Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/25/2017 Env Board Packet
City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting October 25, 2017 6:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Open Mike 5. Action Items A. Public Hearing NE Drainage Area CSMP 6. Discussion Items A. Wollan’s Park Wetland Bank Status Report. Jason Husveth B. Recycling Updates 7. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES ENIVORMENTAL BOARD MINUTES Pre meeting Wollan’s Park Wetland Restoration at 5:30PM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Heiskary called the Lino Lakes Environmental Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on September 27, 2017. 2. APROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda amended ADD under Discussion Items Item B. Emerald Ash Borer Ms. Andrzejewski made a MOTION to approve amended agenda. Ms. Klebba seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 - 0 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 30, 2017 Mr. Sullivan made a MOTION to approve the August 30, 2017 Meeting Minutes with a few changes. Ms. Andrzejewski seconded the motion. Motion carried 6 - 0 6. OPEN MIKE Mr. Heiskary declared Open Mike at 6:34 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Open Mike closed at 6:35 p.m. DATE : September 27, 2017 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 7:54 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Steve Heiskary, Paula Andrzejewski, Nancy Klebba, Liz Kaufenberg, Alex Schwartz, John Sullivan MEMBERS ABSENT : Shawn Holmes STAFF PRESENT : Marty Asleson, Madelyn Pelon Enivornmental Board September 27, 2017 Page 2 DRAFT MINUTES 7. ACTION ITEMS A. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update, WSB & Associates a. Local Surface Water Management Plan Ms. Thompson from WSB is working on the draft of the Local Surface Water Management section of the 2040 Comprehensive plan. Ms. Thompson reviewed the Goals and Policies section of the plan. She wanted to make sure everything the Environmental Board wanted is contained in the section. In addition, to get feedback to see if there were any questions or comments from the board. Ms. Thompson discuss the high points of the update using Power Point that included information on:. • Water Rate & Quality Issues, Goals & Policies • Water Quality Issues, Goals & Policies • Wetland Management Issues, Goals & Policies • Floodplain Management Issues, Goals & Policies • Public Ditch System Issues, Goals & Policies • Groundwater Management Issues, Goals & Policies • Natural Resources Issues, Goals & Policies • Erosion and Sediment Control Issues, Goals & Policies • Regulations, Permitting and Reporting Issues, Goals & Policies • Monitoring, Maintenance, and Inspection Issues, Goals & Policies • Public Participation, Information and Education Issues, Goals & Policies • Financing Issues, Goals & Policies Following the presentation, the following was discussed: • Plan was to generic • Promote wise water usage • Provide necessary funds to plan and collaborate for conserving, protecting our water supply and infrastructure • Collaborate to produce better results by working together • Use our Wellhead Protection Plan to protect ground water from pollution • Reduce chloride contamination of groundwater • More public education Ms. Thompson did mentioned that the Environmental Board would be able to review the 2040 Comprehensive plan again. She also said if you have ideas or Enivornmental Board September 27, 2017 Page 3 DRAFT MINUTES thoughts about the comp plan please email her so she can make additions to the plan. 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Recycling Updates a. Simple Recycling It was postively received by City Council at the September 5 work session. The city attorney is looking over the contract. b. Organics Ms. Pelon has emailed the four haulers to see if there is interest in curbside organics pick up. Walters is interested in starting a service for Lino Lakes residents. Ms. Pelon thought the cost would be $80.00/year which would included the blue bags for the organics which is then place with your other garbage. She will give us an update. B. Emerald Ash Borer Mr. Heiskary read an articile on the Emerald Ash Borer that was published in the September 14, 2007 newspaper. The article had to do with the five species of Ash trees that are on the brink of extinciton due to the Emerald Ash Borer. 9. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Andrzejewski made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Ms. Klebba seconded motion. Motion carried 6 - 0 Respectfully submitted, Mary Fogarty Office Specialist 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson MEETING DATE: October 25, 2017 TOPIC: Public Hearing: NE Drainage Area Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan BACKGROUND The Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project is in the northeast area of Lino Lakes bounded by Main Street to the south, the City of Hugo to the east, and Peltier Lake to the west, and Rehbein Street to the north. The site is approximately 1,350 acres and largely agricultural or undeveloped within the City of Lino Lakes. The surface water in this area is nearly landlocked, inhibiting site improvements and future development in line with the City of Lino Lakes’ 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The area was historically landlocked until the installation of agricultural field drains in the early 20th century. These agricultural drains are now at capacity and are incompatible with the proposed land uses within the watershed. In addition, these agricultural drains do not provide any water quality benefits to the receiving waterbody, Peltier Lake, an impaired water of the state. As allowed under RCWD Rule C.5(f), this Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP) is presented as an alternative means to meet the requirements of Rule C.6 (Water Quality Treatment) and Rule C.7 (Peak Stormwater Runoff Control) for the development of this area, which will be done in several phases, using a regional stormwater system. This CSMP is intended to streamline RCWD permit approvals for future development in the Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement area, as well as to distribute the regional treatment benefits amongst future developments, so no single project is burdened with more challenges in meeting the RCWD requirements. Projects in this area will conform to the design requirements in the CSMP detailed in Section 8, or will be allowed to demonstrate how the stormwater runoff will be treated to meet the applicable RCWD Rules. Katie Thompson of WSB will go through the plan, and this will be followed up with a public hearing to solicit comments on the plan. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTION Discussion of the CSMP and Public Hearing ATTACHMENTS 1. Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Area – Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan NORTHEAST LINO LAKES DRAINAGE AREA COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Draft October 19, 2017 Prepared for: City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 WSB PROJECT NO. 02029-790 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 Drainage Areas and Resources of Concern ................................................................................. 2 1.3 Water Resources Design Criteria.................................................................................................. 3 1.3.1 Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan .............................................................................................. 3 1.3.2 Northeast Lino Lakes Alternative Urban Areawide Review ...................................................... 3 1.3.3 Resource Management Plan (RMP) ......................................................................................... 3 1.3.4 Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) .................................................................................. 4 1.3.5 Regulations and Policies ........................................................................................................... 4 1.3.6 Regulatory Requirement Overview ........................................................................................... 5 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS....................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 City of Hugo................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 City of Lino Lakes .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Existing Land Uses ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Soils and Geology ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Groundwater.................................................................................................................................. 7 2.6 Surface Water Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 7 2.6.1 I-35E Construction..................................................................................................................... 7 2.6.2 Drain tile systems ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.6.3 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................... 8 2.7 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 8 3 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC Analyses ........................................................................................ 9 3.1 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Upper Rice Creek ........................................................................................................................ 10 3.3 Clearwater Creek ........................................................................................................................ 11 3.4 Hardwood Creek ......................................................................................................................... 12 3.5 Rice Creek HEC-RAS ................................................................................................................. 13 4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 14 5 PROPOSED CONDITIONS MODELS ................................................................................................. 15 5.1 Hydrology Updates ...................................................................................................................... 15 5.2 Hydraulic Updates ....................................................................................................................... 16 5.2.1 Upper Rice Creek InfoSWMM – Proposed Conditions ........................................................... 16 5.2.2 Clearwater Creek InfoSWMM – Proposed Conditions ............................................................ 17 5.2.3 Hardwood Creek InfoSWMM – Proposed Conditions ............................................................. 18 5.2.4 Rice Creek HEC-RAS – Proposed Conditions ........................................................................ 18 6 RCWD RULE C REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................... 19 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 6.1 Rule C Overview ......................................................................................................................... 19 6.2 Water Quality Treatment [RCWD Rule C.6] ................................................................................ 19 6.2.1 Volume Reduction Practices ................................................................................................... 20 6.2.2 NURP Basins .......................................................................................................................... 20 6.2.3 Additional BMPs for Consideration of Future Development ................................................... 21 6.3 Peak Stormwater Runoff Control [RCWD Rule C.7] ................................................................... 21 6.3.1 Allowable Peak Discharges ..................................................................................................... 21 6.3.2 Flood Control Storage ............................................................................................................. 21 6.3.3 Outlet Control Structures ......................................................................................................... 22 6.3.4 Low Floor and Low Entry Freeboard REquirements ............................................................... 22 7 CSMP STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................. 23 7.1 Regional BMP Capacity Analysis ................................................................................................ 23 7.2 Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 23 8 Future Development Submittals .......................................................................................................... 24 8.1 Interim Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 25 9 References ........................................................................................................................................... 26 List of Appendices Appendix A – Figures Figure 1. Location Map Figure 2. Existing Land Uses Figure 3. Drainage Areas and Resources of Concern Figure 4. Lino Lakes Full Build Land Use Figure 5. Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan Figure 6. Lino Lakes Park, Greenway and Trail System Figure 7. Lino Lakes I-35E AUAR Area Figure 8. CSMP Soils Figure 9. CSMP Surficial Geology Figure 10. InfoSWMM Model Updates Figure 11. Proposed InfoSWMM Model Figure 12. Infiltration Suitability Appendix B – Existing Modeling Inputs and Results Appendix C – CSMP Regional System Conceptual Design Appendix D – Proposed Modeling Inputs and Results Appendix E – Total Phosphorus Event Mean Loading Calculations Appendix F – CSMP Design Standards by Parcel Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project is in the northeast area of Lino Lakes bounded by Main Street to the south, the City of Hugo to the east, Peltier Lake to the west, and Rehbein Street to the north. The site is approximately 1,350 acres and is largely agricultural or undeveloped within the City of Lino Lakes. The surface water in this area is nearly landlocked, inhibiting site improvements and future development in line with the City of Lino Lakes’ 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The area was historically landlocked until the installation of agricultural field drains in the early 20th century. These agricultural drains are now at capacity and are incompatible with the proposed land uses within the watershed. In addition, these agricultural drains do not provide any water quality benefits to the receiving waterbody—Peltier Lake—an impaired water of the state. As allowed under Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Rule C.5(f), this Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (CSMP) is presented as an alternative means to meet the requirements of Rule C.6 (Water Quality Treatment) and Rule C.7 (Peak Stormwater Runoff Control) for the development of this area, which will be done in several phases, using a regional stormwater system. This CSMP is intended to streamline RCWD permit approvals for future development in the Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement area, as well as to distribute the regional treatment benefits amongst future developments, so no single project is burdened with more challenges in meeting the RCWD requirements. Projects in this area will conform to the design requirements in the CSMP detailed in Sections 6 through 8, or will be allowed to demonstrate how the stormwater runoff will be treated to meet the applicable Lino Lakes ordinances and current RCWD Rules and requirements. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 2 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Lino Lakes submits this CSMP to the RCWD for the Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project. The goal of this CSMP is to document how future development within the project area will meet RCWD Rule C requirements using a regional stormwater management approach. This CSMP presents the approach for meeting the water quality treatment and peak stormwater runoff control requirements. The RCWD Rules adopted at the time of printing were effective on January 1, 2017. This CSMP documents the existing and proposed stormwater-related impacts for the Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project. The main components of this plan include a detailed analysis of the existing site conditions and limitations, as well as a conceptual design of the proposed regional best management practices (BMPs). These BMPs have been modeled based on recently-submitted development plans, ghost plats and discussions with landowners. The goal of this plan is to document a conceptual design that will guide future development of the area, while alleviating stress on the existing drainage system, and meeting the intent of the RCWD Rules C.6 and C.7. 1.1 Project Location The Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project is in Anoka County primarily within the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, but includes portions of the City of Hugo. The site is a 1,350-acre area that is bounded by Main Street to the south, the City of Hugo to the east, Peltier Lake to the west, and Rehbein Street to the north (Figure 1, Appendix A). The City of Lino Lakes is the largest municipality by percentage of area within the RCWD and project site is located entirely within the RCWD boundary in the Middle Rice Creek planning region (RCWD 2016). Land use in this area is predominantly agricultural (Figure 2, Appendix A). Much of this watershed currently drains to the south to Clearwater Creek via field drains. Clearwater Creek is impaired for aquatic life and has had a history of significant bank erosion problems. Additional information and discussion of existing conditions is provided in Section 2. 1.2 Drainage Areas and Resources of Concern The CSMP area is located within the Clearwater Creek Drainage Area and the Peltier Lake Resource of Concern (RCWD Drainage System Data 2017) (Figure 3, Appendix A). The area is currently serviced by three Anoka County drainage systems: Anoka County Ditch (ACD) 72 in the north Judicial Ditch (JD) 2 in the north ACD 55 in the south ACD 72 and JD 2 discharge directly to Peltier Lake, while ACD 55 enters Clearwater Creek (also known as JD 3), to the south before discharging to Peltier Lake. The remainder of the study area surface flows directly to Peltier Lake. Peltier Lake has been listed as an impaired waterbody within the greater Anoka Chain of Lakes since 2002 for aquatic recreation, with the main pollutant identified as excess phosphorus from watershed runoff and internal loading (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2013). RCWD has an average total phosphorus concentration within the lake of 224 µg/L, average chlorophyll a of 107.0 µg/L, and a transparency of 1.0 meters, all indicating relatively opaque water and poor water quality (RCWD 2016). Additionally, the Anoka Chain of Lakes has limited flood storage capacity (Houston Engineering, Inc. 2013). Any improvements to the drainage system will need to show no adverse impacts to receiving waters, as defined below: No damage to structures, buildings, and infrastructure as a result of an increase in flooding (increased water surface elevations, velocities, or number of days of inundation); Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 3 No property damage or increased maintenance costs resulting from an increase in the amount of erosion, bank failure, or accelerated sedimentation; No decrease in water quality resulting from an increase in phosphorus and sediment loads; and No permanent loss of the use of flood storage volume during the flood peak within the Anoka Chain of Lakes. 1.3 Water Resources Design Criteria A number of documents, studies, and guidelines are already in place to guide the development within the CSMP study area. It is expected that portions of the study area may be developed by the Cities of Lino Lakes and Hugo, Anoka County, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and yet to be determined private developers. The following sections outline the supporting planning, studies and regulations, leading to the development of this CSMP, as well as regulatory agencies’ roles during development. 1.3.1 Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan The City of Lino Lakes’ 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Lino Lakes 2010) has defined the Land Use Plan (Figure 4, Appendix A) which was prepared in conjunction with the Resource Management System Plan (Figure 5, Appendix A), the City’s Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenways and Trail System Plan (Figure 6, Appendix A), and the City’s Local Surface Water Management Plan to manage and protect community resources. As part of this process, the Land Use Plan was analyzed to determine impacts to the natural environment and identify appropriate mitigation measures, which are identified in the Resource Management System Plan. This process ensures that adequate infrastructure is in place to accommodate the community’s growth and that natural resources are protected. The ultimate purpose of this Land Use Plan is to implement the community vision developed by the Citizen Vision Committee, and to manage future growth in an efficient manner while protecting Lino Lakes’ valuable natural resource and community assets. The land use plan is in the process of being updated for the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. While it is not expected to change significantly, the Northeast Drainage area is expected to play a prominent role in the Local Surface Water Management Plan and the prioritization of future infrastructure funding. 1.3.2 Northeast Lino Lakes Alternative Urban Areawide Review The I-35E Corridor Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was a proactive, citizen driven environmental review process that comprehensively assessed the environmental impacts of development in a 4,600-acre growth area in the City (Figure 7, Appendix A) and was completed in 2005. The overarching goal of the whole project was to balance development with natural resource conservation. The result of the AUAR process was a Mitigation Plan that documents the actions the City will take to mitigate environmental impacts. The foundation of the Mitigation Plan is the Conservation Design Framework (CDF). The goals of the CDF are to: 1) Conserve the most ecologically significant natural resources within the AUAR area 2) Protect ecologically sensitive natural resources from adjacent land uses by through buffering 3) Connect ecologically significant resources via multifunctional greenway corridors - corridors for wildlife, trails, and surface water management features The AUAR defined Stormwater Management Areas to address stormwater issues by implementing an integrated system of bio-swales, wet prairie, and wetlands aligned in series to effectively reduce post- development runoff rates and volume, as well as to enhance water quality. 1.3.3 Resource Management Plan In partnership with RCWD, the City of Lino Lakes developed a Resource Management Plan (RMP) to provide a watershed-based approach to wetland management and evaluation of the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit applications. As part of the RMP, a Wetland Preservation Corridor was identified, linking high priority wetlands to enhance multiple wetland functions and reducing habitat fragmentation; it has been incorporated within this CSMP study. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 4 1.3.4 Special Area Management Plan Prepared for the City of Lino Lakes and the RCWD, this Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) facilitates the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Clean Water Act Section 404 permit evaluations within the subwatersheds addressed by the SAMP and prioritizes future restoration projects and management of aquatic resources. Areas within the CSMP study area were identified as having medium to high restoration potential. It also recognized that the existing ACD 55 and ACD 72 tile systems are ineffective for traditional urban runoff volumes and were preliminarily scoped for wetland restoration and volume credits for future development. The Peltier RMU ACD 72 and ACD 55 tile systems scored second and third, respectively, of all preferred projects for their roles in urban runoff management and a conceptual restoration plan was developed. Due to the uncertain nature of future development, the SAMP suggested to wait until a more-concrete development plan was presented for the area (Lino Lakes 2010). 1.3.5 Regulations and Policies A great number of rules, ordinances, regulations and policies are expected to govern the development of land within the CSMP study area. The following is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but provide a summary of the prominent stormwater and flood control policies. 1.3.5.1 Main Street Shoppes RCWD Permits #13-029 and #13-040 In 2013, a landowner within the CSMP study area applied for a RCWD permit to develop an 18.5-acre lot located at the northeast corner of Main Street (CSAH 14) and Otter Lake Road in Lino Lakes. Under this permit, stormwater treatment was provided for the street development and a future commercial site. RCWD informed the applicant that the downstream drainage system (ACD 55 Branch 8) was constrained and under 2008 Rule C.5(d), adverse impact requirements must be met by one of the following methods: Meet the volume control standard of 1.1-inches over the proposed impervious surface (Rule C.6) and show no increase in runoff volume for the 2-year 24-hour event (6,511 cubic feet per Rule C.5(d)); or Reduce the peak runoff rate for the 2-year 24-hour design event to 0.03 cfs, as determined by the District Engineer (2008 Rule C.5(d) and Houston Engineering 2013), from the proposed 1.5 cfs. This would result in a nearly 99 percent reduction in peak rate from the existing runoff rate of 2.5 cfs. The developer chose to meet the volume control option and designed a water reuse system to irrigate 0.65 acres of existing agricultural land with water from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) pond, installed for rate control. The irrigation pool volume was established between elevations 908 and 911, to be drawn down over three weeks of irrigation during a period without rainfall. This volume (6,607 cubic feet) is equivalent to the increase in volume generated from the 2-year 24-hour design event. As companion permit to RCWD #13-029, #13-040 approved the development of the present-day McDonald’s site on the commercial site and used the volume reduction from Permit #13-029 to offset the proposed impervious surface. 1.3.5.2 RCWD Resolution #2015-31 The RCWD Board of Managers approved Resolution #2015-31 on September 23, 2015, recognizing the limitations on the existing regional drainage system in the Northeast Lino Lakes area and affirming that should the proposed projects be constructed as proposed, the RCWD would be able to issue permits in line with their Rules and standards based on this CSMP. 1.3.5.3 City of Lino Lakes Overlay District The City of Lino Lakes will update Chapter 1011: Stormwater, Erosion, and Sediment Control of the City Code to reflect the requirements of this CSMP, define the Northeast Drainage Overlay District, and the regulations and policies for development within it. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 5 1.3.5.4 Rice Creek Watershed District Rules The RCWD Rules in effect at the time of writing this CSMP are dated January 1, 2017. Future rule revisions will require detailed review of this CSMP for compatibility with the proposed rule revisions and may require updates to the CSMP itself. 1.3.5.5 Minnesota Statute 103E Minnesota Statute 103E defines the drainage authority powers, benefitted party rights and procedures for petitioning maintenance, alterations, diversions, impoundments and abandonment of the ditch and tile system in the CSMP area. The RCWD is the drainage authority for ACD 55 and ACD 72 and any proposed modifications or abandonment of the ditch system will require a petition by the benefitted landowner to begin the public hearing proceedings. 1.3.6 Regulatory Requirement Overview The approval of this CSMP does not waive any regulatory requirements for development within the study boundaries, it simply provides a framework to review development projects within this area as part of a greater regional system. All future projects must obtain all necessary and required permits prior to construction from the appropriate regulatory agencies. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 6 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The CSMP area is almost entirely within the City of Lino Lakes, however the CSMP does include upstream contributing land from the City of Hugo. This section provides a brief overview of the existing conditions used in the conceptual design of this CSMP. 2.1 City of Hugo The City of Hugo contributes 215 acres of the nearly 1,350-acre area and has an existing flow rate of 50.3 cfs into the City of Lino Lakes and ACD 55 drain tile system. Hugo has existing stormwater infrastructure and storage related to commercial and residential development east of Elmcrest Avenue. These sites were permitted under the City of Hugo’s permit program, followed RCWD rules, and instituted a more stringent rate control standard of 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre limit on the 100-year event (Hugo 2002). 2.2 City of Lino Lakes The majority of the CSMP area is located within the City of Lino Lakes and serviced by the agricultural drain tile systems, ACD 55 and ACD72. ACD 55 and ACD 72 drain tiles were designed to provide drainage for agricultural lands and are already at capacity, limited by the existing crossings under I-35E. The City of Lino Lakes has also identified this area as being a Runoff Sensitive Area for stormwater rate and volume control given the limitations of the existing ditch system (Lino Lakes 2005). Low points in the area can remain inundated for weeks following the 100-year event due to the limited pipe capacity in the County Ditch systems. Because the low-lying areas take so long to drain back to their normal water levels, the next rain event may compound flooding beyond the 100-year flood level. Constraints of the drain tile system have limited landowners’ ability to develop their land consistent with the City of Lino Lakes’ Comprehensive Plan. Development must meet RCWD Rule C for Stormwater Management Plans, which includes water quality and rate control. However, since the existing drainage system is at capacity under existing conditions, RCWD has established reduced peak rates for the maximum discharge rate under development on all sites draining to ACD 55 and ACD 72 (Houston Engineering, Inc. 2013). Unfortunately, the soils underlying most the area are poorly suited for infiltration, have a high groundwater table, or are wetlands, all of which limit stormwater management opportunities and the volume reduction requirement of Rule C. As discussed in Section 1.3.5.1 there is a small commercial development in Lino Lakes at Main Street and Otter Lake Road. Due to the limited capacity of the existing ACD 55 Branch 8 drain tile system, the McDonald’s development was required to install a water reuse and spray irrigation system in addition to meeting the standard RCWD rules to reduce the stormwater runoff volume for the 2-year event from their site (RCWD Permits #13-029 and #13-040) and alleviate some of the burden on ACD 55 Branch 8. 2.3 Existing Land Uses Most the land in the CSMP area is agricultural or undeveloped (Table 2-1 and Figure 2, Appendix A) (Metropolitan Council 2017) and drains to one of the county ditch systems via unbuffered surface inlets. Table 2-1. Metropolitan Council Generalized Existing Land Use within the CSMP Land Use Hugo East Central West Lino Total CSMP Total Agricultural 59.2 385.8 400.6 98.4 884.8 944.1 Farmstead 4.7 7.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 12.2 Institutional 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.9 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 7 Land Use Hugo East Central West Lino Total CSMP Total Major Highway 0.0 13.6 24.8 0.0 38.4 38.4 Park, Recreational, or Preserve 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 15.4 Retail and Other Commercial 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 Single Family Attached 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 21.2 Single Family Detached 32.5 6.0 7.8 4.2 18.0 50.5 Undeveloped 82.1 119.5 13.7 49.9 183.1 265.2 Total Areas 215.6 533.9 447.3 152.5 1,133.7 1,349.3 2.4 Soils and Geology Soils in the CSMP area are mapped as primarily loam and sandy loam. Depressions and areas adjacent to Peltier lake are mapped as peat or muck (Figure 8, Appendix A) (Soil Survey Staff 2017). The surficial geology of the CSMP area is loamy till with peat and muck around Peltier Lake and in isolate pockets (Figure 9, Appendix A). The loamy till is from the New Ulm formation and is chiefly loam texture with unsorted sediment. Peat and muck was deposited in the quaternary era and is composed of partially decomposed organic matter deposited in marshes. Peat and muck also includes fine grained organic matter laid down in ponded water and marl (Setterholm 2013). 2.5 Groundwater Groundwater within the CSMP is generally close to the ground surface. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) modeled much of the project area as having a depth to the water table as 0- 10 feet (MnDNR 2017) and the NRCS soils data shows the annual minimum depth to groundwater table to be less than 2.3 feet below the ground surface for the entire study area (NRCS 2017). Groundwater reaches the surface at Peltier Lake, the wetlands around Peltier Lake and within closed depressions. 2.6 Surface Water Hydrology Surface water in the study area ultimately drains to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes through Peltier Lake, Rice Creek, Hardwood Creek (Jurisdictional Ditch 2), Clearwater Creek (Jurisdictional Ditch 3), Anoka County Ditch 55 and Anoka County Ditch 72, as shown on Figure 1, Appendix A. 2.6.1 I-35E Construction I- 35E, running from Burnsville, through Lino Lakes, and ending in Columbus was constructed in 1970. The construction of the four-lane highway effectively separated the East and Central CSMP regions by placing fill to elevate the roadway through swamp sections (Minnesota Department of Transportation 1972). While the two regions remain connected by the 10-inch and 12-inch drain tiles on ACD 55 Branch 8 and Main Trunks, Interstate I-35E acts as a berm preventing overland flows from flowing downstream from the east to west. 2.6.2 Drain tile systems The ditch and tile network was developed to manage stormwater runoff and to keep fields dry during the growing season. They have significantly altered drainage basins and changed the pre-settlement subwatershed divides. The existing capacity of the tile networks are insufficient to convey stormwater runoff from future development within the Northeast Drainage Area. Alterations to the ditch and drain tile system must go through legal proceedings as defined under Minnesota Statutes 103E, to ensure ditch capacity and landowner drainage rights are preserved. The properties that are serviced by the ditch system are entitled to the benefits of the drainage system and, in effect, own the drain tile system under Minnesota Statutes 103E. The drainage of the systems must be Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 8 maintained in perpetuity, until such time the assessed land owners choose to petition RCWD for the abandonment of the drain tile on their property. 2.6.3 Wetlands There are a number of wetlands within the CSMP area. Wetlands range in size from an extensive wetland complex that fringes Peltier Lake to wetlands in small farm field depressions. Wetlands range in type from seasonally flooded depressions to shallow and deep marshes. The quality of wetlands likely varies. Some of the wetlands appear to be farmed and are likely degraded. Wetland delineations have been completed for the West and Central regions of the CSMP area (WSB & Associates, Inc. 2017 and Kjolhaug Environmental Services 2014). 2.7 Cultural Resources A cultural resources survey was completed for the West region of the CSMP area (Blondo 2016). The survey reviewed historical records and past surveys. An archaeological systematic surface survey was conducted and concluded in the finding of no previously unidentified cultural resources. No additional cultural materials were identified during this survey. No further investigation or evaluation of the project area is required at this time. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 9 3 HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSES The models used in the CSMP have been derived from the RCWD district-wide modeling efforts for Rice Creek. InfoSWMM models for Upper Rice Creek (URC), Hardwood Creek (HWC), and Clearwater Creek (CWC) (Figure 11, Appendix A) were refined to be divided along the boundaries of the study area (Figure 12, Appendix A). The hydrographs from the revised InfoSWMM models were incorporated into the Rice Creek unsteady state HEC-RAS model. The models used in the CSMP have been derived from the RCWD District-wide modeling efforts for Rice Creek. InfoSWMM models for URC, HWC, and CWC were refined to include the boundaries of the study area. The hydrographs from the revised InfoSWMM models were incorporated into the Rice Creek unsteady state HEC-RAS model. There are several interactions between the different models, Figure 1 highlights the model interactions, the following discussion attempts to clearly state the specific changes made to each of the received RCWD models. Figure 1. Hydraulic Model Interactions 3.1 Hydrology A total of 40 subcatchments from the three RCWD InfoSWMM models are part of the Northeast Lino Lakes CSMP. To compare the CSMP existing and proposed conditions directly, subcatchments along the CSMP boundary were required to be subdivided. The InfoSWMM and HEC-RAS models were updated to reflect this change, and the revised existing conditions modeling is discussed in detail by model below. For all the InfoSWMM models, the hydrologic inputs for the 40 subcatchments were revised based on recent land use data from the City of Lino Lakes, City of Hugo, and the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) (Table 3-1). All areas were recalculated based on the GIS data and weighted curve numbers and depression storage were recalculated for all the subcatchments within the CSMP area as well (Table 3-2). Upper Rice Creek InfoSWMM Clearwater Creek InfoSWMM Hardwood Creek InfoSWMM Rice Creek HEC- RAS LEAVE3 LEAVE4 LEAVING_ SYSTEM2 J3MT_001 J3MT_001 PELTIER_LAKE Peltier Lake Stage Peltier Lake Stage Peltier Lake Stage Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 10 Table 3-1. Existing Land Uses, Impervious Percentages, Curve Numbers, and Total Phosphorus Concentrations. LAND USE DESCRIPTION 1 ESTIMATED IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGE 2 A 3 B 3 C 3 D 3 TP 4 [MG/L] AGRICULTURAL 0% 67 78 85 89 0.32 FARMSTEAD 10% 59 74 82 86 0.46 INSTITUTIONAL 65% 49 69 79 84 0.18 MAJOR HIGHWAY 75% 83 89 92 93 0.25 PARK, RECREATIONAL, OR PRESERVE 10% 39 61 74 80 0.04 RETAIL AND OTHER COMMERCIAL 75% 89 92 94 95 0.22 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED 65% 77 85 90 92 0.40 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 40% 51 68 79 84 0.30 UNDEVELOPED 0% 30 58 71 78 0.04 1 Metropolitan Council Generalized Land Use 2016 2 Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan 3 NRCS National Engineering Handbook 4 MPCA Minnesota Stormwater Manual Table 3-2. Existing Land Uses by Region (in acres) Land Use Description HUGO EAST CENTRAL WEST TOTAL Agricultural 59.2 385.8 400.6 98.4 944.1 Farmstead 4.7 7.5 0.0 0.0 12.2 Institutional 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.9 Major Highway 0.0 13.6 24.8 0.0 38.4 Park, Recreational, or Preserve 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 Retail and Other Commercial 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 Single Family Attached 21.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 Single Family Detached 32.5 6.0 7.8 4.2 50.5 Undeveloped 82.1 119.5 13.7 49.9 265.2 Totals 215.6 534.1 447.3 152.6 1,349.6 3.2 Upper Rice Creek The URC model was updated to split existing catchments MRC_RC_001 into MRC_RC_001 and MRC_RC_001.5 along Peltier Lake Drive on the west CSMP boundary. Existing catchment MRC_RC_002 was also split into two subcatchments (MRC_RC_002 and MRC_RC_002.5) along the southwest CSMP boundary. A nearly five-acre discrepancy in drainage area between the received model input and GIS data was noticed at CWC_RC_PELTIER_008. As a precaution, all drainage areas were recalculated, but this subcatchment appeared to be an anomaly. The URC model was re-run and the inflow hydrograph at junction PELTIER_LAKE was exported from InfoSWMM and inserted into the existing conditions Rice Creek HEC-RAS model at storage area SA Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 11 Peltier Lake. The URC model contains three interactions between the CWC and HWC InfoSWMM models. Table 3-3 summarizes the URC model interaction results. Table 3-3. Upper Rice Creek Model Outflow Summary [cfs] URC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY LEAVING_SYSTEM2 RCWD 2014 NOT INCLUDED NOT INCLUDED 13.5 4.5 Revised Existing 0 1.7 30.0 5.9 Difference [cfs] 0 1.7 16.5 1.4 LEAVING_SYSTEM3 RCWD 2014 0 0 0.6 0 Revised Existing 0 0 0.7 0.6 Difference [cfs] 0 0 0.1 0.6 LEAVING_SYSTEM4 RCWD 2014 0 0 0 0 Revised Existing 0 0 0.1 0 Difference [cfs] 0 0 0.1 0 PELTIER_LAKE RCWD 2014 1,389.5 2,417.5 4,515.7 883.7 Revised Existing 1,448.8 2,523.1 4,726.6 896.4 Difference [cfs] 59.3 105.6 210.9 12.8 3.3 Clearwater Creek The CWC model was updated to split existing catchment ACD55MT_007 into ACD55MT_007 and ACD55MT_007.5 along the south central CSMP boundary. Inflows from the Upper Rice Creek model at LEAVE3 and LEAVE4 were input at storage areas SA55MT_009 and SA55MT_028. The CWC model was re-run and the inflow hydrograph at junction J3MT_001 was exported from the InfoSWMM model and replaced in the existing conditions Rice Creek HEC-RAS model at RS 125483.9. A summary of the CWC model interactions is provided in Table 3-4. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 12 Table 3-4. Clearwater Creek Model Outflow Summary [cfs] CWC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY J3MT_001 RCWD 2014 201.8 337.8 563.9 446.0 Revised Existing 217.3 350.0 566.0 443.6 Difference [cfs] 15.5 12.2 2.2 -2.4 Finally, the CWC model includes the existing flows entering Lino Lakes from Hugo under Elmcrest Avenue. Table 3-5 summarizes the existing flows entering the CSMP study area. Table 3-5. City of Hugo Existing Outflows [cfs] CWC LINK 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY CA55MTL_013 2.7 3.8 5.0 4.3 CA55MTL_012 0.3 1.2 3.6 1.6 CA55MTL_011 1.8 6.8 21.5 6.4 CA55MTL_014 5.2 9.9 16.4 12.5 CA55MTL_014B 0.0 0.8 5.9 2.8 TOTAL HUGO 10.0 22.5 52.4 27.6 3.4 Hardwood Creek The HWC model was updated to split existing catchment SMT_002 into SMT_002 and SMT_002.5. The soils data for subcatchment SMT_004A was updated to reflect the subcatchment hydrologic input data. The HWC model was unstable when first run, the initial water surface elevation at the outlet node OUT (El. 885.67) was higher than the next two upstream nodes’ starting water surface elevations, creating a backflow from Peltier Lake into Hardwood Creek. The lower HWC model nodes were adjusted, per Table 3-6, to prevent water from backing up into the system at the start of the model runs. Table 3-6. HWC Initial Water Surface Elevation Corrections INFOSWMM NODE RCWD 2014 INVERT ELEV RCWD 2014 INITIAL WSEL ELEV. REVISED INVERT ELEV REVISED INITIAL WSEL ELEV. OUT 860 885.67 882 885.67 JMT_001 882.44 885.19 882.44 885.67 JMT_002 881.66 885.18 881.66 885.67 JMT_003 883.1 883.96 883.1 885.96 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 13 INFOSWMM NODE RCWD 2014 INVERT ELEV RCWD 2014 INITIAL WSEL ELEV. REVISED INVERT ELEV REVISED INITIAL WSEL ELEV. JMT_004 883.25 886.11 883.25 886.11 JMT_005 883.64 886.114 883.64 886.114 JMT_006 884.49 886.357 884.49 886.357 Finally, the inflow hydrograph from the URC model node LEAVING_SYSTEM2 was input at junction node JM_016 in the HWC model as ACD72_LEAVE2_100YR. The HWC model was re-run and the total inflow hydrograph at junction JMT_001 was exported from InfoSWMM and imported into the existing conditions HEC-RAS model at RS 125004.6. Table 3-7. Hardwood Creek Model Outflow Summary [cfs] HWC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY JMT_001 RCWD 2014 80.7 202.5 685.6 932.0 Revised Existing 99.8 214.3 669.3 903.2 Difference [cfs] 19.1 11.7 -16.3 -28.8 3.5 Rice Creek HEC-RAS The existing conditions HEC-RAS model was updated with the inflow hydrographs from all the InfoSWMM models and re-run to establish the existing water surface elevations in Peltier Lake for the CSMP study and the results are summarized in Table 3-8. Table 3-8. Peltier Lake Stage Summary [ft] 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY PELTIER LAKE STAGE RCWD 2014 885.73 886.28 887.20 887.53 REVISED EXISTING 885.76 886.41 887.22 887.51 DIFFERENCE [FT] 0.03 0.13 0.02 -0.02 Due to the relatively minor changes in stage at Peltier Lake, it was assumed that re-importing the stage hydrograph into the InfoSWMM models would result in negligible changes to the overall InfoSWMM results. As a result, the Peltier Lake stage data was not updated in the revised existing conditions InfoSWMM modeling and the models presented above were used as the baseline existing conditions. Detailed input and result tables from the existing conditions modeling may be found in Appendix B. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 14 4 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The City of Lino Lakes proposed to improve drainage in the Northeast Area by developing a regional stormwater management plan, accomplished through improving stormwater conveyance, adding water quality BMPs, and managing stormwater runoff rate and volume control. The proposed improvements will benefit not only the landowners within the Northeast Area, but also the downstream waterbodies by improving stormwater runoff water quality, increasing to the extent feasible water reuse and irrigation practices, and maintaining existing flood elevations throughout the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes. The proposed improvements to the CSMP area include: Replacement of the existing culvert under Peltier Lake Drive Open channel system from Peltier Lake Drive to 20th Avenue, including a public greenway corridor with additional water quality features, such as iron-enhanced filtration or biofiltration within the floodplain areas Regional storage facilities, phased with future developments, to provide flood control storage and additional water quality treatment opportunities Outlet control structures with gates on selected regional storage facilities to minimize the risk of adversely impacting flood levels on Peltier Lake New 60-inch storm drain crossing under I-35E to the proposed regional storage facility sited between 20th Avenue and I-35E Construction of new storm sewer along the future Otter Lake Road extension Preservation of the agricultural drain tile system to maintain drainage rights until all land within the study area develops. Drain tile may be abandoned or realigned as development progresses, at the benefitted landowners’ expense and discretion. A conceptual layout and system details are provided in Appendix C. Additional design requirements proposed for land development within the CSMP area are outlined in Sections 6 through 8. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 15 5 PROPOSED CONDITIONS MODELS After establishing the revised existing conditions models to use as a baseline for comparison in Section 3, we developed the proposed conditions modeling in cooperation with RCWD to ensure compatibility with the District modeling procedures. The proposed conditions reflect future land uses in the study area, assumed site grading to drain the study area to the central storm drainage system, assumed private disconnection of agricultural drain tile within the study area, and conceptual regional stormwater storage BMPs connected by a new open conveyance system and revised outlet to Peltier Lake (Figure 13, Appendix A and Appendix C). 5.1 Hydrology Updates Curve numbers were estimated using the MLCSS, City of Lino Lakes, and City of Hugo 2030 projected land uses, NRCS soil data, recent wetland delineations, and the National Wetland Inventory. The following assumptions were made: 1. Hugo and Lino Lakes will be fully built out per their 2030 approved land use plans 2. Future development will be graded to drain to a regional BMP; this may include the use of drain tile or imported fill to improve drainage in clay soils. A hydrologic soil group type B was assumed for new development. 3. Existing wetlands within the RCWD Wetland Management Corridor (WMC) will be preserved or restored per RCWD Rules within the WMC in Lino Lakes. Many of the existing wetlands have been drained and are currently farmed. By protecting and improving the quality of the existing wetlands, the proposed curve number is reduced in several subcatchments. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 provide a summary of the land uses and curve numbers used in the modeling: Table 5-1. Proposed Land Uses, Impervious Percentages, and Curve Numbers LAND USE DESCRIPTION 1 MAX. IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGE 1 A 2 B 2 C 2 D 2 TP 3 [MG/L] Large lot residential 10% 59 74 82 86 0.46 Low density residential 40% 47 65 76 82 0.50 Medium density residential 50% 54 70 79 84 0.30 High density residential 65% 70 81 87 90 0.40 Commercial 75% 86 91 93 94 0.22 Industrial 75% 81 88 91 93 0.25 Public semi-public 65% 39 61 74 80 0.18 Vehicular right-of-way 75% 83 89 92 93 0.25 Mixed use 75% 77 85 90 92 0.22 Wetland management corridor 0% 30 58 71 78 0.03 1 Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan 2 NRCS National Engineering Handbook 3 MPCA Minnesota Stormwater Manual Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 16 Table 5-2. Proposed Land Uses by CSMP Region (in acres) LAND USE DESCRIPTION HUGO EAST CENTRAL WEST TOTAL Right-of-Way 0 14.1 27.9 2.5 44.5 Large Lot Residential 46.1 0.2 0 0 46.3 Low Density Residential 150.6 0.3 0 42.8 193.7 Medium Density Residential 3.9 0.1 15.9 51.1 71 High Density Residential 0 0 0 18.9 18.9 Commercial 0.3 82.1 1 0 83.4 Industrial 0 346.7 29.9 0 376.6 Mixed Use 0 0 353.7 0 353.7 Public/Quasi-Public 14.7 0 0 0 14.7 Wetland Protection Zone 0 90.6 18.9 37.3 146.8 Totals 215.6 534.1 447.3 152.6 1,349.6 Like the revised existing conditions, the proposed models were updated and model interactions were evaluated. 5.2 Hydraulic Updates 5.2.1 Upper Rice Creek InfoSWMM – Proposed Conditions The URC model contains the vast majority of the CSMP study area, so this model was updated to include the re-routed ACD55 subcatchments from the CWC model and the re-routed ACD72 subcatchments from the HWC model (Table 5-3 and Figure 13, Appendix A). It was assumed that future site grading would eliminate the existing outflows into each of these systems. Table 5-3. Proposed Upper Rice Creek Outflows URC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY LEAVING_SYSTEM2 Revised Existing 0 1.7 30.0 5.9 Proposed 0 0 0 0 Difference [cfs] 0 -1.7 -30.0 -5.9 LEAVING_SYSTEM3 Revised Existing 0 0 0.7 0.6 Proposed 0 0 0 0 Difference [cfs] 0 0 -0.7 -0.6 LEAVING_SYSTEM4 Revised Existing 0 0 0.1 0 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 17 URC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY Proposed 0 0 0 0 Difference [cfs] 0 0 -0.1 0 PELTIER_LAKE Revised Existing 1,448.8 2,523.1 4,426.6 896.4 Proposed 1,069.3 2,032.3 4,128.4 856.4 Difference [cfs] -379.5 -490.8 -598.2 -40.1 With the reconfiguration of the URC model now including the re-routing of ACD 55 main trunk and Branch 8, the flows entering from the City of Hugo are now included in this model. A summary of the Hugo flows entering the City of Lino Lakes is presented in Table 5-4. Table 5-4. City of Hugo Proposed Outflows [cfs] URC LINK 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY CA55MTL_013 2.0 3.5 5.0 4.3 CA55MTL_012 0.3 1.2 3.3 1.6 CA55MTL_011 2.1 7.3 17.7 6.4 CA55MTL_014 3.6 8.3 13.9 12.5 CA55MTL_014B 0.0 0.1 3.9 2.8 TOTAL HUGO 8.0 20.4 43.8 27.6 The flows leaving the City of Hugo are somewhat decreased from the existing conditions due to the conversion of agricultural lands to low density residential, as the slightly lower curve numbers provides more infiltration and less runoff. 5.2.2 Clearwater Creek InfoSWMM – Proposed Conditions The CWC model was updated to reflect the re-routing of ACD 55 mainline and Branch 8 into the CSMP study area, contained in the URC model discussed above. The result is a minor decrease in flows through the Clearwater Creek system for all design events (Table 5-5). Table 5-5. Clearwater Creek Proposed Outflows CWC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY J3MT_001 Revised Existing 217.3 350.0 566.0 443.6 Proposed 219.7 349.0 593.5 439.1 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 18 Difference [cfs] 2.4 -1.0 27.5 -4.5 5.2.3 Hardwood Creek InfoSWMM – Proposed Conditions The HWC model was updated to reflect the re-routing of ACD 72 into the CSMP study area, contained in the URC model discussed above. The result is a negligible change in flows through the Hardwood Creek system for all design events (Table 5-6). Table 5-6. Hardwood Creek Proposed Outflows HWC NODE 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY JMT_001 Revised Existing 99.8 214.3 669.3 903.2 Proposed 101.5 212.5 669.3 902.9 Difference [cfs] 1.7 -1.8 0.02 -0.3 5.2.4 Rice Creek HEC-RAS – Proposed Conditions The proposed conditions HEC-RAS was updated with the inflow hydrographs from the InfoSWMM models and run to establish the proposed water surface elevations in Peltier Lake for the CSMP study (Table 5- 7). Table 5-7. Peltier Lake Stage Summary [ft] 2-YR 24-HR 10-YR 24-HR 100-YR 24-HR 100-YR 10-DAY PELTIER LAKE STAGE Revised Existing 885.76 886.41 887.22 887.51 Proposed 885.73 886.27 886.98 887.51 Difference [ft] -0.03 -0.14 -0.24 0.00 The detailed input and result tables from the proposed modeling is provided in Appendix D. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 19 6 RCWD RULE C REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Rule C Overview The Northeast Lino Lakes CSMP area is located within a single resource of concern drainage area (Figure 3, Appendix A). General drainage patterns as documented in this CSMP will be maintained with any future developments so that stormwater runoff will remain within the Peltier Lake ROC drainage area and be managed to meet RCWD’s Rule C requirements. As allowed for under RCWD Rule C.5(f), this CSMP has been prepared as an alternative means to meet the requirements of Rule C.6 Water Quality Treatment and Rule C.7 Peak Stormwater Runoff Control for the development of the area, which is anticipated to be completed in several distinct phases. The peak runoff control and water quality treatment requirements will be met, in aggregate, for the area as a whole. 6.2 Water Quality Treatment [RCWD Rule C.6] RCWD’s water quality treatment requirements will be met through a variety of measures, including stormwater detention ponds, biofiltration, and infiltration, as is feasible. Figure 14, Appendix A shows the locations and suggested types of regional BMPs. It is anticipated that the study area will include water quality treatment trains with sedimentation BMPs located in upland areas designed to remove solids and particulate matter. These will be combined with surface and media filtration to remove dissolved particulates, nitrogen, and phosphorus prior to entering the new system and discharging into the regional BMPs. Total phosphorus loading under existing and proposed land use conditions was estimated using event mean concentrations from the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2016). Under existing conditions, the CSMP area contributes approximately 12.6 pounds of total phosphorus annually to Peltier Lake. With the proposed full-build out land uses, in absence of any stormwater treatment, the CSMP area loading would increase to approximately 14.4 pounds per year (Table 6-1 and Appendix E). Table 6-1. Summary of Total Phosphorus (TP) Loading by Region without Stormwater Treatment REGION Area [ac] Existing TP Load [lb] Proposed TP Load [lb] TP Load Change [lb] HUGO 215.6 0.72 1.36 +0.64 EAST 553.9 4.90 6.43 +1.53 CENTRAL 447.3 5.89 6.30 +0.41 WEST 152.5 1.06 0.31 -0.75 TOTALS 1,349 12.6 14.4 +1.83 The proposed land uses in the West region, including the wetland management corridor and medium density residential have a lower total phosphorus concentration (0.03 and 0.3 mg/L, respectively) than the existing land use of agricultural row crops (0.32 mg/L) and contribute to the reduction in the proposed total phosphorus loading. However, as required by RCWD Rule C.6, water quality treatment is a necessary component of development and we expect the TP loading to be reduced significantly with the required stormwater treatment practices in place. A challenge for the CSMP area will be to infiltrate stormwater to meet the water quality volume reduction in Rule C.6. Review of the CSMP area led to the development of Figure 15, Appendix A (Infiltration Suitability). This map was developed using the following four criteria: Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 20 1. Located outside of a vulnerable Drinking Water Source Management Area (Minnesota Department of Health 2014); 2. Must have a type A or B hydrologic soil group; 3. Depth to water table greater than 24-inches; and 4. Located outside of the National Wetland Inventory wetlands. Only 19.3 percent of the CSMP area meet the majority of these four criteria for infiltration. RCWD Rule C.6 requires that, where feasible, infiltration must be used. However, most the CSMP area will need to use alternative BMPs to treat stormwater runoff. For the purposes of this conceptual analysis, we have assumed NURP stormwater ponds, with a TP removal factor of 0.50 will be used. The summary of the required water quality volumes is presented in Table 6-2. Table 6-2. Assumed Water Quality Treatment Summary (Lino Lakes) Impervious Surface Constructed to Date 38 acres Proposed Impervious Surface 706 acres Area Suitable for Infiltration 218.5 ac Required Volume Reduction [1.1” runoff from impervious] 11.8 ac-ft Required NURP Volume [2.5” runoff from drainage area] 89.4 ac-ft Required Water Quality Volume for Lino Lakes Full Build Out 101.2 ac-ft Estimated TP Reduction through Infiltration and Ponding 60% Proposed TP Loading with Stormwater Treatment 6.62 lbs 6.2.1 Volume Reduction Practices As discussed above, Rule C.6 requires that where feasible, infiltration must be provided for stormwater runoff from new and/or reconstructed impervious surfaces. The proposed impervious surface area is based on the City of Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Water quality treatment volume required for phosphorus removal is calculated as follows: Required WQ Treatment Volume [ac-ft] = Aimpervious * 1.1 inches / TP Removal Factor / 12 in/ft Infiltration practices are allocated a TP Removal Factor of 1.0. On-site infiltration is not feasible for most of the CSMP are due to poor soils, high groundwater and the presence of wetlands. Using NRCS soils data and the National Wetland Inventory, only 19 percent of the area may be suitable for infiltration practices within Lino Lakes. As development proceeds within the CSMP area, developers will be required to demonstrate that infiltration is not feasible on-site before utilizing the regional NURP basins or other BMP alternatives (Appendix F for infiltration requirements by parcel). 6.2.2 NURP Basins Stormwater ponds used for water quality treatment must use a TP Removal Factor of 0.5, per Rule C.6, and sized per the NURP criteria, which includes a permanent dead pool sized to store the runoff volume from a 2.5-inch rainfall event of the tributary area. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 21 6.2.3 Additional BMPs for Consideration of Future Development Additional onsite water quality practices will be encouraged as part of future development, and as part of the Lino Lakes AUAR requirements. The following may be considered, if feasible: Stormwater reuse for irrigation – initial estimates indicate that up to 36 acre-feet of stormwater could be used for irrigation purposes over public open spaces, however the actual amount of volume infiltrated will be defined based on RCWD Rule C.6 Soil amendments – consistent with the RCWD Soil Amendment Guidelines Small-scale BMPs such as tree trenches, raingardens, cisterns, etc. Mechanical separators Media filtration to improve water quality 6.3 Peak Stormwater Runoff Control [RCWD Rule C.7] All stormwater runoff from the area either surface flows directly to Peltier Lake or is conveyed to the lake via the county ditch system (Figure 1, Appendix A). As discussed in Sections 3 and 5, InfoSWMM and HEC-RAS models were developed to evaluate the existing discharge rates entering Peltier Lake. The proposed land uses will result in more impervious surface and higher runoff rates and volumes leaving the CSMP study area and entering Peltier Lake. The regional BMPs will include outlet control structures to regulate the flood releases from the BMPs so they do not impact flood levels on Peltier Lake. 6.3.1 Allowable Peak Discharges Per RCWD Rule C.7, the proposed discharge rates are limited to the existing discharge rates from a site; however, because this area has been identified as a Runoff Sensitive Area, the City will impose a restriction of 0.1 cfs per acre on new private developments for the 100-year peak discharge rate, which is also the same rate requirement the City of Hugo implemented in 2003 as part of their Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. This will result in a maximum peak discharge rate from the CSMP area into Peltier Lake of no more than 135 cfs. Table 6-3. Northeast Lino CSMP Allowable Peak Discharge Rates Storm Event Rainfall Depth [in] Discharge to Peltier Lake [cfs] 2-year 24-hour 2.83 68 10-year 24-hour 4.21 133 100-year 24-hour 7.06 135 100-year 10-day 7.20 135 Future development in the CSMP area must not exceed the NOAA Atlas 14 permitted rates to Peltier Lake, as shown in Table 6-3. 6.3.2 Flood Control Storage To meet the proposed discharge rates, a significant amount of land is needed to provide live storage for flood control. As part of the City’s land use practices, the existing wetlands are intended to remain in place where possible and will provide some incidental flood storage capacity. Table 6-4 shows the live storage assumed for flood reduction used in the modeling. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 22 Table 6-4. Required Live Storage by Region BMP ID Estimated Live Storage Required [ac-ft] Allowable Bounce [ft] Min. Area for Live Storage [ac] Max. Release Rate [cfs] EAST 250 4 63 75 CENTRAL 260 4 65 120 WEST 50 4 13 135 TOTAL 560 141 135 6.3.3 Outlet Control Structures Each regional NURP pond’s water levels will be controlled by an outlet control structure and operable gate. In the event of a 100-year design storm, the gated will be closed to minimize the risk of increasing flood stage on Peltier Lake, the ponds will be sized to include enough live storage to hold the water until the gates are reopened after the flood threat on Peltier Lake has passed. The exact location and design of these facilities will be determined as development in the CSMP area progresses. It will be expected that the storage areas will experience a significant bounce in elevation during the 100-year storm event and will need to be planted with a suitable planting palette that can tolerate periodic inundation to maintain the vegetated buffer around the pond. The estimated peak discharges and timing of the 100- year 24-hour event is shown in Table 6-5. Table 6-5. 100-yr 24-hr Maximum Discharge Rate between Regions BMP ID Estimated Peak Discharge [cfs] Estimated Event Runoff Volume [ac-ft] Timing of Peak Elevation [hrs. after start of rainfall] EAST 75 257 77.8 CENTRAL 120 470.2 78.0 WEST 135 526 78.2 The gates will be operated by the City of Lino Lakes and shall be placed to control the release of water from each regional storage facility. Each gate must be closed when Peltier Lake reaches an elevation one foot below the 100-year flood elevation of 887.7 [NAVD88] on the rising limb of the lake stage hydrograph and remain closed until the flood elevation on Peltier Lake recedes below the 100-year flood elevation of 887.7, on the falling limb of the lake stage hydrograph. 6.3.4 Low Floor and Low Entry Freeboard Requirements The lowest floor and lowest opening of future buildings and structures near the regional BMPs must adhere to the freeboard requirements presented in RCWD Table C6 and Chapter 1011: Stormwater, Erosion, and Sediment Control of the City Code. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 23 7 CSMP STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 7.1 Regional BMP Capacity Analysis Since the area is not fully developed, it is the goal of this CSMP to lay the framework for future developments within the City of Lino Lakes CSMP area to utilize the regional BMPs to meet the RCWD stormwater management requirements. Table7-1 summarizes the existing impervious surfaces and the proposed infiltration requirements based on the City of Lino Lakes’ Comprehensive Plan land uses (Figure 4, Appendix A) and applicable RCWD Rules at the time of development. The details of the water quality volume calculations can be found in Appendix E. Table 7-1. Maximum Impervious Area at Full Development Existing Impervious [ac] Proposed Impervious [ac] EAST 14.5 332.3 CENTRAL 22.0 317.3 WEST 1.69 56.8 TOTAL 38.1 706.4 As conceptually designed, the regional BMPs provide enough water quality volume to mitigate the proposed impervious surface per the requirements in the RCWD Rule C.6. 7.2 Operation and Maintenance The outlet control gates will be operated by the City of Lino Lakes and shall be placed to control the release of water from each regional storage facility. The gates will be operated by the City of Lino Lakes and shall be placed to control the release of water from each regional storage facility. Each gate must be closed when Peltier Lake reaches an elevation one foot below the 100-year flood elevation of 887.7 [NAVD88] on the rising limb of the lake stage hydrograph and remain closed until the flood elevation on Peltier Lake recedes below the 100-year flood elevation of 887.7, on the falling limb of the lake stage hydrograph. The City of Lino Lakes will maintain permanent easements for all regional stormwater facilities to perform routine and periodic maintenance activities as required by their MS4 permit. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 24 8 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTALS It should be noted that the design standards outlined in this document will only be applied to the parcels in Lino Lakes. Developments within the City of Hugo must obtain permit approvals from their respective government and regulatory agencies independent of this CSMP. Future developments will be responsible to submit a proposal to the City first. The submittal will document which parcel (or portion of a parcel) will be developed. The application must document that the land use proposed and proposed impervious area are consistent with this CSMP (Figure 4, Appendix A) and the planned impervious areas as shown in Appendix F. If future developments wish to deviate from the standards outlined in this CSMP, it is the responsibility of the developer to prepare an application documenting the proposed deviation(s) and how that difference will be mitigated. The developer’s application must include: Name of the parcel or portion of the parcel(s) proposing development Name of the CSMP Region Existing and proposed topography and narrative of infrastructure proposed to convey stormwater Document the total area for existing and proposed conditions, broken down by pervious and impervious areas Document infiltration potential on site based on soil boring data Name of the regional BMP (if constructed) to which the proposed project is tributary Proposed method of pre-treatment prior to stormwater discharge entering the regional system Requested water quality allocations from regional BMP (if constructed) and maximum allocated to proposed development (Appendix F) Developers also must meet current Lino Lakes and RCWD Rules to the extent practicable, including: Compliance with maximum post-development discharge rate for the 100-year event to be less than or equal to 0.1 cfs per acre Maximize volume reduction practices on site and infiltrate where practicable and in accordance with RCWD Rules Compliance with current RCWD Rule C.6 Water Quality If the development exceeds the CSMP planned impervious area (Appendix F), the applicant must demonstrate how the additional runoff will be treated to meet the applicable RCWD rules and does not cause adverse impact as defined below. No damage to structures, buildings, and infrastructure as a result of an increase in flooding (increased water surface elevations, velocities or number of days of inundation); No property damage or increased maintenance costs resulting from an increase in the amount of erosion, bank failure or accelerated sedimentation; No decrease in water quality resulting from an increase in phosphorus and sediment loads; and No permanent loss of the use of flood storage volume during the flood peak within the Anoka Chain of Lakes. If developers choose to exceed the impervious limits or request any other deviations to the assumptions laid out herein, they will be required to address any additional stormwater requirements on that parcel at their own expense to ensure all applicable RCWD rules and requirements are met. Any such BMPs will be considered private and be maintained by, and at the expense of, the owner/developer of the parcel. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 25 8.1 Interim Conditions The intent of this CSMP is to define the final build-out conditions for the Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Area; however, it is highly unlikely the entire study area would develop at once. At this point in time, it is anticipated that the proposed stormwater conveyance system would be built from the downstream outlet at Peltier Lake to the east as private landowners choose to develop their property and abandon the agricultural drain tiles. The City will review all proposed development projects in this area against the CSMP design standards and require a detailed hydraulic review of temporary construction conditions from the developer. It is expected that developers may wish to utilize the existing drain tile system to discharge stormwater until the downstream regional BMPs and outlet are constructed. This hydraulic review will be at the developer’s expense, must utilize the modeling presented in this CSMP for consistency, and will summarize the following information: Identification of the drain tile system and existing allocation of drain tile capacity Incorporation of any watershed changes since the previous modeling was completed, including update of curve numbers, time of concentration, and man-made infrastructure changes Current capacity of the drain tile system, reflective of the watershed updates, for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour design storms, as well as the 100-year 10-day snowmelt event. Proposed discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour design storms, as well as the 100-year 10-day snowmelt event. Identification of any proposed impacts to upstream or downstream benefitted landowners and Peltier Lake Compliance with the design standards outlined in this CSMP does not alleviate the developer from obtaining all necessary and required permits. It is highly recommended that developers submit permit applications to RCWD and the City of Lino Lakes early to facilitate the design review, especially for any variances or temporary use of the existing drain tile system. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 26 9 REFERENCES Bauer, Emily J. (2016). C-39, Geologic Atlas of Washington County, Minnesota. Minnesota Geological Survey. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/178852. Blondo, Steven J. and Kelly Wolf. November 23, 2016. “A Cultural Resource Assessment of the Proposed City of Lino Lakes Northeast Lino Drainage Study.” City of Hugo. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. May 2002 City of Hugo. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. March 15, 2010. http://www.ci.hugo.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=4A42E80D-D1B1-48A1-940D- F92071D6D492&Type=B_LIST (accessed October 20, 2015). City of Lino Lakes. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. September 12, 2011. http://www.ci.lino- lakes.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=67FBFAB1-0B78-448F-85B7-AFF5C3B73FEF&Type=B_BASIC (accessed October 20, 2015). City of Lino Lakes. City of Lino Lakes Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). Prepared by Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. October 2010. City of Lino Lakes. I-35E Corridor Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). September 26, 2005. http://www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=581A5670-E592-4178-B9B2- 7B0B72922A8E&Type=B_BASIC (accessed October 20, 2015). City of Lino Lakes. Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan. June 2008. City of Lino Lakes. Surface Water Management Plan. December 2005. http://www.ci.lino- lakes.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B92EFCBF5-B800-4B28-AD6A- B8C3B7009FB0%7D/uploads/SWMP-Final_with_Appendix.pdf (accessed October 20, 2015). Houston Engineering, Inc. Hydraulics and Hydrology Evaluation Anoka County Ditch 55 memo. May 6, 2013. Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. Wetland Delineation Report for Mattamy Homes Site, Lino Lakes, Minnesota. February 10, 2014. Metropolitan Council. Generalized Land Use 2016 data. Published June 28, 2017. https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metc-plan-generl-lnduse2016. Accessed August 28, 2017. Minnesota Department of Health. Drinking Water Supply Management Area Vulnerability. September 1, 2014. https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-drinking-water-supply (accessed October 15, 2015). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Anoka County Geologic Atlas, Part B. February 2, 2017. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/cga/c27_anoka/c27b.zip (accessed May 1, 2017). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota Public Drainage Manual. September 1991. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/waters/Minnesota_Public_Drainage_Manual.pdf (accessed October 20, 2015). Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Page 27 Minnesota Department of Transportation. Construction Plans for Grading and Bridges: Trunk Highway No. 35E-390 between S. Anoka Co. Line and 0.2 mi N. of N. Corp. Limits of Lino Lakes. February 24, 1972. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Event Mean Concentrations for Total Phosphorus. http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Event_mean_concentrations_for_total_phosphorus (accessed April 5, 2016). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Lino Lakes Chain of Lakes Nutrient TMDL. July 2013. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=17164 (accessed October 20, 2015). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Peltier Lake and Centerville Lake TMDL. July 2013. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=20171 (accessed October 20, 2015). National Stormwater Quality Database. Event Mean Concentrations of Pollutants in Stormwater Runoff by Land Use. http://www.bmpdatabase.org/nsqd.html (accessed April 5, 2016). Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Custom Soil Resource for Anoka County, Minnesota and Washington County, Minnesota. September 4, 2017. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Part 630 Hydrology, National Engineering Handbook. July 2004. Rice Creek Watershed District. Resolution #2015-31. 2015. Rice Creek Watershed District. Rice Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan. Adopted January 4, 2010, amended November 9, 2016. Rice Creek Watershed District. Drainage System GIS data. 2017. http://rcwd.houstoneng.net/ditchportal/gisdata/drainagesystemsgis.zip (accessed July 18, 2017). Rice Creek Watershed District. Rice Creek Watershed District Rules. Adopted December 14, 2016, effective January 1, 2017. Setterholm, Dale, R. C-27 Geologic Atlas of Anoka County, Minnesota [Part A]. Minnesota Geological Survey, 2013. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/116119. Accessed July 27, 2017. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ (accessed May 1, 2017). WSB & Associates, Inc. Northeast Drainage Study Level 2 Wetland Delineation Report. April 5, 2017. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Appendices Appendix A – Figures Figure 1. Location Map Figure 2. Existing Land Uses Figure 3. Drainage Areas and Resources of Concern Figure 4. Lino Lakes Full Build Land Use Figure 5. Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan Figure 6. Lino Lakes Park, Greenway and Trail System Figure 7. Lino Lakes I-35E AUAR Area Figure 8. CSMP Soils Figure 9. CSMP Surficial Geology Figure 10. InfoSWMM Model Updates Figure 11. Proposed InfoSWMM Model Figure 12. Infiltration Suitability §¨¦35EMain Street20th AvenueFrenchman RoadACD 55 Br 8ACD 55 Main TrkACD 72 Main TrkACD 72 Br 11ACD 72 Main TrkHardwood Ck [JD2]Clearwater Ck [JD3]Elmcrest Ave NPeltier Lake Dr§¨¦35WRice CreekA C D 7 2 Br 1 PeltierLakeCentervilleLakeRondeauLakeGeorgeWatchLakeGeorgeWatchLakeHUGOCENTERVILLELINO LAKESSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunityDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\Fig_LocationMap.mxd Date Saved: 8/25/2017 12:12:22 PMLegendCSMP BoundaryRCWD WatercoursesDrain TileOpen DitchStreamLakesFigure 1 - Project LocationNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 2,000 feetLINO LAKES4STUDY AREA§¨¦35E§¨¦35W§¨¦694§¨¦35 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunityDocument Path: K:\02029-790\WR\CSMP\InfoSWMM\Fig_ExLanduse.mxd Date Saved: 9/4/2017 5:11:01 PMLegendCSMP BoundaryFarmsteadSingle Family DetachedSingle Family AttachedRetail and Other CommercialInstitutionalPark, Recreational or PreserveMajor HighwayAgriculturalUndevelopedFigure 2 - Existing Land UsesNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 1,153 feet §¨¦35EMain Street20th AvenueFrenchman RoadACD 55 Br 8ACD 55 Main TrkACD 72 Main TrkACD 72 Br 11ACD 72 Main TrkElmcrest Ave NPeltier Lake DrAC D 7 2 Br 1 PeltierLakeCentervilleLakeHUGOCENTERVILLELINO LAKESDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\Fig_ROC.mxd Date Saved: 10/19/2017 4:46:15 PMLegendCSMP BoundaryRCWD Resources of ConcernCentervillePeltierRCWD WatercoursesDrain TileOpen DitchStreamLakesFigure 3 - Drainage Areas andResources of ConcernNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 1,153 feet Figure 4. Lino Lakes Full Build Out Land Use Figure 5. Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan Figure 6. Lino Lakes Park, Greenway, and Trail Plan Figure 7. I-35E Corridor AUAR Area §¨¦35EMain Street20th AvenueFrenchman RoadACD 55 Br 8ACD 55 Main TrkACD 72 Main TrkACD 72 Br 11ACD 72 Main TrkClearwater Ck [JD3]Elmcrest Ave NPeltier Lake DrA CD 72 B r 1 WbWbWbWbWbCbDuWbWbWbWbDuDuGcHdBNeAWbBmWbNeAWbNeAWbWbDu75CbGcCbWb225WbNeANeA75NeAHdBBmNeACbNeACbHdBNeAWbWbDuDuDuGc225WbCbWbNeANeADu544NeANeAWbNeADuDuNeADuDuWb75NeABmGcDuWbDuDu132BNeADuWbDuNeA123GcGc123NeA225Gc75Gc113123Du225NeA113WbCbGcNeANeAGcHdB123BmWbNeAWbGcCbHdBMaCbNeACbNeANeADuGcWbNeA123WbNeAGc123NeA132CWbGcWbWbNeADuWbNeANeAWbNeABmDuDu225GcDu225CbNeANeAWb113NeANeADu113225NeAHdC2GcWb123225NeA123NeANeA225GcNeA123NeABmNeA132BGcNeADuWbHdBNeADuGcGcWbNeANeANeADu75NeANeAGcNeABm75GcNeAGcBmRfNeA123NeANeA123BtBHdBWbDuNeAWb75113Bm225DuNeANeANeAGc123WbWbWb225BmHdBNeAWb132B132C123NeACb123GcWbHdC2NeA132BNoGcNeABtBBmDuDu132C225WbDu225NeA225132BBmBmNeA12375123NeA123113NeA132CBm225Wb132CBmNeAGcNeANeAGc113132BBmWb225WbGc225HdC2WbWbNeAGcNeA132CHdC2NeADuNo75Wb132BWbBmBm123NeANeANeAHdBNeAGcWb123225NeADu132C123Bm132BNeANeA113123DuCb132BNeANeAWbWb113113HdB75NeA132BNeAGcNeANeA132BWb123NeADu123NeAWb225NeA225NeA225113HdB225Wb225123HdB132BWbNeA225NeANeANeANeANeANeAWb123544NeA132BNeA132CDu132B132C132B123NeABm123HdBNeA75HdB113NeA75225HdBGcDuHdBDuHdB75Ma225113WbDu132BBm123DuGcGcWbNeA123HdBNeABm113123NeABm132BNeA75132CGc132CWb123132C225123DuNeAWbCbNeA225225BmWbDuNeANeAWb132BNeA132CNeA113WbNeAGcWb132B75GcWbDu225123Wb132BNeANeA75GcGcBmMaDuGcGcDuNeAGcNeA123NeANeAGcNeADuNeA132BNeANeAHdC275NeAGcGc132BWbNeA132C123GcCbDuNeAWb123HdC2Wb75HdC2NeADuWbGc225WbDuCbNeAWb132CNeA225WbGcNeAWbWb225DuNeA75WbWb113GcWbDu225NeANeA75WbWb132C132CNeANeABmWbDuDuGc75GcNeAHdBNeADuWb132CNeADuDuHdBDuNeAWbNeAWbBmDuNeANeANeABmNeAWbBmPeltierLakeCentervilleLakeHUGOCENTERVILLELINO LAKESSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunityDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\Fig_Soils.mxd Date Saved: 9/5/2017 1:29:14 PMLegendCSMP BoundaryRCWD WatercoursesDrain TileOpen DitchStreamLakesNRCS Soils DataWebster loamDundas fine sandy loamHayden fine sandy loam, 2-6% slopesHayden fine sandy loam, 6-12% slopesNessel fine sandy loam, 1-4% slopesCathro muckBluffton loamBlomford loamy fine sandBraham loamy fine sand, 2-6% slopesDundas loamGlencoe loamMarkey muckNowen sandy loamRifle mucky peatFigure 8 - NRCS SoilsNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 1,200 feet113/Wb123132B/HdB132C/HdC2225/NeA544/Cb75BmBtBDuGcMaNoRf §¨¦35EMain Street20th AvenueFrenchman RoadACD 55 Br 8ACD 55 Main TrkACD 72 Main TrkACD 72 Br 11ACD 72 Main TrkHardwood Ck [JD2]Clearwater Ck [JD3]Elmcrest Ave NPeltier Lake Dr§¨¦35WA CD 72 B r 1 QntQlQbsQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQlQntQllQllQpQpQlQbtQllQbtQntQlQaQbtQbtQntQpQaQlQpQlQbsQpQbtQbtQbtQnaQbtQpQbtQbtQbtQlQlQpQnaPeltierLakeCentervilleLakeRondeauLakeHUGOCENTERVILLELINO LAKESLINO LAKESDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\Fig_SurfGeology.mxd Date Saved: 9/5/2017 12:43:22 PMLegendCSMP BoundaryRCWD WatercoursesDrain TileOpen DitchStreamLakesSurficial GeologyQUATERNARY UNITSHudson EpisodeAlluviumLake sandLake silt and clayPeat and muckNew Brighton FormationSand faciesSand over gray loamy to sandy tillNew Ulm FormationLoamy tillSandy tillMixed tillFigure 9 - Surficial GeologyNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 1,500 feetQaQlQllQpQntQnaQndQbsQbt SMT_002SMT_004AACD55MT_024ACD55MT_007ACD55MT_010ACD55MT_011ACD55MT_012ACD55MT_013ACD55MT_014ACD55MT_015ACD55MT_017ACD55MT_018ACD55MT_022ACD55MT_025ACD55MT_027ACD55BR8_001ACD55MT_026ACD55MT_028ACD55MT_009ACD55MT_008ACD72_05ACD72_06ACD72_07ACD72_08ACD72_09ACD72_10ACD72_11ACD72_12ACD72_14ACD72_15ACD72_16ACD72_17CWC_RC_PELTIER_002CWC_RC_PELTIER_008CWC_RC_PELTIER_009MRC_RC_PELTIER_001MRC_RC_PELTIER_001CWC_RC_PELTIER_002ACD55MT_007SMT_002Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed, Sources: Esri, DeLorme, USGS, NPSDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\Fig_InfoSWMM-Updates.mxd Date Saved: 10/19/2017 5:07:01 PMLegendCSMP BoundaryRCWD WatercoursesDrain TileOpen DitchStreamRevised CSMP SubcatchmentsExisting URC SubcatchmentsExisting HWC SubcatchmentsExisting CWC SubcatchmentsFigure 11 - InfoSWMM UpdatesNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 2,000 feetClearwater CreekInfoSWMM ModelHardwood CreekInfoSWMM ModelUpper Rice CreekInfoSWMM Model ACD72_06ACD72_14ACD72_15ACD72_16ACD72_17CWC_RC_PELTIER_002.5MRC_RC_PELTIER_001.5ACD55MT_028ACD55MT_009ACD55MT_025ACD55MT_021ACD55MT_022ACD55MT_020ACD55MT_019ACD55MT_017ACD55MT_010ACD55BR8_001ACD72_05ACD55MT_007.5CWC_RC_PELTIER_008ACD72_08ACD55MT_018ACD55MT_016ACD55MT_015ACD55MT_012ACD55MT_013ACD55MT_014ACD55MT_011ACD55MT_024ACD55MT_008ACD55MT_027ACD55MT_026ACD72_07ACD72_09CWC_RC_PELTIER_009ACD72_11ACD72_10SMT_002.5ACD72_12SMT_004ASource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunityDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\Fig_InfoSWMM-Proposed.mxd Date Saved: 9/4/2017 4:59:55 PMLegendCSMP BoundarySubcatchmentURC SubcatchmentsHWC SubcatchmentsCWC SubcatchmentsProposed Open ChannelProposed CulvertFigure 12 - Proposed InfoSWMMNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 2,000Feet¯1 inch = 1,153 feetkjkjkjkjkjProposed Regional BMP Location Peltier Lake§¨¦35EMain Street20th AvenueFrenchman RoadSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunityDocument Path: K:\02029-790\GIS\Maps\CSMP\CSMP_InfiltrationSuitability_050217.mxd Date Saved: 10/19/2017 4:57:46 PMLegend" " " " " " "" " " " " " "" " " " " " """"""""Depth to Groundwater < 24"Marginal Infiltration SuitabilityNWI WetlandsUnsuitable Soil Hydrologic GroupDWSMAFigure 13 - Infiltration SuitabilityNortheast Drainage Area CSMPCity of Lino Lakes0 1,200Feet¯1 inch = 1,153 feetSUMMARY OF INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY DRAINAGE AREA FEASIBLE AREAHugo 215.6 ac 54.0 acEast 533.9 ac 93.6 acCentral 447.3 ac 94.1 acWest 152.5 ac 30.8 acTOTAL 1,349.3 ac 272.3 ac Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Appendices Appendix B – Existing Modeling Inputs and Results APPENDIX B - EXISTING INFOSWMM INPUTS Area [ac] % ACD55BR8_001 EAST 97.893 2.606 2.662 83.92 0.383 2.623 1448.157 48.943 ACD55MT_007 15.426 6.492 42.085 86.392 0.315 3.994 842.32 14.243 ACD55MT_007.5 CENTRAL 28.801 0.27 0.937 83.309 0.401 1.921 1432.659 41.07 ACD55MT_008 CENTRAL 67.641 2.929 4.33 83.661 0.391 2.211 1901.152 47.811 ACD55MT_009 EAST 183.161 4.941 2.698 80.744 0.477 2.732 2224.56 71.466 ACD55MT_010 EAST 62.93 1.756 2.79 81.159 0.464 2.69 1492.03 32.658 ACD55MT_011 HUGO 3.786 0.51 13.471 64.693 1.092 5.042 403.227 13.546 ACD55MT_012 HUGO 35.618 2.189 6.146 70.134 0.852 3.866 1734.4 52.683 ACD55MT_013 HUGO 11.098 0.849 7.65 64.529 1.099 4.518 680.302 22.179 ACD55MT_014 HUGO 5.4 2.785 51.574 79.447 0.517 5.124 412.514 11.946 ACD55MT_015 HUGO 5.531 1.051 19.002 67.218 0.975 6.032 505.331 15.851 ACD55MT_016 HUGO 3.326 1.903 57.216 84.489 0.367 4.547 372.214 7.245 ACD55MT_017 HUGO 13.926 2.738 19.661 70.353 0.843 4.733 757.112 14.894 ACD55MT_018 HUGO 3.327 1.748 52.54 85.141 0.349 8.157 551.035 11.84 ACD55MT_019 HUGO 10.416 2.803 26.911 74.272 0.693 5.082 688 19.414 ACD55MT_020 HUGO 6.666 3.746 56.196 84.303 0.372 4.571 605.766 8.784 ACD55MT_021 HUGO 0.94 0.597 63.511 87.103 0.296 8.891 145.006 5.002 ACD55MT_022 HUGO 4.717 2.644 56.053 84.883 0.356 5.321 462.272 6.886 ACD55MT_024 HUGO 1.905 0 0 78.97 0.533 5.759 377.6 12.071 ACD55MT_025 HUGO 108.941 5.54 5.085 75.944 0.634 3.413 2125.104 50.431 ACD55MT_026 CENTRAL 14.835 0 0 83.86 0.385 1.947 747.365 21.106 ACD55MT_027 CENTRAL 68.153 14.25 20.909 86.642 0.308 3.694 2562.48 35.808 ACD55MT_028 EAST 79.294 0.542 0.684 81.005 0.469 2.751 1642.512 54.456 ACD72_01 65.858 18.642 28.306 74.686 0.678 3.357 1859.984 50.243 ACD72_02 29.642 2.958 9.979 82.006 0.439 2.947 990.642 46.065 ACD72_03 14.011 5.599 39.961 75.735 0.641 4.667 714.949 35.11 ACD72_04 9.337 2.843 30.449 73.817 0.709 4.533 510.846 33.887 ACD72_04B 12.063 4.305 35.688 73.871 0.707 4.065 803.469 42.85 ACD72_05 CENTRAL 18.806 1.169 6.216 73.054 0.738 3.939 823.824 20.601 ACD72_06 WEST 58.465 0.042 0.072 84.663 0.362 1.918 1511.829 41.142 ACD72_07 CENTRAL 6.461 1.573 24.346 72.832 0.746 4.582 586.395 13.794 ACD72_08 CENTRAL 4.943 0 0 83.872 0.385 1.855 377.011 12.432 ACD72_09 CENTRAL 56.87 0.348 0.612 81.134 0.465 2.527 1526.32 34.619 ACD72_10 CENTRAL 29.044 0.519 1.787 83.141 0.406 2.477 1076.064 21.697 ACD72_11 CENTRAL 15.616 0.179 1.146 83.093 0.407 2.481 807.602 22.992 ACD72_12 CENTRAL 54.612 0.645 1.181 82.763 0.417 2.382 1535.963 43.825 ACD72_14 EAST 22.761 1.946 8.55 83.26 0.402 3.065 895.154 20.349 ACD72_15 EAST 20.515 0 0 76.274 0.622 2.248 705.899 26.563 ACD72_16 EAST 16.123 1.998 12.392 83.199 0.404 3.327 814.832 15.796 ACD72_17 EAST 2.514 0 0 75.592 0.646 3.275 286.424 8.357 CWC_RC_PELTIER_001 9.39 3.756 40 76.529 0.613 5.025 915.954 12.302 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002 81.513 19.035 23.352 72.982 0.740 3.913 1955.04 49.709 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002.5 WEST 41.091 0 0 75.001 0.667 1.69 1241.749 53.468 CWC_RC_PELTIER_003 14.456 5.443 37.652 74.82 0.673 4.31 1318.4 15.471 CWC_RC_PELTIER_004 19.176 7.67 39.998 76.572 0.612 4.81 1052.8 14.314 CWC_RC_PELTIER_005 4.37 1.481 33.89 79.956 0.501 4.698 383.493 10 CWC_RC_PELTIER_006 18.884 7.552 39.992 79.531 0.515 4.795 1049.6 18.963 CWC_RC_PELTIER_008 CENTRAL 58.298 0.003 0.005 85.479 0.340 1.831 1889.84 31.093 CWC_RC_PELTIER_009 CENTRAL 21.211 0 0 84.681 0.362 1.826 941.146 27.839 L_PELTIER_07 49.286 20.395 41.381 82.103 0.436 3.602 2052.512 34.637 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001 1273.83 87.291 6.853 84.246 0.374 1.555 10258.94 62.15 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001.5 WEST 52.956 1.646 3.108 75.591 0.646 2.576 1554.475 48.632 MRC_RC_PELTIER_002 126.454 18.542 14.663 66.827 0.993 3.293 3248 108.645 MRC_RC_PELTIER_003 13.412 4.543 33.873 80.493 0.485 7.193 710.306 11.773 Subcatchment ID Impervious Calcs WCN Ia [in] Tc [min] Slope [%]Width [ft]Area [ac] CSMP Region 1 of 2 APPENDIX B - EXISTING INFOSWMM INPUTS Area [ac] % Subcatchment ID Impervious Calcs WCN Ia [in] Tc [min] Slope [%]Width [ft]Area [ac] CSMP Region MRC_RC_PELTIER_004 3.183 1.273 39.994 71.109 0.813 4.325 373.661 13.445 MRC_RC_PELTIER_006 87.354 1.633 1.869 82.325 0.429 2.182 1788.768 47.406 MRC_RC_PELTIER_009 38.801 9.219 23.76 75.187 0.660 4.161 1315.488 10 SMT_002 314.096 38.51 12.261 81.019 0.469 3.556 5123.472 101.506 SMT_002.5 CENTRAL 1.986 0.067 3.374 78.479 0.548 1.827 278.718 10.515 SMT_004A EAST 48.753 0.675 1.385 86.1 0.323 1.815 1186.091 34.849 2 of 2 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Appendices Appendix C – Regional BMP Conceptual Layout SALO TRUSTEE BERNICE & SALO TRUSTEE JAMESLEIBEL HAL LLAKE DRIVEPELTIER 20TH AVE K:\02029-790\Cad\Plan\NE Area 6-22-16 Final.dwg Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan City of Lino Lakes, MN K:\02029-790\Cad\Proposed\WSB_CWF_Option 12-04-15.dwg Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan City of Lino Lakes, MN K:\02029-790\Cad\Proposed\WSB_CWF_Option 12-04-15.dwg Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan City of Lino Lakes, MN K:\02029-790\Cad\Proposed\WSB_CWF_Option 12-04-15.dwg Northeast Lino Lakes Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan City of Lino Lakes, MN Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Appendices Appendix D – Proposed Model Inputs and Results APPENDIX D - PROPOSED INFOSWMM INPUTS Area [ac]% ACD55BR8_001 EAST 97.893 66.771 68.208 88.125 0.270 2.623 1448.157 42.056 ACD55MT_007 15.426 6.492 42.085 86.392 0.315 3.994 842.320 14.243 ACD55MT_007.5 CENTRAL 28.801 20.985 72.862 87.965 0.274 1.921 1432.659 34.770 ACD55MT_008 CENTRAL 67.641 50.731 75 88.151 0.269 2.211 1901.152 40.674 ACD55MT_009 EAST 183.161 99.514 54.331 83.626 0.392 2.732 2224.560 65.029 ACD55MT_010 EAST 62.93 38.407 61.031 88.768 0.253 2.69 1492.030 24.983 ACD55MT_011 HUGO 3.786 0.51 13.471 64.693 1.092 5.042 403.227 13.546 ACD55MT_012 HUGO 35.618 2.189 6.146 70.134 0.852 3.866 1734.400 52.683 ACD55MT_013 HUGO 11.098 0.849 7.65 64.529 1.099 4.518 680.302 22.179 ACD55MT_014 HUGO 5.4 2.785 51.574 79.447 0.517 5.124 412.514 11.946 ACD55MT_015 HUGO 5.531 1.051 19.002 67.218 0.975 6.032 505.331 15.851 ACD55MT_016 HUGO 3.326 1.903 57.216 84.489 0.367 4.547 372.214 7.245 ACD55MT_017 HUGO 13.926 2.738 19.661 70.353 0.843 4.733 757.112 14.894 ACD55MT_018 HUGO 3.327 1.748 52.54 85.141 0.349 8.157 551.035 11.840 ACD55MT_019 HUGO 10.416 2.803 26.911 74.272 0.693 5.082 688.000 19.414 ACD55MT_020 HUGO 6.666 3.746 56.196 84.303 0.372 4.571 605.766 8.784 ACD55MT_021 HUGO 0.94 0.597 63.511 87.103 0.296 8.891 145.006 5.002 ACD55MT_022 HUGO 4.717 2.644 56.053 84.883 0.356 5.321 462.272 6.886 ACD55MT_024 HUGO 1.905 0 0 78.97 0.533 5.759 377.600 12.071 ACD55MT_025 HUGO 108.941 5.54 5.085 75.944 0.634 3.413 2125.104 50.431 ACD55MT_026 CENTRAL 14.835 11.126 74.998 87.999 0.273 1.947 747.365 18.183 ACD55MT_027 CENTRAL 68.153 48.062 70.521 88.104 0.270 3.694 2562.480 33.893 ACD55MT_028 EAST 79.294 48.292 60.902 83.651 0.391 2.751 1642.512 49.918 ACD72_01 65.858 18.642 28.306 74.686 0.678 3.357 1859.984 50.243 ACD72_02 29.642 2.958 9.979 82.006 0.439 2.947 990.642 46.065 ACD72_03 14.011 5.599 39.961 75.735 0.641 4.667 714.949 35.11 ACD72_04 9.337 2.843 30.449 73.817 0.709 4.533 510.846 33.887 ACD72_04B 12.063 4.305 35.688 73.871 0.707 4.065 803.469 42.85 ACD72_05 CENTRAL 18.806 9.792 52.068 77.511 0.580 3.939 823.824 18.111 ACD72_06 WEST 58.465 26.355 45.078 71.683 0.790 1.918 1511.829 61.122 ACD72_07 CENTRAL 6.461 4.846 75.004 88.3 0.265 4.582 586.395 8.391 ACD72_08 CENTRAL 4.943 3.707 74.995 88.028 0.272 1.855 377.011 10.703 ACD72_09 CENTRAL 56.87 38.368 67.466 84.609 0.364 2.527 1526.320 30.841 ACD72_10 CENTRAL 29.044 21.251 73.168 87.84 0.277 2.477 1076.064 18.352 ACD72_11 CENTRAL 15.616 9.699 62.109 85.313 0.344 2.481 807.602 21.305 ACD72_12 CENTRAL 54.612 38.978 71.373 87.56 0.284 2.382 1535.963 37.003 ACD72_14 EAST 22.761 17.071 75.001 88.455 0.261 3.065 895.154 16.877 ACD72_15 EAST 20.515 12.668 61.75 83.046 0.408 2.248 705.899 21.514 ACD72_16 EAST 16.123 11.203 69.485 85.996 0.326 3.327 814.832 14.334 ACD72_17 EAST 2.514 1.824 72.554 87.037 0.298 3.275 286.424 5.766 CWC_RC_PELTIER_001 9.39 3.756 40 76.529 0.613 5.025 915.954 12.302 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002 81.513 19.035 23.352 72.982 0.740 3.913 1955.040 49.709 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002.5 WEST 41.091 11.984 29.165 75.745 0.640 1.69 1241.749 36.837 CWC_RC_PELTIER_003 14.456 5.443 37.652 74.82 0.673 4.31 1318.400 15.471 CWC_RC_PELTIER_004 19.176 7.67 39.998 76.572 0.612 4.81 1052.800 14.314 CWC_RC_PELTIER_005 4.37 1.481 33.89 79.956 0.501 4.698 383.493 10 CWC_RC_PELTIER_006 18.884 7.552 39.992 79.531 0.515 4.795 1049.600 18.963 CWC_RC_PELTIER_008 CENTRAL 58.298 42.354 72.651 87.418 0.288 1.831 1889.840 28.965 CWC_RC_PELTIER_009 CENTRAL 21.211 15.908 74.999 88 0.273 1.826 941.146 24.673 L_PELTIER_07 49.286 20.395 41.381 82.103 0.436 3.602 2052.512 34.637 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001 1273.83 87.291 6.853 84.246 0.374 1.555 10258.944 62.150 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001.5 WEST 52.956 18.452 34.844 73.035 0.738 2.576 1554.475 52.300 MRC_RC_PELTIER_002 126.454 18.542 14.663 66.827 0.993 3.293 3248.000 108.645 Tc [min] Slope [%]Width [ft]Subcatchment ID CSMP Region Area [ac] Impervious Calcs WCN Ia [in] 1 of 2 APPENDIX D - PROPOSED INFOSWMM INPUTS Area [ac]% Tc [min] Slope [%]Width [ft]Subcatchment ID CSMP Region Area [ac] Impervious Calcs WCN Ia [in] MRC_RC_PELTIER_003 13.412 4.543 33.873 80.493 0.485 7.193 710.306 11.773 MRC_RC_PELTIER_004 3.183 1.273 39.994 71.109 0.813 4.325 373.661 13.445 MRC_RC_PELTIER_006 87.354 1.633 1.869 82.325 0.429 2.182 1788.768 47.406 MRC_RC_PELTIER_009 38.801 9.219 23.76 75.187 0.660 4.161 1315.488 10 SMT_002 314.096 38.51 12.261 81.019 0.469 3.556 5123.472 101.506 SMT_002.5 CENTRAL 1.986 1.489 74.975 88.166 0.268 1.827 278.718 7.574 SMT_004A EAST 48.753 36.537 74.943 88.285 0.265 1.815 1186.091 32.125 NOTES: 1. Subcatchments in Hugo and outside the CSMP study area proided for reference only. No changes from existing conditions were made to these subcatchments. 2 of 2 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Appendices Appendix E – Water Quality Calculations Appendix E - Existing Total Phosphorus Loading by Subcatchment Area TP Load [ac][in][in][ac-ft] ACD55BR8_001 EAST 97.893 83.92 1.92 0.384 0.19 1.55 ACD55MT_007 15.426 86.392 1.58 0.316 0.26 0.33 ACD55MT_007.5 CENTRAL 28.801 83.309 2 0.4 0.18 0.43 ACD55MT_008 CENTRAL 67.641 83.661 1.95 0.39 0.19 1.07 ACD55MT_009 EAST 183.161 80.744 2.38 0.476 0.13 1.98 ACD55MT_010 EAST 62.93 81.159 2.32 0.464 0.14 0.73 ACD55MT_011 HUGO 3.786 64.693 5.46 1.092 0 0 ACD55MT_012 HUGO 35.618 70.134 4.26 0.852 0.01 0.03 ACD55MT_013 HUGO 11.098 64.529 5.5 1.1 0 0 ACD55MT_014 HUGO 5.4 79.447 2.59 0.518 0.11 0.05 ACD55MT_015 HUGO 5.531 67.218 4.88 0.976 0 0 ACD55MT_016 HUGO 3.326 84.489 1.84 0.368 0.21 0.06 ACD55MT_017 HUGO 13.926 70.353 4.21 0.842 0.01 0.01 ACD55MT_018 HUGO 3.327 85.141 1.75 0.35 0.23 0.06 ACD55MT_019 HUGO 10.416 74.272 3.46 0.692 0.04 0.03 ACD55MT_020 HUGO 6.666 84.303 1.86 0.372 0.2 0.11 ACD55MT_021 HUGO 0.94 87.103 1.48 0.296 0.28 0.02 ACD55MT_022 HUGO 4.717 84.883 1.78 0.356 0.22 0.09 ACD55MT_024 HUGO 1.905 78.97 2.66 0.532 0.1 0.02 ACD55MT_025 HUGO 108.941 75.944 3.17 0.634 0.06 0.54 ACD55MT_026 CENTRAL 14.835 83.86 1.92 0.384 0.19 0.23 ACD55MT_027 CENTRAL 68.153 86.642 1.54 0.308 0.27 1.53 ACD55MT_028 EAST 79.294 81.005 2.34 0.468 0.13 0.86 ACD72_05 CENTRAL 18.806 73.054 3.69 0.738 0.03 0.05 ACD72_06 WEST 58.465 84.663 1.81 0.362 0.21 1.02 ACD72_07 CENTRAL 6.461 72.832 3.73 0.746 0.03 0.02 ACD72_08 CENTRAL 4.943 83.872 1.92 0.384 0.19 0.08 ACD72_09 CENTRAL 56.87 81.134 2.33 0.466 0.14 0.66 ACD72_10 CENTRAL 29.044 83.141 2.03 0.406 0.18 0.44 ACD72_11 CENTRAL 15.616 83.093 2.03 0.406 0.18 0.23 ACD72_12 CENTRAL 54.612 82.763 2.08 0.416 0.17 0.77 ACD72_14 EAST 22.761 83.26 2.01 0.402 0.18 0.34 ACD72_15 EAST 20.515 76.274 3.11 0.622 0.06 0.1 ACD72_16 EAST 16.123 83.199 2.02 0.404 0.18 0.24 ACD72_17 EAST 2.514 75.592 3.23 0.646 0.06 0.01 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002 81.513 72.982 3.7 0.74 0.03 0.2 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002.5 WEST 41.091 75.001 3.33 0.666 0.05 0.17 CWC_RC_PELTIER_008 CENTRAL 58.298 85.479 1.7 0.34 0.23 1.12 CWC_RC_PELTIER_009 CENTRAL 21.211 84.681 1.81 0.362 0.21 0.37 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001 1273.83 84.246 1.87 0.374 0.2 21.23 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001.5 WEST 52.956 75.591 3.23 0.646 0.06 0.26 SMT_002 314.096 81.019 2.34 0.468 0.13 3.4 SMT_002.5 CENTRAL 1.986 78.479 2.74 0.548 0.09 0.01 Subcatchment ID CSMP Region CN S 1.1-in Event Runoff 1 of 4 Appendix E - Existing Total Phosphorus Loading by Subcatchment SMT_004A EAST 48.753 86.1 1.61 0.322 0.25 1.02 2 of 4 Appendix E - Existing Total Phosphorus Loading by Subcatchment Weighted TP TP Load [mg/L][lb] 0.277 1.17 0.356 0.32 0.318 0.37 0.316 0.92 0.201 1.08 0.248 0.49 0.174 0 0.142 0.01 0.084 0 0.326 0.04 0.137 0 0.355 0.06 0.124 0 0.338 0.06 0.18 0.01 0.363 0.11 0.399 0.02 0.381 0.09 0.192 0.01 0.214 0.31 0.32 0.2 0.298 1.24 0.299 0.7 0.266 0.04 0.32 0.89 0.281 0.02 0.32 0.07 0.311 0.56 0.318 0.38 0.282 0.18 0.305 0.64 0.309 0.29 0.279 0.08 0.308 0.2 0.241 0.01 0.188 0.1 0.145 0.07 0.307 0.94 0.32 0.32 0.051 2.94 0.19 0.13 0.229 2.12 0.317 0.01 3 of 4 Appendix E - Existing Total Phosphorus Loading by Subcatchment 0.319 0.88 4 of 4 Appendix E - Proposed TP Loading by Subcatchment Area TP Load Weighted TP TP Load [ac][in][in][ac-ft][mg/L][lb] ACD55BR8_001 EAST 97.893 88.125 1.35 0.27 0.32 2.61 0.221 1.57 ACD55MT_007 15.426 86.392 1.58 0.316 0.26 0.33 0 0 ACD55MT_007.5 CENTRAL 28.801 87.965 1.37 0.274 0.31 0.74 0.215 0.43 ACD55MT_008 CENTRAL 67.641 88.151 1.34 0.268 0.32 1.8 0.222 1.09 ACD55MT_009 EAST 183.161 83.626 1.96 0.392 0.19 2.9 0.189 1.49 ACD55MT_010 EAST 62.93 88.768 1.27 0.254 0.34 1.78 0.186 0.9 ACD55MT_011 HUGO 3.786 64.693 5.46 1.092 0 0 0.46 0 ACD55MT_012 HUGO 35.618 70.134 4.26 0.852 0.01 0.03 0.449 0.04 ACD55MT_013 HUGO 11.098 64.529 5.5 1.1 0 0 0.468 0 ACD55MT_014 HUGO 5.4 79.447 2.59 0.518 0.11 0.05 0.5 0.07 ACD55MT_015 HUGO 5.531 67.218 4.88 0.976 0 0 0.462 0 ACD55MT_016 HUGO 3.326 84.489 1.84 0.368 0.21 0.06 0.5 0.08 ACD55MT_017 HUGO 13.926 70.353 4.21 0.842 0.01 0.01 0.285 0.01 ACD55MT_018 HUGO 3.327 85.141 1.75 0.35 0.23 0.06 0.499 0.08 ACD55MT_019 HUGO 10.416 74.272 3.46 0.692 0.04 0.03 0.356 0.03 ACD55MT_020 HUGO 6.666 84.303 1.86 0.372 0.2 0.11 0.5 0.15 ACD55MT_021 HUGO 0.94 87.103 1.48 0.296 0.28 0.02 0.499 0.03 ACD55MT_022 HUGO 4.717 84.883 1.78 0.356 0.22 0.09 0.5 0.12 ACD55MT_024 HUGO 1.905 78.97 2.66 0.532 0.1 0.02 0.3 0.02 ACD55MT_025 HUGO 108.941 75.944 3.17 0.634 0.06 0.54 0.5 0.73 ACD55MT_026 CENTRAL 14.835 87.999 1.36 0.272 0.31 0.38 0.22 0.23 ACD55MT_027 CENTRAL 68.153 88.104 1.35 0.27 0.32 1.82 0.216 1.07 ACD55MT_028 EAST 79.294 83.651 1.95 0.39 0.19 1.26 0.21 0.72 ACD72_01 65.858 74.686 3.39 0.678 0.05 0.27 0 0 ACD72_02 29.642 82.006 2.19 0.438 0.15 0.37 0 0 ACD72_03 14.011 75.735 3.2 0.64 0.06 0.07 0 0 ACD72_04 9.337 73.817 3.55 0.71 0.04 0.03 0 0 ACD72_04B 12.063 73.871 3.54 0.708 0.04 0.04 0 0 ACD72_05 CENTRAL 18.806 77.511 2.9 0.58 0.08 0.13 0.229 0.08 ACD72_06 WEST 58.465 71.683 3.95 0.79 0.02 0.1 0.42 0.11 ACD72_07 CENTRAL 6.461 88.3 1.33 0.266 0.32 0.17 0.224 0.1 ACD72_08 CENTRAL 4.943 88.028 1.36 0.272 0.31 0.13 0.221 0.08 ACD72_09 CENTRAL 56.87 84.609 1.82 0.364 0.21 1 0.219 0.6 ACD72_10 CENTRAL 29.044 87.84 1.38 0.276 0.31 0.75 0.216 0.44 ACD72_11 CENTRAL 15.616 85.313 1.72 0.344 0.23 0.3 0.188 0.15 ACD72_12 CENTRAL 54.612 87.56 1.42 0.284 0.3 1.37 0.228 0.85 ACD72_14 EAST 22.761 88.455 1.31 0.262 0.33 0.63 0.25 0.43 ACD72_15 EAST 20.515 83.046 2.04 0.408 0.18 0.31 0.211 0.18 ACD72_16 EAST 16.123 85.996 1.63 0.326 0.25 0.34 0.234 0.22 ACD72_17 EAST 2.514 87.037 1.49 0.298 0.28 0.06 0.243 0.04 CWC_RC_PELTIER_001 9.39 76.529 3.07 0.614 0.07 0.05 0 0 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002 81.513 72.982 3.7 0.74 0.03 0.2 0 0 CWC_RC_PELTIER_002.5 WEST 41.091 75.745 3.2 0.64 0.06 0.21 0.19 0.11 CWC_RC_PELTIER_003 14.456 74.82 3.37 0.674 0.05 0.06 0 0 CWC_RC_PELTIER_004 19.176 76.572 3.06 0.612 0.07 0.11 0 0 CWC_RC_PELTIER_005 4.37 79.956 2.51 0.502 0.12 0.04 0 0 CWC_RC_PELTIER_006 18.884 79.531 2.57 0.514 0.11 0.17 0 0 CWC_RC_PELTIER_008 CENTRAL 58.298 87.418 1.44 0.288 0.29 1.41 0.215 0.82 CWC_RC_PELTIER_009 CENTRAL 21.211 88 1.36 0.272 0.31 0.55 0.22 0.33 L_PELTIER_07 49.286 82.103 2.18 0.436 0.16 0.66 0 0 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001 1273.83 84.246 1.87 0.374 0.2 21.23 0 0 MRC_RC_PELTIER_001.5 WEST 52.956 73.035 3.69 0.738 0.03 0.13 0.258 0.09 MRC_RC_PELTIER_002 126.454 66.827 4.96 0.992 0 0 0 0 MRC_RC_PELTIER_003 13.412 80.493 2.42 0.484 0.12 0.13 0 0 MRC_RC_PELTIER_004 3.183 71.109 4.06 0.812 0.02 0.01 0 0 1.1-in Event Runoff CN SCSMP RegionSubcatchment ID 1 of 2 Appendix E - Proposed TP Loading by Subcatchment MRC_RC_PELTIER_006 87.354 82.325 2.15 0.43 0.16 1.16 0 0 MRC_RC_PELTIER_009 38.801 75.187 3.3 0.66 0.05 0.16 0 0 SMT_002 314.096 81.019 2.34 0.468 0.13 3.4 0 0 SMT_002.5 CENTRAL 1.986 88.166 1.34 0.268 0.32 0.05 0.226 0.03 SMT_004A EAST 48.753 88.285 1.33 0.266 0.32 1.3 0.248 0.88 2 of 2 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project WSB Project No. 2929-79 Appendices Appendix F – CSMP Design Standards by Parcel Proposed CSMP Allocations by ParcelCSMPParcel AreaPlanned ImperviousArea Suitable for InfiltrationLive Storage AllocationMax. RateEx. Max RateRegion[ac][ac][ac][ac-ft][cfs][cfs]11-31-22-43-0005WEST1.050.1600.3%0.130.11-11-31-22-43-0006WEST10.2200.4%0.180.10-12-31-22-31-0001CENTRAL58.937.924.922.8%7.35.890.1512-31-22-31-0002CENTRAL19.87.415.292.4%6.231.980.1212-31-22-33-0001CENTRAL19.6810.337.553.5%9.11.970.1912-31-22-33-0003CENTRAL9.884.676.982.2%5.750.990.1212-31-22-33-0004CENTRAL11.126.476.052.5%6.471.110.1312-31-22-34-0003CENTRAL39.2127.6918.578.8%22.83.920.4312-31-22-34-4GAPCENTRAL0.180.140.020.04%0.110.020.0012-31-22-41-0001EAST37.3422.5518.167.0%17.493.730.2012-31-22-41-0002EAST2.341.7600.4%1.10.230.0112-31-22-42-0001EAST31.6622.2816.45.8%14.583.170.1312-31-22-43-0002CENTRAL5.160.00400.001%00.520.0012-31-22-43-0003EAST30.6520.1610.695.7%14.363.070.1212-31-22-44-0001EAST39.6423.328.587.4%18.563.960.1113-31-22-11-0001EAST39.5217.940.037.4%18.513.950.1113-31-22-12-0002EAST30.394.1805.7%14.233.040.0813-31-22-13-0002EAST30.2222.662.855.7%14.153.020.0813-31-22-14-0001EAST39.3324.4111.497.4%18.423.930.1113-31-22-21-0003CENTRAL40.032913.299.0%23.274.000.4813-31-22-21-0004CENTRAL3424.3314.47.6%19.763.400.4013-31-22-22-0002CENTRAL1.41.051.40.3%0.810.140.0013-31-22-22-0003CENTRAL4.763.582.91.1%2.770.480.0613-31-22-23-0003CENTRAL39.9128.208.9%23.23.990.3513-31-22-23-0004CENTRAL39.9729.547.618.9%23.234.000.2913-31-22-31-0001CENTRAL39.629.4508.9%23.023.960.6213-31-22-31-0002CENTRAL201504.5%11.632.000.4113-31-22-32-0001CENTRAL19.5514.6604.4%11.361.960.2813-31-22-33-0001CENTRAL39.0128.7208.7%22.683.905.1513-31-22-34-0001CENTRAL37.928.4308.5%22.033.792.7113-31-22-41-0003EAST10.337.6301.9%4.841.030.0413-31-22-41-0004EAST10.227.420.81.9%4.791.020.0413-31-22-41-0005EAST25.1316.758.934.7%11.772.510.0913-31-22-42-0001EAST30.5721.8705.7%14.323.060.1113-31-22-43-0002EAST10.827.4902.0%5.071.080.0413-31-22-44-0001EAST54.633.67010.2%25.545.460.2314-31-22-11-0001WEST19.477.755.7312.7%6.351.950.2414-31-22-11-0002WEST19.489.256.1112.8%6.391.950.2214-31-22-12-0002WEST44.1815.2816.7728.6%14.34.420.21Parcel Identification NumberRegional BMP Allocation1 of 2 Proposed CSMP Allocations by ParcelCSMPParcel AreaPlanned ImperviousArea Suitable for InfiltrationLive Storage AllocationMax. RateEx. Max RateRegion[ac][ac][ac][ac-ft][cfs][cfs]Parcel Identification NumberRegional BMP Allocation14-31-22-13-0002WEST49.828.76016.1%8.064.98-14-31-22-14-0001WEST38.9612.3025.5%12.773.900.0414-31-22-21-0001WEST0.90.450.350.6%0.290.09-14-31-22-21-0004WEST2.340.960.811.5%0.770.23-24-31-22-11-0005EAST185.1701.8%4.451.800.0424-31-22-11-0007EAST1.240.8400.2%0.520.120.0124-31-22-11-0008EAST16.549.3502.8%7.061.650.0624-31-22-12-0001EAST28.128.7902.4%5.92.810.0524-31-22-21-0002CENTRAL5.450.2800.1%0.220.555.8724-31-22-21-0003CENTRAL14.160.4700.1%0.361.426.972 of 2