues, and to balance the needs of residents and the desire to maintain a competitive environment to encourage new and redevelopment. The new policies and ordinances would need to balance the economics of protecting the quality of area lakes and not be too onerous as to place the City at a disadvantage in attracting new businesses. WSB developed a set of policies unique to Alexandria to meet infiltration considerations, wetland management, TMDL expectations, and water quality protection. A robust public input process was used to review problems and policies. WSB guided this process to develop a user-friendly document for the City. Experience / 19

23 Mill Creek Stream Restoration Root River Watershed, MN & Trout Run Creek Stream Restoration Root River Watershed, MN The proposed WSB personnel, in cooperation with Habitat Solutions LLC, completed stream survey and analysis, MnDNR public waters permitting, stream restoration plan design, construction contractor bid specifications, MPCA NPDES permit, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, compliance inspections, and construction supervision for the MN Trout Unlimited/MnDNR Mill Creek. The design included installation of bank hide structures, stabilizing eroded banks using rip rap rock, bank sloping to reconnect the stream to its flood plain, tree removal, correction of stream channel dimensions for improved stream function, installation of rock weirs to maintain and improve pool depth, build road and stream crossings for cattle and equipment access. In addition we designed four non-game ponds for frogs, turtles and one wet land shore bird area. Experience / 20

24 Completed Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plans Agency First Plan Andover X Blaine X Second Plan Third Plan Bloomington X X Brooklyn Park X Burnsville X Circle Pines X Coon Rapids X Elm Creek WMC X Excelsior X Gun Club Lake WMO X X X Hanover X Hugo X Upper Rum River WMO X Minnetrista X Monticello X X Lower Mississippi River WMO X Northfi eld X Pioneer-Sarah Creek WMO X Richfi eld X X X Richfi eld-bloomington WMO X X Rosemount X X Savage X X Shakopee X X X Shorewood X X South St. Paul X St. Anthony X X St. Louis Park X St. Michael X St. Paul X Sunfi sh Lake X Experience / 21

25 COST We propose a fee of $139,678 to accomplish the scope of work described above. Note that we have added additional meetings to the scope, and anticipate that up to 30 map products may be needed to create the Root River 1W1P. WSB is more than willing to continue the conversation of the fee and the scope. WSB has the best interests of the watershed and the project, and are open to any discussion that might occur. Estimated Hours WSB & ASSOCIATES Project Professional Professional Hydrologist/ Community Landscape Modeling GIS GIS Administrative Graphics Manager Geologist Soil Scientist Watershed Engagement Ecologist Expert Specialist Specialist Support Support Total Cost Planner Bob Jeff Luke Paul Molly Bill Katy Ben Support Barth Broberg Lunde Wotzka Patt.-Lund. Bleckwenn Thompson Ogren Hours Task Part 1: Preparation for Plan Writing 1. Aggregate Existing Watershed Physical and Spacial Data 1.A. Create Map Projects (Drafts) Watershed scale, resource concerns, and special interest maps $7, Subwatershed Targeted Imlementation Plan maps (set up) $2, Other maps as needed (allowance) $6, B. Meeting Facilitation (# of meetings) Planning workgroup meetings (2) $2, Public kickoff meeting (3) $6, Advisory Committee meeting (1) $1, C. Review Existing Plans Collect, review, and aggregate existing plans $3, Gaps analysis tables and narrative, initial priority setting $1, Subtotal $30, Prioritization, Modeling, and Targeted Mapping 2.A. Develop Watershed Priorities Update/expand gaps analysis and affinity mapping $3, Tabulate priorities in format: issue/action/category of action/measurable outcome $2, B. Map Watershed Priorities Second draft subwatershed Targeted Implementation Plan maps $6, Parallel modeling analysis $14, Targeted Implementation Plan (field level improvements) $8, C. Meeting Facilitation (# of meetings) Planning workgroup meetings (2) $2, Policy and Advisory Committee Joint Meeting (1) $1, Presentation to Policy Committee (1) $1, Subtotal $41, Task Part 2: Development of the Draft Plan 3. Set Initial Measurable Goals 3.A. Organize Goals and Build Consensus Descriptive tables on issues and concerns and resultant measurable goals $2, Associate Targeted Implementation Planwith measurable goals $1, Report narrative supporting goals consensus $2, B. Facilitate Meetings on Goals Planning workgroup meetings (3) $2, Advisory Committee meeting (1) $1, Presentation to Policy Committee (1) $1, Subtotal $12, Develop Targeted and Measurable Implementation Plan and Schedule 4.A. Create 10-year Implementation Plan Organize implementation actions into form: what/where/who/$/when/how measured $5, Develop plan administration and coordination strategy $4, Develop plan implmentation programs $4, B. Facilitate Meetings on Implementation Plan Planning workgroup meetings (2) $2, Policy and Advisory Committee Joint Meeting (1) $1, Subtotal $18, Task Part 3: Completed Draft Plan Document 5. Complete Draft Plan and Submit for Review 5.A. Assemble Required Elements 1W1P (narrative, tables, graphics, maps) Executive Summary $1, Analysis and Prioritization of Issues $2, Establishment of Measurable Goals $1, Targeted Implementation Schedule $2, Implementation Programs $1, Plan Appendix - Land and Water Resources Inventory $2, B Review and Respond Internal review: distribute, receive and respond to comments $2, Formal review: distribute, receive and respond to comments $2, C Facilitate Meetings Planning Workgroup meeting (1) $ Policy Committee or Planning Workgroup meetings (2) $2, Presentation to Policy and Advisory Committee Joint Meeting (1) $1, Public Hearings (4) $6, Subtotal $28, Complete Plan 6.A Summarize and Incorporate Comments Prepare record of comment response $ Incorporate comments into Plan $2, Professional printing 100 hard copies (see reimbursable expenses for pinting costs) $1, Prepare and transmit electronic files to Root River Watershed Coordinator $ Subtotal $4, Total Hours $137, Average Hourly Rate SUBTOTAL - Design Total Direct Labor Costs $26, $21, $16, $17, $5, $9, $11, $16, $5, $5, $3, $137, Estimated Reimbursable Expenses $2, TOTAL PROJECT COST $139, Cost / 22

26 Bob Barth Senior Project Manager Bob is a Senior Project Manager with more than 18 years of experience in water resources. During his career, Bob has managed technically diverse projects in flood control and water quality for public clients in North Dakota and Minnesota and is particularly effective when projects require public input and communication. Bob has served his clients in a number of roles including technical expert, project manager, and client liaison. Bob s work experience and expertise includes flood damage reduction, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, infrastructure planning, stormwater compliance, and water quality. SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Fish and Schwanz Lakes Total Maximum Daily Load, City of Eagan, MN Oversaw the water quality modeling, preparation of the TMDL, report and waste load allocation, and development of the implementation plan. Willow Creek Stream Restoration, City of Rochester, MN Stabilized and restored approximately 300 feet of the stream. Prepared a design that reestablished a flatter meander to Willow Creek. The design stabilized four outside banks with rock and vegetation and expanded floodplain on the inside banks. Because the project entailed work within a protected body of water, a MNDNR permit was needed. Education: Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, 1995 Bachelor of Arts in English Literature, University of Minnesota, 1992 Pleasant Valley Creek Hydraulic Study, City of Winona, MN Prepared a hydrologic and hydraulic assessment of potential improvements. Developed an improvement program that included augmenting hydraulic capacity through a flood diversion channel and additional box culvert at CSAH 15 and constructing a levee to protect properties that have historically flooded. Stormwater Compliance, Various MN Communities Bob has assisted Minnesota communities in managing the more complicated portions of their MS4 programs. Examples include the Nondegradation submittals he prepared for the Cities of Elk River, Inver Grove Heights, and Woodbury as required by their MS4 Permits. He has also prepared submittals for Stillwater, Medina, Woodbury, and Dayton for their discharges to specially designated waters of Minnesota such as the Mississippi River upstream of the Highway 169 bridge and the St. Croix River. Rush River Hydrologic Study, Rush River Watershed, MN Barth served as project manager on the Rush River Hydrologic Study. The primary purpose of the study was to determine actions to reduce flow in the Rush River. Barth created an extensive hydrologic and hydraulic watershed model and calibrated it to four separate flow meter locations. The calibration involved splitting hydrographs into a surface runoff component (the fast hydrograph) and a drain tile runoff component (the slow hydrograph). To represent crop growth and harvest, runoff

27 Bob Barth Senior Project Manager coefficients were varied throughout the year and the effect of different tillage practices on river flow was thoroughly investigated. The study recommended a system of retention reservoirs and lake restorations. Elm Creek Channel Study, Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission, MN Served as Principal-in-Charge on this comprehensive mitigation plan for reducing peak flow in Elm Creek. Project included survey of channel cross-sections to document morphological changes. Bank full capacity for each channel segment was determined as was the rainfall frequency that created bank full condition. Barth and his team concluded that stream instability was widespread due to the divergence between bank full capacity and the flow created by rainfalls in the two to five-year recurrence range. To bridge this gap, the project team developed new management strategies that extended beyond rate control. These management strategies allowed for a combination of extended detention or infiltration to meet a specific channel protection volume. The Commission adopted these policy recommendations in an amendment to its Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan in Antelope Creek Flood Mitigation, Hazen, ND Serves as principal-in-charge and project manager on this levee reconstruction project to improve flood protection to the City of Hazen. The project involves FEMA coordination and submittals since the levee must ultimately meet the Federal certification requirements. Detailed hydraulic modeling using HEC-RAS supports the Federal submittal. Prepared cost share disbursement requests and coordinated with the North Dakota State Water Commission, which partially sponsored the project. Stormwater Management Planning, Various Minnesota Communities Bob has assisted numerous communities in preparing comprehensive stormwater management plans. He has served as project manager and senior technical advisor on plans that integrate MS4 responsibilities with local values and goals. To establish LID concepts early in development projects, Barth originated and wrote design and performance standards based on his experience in implementing stormwater practices through the development process. Bob has prepared stormwater plans for Twin Cities Metropolitan Area communities that are subject to the Metropolitan Area Local Water Management provisions in statute as well as outstate communities. Plans completed within the last five years include: Woodbury, Maple Plain, Bemidji, Mendota Heights, West St. Paul, New Prague, Lauderdale, Oak Park Heights, Blaine, Medina and St. Cloud, Minnesota and Bismarck and Fargo, ND.

28 Jeffrey S. Broberg, PG, REM Manager/Geologist Jeff is responsible for directing, managing, and conducting environmental and geological investigations and consulting on a wide range of environmental, land use, and natural resource issues. Jeff has 36+ years of geologic, natural resource management and land-use experience. In the last 25 years, he has practiced in Minnesota and the Upper Mississippi River Valley. His work includes: geologic site investigations, aggregate and stone assessments and permitting, and geologic hazard analysis (sinkholes, flooding, landslides, Decorah Shale). He is proficient in Environmental Assessments for ASTM Transaction Screens, Phase I s Environmental Assessments (ESAs), environmental violation investigations, subsurface sampling, groundwater monitoring, leaking underground storage tank investigations and remediation, agricultural chemical cleanup and response, and dry-cleaning contamination. Jeff also completed numerous pre-demolition and asbestos inspections and developed management plans and project design for residential, commercial, and industrial properties. In addition, he experienced in Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs), storm water discharge permits, wetland delineation, replacement plans and permitting (local, state and federal), wastewater management, water quality rules, natural resource ordinances and legislation, and complex permitting and litigation on land use and natural resources issues at the local, state, and federal level. Jeff has been actively engaged in trout stream restoration and water quality protection for 20 years in Southeast Minnesota, both as a citizen volunteer and clean water advocate, and as a water resource professional. As an avid angler, Jeff has employed his passion and his professional experience to manage teams of professionals and volunteers to design, permit, and construct in-stream habitat improvement projects in the Driftless Area. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Project Manager for environmental management of large demolition and renovation projects addressing asbestos, hazardous materials, mold abatement, site control, contracts, and coordination. - Alpine, AA Rooming and Clock Tower Inn - ½ city block for private developer, Rochester, MN - Zumbro River - Flash flood demolition inspections for flood buyout program, 90 properties in 5 SE Minnesota communities - North Star Foods - Fire destroyed large meat processing plant, St. Charles, MN - Big Joe Flour Mill - Deconstruction and demolition of 100-year-old flour mill and grain silos, Wabash, MN - Rochester Square Apartments, Weis Builders Inc. -Asbestos project design for renovation of large fully occupied apartment complex, Rochester, MN Education: Bachelor of Science, University of Minnesota, 1976 Post Graduate, Geology, Masters Candidate, Minneapolis Registrations: MN Professional Geologist # Registered Environmental Manager # 3009 Certifications: Certified Professional Geologist # CPG Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) MN Certified Asbestos Building Inspector #I3042 MN Certified Asbestos Management Planner # M3042 MN Certified Asbestos Project Designer # D3042 Memberships: National Registry of Environmental Professionals Minnesota Groundwater Association Organization

29 Jeffrey S. Broberg, PG, REM Manager/Geologist - Rochester International Airport -Project design and management for asbestos acoustic insulation removal maintaining all airport functions, Rochester, MN - Rochester Rec Center - Ice rink celling mold abatement and mitigation, Rochester, MN Project Manager for design and permitting of mineral aggregate, silica sand and stone quarries, pits and dredging - Nisbit Mine, Winona County s first permitted silica sand mine - Wabasha County - Mine management and mine restoration plans for 25 mines owned and operated by multiple operators - Dredging for commercial sand and gravel aggregates: Cascade Meadows for sand and lake creation, Rochester, MN Builders Sand for sand and concrete aggregate, Salem Township, Olmsted County SJC Corp. sand mining to create lakes and storm water basins, Rochester, MN Technical and Political advisor for complex permitting, litigation and development plans, environmental conditions, earth hazards, and local government relations. - CAPX2020, Oronoco Township - Land Use Amendments, Zoning, Conditional Use Permits, Variances: Mayowoodlands, CPDC - Special District zoning for conservation development of former Dr. Mayo properties on Zumbro Bluffs and river corridor, Rochester, MN Fred Schmidt - Land use approvals and platting of city and suburban subdivisions, Rochester, MN Phase I/Phase II Investigations, Groundwater Assessments and Development Response Action Plans: - Over 500 ASTM Phase I s since Petroleum and Leaking Tank Investigations - Agricultural Chemical Cleanup and Response - Dry-cleaner site investigation and mitigation Water resource assessment, management, and project design - Watershed assessments, mapping and technical consulting: Whitewater, Zumbro, Shell Rock Watersheds and Circle Lake Association - Minnesota Trout Unlimited SE Minnesota trout stream restoration plans and design - Carp control Shell Rock River Watershed District, Albert Lea Smith Root, Lock and Dam #1 Environmental Hazard Assessment, Hennepin County, MN Geologic Hazard Assessment and Mitigation - MNDT/SRF. US52/65 th St Interchange, Prairie Crossing sinkhole investigator, mitigation design and project management.

30 Jeffrey S. Broberg, PG, REM Manager/Geologist - Rochester Township sinkhole management Ordinance - Decorah Edge groundwater seep wetland and fen protection Ordnance, City of Rochester - Landslide assessment and mitigation

31 Luke W Lunde Senior Environmental Scientist Luke is a Minnesota Professional Soil Scientist in WSB's Environmental Planning and Natural Resources Group and he has over sixteen years of natural resource and environmental review experience. Luke s experience includes wetland delineation, monitoring, permitting, wetland banking and soil characterizations for archeological assessments. He has prepared wetland delineation and mitigation reports for several projects throughout the Midwest. He is also very knowledgeable in stream surveys, monitoring and assessment, vegetation management, habitat conservation, habitat restoration, forest management and GIS. SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Threatened and Endangered Species Review Luke has worked with clients such as Minnesota Trout Unlimited, Minnesota DNR and private land developers to address state and federal threatened and endangered species review and protection on numerous projects, including a number of plant and animal species. Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment Luke has completed Natural Resources Inventories and Assessments for private landowners, watershed districts, Minnesota Trout Unlimited and non-profit organizations and wind turbine projects. This work included field assessment of native vegetation to assess quantity and quality. Wetland Delineation, Mitigation Design, and Permitting Luke has extensive experience in wetland delineation and mitigation. Many of these projects also included obtaining permits from local, state, and federal agencies, as well as designing sustainable wetland mitigation sites. Some 2013 projects include: Shell Rock River Watershed: Albert Lea Lake Dam Replacement/Electric Fish Barrier/Water Control Structure Shell Rock River Watershed: Goose Lake Electric Fish Barrier Shell Rock River Watershed: Eagles Rest Wetland Bank Shell Rock River Watershed: Wedge Creek Stream Restoration MN DNR: White Water State Park Campground and Stream Restoration MN DNR: Blazing Star Trail Improvements MN Trout Unlimited: Coldwater Stream Restoration (Pine and Hay Creek) NPDES Construction Permitting/SWPPP Design Luke's experience is also certified in the Design of Construction SWPPP and has designed and reviewed SWPPPs and completed NPDES permits. Selected 2013 permitting experience includes: Shell Rock River Watershed: Goose Lake Restoration Shell Rock River Watershed: Wedge Creek Stream Restoration MN Trout Unlimited: Pine Creek Education: Bachelor of Science in Soil Science, North Dakota State University, 1999 Associates Degree in Forestry, North Dakota State University, 1997 Licenses: MN Professional Soil Scientist #49779 ND Professional Soil Classifier #67 Certifications: MN ISTS Designer # C8641 Certified in Design of Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan/Site Management Memberships: Minnesota Association Professional Soil Scientists MN Groundwater Association

32 Paul Wotzka Hydrologist/Watershed Planner Paul Wotzka has a Bachelor of Water Resources Engineering Degree from the University of Minnesota. He has 27 years of experience working as a hydrologist specializing in water quality issues and modeling in Southeastern Minnesota. He has designed and conducted field and small watershed scale water quality studies examining surface runoff and leaching of pesticides, nutrients, and sediment from agricultural and urban landscapes. He has utilized this work in conducting TMDL studies and calibration of FLUX, AGNPS, and ADAPT models. Currently, he is facilitating the Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) process in the Zumbro and Cannon River Watersheds. In addition, Paul owns and manages an 80 acre organic family farm in rural Minneiska Township growing perennial fruit and nut crops emphasizing soil health and bluff land ecology. Paul s understanding of the 1W1P process through his water quality and WRAPS work with other watersheds in SE Minnesota as well as his farming experience will be an invaluable asset for this work in the Root River Watershed. Paul will provide support for this project as a Scientist 2 and Planner 2. SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Watershed Planner Works with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Cannon River Watershed Partnership, and Zumbro Watershed Partnership to complete Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPs) for each of these watersheds. Facilitate meetings between State agencies and local units of government that result in prioritization of targeted areas for WRAPs that leads to measurable outcomes based upon an agreed timeline and interim milestones. Work with Zumbro Watershed Partnership to update their Watershed Management Plan. Facilitated Board-led revision of the Partnership s watershed-wide goals, objectives and action items. Coordinated input from State agencies and local government for a summary report detailing steps for a Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan for the Zumbro Watershed. Hydrologist Performed longitudinal nitrate loading study over multiple years and hydrologic conditions demonstrating the geographical differences of nitrate loading across the Whitewater Watershed based on geologic controls and agricultural land use. Developed an empirical model demonstrating the correlation between agricultural land use and nitrate loading. Other Water Quality studies conducted: -Whitewater Watershed Project Sediment TMDL

33 Paul Wotzka Hydrologist/Watershed Planner -Cannon and Root River Watershed tributaries study for nitrates -Cascade Lake and Watershed study of nutrients and pesticides -DNR Fish Hatcheries in SE MN spring study of nutrients and pesticides -Lake Harriet and urban storm runoff study for pesticides -State wide pesticides in precipitation study conducted with researchers from the University of Minnesota -Field scale study of nutrients and pesticides in tile drainage in Seven Mile Creek Watershed -Field scale study of nutrients and sediment in surface runoff from pastures and crop fields in Fillmore County

34 Molly Patterson-Lundgren Planner Molly has more than 15 years of experience in community development and planning. Her areas of specialization include historic preservation and urban geography and the social and environmental impact of development decisions on communities. She also has a solid understanding of local, state, and federal programs and the legal foundation for land use regulation. Molly s planning philosophy is to apply this knowledge of community history and regulatory requirements blending these with innovative and sustainable design concepts and programs crafting a vision for an improved community. She has provided staff recommendations on a variety of projects, including PUD s, historic design reviews, CUPs, variances, and zoning amendments. SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE City Planner, City of Wabasha, MN Guided the 2005 Comprehensive planning process Guided the Planning Commission and Council on the 2007 Zoning Ordinance Update Provided staff support to Planning Commission, Heritage Preservation Commission, Park Board, and Wabasha Port Authority Reviewed and provided staff recommendations on a variety of development projects including PUD s, historic design review s, CUP s, variances, and zoning amendments Provided primary staff review and recommendation on subdivision and planned unit development projects Associate Planner, Scott County, Shakopee MN Assisted with the preparation of the Southeast Scott County Comprehensive Plan Update, and Comp Plan 2025, including: research, public meetings, writing, and mapping Administered the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances by assisting the public and developers with ordinance interpretation over the phone and in person Planner, Pettipiece & Associates, Mankato MN Prepared plans and ordinances for communities including comprehensive land use plans, zoning ordinances, and subdivision ordinances Assisted communities in administering zoning and subdivision ordinances Prepared, submitted, and administered community grants, including Small Cities Development Program, Rural Development, & State PFA funds Planning Intern, Department of Community Development, Northfield MN Conducted Land Use Survey Provided staff support to Historic Preservation Commission and Design Advisory Board Education: Master of Arts in Urban Planning, Minnesota State University Mankato, 2000 Bachelor of Arts in American Studies and Heritage Preservation, St. Cloud State University, 1993 Memberships: American Planning Association Wabasha Area Resource Center (Board of Directors) Minnesota Historical Society (State Board of Review for National Register of Historic Places)

35 Molly Patterson-Lundgren Planner Researched and mapped past annexations and associated agreements Updated Comprehensive Plan elements in preparation of new plan creation Executive Director, Downtown Faribault Association, Faribault MN Coordinated meetings, events, and promotions Managed funds and annual budget Acted as liaison between downtown businesses, City, and Chamber of Commerce Published monthly newsletter for membership Intern, Department of Community Development, Faribault MN Surveyed downtown business owners for CDBG application Prepared database for grant application Administrative Assistant & Manager of Group Sales and Special Events, Historic Murphy s Landing, Shakopee MN Provided marketing expertise for tours and special events to groups and individuals Collaborated on tourism promotion with Convention & Visitors Bureau Assisted with development, public relations, and fundraising

36 Molly Patterson-Lundgren Planner One page (front & back) resume, extra projects to keep on file: Wabasha Area Resource Center, Wabasha, MN Board of Directors, present Worked with group of concerned citizens to form an organization to assist community members in need Participated in forming a formal organization and attaining 501c3 status Minnesota Historical Society, State Historic Preservation Office, St. Paul State Board of Review for National Register of Historic Places, present Review all nominations for properties requesting placement on the National Register of Historic Places Provide findings as to whether nomination meets criteria for placement on the register Faribault Heritage Preservation Commission, Faribault, MN Volunteer Historic Tour Guide 1997 & 1999 Assisted with 1997 State Historic Preservation Office conference Conducted public community heritage tours Eden Prairie Heritage Preservation Commission, Eden Prairie, MN Volunteer, January January 1997 Researched and created interpretive sign information for historic site Created and implemented archeology day program

37 Molly Patterson-Lundgren Planner

38 Molly Patterson-Lundgren Planner

39 William J. Bleckwenn, RLA, ASLA, LEED AP Senior Landscape Architect Bill is Senior Landscape Architect and has more than 25 experience in landscape architecture, land planning, and natural resource assessment and planning. Responsibilities have included supervising the planning and landscape architecture department and activities from concept generation to final construction and coordinating environmental issues with McGhie & Betts Environmental Services, Inc. Managing and coordinating the concept plan development, submittal preparation, approvals/permit applications, presentation to approval/regulatory entities and clients, and developing new graphic capabilities for the company. He is LEED accredited and a state-certified wetland delineator. SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Minnesota Wildlife Action Plan As project planner, have developed a process for considering the incorporation of a variety of input layers such as rare species populations, potential habitat, connectivity, land use, and other planning priorities (e.g. Prairie Plan, Important Bird Areas, Lakes of Biological Significance, Watershed Health Assessment Framework, WRAPS). The resulting composite is being reviewed by a number of stakeholders inside and outside of the DNR to see how it can further address regional needs. In addition, the plan will address implementation through public engagement, funding, policy development, and strategies for mitigation of the impacts of climate change. Bill has provided GIS mapping and analysis, habitat prioritization, meeting facilitation, and process development. Scientific and Natural Area Strategic Plan, (statewide) Bill introduced a new technology to the DNR that provided conservation prioritization capabilities. The software utilized inputs such as areas of biodiversity significance and state-ranked plant communities, he developed a prioritization of natural resources for consideration for incorporation into the SNA network. The prioritization also factored in other factors such as land use, connectivity, other terrestrial and aquatic resources, and opportunity costs to economic resources. Priority areas were delineated from the output, and reviewed with project stakeholders for final concurrence. In addition to conducting a gap analysis, he provided GIS mapping, meeting facilitation, coordination and plan writing. Lake of the Isles Regional Park, Minneapolis, MN Bill assisted in the management of a number of capacities in this 15-year renovation of one of the Minneapolis best-known parks. Managed wetland permitting and mitigation design, project designer for the park renovation and three miles of shoreline restoration, forest restoration of the lake s two islands, construction observation, conducted extensive public information and input meetings, and regulatory coordination with environmental and historical preservation agencies. Education: Master s Candidate, Community Planning in process Iowa State University Bachelor of Landscape Architecture with distinction University of Minnesota Medical Student Medical College of Wisconsin Molecular Biology Major University of Wisconsin Registrations: Registered Landscape Architect MN Certifications: Certified Wetland Delineator State of Minnesota LEED Accredited Professional Professional Affiliations: American Society of Landscape Architects Minnesota Wetlands Professionals US Green Building Council Inver Grove Heights Environmental Commission Development Council, Executive Committee, Rochester Area Builders Guest Course Design Juror, University of Minnesota

40 William J. Bleckwenn, RLA, ASLA, LEED AP Senior Landscape Architect Lake City, MN Comprehensive Plan Update Assisted in the management of the update of the comprehensive plan focusing on housing, transportation, recreation, lakefront, economic and natural resource concerns. The plan included detailed mapping for each of the nine focus chapters, and an ongoing community input process. Skunk Creek Watershed Inventory, Lake County, MN Conducted an analysis and assessment of a local watershed s features and conditions in Two Harbors, MN. Data collation, mapping, GIS ground-truthing of watershed features. Identification of water quality concerns and recommendations for site management and land use were included in the inventory. Parks of Harmony, Carver Project Planner for a 1400-acre walkable community that incorporated and preserved natural features into a variety of neighborhoods. New urbanist principles such as smaller lots, alleys, retail with upstairs housing, connected street layouts and narrow rights-of-way were integrated into the design. Wirth Park, Minneapolis Assisted with the restoration of Wirth Lake beach and park facilities. Provided wetland delineation, permitting, mitigation, and construction monitoring. The design included restoration of the beach, an extensive floating swimming dock, and introduction of a bioretention system for stormwater management. Arbor Pointe, Inver Grove Heights, MN Project Planner for a 500-acre master planned residential and retail community that created a series of clustered neighborhoods centered on a greenway system of ravines, valleys, and ponds. The natural amenities provided the basis for a popular neighborhood within the city that has a high utilization of its trail and recreation backbone. Chisago County Parks Master Plan Managed planning process for a county-wide park system plan. Identified park needs based on an extensive community input process. Conducted needs assessment, concept plans, and detailed park plans working with a number of different communities within the county.

41 Kathleen Thompson, PE Project Engineer/Project Manager Kathleen is a water resources engineer with over ten years of experience in water resources design on the west coast and in Minnesota. She applies her engineering background to hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of natural and developed watersheds to support work in channel and wetland design, construction, and habitat restoration. She has worked on and managed projects ranging from large-scale federal navigation projects to small-scale creek restorations for private property owners. SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Canadian Pacific Railroad, Houston County, Minnesota Katy developed hydraulic modeling for a railroad bridge replacement in a FEMA-designated flood zone of the Root River in Houston County, Minnesota. She modeled multiple design iterations to find a solution that fit within CPR s design standards and FEMA floodplain requirements of a no-rise design for the future bridge replacement. Pavon Creek and Scow Canyon Mitigation, Contra Costa County, California Working with East Bay Municipal Utility District and other consultants, Katy modeled the design and developed construction drawings for creating habitat for California red-legged frogs, restoring existing stream channels, constructing new wetlands, and enhancing habitat for Alameda whipsnakes in the Pavon Creek and Scow Canyon area. This restoration work was part of EBMUD s work to mitigation for habitat loss during the seismic upgrade of San Pablo Dam. The modeling used a specialized HSPF model called the Bay Area Hydrology Model [BAHM] to simulate 30-years of rainfall and runoff into the proposed habitat features and BMPs. Education: Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, 2003 Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Engineering, Macalester College, 2003 Registrations: California #C71726 NCEES #58101 Memberships: American Society of Civil Engineers Society of American Military Engineers MnDOT CSAH 25 Bridge Replacement over Pine Creek, Fillmore County, Minnesota Katy developed hydrologic data and hydraulic models for Pine Creek and a tributary ditch for bridge replacement projects in Fillmore County, MN. The existing bridges cross trout streams and are part of the Root River Watershed, the modeling efforts will ensure the best possible design is chosen to minimize floodplain impacts, as well as to provide fish passage for endangered species. Pojoaque River Watershed Assessment, New Mexico Katy developed a GIS-based digital terrain model of the Pojoaque River using TREX (Two-Dimensional Runoff Erosion and Export). Watershed data, such as existing topography, land use and soil types, were collected and compiled in TREX to determine the sediment transport capacity of Pojoaque River and highlight bank erosion sites in the watershed. Locust Creek Watershed Assessment, Iowa and Missouri Katy developed a GIS analysis of the Locust Creek watershed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine sources of sediment loading within the primarily agricultural watershed. The primary sources of sediment

42 Kathleen Thompson, PE Project Engineer/Project Manager loading were determined to be cattle grazing and row crop production. Using the results from the GIS analysis, Katy then developed a list of potential best management practices within the watershed, such as limiting grazing in channel, bank stabilization, and crop contouring, along with potential locations for the BMPs. Hydrology and Geologic Assessment of Pismo Creek Watershed, San Luis Obispo County, California Katy s work consisted of developing a GIS-based HEC-HMS watershed model to calculate anticipated peak flows to the channel at a number of locations within the Pismo Creek Watershed. The modeling efforts utilized digital terrain analysis of the available LiDAR data to highlight areas within the watershed that would be suitable for future restoration activities. Pinole Valley Watershed Mitigation Banking, Contra Costa County, California Katy developed a GIS-based HEC-HMS watershed model to determine the peak flows within the Pinole Valley Watershed and the impacts of future wetland mitigation banking on downstream locations prone to flooding. While the upper watershed was primarily rural, the lower portion of the watershed is highly urbanized and prone to flooding at various locations. The project attempted to quantify and maximize the flood-related impacts and benefits of the proposed wetland mitigation bank in the upper watershed for the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Salsipuedes Creek River Geomorphology Report, Santa Barbara County, California Katy served as project manager and technical team member to develop hydraulic and sediment transport models of Salsipuedes Creek for Caltrans District 5 in Santa Barbara County, California. The project work included developing a two-dimensional hydraulic model in CCHE2D, as well as a long-term sediment transport model developed in HEC-GeoRAS and HEC-RAS, to determine the evolution of several large scour holes immediately downstream of State Route 1 bridge and the impacts design alternatives may have on the future evolution of the scour holes and existing bridge piers and abutments.

43 Benjamin M. Ogren Environmental/GIS Specialist Ben has eight years of experience in the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) field using ArcGIS. He specializes in building and managing GIS databases for use in ArcGIS desktop, ArcGIS Server applications and integration with Asset Management Systems, as well as on-site implementation. Ben provides design direction and quality control to ArcGIS Server application development. He develops data standards and data models and sets up domains; integrates data from various sources, including AutoCAD and MicroStation; interprets record plans and GPScollected data; and performs tabular and raster analysis. Ben manages data in various formats, including ArcSDE, and provides technical support and high-quality cartographic mapping. SELECTED EXPERIENCE Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA Field Biologist responsible for conducting California Spotted Owl demographic study. Responsibilities included establishing and surveying network of call stations primarily at night to achieve one hundred percent auditory coverage of the study area. Successfully trained and certified by the U.S. Forest Service to operate chainsaws, ATV s and snowmobiles. Received additional training from the University of California-Davis to properly collect, transport and process blood samples from live birds. Captured, banded and drew blood samples from adult and juvenile spotted owls for DNA and West Nile Virus monitoring. Collected field data and maintained project database with a high level of detail and completeness. Coordinated field crews to improve survey efficiency and safety. Education: Master of Science in Geographic Information Science, St Mary s University of Minnesota, 2013 Bachelor of Science in Biology, University of Wisconsin, 2000 U.S. Forest Service, Ottawa National Forest, Kenton, MI Recreation Technician responsible for maintaining campground areas and hiking trails for visitor safety and enjoyment. Serviced and repaired campground wells as needed. Installed interpretive signs along a nature trail to educate visitors. Repaired and organized field equipment for consistent performance and easy access. Coordinated the activities of a prison work group to rebuild a washed-out hiking trail. Received an award for outstanding performance at the end of the season.