Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/2001 Env Bd PacketCity of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting Lino Lakes City Hall July 25, 2001 6:30 PM Agenda 1. Call To Order/Pass Sign -In Sheet 6:30 PM 2. Approval of Minutes (6:30 -6:35) 3. Approval of Agenda (6:35 -6:40) 4. Citizen Comments (6 :40 -6:45) 5. Project Review A. Ryan/Target/Target Super Store/ Update /(6:45 -7:00) 6. Environmental Board Business (7:00 -8:30) A. Comprehensive Plan Update B. Environmental Board Goals 2001 C. Xcel Energy/Tree Trust/ "Trade A Tree" Program. D. Special Council Meeting with the City Council/Environmental Board E. Resignation/Dave Mach F. Surface Water Management Plan G. Build -Out Study Discussion 7. Program/Project Updates (8:30) A. Grant Updates/Minnesota DNR Urban Interface B. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates. C. Spirit Hills Update /O &M Plan 8. Close Meeting and Confirm Next Meeting Date • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : June 27,2001 TIME STARTED : 6:34 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:41 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Chair Scott Lanyon, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus. MEMBERS ABSENT : Dave Mach. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, Community Development Director Michael Grochala, and Economic Development Director Brian Wessel. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lanyon presided and called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 30, 2001 — The following corrections were re Page 10, eighth paragraph: "Kukonen pointe copy ordinance of needed to be reviewed. he sp`t'� with Elk River, and had a , but that it Page 11, third paragraph: " The Board unanimously agreed to appoint Trehus to the Kukonen moved to appro 01 meeting minutes as amended above. Grundhofer seconded � <ot� o °•n carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGE The following items were adde e meeting agenda: • Discuss Pond contamination under updates. • Discuss resolution under Draft Comprehensive Plan. The agenda was approved as amended above. CITIZEN COMMENTS No citizen comments were made. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 PROJECT REVIEW A. Ryan/Target/Target Super Store/Update/ Brian Wessel — Wessel reviewed that on July 11 the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) and Preliminary Plan was going to the Planning and Zoning Board in its complete form. The wetland mitigation process was going to be discussed at the July 25 Watershed District meeting. Donlin stated the project had been a package from the beginning, so it had been difficult to have effective comments. Wessel answered the developers' response was it was the only shopping center zoned in the City, so the developer wanted to maximize the use of the area. The Council would make the final decision if the project is appropriate for the City. Chair Lanyon indicated that there have been no major changes, so there was no need for further discussion. He summed up that the Board wants Ryan/Target to maximize the environmental amenities, and that the Board wanted to comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet when the comments were in. Trehus asked the reason for putting the project on the ag -� da twice. Wessel indicated that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet could co" ented on in this section if the Board wished. Trehus stated the Board could comment on itself. Wessel submitted that it would go t Trehus pointed out that the taxes for would now be deferred. Wessel stated quarters of a million with options to pay ''' tax would be deferred. ronmen ssessment Worksheet n July 3, 2001. Donlin noted it is $450 increment was invo because the mark was seeking tax aba promised, one million dollars, public participation project of three - atement, and only the City's portion ent yearly for 15 years. She asked if tax onded that the developer has requested a subsidy , and explained that the developer, Ryan Companies the beginning one year ago. Trehus reviewed that th- mpact of this development necessitated wetland abatement, and asked if the situation had changed according to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Mr. Payton answered questions asked about previous activity in the area. According to the aerial photographs taken prior to the construction of Interstate 35W, showed the highway greatly impacted the tamarack forest that was present at the time. Trehus noted the rates had been maintained, but the impact from the volumes remained unknown. He urged an analysis be performed. Mr. Payton explained the stormwater runoff rates and water quality were under the review of Rice Creek Watershed District, and it was their decision, not the City's. 2 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Trehus indicated the Watershed District was reviewing their standards, and only dealt with average rainfall but the lakes would be impacted. He indicated he spoke to representatives at the Watershed District who agreed with his recommendation. Mr. Payton responded that the request was moot, because the Watershed District was the qualified party to deal with those issues. Trehus pointed out that the Watershed District did not have the financial resources to do the study. Mr. Payton answered that the Watershed District regularly reviews their standards. Chair Lanyon explained that the study would be relevant to the City. Trehus urged the Board to make the recommendation, and let the Council decide, for instance an analysis using computer modeling on the increased volume of runoff into George Watch Lake. Chair Lanyon agreed and added the message the Board wants to send is that a study needed to be done, and given the size of the project, with the impact remaining unknown, it needed to be addressed explicitly. Mr. Payton stated that issues such as infiltration, pondin retainment and treatment were all being dealt with by the Watershed District. Asleson explained all responsibility for the imp Target project. He commented that the Wate : ed not the upper part of the district. t be placed on the Ryan studies on the lower but Chair Lanyon commented that the Bo ure the Watershed District specifically addressed the impact of vo Trehus noted the report, wh. loading. Kukonen stated all know what the W message to the Coun water volumes of runo b itted, showed significant phosphorus tudies were still pending, and the Board did not c was dealing with. Chair Lanyon reiterated that the e that because of the scope of the project, the issue of ed to be addressed specifically. Mr. Payton explained that the public value credit and the creation of the wetland were already planned. Chair Lanyon indicated the issues of concern for the Board were the water volume and water quality issues. Donlin assured Mr. Payton that the Board appreciated the graciousness in which he had dealt with the criticisms of the Board, however, the Environmental Assessment Worksheet caused the Board to have some real concerns about the impact of the project. She indicated that compromises occurred all the way down the Mississippi River. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Trehus noted that the draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet stated the impact on wetlands and George Watch Lake is unknown at this time. Trehus moved that the Environmental Board recommends an analysis be conducted to determine the impacts of water volumes and water quality on the Chain of Lakes, George Watch Lake, and nearby wetlands. This analysis should utilize computer modeling, and if the Watershed District is unable to provide this it may be appropriate that the applicant contribute financially. Donlin seconded the motion. Trehus submitted that he did not initiate the discussion of computer modeling, but someone from the Watershed District mentioned it. Motion carried unanimously. O'Connell indicated the Environmental Board was concerned with what the City was losing, and inquired about environmental education possibilities. Wessel stated that the subject was in review. The final decision would be in the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The Environmental Board wa uld have to respond in the next meeting. He offered that the document be sent to the vironmental Board the same time it would be sent to the Planning and Zoning Board. Trehus pointed out that the Environmental B months. Wessel responded that the most r not se a e project for two es had een shown to the Board. Mr. Payton explained that he had been e Ryan representatives, and they had commitments from a bank and the ` �;3± es. Grochala noted he had been working on open space, pedestrian traffi �` ign• .e, lighting, power, and impacts on adjacent properties. Trehus asked if it woul Donlin expresse Environmental Boar brought together. She project assure the Board through. o°``'° nd signage which could be used as a model. new tenants might not be aware of the concerns of the ically speaking, the beauty and vegetation needed to be ed with tax abatements, could the representatives of the at the recommendations on vegetation would be followed Wessel indicated that there were no ordinances to dictate, but assured the Board that these issues were being negotiated, and that Ryan had made a commitment to reflect the character of the City. B. 8075 20th Avenue N. — Asleson reviewed the background on the project. The homeowner wanted to build an unattached garage in a lake protection zone and 100 -year floodplain. He recommended checking with the Rice Creek Watershed District to ensure no wetlands would be impacted. There was no proposed size of the garage, but there 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 could be an issue of exceeding the allowable fill for a wetland if one was found to be present. Kukonen indicated he had driven by the property and believed the Watershed District should be contacted. He indicated he thought there could be other places to build. Chair Lanyon indicated the two issues were that they may need to fill the area, and they would be adding to the impervious surfaces. Kukonen inquired if there was a model to look at such as Clearwater Creek with the swails. Chair Lanyon stated that the Board should approve the second paragraph as the recommendation, with the addition that the City come up with examples in the City to show homeowners. Kukonen moved to pass the second paragraph as the Board's recommendation. Trehus added that the concerns should be a condition of Planning and Zoning recommends approval or denial, passing on recommendations. He urged the Board t submitted that an addition to the recommendatio opposing the variance request. �proval. He noted that the • o not limit themselves to ear in its recommendations, and at it did not support or Grundhofer inquired at what point the Watershe answered that they would be contacte feet. istrict come into the process. Asleson wetlan . tyre built over a certain number of O'Connell added if the prof . or less the Watershed District did not have to be contacted. Grochala stated tha denial if the proje for a variance, so the recommendation could be w land. Trehus noted that they king for a variance in setback and could possibly be a drainage easement. Gro.. ` ala presented a diagram of the plan and explained that the proposed building was not located within a drainage easement. He explained that the zoning ordinance required accessory buildings to be located no closer to the front property line than the principle building. Grundhofer stated the map had no scale. Grochala explained the ponds were somewhat limiting the placement of the structure, he was estimating the placement at about 30 -ft. from the main structure. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Chair Lanyon pointed out the Board could make a statement such as "We do not recommend this project goes forth until...the Watershed District is contacted. Trehus asked if it could slip through the cracks without contacting the Watershed District. O'Connell answered it would be possible if the garage was under 5,000 -sq. ft. Chair Lanyon stated that since they were asking for a variance they could be asked to contact the Watershed District. Asleson suggested also inquiring on the effects of the additional impervious surfaces and water volumes. Trehus summarized the motion is to indicate that the Board does not support or oppose the variance request, however, because the proposed project lies within a lake protection area as described in the Environmental Handbook, the Board recommends: • The homeowner should contact the Watershed District to ensure no wetlands would be impacted. • Without knowing the exact size of the building it is unknown if the project would exceed the allowable fill limits. • Landscape for surface water management to minimize impact on wetlands. Motion carried unanimously. C. Pinnacle Towers Update — Asleson stated the ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS A. Draft Comprehensive Plan — Groch Comprehensive Plan, which the City ha the Plan was a unique work th ,. ould b set goals for total populatio would need to be dealt wi Grochala comment tabled discussion representative presen Waite -Smith which inch its role, goals and intera Council had adopted the ing on for several years. He believed doe ent that staff could work with. It had ts.. There were still several issues that mplementation of the plan. has reviewed the Environment Boards goals and co cil meeting with the intent of having a board directed the boards attention to the letter from Linda that the Council's desire to meet with the board and discuss ion with other boards Chair Lanyon noted this item had been tabled until the July 9, 2001 meeting. He asked if anyone could be at the meeting. He stated that it could be discussed at the joint meeting and inquired about the mechanism to keep the cap at 147 units/year. Grochala pointed out that the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan, but it still needed Metropolitan Council approval. The Comprehensive Plan becomes the basis to draft ordinances and other laws. The Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance will be revised as part of the implementation strategy to provide the necessary growth controls. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Donlin explained the disparity for a 500 -unit development but allow for only 50 units /year. Trehus agreed that it was a major drawback to phasing. Donlin stated the Mayor was using a 20,500 population cap, and the concern was the need to build new schools. She asked how they were to respond. Trehus stated that if the numbers were adjusted it would be 38 homes /year. Grochala stated that when the Comprehensive Plan was started the population was12,000, and there had been dramatic growth recently. The council will need to address this issue as the city begins working on the plan implementation. Chair Lanyon indicated that the caps were very important, but so were the rates. If the rates were too fast the Boards begin to lose their effectiveness. The Board wants to help staff to develop ordinances. Grochala responded that the ordinances would enforce the goals and with the Comprehensive Plan there was a consensus to build on. The Conservation Development Ordinance could be a first step. Trehus stated that the Comprehensive Plan was limited because the language creates no impetus to make it happen from the developers. Grochala answered that the availability of water and sewer would be on of the limiting factors fo development. Chair Lanyon asked now that the Comprehensive P "" approved, would the City adhere to the numbers. Grochala answered that licv� .sion would need to be made clarifying the 147 units per year versus the 2 Grundhofer pointed out that the new Subdivisio Grochala agreed that a lot was depend ± n the majority of issues deal with housing de dinance was not in place yet. politan Council's approval. The ordable housing. Chair Lanyon suggested hav of which ordinances to work on. Grochala added it may be practical +� to ork on components of ordinances. Kukonen expressed scenario. He wa responded that the c for the limitation of gro aside open space. expansion of the MUSA with the proposed growth aration of MUSA and non -MUSA. Grochala eness of extending utilities to certain areas may provide certain areas, and could encourage clustering and setting Kukonen indicated that two hot topics were MUSA expansion and Metropolitan Council. Chair Lanyon stated that the Comprehensive Plan had been passed, even though it was not exactly what the Board wanted. He pointed out to the Board that it can still affect the implementation of the Plan through ordinances. Trehus asked Grochala if he had seen the Environmental Handbook. The Handbook outlined the process, and would become the basis for the ordinances. He asked what would happen when the Handbook and Comprehensive Plan did not agree. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Chairs Lanyon noted that at some point the ordinances should be tested against the Environmental Handbook. He reviewed that consultants had worked with the City trying to create a win/win situation. Grochala stated that power was not in negotiating to take it or leave it, but using the ordinance to encourage compliance. Donlin inquired whether the taxes would increase once the MUSA was established. Grochala answered that while growth boundarys are established by the plan, it did not designate MUSA. MUSA would be held in reserve until development takes place. Trehus stated that there were different zone categories for the land not in the growth zone. Grochala responded with the example of an area north of Centerville. The land use plan showed it at low density residential, however the sewer and water were two miles away and is currently zoned Rural, it would remain at that designation. Donlin commented that as soon as the MUSA becomes available, if people were taxed as MUSA, they would be encouraged to develop their land. Grochala answered that the MUSA would be banked until as development project e approved. In this way land would be classified as non -MUSA until developme place Chair Lanyon indicated that agenda items A, his goals were. Grochala explained his go defining roles, so that recommendations would that there would be times when he an oard E meld e asked Grochala what volve e Environmental Board in ccepted and passed on. He admitted d conflict. Chair Lanyon stated that the Environme could be more proactive the • ve. G with being reactive is the Chair Lanyon point support. On the Board made a differ Bo d would be more helpful to the City if it ala explained that some of the frustration ess itself. o need of help, the Board would like to offer mental Board, it would be gratifying to know if the Grochala stated the dead nes that limit the influence of the Board may be the meeting time, and a change in the meeting time might be considered. Chair Lanyon suggested that there needed to be a set of procedures developed, so those mutually beneficial situations could be created. Trehus presented a recommendation to implement a moratorium on all new residential developments possibly to be extended to all development. A copy was submitted to staff. Trehus moved to adopt a moratorium as written, to be forwarded to Council. Donlin seconded the motion. 8 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27 2001 Trehus explained that Target would not be affected, only new submittals. Kukonen mentioned that a moratorium would inhibit arguments with developers. Donlin reviewed that several years ago the City enacted two back to back six -month moratoriums. Trehus added that with 450 units already in process, a moratorium was a needed step for the City. The motion carried unanimously. Trehus inquired of Grochala to review the Preservation Zoning District. O'Connell suggested the letter be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board. Asleson indicated the Board could meet July 18, however it would be too early for comment on projects and applications. Chair Lanyon explained in order to comment on the Environmental Audit Worksheet, the Board should meet before July 23, 2001 with either a special meeting or an additional meeting. Since the Board was not having an impact on projects, the meeting could be moved to July 1 , 2001. Grochala stated the Board could move the meeting 18, 2001 for comments on the Environmental Audit Worksheet, with the folio � _ mee the second week in August because the Watershed. District is meeting on ,, y 5, 2001. " e Council meets on the 13th and the 23`d for the Environmental Audi r ._ eet. Chair Lanyon noted the Board would on both 18, 2001 and July 25, 2001. B. Environmental Board Goals 2001 — Titem `` as discussed as part of Environmental Board Business A. C. Environmental Asses discussed as part of D. Shade Tree Ordina with models used in th document included a tre t Comments/Target /Ryan — This item was oard Business A. reservation/Discussion — Asleson wrote the document ecause there was no working model in the State. The reservation policy that was bound by the Council. It required the developer to replace the trees in public areas and developments. The City attorney advised against banks, and opposed the tree replacement. The issue of policy versus ordinance could be revisited. Grundhofer indicated that the definition of wood lot was a tree area of one acre and Was under the tree preservation policy, with 25% of the area having large trees. She asked staff if the policy could apply to the oaks in Highland Meadows. - Asleson answered it was included as a part of the zoning code in policy form and the developer had not complied. The policies were guidelines, but there was no means for enforcement. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Trehus noted if the tree preservation was an ordinance, and not merely a policy, the number of units could be reduced by one - third. Asleson stated that the City could not legally enforce the replacement of trees, according to the City Attorney. Chair Lanyon advised the Board to leave out the replacement sections from the document and recommend it be adopted as an ordinance. Grundhofer moved to have the tree ordinance revised by the Board and to move forward on the Tree Preservation Ordinance without reference to the replacement of trees. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. E. Introduction/Michael Grochala/New Community Development Director — This item was discussed as part of Environmental -Board Business A. PROGRAM /PROJECT UPDATES A. Grant Updates/Minnesota DNR Urban Interface — This item was tabled to the July 18, 2001 because the meeting was cancelled due to the po ` •' shutdown of the government. B. Solid Waste/Recycling Updates — This item w he July 18, 2001 meeting. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Osprey nest - Asleson stated he met �, scout; §`� to put up an osprey nest in August or September. B. Trees from Xcel Energy — repo', that Xcel Energy had agreed to give the City two trees for one for �` ; , d u ed � Ile repairing wires from storms. C. Spirit Hills Updat Watershed Distri This action supporte that Spirit Hills was required by the Rice Creek intenance plan to sustain the permeability of the soil. mendation given from the Board. D. Pond Contamination — sleson indicated the results from the lab showed the presence of coliform at 200 colonies /ml with a 100 colonies/ml detection limit. The second pond showed no detected coliform. The MPCA stated the life expectancy for coliform was 1.5 days, although the viruses could remain. The septic tank would be fixed by July 9, 2001. CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on July 18, 2001. There being no further business, Trehus moved to adjourn at 9:41 p.m. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 10 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : May 30, 2001 TIME STARTED : 6:31 P.M. TIME ENDED : 10:03 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Scott Lanyon, Dave Mach, Theresa O'Connell, and Mike Trehus. MEMBERS ABSENT : None. Staff members present: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson and Economic Development Director Brian Wessel. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lanyon called the meeting to order at 6 :31 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 28, 2001 — The following corrections were requester : •Page 1, ninth paragraph: "Page 5, insert after tenth pagra ;rely Kukonen stated that Lots 37 -42, Block 1 appeared to have a stormwater runoff problem, and recommended buffering." Page 5, fourth paragraph: "Trehus indic that the area was currently zoned R -1 higher b r e. Asleson ssponded " Page 6, sixth paragraph: "A nutrient loading bounce, unle water treatment train practices. reservation in the plans and a compacted 600 -ft. buffer does not reduce *atives are included such as eater columfting Page 7, seventh pat graph `The recommendations included staff recommendations, curbs, gutters, w d wales in% he cul -de -sacs, the fact that the area was a high ecological zone, buffers as in the' - Handbook 7.12, the encouragement to open up the angle in tl a swale Page 11, s h paragraph: " Trehus moved to approve the March 28, 2001 meeting minutes as amended above. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 B. April 25, 2001 — The following corrections were requested: Page 3, sixth paragraph: "Kukonen inquired whether Target would be willing to use a non - backlit logo ' . Grundhofer moved to approve the April 25, 2001 meeting minutes as amended above. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following items were added to the meeting agenda: • Discuss population caps under section 6D — Donlin. • Discuss communications with other bodies in the City section 6E — Trehus. • Discuss pond contamination section 7D — Asleson. The agenda was approved as amended above. CITIZEN COMMENTS Brian Wessel Community Development Director for the City notified the Board that he would be retiring in four months and that Michael Grochala would be staffing next week, leaving a four- month overlap. No other comments were made. PROJECT REVIEW A. Ryan/Target/Target Super Store Update — Wessel noted the official name was the 1 ail 2002. The City Council decision Market Place Project, with it b�Qpe� t�ri�J y ty would be on July 23, 2001,,p + woild be breaking ground in September. The June 13, 2001 Planning and ZoningBoard.11eeti'n `would make a recommendation. On July 11, 2001 the Council would approve the, Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and begin a 30 -day reviewal process He revie d that the project included a Target, Kohl's, several small business p is nd wetland mitigation was moving ahead. Chair Lanyon clarified the project would go to the Planning and Zoning Board before the next meeting with tie ; omments from the Board. •-'G t ti.,µ" Asleson pointed `t that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet would be a large document when it was completed with responses from other agencies included in it. Mr. Payton indicated the Environmental Assessment Worksheet consisted of their answers to 31 questions and was ready for distribution to the 25 agencies for the 30 -day comment period. All comments needed to be addressed. • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 Donlin noted that the timing did not allow for much time for review or response. Mr. Payton explained the document would be sent to the Environmental Quality Board on file for comments on June 4, 2001. The City had two weeks for comments. Trehus questioned if the Council was scheduled to vote on June 23, 2001 could the Planning and Zoning Board address the project at the July meeting. Wessel answered the document could go to the Planning and Zoning Board, then go to the Council directly. Chair Lanyon inquired how the Board should comment. Wessel responded that the project was important enough that another meeting might need to be called. Trehus asked if review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet in June was possible in view of the permitting schedule. Chair Lanyon inquired if staff could find out when the Planning and Zoning Board would deal with it. Grundhofer noted one of the small businesses was to be a convenience store ' asked if that meant a gas station. Wessel explained that one would be a gas station, one a fast food, and the other a bank. The developer had received stronginterest in all of the locations, but had no formal acceptance. Trehus indicated in past proposals there had been a secon asked about the change. Wessel responded that there were n Drive with no direct access to 77th Street. access on to 77th Street and twoRaccesses to Lake Mr. Payton stated that June 11th would b f, gin= 'f the comment period, with most comments coming in the last we c. Wess =noted the City's comments were to be prepared by the development team. He that the document was the City's. Asleson pointed out a chan the parking lot for infiltration. Donlin questioned whether a vegetative plan had been submitted. Mr. Payton answered that the scattered lands would have various small shrubs and grasses, and noted that they would be similar to the` plantings in the other areas. '�; ^,y',1. „eta Grundhofer asked if the ponds in the East still existed. Mr. Payton indicated the two ponds in e twere now depressions for infiltration. an nib tided vegetative islands scattered throughout of Trehus inquired if the Environmental Assessment Worksheet addressed the impact of the impervious surfaces on the Chain of Lakes. Mr. Payton responded that it dealt with various issues such as habitat and vegetation among others, but not the water table because it was so complex. The typical runoff would flow out of a two -inch pipe, with a 6 -8 inch pipe for overflow. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 Trehus posed the question of green parking and asked if other alternatives to asphalt had been considered. Mr. Payton pointed out that Target had denied them as viable alternatives. Donlin stated that the environment would be altered. Grundhofer concurred that the impact would be farther reaching than the Environmental Assessment Worksheet would address. Kukonen inquired if the Watershed District had commented on the project. Mr. Payton responded that a 404 permit had been submitted, but that they were waiting for a response. B. Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition /preliminary Plat — Asleson reviewed the background information on the project. He indicated the tree inventory was incomplete relative to the survey map. The water elevations remained unknown. If trees were removed, there might be tree replacement. It was recommended that a different type of housing be considered. Chair Lanyon noted there was confusion with the tree inventory on the large map, where the trees were labeled as retained, however, a cul -de -sac was located on top of those trees. Mr. Cooper of TSL Development answered that the pine trees were to'be'relocated on site. Grundhofer stated 1,113 were saved according o the literature, but the number was 95 short when counted. One of the developers answerndthat an updated tree inventory was available, and the discrepancy could be expled by softie trees having multiple trunks. Grundhofer indicated she had walked the property and noticed there were more oak than were denoted, she asked the number of $ lessban 6 inches. One of the developers responded an estimate would, a 80 trees. Mr. Cooper explained the ees 6 inches and larger were tagged as significant by the survey crews and the l dsca e architect. Because there was no ordinance, knowledge of other cities' ordinances were used as a guide, resulting in 637 oak trees being identified. Chair Lanyon no dflonly trees in groups were relocated, and posed the question what percentage _ survivr`splanting. Asleson answered the loss could be 10 %. Mach urg tle splanting of Oak over Pine because the natural ecosystem is Oak Savanna. Mr. Cooper indicated that 2 -inch oak trees could be transplanted, but not 6 inch. • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 Kukonen inquired if the runoff problem present on the old plan was no longer an issue on the redesigned plat. Mr. Cooper stated the configuration was redesigned because of the wetland being nonexistent where one was thought to be, and the presence of a new wetland, with the new plan there was zero impact on the wetland. The present plan was in compliance with subdivision ordinances, and no variances would be sought. Asleson noted in terms of groundwater elevations, the FHA states the bottom of the houses had to be at least 4 feet, but the City zoning says 6 feet. Donlin submitted the development was against the vision of the City, with its cookie cutter plan, and speculations concerning the water levels and flood stages. Schmidt disagreed that the water levels and flood stages were based on conjecture, indicating the groundwater was measured at seven locations on site, and the elevations would correspond to those numbers. Asleson stated more trees could be lost if the soil was compacted. Mr. Schmidt indicated there was a cash escrow for the trees requiring 4 hardwoods per lot, and that he would be willing to try to save the Pin Oak. The spade to be used has a diam eter:of 90 inches. So far, 40 Norway Pines have already been planted on site. O'Connell indicated she had visited another development at Noble tojd 97th Avenue N. and asked the name of the development. Mr. Schmidt explained the name was St. Gerard's, where 500 trees were moved, and they lost120 trees mostly: to wind damage. Asleson expressed concern over the clearcutting, and itndicatec other areas developed without clearcutting were Park Grove, parts o f Pheasant�Hills, and Clearwater Creek. He asked to be shown on the map where treesVere not to e removed. Mr. Cooper pointed out two areas. O'Connell stated she observed nand rr inquired if those trees were considered save set aside, with no traffic. ,:x a parked over many small trees, and Mr. Schmidt responded the area would be Mach asked what werethe expenses incurred by the developer that would make it better to grade the land than I to ii rk around the trees. Mr. Schmidt inch ated the loss of lots was the issue, because the number of lots makes a development economically feasible. Chair Lanyon' Poi, ed out the Southwest cul -de -sac on the plat tree map had about 7 trees not located the pad would be, and asked why those had to be removed. Mr. Cooper answered it was a drainage issue, where the water would be trapped and would not flow. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 Trehus stated that the original recommendation from the Board was to work with staff using conservation practices. Donlin concurred explaining the zoning and ordinances were not what they should be, and expressed concern over the area being of high ecological value. Mr. Schmidt indicated he was working with the present zoning and ordinances and were compliant. Trehus inquired if there had been a response from the Watershed District concerning runoff and surface water. Mr. Cooper responded that the appropriate forms had been submitted and rates for stormwater had been approved. Asleson explained the rates were inconsequential, the greatest impact was the water volumes. He indicated the City could go beyond the standards of the Watershed District in terms of water volumes. Discharged water was regulated by the MPCA. Mr. Cooper noted there were flatter swales in the backyards of the lots. Mach mentioned the vegetation in the swales was important. Asleson pointed out the Watershed District used the numbers for uncompacted sandy soils, and had concerns over the compaction. An example;as that a. bobcat compacted the soil 18 inches, and urged the plowing to restore the s 1. Mr. Cooper "indicated he planned to disc the area. Asleson stated using a disc would not be enou , and explained the watershed district will probably be reworking the requirementsin the nextetree to five years in addition to adding a maintenance plan. Trehus reviewed the findings that included: • The proposed development as not ing conservation development principles. • Significant tree loss could f a avvoided k� �A • The developer had not provided adequate information on surface water management. Donlin inquired about _ the swale in the Southwest corner of the property and the feasibility of a s l nt i e trees present. Mr. Cooper answered the area would be left as it is presentl Asleson icated th e gative grasses had deep roots, and there have been studies that it k takes 70 ±e rye plants to recover if the soil is compacted. Chair Lanysn reviewed the soil needs to be loosened so that the numbers in the model being used work. Mach added there should be an attempt to preserve the trees unless it needed to be graded. 6 • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 Chair Lanyon called for a motion. Trehus moved a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board, and to the City Counsel that the present plat proposal be denied, and a conservation approach be employed. Motion carried unanimously. C. Lino Lakes Family Dentistry /Apollo Dr. /Site Plan Review — Asleson reviewed the background of the plan. The Dental Office seeks to build an expanded building to be shared with another business. All water leaving the site flows to a pond across Apollo Drive. There are staff recommendations for native plantings and because of the imperviousness of the soils, the need to uncompact them. The plan denotes the planting of Maples, however they tend to be invasive. There was also a need to be more specific in terms of the ground level. Kukonen inquired about the specifics on parking requirements and the need for so many parking spaces. Asleson concurred that the standard recommendation for decreasing impervious surfaces applies. Chair Lanyon stated the lighting used should have no spillage and be a shoebox design. Trehus pointed out according to page 8, the water runoff rate going into the storm sewer will double the present rate. Chair Lanyon agreed the Board was 'very concerned about the increase in runoff. Asleson indicated the rates should not exceed prese greater concern. olumes are the Chair Lanyon summarized the Board's commen • Need for more specificity in the grogntlovr and sw les, in particular the use of native plantings and the minimal • Concern over an actual increase in asses. rates. • Minimize impervious surfar pe i call !. `"reduction in the number of parking spaces. • No spill lighting, for examples oebo -style lighting. • Minimize or eliminate soil compaction. Chair Lanyon called for a motion to pass on the recommendations of the Environmental Board as statedabove Trehus moved to pass on the recommendations. Kukonen seconded the motion.. Trehus stated' iesire'for a response to the recommendations, if they were addressed adequately way to flag it. Asleson answered the reports were flagged. Rob Rafferty of the Planning and Zoning Board indicated he received tidbits from the minutes of the Environmental Board, but there was little time for review. a�. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 Donlin inquired who indicated whether the concerns had been adequately addressed. Asleson pointed out before the Planning and Zoning Meeting, he prepares a 1 -2 page summary report which is then attached Chair Lanyon reiterated the Planning and Zoning Board received the recommendations from the Environmental Board. Mr. Rafferty mentioned there needed to be flags on the issues of great concern. Donlin submitted the recommendations could use red, yellow or green flags to indicate the overall response of the Board. Mr. Rafferty described the constraints of the codes, if the developers were compliant, the recommendations could not be enforced but only encouraged. Trehus explained depending on how the recommendations are processed, the impact could be minimal. Mr. Rafferty lamented poor communications between boards. Asleson explained that the time between submittal and reviewal could not be increased. Mr. Rafferty indicated the recommendations of the Environmen l Board do not come across to the Planning and Zoning Board with any impact, but flit pest information usually came from the staff. Asleson answered if there was more time to prepare, GIS could be used with the flags. Mach mentioned it was difficult to remember the big to comment on a project by project basis. e Board was asked Trehus urged the members of the Plann 9 :� oning bard to read the Environmental Handbook. Donlin agreed explaining e City . spent considerable money to produce the document. Asleson suggested the Envir e Handbook could be summed up by remembering the three- legged stool model w: e aological, economic, and cultural impacts to the community, and eventual ar" rr ected. Chair Lanyon stated Cher has a need to focus efforts on changing the ordinances. Kukonen indicate need to work together to get the ordinances. Mr. Rafferty concurre there nee d to be a minimal level of acceptance. O' Connell nquir a' about the townhouses on a recent development project which were encourages by the Environmental Board, but were rejected by the Planning and Zoning Board. She Was at a Planning and Zoning meeting and wondered how to address the issue on behalf of the Environmental Board. 8 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 The motion concerning forwarding the recommendations of the Environmental Board to the Lino Lakes Family Dentistry carried unanimously. D. Land Holdings Group /12th and Holly/Preliminary Plat — Asleson stated there was no tree inventory in the packet, he had spoke with several representatives with no response. Chair Lanyon strongly urged the Planning and Zoning Board not to act on the project until the tree inventory was submitted. Trehus indicated that earlier recommendations needed to be forwarded again. Chair Lanyon agreed and explained the recommendations needed to be in the development agreement. Mach commented on the tree inventory, and suggested a vegetative inventory should be considered to preserve the entire ecosystem. Chair Lanyon stated there were ways to make an impact even without ordinances in the area of native plantings. Trehus pointed out even though the Planning and Zoning Board was more risible to the City Council, it did not have any more authority than the Environmental Board. Trehus asked staff to please summarize the past recornme: motion to not approve the plat: ventoiy and proposed vegetation. s' d deveiipers' attitude toward fulfilling • The Board had a chance to review the treemv • The past recommendations need to be addr s • Strong consideration needed to be giAK� the past promises to the residents of Gemini Es a ions with teeth, and made a Grundhofer seconded the motion es. •d unanimously. Mach excused himself at :10 �,� �e r [ urned at 9:12 p.m. ENVIRONMENTAL BOAR BUSINESS A. Draft Compr Asir Planeview/ Update/DNR Comments — Asleson indicated the comments made DNR had been forwarded. Donlin p desire for linking the comments of the Board to the Comprehe se Plan. n Trehus indicated favorable response by the DNR to the 50% open space requirement. 9 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 Chair Lanyon questioned how to explain the comments, besides merely forwarding the responses of the DNR and Environmental Board with a request from the Board to request to comment. Asleson answered staff and individuals on the Board could write a letter. Mach submitted the Comprehensive Plan was the response. Chair Lanyon expressed the concern the Board was not convinced it was having an impact on the City, boards, staff, citizens and ultimately the environment. B. Environmental Board Goals 2001— O'Connell indicated that by her presence at the meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board addressed the environmental issues more. Trehus stated the Board should lobby for change, the Comprehensive Plan needed to have favorable language to address future ordinances. He inquired whether the City's boards had ever developed ordinances. Asleson answered the Board could develop ordinances, but the City Council would have to pass them. Chair Lanyon asked staff what would be the first ordinance to work on. Asleson responded the first should be a Conservation Subdivision DevelopmentQrdinance, which would be in conflict with other ordinances already in effect. Trehus excused himself at 9:24 p.m. He returned at 9:25 p Grundhofer inquired about goal #6 if the Board developet°n`ordinance, where would it be sent. Trehus responded it would be sent to City r uncil. Kukonen pointed out that he spoke with Elk RI Branch, but that it needed to be reviewed Chair Lanyon commented goal #9 sho helping Council with the Comp; w 5 nsi Donlin excused herself at 52 Mach stated under goal enforcement through ad a copy ordinance of North vironmental Board will be involved in turned at 9:30 p.m. e lakeore associations, were a great tool for education and ssure, and that the homeowner associations could be too. Chair Lanyon ca 1' d % °'or a motion to accept the modified goals. Trehus made a motion. O'Connell seconde emotion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Rules of Order ukonen distributed a summary of the Rules of Order commonly used to assist the Board in clarifying procedures. Yya D. Population caps — Donlin indicated the March minute numbers were incorrectly reported. At the present time, the population had exceeded the 2010 goal. She stated the caps were like targets, and identified the need to implement moratoriums automatically. 10 • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 There needed to be a mechanism to force the City to stay within the set numbers. If there was a mechanism to limit development, it would aid the rate of project reviews. Chair Lanyon concurred there needed to be a mechanism to enforce the caps. E. Communications with other bodies in the City — Trehus requested E- Mailing the minutes to Board members after the City received them from TimeSaver Secretarial. Chair Lanyon agreed and asked staff to check into getting the minutes to the Board members right after they were prepared. Trehus suggested appointing a recommendation reviewer, who would oversee the word usage in the recommendations prior to forwarding them to someone else. That person should also obtain the Planning and Zoning packets regularly to make sure they addressed the Board's recommendations adequately. The Board unanimously agreed to appoint Trehus to the position. O'Connell had volunteered to go to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, but in the future would probably stay only for the project reviews. Asleson indicated someone could attend the work sessions on the Wednesdays before the City Council meetings. The Park Board has an ongoing item on the agenda. Chair Lanyon asked staff to obtain schedules for the Plarimng and Zoning Board meetings and the work sessions, and try to get the Board on the agenda for updates. In addition, Chair Lanyon expressed frustration on behalf of the Board. a urged staff to invite the new Community Development Director to theext meeting. of t eninutes before the Planning and O'Connell stated she would like to have Zoning Board meeting. PROGRAM / PROJECT UPDATES. A. Grant Updates — This item asaafbledxtoahe June 27, 2001 meeting. B. Minnesota DNR/Wiltnd Interface — This item was tabled to the June 27, 2001 meeting. C. Solid Waste/Reeycling Updates — This item was tabled to the June 27, 2001 meeting. D. Pond Contamination - Asleson stated he visited a site where there was a failed septic system. land`s sensitive, and a nearby pond lab samples were being taken, and tested at In ' ;rpol. The watershed district sent their biologist to investigate the problem. It is a surface water quality concern as well as a health concern, because of the possibility of waterborne E. Coli contaminating nearby wells. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 30, 2001 CLOSE MEETING AND CONFIRM NEXT MEETING DATE It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on June 27, 2001. There being no further business, Trehus moved to adjourn at 10:03 p.m. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 12 • • AGENDA ITEM STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: July 18, 2001 TOPIC: Trade -A -Tree Program/Tree Trust/Xcel Energy /Approval BACKGROUND: This program was introduced at the last Environmental Board Meeting. The Trade -A -Tree Program is a partnership opportunity between the City of Lino Lakes, The Twin Cities Tree Trust, and Xcel Energy. The goal of the program is to increase the quantity and quality of trees in the community while reducing power line maintenance and power outages. The Power Company has line clearance safety standards that have to be maintained. When inappropriate trees are planted under these lines, costly and repetitive pruning visits, and disfigured trees are the result. The Trade -A -Tree program replaces each tree removed with two new trees. The additional trees can be planted throughout the City. The process involves an initial tree inventory and identification of the trees under three phase power lines that we would like to replace. The Tree Trust assists in selecting trees and provides other assistance as needed. The Tree Trust works with community residents by contacting them, explaining the program and addressing concerns. Xcel Energy removes the above ground portion of the targeted trees at no cost. The City would have to remove or treat the stumps and plant the new trees. A formal recommendation to proceed is needed. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend Environmental Board support for this program and City Council Approval. 2. Table for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1. 0 TREE ,TRUST Education • Employment Training • Environment •2350 Wycliff Street, Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55114 AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Trade -A -Tree Benefits b g O 0 m cl g g 0 0 8 .o cd s 0 2 y N 2 Ef:14 y tf • w ; 0 0 Ca 0 b 5 o v L VL >64 ND 0 m a) m stO U 0 • , a, y g >~ b 0 <1.,) 0 V1 a) F 0 • .0' 0 to v c. • • , • • gr F °•1 o - � h 0 F& CD s 1 , o w 1r1 o w L. gi' ►y C3' `C (yD a+ c eD a .11 tz 0Q ct, H P-e co N .. b 0 i,'(iddo noA UE3 MOH • • • • • .... -. w (D 0 0 O. 00 ak.e 0.1 ao S.4 ° y • C r cD ao y 5 co y QQ ° foA y CAD F r 0 CDD m 4 j y 'z ° ° 0 cp n O ° 5. a " y � R. ti KI P. CA dq ,� b (° - .� cD ° ° � cD 0 CA O (D 1,3p0es J saop bog • June 27, 2001 Dear Environmental Board Members: The City Council would like to schedule a joint meeting with your board in August or September. The purpose of the meeting would be to review the ordinance establishing the Environmental Board, the expectations of the City Council and the Environmental Board and the relationship of the Environmental Board to other City boards. If you could give me an indication of your preference for meeting days and times, I can compare that to the availability of the Council. For example, would you prefer to meet on a week night or on a Saturday morning? Are there days or weeks we should avoid? Also, are there additional items you would like to see on the agenda? On a slightly different note, the City Council did receive the goals established by your board. They decided to postpone discussion of the goals until your board chair could present them and he was unavailable for the June 25 City Council meeting. We anticipate the goals will be on the July 9 meeting agenda. The City Council is looking forward to meeting with you and to working effectively with you in the future. Sincerely, Linda Waite Smith City Administrator cc: Mayor and Council Members Michael Grochala Mary Asleson 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651- 982 -2400 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 • TDD: 651 - 982 -2410 Environmental Memo • To: Michael Grochala From: Marty Asleson Date: June 21, 2001 Re: BMP/Target Site RECOMMENDATIONS The following Management practices should be addressed in relation to storm water Management Housekeeping practices on the Target/Ryan site: Effective stormwater management should be a high priority because this will eliminate concentrated inputs of aerially- deposited and roadway - related pollutants to Lino Lakes lakes. Management Practices Housekeeping Practices These are used primarily in urban areas to keep impervious areas clean and are most effective when applied on a continuous basis either year round or seasonally depending on the nature of the problem. These controls are likely to reduce pollutants by 25 -50 %. Individual practices include: • Street Sweeping • Street Maintenance • Collection System Maintenance. • Catch basin cleaning • Storm sewer flushing Litter Control • Chemical Application reduction • Deicing materials • Pesticides and fertilizers • Safe Chemical storage improvement • • Environmental Memo To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: July 19, 2001 Re: Local Water Management Plan In Your packets, you will find the present adopted Local Water Management Plan, less most of the voluminous maps associated with the documents. The Plan consists of 3 documents: Volume 1, Policy Document; Volume 2, User Manual; and Volume 3, Reference Document. I have also included some information from link off the Center for Watershed Protection's website. The link is to the Storm Water Managers Center and includes a great deal of reference information on ordinance language. Memo Environmental To: Lino Lakes Environmental Board From: Marty Asleson Date: July 19, 2001 Re: Operation and Maintenance Plan Attached is the final Draft Operation and Maintenance Plan for Drainage /Infiltration area in the Spirit Hills Development. The Request was made by the Rice Creek Watershed District to the Developer to submit this plan to the City for approval. There were some changes made to the original proposal and these changes are incorporated in the document attached. • Page 1 Construction, Monitoring, Operation and Maintenance Plan For Infiltration Basins in the Spirit Hills Development, Lino Lakes. The overall objective for this maintenance plan is to ensure the longevity of the Infiltration basins designed as part of the stormwater management plan. Introduction Infiltration basins are designed to retain and infiltrate the stormwater runoff generated for a given design rainfall event. The success of an infiltration practice is dependent upon a number of things: naturally permeable soils and subsurface material, sufficient depth to the water table and /or a restricting layer such as bedrock or a hardpan layer, proper construction, proper operation and maintenance and pretreatment of stormwater to prevent clogging of the soils. In addition, a review of the soil borings of this development shows that there is sufficient • depth to the water table to prevent a water table mound from forming underneath the infiltration ponds and affecting roads and other infrastructure. As a result, the following issues are addressed in this Operation & Maintenance Plan to ensure the short and the long -term performance of the infiltration ponds: • Ensure Proper Construction of Infiltration Basins /Ponds • Minimize Sediment Loading to the Infiltration Basins /Ponds • Develop a Monitoring Plan • Short - Term Maintenance Requirements • Long - Term Maintenance Requirements Construction of Infiltration Basins /Ponds Proper construction is extremely important in ensuring the successful operation of an infiltration practice. The following recommendations regarding the excavation, timing of construction, equipment requirements, and landscaping plan will be incorporated in the final plans and specifications. Page 1 Excavation of Materials in Infiltration Basins/Ponds • Initial grading and excavation of materials in the infiltration basins /ponds must not exceed 2 -3 feet above the final grade. • During the construction process, stormwater infiltration basins /ponds may not be backfilled with any material unless authorized by the engineer in writing. • Final grading of the infiltration basins /ponds requires excavation of the remaining 2- 3 feet of overlying material down to the naturally occurring permeable subsurface material. This shall be done with a low ground pressure D4 dozer (LPG), low ground pressure D5 dozer or 864 traxcavator (rubber Tracks). Soil compaction • Minimize compaction of underlying soils by not traveling over the infiltration basins /ponds and surrounding buffer areas with heavy equipment except to the minimal extent necessary to grade and construct the infiltration basins /ponds. • Grading of the final 2 -3 feet of overlaying material should be done with light earth - moving equipment to minimize compaction to the soils. See above for the recommended equipment. • Once the final grade has been established, the infiltration areas shall be treated as a septic area. No other heavy earth moving equipment shall be allowed to traverse these areas. If the silt fence has been disturbed, the silt fence around the ponds and infiltration areas will be replaced. Using Infiltration Areas for Sediment Removal during Construction • Each infiltration basins inlet shall have a temporary sediment forebay. The main purpose of this is to offer some sediment deposition areas for the larger particle sizes. This is an attempt to reduce the deterioration, plugging and surface clogging of the basins infiltration capacity. These proposed forebays are approved for this project. Landscaping of Infiltration Areas • The establishment of native vegetation that can withstand wet/dry cycling and fluctuations in water levels, are salt tolerant and have a deep root systems promotes the infiltration capacity of the underlying soils. The basins, pond benches and mitigation areas shall be seeded with the City of Lino Lake seed specification. It shall be seeded per the City of Lino Lake planting specification. The developer shall allow any specialty seeding contractors to bid on the city seed and planting specification. See the City of Lino Lake's specification - Appendix B. Pretreatment • The inlet forebays shall serve as minor pretreatment areas prior to the water fling the infiltration basins. Other best management practices noted on the final grading plan shall be implemented and maintained. Inspections and recommended actions may be made by the project engineer, City engineer and the Rice Creek Watershed District inspector. Page 2 Monitoring Plan Monitoring of infiltration practices is important in evaluating their short and long term performance as well as in the identification of their short and long term maintenance requirements. It is recommended that visual observation of the infiltration ponds be performed by the developer of Spirit Hills on a routine basis. The Developer may hire personnel to do the monitoring if he wishes to do so. The change in standing water depth above the basin floor over time should be checked: 1. A StrathAyr double ring infiltrometer test shall be done to get an initial infiltration rate. 2. A minimum of six major rainfall events per year to monitor long- term infiltration rates. 3. After each major rainfall event in the first few months of construction to monitor infiltration rates. This visual inspection will provide information on the degree of surface clogging that may occur over the years and will help to identify the short- and long- term maintenance requirements. As a general rule, the ponds should infiltrate the volume of water generated from a 2.5" rainfall event plus the run -off from the Minneapolis -St. Paul median storm of 0.34 "in 72 hours. Limiting the loading time to 72 hours allows for plant growth on the bottom of • the basin and prevents the development of anaerobic conditions in the soils. Maintenance Plan The developer shall be responsible for maintaining the stormwater management practices located on the site prior to city acceptance of the project improvements. This shall be at the time of substantial completion. Substantial completion is that state of progress of the work when the work or designated portion thereof is sufficiently complete in accordance with the contract documents, so that the owner can utilize the work for its intended use. The homeowner's association shall be responsible for maintaining the stormwater management- practices located on the site after substantial completion or project acceptance, whichever comes sooner, but not before the homeowner's association is a legal entity. Page 3 Short Term Maintenance Requirements Vegetation Short- term maintenance would require partial re- vegetation in areas where the native vegetation is not able to survive. This should probably be a minimal requirement for the developer as the seeding contractor for the project shall be responsible for the establishment of the vegetation until the city or homeowner's association takes over the project. Due to the native planting seed mixture (MNDOT 25A), which is proposed for the stormwater areas, the developer will be required to contract a landscaper to perform a prescribed mowing or burn once prior to handing the project over to the homeowner's association or the city. The homeowner's association or city shall contract a landscaper to perform a prescribed mowing or burn once every five years. Permission for the prescribed burn shall need to be obtained from the city fire chief or the MN State Fire Marshall. This is a good short and long term maintenance technique to ensure the healthy and continued growth of native species. All risk for the fire is taken by the landscaper using the burning technique. Erosion In the event that the side slopes of the stormwater management basins erode the following short- term maintenance requirements may include: 1. Excavation of sediment where it is accumulating in the basin with light earth- moving equipment. 2. Re- grading of the side slopes and bottom of basin (if necessary) with light earth - moving equipment. 3. Re- seeding as originally specified in the vegetation management plan. 4. Installation of an appropriate erosion control blanket to reinforce the side slopes if deemed necessary by an erosion control specialist. Long Term Maintenance Requirements Depending upon the quality of the stormwater being infiltrated and the ability of the buffers to treat the stormwater, the soils in the infiltration ponds may become clogged with fine material over time to the point of infiltrating the runoff generated from a 2.5" rainfall event plus the run- off from the Minneapolis -St. Paul median storm of 0.34 "in 72 hours. Expected long- term maintenance would require minor rehabilitation of the infiltration ponds and infiltration trenches. Page 4 • Infiltration Ponds/Basins The rehabilitation of the infiltration ponds would require the excavation of accumulated fine material with light earth- moving equipment and re- planting with native vegetation. Excavation would occur in the following manner: 1. Remove the accumulated fine material and topsoil with light earth- moving equipment. 2. Excavated material shall be hauled and disposed of off site to prevent the material from re- entering the basin(s). 3. Excavate down to the naturally occurring permeable, sandy material. 4. Following excavation, re- vegetate the bottom of the basins as specified on the final grading plan. or 1. Burn existing vegetation or mow in late fall with a rotary or sickle -style mower 2. Aerate affected sediment basin with an Aerway ground- driven, rolling- tined aerator /cultivator. Minimum of two replications (passes). Minimum of 3.5" tine penetration into the soil. If the infiltration practices are designed properly, are constructed as specified and protected from erosion (buffers, vegetation, etc.) the basins could very well be maintenance free in the long run. In the worst case, the timing of the regularly scheduled maintenance should not be • different than any similarly designed swale, ditch or NURP pond in the city. The long term maintenance shall be taken over by the city or the homeowner's association when the project improvements are accepted by the city. Page 5 Memo Date: June12, 2001 To: William McCully/Rehbein Co From: Marty Asleson RE: Spirit Hills Seed Schedule/Drainage /Infiltration areas/O &M Plan Attachment Appendix B Seed specifications for native seed restoration areas: Seed Pond Area Grasses: 1. From normal high water to highest 1 -year water elevation 38% Big bluestem ( Andropogon gerardii) 15% Canada wild rye (Elymus canadensis) 10% Switch grass (Panicum vergatum) 7% Indian grass ( Sorgastrum nutans) All above PLS. 13% Blue joint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) 2% Wild rye (Elymus virginicus) 1% Green bulrush (Scirpus atrovirens) 3% Wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus) 1% Giant bur -reed ( Sparganium eurycarpum) 10 % Cord grass ( Spartina pectinata) All above by bulk weight. • • • 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo Pond Area Forbes: 2. From normal pond water elevation to top of 1 year high water elevation-- - 4% Sweet flag ( Acorns calamus) 1% Fragrant giant hyssop ( Agastache foeniculum) 4% Water plaintain ( Alisma subcordatum) 4% Swamp milkweed ( Asclepias incarnata) 4% Panicled aster ( Aster lanceolatus) 8% New England aster (Aster novae - angliae) 1% Red stalked aster (Aster punceus) 3% Canada tick trefoil (Desmonium canadense) 8% Joe -pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum) 6% Boneset ( Eupatorium perfoliatum) 2% Grass - leaved goldenrod (Euthamia graminifolia) 1% Sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale) 2% Giant sunflower (Helianthus giganteus) 4% Common ox -eye (Heliopsis helianthoides) 2% Great StJohn's wort (Hypericum pyramidatum) 11% Tall blazing star (Liatris pycnostachya) 2% Wild bergamot (Monarda fistulosa) 1% White prairie clover ( Petalostemum candidum) 2% Purple prairie clover ( Petalostemum purpureum) 2% Mountain mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum) 6% Black -eyed susan (Rudbechia hirta) 3% Stiff goldenrod (Solidago rigida) 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo 2% Tall meadow rue (Thalictrum dasycarpum) 6% Blue vervain (Verbena hastata) .5% Ironweed (Vernonia fasciculata) 4% Culver's root 2% Golden alexanders (Zizia aurea) All above by bulk wt. 3. Grass Blend for area between 1 -year highest water level to top of pond: 35% Bigbluestem ( Andropogon gerardii) 7.5% Side oats grama ( Bouteloua curtipendula) 2% Canada wild rye (Elymus hystrix) 3% Switch grass (Panicum vergatum) 25% Little bluestem ( Schizachyrium scoparium) 25% Indian grass (Sorgastrum nutans) All above by PLS wts. 2% Kalm's brome (Bromus kalmii) .5% Prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) All above by bulk rate 4. Forbs blend from top of 1 -year high water to top of pond: 1% Yarrow (Achillea millefolium) 2% Fragrant giant hyssop (Agastache foeniculum) 6% Leadplant (Amorpha canescens) 2% Butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa) 2% Smooth aster (Aster laevis) 4% Asure aster (Aster oolentangiensis) • 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo 2% Canada tick trefoil (Desmodium canadense) 3% Stiff sunflower (Helianthus rigidus) 9% Common ox -eye (Heliopsis rigidus) 3% Bush clover (Lespedeza capitata) 8% Tall blazing star (Liatris pycnostachya) 6% Wild bergamot (Monarda fistulosa) 4% White prairie clover (Petalostemum candidum) 14% Purple prairie clover (Petalostemum purpureum) 14% Black -eyed susan (Rudbechia hirta) 2% Gray goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis) 1% Upland goldenrod (Soildago ptarmicoides) 3% Stiff goldenrod (Soildago rigida) 3% Showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa) 7% Hoary vervain (Verbena stricta) 4% Golden alexanders (7.izia aurea) All above by bulk rates. 5. Upland Areas surrounding pond and other restoration areas: Grass Blend: 30% Side oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) 25% Blue grama ( Bouteloua gracilis) 42.5% Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) All above by PIS wts. 1% Kalk's brome (Bromus kalmii) 1% June grass (Koeleria macrantha) 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo .5% Prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) All Above by bulk wts. 6. Forb seed blend for top of pond and other upland areas: 1% Yarrow (Achillea millefolium) 16% Lead plant (Amorpha canescens) 2% Butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa) 3% Heath aster (Aster ericoides) 3% Azure aster (Aster oolentangiensis) 1% Golden aster (Heterothca villosa) 3% Bush clover (Lespedeza capitata) 1.5% Showy penstemen ( Penstemengrandiflorus) 4% White prairie clover (Petalostemum candidum) 18% Purple prairie clover (Petalostemum purpureum) .5% Prairie rose (Rosa arkansana) 18% Black -eyd susan (Rudbechia hirta) 8% Gray goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis) 2% Upland goldenrod (Soildago ptannicoides) 1% Stiff goldenrod (Soildago rigida) 5% Showy goldenrod (Solidago speciosa) 12% Hoary vervain (Verbena stricta) 1% Golden alexanders (Zizia aurea) All above by bulk wts. Seeding Rates • 12/06/99 Interoffice Memo • Grass Seed (Broadcast) 15 -16 lbs. PLS /acre 8oz. PLS /1000 sq. ft. Grass Seed (Drilled) 8 -10 lbs. PLS /acre Wild Flower Seed (Broadcast) 1 -5 lbs. Acre 2-4 oz/1000 sq. ft. Recommended Seeding Dates Optimum - - -- -May 20th to June 20 Range Spring Thaw To August 10 September 20 to Freeze Up All infiltration and drainage areas will be protected with fencing to prohibit encroachment and compaction. Existing soil densities will be maintained. A landscape contractor knowledgeable and experienced in the establishment of native materials will be hired to for the native seed areas. A three year management plan for the native seed areas with an established company specializing in native plant seeded areas will be submitted to the City. s4. • t y • e 1 l Volume 1 - Policy Document CI1Y OF LINO LAKES Local Water Management Plan October 24, 1994 SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Prepared by Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103B.201 to 103B.251, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization Table of Contents Page Executive Summary i Mission Statement 1 Legislative Mandate 1 Wetland Conservation Act 2 Local Plan Format 2 introduction 4 Background 5 Metropolitan Water Management Program Purpose 5 City Description 5 Location 5 Major -Lakes 6 Level of Development 6 Regulatory Agencies 6 Planning Process 7 Goals and Policies 9 Mission Statement 9 General 9 Goal 9 Policy 9 Standards 10 Water Quantity 11 Water Quality 13 Recreation Fish and Wildlife 15 Public Participation, Information and Education 16 Public Ditch System 17 Groundwater 18 Wetlands 19 Erosion Control ... 21 Regulatory Responsibility 22 Finance 23 Records Management and Documentation 24 Administration 25 General 25 Permitting 25 Federal and State Permitting Authority 25 City Permits 26 Background 26 Surface Water Management 26 Wetland Conservation Act 26 Procedure 27 Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page I Table of Contents (continued) Page Administrative Responsibilities 27 City 28 WMO and Watershed Districts 32 Federal, State and County Agencies 32 Regulations 33 Shoreland Management 35 Flood Plain Management 35 Restrictive Soils 35 Wetland Protection 35 Erosion and Sedimentation Control 35 Public Utilities 35 Environmental Protection 35 Implementation Plan (Capital Improvements) 37 Financing .. 39 Ad Valorem 39 Special Assessment (M.S. 429) 39 Building Permits, Land Development Fees and Land Extraction 40 User Charges (M.S. 444.075) 40 Grants 40 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 40 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 41 Minnesota State Board of Water and Soil Resources (MSBWSR) 41 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 41 • U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 42 Wallop -Breaux Funds 43 Pittman- Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act 44 Sport Fish Restoration Act 44 Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) 44 Amendments to the Plan General Procedure Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Plan Review 46 46 46 - Request for Amendment 46 - Staff Review 46 - Council Consideration 46 - Public Hearing 47 - Watershed Approval 47 - Council Adoption 47 47 Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page ii List of Figures Figure 1 - WMO's and Watershed Districts Planning Flow Chart 29 Figure 2 - Local Water Management Plan Flow Chart 30 Figure 3 - Administrative Process of LWMP 31 Figure 4 - General Location Map Appendix B Figure 5 - Drainage Plan Appendix B Figure 6 - City Water Body Designation Map Appendix B Figure 7 - N.W.I. & DNR Protected Waters Map Appendix B Figure 8 - Anticipated Land Use Appendix B List of Tables Table 1 Adequacy of Current Ordinances Related to Local Water Management . -33 Table 2 Five Year Capital Improvements Program 37 Table 3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Financing Mechanisms 44 List of Appendices Appendix A Literature Review Appendix B Figures Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page iii CITY OF ENO LAS 10/24/94 - Executive Summary Mission Statement The Mission Statement represents the City's attitude towards water management efforts. To accomplish the goals and follow the policies and standards, the City must have a single, consistent approach. The Mission Statement focuses on what is to be accom- plished and how it will be accomplished. Develop - water - resource management practices, guide- lines, and = programs which are consistent with state and federal laws, control flooding, maintain established water quality standards, allow for planned economic growth, and protect the environmental diversity of the City. Legislative Mandate The Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act was enacted as Chapter 509, Laws of 1982. The law was later codified as State Statutes 473.875 to 473.883. This Act was the driving force for water management until 1990. In 1990, State Statutes 473.875 to 473.883 were recodified into Chapter 103B. • Chapter 103, in its entirety, is known as the Water Law. Chapter 103B.201 to 103B.251 is the Local Water Planning section of the law and mandates preparation of local water management plans. Implementing the legislation is a two -step process. Step one includes the preparation of water management plans for each watershed unit in the seven county area. Watershed districts and water management organizations (WMOs) were charged with this responsibility. Step two involves the preparation of more detailed local water management plans. Local plans are required to conform to the standards of the WMO plans. The Lino Lakes City Council authorized the preparation of their Local Water Management Plan in March 1992. The plan has been prepared in accordance with State Statutes, the Rice Creek Watershed District, and the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization The plan satisfies the Water Manage-. ment Organization (WMO) and Watershed District's requirements while meeting the specific needs of the City. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 1 a a CITY OF LINO LAKES. 10/24/94 - Executive Summary Wetland Conservation Act In 1991, related legislation called the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 was passed. The Act was passed to establish a state program of wetland prioritization and planning, wetland preservation, cost sharing of wetland establishment and restoration, and to regulate activities altering the character of wetlands. Part of the Act requires that a local government unit (LGU) be declared. - RCWD and VLAWMO. -will be the- LGU -until the City's local Water Management Plan (LWMP) is adopted. After the adoption of the LWMP, the City will become the LGU. Local Plan Format The Local Water Management Plan consists of three volumes. Volume 1 is the Policy Document. Volume 1 identifies the basic issues towards which management efforts will be directed. The policy document identifies what is to be accomplished, and what actions are necessary. This Volume contains an Executive Summary, Introduction, Background section, Goals and Policies section, Administration section and a section on how amendments are made to the plan. Volume 2 is a User's Manual. The manual has four parts; Standards for Facility Design, Maintenance, Implementation Plan (CIP) and Water Resources Inventory.. This Volume also contains a developer guide to aid the City in standardizing their hydrologic and water quality calculations. Volume 2 is intended to be used by City staff and engineers working in the City. Volume 3, the Reference Document, contains background informa- tion. It includes a description of the City's physical environment, hydrologic modeling, water quality issues, Wetland Resources Management System and management strategy for the City. The Appendices in Volume 3 contain background data such as definitions, references and information on Rice Creek Watershed District, Vadnais Lake Area WMO, Wetland Conservation Act and Water Retention Law. The Reference Document is intended to be used with Volume 1 and Volume 2. Together, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 constitute Lino Lakes' Water Management Plan. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 2 a CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Executive Summary Lino Lakes' plan gives overall planning guidance to the City. The plan is not to be used as a final blueprint for the City. Rather, it is intended to supplement City planning and guide site - specific, detailed analysis. As more information becomes available, the plan should be regularly updated. In this way, Lino Lakes' manage- ment efforts will remain dynamic and flexible. • Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 3 9 CITY OF LINO Lis 10/24/94 - Introduction The Policy Document portion of the Local Water Management Plan is intended to be used by City staff, Mayor and City Council. It contains the foundations for water management in the City and describes how the plan is administered. The Policy Document begins with a Background section. This section discusses why a plan is required and thus be developed. Also discussed in the section is what should to be included. in.local_ watershed management plans. A Goals and Policies section follows the background section. The goals and policies of Lino Lakes Local Water Management Plan provide for guidance, future development and growth while minimizing surface water problems and enhancing the environment. The third section is for administration of the plan. Permitting, administrative responsibilities, modifications to current City regulations, implementation plan (OP) and financing alternatives are discussed in the Administrative section. How the plan is amended is discussed in the final section of the Policy Document. For the plan to remain dynamic, an avenue must be available to implement new information, ideas, methods, standards and management practices. The appendices include a literature review and-figures which aid the policy makers in reviewing the hydrologic system of the City. Data can be added to the appendices as more information becomes available or relevant. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 4 CITY OF LINO LAS U Metropolitan Water Management Program Purpose The purposes of the water management programs according to State law Sections 103B.205 to 103B.255 are to: (1) protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems; (2) minimize- public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding -and water quality problems; (3) identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality; (4) establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management; (5) prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems; (6) promote groundwater recharge; (7) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and (8) secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and groundwater. 10/24/94 Background I City Description Location The City of Lino Lakes is located in the southeast corner of Anoka County. It is bounded to the west by Blaine and Circle Pines, to the north by Columbus Township, to the east by Hugo, and to the south by Shoreview, White Bear Township, and North Oaks. The major north /south highways are State Highway 49 and County Road 23 to the west, and Interstate 35E on the east. County Road 32 (or Ramsey County Road j) is the southern boundary. County Road 14 is the other main east /west road. Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 5 r F' j CITY OF LINO LAKES 10/24/94 - Background Major Lakes Lino Lakes has numerous lakes and wetlands providing great aesthetic and environmental value to the City. A major portion of the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes lies within the boundaries of the City. Major lakes with all or most of their shoreland within the City are: • Amelia • Peltier • Centerville • George Watch • Marshan • Reshanau • Rice • Baldwin • Rondeau Other lakes that are partially within the City and adjoining communities are Bald Eagle Lake and Otter Lake. The City's lakes provide numerous recreation opportunities, induding swimming, fishing, and boating. Level of Development In 1990, about 66 percent of the buildable land in Lino Lakes was vacant. With the large amount of available space, land devel- opment is proceeding. at 'a rapid pace. In addition to anticipated residential home construction, commercial and industrial growth is anticipated at . several intersections along Interstates 35E and 35W. A portion of the City remains outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line. Regulatory Agencies Many of the waters and wetlands within Lino Lakes are designat- ed as State Protected Wetlands and Waters. The Minnesota De- partment of Natural Resources has regulatory authority in these areas. Other wetlands are identified as Waters of the United States. Alteration of these areas would fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. Local Water Management Plan' SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 6 i 10 CITY OF LINO LAKES a r d t a w I0/24/94 - Background Additionally, the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 represents an overlapping jurisdiction over many of these same areas. The Act is administered by a designated local governmental unit (LGU). Upon adoption of the Local Water Management Plan the City of Lino Lakes will become the LGU. The majority of the City is within Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). A portion of the southeast comer (AmeliaLake area) lies within the Vadnais. Lake Area Watershed Management Organization ( VLAWMO). After the local plan is approved, the City . can take over permitting authority from RCWD and VLAWMO. Those agencies will only have review authority of projects within the City. Planning Process Local water management planning is required of all communities in the seven county metropolitan area by the State Statutes Section 103B.235. The requirements of the Statues for local plans, in the degree of detail specified in the watershed plans, include the following: • Describe existing and proposed physical environ- ments and land use. ' Define drainage areas and the- volumes, rates, and paths of storm waterrunoff. • Identify areas and elevations for storm water storage adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan. ' Define water quality and water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan. • Identify regulated areas. Set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as appropriate, a capital improvement program. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 7 CITY OF INO LAKES 10/24/94 - Background The structure of the content of a local plan should include (based on Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410; Metropolitan Area Local Water Management): • Purpose Statement • Water resource management related agreements • Executive Summary • Land and water resources inventory . • Establishment of policies and goals • Assessment of problems • Corrective actions • Financial considerations • Implementation priorities • Implementation program • Amendment procedures • Submittal and review The intent of Lino Lakes' local plan is to focus all basic information and planning data into a single document which describes existing conditions, specific policy matters, and considerations for the future enhancement of the City's water resources. The plan has been prepared in accordance and consistent with the Rice Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan and the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization Plan. Proper use of water resources and water quality protection can be realized through strong policies and thoughtful program imple- mentation. Such a program will require the cooperation of neighboring communities, the county, state and federal agencies and the WMOs. Planning allows decisions to be made which provide for the enhancement of water quality, prevention of ground water degradation, and the reduction of local flooding. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 8 14 CITY. OF _j LINO LAS r r 10/24/94 Goals and Policies Mission Statement The Mission Statement represents the City's attitude towards water management efforts. To accomplish the goals and follow. the policies and standards, the City must have a single, consistent approach. The Mission Statement focuses on what is to be accomplished and how it will be accomplished. Develop -water resource management practices, guide- lines, and programs which are consistent with state and federal laws, control flooding, maintain established water quality standards, allow for planned economic growth, and protect the environment diversity of the City. General The goals and policies of the Lino Lakes Local Water Management Plan provides for future development and growth while mini- mizing surface water problems and enhancing the environment. The goals and policies are consistent with the goals of the RCWD and VLAWMO while meeting the more specific and changing needs of the City. Goal A goal is the desired end toward which the City's water manage- ment efforts are directed. This plan identifies several specific goals on which to base the City's water resources planning and manage- ment functions. The goals of this plan were established in accordance with the purposes of the water management programs required by Sections 103B.201 to 103B.251. Policy Each goal has several corresponding policies. A policy is a governing principle that provides the means for achieving established goals. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 9 J 20/24/94 • u Q A Q CITY OF LINO LAS Goals and Policies Standards Standards are an extension of the policies. They provide detailed guidance regarding water management practices. Specific stan- dards are included in Volume 2, Users Manual. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 10 CITY OF -� L11' LAKES a a 10/24/94 - Goals and Policies Water Quantity Control flooding and minimize public capital expenditures. Policy L1: Natural storm water storage areas and manmade detention areas should be utilized to control flood- Policy 1.2: The acceptable or allowable storage capacity of the existing drainage system shall be optimized. Policy 1.3: Regional detention areas, as opposed to individual on -site detention, shall be used whenever practical as indicated in this plan. Policy 1.4: All hydrologic studies shall be based on ultimate or anticipated development of the entire tributary drainage area. Policy L5: Major storm water facilities shall be designed using a return period of 100 years. Policy 1.6: All minor drainage system analyses and design shall be based on a return period of 10 years unless otherwise specified. Policy L7 Detention facility design_shall include access for maintenance of the outlet structure and to the facility in general. Policy 1.8: The design of storm water facilities shall consider and identify location(s) of overflow(s) that prevent property damage from extreme water levels. Policy 1.9: Minimum building elevations shall be above estab- lished flood levels. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 11 0 9 4 a a CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 - Goals and Policies Policy 1.10: Emergency overflows or outlets to City drainage systems shall be provided to any landlocked area if the available storm water storage capacity is inade- quate to prevent flooding of structures. Policy 1.11: The City will take an active role in implementing the necessary policies to allow development of regional detention ponds. Policy 112: The City shall have a standard hydrologic design criteria for all storm water systems to assure consis- tency. Policy 1.13: City will perform maintenance measures to assure proper function of the drainage system. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: L1NOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 12 CITY OF 3 LINO LAKES Li a a 10/24/94 Goals and Policies Water Quality Achieve water quality standards in City lakes and wetlands consistent with intended use and classification. Policy 2.1: Policy 2.2: Policy 2.3: Policy 2.4: Policy 2.5: Policy 2.6: Policy 2.7: Policy 2.8: Policy 2.9: The classification system established by the City will dictate intended use and water quality stan- dards. Sedimentation ponds shall be constructed prior to discharging into protected waters and wetlands. All new development will reduce phosphorus loading to a drainage system or water body in accordance with the City's adopted phosphorus budget for the subwatershed. All construction plans developed for the mainte- nance and /or improvement of water quality shall include a detailed access and maintenance plan and shall require City approval. A community education program relating to pre- serving and improving water quality will be developed and implemented. All on -site waste water systems shall be maintained by the owner. A water quality plan which outlines the education programs, water monitoring needs, water quality modeling requirements, phosphorus budgets for subwatersheds, and any other water quality issues will be developed and implemented. A response plan to minimize the impact of hazard- ous spills on protected waters shall be developed. Agriculture areas will be regulated by the local soil conservation district. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00. Policy Document Page 13 a CITY OF j LINO LAS 1 1 1 i 1 Policy 2.10: Policy 2.11: Policy 2.12: Policy 2.13: 10/24/94 Goals and Policies The City will take an active role in implementing the necessary policies to allow development of regional water quality ponds. Newly constructed water bodies will have a 50 -foot naturally vegetated buffer strip between the water body and maintained area if the water body re- quires limited phosphorus loadings. City will perform maintenance measures to keep potential pollutants from entering local water bodies. The City will administer the requirements in M.S. 103B.3365 based on a City wide management strategy. Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 14 a _a r a 1 1 1 CITY OF LINO Lis 10/24/94 - Goals and Policies Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Protect and enhance water recreational facilities, fish and wildlife habitat. Policy 3.1: Policy 3.2: Policy 33: Policy 3.4: Policy 3.5: Policy 16: Policy 3.7: Policy 3.8: Natural areas, wildlife habitat and wetlands shall be protected during construction by clearly marking and /or fencing_ the areas to be protected. Buffer zones of natural vegetation will be main- tained around ponds and wetlands to provide habitat for wildlife. Water level fluctuations in wetlands and ponds, which have been classified as wildlife habitat areas, will be controlled to prevent flooding of the habitat. Prior to modifying wetlands or constructing storm water facilities, existing habitat will be noted, maintained and enhanced, or new habitat shall be developed. The City will support programs for controlling purple loose strife, Asian Milfoil and other noxious vegetation. The City will not take special-measure to Maintain water in ponds used for sediment removal. Activities related to recreation, fish and wildlife shall be consistent with the Anoka County Regional Park objectives and the City's Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide. The wetland classification system established in this plan shall dictate how wetlands will be managed and maintained by the City. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 15 CITY OF _j LINO LAKES 10/24/94 Goals and Policies Public Participation, Information and Education Increase public participation and knowledge in management of the water resources of the community. Policy 41: Policy 4.2: Policy 4.3: Policy 4.4: Policy 4.5: The City's quarterly newsletter will be used to discuss water resource issues affecting the City. An established _ citizen task force . will - provide guidance related to local water resources issues. Citizen lake water quality monitoring is encouraged and supported by the City. The City will support Anoka County's recreation and educational programs related to the water resources of the community. Natural environment programs in the public schools will be supported by the City. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 16 CITY OF a L11 LAI�S 10/24/94 Goals and Policies Public Ditch System Maintain ditch system to convey water to maintain defined flood levels which protect businesses and residences. Policy 5.1: The Rice Creek Watershed District is responsible for maintenance of public ditches. Policy-5.2: -- The City encourages restoration of public ditches to a-- natural condition whenever possible. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 17 3 1 a 1 I i 1 i CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Goals and Policies Groundwater Promote ground water recharge and prevent contamination of the aquifers. Policy 6.1: Anoka County is recognized as the lead agency regarding ground water controls. Policy 6.2: Recharge areas identified by Anoka County shall be protected from adverse development and from potential contamination. Policy 6.3: When practical, a permanent volume of water below the outlet or overflow will be provided in ponds and wetlands to promote ground water recharge. Policy 6.4: The use of grassed waterways will be encouraged to maximize infiltration. Proper grades will be maintained or underdrain systems installed as part of an overall site plan to insure positive drainage. Policy 6.5:. A response plan to prevent the spread of hazardous spills to the recharge areas shall be developed by the City. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 18 CITY OF a LINO Lis _a 10/24/94 Goals and Policies Wetlands Maintain the amount of wetland acreage and try to increase the wetland values within the City. Policy 7.1: A wetland management plan for wetlands in the City shall be established. Policy 7.2: A wetland classification system shall be developed to manage and maintain wetlands. Policy 7.3: Areas that can be used for wetland mitigation will be identified by the City. Policy 7.4: Wetland mitigation criteria shall be established consistent with the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, state and federal regulations, and the needs of the City. Policy 7.5: Alteration of wetlands is discouraged. Alteration may be allowed on an individual basis if the alteration can be properly mitigated in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. Policy 7.6: Wetland banking opportunities will be pursued by the City in accordance with the Wetland Conservation - Act. -- Policy 7.7: Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 shall be used to permit activities in and around wetlands covered by the Act within the City. Policy 7.8: Creation of open water areas shall be done in conformance with the "General Designation Consideration for Wildlife Pond Construction and Wetland Alterations." Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 19 1 1 a 3 CITY OF LINO LAKES 10/24/94 Goals and Policies Policy 7.9: Wetlands may be used for stormwater storage and treatment only if it can be shown that the character of the wetland will not be adversely affected by substantially increased sediment load, tributary area, or water level fluctuations. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 20. a CITY OF LINO LAIRS 10/24/94 • Goals and Policies Erosion Control Prevent soil erosion. Policy 8.1: Natural vegetation will be preserved. Policy 8.2: Erosion control plans will be required for all land disturbance activities. Policy .3: All erosion and sediment control measures specified in the erosion control plan must be installed prior to obtaining a grading permit Policy 8.4: Soil erosion shall be prevented through the installa- tion of erosion control practices outlined in the standards section of this plan. Policy 8.5: Agriculture areas will be regulated by the local soil conservation district Policy 8.6: Under the MPCA Storm Water Permit Program for Construction Activities, the owner of the property being impacted shall be the owner on the permit. If City funds are being used for the project, the • owner shall be the City or City's representative. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 21 CITY OF 1 10/24/94 Goals and Policies Regulatory Responsibility Assume responsibility for managing water resources within the City and recognize the regulatory authority of other local, state and federal entities. Policy 9.1: Policy 9.2: Policy 93: Policy 9.4: Policy 9.5: Policy 9.6: Policy 9.7: This plan and all subsequent amendments shall be consistent with all other regulatory agencies. The City is responsible for establishing and imple- menting a local permitting program for water resources management. The City is not responsible for maintenance of Judicial Ditches and that part of Rice Creek within the City. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have regula- tory authority relating to waters and wetlands identified on their respective inventories. Anoka County shall be the lead agency on ground water. The Rice Creek Watershed Plan and Vadnais Lake Area Water-Management Organization Plan shall be used to permit activities that are covered in the District's or WMO plans but not described in the Local Plan. The City shall be the Local Government Unit (LGU) and permit activities described in the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 22 CITY OF j LINO LAKES a 1 1 i a 0 1 10/24/94 • Goals and Policies Finance Finance water all citizens. Policy 10.1: Policy 10.2: Policy 10.3: Policy 10.4: Policy 10.5: Policy 10.6: resources projects by means that are equitable to All developments shall, to an extend determined by the City, provide land, funding, or a combination of both for management of local water resources, which includes development of regional facilities and planning studies. The City will establish a fee structure charged to developers for analyzing the impacts of the pro- posed development. The City will establish a fee structure charged to developers for constructing capital improvements (i.e., trunk conveyance systems). Assessments will be used when a project benefits affected owners. Grants will be actively sought to fund local projects. The City will investigate the feasibility of alternative funding sources, suchas-Ad- Valorem Taxes, bond sales, and user charges .(storm water utility). Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 23 i w CITY OF INO LAS 10/24/94 • Goals and Policies Records Management and Documentation Preserve historic data, records, and files pertaining to the water resources of Lino Lakes. Policy 11.1: A classification will be developed and recorded for each new detention area, including the basis for the classification. Policy 11.2: Policy 11.3: Policy 11.4: Policy 11.5: Policy 11.6: Policy 11.7: Engineering calculations will be required in a standard format to ease record keeping. Past studies will be documented and filed. If a study does not currently exist, it should be noted. During extreme rainfall events, high water elevations should be noted and surveyed. A history of flooding and water quality problems will be developed by noting past events and recording current floods. Changes in water quality, such as increased aquatic vegetation, fish kills, and toxic spills, will be recorded. A . condition_ survey -will- be established and implemented by the City for the purpose of water resource management. Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 24 a i f i i CITY OF INO LAKES . 1 0/24/94 Administration General The Administration Section is intended to carrying out the goals and policies of the guide . This section ctio in out- lines the administrative process and recommends section d additions to be made to existing orngea and im- provements program � ty ordinances. The capital p gram summarizes the schedule for and cost of recommended improvements. Financing_ options . are - also dis- cussed. Lastly, procedures for amending the plan are identified. Prior to the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Creek Watershed District (RCWD) controlled m the management the Rice surface water in most of the City and, thereby, a anagement measure of land use control in the City. In accordance with St te the RCWD updated their management plan which was approved on July 25, 1990. Similarly, the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization was formed in 1983. approved in 1987. The RCWD and VLAWMO Their plan was the water management law within their boundaries. cUrrently represent Each of theme O plans requires the City to prepare or update an existing P The plan is then reviewed and approved by the WMOs. The City, through its approved plan, can then assume as much management control as desired. Permitting The City of Lino Lakes wishes to be self - governing in the area of surface water management. The major task of adminis City's Local Water Management Plan will be in the term the process. Permit itting Federal and State Permitting Authority Wetland alteration will continue to be permitted through state and federal agencies. These regulatory programs are well established and agency personnel are trained to make qualitative judgments regarding wetland values. The City, however, will permit wetland alteration covered by the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 following the adoption of the local water management plan. Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: L1NOL9402.00 Page 25 CITY OF 1 0/24/94 Administration City Permits • Background Surface Water Management As stated in State Statutes 103D.335, Subdivision 23 and 103B.211, Subdivision 1, the City can assume the role of permittee for all land alteration, thereby enforcing the policies and standards of this plan. - RCWD and VLAWMO will continue review and comment on . any proposed land alteration. The WMOs can appeal City approval of a particular project if the project is considered to be inconsistent with the City's local water management plan. The Local Plan is intended to address all areas currently being permitted by RCWD and VLAWMO. However, in some cases, an activity may not be directly addressed in the Local Plan. In these instances the RCWD or VLAWMO plans will be used to determine if an activity needs to be permitted. A list of unique permitted activities will be listed in the Reference Document in the appendix as part of the RCWD or VLAWMO data. Wetland Conservation Act The Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 requires a local government unit (LGU) to be identified to administer the interim provisions of the act. The Board of Water and. Soil Resources has suggested that the responsibility be given to the LGU that will be ultimately responsible for administering -the permanent program beginning January 1, 1994. Within the seven- county Metropolitan area, only cities, townships and water management organizations (WMOs) can administer the permanent wetland regulation program. The administration of the regulations will be performed by the same entity that is regulating the water management activities of the 103B.231 directive. Those local governments that have prepared and adopted a local water management plan should then be the LGU for the area under its jurisdiction. Local governments that have not adopted a local water management plan should be under the jurisdiction of the WMO; that is, the WMO should be the LGU. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 26 • CITY OF LINO Lis i i i r 10/24/94 Administration The designated LGU should notify the Board of Water and Soil Resources that they have accepted the responsibility for adminis- tration of the wetland guidelines. Adoption by resolution is necessary, and is performed to ensure consistency with other local regulatory procedures. Once the City has completed an approved local plan, it can apply to be the LGU. Procedure The City's existing permit procedures should be amended to include water management aspects outlined in this plan. The permit for surface water management would be acquired at the same time all other permits are applied for. An approved permit would be required with any submitted preliminary plat. The building permit will be modified to regulate individual wetland and conveyance system impacts which are not covered by platting regulations. The permit would require the applicant to meet the policy and design elements outlined in the Standards for Facility Design section of the local water management plan, as well as requirements in RCWD or VLAWMO plans not listed in the Local Plan. A City inspector would be responsible for enforcement of the requirements in the permit. ' To ensure conformance to this plan, the City's prelimin and final platting process should require more detailed inform lion. Wetland alteration, erosion control -and information regarding local plan standards should be. addressed-, Administrative Responsibilities The administrative responsibilities of the City, the WMOs and other related agencies are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. Figures 1 and 2 also show schematically how the watershed planning law works. Figure 3 illustrates the City's administrative process related to the local water management plan. Several agencies will continue to have administrative responsibili- ties within the City. For local water management to be successful, each agency's role must be clearly understood. Those having responsibility of administration include the City, WMOs, and Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 27 CITY OF LINO LAKES 10/24/94 Administration federal, state and county units of government. Following is a description of administrative responsibilities of each. City The City's administrative responsibilities include, but are not limited to the following: • Land use regulation • Sediment and erosion control Local Water Management Plan Policy Document • Permits (expansion of current program to cover drainage and erosion control) • Local Unit of Government (LGU) • Capital improvements (non- watershed projects) • Conveyance system maintenance. • Participation and cooperation with the programs of the RCWD and VLAWMO • Local plan review and amendments • Wetland - alteration - joint responsibility with DNR and Corps of Engineers • Individual septic systems records • Ordinance_ review and amendment • Comprehensive plan update(s) • Zoning map revision(s) • Hydrologic model update with land use /zoning changes • Flood insurance study amendments SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 28 • • CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Administration Figure 1- WMO's and Watershed Districts Planning Flow Chart 14 lag halt pit Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 29 i 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 10/24/94 Administration Figure 2 - Local Water Management Plan Flow Chart I h I .Is off 0 Sal s nt Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 30 CITY OF INO LAKES 1 0/24/9¢ Administration Figure 3 - Administrative.Process of LWMP Local Plan Completion Council Approves Local Plan Water Management Organizatio Plan Review and Approval COUNCIL ADOPTS PLAN REGULATORY ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Annual C.LP. Review and Update Periodic Ply Updates Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 31 i i i i i CITY OF LINO LAKES 10/24/94 Administration WMO and Watershed Districts WMO's responsibilities for administration of local waters include, but are not limited to: • Implementation of WMO- identified programs • Overseeing the implementation. of the City's local Plans • Water quality modeling and monitoring for WMO- identified projects • Review and approval of local storm water manage- ment plan amendments • Developing a ground water program (Anoka Coun- ty -Load Agency) • Collecting and maintaining water quality and lake level data • Addressing inter - community issues • Managing public ditch system • Addressing potable water supply issues Federal, State and County Agencies The federal, state and county agencies will continue-to have certain administrative responsibilities. Several of these include, but are not limited to: • Land use regulation and wetland alteration Department of Natural Resources for all issues relating to waters and wetlands des- ignated as State Protected Wetlands and Waters. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. EPA, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife for all issues related to all wetlands identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 32 • CITY OF INO LAKES /0/24/94 Administration Inventory, that are not under the jurisdiction of the DNR. • Ground Water Issues Anoka County • Minnesota Department of Health • - Erosion Control Anoka Soil and Water Conservation District • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity • State Board of Water and Soil Resources Individual Septic Systems /Hazardous Waste Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Regulations The City of Lino Lakes has several codes and ordinances that relate to surface water management. Table 1 illustrates _regula that will help the City realize the goals of this lan, lions indicates the plan. The table current adequacy of each regulation. Suggested regulation changes follow. Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 33 r CITY OF LINO LAIES Ordinance Shoreland Management Flood Plain Management Restrictive Soils Wetland Protection Erosion and Sediment Control Public Utilities Environmental Protection_. Surface Water Management 10/24/94 Administration Table 1 Adequacy of Current Ordinances Related to Local Water Management Specifically Covered by Existing Code or Ordinance ✓ Not clearly distinguished in existing code or Modifications ordinance Required ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Current water resource - related regulations are located throughout the codes and are not clearly distinguished as local water manage- ment regulations, It is recommended that the City entitled Local Water Mana t3' create a new include Shoreland Management, Management. This section would include on, eland fit, Flood Plain Management, Wetland Environmental Protection, Erosion and Sediment Control, and Surface Water Management. Minor changes are also required in Sections 302 - Street Construction Standards, 1001 - Subdivisions . and Platting, and Appendix B - Zoning. These Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 34 a I* i t CITY OF ENO LAKES 10/24/94 Administration changes make the terminology and methods consistent with the Local Water Management Plan. Below is a more detailed explana- tion of the changes required for each regulation. Shore land Management Shoreland Management Ordinance, Appendix H, requires minor modifications to make it conform to the DNR recommended Shoreland ordinances. Flood Plain Management Based on the hydrologic analysis of the Local Water Management Plan, amendments to the City's flood insurance study should be made. In addition, the revised flood zones should be shown on the official zoning map. Restrictive Soils Restrictive soils are covered under the existing code. Wetland Protection The City task force would develop the basis for wetland protec- ton. The ordinance would then be added in the Local Water Management Section. Erosion and Sedimentation Control The City should develop an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance, consistent w ith the model ordinance developed by the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District as part of the Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (1989). Public Utilities Public utilities are covered under the existing code. Environmental Protection Regulations for environmental protection would address such things as fertilizer control, disposal of leaves and lawn clippings, Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 35 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Administration vegetation in ditches and wetlands, weeds and noxious growth, chemical application control, hazardous material identification and control planning, hazardous waste disposal, etc. The Local Water Management ordinance should be created based on the City's Local Water Management Plan. At a minimum, the ordinance must adopt the local plan to conform with State Statutes which require the amendment of official controls_in_order to insure plan implementation. It is recommended 'that - ordinances related to Wetland Protection, Environmental Protection, and Erosion and Sediment Control be added to this section. The ordinance need not include the plan standards, rather, reference the Local Water Management Plan. In this way, the ordinance can remain un- changed as the plan is amended from time to time. Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 36 1 i CITY of Leo LAS 10/24/94 Administration Implementation Plan (Capital Improvements) • The implementation plan includes identification and prioritization of capital improvements, administration, inspections, permitting, plan amendments and monitoring programs. The high items typically require attention within a one- to two-year p p prior d or involve projects that have previously been identified. Low priority items will be performed some time within the five -year implementation period. Detailed information regarding - identified expenditure can be found in Volume 2, ser Guide of this plan. Estimates of capital expenditures have been made for a five -year period. Future anticipated projects are also listed. The Implementation Plan, Table 2, summarizes expenditures per minor watershed. Capital expenditures are also anticipated for such items as coordination with the Watershed District, performing biannual drainage system inspections, review and development of ordinances, amendment proceedings and maintenance. The Implementation Plan should be reviewed on an annual basis. At that time, each proposed improvement is to be reconsidered and additional improvements added to the five -year program. 7. Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 37 7 I I CITY OF INO LAKES 10/24/94 Administration Table 2 - Five Year Capital Improvements Program 'Annual cost 11198 Local Wabr Management Plan update '-1Y8g Ordnance changes to reflect abrard crater marnpemed peabloss Nob: Al projects aro based on load coat of In project and do not robot cost sharp with osier agendas. Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 38 • 1: 1 CITY OF INO LAKES 10/24/94 Administration Financing Paying for storm water management projects has become more complex in recent years. In the past, special assessments against benefited properties financed most of the necessary However, with recent legislation, the financial options v' broadened considerably. The question is, which method(s) best suit the needs of the City. The major categories of funding sources are (1) Ad Valorem Taxes; (2) Special Assessments; (3) Building Permits, Land Development, Fees and Land Exaction; (4) User charges; and (5) Grants. Following is a description and financing principles used with each of these financing mechanisms. Ad Valorem A. General Taxes General taxation is the most common revenue source used to finance government services including minor mainte- nance measures for drainage and water quality facilities. Using property tax has the effect of spreading the cost over the entire tax base of a community. B. Special Tax District (MS. 103B.245) The tax district is similar to the administrative structure under general taxation except that all or part of the com- munity may be placed in the tax district. The principle is to better correlate improvement costs to benefited or contributing properties. Special Assessment (M.S. 429) Municipalities are familiar with the use of special assessments to finance special services from maintenance to construction of capital improvements. The assessments are levied against properties benefiting from the special services. The philosophy of this method is that the benefited properties pay in relation to benefits received. The benefit is the increase in the market value of the properties. Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 39 i 1 CITY OF ENO LAKES 10/24/94 Administration Building Permits, Land Development Fees and Land Exaction As land is developed or built upon, surface water runoff and pollution loading increases. Administrative and capital costs can be recovered at the time of building permit issuance or land development approval. A City can require dedication of land for ponding or drainage purposes. The land, however, must be from the parcel being developed. User Charges (MS. 444.075) User charges, which support surface water utilities, are a mecha- nism by which a City can generate funds through billings similar to water and sewer billings. The principle is to charge for services rendered to properties generating runoff, as well as the service to properties being protected from the effects of runoff, without consideration to an increase in market value of the property. Grants State grants are available for surface water management and non- point source pollution. It is generally not a good financial practice to rely on grants for a service program. This source of revenue is not dependable and requires constant speculation as to its ' availability. Grants are useful but should only be used to supple- ment a planned local revenue source. Examples of some available grants include: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Previously the MPCA had federal matching funds for preserving and protecting lakes and for enhancing their public use and enjoyment, under the Federal Clean Lakes Program. MPCA is optimistic that funding will continue to be available. Currently, MPCA is involved in the State Clean Water Partnership (CWP) Program. The CWP provides matching funds for lake improvement projects and non-point source pollution abatement. There is a great deal of competition for the available CWP dollars. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 40 CITY OF 7 L11 LAS 1 i i • /0/24/94 Administration Minnesota De artment of Natural esources MDNR The MDNR has available funding through its Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance Program. The program provides financial support for planning and implementing structural and non - structural flood damage reduction measures. The program includes 50/50 matching funds through either a general fund or a bonded fund. Minnesota State Board of Water and Soil Resources SBWSR MSBWSR has limited matching funds available for erosion control projects. Most often these monies are administered through the county Soil and Water Conservation District. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Local Water Management Plan Policy Document 6041, - Urban Water Quality Grant The EPA's 205j Grant Program is targeted at water quality improvements in urban areas. The grant is not a cost share program, but does require local participation. The grant is generally administered through the state. A 604b grant (previous 205j) funded over 80 percent of this study. Underground Injection Control Program The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Under- ground Injection Control (UIC) program involves inventories of ground water protection areas in the City to address abandoned drainage or domestic disposal wells which are potentially harmful to underground sources of drinking water. The results of the questionnaire can provide a great deal of information on the degree of risk to the City's underground sources of drinking water. The EPA has provided funding and training for volunteers to implement the UIC program at the local level. SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 41 7 7 CITY OF 7 LINO LAS 1 I 10/24/94 Administration Environmental Education Grant The EPA's Environmental Education Grant, enacted in 1991, is targeted at cities or organizations in the amount of $25,000 or less. The Environmental Education Grant is intended to finance local educa- tion initiatives related to the nature environment. Grants are awarded on a 50/50 cost -share basis. • Clean Lakes Grant • The federal Clean Lakes Grant is the next step in lake restoration following the State Lake Planning Grant Program. The program includes significantly mOte funding than the state program and can be used for development and implementation of lake restoration plans. • Section 319 - Clear Water Act Funding through EPA's Section 319 program supports priority watershed projects but is also available for urban BMP and project implementation coordination. The grants program includes a spring application period (May to June ). The program is significant in that it funds implementation (i.e., construction ) rather than funding planning efforts or studies. The funds are available for either full or matching funds. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Local Water Management Plan Policy Document ▪ Section 22 Planning Assistance to States Programs Funds are a 50/50 cost share. The program is administered through state 1 Madison). Eligible r • planning (WNDR prepare a cost estimate f�or�reli� v� design. The to COE to estimate is negotiated with the "customer". The SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 42 I • CITY OF INO LAKES Local Water Management Plan Policy Document 10/24/94 Administration "customer" provides 50% cost share in the form of cash. The COE then completes the preliminary design or study. Wallop- Breaux Funds The program is called Wallop- Breaux referring to the Dingell Johnson program and the names for its sponsors, program and names primary s onsors Senator Malcolm Wallop (R -WY) and Senator John Breaux (D-LA). Its formal Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, of which name is for sportfishing enhancement ($215.3 million, part is used for is used for boating safety � 1992) and part S ty in each state ($70 million, in 1992). Wallop - Breaux is an example of a user-pays/user- benefits program, where taxes on an activity back into the activity's ' are strictly maintenance. The Internal Revenue Service collects the money and gives it to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service percent off the top for After taking 6 P administration, the service gives money to each state based on its relative size and the number of resident fishermen. No state receives more than 5 percent of the total, less than 1 percent. To obtain Wallop- Breaux funds,.. a. state sends a proposal to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service offi project must be "substantial in �- its- region.�� The there is no r character and design," but sport fishermen�inl requirement that percent went to�s�,benefits research. About half of the 6 percent the service surveys and for the staff that administers the funds. takes the $12 million a The rest of the $12 Year in administrative money is used for various special projects. Wallop - Breaux is supposed to be new money for new fishery improvements. But some of the money is being used to replace state funding from licenses and the general Ply treasury. conduit of dollars to Wildlife Service views itself as the states. SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 43 l u 10/24/94 CITY' OF • ENO LAS Administration Pittman- Robertson - Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act Funded by an excise tax on angling and hunting equipment, this program helps raise the revenue necessary to fund specific restoration projects by state fish and wildlife agencies. Sport Fish Restoration Act State received federal aid monies for fisheries management, administered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service on a 75 percent (federal) and 25 percent (state) basis. The federal share is from excise taxes and the state share is mainly from sportfishing licenses. Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) Funded on the biennium, for resource - related programs such as wetland management, ground water protection, water quality, etc. Table 3 illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of the different financing methods. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Policy Document Page 44 3 1 1 1 1 14) 1 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Administration Table 3 - Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Financing Mechanisms E IlitHik 514 11.2. 'cral § 11 hi 91111111°111 L1 �E�` 1g14.$_.34 '3 4 2 2 4 t; 1 j a i 'E a 3 .� > . kb. FtfETILIE:1=sietio G.1 a 63 ama,S n'3 tg 1 .3 1 It vi J Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 45 J T 1 1 l CITY OF INO LAKES r 10/24/94 • Amendments to the Plan General The Lino Lakes Surface Water Mans extend through the year 1998. For the plan to Plan is intended to avenue must be available to implement new remain dynamic, an methods, standards and mans information, ideas, proposals can be made any management practices. Amendment proposals s can be business y time by any person or persons either having within the City. Procedure The procedure outlined below is a six step procedure for amending local plan. The number of steps required to implement a change to the plan will depend on the type of amendment proposed. Step 1 - Request for Amendment Written requests for plan amendment is submitted to the City Engineer. The request shall outline the need for the as well as additional materials that the City amendment to before making its decision. Issues to b e addressed include consistency with the current local plan and the WMO plans. Step 2 - Staff Review • At this point, a decision is made as to the validity Three options exist; 1) reject the amendment, of ) the accept the amendment as a minor issue, with dment, 2) accept the to the plan at a later date, 3) accept the amendment added issue, with major issues requiring an immediate major acting on an amendment request, staff shall recommend mot. In Council whether or not a public hearing is warranted. tO City Step 3 - Council Consideration !} The amendment and the need for a considered at a regular or special Council mhee� wring shell .. mendations should also be considered before decision ° appropriate action(s) are made. Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 46 Jo J 1 CITY OF INO LAKES 10/24/94 Amendments to the Plan Step 4 - Public Hearing This optional step allows for public input based on the sentiment. Council shall determine ublic necessary raune if the public hearing is ary and when the hearing should occur in the process. Step 5 - Watershed Approval Following Council approval and rior to Co amendment must a reviewed and approved cal adoption, the The review shall occur within a 60-day period. the Watersheds. y . Step 6 - Council Adoption Final action on an amendment is Council ado tion. prior to the adoption, an additional public hearing However, in the opinion of staff or Council, public input would be of value. Plan Review A brief annual report should be made by staff s development changes, capital improvements and other water • man- agement-related issues that have occurred over the past year. The review should also include an update on available funding sources for water resource issues. Grant programs to review since they are especially important to v review require_ y may change annually. These changes danot however, necessarily ndividual amendments. The reports can, be considered when the plan is brought up to date. The City's plan will remain in effect through 1998. The City should then review the management plan for consistency with current water resources management methods. At this annual reports and past amendments can be added to the docauh- ment. Depending on the significance of changes, a new printing the plan may be appropriate. At a minimum Improvement Program must be amended every five the Capital years. Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 47 Appendix A Literature Review CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Literature Review The following references were utilized in the preparation of the information presented in the policy document is a compilation of data Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, Chapter 103B, Laws St.'.utes Section 103B.201 to 103B.255. Policy Document. The from the listed literature. of 1992 Minnesota State Permanent Rules Relating to Waters; Metropolitan Area Local Water Management, State Register, Monday, April 6, 1992, pages 2192 -2206. Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization Watershed Management Plan, prepared by Schilling Environmental Consultants; Inc. Approved April 7, 1987. Water Resources Management Plan - Rice Creek Watershed District, prepared by E.A.1-lickock & Associates. Approved July 25, 1990. Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 354 Laws of 1991. Water Retention, Minnesota Statute Section 103B.3365. Proposed Amendment of Rice Creek Water Resources Management Plan, pre ared b Montgomery Watson, Draft Plan November 1993. p by Local Water Management Plan Policy Document SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 49 Volume 2 -Users Manual CITY OF LINO LAS Local. Water Management Plan October 24, 1994 SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Prepared by Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103B.201 to 103B.251, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Managcment Organization Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Mission Statement 1 Legislative Mandate 1 Wetland Conservation Act 2 Local Plan Format 2 Introduction 4 Standards for Facility Design 5 General 5 Policy Elements 5 Water Quantity 5 Water Quality 6 Recreation, Fish and Wildlife 7 Public Ditch System 8 Ground Water 8 Wetlands 9 Erosion Control 9 Regulatory Responsibility 10 Records Management and Documentation 10 Design Elements 12 Flow Rate Criteria 12 Inter- Community Flow Rates 12 Hydrology Major Facilities (Detention Ponds) 13 Design Methodology 13 Storm Distributions 13- Design Storms 13 Flood Evaluation Storms 14 Rainfall 14 Hydrology for Landlocked_ Areas 14 Hydrology - Minor Facilities (Storm Sewers, Ditches, Culverts) 14 City Projects 15 County or State Projects 15 Hydraulics 15 Culverts 15 1 -Year and 10 -Year Storm Outlet Structure 15 Emergency Overflows 16 Minimum Building Elevation 16 Pond' Construction (Above Normal) 16 General Criteria 16 Size 17 Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page i • Table of Contents (continued) Page Pond Construction (Sediment) 17 General Criteria 17 Size 18 Pond Skimmers 19 Erosion Control 19 Pond Restoration 20 Above Normal Water Elevation 20 Below Normal Water Elevation 20 Buffer Area 20 Wildlife Pond Construction 20 M.S. 103B.3365: Water Retention 21 Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 21 Wetland Management Classification 22 Amending Flood Insurance Study (FIS) 22 Maintenance General 23 Policy Elements 23 Water Quantity 23 Water Quality 23 Recreation, Fish and Wildlife 23 23 Public Ditch System Records Management and Documentation 24 24 Maintenance Guidelines Biannual 24 Inspection of All Wetland Areas and Ditches 24 . Street Sweeping 24 Catch Basin Cleaning 25 Inspection of Direct Storm Sewer Discharge Point to Protected Wetlands or Water Bodies 25 Removal of Sediment 25 Structure and Skimmer Maintenance 25 Litter Control 25 Chemical Application to Reduce Aquatic and Roadsid5 Vegetation 25 Storm Sewer and Culvert Flushing 25 On -Site Septic Systems 26 Implementation Plan (CIP) 27 General 27 Cost Estimates 27 Priority 32 Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page ii Table of Contents (continued) Page Water Resources Inventory 33 Watershed Data 35 Rondeau Lake Minor Watershed 40 Peltier Lake Minor Watershed 52 George Watch Lake Minor Watershed 56 Centerville Lake Minor Watershed 63 Marshan Lake Minor Watershed 69 Reshanau Lake Minor Watershed 81 Rice Lake Minor Watershed 95 Baldwin Lake, County Ditch 8, and Golden Lake Minor Watershed 101 Vadnais Lake Areas Watershed Management Organization 107 City Wide Projects 113 Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page iii • List of Figures Figure 1 Watershed Map Figure 2 Drainage Map Figure 3A Rondeau Lake Minor Watershed Figure 3B Peltier Lake Minor Watershed Figure 3C George Watch Lake Minor Watershed Figure 3D Centerville Lake Minor Watershed Figure 3E Marshan Lake Minor Watershed Figure 3F Reshanau Lake Minor Watershed Figure 3G Rice Lake Minor Watershed Figure 3H Baldwin Lake, County Ditch 8, & Golden Lake Minor Watersheds Figure 31 Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization Major/Minor- -Watershed Figure 3J Watershed Map Figure 4 National Wetland Inventory and DNR Protected Waters Map Figure 5 Anticipated Land Use Figure 6 Soil Infiltration Capacity Figure 7 Restrictive Soils 36 37, 38 39 45 55 62 68 80 94 100 106 112 Appendix A Appendix A Appendix A Appendix A Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page iv List of Tables Table 1 Five Year Capital Improvements Program 28 Table 2 City -Wide Capital Improvement Program 29 Table 3 Drainage Area Summary for Each Minor Watershed 345 Table 4A Rondeau Lake Minor Watershed - Capital Improvements 40 Table 5A Inventory of Existing Hydrologic Data for Rondeau Lake 41 Table 6A Management Data for Rondeau Lake 42 Table 7A Basis of Design Data for Rondeau Lake 43 Table 8A Rondeau Lake Minor Watershed - Hydrologic Function 44 Table 4B Peltier Lake Minor Watershed - Capital Improvements 46 Table 5B Inventory of Existing Hydrologic Data for Peltier Lake 49 Table 6B Management Data for Peltier Lake 50 Table 7B Basis of Design Data for Peltier Lake 51 Table 8B Peltier Lake Minor Watershed - Hydrologic Function 52 Table 4C George Watch Lake Minor Watershed - Capital Improvements 56 Table 5C Inventory of Existing Hydrologic Data for George Watch Lake 57 Table 6C Management Data for George Watch Lake 58 Table 7C Basis of Design Data for George Watch Lake 59 Table 8C George Watch Lake Minor Waterhsed - Hydrologic Function 60 Table 4D Centerville Lake Minor Watershed - Capital Improvements 63 Table 5D Inventory of Existing Hydrologic Data for Centerville Lake 64 Table 6D Management Data for Centerville Lake 65 Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page v w 1 • List of Tables (Continued) Table 7D Basis of Design Data for Centerville Lake Table 813 66 Centerville Lake Minor Watershed - Hydrologic Function .... . Table 4E , 67 Marshan Lake Minor Watershed - Capital Improvements .. Table 5E . . .. 69 Inventory of Existing Hydrologic Data for Marshan Lake . Table 6E „•„ 73 Management Data for Marshan Lake Table 7E ...................... 74 Basis of Design Data for Marshan Lake Table 8E ••••••.....75 Marshan Lake Minor Watershed - Hydrologic Function Table 4F 76 Reshanau Lake Minor Watershed - Capital Improvements ...... 81 Table 5F Inventory of Existing Hydrologic Data for Reshanau Lake (1 of 2) 84 Inventory of Existing Hydrologic Data for Reshanau Lake (2 of 2) 85 Table 6F Management Data for Reshanau Lake (1 of 2) . Management Data for Reshanau Lake (2 of 2) .... • • • 87 Table 7F • .... 87 Basis of Design Data for Reshanau Lake (1 of 2) . Basis of Design Data for Reshanau Lake (2 of 2) .... • • • 89 Table 8F ... 89 Reshanau Lake Minor Watershed - Hydrologic Function .. . Table 4G • . 90 Rice Lake Minor Watershed - Capital Improvements ..... , Table 5G • .. 95 Inventory of Existing Hydrologic Data for Rice Lake .... Table 6G .. . , , , 96 Management Data for Rice Lake Table 7G 97 Basis of Design for Rice Lake Table 8G 98 Rice Lake Minor Watershed - Hydrologic Function . . Table 4H ...... , , , gg Baldwin Lake, County Ditch 8 & Golden Lake Minor Waterhsed Capital Improvements 101 Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page vi List of Tables (Continued) Table 5H Inventory of Existing Hydrologic Data for Baldwin Lake, County Ditch 8 and Golden Lake Minor Watersheds 102 Table 6H Management Data for Baldwin Lake, County Ditch 8 and Golden Lake Minor Watersheds 103 Table 7H Basis of Design Data for Baldwin Lake, County Ditch 8 and Golden Lake Minor Watersheds 104 Table 8H Baldwin Lake, County Ditch 8 & Golden Lake Minor Watersheds - Hydrologic Function 105 Table 41 Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization Capital Improvements 107 Table 51 Inventory of Existing Hydrologic Data VLAWMO 108 Table 61 Management Data for VLAWMO 109 Table 71 Basis of Design for VLAWMO 110 Table 81 VLAWMO - Hydrologic Function 111 Table 4J Miscellaneous Capital Improvements 113 Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page vii List of Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix B Reference Documents Appendix C Developers Guidelines Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page viii Users Manual CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Executive Summary Mission Statement The Mission Statement represents the City's attitude towards water management efforts. To accomplish the goals and follow the policies and standards, the City must have a single, consistent approach. The Mission Statement focuses on what is to be accom- plished and how it will be accomplished. Develop water resource management - practices, guide- lines, and programs which are consistent with state and federal laws, control flooding, maintain established water quality standards, allow for planned economic growth, and protect the environmental diversity of the City. Legislative Mandate The Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act was enacted as Chapter 509, Laws of 1982. The law was later codified as State Statutes 473.875 to 473.883. This Act was the driving force for water management until 1990. In 1990, State Statutes 473.875 to 473.883 were recodified into Chapter 103B. Chapter 103, in its entirety, is known as the Water Law. Chapter 103B.201 to .103B.251 is the Local Water Planning section of the law and mandates preparation of local water management plans. Implementing the legislation is a two -step process. Step one includes the preparation of water management plans for each watershed unit in the seven county area. Watershed districts and water management organizations (WMOs) were charged with this responsibility. Step two involves the preparation of more detailed local water management plans. Local plans are required to conform to the standards of the WMO plans. The Lino Lakes City Council authorized the preparation of their Local Water Management Plan in March 1992. The plan has been prepared in accordance with State Statutes, the Rice Creek Watershed District, and the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization. The plan satisfies the Water Manage- ment Organization (WMO) and Watershed District's requirements while meeting the specific needs of the City. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 1 • CITY OF LINO LAS • 10/24/94 Executive Summary Wetland Conservation Act In 1991, related legislation called the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 was passed. The Act was passed to establish a state program of wetland prioritization and planning, wetland preservation, cost sharing of wetland establishment and restoration, and to regulate activities altering the character of wetlands. Part of the Act requires that a local government unit (LGU) be declared. RCWD and VLAWMO will be the LGU until the City's Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) is adopted. After the adoption of the LWMP, the City will become the LGU. Local Plan Format The Local Water Management Plan consists of three volumes. Volume is the Policy Document. Volume 1 identifies the basic issues towards which management efforts will be directed. The policy plan identifies what is to be accomplished, and what actions are necessary. This Volume contains an Executive Summary, Introduction, Background section, Goals and Policies section, Administration section and a section on how amendments are made to the plan. • Volume 2 is a User's Manual. The manual has four parts; Standards for Facility Design, Maintenance, Implementation Plan. (CIP) and Water Resources Inventory. This Volume also contains a developer guide to aid the City in standardizing their hydrologic and water quality calculations. Volume 2 is intended to be used by City staff and engineers working in the City. Volume 3, the Reference Document, contains background informa- tion. It includes a description of the City's physical environment, hydrologic modeling, water quality issues, Wetland Resources Management System and management strategy for the City. The Appendices in Volume 3 contain background data such as definitions, references and information on Rice Creek Watershed District, Vadnais Lake Area WMO, Wetland Conservation Act and Water Retention Law. The Reference Document is intended to be used with Volume 1 and Volume 2. Together, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 constitute Lino Lakes' Water Management Plan. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual • SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 2 CITY OF LINO Lis 10/24/94 Executive Summary Lino Lakes' plan gives overall planning guidance to the City. The plan is not to be used as a final blueprint for the City. Rather, it is intended to supplement City planning and guide site - specific, detailed analysis. As more information becomes available, the plan should be regularly updated. In this way, Lino Lakes' manage- ment efforts will remain dynamic and flexible. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 3 • CITY of LINO LAS 10/24/94 Introduction The User Manual portion of the Local Water Management Plan is intended to be used by city staff and engineers working in the city. It contains all pertinent information of facility design, maintenance, capital improvements, and the water resources inventory. Contained in the standards for facility design is guidelines for hydrology and hydraulic calculations. The standards also describe how hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality data is to be generated and checked. This section also contains information on current wetland regulations (Wetland Conservation Act) and M.S. 103B.3365: Water Retention Law. The maintenance section describes guidelines the city will use to assure that the drainage system operates efficiently and that sedimentation basins continue to improve water quality. Also included in this section are maintenance items related to best management practices (BMPs). Implementation of the LWMP is outlined in the Implementation Plan (UP) section. Detailed descriptions of each capital expense proposed are included in the Watershed Data section. A priority and time table is established for each project so the city can determine the method(s) of financing the improvements. ;A water resources inventory section describes the ponding areas. Detailed descriptions of each minor watershed is included in the Watershed Data section. Information for the inventory was compiled from several sources. Theseindude RCWD, developers, and city drainage studies. The information present is a summary of the available data. More current information will be added to the inventory as it becomes available. The Manual ends with a Watershed Data section. Detailed data on each minor watershed is included in this section. Appendix A contains figures required when using the Users Manual. A description of the wetland classification system is in Appendix B. Finally, Appendix C contains a developers guide. The developers guide has standard input sheets for hydrologic, hydraulic, water quality, and WCA data. Using this information will reduce the review time of projects. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 4 10/24/94 CITY OF LINO LAS Standards for Facility Design General The Standards for Facility Design are intended to guide the City staff in design and review of engineering calculations for storm water facilities being constructed in the City. The Policy Elements are taken directly from the Policy Document, and are the basis for design elements. The Design Elements are the engineering foundation for all storm water facility construction in the City. Policy Elements The City of Lino Lakes has approved several policies that determine Facility Design in the City. Selected policies that follow have been extracted from the Goals and Policies section of the Policy Document portion of the Local Water Management Plan. They should be adhered to when new development or redevelopment is being considered. Water Quantity Policy 11: Policy 1.2: Policy 1.3: Policy 1.4: Policy 1.5: Natural storm water storage areas and man -made detention areas should be utilized to control flooding. The acceptable or allowable storage capacity of the existing drainage system shall be optimized. Regional detention areas, as opposed to individual on -site detention, shall be used whenever practical as indicated in the local watershed management plan. All hydrologic studies shall be based on ultimate development of the entire tributary drainage area. Major storm water facilities shall be designed using a return period of 100 years. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 5 10/24/94 � CITY of LINO LAKES Standards for Facility Design • • Policy 1.6: Policy 1.7: Policy 1.8: Policy 1.9: Policy 1.10: Policy 1.11: Policy 1.12: Policy 1.13: Water Quality. Policy 2.1: Policy 2.2: All minor drainage system analyses and design shall be based on a return period of 10 years unless otherwise specified. Detention facility design shall include access for maintenance of the outlet structure and to the facility in general. The design of storm water facilities shall consider and identify location(s) of overflow(s) that prevent property damage from extreme water levels. Minimum building elevations shall be above established flood levels. Emergency overflows or outlets to City drainage systems shall be provided to any landlocked area if the available storm water storage capacity is inadequate to prevent flooding of structures. The City will take an active role in implementing the necessary policies to allow acquisition and development of regional detention ponds. The City shall use a standard hydrologic design criteria for all storm water systems to assure. consistency. City will perform maintenance measures to assure proper function of the drainage system. The classification system established by the City will dictate intended use and water quality standards. Sedimentation ponds shall be constructed prior to discharging into protected waters and wetlands. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 6 10/24/94 CITY OF LINO LAS Standards for Facility Design Policy 2.3: Policy 2.4: Policy 2.6: Policy 2.9: Policy 2.10: Policy 2.11: Policy 2.12: Policy 2.13: All new development will reduce phosphorus loading to a drainage system or water body in accordance with the City's adopted phosphorus budget for the subwatershed. All construction plans developed for the maintenance and /or improvement of water quality shall include a detailed access and maintenance plan and shall require City approval. All on -site waste water systems shall be maintained by the owner. Agriculture areas will be regulated by the local soil conservation district. The City will take an active role in implementing the necessary policies to allow development of regional water quality ponds. Newly constructed water bodies will have a 50 -foot naturally vegetated buffer strip between the water body and maintained area if the water body requires limited phosphorous loadings. City will perform maintenance measures to keep potential pollutants from entering local water bodies. The City shall administer the requirements in M.S. 103B.3365 based on a City wide management strategy. Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Policy 3.1: Natural areas, wildlife habitat and wetlands shall be protected during construction by clearly marking and /or fencing the areas to be protected. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 7 • CITY OF LINO LAKES • • 10/24/94 Standards for Facility Design Policy 3.2: Policy 33: Policy 3.4: Policy 3.6 Policy 3.7 Policy 3.8 Public Ditch Policy 5.2 Buffer zones of natural vegetation will be maintained around ponds and wetlands to provide habitat for wildlife. Water level fluctuations in wetlands and ponds, which have been classified as wildlife habitat areas, will be controlled to prevent flooding of the habitat. Prior to modifying wetlands or constructing storm water facilities, existing habitat will be noted, maintained and enhanced, or new habitat shall be developed. The City will not take special measures to maintain water in ponds used for sediment removal. Activities related to recreation, fish and wildlife shall be consistent with the Anoka County Regional Park objectives and the City's Comprehensive Park Plan and Development Guide. The wetland classification system established in this plan shall dictate how wetlands will be managed and maintained by the City. System The City encourages restoration of public ditches to a natural condition whenever possible. Ground Water Policy 6.2: Policy 6.3: Recharge areas identified by Anoka County shall be protected from adverse development and from potential contamination. When practical, a permanent volume of water below the outlet or overflow will be provided in ponds and wetlands to promote ground water recharge. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 8 10/24/94 CITY OF LINO LAS Standards for Facility Design Policy 6.4: Wetlands Policy 7.4: Policy 7.5: Policy 7.8: Policy 7.9: The use of grassed waterways will be encouraged to maximize infiltration. Proper grades will be maintained or underdrain systems installed as part of an overall site plan to ensure positive drainage. Wetland mitigation criteria shall be established consistent with the Wetland Conservation Act, State and federal regulations, and the needs of the City. Alteration of wetlands is discouraged. Alteration may be allowed on an individual basis if the alteration can be properly mitigated. Creation of open water areas shall be done in conformance with the "General Design Consideration for Wildlife Pond Construction and Wetland Alterations." Wetlands may be used for stormwater storage and treatment only if it can be shown that the character of the wetland will not be adversely affected by substantially increased sediment load, tributary area, or water level fluctuations. Erosion Control Policy 8.1: Policy 8.2: Policy 8.3: Natural vegetation will be preserved. Erosion control plans will be required for all land disturbance activities. All erosion and sediment control measures specified in the erosion control plan must be installed prior to obtaining a grading permit. Policy 8.4: Soil erosion shall be prevented through the installation of erosion control practices outlined in the standards section of this plan. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 9 10/24/94 411 crrY of LINO LADS Standards for Facility Design Policy 8.5: Policy 8.6: Policy 8.7: Policy 8.8: Topsoil stockpiled for reuse shall be protected with mulch to prevent erosion. Streets and property adjacent to construction areas shall be kept free from sediment carried by construction traffic at site entrances and access points, and from site runoff and blowing dust. Agriculture areas will be regulated by the local soil conservation district. Under the MPCA Storm Water Permit Program for Construction Activities, the owner of the property being impacted shall be the owner on the permit. If City funds are beings used for the project, the owner shall be the City or City's representative. Regulatory Responsibility Policy 9.2: Policy 9.3: Policy 9.4: Policy 9.5: The City is responsible for establishing and implementing a local permitting program for water resources management. The City is not responsible for maintenance of Judicial Ditches and that part of Rice Creek within the City. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have regulatory authority relating to waters and wetlands identified on their respective inventories. Anoka County shall be the lead agency on ground water. Records Management and Documentation Policy 11.1: A classification will be developed and recorded for each new detention area, including the basis for the classification. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 10 10/24/94 CITY OF LINO LAS Standards for Facility Design Policy 11.2: Engineering calculations will be required in a standard format to ease record keeping. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 11 CITY OF ENO LAS 10/24/94 Standards for Facility Design g Design Elements In order to provide consistency throughout the City when building storm water facilities, a set of Design Standards were developed. These standards implement the Policies. They are to be used as a guide when designing any storm water facility variance from these Standards requires p within l the om e City. Flow Rate Criteria Peak storm water discharge rates and storage volumes from any watershed, subwatershed, detention basin, wetland or conveyor shall be consistent with the values shown in the plan. A summary of these rates is included under the Water Resources Inventory section of the Users Manual. Variances will be allowed if computations can be provided that demonstrate that no adverse downstream effects will result from the proposed system. Direct discharge into Rondeau, Peltier, George Watch, Marshan, Centerville, Reshanau and Rice Lake require no flow rate criteria. However, �water quality improvement structures are required prior discharging into these and other waterbodies. If the methodology is inconsistent with the City standards, and the results are significantly different from the City's, then the City results shall control. Inter- Community Flow Rates Where a variance would involve inter - community issues or significant water bodies, the watershed district shall have a review role. Any variances shall be reflected in subsequent local plan amendments thereby requiring watershed district approval. Rice Creek Watershed District has established rate control policies for various watersheds in the District. The control is to protect the drainage system from flooding problems. All discharge rates leaving the City shall be consistent with the RCWD policy of preventing downstream flooding. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 12 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 0/24/94 Standards for Facility Design g Hydrology Major Facilities (Le., Detention Ponds) To provide consistent hydrologic information within the City, standards have been established to guide existing and future hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. All future engineering work done in the City requires that the data will be submitted to the City based on the standards outlined in e Engineering calculations may be done using other methods; however, all - calculations will be checked based on the plan standards. In all conflicts of interest, the City' standards will govern. To aid in consistent submittal of calculation, a developer's guide has been created. A copy of the guide is enclosed in the Users Manual, Appendix C. - Design Methodology The U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Services (SCS) method shall be the basis for review of all hydrologic studies. Land use will be for ultimate development within the entire watershed contributing to the ponding area. Flow rates from existing land use will be analyzed for the 100 year design storm for reference purposes. Storm Distributions Major storm water facility design shall be based on the U.S.D.A. (SCS) method. Three storms -will be used to determine the minimum building elevation. These are: Design Storms la. For overall watershed planning and rural areas shall be: 100 -year return period, 24 -hour duration, Type I distribution with average soil moisture conditions (AMC 2) or lb. For ponding areas around any urban construction shall be: 100 -year return period, 24-hour duration, Type II distribution with average soil moisture conditions (AMC 2) The Type I may be used if the Type II storm creates a Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 13 � CITY of LINO LAS 1 0/24/94 Standards for Facility Design severe hardship on any new construction and as long as the flood elevation storm is checked and used, if applicable. Flood Evaluation Storms 2. The first Flood Elevation Storm (FES): 100 -year return period, 24 -hour duration, Type II distribution with wet soil conditions (AMC -3). 3. The second FES: 100 -year return period, 10-day runoff event using a Type C mass curve as identified in SCS Natural Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology (NEH -4). Rainfall Rainfall amounts for hydrologic analysis shall be based on Hershfield, D.M., 1961, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations of 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years, Technical Publication No. 40 (TP -40) and /or SCS Minnesota Hydrology Guide. Hydrology for Landlocked Areas ' Available storage volume of landlocked areas shall be established by estimating the water surface elevation resulting form a 100 - year /10 -day runoff (7.2 inches) and saturated_ -or- frozen soil conditions (CN =100). Hydrology - Minor Facilities (I.e., Storm Sewer, Ditches, Culverts) City Projects Rational Method shall be the preferred methodology to calculate peak flow rates for the design of minor systems that do not require hydrograph routings. If a minor system requires the use of a hydrograph method for routing purposes, only methods preapproved by the City will be accepted. If the method is not currently approved by the city, documentation of the methodology used shall be submitted with the calculations. Hydrograph methods currently approved by the Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 14 10/24/94 CITY OF LINO LAS Standards for Facility Design City include: USDA SCS, TR -55, TR -20 and EPA SWMVI methodology. The minor drainage system shall be analyzed and designed using a 10 -year frequency rainfall, and shall be evaluated for the 100 -year frequency rainfall. A local Intensity Duration Frequency Curve shall be used to determine the peak flow rates for the 10 -year event. Full pipe flow analysis shall .be used unless special conditions can be demonstrated to consider pressure flow. County or State Projects Culvert crossings or storm sewer system in County or State right - of -way may have a design frequency which differs from the 10- year. Each agency shall be contacted to determine the appropriate design frequency. Hydraulics Culverts Culverts shall be analyzed using methodology consistent with Federal Highway Administration Hydraulics Design of Highway Culverts - Hydraulic Design Series 5. Anti- seepage collars shall be used on culverts under public streets when there is: • Water and ponding structures with a pool depth of 2 feet and a two -day duration, • 250 -acre watershed or more, • Design head of 10 feet or more. The collars shall be installed so as to increase the creep distance or seepage line along conduit by 15 percent. 1 -Year and 10 -Year Storm Outlet Structure Outlet structures intended to control peak discharge rates to those rates shown in the plan should evaluate the impacts of discharge Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 15 � CITY of • LINO LASS 10/24/94 Standards for Facility Design for a 1 -year and 10 -year design storms. Consideration as to the maintenance and operation of this structure is a necessity. Emergency Overflows Existing, natural occurring or man -made emergency overflow hydraulics from detention areas shall be calculated and be analyzed as part of the design of the structure. Minimum Building Elevation The minimum building elevation is defined as the lowest slab elevation for a home or building, including basements and crawl spaces. The minimum building elevation for structures shall be the greatest of the following: 1. An elevation 2 feet above the design storm (DS) elevation; 2. An elevation determined from the Freeboard Evaluation Storm (FES) event (100 -year, 24 -hour rainfall, Type II, AMC 3 or 100 -year, 10-day runoff); or An elevation based on the overflow elevation plus 1 foot if the FES event controls Item 2 and the emergency or natural overflow is operating and has a depth of less than 1 foot; or 4. Four feet above the water table. Pond Construction (Above Normal Water Elevation) General Criteria The following criteria will be followed for pond construction above the normal water elevation. This area of the pond will more than likely be the pond area flooded during a storm up to a 100 -year duration. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual • Maximum 3H:1V side slopes. • Proper allowance for access and maintenance easements. SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 16 CITY OF LINO LAKES 10/24/94 Standards for Facility Design • Emergency overflow above the 100 -year design storm high water elevation. • Erosion control per erosion control standard. • Restoration per restoration standard. Size Pond volume shall be such to prevent flooding of existing structures, maintain the outlet flow rate identified in the plan, and handle all future development proposed in the watershed. In areas identified as critical to maintain wildlife habitat, the bounce of the pond shall be limited to protect the habitat. Pond Construction (Sediment) Newly constructed detention basins shall provide additional storage volume below the outlet to allow for reasonable accumulation of sediment. Where sedimentation is considered to be a continuous problem, access to the area to allow for sediment removal is required. Removal efficiency of a pond or ponding system will be checked using the P8 model developed by Walker. General Criteria The following general criteria should be used when designing the sediment pond. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual • For basins intended to have permanent water levels, a minimum of 4 feet of standing water (dead storage depth). • Maximize the separation between inlet points and outlets to prevent short- circuiting of storm flows. • A 10:1 slope for the first 15 feet from shore, then 3:1 maximum slope. SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 17 10/24/94 • CITY of LINO LAKES Standards for Facility Design Size Detention ponds will be designed with standing water or dead storage for pollutant removal. The phosphorous removal efficiency for each pond or pond network must fall in the 65 -70 percent range. Storm water treatment can be provided via a single pond which meets the design and treatment criteria or an on -site network of interconnected ponds. If an on -site pond network is used, the overall pollutant removal efficiency for the network must meet the criteria. The recommended pond design criteria in order of importance are as follows: (1) The permanent pool is important because it provides storage and treatment of runoff during and between storm events. Permanent pool volume should b greater than or equal to the volume of runoff from a 2.5 -inch rainstorm under full projected watershed development. This value has been derived from design criteria developed in Nation- wide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), with a 25% increase in volume to allow for roughly 245 years of sediment accumulation. In the summer, St. Paul climate, this sizing rule provides a mean hydraulic residence time of about 15 days. (2) To promote settling and provide space for sediment accumulation, the mean depth of the permanent pool (volume /surface area) should be greater than or equal to 4 feet. This constraint may be infeasible for small ponds (< approx. 3 acre -feet in volume, see below), where mean depths of 3-4 feet may be used. To prevent development of thermal stratification, loss of oxygen and nutrient recycling from bottom sediments, the maximum depth of permanent pool should be less than or equal to 10 feet. (3) (4) To promote plug flow behavior, the ratio of maximum length to maximum width (Lc /WW) should be greater than or equal to 3. Expected performance is less sensitive to the length /width ratio than to volume or depth. This constraint may be infeasible for some site plans or for small ponds. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: L1NOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 18 10/24/94 CITY OF LINO LAS Standards for Facility Design (5) In such situations, baffles may be installed to isolate the inflow area from the remainder of the pond. A desirable alternative (for all pond sizes) is to construct two or more separate ponds in series with a total volume equal to that specified above Item (1). For safety purposes and to provide suitable habitat for rooted aquatic plants, the bench width should be at least 15 feet and the bench slope should not be steeper than 10:1 (horizontal vertical). The bench slope begins at the normal pool elevation and includes lower elevations until the minimum length criteria is met. (6) To provide stability, the side slopes below the bench should not be steeper than 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical. Shallower slopes may be appropriate, depending upon soil engineering properties. Shallower slopes are more feasible for larger ponds. Pond Skimmers During the review, the City may determine that a pond skimming device would be required. Pond skimming devices should be 'designed to remove oils and floatable materials up to a one -year frequency event. The skimmer should be set 4 inches below the normal surface water elevation _and should control the discharge velocity to 0.5 fps. Erosion Control The Ramsey County Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook published by Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District, Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas, by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices by the EPA will be the guides for all erosion control measures reviewed by the City. Local Water Management Plan Users. Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 19 10/24/94 CITY OF LINO LAKES Standards for Facility Design • Under the MPCA Storm Water Permit Program for Construction Activities, the owner of the property being impacted shall be the owner on the permit. If City funds are beings used for the project, the owner shall be the City. Pond Restoration Above Normal Water Elevation Areas that currently have wetland vegetation will be stripped prior to grading. The soil will be stockpiled and redistributed on site after the pond is constructed to encourage the reestablishment of wetland vegetation. All disturbed or constructed wetland areas will be restored using City - approved mitigated vegetation which is consistent with surrounding wetland vegetation. All other areas will be seeded immediately after pond construction with a mixture containing fast germinating seed mixture and permanent grasses. Areas may be sodded instead of seeded. Below Normal Water Elevation Restoration below the normal water elevation will be done if groundwater does not maintain the normal water level. When restoration is required, all areas of the 10:1 shelf above the groundwater and below normal elevation will---be .restored with annual fast - germinating seed (i.e., _annual rye -oats -barle pond may need to be pumped down to do the restoration. The Buffer Areas Water bodies classified as recreation or need phosphorus reduction will require a 50 -foot buffer of wetland or prairie vegetation from the water edge to maintained lawn. All other wetland areas will be protected with a 16.5 foot buffer area. Wildlife Pond Construction During construction of ponds for wildlife enhancement, the document "General Design Consideration for Wildlife Pond Construction and Wetland Alterations" shall be used. A copy of the document is enclosed in Appendix B of the User's Manual. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 20 1 0/24/94 CITY OF LINO LAS Standards for Facility Design M.S. 1038.3365: Water Retention During the 1991 legislative session, a law was enacted which discusses requirements for water retention. The requirements apply to all new development that covers or replaces surface vegetation with an impervious surface of one acre or more. A reprint of the law and guideline published by the Board of Water and Soil Resources are in Appendix H of the Reference Manual. If the Standards for Facility Design in this plan are followed, the requirements of the law will be met. Deviations from the local plans standards will require an explanation to the City as to how M.S. 103B.3365 will be satisfied. Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 The City will be the local government unit and this will administer the requirements outlined in the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. All development within the City will adhere to the requirements outlined in the rules. A copy of the rules is enclosed in the Reference Manual, Appendix G. The City will administer the RCWD policies for alterations not addressed in WCA. The City's permit program shall encompass ;wetland alterations due to excavation, water level changes, or other activities which alter the character of a wetland. In administering this program and evaluating proposed wetland alterations, the City will apply the same general purposes and procedures that apply under WCA. In addition, the following specific criteria will be used to evaluate these types of wetland alterations: • Creation of open water areas shall be done in conformance with the "General Design Consideration for Wildlife Pond Construction and Wetland Alterations," included in Appendix B of the User's Manual. • Wetlands may be used for stormwater storage and treatment only if it can be shown that the character of the wetland will not be adversely affected by substantially increased sediment load, tributary area, or water level fluctuations. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 21 10/24/94 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES Standards for Facility Design In order to facilitate timely review of projects, guidelines for the administration of the WCA are enclosed in Appendix C of the Users Manual. Completing the forms and information enclosed will allow the City to better review projects that impact wetlands. Wetland Management Classification All wetlands and ponding areas are to be classified based on the intended use and function. The purpose of the classification system is to guide the City in maintenance of the area. Based on it's classification, the City will expend monies to assure storage for flood protection, removal of sediments for water quality protection or vegetation and water level control for wildlife and recreation. A classification is also included for areas where no city monies will be spent for maintenance. This classification system does not replace current regulations established by the state and federal government. New development shall dassify the management of the wetland during the permitting process. The City will review the permit and assign a final classification to the wetland area. Appendix B in the User Manual gives an explanation of the classification system to be used. Amending Flood Insurance Study (FIS) Initial investigation into individual revisions to the current F.I.S. maps.indicate-that the current protection elevation can be changed if a new hydrologic study is done. Owners could provide new information to a lender. Lenders would be requested to waive the flood insurance requirements in favor of the new maps. The lender would send information to FEMA. FEMA would then provide a letter of agreement accepting the revised flood plain requirement for the individual parcel. (Based on a telephone conversation with Al Lulaf, Wisconsin Department of National Resources Flood Plain Section, February 1993.) Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 22 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Maintenance General The Maintenance section is intended to guide the City staff in assuring storm water facilities function properly. The first section indudes a listing of the policies that determine maintenance needs. The second part gives Maintenance Guidelines which are used by the City staff to maintain the existing facilities. Policy Elements The City of Lino Lakes has approved several policies that determine maintenance of storm water facilities in the City. Selected policies that follow have been extracted from the Goals and Policies section of the Policy Document portion of the Local Water Management Plan. They should be adhered to when new development or redevelopment is being considered. Water Quantity Policy 1.13: The City will perform maintenance measures to assure proper function of the drainage system. Water Quality Policy 2.10: The City will take an active role in implementing the necessary policies to allow development of regional water quality ponds. Policy 2.12: The City will perform maintenance measures to keep potential pollutants from entering local water bodies. Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Policy 3.5: The City will support programs for controlling purple loose strife, Asian Milfoil and other noxious vegetation. Policy 3.6: The City will not take special measures to maintain water in ponds used for sediment removal. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 23 � CITY of LINO LAKES 10/24/94 Maintenance Public Ditch System Policy 5.1: The Rice Creek Watershed District is responsible for maintenance of public ditches. Records Management and Documentation Policy 11.4: During extreme rainfall events, high water elevations should be noted and surveyed. Policy 11.5: A history of flooding and water quality problems will be developed by noting past events and recording current floods. Policy 11.6: Changes in water quality, such as increased aquatic vegetation, fish kills, and toxic spills, will be recorded. Policy 11.7: A condition survey will be established and implemented by the City for the purpose of water resource management. .Maintenance Guidelines Each practice shown in bold print includes a description of the minimum standard required to achieve the guideline: Biannual (twice per year, usually fall and spring) Inspection of all wetland areas and ditches. Brief walking inspection to record sediment buildup, skimmer and structure conditions, litter, vegetation, and visual water quality in the spring and fall. Street Sweeping Following snowmelt in the spring and in fall after leaves have fallen. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 24 CITY OF LINO LAS 1 0/24/94 Maintenance Catch Basin Cleaning Frequency necessary to prevent encroachment of sediment and debris above flow line of pipe. Inspection of Direct Storm Sewer Discharge Points to Protected Wetlands or Water Bodies Inspection on biannual basis and foliowing large storm events to determine if discharge point is free from sediment and to observe the condition of any treatment facility if applicable. Removal of Sediment Based on biannual inspections, sediment shall be removed from areas where the sediment impedes the flow path, from areas not designated for sediment removal, or where sediment buildup has eliminated necessary storage volume. Structure and Skimmer Maintenance Based on biannual inspections and following heavy rains, maintenance needs should be developed. Utter Control Biannual wetland inspections and collection. Seasonal public education efforts. Chemical Application to Reduce Aquatic and Roadside Vegetation In areas specially developed and maintained to control and reduce nutrients, vegetation should be harvested in the late summer of each year. Storm water should then be diverted from the treatment area until vegetation can be reestablished. Storm Sewer and Culvert Flushing Monthly visual checks of pipes that have a history of sedimentation problems. Flushing should be performed on an as- needed basis. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 25 • CITY OF LINO LAKES 10/24/94 Maintenance On-Site Septic Systems Every two years the City will notify all residents with septic systems to have them serviced. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 26 CITY OF LINO LAS 1 0/24/94 Implementation Plan (CIP) General The implementation plan includes identification and prioritization of capital improvements, administration, inspections, permitting, plan amendments and monitoring programs. The high priority items typically require attention within a one- to two -year period or involve projects that have previously been identified. Low priority items will be performed some time within the five -year implementation period. Estimates of capital expenditures have been made for a five -year period. Future anticipated projects are also listed. The Implementation Plan, Table 1, summarizes expenditures per minor watershed. Detailed information on each capital expense included in Table 2 and in the Watershed Data section of the Users Manual. Table 2 describes Capital Improvement Projects that are city -wide and are not specific to any minor watershed. Projects that are located in specific minor watersheds as shown in Figure 1 are described in the Watershed Data section (Tables 4A to 4J). Capital expenditures are also anticipated for such items as coordination with the Watershed District and WMO, performing biannual drainage system inspections, review and development of ordinances, amendment proceedings and maintenance. The Implementation Plan should be reviewed on an annual basis. At that time, each proposed improvement is to be reconsidered and additional improvements added to the five -year program. Cost Estimates Cost estimates were roughly based on: • Ditch Repair $34,000 /mile • Drainage Studies $15 /acre • Sediment Ponds $50,000 each • Contour Maps $1,500 /quarter section These values were adjusted if it was felt the area had unique features (i.e. high percentage of open water). Sediment ponds were located in watershed that were developed prior to implementation of wetland protection laws. All costs are current dollars and do not include inflation. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 27 CITY OF LINO LAKES • Local Water Management Plan Users Manual 10/24/94 Implementation Plan (CIP) Table 1 - Five Year Capital Improvements Program SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 28 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Implementation Plan (CIP) Table 2 - City Wide Capital Improvements Program Task Correction Action Time Table Cost Plan Amendments Detailed review of Iocal plan one year after 1995 approval. $4,500 For the -plan to be useful, it must change with Annual the changing needs of the City. $3,000 need not all be made at once. But desir d plan amendments should be regularly recorded so that the appropriate change can be made in 1999. Plan revisions after 5 years. 1999 $10,000 City Administration - Overall Maintenance Street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, etc. Annual $80,000 City Prepare handout guidelines for developers to 1994 Administration - use to :jet the plan standards. $1,000 General General administration of ordinances and development. Annual $20,000 Miscellaneous Money budgeted for unexpected improvement Inspections to the drainage system such as storm sewer 1994 $10,000 repair, solving backyard drainage problems, ems, Annual $20,000 After 1994 Semi -dual Inspections of each City wetland area twice a Inspections year (major areas after every rainfall). Results Annual $10,000 of inspections are tabulated and a punch list for public works is formulated. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 29 • • crrY of LINO Lis 10/24/94 Implementation Plan (CIP) Table 2 (Continued) Task C Time Correction Action Table Cost Develop permitting format. 1994 $4,000 Review plans and development against plan Annual $10,000 standards. Working with developers to meet until the goals and policies of the City. Fee should 1998 be developed to defray costs. Review plans and development against plan Annual $5,000 standards. Working with developers to meet future the goals and policies of the City. Fee should be developed to defray costs. rdinances Suggested modifications. 1994 $4,000 Review Review and modify after one year of local plan 1995 $4,000 approval. Permitting Routine review approval. Annual $500 Modifications after initial 5 years: 1999 $5,000 Sediment Removal Begin program to remove sediment build up in Annual $20,000 ponds to assure the water quality- function is maintained. Begin program in year 2000. Hydrologic Incorporate data obtained from future hydrologic Annual $2,000 Amendments studies into the LWMP. Reduce to an annual cost of To The LWMP $1,000. in the future. Water Quality Develop guidelines for a water quality plan for the 1994 $5,000 Task Force City. Prepare water quality plan for the City. 1994 $5,000 Annual review of water quality program in the Annual $5,000 City and monthly meetings time. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 30 CITY OF LINO LAKES /0/24/94 Implementation Plan (CIP) Table 2 (Continued) Task Correction Action Time Table Cost W Develop wetland Wetland ell Management p management classification 1994 g system for the City. $2,000 Classification System Classify all wetlands in the City. 1994 $8,000 Site plan review of new wetland classifications. Annual $2,000 Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 31 • CITY OF LINO LAKES • 10/24/94 Implementation Plan (CIP) All project costs are total project costs. In many cases, the project cost can be shared with RCWD, VLAWMO County and /or State. Once a project is activated, the City will need to determine the actual cost to do the project. Priority Each project identified in the Watershed Data section was assigned a priority of high, low or future. High priority projects are expected to be undertaken within the next 5 years. Low priority projects will be done if funding is available. Future project are improvements or studies that are anticipated. There is no priority assigned to these projects. A time table is also included for each project. Project time table were based on City staff recommendation or in the case of drainage studies when development is likely to occur. There may be cases where a project will be moved up on the time table if development warrants. The capital improvements program will then need to be adjusted to reflect the changes. For drainage studies, a D1 through D8 priority system has been assigned to each future study. A F /D1 has a higher priority then 'a' F /D8. Future water quality modeling was assigned a F /Q. Projects with a F /NP have no priority or timetable determination. Local Water Management Plan SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Users Manual Page 32 CITY OF LINO LAS 1 0/24/94 Water Resources Inventory The water resources inventory presents a detail summary of hydrologic studies completed within the City. During development of the Iocal plan, it was determined that a cost effective method to determine runoff rates and volumes was on an as need basis. As development occurs within the City, drainage studies will be performed. These studies will be detail studies using survey information, field verification and contour mapping at a 1" = 200 foot scale. Table 3 summarizes the drainage areas for each minor watershed. The Watershed Data section includes Tables (5A to 51) for each minor watershed district. The tables summarize what is currently known about the Lino Lake hydrologic system. These tables also include information on where more detailed background data can be found. As the City develops, the tables will be updated to reflect the current hydrologic information. Additional information for RCWD and VALWMO included in the Reference Document. Tables 6A to 6I contain the management data for each minor watershed. These tables contain the designation by DNR, watershed and City. The tables also show the minimum building elevations for each ponding area. The basis for design Tables (7A to 71) contain all the hydrologic data for each ponding area. Detailed information on the ponding areas -and watersheds is includedjn these .tables. Tables 8A to 8I briefly describes the results of preliminary hydrologic investigation for each minor district within the City. The narrative gives a brief description of each area's hydrologic function in the Citywide system. The information is organized by minor watershed and subwatershed districts. Many of the descriptions include a reference to a RCWD drainage study. The study referenced is "Addendum to Water Resources Management Plan: Storm Water Runoff Study" (RCWD, 1992). Figures enclosed in Appendix A show additional information on the hydrologic system of Lino Lakes, including soils, land use and wetlands. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 33 • CITY OF LINO LAKES 10/24/94 Water Resources Inventory Table 3 - Drainage Area Summary for Each Minor Watershed D 1:11g1,11111111111"YMIIMMIIIIN 111111C1 111111111u ININIMLUIIIMILUjNNV1111111111.111111 11111"111.1"111E9.19 " .v 4 juaLta./..v 1111.0.4,411.1111ZJI IMUZLAalV t1111111L01 11.1•1111011U 11t:L1/011111E011111111L.4. 1112021•1111110M1 ltUFLLJNIIIIIN2111.111:1 MILZALAI, MINIM111.1.4-1 imuninimMilil.111.11.1111 IIEL.1.4111WEINMOLUAU .11111.1.1 lallit21111U. gz in 1Wirj1 ILadUla 1.1.111.111.11.1 uz!zzaravimi MMILE2111.411 r;,1111.1111111nlIMM-- .11.11Z11.1111111111111111"1".1211.111111111 Lu.zziwarinis Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: L1NOL9402.00 Page 34 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Watershed Data The Watershed Data section of the report includes for each minor watershed a figure showing wetland and ponding locations, a detail capital improvements program, hydrologic information, and wetland and management classifications. Additional information on this section of the plan is included in the Implementation Plan (Description of the Priority System) and Water Resources Inventory sections in the User's Manual. Figures 1 and 2 summarize the hydrologic system. Local Water Management Plan Users Manual SEH NO: LINOL9402.00 Page 35 Volume 3 - Reference Document CITY OF LINO LAS Local Water Management Plan October 24, 1994 SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Prepared by Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103B.201 to 103B.251, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Mission Statement 1 Legislative Update 1 Wetland Conservation Act 2 Local Plan Format 2 Land and Water Resources Inventory 5 General 4 Precipitation 4 General Geology and Topographic Data 5 Surface Water Resource Data 6 Groundwater Resources Data 18 Soil Data 19 Land Use and Public Utility Services 28 Water -Based Recreation Areas and Land Ownership 37 Fish and Wildlife Habitat 40 Unique Feature and Scenic Areas 41 Pollutant Sources 42 Water Quality Program 43 General 43 Monitoring 43 ModelinG 44 Types of Models 45 Model Selection and Use 48 Wetland Resources Management System 50 Classification of Wetlands 50 SUWRMS 51 Purpose 51 Urban Wetland Policy 51 System Description 54 Coordination with Other Management Techniques 56 Advantages and Disadvantages 56 Summary 57 Management Practices 63 General 63 Storm Water Storage & Design 63 Housekeeping Practices 64 Construction Runoff Practices 65 Conservation Practices 65 Infiltration Practices 66 Local Water Management Plan Page i Reference Document List of Figures Page Figure 1 National Wetland Inventory and DNR Protected Waters Map(1 of 2) .. 7 National Wetland Inventory and DNR Protected Waters Map (2 of 2) .. 8 Figure 2 Drainage Plan (1 of 2) 9 Drainage Plan (2 of 2) 10 Figure 3 City Water Body Designation Map (1 of 2) 12 City Water Body Designation Map (2 of 2) 13 Figure 4 Watershed Map 15 Figure 5 General Soil Conditions 20 Figure 6 Soil Infiltration Capacity (1 of 2) 21 Soil Infiltration Capacity (2 of 2) 22 Figure 7 Restrictive Soils (1 of 2) 24 Restrictive Soils (2 of 2) 25 Figure 8 Hydric Soils .,(1 of 2) 26 Hydric Soils (2 of 2) 27 Figure 9 Existing Land Use (1 of 2) 29 Existing Land Use (2 of 2) 30 Figure 10 Anticipated Land Use (1 of 2) 31 Anticipated Land Use (2 of 2) 32 Figure 11 MUSA Boundaries Figure 12 Unsewered Lots (1 of 2) 35 Unsewered Lots (2 of 2) 36 Local Water Management Plan Page ii Reference Document Figure 13 Park and Trail System Plan (1 of 2) 38 Park and Trail System Plan (2 of 2) 39 Figure 14 SUWRMS Process Description 53 Figure 15 SUWRMS Management Matrix 55 List of Tables Table 1 SEH Urban Wetland Resource Management System Description of Designations 58 Table 2 Regulatory Code Urban Wetlands 62 Table A -1 Location of Local Plan Structure Descriptions Described in Chapter 8410 Appendix A List of Appendices Appendix A Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 Metropolitan Area Local Water Management Appendix B Definitions Appendix C Literature Review Appendix D Reference Papers Appendix E Rice Creek Watershed District: Goals and Policies and Other Pertinent Information Appendix F Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization Goals and Policies and Other Pertinent Information Local Water Management Plan Page ill Reference Document • Appendix G Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, Chapter 8420, Act Rules Appendix H M.S. 1038.3365, Water Retention Law Local Water Management Plan Page iv Reference Document CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Executive Summary Mission Statement The Mission Statement represents the City's attitude towards water management efforts. To accomplish the goals and follow the policies and standards, the City must have a single, consistent approach. The Mission Statement focuses on what is to be accom- plished and how it will be accomplished. Develop water resource management practices, guide- lines, and programs which are consistent with state and federal laws, control flooding, maintain established water quality standards, allow for planned economic growth, and protect the environmental diversity of the City. Legislative Mandate The Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act was enacted as Chapter 509, Laws of 1982. The law was later codified as State Statutes 473.875 to 473.883. This Act was the driving force for water management until 1990. In 1990, State Statutes 473.875 to 473.883 were recodified into Chapter 103B. Chapter 103, in its entirety, is known as the Water Law. Chapter 103B.201 to 103B.251 is the Local Water Planning section of the law and 'mandates preparation of local water management plans. Implementing the legislation is a two -step process. Step one includes the preparation of water management plans for each watershed unit in the seven county area. Watershed districts and water management organizations (WMOs) were charged with this responsibility. Step two involves the preparation of more detailed local water management plans. Local plans are required to conform to the standards of the WMO plans. The Lino Lakes City Council authorized the preparation of their Local Water Management Plan in March 1992. The plan has been prepared in accordance with State Statutes, the Rice Creek Watershed District, and the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization. The plan satisfies the Water Manage- ment Organization (WMO) and Watershed District's requirements while meeting the specific needs of the City. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Executive Summary Wetland Conservation Act In 1991, related legislation called the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 was passed. The Act was passed to establish a state program of wetland prioritization and planning, wetland preservation, cost sharing of wetland establishment and restoration, and to regulate activities altering the character of wetlands. Part of the Act requires that a local government unit (LGU) be declared. RCWD and VLAWMO will be the LGU until the City's local Water Management Plan (LWMP) is adopted. After the adoption of the LWMP, the City will become the LGU. Local Plan Format The Local Water Management Plan consists of three volumes. Volume 1 is the Policy Document. Volume 1 identifies the basic issues towards which management efforts will be directed. The policy document identifies what is to be accomplished, and what actions are necessary. This Volume contains an Executive Summary, Introduction, Background section, Goals and Policies section, Administration section and a section on how amendments are made to the plan. 'Volume 2 is a User's Manual. The manual has four parts; Standards for Facility Design, Maintenance, Implementation Plan (CIP) and Water Resources Inventory. This Volume _also - contains a developer guide to aid the City in standardizing_their hydrologic and water quality calculations. Volume 2 is intended to be used by City staff and engineers working in the City. Volume 3, the Reference Document, contains background informa- tion. It includes a description of the City's physical environment, hydrologic modeling, water quality issues, Wetland Resources Management System and management strategy for the City. The Appendices in Volume 3 contain background data such as definitions, references and information on Rice Creek Watershed District, Vadnais Lake Area WMO, Wetland Conservation Act and Water Retention Law. The Reference Document is intended to be used with Volume 1 and Volume 2. Together, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 constitute Lino Lakes' Water Management Plan. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 2 CITY OF LINO LAS 1 0/24/94 Executive Summary Lino Lakes' plan gives overall planning guidance to the City. The plan is not to be used as a final blueprint for the City. Rather, it is intended to supplement City planning and guide site - specific, detailed analysis. As more information becomes available, the plan should be regularly updated. In this way, Lino Lakes' manage- ment efforts will remain dynamic and flexible. The Reference Document (Volume 3 of Lino Lakes Local Water Management Plan) consists of background data that may be useful when using Volumes 1 and 2 of the LWMP. Several sections and appendices have been included to aid users. The hydrologic portion contains a detailed description of each subwatershed. The description includes general land use, water bodies and flow characteristics of the subwatershed. The section also includes the drainage maps for the City. The physical environment section contains all maps for land use, soils and wetlands. A brief description is included for each physical condition described. A detail discussion of water quality issues is also included. ;Monitoring and modelling is discussed in this section. The wetland management system section discusses the SEH Urban Wetland Resources Management System (SUWRMS). A detailed description is included which will aid the City in determining the wetland classification for their wetland areas. . Management practices are also discussed in detail. This section is a general reference for several Best Management Practices (BMP).. Several appendices are included in this volume of the plan. These appendices contain information on RCWD, VLAWMO, Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and Water Retention Law. There is also a definitions appendix. As the plan evolves, it is anticipated that the background references in the plan will be deleted or added to. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 3 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Land and Water Resources Inventory General The Land and Water Resources Inventory includes data on the hydrologic system and physical environment of the City of Lino Lakes. The data is organized in the format described in Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, Section 8410.0060. Precipitation Each plan must include precipitation data normally used in the seven - county metropolitan area for hydrologic and hydraulic design. The precipitation data required to be used for hydraulic studies is described in the Users Manual; Standards for Facility Design; Design Methodology, Design Storms, Hydrology for Landlocked Areas, and Hydrology -Minor Facilities. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 4 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Land and Water Resources Inventory General Geology and Topographic Data Each organization plan shall contain a summary describing the general topographic relief, geology, aquifers, and all known groundwater and surface water connections. The summary should reference available publications and maps where data may be available in greater detail. A map defining appropriate subwatershed units within the organization must be included. Lino Lakes has little topographic relief except in the southeast corner of the City which has moderate relief. Several natural depression storage areas exist throughout the City. All but the southeast corner of the City is ultimately tributary to Rice Creek. The southeast corner drains to Vadnais Lake and the St. Paul water system. Topographic maps are available at 10 foot contour intervals from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Maps with a 2 foot contour interval are also available from the City for Sections 4, 5, 7 through 9, 17 (N 1/2), 18 through 20, 21 (S 1/2), 24 through 30, 31 (N 1/2), 32, 33 (N 1/2), 35 and 36. Sections 2, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21 ' '(NE 1/4), and 22 are available from RCWD. However, these maps were developed prior to the recent residential development surge in the city. Much of the drainage has been altered by the development. Detailed descriptions of the City's bedrock geology can be obtained from the Rice Creek Watershed District. In addition, the Minnesota Geological Survey can provide maps detailing the bedrock hydrogeology of Minnesota, addressing rock formations and aquifers. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 5 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Land and Water Resources Inventory Surface Water Resource Data Necessary surface water data within the watershed includes: A. a map of the public waters and public ditch systems established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103D or 103E, including the location of existing dams and control structures. Within Lino Lakes are several wetlands and waterbodies protected by the State and Federal Government and Rice Creek Watershed (ditches). The location of these areas is an important factor when development occurs which may infringe upon the protected area. In this instance, the appropriate agency will need to be contacted and a permit may be required to complete a project. Figure 1 shows the Minnesota DNR wetlands. This map is only to be used as reference, the final boundaries will be determined by the appropriate agency. Figure 2 shows County ditches within the City. The ditches are regulated by RCWD. The exact location of County ditches will be determined by RCWD. Information on dams and major control structures can be obtained from RCWD and VLAWMO. B. a copy of the National Wetlands Inventory Map produced by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and, if considered useful by the organization, a copy of the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Mosquito Control Wetland Inventory; Figure 1 shows wetlands identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI). A larger map of the protected waters is included in the back of the Reference Document. The NWI crap gives an indication of areas the Corps of Engineers consider wetlands and thus may require a permit. This map is only to be used as reference, the final boundaries will be determined by the appropriate agency. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 6 CITY OF LINO LAS • 10/24/94 Land and Water Resources Inventory Fish and Wildlife Habitat Necessary information on fish and wildlife habitat includes: A. a list and description of the Department of Natural Resources ecological and management classifications for lakes and streams, where available; B. a list and description of the conclusions and recommendations of biological surveys or reconnaissance studies, where available; and C. a description of state management plans for fish and wildlife areas, where available. This data will need to be obtained from the RCWD or VLAWMO plans. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 40 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Land and Water Resources Inventory Unique Feature and Scenic Areas Necessary unique feature and scenic area information includes a map or a description or listing of unique features and scenic areas with relationships to water including state designated natural and scientific areas; areas containing county, state, and federal rare and endangered species; and other features such as waterfalls, springs, historic mills, and heritage elements identified by the Department of Natural Resources heritage program, to the extent it is available from the department. This data will need to be obtained from the RCWD and VLAWMO plans. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 41 CITY OF LINO LAS • 10/24/94 Land and Water Resources Inventory Pollutant Sources Necessary information on pollutant sources includes a map or list from appropriate agencies of A. known closed and open sanitary landfills, closed and operating open dumps, and hazardous waste sites identified under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 115A or 115B, and a summary of available water quality information relating to these sites; and B. feedlots, abandoned wells as defined by the Department of Health, registered underground and aboveground storage tank sites, permitted wastewater discharges, and a summary of available water quality information relating to these sites. This data will need to be obtained from the RCWD or VLAWMO plans. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 42 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Water Quality Program General In the past, water resources problems were considered to be quantitative. That is, flooding problems and adequate water supply were the major resource issues. Managing water resources meant collecting runoff and discharging it "safely" downstream. Large receiving bodies of water, such as reservoirs and rivers were the focus of early water management planning. Recreational opportunities, as well as flood control and water supply for public and industrial use, were the result of water resource management. In recent years, attitudes towards water resources have broadened to include the identification of several long -term and large -scale water management problems. These problems include loss of wetlands, non -point source pollution and groundwater contamination. Water quality must receive equal, if not greater, attention than water quantity in the years to come. Solutions for flood control problems can be easily identified. However, solutions to water quality problems are not so readily available. In addition, the source of problems is not easily identifiable. This section of the plan is intended to provide the foundation for future water quality planning. It includes a discussion of water quality monitoring and modeling, wetland classification, lake characteristics, and a general water quality plan for the City. The overall plan is summarized _at_the-end of this section. Monitoring Some water quality monitoring has occurred in Lino Lakes in the past. The most monitored lake is Centerville which is used by the St. Paul Water Utility. Rice Creek Watershed District has, however, included many of the lakes in their 1992 through 1995 lake monitoring program. Data that is collected is available through a number of agencies. Examples of information sources are as follows: Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 43 CITY OF LINO LAS Source 1 0/24/94 Water Quality Program STORET Data Base Lake Information Report SWIM (System for Water Information Management) and MLMIS (Minnesota Lake Management Infor- mation System Data Inventory) Agency Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Ramsey County Public Works, Ecological Services Division Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota State Planning Agency, Planning Information These data 'sources can provide information regarding the biological parameters of a particular waterbody, fisheries, groundwater, climatology, pesticides, lake use, stream flow data, hazardous waste, wastewater, sludge disposal, lake surveys, etc. Other agencies with information regarding water quality related data include the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Anoka Soil and Water Conservation District, and the University .of Minnesota. Modeling The following information is presented as a description of the state -of- the -art in water quality. Understanding model types and what they can do, is essential when deciding whether or not to undertake a modeling program. As more attention has been given to water resources problems, particularly water quality problems, water quality modeling has become more widely utilized. Models can be used to greatly enhance the data base of information on which water resource management decisions are based. Quality models have made it Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 44 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Water Quality Program possible to quantitatively compare alternative solutions of complex water resource problems. As modeling continues to be refined, the decision - making process will be improved considerably. The process leading to pollution must be understood to develop and apply a mathematical quality model representing these processes. Pollution is transported by water through the soil (infiltration and surface evaporation) and by surface or overland flow. Chemical interaction and transformation determine the transported pollutant concentrations. Most chemicals will exist in two forms (1) the soluble form, where the chemical(s) is transported in solution (groundwater or surface water) or (2) absorbed (attachment) to soil particles, transported only when soil particles move. The form of a particular pollutant is highly variable. Some forms are more soluble than others, some more easily absorbed, some more toxic than others. All of these variables add to the complexity of water quality modeling. Types of Models Generally, there are two types of models: empirical models and physical process (casual) models. Empirical models represent cause and effect modeling, transforming a set of input variables into a description of output without describing the processes taking place. Physical process or casual models attempt to describe the physical, chemical and biological processes without requiring excessive or unavailable input data. Empirical models are fairly simple, requiring less data than physical process models. Though cost effective, empirical models are limited in the range of data used in their development, and are often misapplied. The result can be misleading data regarding cause and effect. Physical process models on the other hand, require considerable data to develop and a great deal of research to test. These models can predict watershed response, assess the effects of environmental change, coordinate and structure research, and point out ways to improve and develop empirical models. However, because of the extensive data requirements, short cuts are often taken in their application. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 45 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Water Quality Program Three classes of water quality models exist: runoff models, receiving water models, and groundwater models. Runoff models simulate water - transported pollutants over and through soil to streams or channels. Receiving water models simulate the flow of water and pollutants in large rivers and reservoirs. Groundwater models simulate aquifer response to recharge, drainage, and the addition of soluble water quality constituents. Hundreds of surface water models have been developed. One of the earliest was the USLE (Universal Soil Loss Equation) using watershed and climate facts to predict soil loss from small watersheds. More recently, models have attempted to add sediment, erosion, and chemical processes to hydrologic models. Of the large number of such models, very few are capable of being effective management tools. Listed below are several models that are currently available. HSPF ANSWERS PRMS CREAMS AGNPS I/ AGNPS II SWRRB SPUR SWAM Hydrologic Simulation Program - Fortran (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Hydrocomp) The Areal Nonpoint Source Watershed Environment Response Simulation (Purdue University) Precipitation- Runoff Modeling System (U.S. Geological Survey) Chemicals Runoff and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Simulation for Water Resources in Rural Basis (Developed from CREAMS) Simulation of Production and Utilization of Rangelands (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Small Watershed Model (Developed from CREAMS) Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 46 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Water Quality Program NTRM Nitrogen, Tillage, Residue Management Model UTM Unified Transport Model (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) SWMM Storm Water Management Model (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) STORM Storage, Treatment, Overflow, Runoff Model (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) P8 Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage through Pitts, Puddles and Ponds (William W. Walker Jr.) DEPOND Detention Pond Design Model (Robert E. Pitt, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alabama Birmingham and John Voorhees, MSCEE). Receiving water quality models simulate water quality conditions in streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries. Early models included prediction of dissolved oxygen (DO) and biochemical ;oxygen demand (BOD). Recent models consider nutrient cycling, sediment transport, and other biological processes. Most receiving water quality models require estimates of inflow and constituent concentrations. Such quality models include CE- QUAL -R1, a comprehensive reservoir water quality -- model, and QUALII - Stream Quality Model, a stream flow model that can be used to analyze the effects of point and nonpoint sources on water quality in the stream. Groundwater quality models are used to study aquifer drawdown as a result of drainage, irrigation pumping, and water quality characteristics. However, due to complexity of problems, and the difficulty on defining the physical environmental of an aquifer, groundwater modeling lags well behind surface water modeling. In 1982, the U.S. Geological Survey published a reference to surface flow and water quality models, Computer Programs for Modeling Flow and Water Quality of Surface Streams. The booklet briefly Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 47 CITY OF. LINO LAS 10/24/94 Water Quality Program describes the status, program use, data requirements, costs, documentation, references, and contact for about 40 models developed by the EPA, the Corps of Engineers, USGS,a nd other supported by the USGS offices. Model Selection and Use Uses of nonpoint source pollution models are so numerous that an array of models from which to select is necessary to select the one best suited to a specific task. Model selection must be based on the objective of the study to which it is being applied and model - specific criteria. The particular use of the model, whether it be for site - specific assessment, project evaluation and planning, policy decisions, or research, must be considered in determining the appropriate model. Several criteria may be helpful in making a model selection. First, what specific objectives are most important in evaluating the problem? What is the modeling to accomplish? Second, what is the space scale of the problem? Third, what time scale is important: single event, weekly monthly, or long term annual averages? Lastly, what data is needed, or what data is available, to use a particular model? The use of the ideal model must have the resources to collect the necessary data and also correctly interpret and apply the results. Understanding the types of models and how models are selected and used is essential for determining what model(s) is appropriate (if any), for a local water management program. Based on the technical complexities of model use, and the fact that quality modeling is relatively new, it is recommended that modeling not be undertaken by the City unless necessary. In many cases, the current monitoring data base generated by outside agencies is adequate to identify general trends in the constituents of a particular waterbody. In areas where problems exist or where effort is required, additional monitoring as well as analysis of existing data may be needed. When a particular problem or objective develops for a lake or wetland, an appropriate model can be selected that will address the problem. Even when the model is selected, the final water quality management program should 411 indude an additional, specific monitoring effort to calibrate the model. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 48 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Water Quality Program The City must stay abreast of current techniques as well as upcoming regulations relating to water quality. Future EPA guidelines will be requiring quality analysis for major storm water outfalls. Current trends emerging as a result of federal legislation (Sec. 208, FWPCA) will require some type of comprehensive water quality planning in the near future. Should this situation occur, it will then become necessary to consider water quality modeling on a city-wide basis as part of the planning process. As these guidelines become reality, the City should position itself to address the new regulations. The City will begin preparing a water quality plan for the community in 1994. A citizens task force will be established to develop the plan. It is anticipated that guidelines will be established for development of City wide education programs, monitoring programs and review of future projects. A capital expense to develop this program is included in the LWMP. Results from the water quality plan will be incorporated in the LWMP. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 49 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System Classification of Wetlands The purpose of the Wetland Resources Management System, presented in the Local Plan, is to guide the City on how identified wetland areas are to be maintained. To best spend City monies on wetland areas it is important to identify their primary function. Based on its classification, budget and capital improvement programs will be established to assure a wetland or ponding area continues to prevent flooding, improves water quality, or enhances wildlife habitat. In some instances the area is private, state, or county owned, or has no identified function. These areas will not be classified. This means that the City does not intend to spend funds maintaining the area. In all instances this classification system does not replace federal, state, WMO, or City regulation of wetlands. To better manage water resources in the urban setting, a classification system that relates wetland use and function to maintenance and protection levels is needed. Many wetlands are protected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Natural Resources or by watershed districts. As a result, several classification systems have been established, most of which use a biological basis to classify areas. However, none of the current classifications deal with the function, use or maintenance of wetland areas. Management of urban wetlands requires a method that relates wetland use and function values to maintenance and protection. Regulatory authority over wetlands is currently divided between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources, and Local Government Unit (LGU). Some communities also regulate wetlands through ordinances. Implementation of the regulatory programs is the responsibility of local units of governments. Therefore, wetland management must become a local function. Previous wetland management efforts have focused on classification and evaluation of wetlands. Classification systems Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 50 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System have usually been based on biological characteristics. Wetland evaluations typically quantify wetland functions including flood control, water quality, wildlife, fisheries, shoreline erosion, and aesthetics. Use of classifications and evaluations at the local level has been difficult at best. As such, consideration of wetland values has only occurred on a case -by -case basis. SUWRMS The SEH Urban Wetland Resources Management System (SUWRMS) has been developed to fill the void between the existing classification systems and the evaluations methods. Purpose SUWRMS is a wetland resources management system. The system is intended for use at the local level. SUWRMS is not an evaluation or classification system. SUWRMS is not intended as a replacement for these types of systems. SUWRMS is a management tool which designates the use and function of wetlands in an urban setting. The designation allows cities to better manage wetlands while identifying where the regulatory authority exists. SUWRMS will assist cities in determining maintenance - and protection levels for all wetlands. SUWRMS will also aide property owners and developers in understanding development limitations and regulatory requirements. Figure 13 illustrates the process of Wetland Resources Management. Urban Wetland Policy An urban wetland is a generic term used to describe wetlands that have been impacted by urbanization. Even when wetland preservation has occurred, urbanization has changed the nature of the wetland. Although urbanization may decrease certain federal wetland habitat values, other values may be increased and enhanced. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 51 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System The urban wetland policy behind the SUWRMS methodology is as follow: Wetland Management programs will seek to prevent flooding and improve water quality through the utilization of wetlands and artificial detention areas. Wetland management, as opposed to preservation, will allow the integrity of wetlands to be maintained while improving water quality and focusing maintenance efforts. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 52 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System Fig. No. 14 SUWRMS Process Description SEH URBAN WETLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ( SUWRMS) PLANNING WATERSHED MODELING %%VIAND INVENTORIES FIELD INSPECTIONS WETLAND EVALUATIONS WATER DUALITY MODEUNG DIRECTION DESIGNATION USE AND FUNCTION APPLY WETLAND POUCY t MANAGEMENT SWRMS PRACTICES METHODOLOGY REGULATORY RESPON9DIU71ES RESULT PROCESS DESCRIPTION 4 _-_-_ -J1 Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 53 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System The wetland policy is supported by the following points which establish the framework for SUWRMS. 1. The preliminary and secondary functions of a wetland, in relation to an overall drainage system must be considered in its designation. 2. Major maintenance efforts are not intended for all wetlands. 3. The natural treatment of storm water is encouraged. 4. Alteration of wetlands, which involves changing the nature of wetlands to provide water quality improvement is discouraged. 5. Each designation has its own characteristics and management practices. System Description :Wetlands are identified by functional designation and regulatory agency. Wetland designations are ordered from I through IV based on their function(s) and associated value(s). A letter code defines the regulatory agency. The enclosed Figure 14 illustrates a matrix of management functions /values. Table 1 gives a more detailed description of each designation. A description of the regulatory codes is also induded (Table 2). The primary function of each designation is indicated by a "P" in the management matrix while any secondary functions or values are denoted by "S ". A general management level is also associated with each wetland type. The primary function of Designation I wetlands is to provide soluble and particulate pollutant removal. These areas also require the greatest maintenance commitment. In contrast, the primary functions of a Designation III wetland is to provide habitat and recreational benefits, generally requiring less maintenance. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document ., Page 54 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System Fig. No. 15 SUWRMS Managment Matrix SEH URBAN WETLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SUWRMS) MANAGEMENT MATRIX MANAGEMENT FUNCTION/VALUE WETLAND DESIGNATION I II x 8 FLOOD CONTROL - DETENTION /CONVEYANCE S P o POLLUTANT REDUCTION- PARTICULATE /SOLUBLE P S a HABITAT P gi ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE S z RECREATION S P - INDICATES PRIMARY FUNCTION/VALUE. MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ARE BASED ON THIS PRIMARY FUNCTION. S - INDICATES THE SECONDARY FUNCTION/VALUE. THIS FUNCTION IS MOST OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CLASSIFICATION BUT DOES NOT DICTATE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. NOTES: 1. DEFINITIONS ARE PROVIDED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE. 2. THE MATRIX ILLUSTRATES FUNCTION(S)/VALUE(S) THAT ARE THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING MANAGEMENT EFFORTS. 12/89 REV. 3/90 A Local Water Management Plan Reference Document SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Page 55 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System The regulatory codes are arranged to denoting Municipality (M), County (C), Federal (F), State (S), and Other (0). The codes are assigned based on each agency's wetland inventory. In cases where wetlands are not identified by an agency, are not part of the municipal drainage system, or were created after the aforementioned inventories were completed, it is given a Code "0". In some instances, where overlapping regulatory authority exists, a multiple - letter code can be used to denote the appropriate agencies. An example using this system would be Designation II -F. This indicates that the areas primary function is flood control and that the Federal Government has regulatory authority. Coordination with Other Management Techniques The process of applying SUWRMS to urban wetlands involves assessing needs and resources. Existing models and evaluation methods should be followed to provide the assessment. Based on needs and resources, the SUWRMS designation is determined. The following flow chart illustrates the SUWRMS process. Advantages and Disadvantages The advantages of the SUWRMS method are as follows: 1. Simple to use; 2. Flexible appeals process; 3. Easily understood; 4. Considers wetlands use and function; 5. Solidifies many wetland management elements; 6. Considers regulatory authority; . 7. Defines management practices; 8. Easy to administer; 9. Can accommodate a "No Net Loss" policy; 10. Allows for projection of maintenance costs. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 56 CITY OF LINO LAS • 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System The disadvantages with the SUWRMS include the following: 1. Confusion with other evaluation methods; 2. Confusion with other dassification methods; 3. Conflicts between designation and agency controls. Summary The significance of SUWRMS is twofold. First, it recognizes the importance of utilizing wetlands as part of the urban drainage system while considering the associated environmental values and regulatory constraints. Secondly, the system provides specific management direction to communities for designation. While it is understood that a wetland intended for flood control may have habitat and recreational values, its primary function will ultimately dictate its management activities. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 57 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System Table 1 SEH Urban Wetland Resource Management System Description of Designations Designation I - Pollutant Reduction Purpose: • To remove soluble and particulate pollutants from runoff. Characteristics: Characteristics may include the following: • Variable rate control outlet structure. • Fixed or floating skimmers. • Open water - permanent pool. • Multiple pond arrangement. • Adequate inlet /outlet separation. • Abundance of wetland vegetation. Management Practices: Management practices may include the following: • Inspections (semi - annually and following heavy rains). • Outlet structure adjustment. • Removal of debris and accumulated sediment. • Flow diffusion (eliminating channelization. • High -flow bypass (preventing flushing). • Chemical treatment for pollutant removal. • Bio- manipulation Additional Values: Habitat, ecological significance, and recreation. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 58 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System Designation II - Flood Control Purpose: • To reduce downstream damage by controlling excessive rates and volumes of runoff to acceptable levels. Characteristics: Characteristics may include, but not be limited to the following: • Detention basins • Variable control outlet structure • Fixed or floating skimmers • Ditches, swales, streams, creeks, rivers • Storm sewers Management Practices: Management practices may include the following: • Inspections (semi - annually and following heavy rains). • Structure maintenance. Removal of debris and accumulated sediment. Additional Values: Habitat and recreation. Designation III - Open Space Purpose: • To protect and preserve natural features and to enhance habitat and recreational opportunities. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 59 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System Characteristics: Characteristics may include the following: • Habitat diversity. • Adjacent to other conservancy areas. • Part of local or regional park or open space system. • Pedestrian access. Management Practices: Management practices may include the following: • Habitat maintenance and improvement. • Housekeeping practices. • Reduction of outside impacts. • Development of a site specific management preserve plan. Additional Values: Detention, Pollutant Reduction. ;Designation IV - Unclassified Purpose: • City will not spend funds to maintain or -manage the wetland area. Characteristics: Characteristics may include the following: • Isolated from other wetlands; • Seasonably wet; • Varying degrees of wetland vegetation; • An area requiring special maintenance attention, such as a dumping area that requires clean up; • Privately owned; • Maintained by other agency or regulated by current wetland laws. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 60 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System Management Practices: • There will be no City sponsored management activities in the area. • Designation IV areas can be re- evaluated and reclassified to a I, II, or III. Area remains regulated by federal and state laws. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 61 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System Table 2 Regulatory Code Urban Wetlands Regulatory Class Agency Characteristics M Municipality Delineation on Municipality Wetlands Map. C County Delineation on County Wetlands Map. Federal Delineation on Government National Wetlands S State State 0 Other Inventory Map. Delineated on State protected waters and wetlands map. Protected under the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 Man-made water or wetland for private interests. Natural wetland or water that was not included on any agency's waters or wetlands inventory. Industrial facilities. Management Considerations Per management plan or local ordinance. Per management plan or local ordinance. Alteration activities require review by the Corps of Engineers. Alteration activities will require a review by the DNR. Per guidelines established in the WCA. Dependent on use and function. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 62 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Management Practices General There are numerous water management practices available to the City. Implementing practices dealing with water quantity and quality, reaction, aesthetics, groundwater recharge and wildlife habitat is the goal of this plan. Reducing runoff rates by using detention, infiltration and wetland storage can provide the means for flood control, nutrient and sediment removal from runoff. Groundwater recharge, maintenance of wildlife habitat and enhancement of the aesthetics associated with these areas can also be realized. There are three methods for improving surface water quality. The first is to control pollutants at the source. The second is to provide for the collection of runoff and its associated pollutants downstream of the source area. The third is to provide treatment of runoff by physical, chemical, biological, or a combination of these methods prior to its discharge to a lake or primary waterbody. Often one or more management practice may be used to achieve the desired pollutant reduction of runoff. Management practices used to reduce peak runoff rates can also control non -point source pollution. However, unique management practices are most often necessary in areas requiring drastic water quality improvements, such as lake restoration projects. The management practices used should be designed to provide a particular benefit. Generally, surface water management practices can be broken into several categories: Storm Water Storage & Design These practices are widely applicable and especially appropriate in achieving multipurpose benefits or uses. These practices are geared toward improving water quality and quantity control concurrently, when properly designed and used. A well designed system can reduce total suspended solids (TSS) by 90 %, chemical oxygen demand (COD) by 75 %, and nutrients by 50 %. Detention practices will be effective only if there is a high quality maintenance of the facility. The practices consist of the following: Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 63 CITY OF LINO LAS Regulatory Class M Agency Municipality County F Federal Government 0 State State Other 10/24/94 Wetland Resources Management System Table 2 Regulatory Code Urban Wetlands Characteristics Delineation on Municipality Wetlands Map. Delineation on County Wetlands Map. Delineation on National Wetlands Inventory Map. Delineated on State protected waters and wetlands map. Protected under the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 Man -made water or wetland for private interests. Natural wetland or water that was not included on any agency's waters or wetlands inventory. Industrial facilities. Management Considerations Per management plan or local ordinance. Per management plan or local ordinance. Alteration activities require review by the Corps of Engineers. Alteration activities will require a review by the DNR. Per guidelines established in the WCA. Dependent on use and function. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 62 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Management Practices General There are numerous water management practices available to the City. Implementing practices dealing with water quantity ,and quality, reaction, aesthetics, groundwater recharge and wildlife habitat is the goal of this plan. Reducing runoff rates by using detention, infiltration and wetland storage can provide the means for flood control, nutrient and sediment removal from runoff. Groundwater recharge, maintenance of wildlife habitat and enhancement of the aesthetics associated with these areas can also be realized. There are three methods for improving surface water quality. The first is to control pollutants at the source. The second is to provide for the collection of runoff and its associated pollutants downstream of the source area. The third is to provide treatment of runoff by physical, chemical, biological, or a combination of these methods prior to its discharge to a lake or primary waterbody. Often one or more management practice may be used to achieve the desired pollutant reduction of runoff. Management practices used to reduce peak runoff rates can also control non point source pollution. However, unique management practices are most often necessary in areas requiring drastic water quality improvements, such as lake restoration projects. The management practices used should be designed to provide a particular benefit. Generally,_ surface water management practices can be broken into several categories: Storm Water Storage & Design These practices are widely applicable and especially appropriate in achieving multipurpose benefits or uses. These practices are geared toward improving water quality and quantity control concurrently, when properly designed and used. A well designed system can reduce total suspended solids (TSS) by 90 %, chemical oxygen demand (COD) by 75 %, and nutrients by 50 %. Detention practices will be effective only if there is a high quality maintenance of the facility. The practices consist of the following: Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 63 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Management Practices • Water way detention • Open channel detention • In -line storage • Existing natural detention • On -site detention • Ponding • Detention ponding • Infiltration ponding • Sedimentation ponding • Treatment ponding Housekeeping Practices These are used primarily in urban areas to keep impervious areas clean and are most effective when applied on a continuous basis either year round or seasonally depending on the nature of the problem. These controls are likely to reduce pollutants by 25 -50 %. Individual practices include: • Street sweeping • Street maintenance • Collection system maintenance • Catch basin cleaning • Storm sewer flushing • Litter control • Chemical application reduction • Deicing materials • Pesticides and fertilizers • Safe chemical storage improvement • Inflow /Infiltration reduction • Atmospheric fallout reduction Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 64 CITY OF LINO L"-'S 10/24/94 Management Practices Construction Runoff Practices These are best used in areas experiencing a high level of building activity. They are intended to keep water and pollutants on the building site. Individual practices include the following: Controlling the site and disturbance of areas • Slope stabilization • Sediment barriers • Straw bale barrier • Filter fence • Brush barrier • Inlet protection • Emergency dissipation • Sediment traps • Diversion • Slope drains Conservation Practices These practices are directed toward minimizing soil and nutrient loss. If implemented properly in the right areas, these practices can eliminate 75% of the TSS, 50% of the nutrients, 40% of the COD and 50% of the pesticides. These practices include: • Soil surface preparation • Topsoiling • Surface roughing • Surface grading • Vegetation • Vegetation establishment • Temporary seeding • Permanent seeding ■ Hydro- seeding Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 65 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Management Practices • Planting • Sodding Mulching • Erosion control mats • Stream bank stabilization • Vegetative measures • Structural measures • Drainage way protection • Open channel stabilization • Outlet protection • Structural slope stabilization Infiltration Practices These practices are oriented toward reducing water runoff volume and rate. Storm water is allowed to infiltrate and seep back into the groundwater to achieve both water quality and quantity control. Careful monitoring of the result is needed to make sure `no groundwater contamination occurs. Common filtration systems should produce 25 -50% reduction from most pollutants. Practices include: • Infiltration drainage • Grass soil • Infiltration trappage • Soil surface drain • Pervious detention facility • Porous pavement From these general management practices, general standards for operating and maintaining the City's water resources are developed. The standards provide methods to be considered in Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 66 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Management Practices order to achieve the desired result of storm water improvements. In this way, the plan will remain flexible, allowing new and different design approaches to be applied. The specific management standards for surface water management are included in Volume 2, User's Manual. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page 67 Appendix A Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 Metropolitan Area Local Water Management CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Appendix A Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 Metropolitan Area Local Water Management Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 were adopted on May 27, 1992 and take effect on August 1, 1992. The rules give guidelines for Watershed Management Organization Plans. This section of the Lino Lakes Plan contains the Land and Water Resources Inventory data required by Section 8410.0060 of the rules. Information generated as part of the plan is included as well as data from the RCWD and VLAWMO. Table A -1 list the requirements of the Local Plan as outlined in Chapter 8410. The table also includes information on where the data is located in the Local Plan. The structure of the City's plan differs in the order described in the rules. The Lino Lakes Plan is organized in a format which divide the information into three major users. These users are: City officials or policy makers, developer and review staff, and city staff. Volume 1 is for the Policy Makers, Volume 2 for the Users and Volume 3 for City Staff to use as a reference. It is felt that this format allows for the plan to be a more useful tool. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page A - 1 CITY OF LINO LAS 1 0/24/94 Appendix A Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 Metropolitan Area Local Water Management Table A -1 Location of Local Plan Structure Descriptions Described in Chapter 8410 Lino Lakes Plan Section Local Water Management Plan Reference Document SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Page A - 2 Document Section 8410 Section Purpose Policy Doc. Background Metropolitan Water Management Program Purpose Water Resources Related Mgmt. Agreements Policy Doc. Administration Administrative Responsibilities Executive Summary Policy Doc. User's Manual Reference Doc. Exec. Summary Exec. Summary Exec. Summary Land and Water Resources Inventory Reference Doc. Land and Water Resources Inventory Establishment of Policies and Goals Policy Doc. Goals & Policies Assessment of Problems User's Manual Watershed Data Tables 8A to 8I Corrective Actions User's Manual Watershed Data Tables 8A to 8I - Tables 4A to 41 Financial Considerations Policy Doc. Administration Financing Implem. Priorities User's Manual Watershed Data Tables 4A to 4I Implem. Program User's Manual Standard for Facility Design and Maint. Policy Doc. Administration Permitting Amend. Procedure Policy Doc. Amendment to the Plan Local Water Management Plan Reference Document SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Page A - 2 8410.0030 organization and its members for filling vacancies consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 1038.227, subdivisions 1 and 2; N. the duration of the agreement and a process for dissolution that provides for at least 90 days' notice of the intent to dissolve to the affected counties and the board; and 0. a section defining how the membership will be represented, with the total number of representatives to be at least three. Subp. 2. Updating. Joint powers agreements must be updated if necessary to be in conformance with this chapter no later than July 27, 1993. Subp. 3. County membership. A county may be a member of a joint powers agreement organization when the conditions, described in Minnesota Statutes-, section 1038.211, subdivision 3, are present. SA: MS s 1038.101; 1038.211; 1038.231; 1038.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 8410.0040 REMOVAL OF ORGANIZATION REPRIUDEMATIVES. A manager of a watershed district or a member of a joint powers board may be removed from the position by the appointing authority before term expiration for violation of a code of ethics of the watershed management organization or appointing authority or for malfeasance, nonfeasance, or misfeasance, after being provided an opportunity for hearing before the appointing authority. Managers holding the position as an elected official who are not reelected, or are serving an indefinite term at the pleasure of the appointing authority, may be removed by the appointing authority at will. A decision of the appointing authority maybe appealed to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. SA: MS s 103B.101; 1038.211; 1038.231; 1038.227 GIST: 17 SR 146 CONTENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION PLANS 8410.0050 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Each plan must have a section entitled "Executive Summary." The summary should outline the purpose of the watershed management organization; the membership of the organization's board of managers; the general boundaries of the organization; a brief history of the organization; a summary of the organization's goals, problems, and potential solutions; and the general content of required local plans. SA: MS s 103B.101; 103B.211; 1038.231; 103B.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 8410.0060 LAND AND WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY. Subpart 1. Required. Each plan must contain an inventory of water resource and physical factors affecting the water 5 8410.0030 organization and its members for filling vacancies consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.227, subdivisions 1 and 2; N. the duration of the agreement and a process for dissolution that provides for at least 90 days' notice of the intent to dissolve to the affected counties and the board; and 0. a section defining how the membership will be represented, with the total number of representatives to be at least three. Subp. 2. Updating. Joint powers agreements must be updated if necessary to be in conformance with this chapter no later than July 27, 1993. Subp. 3. County membership. A county may be a member of a joint powers agreement organization when the conditions described in Minnesota Statutes, section 1038.211, subdivision 3, are present. SA: MS s 1038.101; 1038.211; 1038.231; 1038.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 8410.0040 REMOVAL OF ORGANIZATION REMSESENTATIVES. A manager of a watershed district or a member of a joint powers board may be removed from the position by the appointing authority before term expiration for violation of a code of ethics of the watershed management organization or appointing authority or for malfeasance, nonfeasance, or misfeasance, after being provided an opportunity for hearing before the appointing authority. Managers holding the position as an elected official who are not reelected, or are serving an indefinite term at the pleasure of the appointing authority, may be removed by the appointing authority at will. A decision of the appointing authority may be appealed to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. SA: MS s 103B.101; 103B.211; 103B.231; 1038.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 CONTENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION PLANS 8410.0050 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Each plan must have a section entitled "Executive Summary." The summary should outline the purpose of the watershed management organization; the membership of the organization's board of managers; the general boundaries of the organization; a brief history of the organization; a summary of the organization's goals, problems, and potential solutions; and the general content of required local plans. SA: MS s 103B.101; 1038.211; 103B.231; 103B.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 8410.0060 LAND AND WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY. Subpart 1. Required. Each plan must contain an inventory of water resource and physical factors affecting the water 5 8410.0060 stormwater management plan to that of any information published in a Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance study; G. a general discussion of, or a map showing areas of, known flooding problems not identified as flood -prone in a published flood insurance- study; H. a listing of the existing flood insurance studies and a location of where they can be viewed; I. a summary of water quality data and any related information, if available, from the Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Health, the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the water management organization, the soil and water conservation district, and the affected counties and cities; J. a map or list, if available, showing the location of known existing and abandoned surface water quality and quantity monitoring sites; R. a list of municipalities with approved shoreland ordinances and projected completion dates for those without ordinances; and L. a table listing the amounts and locations of all surface water appropriations as permitted by the Department of Natural Resources and provided to the organization. Subp. 5. Groundwater resource data. Necessary groundwater data includes any data required to be included in the organization plan by a county groundwater plan. If a county groundwater plan is not anticipated to be completed, the. organization plan must include groundwater data as becessary to allow groundwater issues to be addressed. Subp. 6. Soil data. Each organization plan must include a general discussion of the types of soil present, their development limitations, their infiltration characteristics, and their- :.tendency to erode. The discussion must include a list of references where more detailed data are available. Subp. 7. Land use and public utility services. Necessary land use and public utility services information is limited to information that existed at the time the plan or plan amendment was developed, including: A. a general map of existing land uses; B. a general map showing anticipated land uses; and C. reference to the location of the metropolitan urban service area. Subp. 8. Water -based recreation areas and land ownership. Necessary information on water -based recreation areas and land ownership includes a map or a discussion of the location of all existing and proposed local, regional, state, and federal parks, preserves, wildlife areas, recreation areas, canoe routes, and water accesses available for use by the public. Subp. 9. Fish and wildlife habitat. Necessary information on fish and wildlife habitat includes: 7 8410.0070 8410.0080 ESTABLISHMENT OF GOALS AND POLICIES. Subpart 1. Plan contents. Each plan must contain specific goal statements and corresponding policies relating to the overall purposes specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.201. The goals and policies of the watershed management organization shall attempt to avoid conflict with county, regional, or state goals and policies. The goals must be outlined in sufficient detail to provide direction regarding what the policies should accomplish, provide direction to the organization's board, and allow for the success or failure of the goals and policies to be quantified. The goals and policies should recognize the fundamental relationship between water quality and land use. Development of goals and policies must, at a minimum, address the issues in subparts 2 to 9. Subp. 2. Water quantity. Each plan must outline goals and policies describing how stormwater runoff will be managed. The maximum allowable peak runoff must be established for appropriate subwatersheds to the extent necessary to assure that the goals and policies of the organization will be met and address how runoff from developments creating more than one acre of new impervious surface will be managed with respect to Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.3365. The plan must describe the criteria used for defining "appropriate subwatersheds." Subp. 3. Water quality. Each plan must outline specific water quality goals and policies for natural surface water storage and retention systems within the organization. Goals should be related to parameters or quantities that can be measured. The relationship of land use to water quality should be considered when developing goals and policies. The goals and policies should be developed to strive for compliance with applicable water quality standards and be suitable for the intended uses of natural_ surface water storage and retention systems. Subp. 4. Recreation and- fish and wildlife. Each plan must outline how water resource based recreational activities and wildlife interests will be protected or improved through the implementation of the plan. In consideration of these issues, the plan must determine whether there is a need to classify or prioritize individual water resources for management purposes. Subp. 5. Enhancement of public participation; information and education. Each plan must outline goals and policies describing who will participate and when public participation will be encouraged. Goals and policies must at least address the creation and purposes of advisory committees and public information programs. Subp. 6. Public ditch systems. If public ditch systems constructed under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103D or 103E, are within the organization, the plan shall by policy define the organization's relationship to the ditch authority and recommend whether or not there are advantages to managing the ditch 9 8410.0090 D. impacts of stormwater discharges on water quality and fish and wildlife resources; E. impact of soil erosion on water quality and quantity; F. general impact of land use practices and, in particular, land development and wetland alteration on water quality and water quantity; G. the adequacy of existing regulatory controls to manage or mitigate adverse impacts on public waters and wetlands; H. the adequacy of programs to: (1) limit soil erosion and water quality degradation; (2) maintain the tangible and intrinsic values of natural storage and retention systems; and (3) maintain water level control structures I. the adequacy of capital improvement programs to correct problems relating to: (1) water quality; (2) water quantity management; (3) fish and wildlife habitat and public waters and wetland management; and (4) recreational opportunities; and J. future potential problems that are anticipated to occur generally within a 20 -year period based on growth projections and planned urbanization identified in local and regional comprehensive plans. The assessments must include a discussion of the relationship between locally identified problems and the problems and goals identified in county, regional, state, and federal plans that are brought to the attention of the organization. SA: MS s.1033.101; 1038.211; 1038.231; 103B.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 8410.0100 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM. Subpart. 1. Plan contents. Each plan must describe an implementation program consisting of nonstructural, structural, and programmatic solutions to the problems, issues; and goals identified under parts 8410.0080 and 8410.0090. In developing its implementation program, the requirements in subparts 2 to 7 must be followed. Each plan should clearly define the responsibility of the watershed management organization and the local units of government in carrying out the implementation program and further define the organization's role when a local unit of government is considering a variance or fails to implement its water resource management responsibilities. Subp. 2. Regulatory - controls. In establishing required regulatory controls, items A to E must be considered. A. Each plan must provide for the regulation of activities in wetlands and specify respective duties of the 11 8410.0100 shall require the local unit of government to determine if additional local controls are necessary to address the situation. E. If a plan notes the existence of certain land uses that could adversely affect the organization's ability to achieve its water quality goals, and these uses cannot be properly managed or regulated with existing controls, the uses constitute a public nuisance according to Minnesota Statutes, section 609.74. In those cases, the plan must provide for the adoption of local controls to define and abate the nuisances. For the purpose of this chapter, public nuisances may include any action, failure to act, or land use practice that would impair water quality if allowed to continue. Subp. 3. Stormwater and drainage design performance standards. Each plan must contain minimum-- -standards and- provide for appropriate controls for the design of new stormwater conveyance, ponding, and treatment systems consistent with the overall goals of the organization plan and consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 1038.3365, subdivision 4. Included will be performance standards that provide for: A. the establishment of target in -lake nutrient concentrations and corresponding pollutant loadings for sediment and nutrients; B. the establishment of maximum permissible runoff rates for selected design storms based on considerations such as existing and future flood levels and expected increases in runoff volume with respect to impacts on downstream channels and adjacent development; C. the establishment of standards to reduce the impacts of flooding on natural resources and personal and real property; D. the establishment of design criteria for stormwater outlet structures to address floatable pollutants and to provide for access for maintenance and repair; E. pond design methodology for nutrient entrapment consistent with the subwatershed goals; and F. compliance with pollutant loading for specific subwatersheds consistent with local, regional, and statewide plans in consideration of Pollution Control Agency water quality standards. Subp. 4. Information program. Each plan must provide for the publishing of at least one written communication per year identifying the representatives on the organization's board, current advisory committee members, how to contract the organization, its role in local water management, the goals and policies of the organization, when public meetings are held, how the organization is financed, where the plan can be viewed, and other information relative to the implementation of the plan. The communication may be accomplished through the publication of a newsletter, publication of all or a portion of an annual report, an article or news release submitted to a local 13 • 8410.0100 problems that cannot be resolved by preventative actions shall investigate the feasibility of implementing structural solutions that would remediate or resolve each problem. B. For each structural solution proposed, each plan shall provide a cost estimate and a recommendation as to how it should be funded. C. Each potential structural solution identified under this part shall be assigned priorities. In assigning priorities, consideration shall be given to regional and state plans in conjunction with the organization's goals, policies, and problems identified in parts 8410.0080 and 8410.0090. SA: MS s 103B.101; 103B.211; 103B.231; 1038.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 8410.0110 IMPACT OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Subpart 1. Existing local controls. Each plan shall review the impact of local controls and programs required by the plans according to part 8410.0100. This review shall include concerns expressed by counties, cities, and townships with respect to their administrative and financial capabilities to adopt and enforce the controls and programs in addition to a table that generally describes the status of local controls and programs of affected counties, cities, and townships with respect to that required by the plan. Subp. 2. Financial impact on local government. Each plan shall contain an analysis of the financial impact of implementation of the proposed regulatory controls and programs identified under part 8410.0100. The analysis shall include, at a minimum, an estimate of the costs associated with the plan's implementation and anticipated sources of revenue. Subp. 3. Adoption by reference. All or part of a watershed management organization plan may be adopted by reference by a local unit of government for all or part of its local plan to the degree specified in the approved organization plan. SA: MS s 1038.101; 1038.211; 1032.231; 103B.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 8410.0120 IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES. Each plan must prioritize the plan implementation components to make the best use of available local funding; to prevent future water management problems from occurring to the maximum extent practical; and to ensure that regional, county, state, and federal grant funding is targeted properly. SA: MS s 1032.101; 1032.211; 1032.231; 1032.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 8410.0130 IMPLEMENTATION COMPONENTS. Subpart 1. Controls. Each organization plan must provide for the adoption of necessary regulatory controls, stormwater 15 8410.0140 are minor or failed to act within 45 days �f receipt of the amendments. Subp. 3. Minor amendments to capital improvements. Amendments to an approved plan's capital improvement program may be considered to be minor plan amendments if the following conditions are met: A. the original plan set forth the capital improvements but not to the degree needed to meet the definition of "capital improvement program" as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.205, subdivision 3; and B. the affected county or counties have approved the capital improvement in its revised, more detailed form. Subp. 4. Fort of amendments. Unless the entire document is reprinted, all amendments adopted by the organization must be printed in the form of replacement pages for the plan, each page of which must: A. on draft amendments being considered, show deleted text as stricken and new text as underlined; • B. be renumbered as appropriate; and C. include the effective date of the amendment. Subp. 5. Distribution of amendments. Each organization must maintain a distribution list of agencies and individuals who have received a copy of the plan and shall distribute copies of amendments within 30 days of adoption. All organizations should consider sending drafts of proposal amendments to all plan review authorities to seek their comments before establishing a hearing date or commencing the formal review process. SA: MS s•1033:101; 1038.211; 103B.231; 1038.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 8410.0150 ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIRF,NIIniTS. Subpart 1. Requirement for annual financial, activity, and audit reports. Within 120 days of the end of the watershed management organization's fiscal year, each organization shall submit to the board a financial report, an activity report, and an audit report for the preceding fiscal year if it has expended or accrued funds during this time. These reports may be combined into a single document. The audit report for the preceding fiscal year must be prepared by a certified public accountant or the state auditor and forwarded to the state auditor's office within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year. Subp. 2. Content of annual cinancial report. The annual financial report must include the following information: A. the approved budget; B. a reporting of revenues; , C. a reporting of expenditures; and D. a financial audit report or section that includes a balance sheet, a classification of revenues and expenditures, an analysis of changes in final balances, and any additional 17 8410.0150 B. The executive director shall determine whether there is a basis for a complaint before reporting the complaint to the board. The executive director shall ensure that the affected organization is notified of the complaint and given an opportunity to respond to the allegations before determining whether there is a basis for the complaint. C. If the executive director determines . there is a basis for the complaint, the complaint shall be reported to the board. The affected organization shall be given an opportunity to appear before the board at the time the complaint is reported to it and respond to the allegations in the complaint. The complainant shall also be given an opportunity to appear. D. After having the complaint reported to it, and after providing an opportunity for the organization and the complainant to be heard by it, the board shall decide whether to order a state financial or performance audit of the organization. SA: MS s 1038.101; 1033.211; 103B.231; 1033.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 CONTENT OF LOCAL PLANS 8410.0160 GENERAL STRUCTURE. Each local plan must, at a minimum, meet the requirements for local plans in Minnesota Statutes, section 1033.235, except as provided by the watershed management organization plan under part 8410.0110, subpart 3. Each local plan must include sections containing a table of contents; purpose; water resource related agreements; executive summary; land and water resource inventory; establishment of goals and policies; relation of goals and policies to local, regional, state, and federal plans, goals, and programs; assessment of problems; corrective actions; financial considerations; implementation.priorit_ies; amendment procedures; implementation program; and an appendix. Each community should consider including its local plan as a chapter of its local comprehensive plan. Each local plan shall be adopted within two years of the board's approval of the last organization plan that affects local units of government. SA: MS s 103B.101; 1033.211; 1033.231; 103B.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 8410.0170 STRUCTURE. Subpart 1. Purpose. Each local plan must have a section entitled "Purpose" outlining the purposes of the water management programs required by Minnesota Statutes, sections 1033.205 to 1033.255. Subp. 2. Water resource management related agreements. Appropriate water resource management related agreements that have been entered into by the local community must be outlined, including joint powers agreements related to water management that the local community may be party to between itself and 19 8410.0170 (3) establishment of watershed management taxing districts; (4) creation of stormwater utilities; and (5) monetary impact against homes or farmsteads in affected community; D. the impact on the local municipality of local implementation of each capital improvement project component if ad valorem financing is used; and E. a summary of grant funding that would likely be available to fund water management projects and programs. Subp. 9. Implementation priorities. Each local plan must prioritize implementation components to make the best use of available local funding and prevent future water management problems from occurring to the maximum practical extent. Local plans must prioritize organization plan implementation components in line with organization priorities as outlined under part 8410.0120 only for implementation components that must be facilitated by the local municipality or township. Subp. 10. Implementation program. Each local plan must outline required implementation components that apply at a local level. These components shall be consistent with the required plan components outlined for organization plans under part 8410.0130. Official local controls must be enacted within six months of adoption of the local plan. Subp. 11. Amendment procedures. Each local plan must contain a section entitled "Amendments to Plan" containing the year the plan extends to and establishes the process by which amendments may be made. The amendment procedure shall conform with the plan amendment procedure outlined in the organization plans that affect the community. Local plan amendments must be forwarded to each organization affected by the local plan amendment for review and approval before adoption. Subp. 12. Submittal and review. After consideration and before adoption, the local plan shall be submitted to all affected organizations for review according to Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.235. Each local unit of government must also notify affected organizations within 30 days of adoption and implementation of the plan, including the adoption of necessary official controls. SA: MS s 1038.101; 103B.211; 103B.231; 103B.227 BIST: 17 SR 146 8410.0180 DETERMINATIONS OF FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT. Subpart 1. Applicability. This part applies when a plan is not being implemented for a watershed either because no watershed management organization exists, because the organization has not adopted an approved plan, or because the approved plan is not being carried out. Subp. 2. Establishing cause. Before the board's involvement in determinations of whether a plan is being 21 8410.0180 appropriate. Subp. 4. Board responsibilities. A. On receipt of the board staff's report and recommendations, the board is required to do any or all of the following: (1) nothing further if the staff's investigation finds that the subject plan is being properly implemented, provided the board concurs; (2) advise board staff to conduct additional fact finding it considers necessary and report back to the board accordingly; (3) order the dispute resolution committee to convene to attempt to negotiate the matter and to advise the board further; or (4) issue findings of fact and conclusions of its investigation advising the affected organizations, county, �r counties of the documented failure to implement the subject plan and advise the appropriate unit of government of its responsibility to implement the plan under Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.231, subdivision 3, paragraph (b), within a prescribed period of time. B. On issuance of its findings under subpart 3, item A, the board shall notify the appropriate counties to proceed as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.231, subdivision 3, paragraph (b) or (c), as applicable. If a county fails to act after it is notified, the board shall notify state agencies that they may initiate their prerogatives under Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.231, subdivision 3, paragraph (g). C. The ,board's dispute resolution committee has the following duties and responsibilities with respect to disputes relating to failure to implement a plan: (L) convene and hear appeals from both aggrieved parties and organizations not satisfied with the findings and recommendations of the board's staff report presented at the meeting required by subpart 2; and (2) convene at the pleasure of the board as prescribed by item A to attempt to negotiate and settle disputes over determinations relating to implementation of plans and to further advise the board. SA: MS s 103B.101; 103B.211; 1038.231; 103B.227 HIST: 17 SR 146 23 Appendix B Definitions • CITY OF LINO LAS Climatology Conveyance System Dead Storage Depression Storage Design Storm Detention Basin Eutrophication Freeboard Flood Evaluation Storm Flood Plain 10/24/94 Appendix B Definitions The meteorological study of the temperature, precipitation, and wind that characteristically prevail in a particular region. The series of swales, gutters, ditches, culverts, storm sewers, creeks, streams and rivers that carry water. That volume of water lying below the outlet elevation of a particular waterbody. That volume of water that collects in low points of streets, yards, fields, etc., without running off. The design storm (DS) gives the water surface elevation for an event of a given probability of recurrence. The DS provides a realistic estimate of water surface elevations based on rainfall amounts, durations, distributions, and soil conditions for a given recurrence interval. The DS is used to design the facility. Any areas that temporarily detains storm water runoff for the purpose of storm water management. The area does not have a normal surface water elevation, that is, it is dry during periods of low precipitation. The process by which a lake receives an increase of mineral and organic nutrient, thereby reducing the dissolved oxygen, producing an environment that favors plant over animal life. The difference between the design storm - water surface elevation and the minimum building elevation. The flood evaluation storm (FES) is defined as that storm used to estimate practical maximum water surface elevations for all possible rainfall amounts, durations, distributions, and soil conditions for a given recurrence interval. The area of inundation caused by flood waters. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page B - 1 CITY OF LINO LAS Hydraulics Hydrograph Hydrology Infiltration Major Storm Water Facilities Meteorology Minor Drainage System Mitigation Nutrient Assimilation On -Site Detention Peak Discharge Recharge Retention Basin Recreational 10/24/94 Appendix B Definitions The physical science and technology of the static and dynamic behavior of fluids (water). A graph of the runoff distribution over a given period of time. A scientific study of the properties, distribution, and effects of water on the earth's surface, in the soil and underlying rocks and in the atmosphere. The process by which water passes into the soil. Facilities intended to detain, retain, convey or otherwise provide a flood control function consistent with state and federal regulations. The science dealing with the phenomena of the atmosphere, especially weather and weather conditions. The minor drainage system indudes lateral storm sewer system and /or ditches that convey runoff to major storm water facilities. The minor system does not generally convey flow from one major facility to another. The methods of alleviating the impacts of land disturbance on wetland areas. The process by which plants use minerals and organic nutrients, changing nourishment into living tissue. The temporary storage of water on a single project area. The highest rate of outflow from a detention area or conveyance system, for a given frequency of recurrence. The process by which waters on the earth's surface infiltrate the soils to replenish the groundwater. Any area that retains all runoff to that area, that is, an area without an outlet. A retention area is referred to as a landlocked area. Swimming, boating, hiking, wildlife observation, etc., associated with Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page B - 2 • CITY OF LINO LAS Opportunities a waterbody. Runoff Sediment Surficial Geology Watershed Wetlands 10/24/94 Appendix B Definitions Excess rainfall that is not stored in depressions or infiltrated into the soil. Materials transported by water or air that eventually settle out, being deposited in ponds, wetlands, lakes, reservoirs, etc. The physical structure of the earth at or near the surface. Shallow soils and rock formations. A ridge of high land dividing two areas that are drained by difference conveyance systems. A low land area, such as a marsh or swamp, that may be saturated with moisture, especially when thought of as the natural habitat of wildlife. Wetland Treatment The routing of storm water through wetland areas to allow for the removal of sediment and to maximize nutrient assimilation. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page B - 3 Appendix C Literature Review CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Appendix C Literature Review Literature Review The following references were utilized in the preparation of this document. The information presented in the policy document is a compilation of data from the listed literature. "Water Resources Management Plan - Rice Creek Watershed District," E.A. Hickok & Associates, 1986. "Ramsey County Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook," Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District, 1989. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory, Stillwater SW - New Brighton, MN Sheet, Photo No. 1674. Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, Chapter 509, Laws of 1982, Minnesota State Statutes Sections 473.875 to 473.883, amended 1987, Chapter 207. TR -20, Computer Program for Project Formulation - Hydrology, Microcomputer Version, (9/83 [.2]), USDA Soil Conservation Service. "Hydrology Guide for Minnesota," USDA, Soil Conservation Service, St. Paul, MN, Howard Midje. "Soil Survey of Anoka County, Minnesota," USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Minnesota - Agricultural Experiment Station. "Design and Evaluation of Storm Water Detention Facilities Using a Design Storm and Probable Maximum Storm ": Rocky J. Keehn, Mark L. Lobermeier, SEH Inc. (See Appendix D) "Mathematical Models for Nonpoint Water Pollution Control," Dorm G. DeCoursey, Journal of Soils and Water Conservation, September- October, 1985. "Water Resources Management Development Guide" Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area, February, 1982. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page C - 1 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Appendix C Literature Review "Water Planning and Management Required by Metropolitan Surface Water Act:" Minnesota Water Resources Board, March, 1983. "Urban Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook:" U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, St. Paul, MN. "Surface Water Management: Management Practices Evaluation:" Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area, December, 1983, Andria Haak and Gary Oberts. "Urban Runoff - Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook:" U.S. Department of Agriculture, SCS, St. Paul, MN. "Minimizing Erosion and Urbanizing Areas:" USDA, SCS, Madison, Wisconsin. "Urban Erosion Control Handbook:" Metropolitan Association of Soil and Water Conservation District, Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Scott and Washington Counties. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page C - 2 Appendix D Reference Papers • 6/91 DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF STORM WATER DETENTION FACILITIES USING A DESIGN STORM FREEBOARD EVALUATION STORM* Rocky J. Keehn, * *Member ASCE Mark L. Lobermeier, * *Member ASCE Abstract When designing a storm water detention facility, both a design storm (DS) and a freeboard evaluation storm (FES) should be considered. The DS is used to design the facility. The FES is used to set a freeboard elevation. The DS and FES can be based on recorded data or sensitivity analyses of the region using a range of synthetic rainfall distributions and soil moisture conditions. Sensitivity analysis using the TR -20 program was utilized to evaluate the DS and FES as a part of the Roseville, Minnesota Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The Roseville SWMP also demonstrates how the DS /FES method provides a cost effective approach for managing storm water runoff while providing a sufficient protection level for the given recurrent interval. The DS /FES design concept is a flexible method. This makes it applicable to several design methodologies and usable as a basis for design and evaluation in most surface water manage- ment plans. INTRODUCTION Numerous computer models are available for the design of storm water detention facilities. There are discrepancies and disagreements on almost every parameter used. Most models can analyze numerous storm durations, intensities, and soil moisture conditions. They all produce an estimation of the hydrologic response of a- watershed. Freeboard elevations, conveyance systems and emergency overflows are then based on these results. Often times, these = designs can be over conservative, and costly improvements are unnecessarily undertaken. *Published in "Hydraulic Engineering, Proceedings of the 1988 National Conference" ASCE, August 1988 - Revised December 1988. Presented at 1988 ASCE Hydraulic Engineering Conference, Colorado Springs, CO and 1988 Water Resources Seminar, St. Paul, MN * *Water Resources Engineer, Short - Elliott - Hendrickson, Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110 2/90 There is a need for evaluate a design storm (DS) and a freeboard evaluation storm (FES) to provide for cost effective improvements and adequate flood protection. The DS should give the water surface elevation for an event of a given probability of recurrence. The DS provides a realistic estimate of water surface elevations based on rainfall amounts, durations, distributions, and soil conditions for a given recurrence interval. The DS is then used to design the facility. Using the same criteria, the FES is defined as that storm used to estimate practical maximum water surface elevations for all possible rainfall amounts, durations, distributions and soil conditions for a given recurrence interval. The FES is used to evaluate freeboard. - BACKGROUND A series of questions and concerns led to the development of the DS /FES concept. They are summarized in the following paragraphs. 1. In the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area (Twin Cities) the local SCS has indirectly recommended the use of the Type I distribution. This is contrary to the national recommendation of a Type II. The term "indirectly recommended" is used since they have not officially endorsed the use of the type I, but have published "Hydrology Guide for Minnesota" which is based on the Type I distribution. The Engineer must determine which method is appropriate, adding to the uncertainty of design. 2. Recently, the State of Minnesota passed legislation requiring the formation of Watershed Management Organizations (WMO's), causing the preparation of surface water management plans for each watershed in the Twin City Area. The WMOs were charged with preparing overall management plans and reviewing the detailed plans developed by municipalities. Most of the WMO plans require cities to control the rates and volumes of discharge from the "critical storm" to the rates and volumes occurring from existing or undeveloped conditions. - "Critical storm" is most often defined as that 100 year frequency event causing the largest peak discharge rate and /or water surface elevation in a particular water body. This definition leaves the rainfall distribution question unanswered. No matter what event is used to analyze a watershed, a more critical event could be realized. The term "critical storm" is thus a vague definition of a principal element in design. 3. In the Twin Cities, several WMO's have expressed concern regarding the accuracy of high- intensity storms being modeled with a Type I distribution. The districts have generally recommended the use of a Type II distribution because if contains all rainfall depths form storm durations up to and including 24 hours. In small urban watersheds, short duration -high intensity storms most often produce the highest peaks. The Type II distri- bution is thought to adequately cover these short duration D - 8 2/90 events. This creates a conflict between local SCS hydrology guide and the WMOs recommendations. 4. The Type II distribution appears to be conservative for, design of urban facilities. It is based on the assumption that the 30- minute, 1 -hour, 2 -hour, 3 -hour, 6 -hour, 12 -hour, and 24- hour rainfall amounts for a given recurrence interval will occur in the same rainfall event. The probability of this occurring would be less than the recurrence interval it is modeling. For example, a 100 -year rainfall event designed with the Type II storm would have a probability of recurrence that is less than 1 percent. 5. In the Twin Cities, there are several types of detention facilities. They range from small ponds, to wetlands with large surface areas and shallow depths, to large open bodies of water. The use of an arbitrary freeboard is of concern. For a given rainfall event, a two foot freeboard will not provide the same level of protection for all facilities. Conveyance systems are typically designed for a five or ten - year recurrence interval. Therefore, inlets such as flared -end- sections or catch basins do not allow for full interception. This inadvertent detention is usually ignored in modeling large detention basins. The effect of each is to reduce the peak rate of runoff to the main detention facility and thus reduce the required storage. DS /FES CONCEPT All models require input of actual rainfall data or rainfall data derived from a synthetic distribution. The DS /FES concept is intended to be flexible so that it can be used for any model, storm distribution, or with changing methodologies. The DS and FES can be determined by actual rainfall events or sensitivity analysis of synthetic storms. The DS and FES should be reanalyzed to match new, available data and methodologies. DS /FES FOR ROSEVILLE SWMP The City of Roseville, Minnesota,. Storm Water Management Plan will be completed in 1988. As part of the study, the DS /FES concept was applied. Several recent large rainfall events have demonstrated that the Type I analysis used in the design of detention facilities has accurately predicted runoff. In small areas without detention, the Type II typically will indicate discharge rates approximately twice as large as those from a type I distribution. However, in large watersheds with available storage, the difference between the Type I and Type II storms is almost negligible. • • 2/90 A sensitivity analysis was performed with the SCS TR -20 model for an urban district which contains a variety of detention areas and a large recreational lake. A range of synthetic storm distributions was used to model the watershed. They included the SCS Type I and II, several Huff rainfall distributions and a snowmelt event. SCS antecedent moisture conditions (AMC's) for dry, normal, and wet soils (1, 2, or 3) were modeled for each distribution. The analysis indicated that the Type I distribution with an AMC of two tended to represent the average water surface elevation for all conditions analyzed. Based on these results and our confidence on the Type I AMC 2, it was used as the DS. The FES was either the SCS Type II with an AMC of three or a snowmelt event. This rainfall distribution and soil condition appeared to be the most critical. The snowmelt modeled the 10 -day runoff for the region. Two FES's were used since the snowmelt event is critical in certain cases which cannot be accurately modeled by the Type II distribution. The existing facilities were checked based on this criteria. Freeboard evaluations were determined to be either of the DS results plus two feet, or the FES results. The two foot freeboard is the standard flood insurance requirement. This concept will be used to design new facilities. The study indicated that several building elevations were below the DS -plus- two -feet elevation. To provide protection, storage volume and /or outlet capacity would need to be increased at considerable cost. By applying the FES rather than the DS- plus -two, it was demonstrated that adequate protection exists. The DS /FES concept provides the means to perform a cost /benefit analysis prior to undertaking improvements. CONCLUSIONS The DS /FES concept was developed to provide for a cost - effective method to design storm water detention facilities. It is flexible, satisfies local review agencies criteria, provides for hydrologic prediction of freeboard elevations, and can easily be applied to local watershed plans. The Roseville SWMP illustrates the practicality of concept. APPENDIX Huff, F.A., (1967) "Time Distribution of Second Quartile Storms;" Water Resources Research, 3, No. 4, pp. 1007 -1019. Maclay, L.M., (1965) "Computer Program for Project Formulation Hydrology," Technical Release No. 20, PB- 233778, Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. D - 10. 2/90 Midje, Howard C., (1975) "Hydrology Guide for Minnesota," Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A., St. Paul, Minnesota. Appendix E Rice Creek Watershed District: Goals and Policies and Other Pertinent Information OVERALL PLAN FOR WATER MANAGEMENT November 1993- Prepared For RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Arden Hills, Minnesota Prepared By: MONTGOMERY WATSON 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 SECTION 4 OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES INTRODUCTION The Rice Creek Watershed District's (RCWD) objectives and policies have been structured into a framework for water resource management. This section outlines those objectives and policies, and discusses them on a subwatershed basis. Strategies for management are discussed briefly here and discussed in greater detail in Section 5. The essential objective of the RCWD is to provide for the wise, long-term management of its water and associate land resources. The term "management" embodies several implicit functions including: planning, organizing, obtaining financial and staff resources, direction or leadership, monitoring or review, control, coordination, reporting, and innovation. Management is a continuing process which adapts to changing needs and circumstances and which incorporates new knowledge within the expanding context of prior experience. Basic to any effective management process is a consistent, overall policy which enunciates goals, assigns relative priorities, and essentially defines the "mission." The plans, programs, and specific actions which evolve from the basic policy are then continually redefined and refined in response to the future changing environment ( social, economic, and governmental). Overall policy, as stated in the RCWD's Rules and Regulations, provides an impartial, objective basis for developing effective plans and programs for water resources management. Emphasis is placed upon "sound scientific principles" and "provident use of natural resources." Overall RCWD policy is to moderate various competitive interests (e.g., of conservationists; landowners and developers; municipal and county governments) so as to realize the maximum long -term benefit to the RCWD's constituent municipalities, residents, business, and agricultural interests. Basic principles of RCWD policy should be 1) to evaluate most carefully all proposals which involve irreversible and irretrievable commitments of water and associated land resources, 2) to prevent or reduce adverse impacts upon these resources from proposed developments, 3) to identify and analyze potential alternatives, and 4) to maintain a balanced relationship between the shorter -term uses and the longer -term productivity of the RCWD's resources. 4 -1 -, 10/5/93 The RCWD will achieve its overall goals predicated upon facts and reason, and by closely coordinating its plans and programs with other concerned governmental agencies at municipal through state levels. POLICY DEVELOPMENT Using the general intent of MS 103B as a guideline and assisted by two advisory groups (the Citizens 509 Task Force and Technical Advisory Committee), the RCWD Managers defined their own policies and objectives. An important element in this process proved to be the RCWD's social, physical, and biological diversity, which the final policies needed to reflect. Foremost in this diversity is the presence of both urban and rural land uses. The northern portion of the watershed has a rural character with development occurring sparsely on large lots. The southeastern portion of the watershed is developing in a somewhat more dense manner, while the southwestern portion of the watershed already has an urban character. OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES This portion of the Water Resource Management Plan will describe the objectives and policies for water resources management in the RCWD through the year 2000. The first three sections of the Water Resource Management .Plan inventoried existing physical and hydrologic conditions and described potential development to the year 2000. This inventory, together with the general purposes of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, were used in determining fist the water resource management objectives and second, the water resource management policies for the District. These objectives and policies are shown in Table 4-1. Objective A: Minimize Public Expenditure to Control Runoff The first objective is to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, public expenditures used in controlling excessive runoff rates and volumes. This objective will be used to protect downstream areas from hazards related to excessive volumes of runoff while considering costs and benefits. There are two policies which relate to storage of runoff either on -site or off -site within the RCWD. One states that generally, there is no need for runoff control through the planning period. Another policy indicates that additional storage is needed presently or additional 4-2 10/5/93 storage will be required through the planning period. Each of the 84 subwatersheds modeled in the RCWD's stormwater runoff study (outlined in Section 5, Flood Management Profiles) will be subject to one or the other of these two policies. The runoff policies are the only ones which are not tied into the 24 subwatersheds used for the primary planning efforts of this plan. The policy of the RCWD is to retain the present capacities of the existing drainage system. This is done to reduce costs necessary for possible remedial measures dictated by improper development. Objective B: Improve Water Quality The second major objective in the water management plan is to address water quality problems. The purpose of this objective is to improve the water quality of lakes, streams, and wetlands thereby improving habitat for fish and animals and protect water quality for drinking water purposes. In order to more fully describe this objective, five policies were developed. A policy of the RCWD is to reverse the upward trends observed in pollutants, especially nutrients and sediment loadings, into most of the lakes within the RCWD. This can be done through treatment or control of runoff quality. Minimum requirements have been set which closely follow Metropolitan Council standards. The RCWD has considerable experience and success with the use of natural wetlands to treat runoff, particularly in the southwestern portion of the watershed. Therefore, -a policy -to protect wetlands is viewed as an effective way to enhance water quality. The northern portion of the watershed lies outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) line, as delineated by the Metropolitan Council. Outside this line, wastewater treatment is accomplished through individual wastewater treatment systems, primarily septic tanks. The RCWD does not desire to directly regulate individual wastewater treatment systems. However, as a third policy, the RCWD does encourage municipalities to use the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Individual Sewage Treatment System Regulations as a model for local control. 4 -3 10/5/93 Auer evaluating water quality within the RCWD through the inventory process as described in Section 3 of this plan, it was evident that there are several areas where water quality data is sparse or nonexistent. The policy of the RCWD is to upgrade this water quality monitoring system to identify potential problems and to develop water resource management strategies and quality improvement projects based on this water quality information. One of the more important policies of the RCWD is to insure good water quality to Minneapolis and St. Paul. The St. Paul water system draws some of its water from the RCWD upstream of Centerville Lake. The Minneapolis water system takes most of its water from the Mississippi River a short distance from the confluence of Rice Creek and the Mississippi River. The watershed should be protected to insure that contamination does not reach the St. Paul or Minneapolis systems. Objective C: Prevent Flooding and Erosion The third objective of the RCWD is to prevent flooding and erosion from surface water flows. This two -part objective has five associated policies. It is the policy of the RCWD that there be no encroachment upon floodways that will reduce capacities to expedite flood flows. It is also the policy of the RCWD to allow only structures in the flood fringe that have been protected from high water either through floodproofing or by other construction techniques. The 100 -year flood levels have not been defined for critical storm events for several portions of Rice Creek. Therefore, it is advisable for the RCWD to work toward defining those flood levels. One of the goals of M.S. 103B is to move surface water management toward local control. Based on this goal, the RCWD will promote the local adoption of floodplain zoning ordinances conforming to state regulations. To protect water quality and preserve valuable soil resources, the RCWD has developed a policy to minimize runoff velocities and maximize natural cover in accordance with rural and urban Best Management Practices (BMPs). 10/5/93 To reduce sediment transport and control erosion on construction sites, the RCWD has set a policy which states that a developer must provide all measures necessary to contain sediment and control erosion. Objective D: Promote Groundwater Recharge A portion of the RCWD provides groundwater recharge to the Prairie du Chien - Jordan aquifer and surficial aquifers. The Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act encourages the recharge of surface water to groundwater aquifers. The policies of the RCWD encourage this recharge and protect recharge areas from potential sources of contamination. Groundwater recharge can occur in the area of floodplains. It is the policy of the RCWD to restrict impervious areas within the floodplain in the recharge area of the Prairie du Chien - Jordan aquifer or surficial aquifers. Portions of the RCWD have experienced groundwater contamination. This groundwater contamination generally resulted from improper disposal of hazardous substances. The policy of the RCWD is to protect recharge areas from future sources of contamination. Objective E: Protect and Enhance Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Recreation The water resource management objective for the RCWD is to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water - oriented recreation. The policies of the RCWD promote and encourage coordination with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources whose primary responsibility is to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitats and protect rare and endangered species. The policy of the RCWD is to preserve wetlands which provide a habitat for game fish spawning and wildlife. There are several areas within the RCWD that provide unique habitats for wildlife management. The most unique of these is the Lamprey Pass Wildlife Management Area in Subwatershed 1. This planning document has previously identified as an important water management objective the preservation of open space and natural wildlife areas which are an essential part of the ecosystem. The RCWD Managers have no explicit responsibilities for developing parks and open space or managing water -based recreation. However, there is a substantial 4-5 10/5/93 commonalty of interest, particularly with regard to the overall approach taken toward "protection" of open space with many other units of government. For this reason, the policy of the RCWD is to coordinate with the state, counties, and municipalities to enhance their ongoing recreational programs which may be affected by water resource management activities. Objective F: Provide for the Transition of Water Management to Local Units One of the main purposes of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act is to transfer water management responsibilities to local units of government. Surface water management planning and regulations are currently done by watershed districts and state agencies. When local surface water management plans are complete and approved by the RCWD, the local unit of government will implement their own plans. The RCWD will have a continuing responsibility to monitor and ensure implementation of local plans. These six objectives and associated policies of the RCWD form the framework for water resource management decisions. The following portion of the plan describes the objectives and policies as they relate to specific subwatersheds. 4 -6 10/5/93 commonalty of interest, particularly with regard to the overall approach taken toward "protection" of open space with many other units of government. For this reason, the policy of the RCWD is to coordinate with the state, counties, and municipalities to enhance their ongoing recreational programs which may be affected by water resource management activities. Objective F: Provide for the Transition of Water Management to Local Units One of the main purposes of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act is to transfer water management responsibilities to local units of government. Surface water management planning and regulations are currently done by watershed districts and state agencies. When local surface water management plans are complete and approved by the RCWD, the local unit of government will implement their own plans.- The RCWD will have a continuing responsibility to monitor and ensure implementation of local plans. These six objectives and associated policies of the RCWD form the framework for water resource management decisions. The following portion of the plan describes the objectives and policies as they relate to specific subwatersheds. 4 -6 1015/93 TABLE 4 -1 OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND OVERALL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (Continued) E.3 Policy: To coordinate with the Department of Natural Resources to enhance fish and wildlife habitats �n_siement Strategy► a. Consult with the Department of Natural Resources and other appropriate agencies to identify opportunities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat within the RCWD. b. Incorporate fish and wildlife considerations in the design of water retention and delivery systems and other management policies. E.4 Policy: To coordinate with the Department of Natural Resources to protect rate and endangered species an gement Strateav a. Maintain communication with Department of Natural Resources on all land development activities that may impact rare and endangered species. E.5 Policy: To coordinate with counties and municipalities to enhance water -based recreation. Management Strateev a. Give priority to watershed projects that complement existing or proposed state, regional, county, or local recreational facilities and programs given all other factors are equal. OBJECTIVE F: Provide for the orderly transition of appropriate water management responsibilities to local units of government where feasible. F.1 Policy: Encourage local units of government to administer water management regulatory functions upon approval of a local water management plan that 1) is in conformance with the objectives, policies, and management strategies outlined herein, 2) outlines functions of both the RCWD and local unit of government during the transition period, and 3) provides for accountable implementation of the water resources management plan. F.2 Policy: The RCWD maintains the right to approve plan amendments and changes in local regulations. The RCWD may withdraw local regulatory authority for just cause. 4 -13 10/5/93 Rosa* sent a.m. • f t errata • HU "MI "dor -Y4t 11011IPoM La - aft "It "MINIM - art •Wtf'I Punoa - 3P1 +wgfr "MI • Hf Nor ari • rot IlMa3 ern' a.ddn •Rrispa0.L•inn �I Rpill • Yet mimPPH • HR 011v1 "Wed •Kt "PIIH•II rI loll •In Remo awommmL7 • II • i'OvaPPH -1 "Ma..H "}qd •L *A i1usa3 P• "PA*S • II R:aoti Resa3 P°Pant •! ion 116ea3 PS*Paslt - f �R u..Pa.H • M!L`I • i *WI Pafrsg • I K K K K K K K K K K K K K X 04 K K K K K P K K K KK P 04 K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K KKK K KK KPK K K K K K K K K K K K K K K KPK K SC KKK K PC K K K K K K P K K PC PC K K K K PC K K K PC K 04 04 04 K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K KKK 04 04 KKK K 0404 KKK 04 04 M 04 04 KKK K 0404 KKK 04 04 MK K 04 KKK K 0404 KKK K IBC X0404 04 PC KKK K m ICKK K K 04 04 04 04 04 K KKK K 0404 KKK K 04 14 04 K14 04 PC 04 0404 04 KK KKK 04 04 KKKKK K KKK 04 0404 0404 04 K K KKKKK K KKK K K 0404 04 14 PC 04- 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 14 04 0404 KKK 04 K KKK 04 14 KKK K K KK04 K K K K K K K KXK K 04 04 K K K K K 04 14 PC K K K K K K 04 KKK K KKK K PC KKK PC KK 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 KK04 04 KKK K K 0404 04 04 04 KKKKK K 04 04 04 PC K 04 PO4 04 04 KKKKK PC KKK PC K .04KK K K S i to A s 31.1 1 1/ J 11 g 1 s� I. • 1 1I Lii 1 z 11411 8 3 :� 311 st es f 11111ill ill f e d 1 g-� 3 s� c, - t fl1i d III 4�I 1 AtATII e- l • 11121'01 �� :11111 IE • 6.: «:34 .e O .+ .i m . . 1;3 gli Iii A 11-1 . s szkb 611'1 %6 $1111 144444 4 -14 10/5/93 Subwatershed 2: I-35E Policies: A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, /1.5, C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.5, and F This subwatershed does not contain any lakes and is drained by numerous ditch systems in a tri''utary area of 6.28 sq mi. The subwatershed has not historically been included in the District's monitoring program and has experienced little development activity to date. Through the inventory process, the primary concerns in water management identified for the subwatershed were the lack of water quality monitoring data and the slow drainage of the ditch system. Baseline monitoring information was collected for this watershed as part of the Centerville/Peltier diagnostic and feasibility studies. The District's permitting program will continue to protect the large amounts of floodplain and wetland area within this subwatershed. The District will also be inspecting the public ditch systems within this subwatershed as part of the District's annual inspection program. Subwatershed 3: Rondeau Lake Policies: A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, El, E.2, E.3, E.5, and F This subwatershed covers approximately 12.76 sq mi. Lakes in this are include Columbus, Crossways (Tamarack), and Rondeau. Two water management concerns were identified through the inventory process. First, the need to maintain the capacity of the large areas of floodplain and second, the need to address water quality of the lakes in the subwatershed. Because of the large storage available in this subwatershed and also immediately downstream, runoff rate control is not necessary as the storage will buffer any foreseeable impacts of development. Agricultural land use is dominant in this subwatershed. As part of the Upper Watershed Improvement Project, cooperative programs with the Anoka SWCD will be explored to lessen potential problems associated with agricultural runoff. 4 -15 10/5/93 Subwatershed 2: I-35E Policies: A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.5, and F This subwatershed does not contain any lakes and is drained by numerous ditch systems in a tributary area of 6.28 sq mi. The subwatershed has not historically been included in the District's monitoring program and has experienced little development activity to date. Through the inventory process, the primary concerns in water management identified for the subwatershed were the lack of water quality monitoring data and the slow drainage of the ditch system. Baseline monitoring information was collected for this watershed as part of the Centerville/Peltier diagnostic and feasibility studies. The District's permitting program will continue to protect the large amounts of floodplain and wetland area within this subwatershed. The District will also be inspecting the public ditch systems within this subwatershed as part of the District's annual inspection program. Subwatershed 3: Rondeau Lake Policies+ A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.5, and F This subwatershed covers approximately 12.76 sq mi. Lakes in this are include Columbus, Crossways (Tamarack), and Rondeau. Two water management concerns were identified through the inventory process. First, the need to maintain the capacity of the large areas of floodplain and second, the need to address water quality of the lakes in the subwatershed. Because of the large storage available in this subwatershed and also immediately downstream, runoff rate control is not necessary as the storage will buffer any foreseeable impacts of development. Agricultural land use is dominant in this subwatershed. As part of the Upper Watershed Improvement Project, cooperative programs with the Anoka SWCD will be explored to lessen potential problems associated with agricultural runoff. 4 -15 10/5/'93 Subwatersheds 4 and 5: Hardwood Creek East and Hardwood Creek North Policies: A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, D.1, D.2, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.5, and F This combined watershed totals 19.52 sq mi and contains Egg, Rice, Oneka, and Horseshoe Lakes. The area is drained by Hardwood Creek (Anoka/Washington Judicial Ditch No. 2) which is very flat and has limited discharge capacity. These subwatersheds have extensive floodplain and wetland areas which are being preserved due to the low density development occurring in this area located outside of the MUSA boundary. The District has maintained several water quality monitoring stations in these subwatersheds and also conducted intense monitoring during the Centerville/Peltier diagnostic study. Several potential wetland restoration projects are being contemplated in addition to the feedlot control practices to be implemented with the cooperation of the Washington SWCD. Subwatershed 6: Hardwood Creek West Policies: A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, D.1, D.2, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.5, and F This subwatershed is approximately 8.71 sq mi in area. Horseshoe Lake is located in the subwatershed but provides little active storage due to its landlocked nature. Stormwater modeling indicates there will be a slight increase in flows from present day to year 2000 conditions. More significant increases in flow rates could occur if the capacity of Hardwood Creek channel is increased. The Upper Watershed Improvement Project will seek to address agricultural land use in the watershed and potential wetland restoration sites. A ferric chloride injection system is contemplated at the mouth of this subwatershed. It is anticipated that low density urbanization of this subwatershed may result in improved water quality relative to its present land use. Ramsey County maintains a water -based regional park at Bald Eagle Lake. Programs of the District and counties should be coordinated in order to improve recreational opportunities associated with the park. Subwatershed 9: Clearwater Creek Policies: A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, BA, B.5, C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, D.1, D.2, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.5, and F This subwatershed drains approximately 12.35 sq mi and has very little reservoir storage available. In order to reduce potential flooding along the creek, the District emphasis will be upon controlling projected increases in runoff rates from the southwestern portions of the City of Hugo. Downstream channel improvements contemplated by the City of Centerville will allow for drainage at the lower end of this subwatershed to enter and leave this system prior to the upper reaches of the Clearwater Creek watershed entering the area. This drainage area will be addressed through the District's Upper Watershed Improvement Project which will explore the use of sediment sealing, aeration, and land use improvement to improve the water quality of Centerville and Peltier Lakes Subwatershed 10: Lino Lakes Policies: A.3, 13.1, B.2, 13.3, B.4, 8.5, C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, D.1, D.2, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.5,andF Little intense development is anticipated within this 6.62 sq mi watershed through the year 2000. The subwatershed has been extensively ditched via public and private system and is covered by large expanses of floodplain and wetland areas protected under the Wetland Conservation Act. Runoff rate is therefore not a major concern, particularly in light of the large amounts of storage available within the chain of lakes located in the city. Drainage issues will therefore be of an intracity nature and best addressed by the city's local water management plan. 4-18 1W5/93 Subwatershed 12b: Baldwin Lake Policies: A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, D.1, D.2, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.4, E.5, and F This subwatershed totals approximately 19.15 sq mi and includes the entire Lino Lakes Chain of Lakes. These lakes are George Watch, Marahan, Reshanau, Rice, and Baldwin. Several additional DNR- protected waterbodies exist near this chain with the entire chain functioning as one large floodplain during high flow conditions. The large amount of storage provided in the chain will ensure negligible increases in runoff from above this area due to future development. This area is undergoing rapid development, however, District and city policies for protecting floodplains and wetlands have helped to minimize preservation of natural areas and prevention of flooding. The Anoka Regional Park extends through this subwatershed and provides canoe and foot trails through the lakes area. Water quality in these shallow lakes is generally poor and it is hoped that implementation of the Upper Watershed Improvement Project will result in higher quality headwaters for the area. The conversion of agricultural land use to residential development may aid in recovery of these basins. Subwatershed 13a Turtle Lake Policies: A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, C.1, C .2, C.3, C.4, C.5, D.1, D.2, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.4, E.5, and F This subwatershed covers an area of approximately 1.3 sq mi. Turtle Lake is generally very high quality and provides adequate storage for the small area tributary to it Turtle Lake was the subject of a Clean Water Partnership Grant Application to the MPCA which was not approved. In the past several years, Turtle Lake has been subject to an obscure state law which requires the Watershed District to administer a permit program for the nonessential appropriation of water from it. Data from this program is being collected and could be used by Ramsey County and the DNR in future studies which address the effects of the discontinued lake augmentation program from Ramsey County wells. 4 -20 , 10/5/91 Subwatershed 12b: Baldwin Lake Policies: A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, D.1, D.2, E.1, E.2, E.3, E.4, E.5, and F This subwatershed totals approximately 19.15 sq mi and includes the entire Lino Lakes Chain of Lakes. These lakes are George Watch, Morahan, Reahanau, Rice, and Baldwin. Several additional DNR- protected waterbodies exist near this chain with the entire chain functioning as one large floodplain during high flow conditions. The large amount of storage provided in the chain will ensure negligible increases in runoff from above this area due to future development. This area is undergoing rapid development, however, District and city policies for protecting floodplains and wetlands have helped to minimize preservation of natural areas and prevention of flooding. The Anoka Regional Park extends through this subwatershed and provides canoe and foot trails through the lakes area. Water quality in these shallow lakes is generally poor and it is hoped that implementation of the Upper Watershed Improvement Project will result in higher quality headwaters for the area. The conversion of agricultural land use to residential development may aid in recovery of these basins. Subwatershed 13a Turtle lake Policies A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, C.1, C.2, C.3, C.4, C.5, D.1, D.2, E.1, E.2, E.S, EA, E.5, and F This subwatershed covers an area of approximately 1.3 sq mi. Turtle Lake is generally very high quality and provides adequate storage for the small area tributary to it. Turtle Lake was the subject of a Clean Water Partnership Grant Application to the MPCA which was not approved. In the past several years, Turtle Lake has been subject to an obscure state law which requires the Watershed District to administer a permit program for the nonessential appropriation of water from it. Data from this program is being collected and could be used by Ramsey County and the DNR in future studies which address the effects of the discontinued lake augmentation program from Ramsey County wells. 4 -20 10/5/9n • • Rice Creek watershe Rice Creek Watershed District Addendum to Water Resource Management Plan Stormwater Runoff Study February 1992 JAI James M Montgomery Rice Creek watershe JMYI James M Montgomery !Pkr r"''�e Rice Creek Watershed District Addendum to Water Resource Management Plan Stormwater Runoff Study February 1992 -r i o 12 I 2 Mlles 0 2000 5000 10,000 feet 1 1 " • � r I ••I t t 1 $ • 1 •044, 1 TO URC , INC 6 t HWC 5 HWC 4 HWC CO. RD. 4 !7OTH ST. N. • • • • • WHIT ROCK LAKE • • • • • aNOQQ -• •` N A t • ,l..r• • 1,, I • ,1 I* I ONEKA LAKE I I � ,!./ HWC 2b k. RICE LAKE HWC 2a - -- SUEMATERSHED BOUNDARY ▪ -- — RAID BOUNDARY SUBNATERSHED OUTLET LANDLOCKED BASIN ••♦ • • t •'r • • • 1 • • • r ,.14N,ES M. MOO TGC ,'= . , HARDWOOD CREEK WATERSHED 1 4 -1 r o rz / 0 2000 5000 2 miles /0,000 feet , , 1 $ 11 1 .; TO URC HWC 6 .1 HWC 5,, I r - j HWC 4 4v HWC 3 CO. RD. 4 170TH ST. N. HAR • .+ �...rSO 41,Je • I • w HIT ROCK LAKE • I ••% , $ 1 =ma sa s� • I • • 1 ONEKA LAKE 1 zQ L 1 HWC • - • -1 REGG I LA10E RICE b"`. - :' • LAKE i 1• r , f • , , HWC 2a - - -- SUBNATERSHED BOUNDARY RAID BOUNDARY SUBNATERSHED OUTLET LANDLOCKED BASIN I , , • • • • t . HARDWOOD CREEK WATERSHED I 4 -1 • i�j MRC l • ,/ CO. RD. 14 1.1 1 MRC 10 FROM URC MRC 6 WARDS SHERM4Cle LAKE LAKE • MI MRC 7 ) f--e MRC 5b CO. RD. J r -fru' MRC21 rMRC 14 •I SJN=IS r 1 ' % LAKE(' • TO LRC `, 147 Ism MRC 5a 0 1h 1 2 miles 0 2000 5000 /0.000 fee' -- - -- SUBWATERSHEJ BOUNDARY -""".° RCWD BOUNDAR- ---- SUBWA ERSHEJ OUTLET JAMES M. MONTGD .4ERY DD LE, ; ;;SCE CREEK WATc RSHt 6 -1 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Appendix F Goals and Policies c. The disposal of any solid or liquid wastes shall be controlled as necessary to ensure that the . underground waters of the watershed are maintained within the range of natural background quality. 6. Erosion and Sediment Control a. The VLAWMO shall require as a management strategy, in identified critical erosion areas (see Technical Appendix, Figure A -7), the submission and implementation- of erosion and sediment control plans to the local government unit for the prevention of erosion from land disturbance activities of one acre or more in size. b. For those land disturbance activities involving critical erosion areas identified in Technical Appendix, Figure A -7, which comprises less than one acres and a determination has been made by the VLAWMO of significant impact on a receiving water, the VLAWMO shall require submission and implementation of erosion and sediment control plans to the local government unit. c. The VLAWMO shall require, in non - critical areas, the submission and implementation of erosion control plans to the local government unit for the prevention of erosion from land disturbance activities involving areas greater than two and one -half (2.5) acres. d. All erosion and sediment control plans submitted for applicable land disturbance activities shall conform with the standards and principles established by the VLAWMO. e. All local government units within the VLAWMO shall adopt erosion and sediment control policies and /or ordinances in conformance with VLAWMO management strategies. 7. Flooding a. The VLAWMO in cooperation with local communities and involved agencies will manage for the 100 -year flood level on designated Group I water and wetlands, all Group II waters and wetlands and designated Group III wetlands. b. The VLAWMO shall establish regional (100 -year) flood levels and /or required storage volumes based upon critical storm events on most Group I and II waters and wetlands. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page F - 5 CITY of LINO LAS 10/24/94 Appendix F Goals and Policies c. The lowest floor elevation of all development, including basements, shall be required to be at least 1.5 feet above the regional flood level for the adjacent water or wetland, unless a floodway has been adopted; in the latter case the elevation shall be 1 foot plus the floodway surcharge. d. All municipalities within the VLAWMO shall adopt, as a minimum, floodplain zoning ordinances that conform to State regulations. e. The VLAWMO may accept mitigative measures such as floodproofing and flood protection in allowing building within the floodplain. 8. Recreation, Open Space and Wildlife Management a. The VLAWMO will seek opportunities for integration of recreation open space and wildlife management facilities in conjunction with possible future water resource capital improvement projects. 9. Drainageway Maintenance a. The VLAWMO shall retain, in its jurisdiction, all operation and maintenance responsibility of Ditches #13 and #14 and their attendant branches as originally designated by Ramsey County in the watershed. b. Local government units shall maintain water management structures (e.g., culverts) between Group II and III waters and wetlands and regional detention basins. c. The VLAWMO will provide for the regular inspection and maintenance, as needed, of outflow conveyors (see Glossary. 10. Intergovernmental Relations and Institutional Arrangements a. The VLAWMO shall maintain open communications and continued cooperations and coordination with all governments in the implementation and review of development within the watershed to insure compliance with appropriate ordinances, standards, criteria and policies. b. The VLAWMO shall review local water management plans and evaluate their consistency with the watershed plan. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page F - 6 CITY OF LINO LAS 10/24/94 Appendix F Goals and Policies c. The VLAWMO recognizes that the design and construction of municipal storm drainage systems (Lateral Conveyors) should remain the function of local government units. 11. Administration a. The VLAWMO shall provide for the annual review of the Watershed Management Plan and its implementation to insure it reflects the current goals of the cities, counties, soil and water conservation districts and is consistent with current legislation. b. The VLAWMO shall periodically review the goals, policies, criteria and management strategies of the VLAWMO to insure its conformance with the Watershed Management Plan and current legislation. c. The VLAWMO shall annually prepare and update the Capital Improvements Program, as needed, for review by appropriate public groups and individuals. d. The VLAWMO shall notify, inform and seek inputs from the general citizenry regarding the planning and development of programs. 12. Financing a. The VLAWMO "will consider the use of all revenue sources (Federal or State grants, local levies, etc.) to finance features of the Watershed Management Plan including: planning, monitoring, capital improvements, operation and maintenance and administrative costs. b. In making its decision to finance a project, the VLAWMO shall consider project need, benefit /cost relationships, efficiency of revenue collection, impacts on residents of the watershed and benefited area and the total administrative costs of the project. Local Water Management Plan SEH No. A- LINOL9402.00 Reference Document Page F - 7 VADNAIS LAKE AREA WATER MANAGEMENT ORGAlvIZATION WAITEIRSIETED litkikTAZIETY1 MAN ITT 1987 Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization • Outflow Corer FIGURE A - Water Resources of Vadnais Lake Watershed • March 23, 1987 PLEASANT LAKE City of Lino Lakes LL -1 LL -2 LL -3 LL -4 (02 -14)' LL -5 LL -6 LL -7 (02 - 14)' LL -8 (02- 562)" LL -9 LL -10 LL -11 LL -12 LL -13 LL -14 LL -15 MDNR Protected Water " MDNR Protected Wetland is 77 March 23, 1987 SUBWATERSHED SW1 /4 Sec. 35 T31 R22 SE1 /4 Sec. 34 T31 R22 SE1 /4 Sec. 34 T31 R22 SE1 /4 Sec. 35 T31 R22 Amelia Lake NE1 /4 Sec. 35 T31 R22 NE1 /4 Sec. 35 T31 R22 Sec. 35 T31 R22 NE1 /4 Sec. 35 T31 R22 SE1 /4 Sec. 26 T31 R22 SW1 /4 Sec. 25 T31 R22 SW1 /4 Sec. 25 T31 R22 SW1 /4 Sec. 25 T31 R22 S1 /2 Sec. 25 T31 R22 SW1 /4 Sec. 25 T31 R22 SW1 /4 Sec. 25, SE1 /4 Sec. 26 T31 R22 111 ul 111 QI 111 11 Ill 111 111 111 111 111 111 3 4 3/2 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3/2 3 3 3 2 83 March 23, 1987 PLEASANT LAKE SUBWATERSHED City of Lino Lakes LL -1 - LL-2 - _ - LL-3 - LL-4 Amelia Lake - 910.0 907.1 170 18 Source #5 & DNR LL -5 LL -6 - LL -7 - - LL-8 - - _ LL -9 - - - - LL-10 - - - LL-11 - - - LL-12 - - LL-13 - - - LL-14 - - - LL-15 - - City of North Oaks • Hydraulic Structure Inventory: Vadnais Lake Watershed Prepared and compiled by Chris De Mattos for the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District 10/ 3/ 86 LL-18C1 LL -11N2 LL-12C3 LL -18C4 Lino Lakes size /type: 18" CMP location: crosses E base of Birch St. flows N to S sediment load: 6" on S /clear on N condition: OK size /type: unknown location: crosses Co.-Rd. flow: E to W additional notes: culvert venting No. 54 S of -Birch St. is deeply submerged on both ends pre - inspection size /types 12" CMP location: crosses Co. Rd. No. 54 S of Birch St. flow: E to W sediment loads 3/4 full on E/ i full on W. condition: poor - rusting out size /type: 18" CMP location: crosses W base of 64th St. flow: N to S sediment load: mostly cleat condition: good i I II i 1 1 1 1 1 • LL -24A1 LL -18A2 size /type: 24" ACP location: crosses Co. Rd. No. 54 S of Birch St. flow: E to W sediment load: mostly clear condition: OK size /type: 18" ACP . location: crosses Co. Rd. No. 54 S of Bloom Ct. flow: E to W sediment load: mostly clear condition: good • LL-35E -30A3 size /type: 30" ACP locations crosses 35E N of Co. Rd. J flow: E to W sediment load: clear conditions good additional notes: "star- shaped" concrete drop inlet lies W of 35E and E of Co. Rd. No. 54 LL- 35E -18A4 size /type: 18" ACP locations crosses 35E S of Cedar St. flow: E to W sediment loath' mostly clear condition: good LL- 35E -18A4a LL -1805 size /type: 18" ACP locations crosses S bound lane of 35E just S of LL- 35E -18A4 flows E to W sediment load: mostly clear condition: good size /type: 18" CMP location: crosses near E end of 64th St. flows S to N sediment load: 4 " -5" on N /clear on S condition: OK LL- 35E -24c6 size /type: 24" CMP w/ apron location: crosses 35E N of 64th St. flows E to W sediment loads 4 " -5" 6n W /mostly clear on E condition: fair - rusting additional notes: outlet is 24" ACP(good condition) "star - shaped" concrete drop inlet lies on E of 35E and W of Otter Lake Rd.; another "star - shaped drop inlet lies in median. Both drop in- lets lie directly above LL- 35E-24C6. LL-35E-18C7 size /type: 18" CMP w /apron location: crosses 35E N of 64th St. flow: E to W sediment load: clear on E /submerged on W condition: good additional notes: two "star - shaped" concrete drop inlets lie directly above LL-35E -1807. One lies in ditch to E of Otter Lake Rd.., and the -other lies to E of 35E and W of Otter Lake Rd. A "star- shaped" drop inlet also lies directly above the pipe in the median of 35E. LL-35E -18011 size /type: 18" CMP w/ apron location: crosses S bound lane of 35E S of 64th St. flow: E to W sediment load: clear condition: good LL- 35E- 18A5a+b size /type: /8" ACP location: crosses 35E S of flow: W to E sediment load: Mtn W C1lb(on E3 condition: good additional notes: Ciia runs from W side of 35E into median; runs from median to E side of 35E Otter Lake Dr. • - 5 " -6" on E; somewhat choked w/ grass - clear LL-35E -18012 LL -18C8 size /type: 18" CMP w/ apron location: crosses N bound lane of 35E just N of LL- 35E -30A3 flow: W to E sediment load: clear condition: good size /type: 18" CMP location: crosses E base of Holly Dr. flow: N to S sediment load: i full on S /clear on N condition: OK alb 1.• LS t. L i L to r 1 1 I� t LL -15C9 LL -15C10 LL -2481 LL -24R2 LL -2483 LL -2484 LL-30R5 79 size /type: 15" CMP location: crosses Holly Dr. flow: S to N sediment load: clear conditions good size /type: 15" CMP location: crosses Holly Dr. flow: N to S sediment load: clear condition: good size /type: 24" RCP location : crosses Centerville Rd. just S of Holly Dr. flow: W to E sediment load: mostly clear conditions OK size /type: 24" RCP location: crosses Centerville Rd. N of Ash St. - flow: E to W sediment load: seriously obstructed on E by sticks /mud(beaver dam); mostly clear on W condition: OK size /type:_--24" -RCP location: crosses near E base of Ash St. at Centerville Rd. flow: S to N sediment loads 2/3 full on N /clear on S condition: fair - deteriorating(esp. on edges - steel support rods exposed); aging size /type: 24" RCP location: crosses Ash St. W of Centerville Rd. flow: N to S sediment loads i full on S /clear on N condition: OK - beginning to deteriorate around edges size /types 30" RCP locations crosses Ash St. W of Centerville Rd. flow: N to S • LL-30R6 LL-2L4R 7 sediment loads mostly clear condition: OK size /type: 30" RCP location: crosses Ash St. W of Centerville Rd. flow: E to W sediment load: i full on W /clear on E condition: OK size /type: 24" RCP location: crosses Co. Rd. J flows N to S sediment load: mostly clear conditions fair - deterioting around edges(steel Support rods exposed); aging 80 .t • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ok 1 111 inset 35E-3 A 1°1 dt 83 Appendix G Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 Chapter 8420 Act Rules BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT RULES CHAPTER 8420 Extracted from Minnesota Rules 1991, including amendments adopted through July 19, 1993. Printed: August 1993 Text Provided By The Office of Revisor of Statutes 7th Floor, State Office Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 Prepared By Print Communication Division (Minnesota's Bookstore) 117 University Avenue (Ford Bldg.) St. Paul, MN 55155 Metro: 612- 297 -3000, MN Toll Free: 1- 800 - 657 -3757 TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf) IO'I tn•7•r 1►RA* T 11 T.. 1 nnn / -•+ -+•+n/ ERRATA TO CHAPTER 8420 - AUGUST PRINTING ON PAGE 54, PART E, UNDER DEFINITION OF RR IN THE FORMULA, IT SHOULD READ TABLE 2, NOT TABLE 1. ON PAGE 55, PART F, UNDER DEFINITION OF RR IN THE FORMULA, IT SHOULD READ TABLE L NOT TABLE 1. PLEASE NOTE THESE CHANGES IN YOUR COPY OF THE RULE. • REVISOR'S CERTIFICATE I, Harry M. Walsh, am the revisor of statutes for the Minnesota Legislature. I am charged -by law to edit and publish the compiled rules for the State of Minnesota. These rules were extracted from Minnesota Rules 1991 and include amendments adopted and published in the State Register through July 19, 1993. This is a true copy of the rules as they existed on the date stated on the cover. Harry M. Walsh Revisor of Statutes CRAFTER 8420 BOARD OF MATER AND SOIL RESOURCES WETLAND CONSERVATION 8420.0100 PURPOSE. 8420.0105 SCOPE. 8420.0110 DEFINITIONS. 8420.0112 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. 8420.0115 SCOPE OF EXEMPTION STANDARDS. 8420.0120 EXEMPTION STANDARDS. PROCEDURES 8420.0200 DETERMINING LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT. 8420.0210 EXEMPTION DETERMINATIONS. 8420.0220 NO -LOSS DETERMINATIONS. 8420.0230 REPLACEMENT PLAN DETERMINATIONS. 8420.0235 WETLAND BANKING PROCEDURES. 8420.0240 TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL PROCEDURES. 8420.0245 OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT WETLAND RULES AND ORDINANCES. 8420.0250 APPEAL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISIONS. 8420.0260 PENALTY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT FAILURE TO APPLY LAW. 8420.0270 COMPENSATION. 8420.0280 APPEAL FROM BOARD DECISIONS. 8420.0290 ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES. MINING 8420.0300 MINING. HIGH PRIORITY REGIONS AND AREAS 8420.0350 HIGH PRIORITY REGIONS AND AREAS. WETLAND PRESERVATION AREAS 8420.0400 WETLAND PRESERVATION AREAS. STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING WETLAND REPLACNKEiT PLANS 8420.0500 PURPOSE. 8420.0505 INTERIM REPLACEMENT PLANS. 8420.0510 PROCEDURES. 8420.0520 SEQUENCING. 8420.0530 REPLACEMENT PLAN COMPONENTS. 8420.0540 REPLACEMENT PLAN EVALUATION CRITERIA. 8420.0550 WETLAND REPLACEMENT STANDARDS. 8420.0600 MONITORING. 8420.0610 DURATION OF MONITORING. 8420.0620 MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT. 8420.0630 MONITORING DETERMINATIONS BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR STATE WETLAND BANKING 8420.0700 PURPOSE. 8420.0710 DEFINITIONS. 8420.0720 PRINCIPLES OF WETLAND BANKING. 8420.0730 ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY. 8420.0740 PROCEDURES. 8420.0750 AUDITING AND MONITORING. 103G.201. This chapter is in addition to other regulations including those of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Department of Agriculture, Minnesota state agencies, watershed districts, and local governments. This chapter does not apply to peat mining as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 93.461, which is subject to the permit to mine and reclamation requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 93.44 to 93.51, and the rules of the commissioner adopted under those sections. This chapter does not require state agencies to obtain local government unit approvals. However, state agencies shall coordinate with local government units when conducting activities in wetlands within the jurisdiction of the local government unit. The state agencies shall follow the same sequencing and replacement requirements as prescribed by this chapter. In addition to the provisions of this chapter, governmental decisions on draining and filling of wetlands are subject to Minnesota Statutes, chapters 1168 and 116D, which provide that an action which is likely to have material adverse effects on natural resources must not be allowed if there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its natural resources. Economic considerations alone do not justify adversely effective actions. SA: MS s 14.06; 1038.101; 1038.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 8420.0110 DEFINITIONS. Subpart 1. Scope. The terms used in this chapter have the meanings given them in this part. Subp. 2. Act. "Act," when not used in reference to a specific state or federal act, means the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, Laws 1991, chapter 354, as amended by Laws 1993, chapter 175. Subp. 3. Activity. "Activity" means draining or filling a wetland wholly or partially. Subp. 4. Agricultural land. "Agricultural land," for use in part 8420.0120, subparts 7 and 8, means land devoted to the production of horticultural, row, close grown, introduced pasture, introduced hayland crops, and growing nursery stock. For use in all other places in this chapter, agricultural land means land devoted to the production of horticultural, row, close grown, introduced pasture, and introduced hayland crops, and to the pasturing of livestock and dairy animals, growing nursery stock, and animal feedlots, and shall include contiguous land and buildings under the same ownership associated with the production of the above, for example, farmyards. Subp. 5. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation projects, and similar structures. It does not include slash or woody vegetation, if the slash or woody vegetation originated from vegetation growing in the wetland and does not impair the flow or circulation of water or the reach of the wetland. Subp. 19. Floodplain wetland. "Floodplain wetland" means a wetland located in the floodplain of a watercourse, with no well defined inlets or outlets, including tile systems, ditches, or natural watercourses. This may include the floodplain itself when it exhibits wetland characteristics. Subp. 20. Flow - through wetland. "Flow- through wetland" means a wetland with both a well defined outlet and one or more well defined inlets, including tile systems, ditches, or natural watercourses. Subp. 21. Hydric soils. "Hydric soils" means soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Subp. 22. Hydrophytic vegetation. "Hydrophytic vegetation" means macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil, or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. Subp. 23. Impact. "Impact" means a loss in the quantity, quality, or biological diversity of a wetland caused by draining or filling. Subp. 24. Impacted wetland. "Impacted wetland" means a wetland that has been drained or filled, partially or wholly, and is subject to replacement. Subp. 25. Infrastructure. "Infrastructure" means storm water and sanitary sewer piping, outfalls, inlets, street subbase, roads, and ditches, culverts, bridges, and any other work defined specifically by a local government unit as constituting a capital improvement. Subp. 26. Introduced hayland. "Introduced hayland" means an area devoted to the production of forage and cultivated in a rotation of row crops or small grains or interseeded with introduced -or native species at least twice during the ten -year period - before January 1, 1991. The ten -year period may be enlarged to the 20 -year period before January 1, 1991, upon clear evidence of the qualifying practice in Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service or other aerial photographs or records, or the affidavit of a plant ecologist certified by the Ecological Society of America. These areas must be harvested by mechanical methods at least two years during the period January 1, 1986 to January 1, 1991. These areas are considered to be in agricultural crop production. Subp. 27. Introduced pasture. "Introduced pasture" means an area devoted to the production of forage and cultivated in a rotation of row crops or small grains or interseeded with introduced species at least twice during the ten -year period before January 1, 1991. The ten -year period may be enlarged to ' the 20 -year period before January 1, 1991, upon clear evidence Subp. 38. Public value of wetlands. "Public value of wetlands" means the public benefit and use of wetlands for water quality, floodwater retention, public recreation, commercial uses, and other public uses. Subp. 39. Public waters wetlands. "Public waters wetlands" means all types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands, as defined in United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition), that were inventoried by the department as public waters under Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.201. Subp. 40. Replacement wetland. "Replacement wetland" means a wetland restored or created to replace public values lost at an impacted wetland. Subp. 41. Restoration. "Restoration" means reestablishment of an area that was historically wetlands but currently provides no or minimal wetland functions due to manmade alteration such as filling or drainage. Subp. 42. Right -of -way acreage. "Right -of -way acreage" has the meaning given it in Minnesota Statutes, section 103E.285, subdivision 6. Subp. 43. Riverine wetland. "Riverine wetland" means a wetland contained within the banks of a channel that may contain moving water or that forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water. Subp. 44. Set aside. "Set aside" means the cropland acreage annually retired as a condition to landowner participation in United States Department of Agriculture commodity programs. Subp. 45. Silviculture. "Silviculture" means the scientific management of forest trees. Subp. 46. Soil and water conservation district. "Soil and water conservation district" means a legal subdivision of state government under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103C. Subp. 47. Soil Conservation Service. "Soil Conservation Service" means an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture. Subp. 48. Tributary wetland. "Tributary wetland " - means -a wetland with a well defined outlet, including tile systems, ditches, or natural watercourses, but without a well defined inlet. Subp. 49. Utility. "Utility" means a sanitary sewer, storm sewer, potable water distribution, and transmission, distribution, or furnishing, at wholesale or retail, of natural or manufactured gas, electricity, telephone, or radio service or communications. Subp. 50. Watershed. "Watershed" means the 81 major watershed units delineated by the map "State of Minnesota Watershed Boundaries — 1979" as produced by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Office of Planning and Research, Water Policy Planning Program, with funding from the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. 7 of Groundwater Resources in Minnesota (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1991). United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit Map for Minnesota. Minnesota Wetland Evaluation Methodology. State of Minnesota Watershed Boundaries - 1979 (a map). National Wetland Inventory maps (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). Anderson and Craig, 1984, Growing Energy Crops on Minnesota Wetlands: The Land Use Perspective. These documents are available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system, except the National Wetland Inventory maps, which are available at Minnesota soil and water conservation district offices. None of the documents are subject to frequent change. SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.101; 103B.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 8420.0115 SCOPE OF EXEMPTION STANDARDS. When considering if a drain or fill activity qualifies for an exemption listed in a specified clause of Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.2241, subdivision 1, the exemption standards in part 8420.0120 apply. An activity is exempt if it qualifies for any one of the exemptions, even though it may be indicated as not exempt under another exemption. These exemptions do not apply to calcareous fens as identified by the commissioner. No exemptions apply to wetlands that have been previously restored or created as a result of an approved replacement plan. All such wetlands are subject to replacement on subsequent drainage or filling. Nonexempt wetlands cannot be partially drained or filled in order to claim an exemption or no -loss determination on the remainder. Therefore, no exemptions or no -loss determinations can be applied to the remaining wetland that would not have been applicable before the impact. Present and future owners of wetlands drained or filled without replacement under an exemption in part 8420.0120, subparts 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 23, can make no use of the wetland area after it is drained or filled, other than as agricultural land, for ten years after the draining or filling, unless it is first replaced under the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.222, paragraph (g). Also, for ten years the wetland may not be restored for replacement • credit. At the time of draining or filling, the landowner shall record a notice of these restrictions in the office of the county recorder for the • county in which the project is located. At a minimum, the recorded document must contain the name or names of the landowners, a legal description of the property to which the 9 same requirements of subpart 2 for the exemption stated in Minnesota Statutes,' section 103G.2241, subdivision 1, clause (1), except that the years required are at least six of the ten . years preceding the year of enrollment in the conservation reserve program. The landowner must also state in writing that the wetland was not restored with assistance from a public or private wetland restoration fund, or that the restoration was done under a contract or easement providing the landowner with the right to drain the restored wetland. Subp. 3. Exemption (3). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (3) activities necessary to repair and maintain existing public or private drainage systems as long as wetlands that have been in existence for more than 20 years are not drained. This exemption allows maintenance which fills wetlands that have been in existence for more than 20 years when the wetlands are located within the right -of -way acreage of the ditch or within a one rod width on either side of the top of the ditch, whichever is greater, and the filling is limited to the side casting of spoil materials resulting from the maintenance and the spoil deposition area is permanently seeded into grass after maintenance activities are completed. The owner must provide documentation that the wetlands which will be partially or completely drained by the maintenance have not existed for more than 20 years. Aerial photographs from two years of normal or wetter than normal water level conditions showing no wetland are one form of acceptable documentation. If aerial photographs are unavailable, a sworn affidavit may be submitted. Otherwise, the landowner must show that the maintenance will not reduce the wetland from what it was 20 years ago or more. This exemption includes lowering the elevation of previously placed tile when made necessary by land subsidence provided the lowering does not drain wetlands. Subp. 4. Exemption (4). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (4) activities in a wetland that has received a commenced drainage determination provided for by the federal Food Security Act of 1985, that.was made to the county agricultural stabilization and conservation service office prior to September 19, 1988, and a ruling and any subsequent appeals or reviews have determined that drainage of the wetland had been commenced prior to December 23, 1985. The landowner must provide Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service documents confirming that the county agricultural stabilization and conservation service office determined before September 19, 1988, that drainage had begun before December 23, 1985, and that the determination has not been overturned by subsequent appeal or review and is not • currently under administrative review. 11 determined from the Cowardin (et al. 1979) classification system: PEM1A, PEMA, PEMJ, and PEM1J may be considered to be a type 1 wetland. This exemption applies if the wetland is all type 1 wetland, or is a combination of types 1 and 2 wetlands, on agricultural land, and the type 2 wetland area is less than two acres. Subp. 8. Exemption (8). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (8) activities in a type 2 wetland that is two acres in size or less located on agricultural land. The landowner must provide the same material as required from the landowner by subpart 7. The local government unit may seek the.advice of the technical panel as to whether the wetland is a type 2 wetland, two acres or less in size. The wetland size is the area within its boundary. The boundary must be determined according to the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands" (January 1989). The type of the wetland must be determined according to United State Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition). Alternatively, type can be determined from the Cowardin (et al. 1979) classification system: PEM1B and PEMB may be considered to be a type 2 wetland. This exemption applies if the wetland is a type 2 wetland, or is a combination of types 1 and 2 wetlands, on agricultural • land, and the type 2 wetland area is less than two acres. Subp. 9. Exemption (9). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (9) activities in a wetland restored for conservation purposes under a contract or easement providing the landowner with the right to drain the restored wetland. The landowner must provide a contract or easement conveyance or affidavit demonstrating that the landowner or a predecessor restored the wetland for conservation purposes but retained the right to subsequently drain the restored wetland. Subp. 10. - Exemption (10). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (10) activities in a wetland created solely as a result of: (i) beaver dam construction; (ii) blockage of culverts through roadways maintained by a public or private entity; (iii) actions by public entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland; or (iv) any combination of (i) to (iii). Wetland areas created by beaver activities may be drained by removing those materials placed by beaver. Drainage is permitted by removing or moving materials blocking installed roadway culverts and drainage structures. Additional excavation • or removal of other materials is not permitted unless it can be shown by aerial photographs that the proposed activity will not government unit after the emergency work has been completed. Subp. 13. Exemption (13). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (13) alteration of a wetland associated with the operation, maintenance, or repair of an interstate pipeline within all existing or acquired interstate pipeline rights -of -way. This exemption includes construction activities. Subp. 14. Exemption (14). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (14) temporarily crossing or entering a wetland to perform silvicultural activities, including timber harvest as part of a forest management activity, so long as the activity limits the impact on the hydrologic and biologic characteristics of the wetland; the activities do not result in the construction of dikes, drainage ditches, tile lines, or buildings; and the timber harvesting and other silvicultural practices do not result in the drainage of the wetland or public waters. This exemption is for temporary -use roads constructed for the primary purpose of providing access for the conduct of silvicultural activities. Subp. 15. Exemption (15). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (15) permanent access for forest roads across wetlands so long as the activity limits the impact on the hydrologic and biologic characteristics of the wetland; the construction activities do not result in the access becoming a dike, drainage ditch or tile line; with filling avoided wherever possible; and there is no drainage of the wetland or public waters. This exemption is the same as the exemption in subpart 14, except that it is for permanent forest roads which are roads constructed for the primary purpose of providing access for the conduct of silvicultural activities. Subp. 16. Exemption (16). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (16) activities associated with routine maintenance or repair of existing public highways, roads, streets, and bridges, provided the activities do not result in additional intrusion into the wetland outside of the existing right -of -way. This exemption does not prevent repairing washouts or adding material to the driving surface provided the road's occupancy of the wetland outside of the existing right -of -way does not increase. Subp. 17. Exemption (17). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (17) emergency repair and normal maintenance and repair of existing public works, provided the activity does not result in additional intrusion of the public works into the wetland and do not result in the draining or filling, wholly or partially, of a wetland. This exemption applies to public works other than roads, 15 act in effect on January 1, 1991, except that land enrolled in a federal farm program is eligible for easement participation for those acres not already compensated under a federal program. Documentation such as a written statement from the local Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service office that the proposed activity would not result in loss of eligibility for benefits under the farm program may be used as evidence for this exemption. If the activity would result in loss of eligibility, the landowner cannot qualify for the exemption by withdrawing from the program. Subp. 24. Exemption (24). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (24) development projects and ditch improvement projects in the state that have received preliminary or final plat approval, or infrastructure that has been installed, or having local site plan approval, conditional use permits, or similar official approval by a governing body or government agency, within five years before July 1, 1991. In the seven- county metropolitan area and in cities of the first and second class, plat approval must be preliminary as approved by the appropriate governing body. Subdividers who obtained preliminary plat approval in the specified time period, and other project developers with one of the listed approvals timely obtained, provided approval has not expired and the project remains active, may drain and fill wetlands, to the extent documented by the approval, without replacement. Those elements of the project that can be carried out without changing the approved plan and without draining or filling must be done in that manner. If wetlands can be avoided within the terms of the approved plan, they must be avoided. For county, joint county, and watershed district ditch projects, this exemption applies to projects that received final approval in the specified time period. Subp. 25. Exemption (25). A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for: (25) activities that result in the draining or filling of less than 400 square feet of wetlands. This exemption applies if the total wetland loss by draining and filling will be less than 400 square feet per year per landowner, and the cumulative impact by all persons on a wetland over time without replacement after January 1, 1992, does not exceed five percent of the wetland's area. SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.101; 103B.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 PROCEDURES 8420.0200 DETERMINING LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT. The local government unit responsible for making exemption and no -loss determinations and approving replacement plans shall 17 Is The landowner applying for exemption is responsible for submitting the proof necessary to show qualification for the particular exemption claimed. The local government unit may place the decision authority for exemption applications with the zoning administrator, or establish other procedures it considers appropriate. The local government unit decision shall be based on the exemptions standards in part 8420.0120. If the decision requires a finding of wetland size or type, the local government unit should seek the advice of the technical panel as described in part 8420.0240. A landowner draining or filling a wetland under an exemption shall ensure that appropriate erosion control measures are taken to prevent sedimentation of the water, the drain or fill does not block fish passage, and the drain or fill is conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including best management practices and water resource protection requirements established under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103H. SA: MS s 14.06; 1038.101; 1038.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 8420.0220 NO -LOSS DETERMINATIONS. A landowner unsure if proposed work will result in a loss of wetland may apply to the local government unit for a determination. A landowner who does not request a determination may be subject to the enforcement provisions in part 8420.0290 and Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.2372. The local government unit must keep on file all documentation and findings of fact concerning no -loss determinations for a period of ten years. The landowner applying for a no -loss determination is responsible for-submitting the proof necessary to show qualification for the claim. The local government unit may place the decision authority for no -loss applications with the zoning administrator, or establish other procedures it considers appropriate. The local government unit shall issue a no -loss certificate if the landowner requests and if either: A. the work will not drain or fill a wetland; B. water level management activities will not result in the conversion of a wetland to another land use; C. the activities are in a surface impoundment for containment of fossil fuel combustion waste or water retention, and are not part of a compensatory wetland mitigation program; or D. the activity is being conducted as part of an approved replacement plan or is conducted or authorized by public agencies for the purpose of wetland restoration and the activity is restricted to placing fill in a previously excavated drainage system to restore a wetland to its original condition. 19 than one - quarter acre of wetland, and result from a private road fill or the construction or expansion of a single - family dwelling unit or a farm building when the project cannot. be modified so as to avoid the fill. The local government unit decision shall be based on the replacement standards in parts 8420.0500 to 8420.0630, and on the technical determination of the technical evaluation panel concerning the public values, location, size, and type of the wetland being altered. The local government unit shall consider the recommendation of the technical evaluation panel to approve, modify, or reject the proposed replacement plan. For wetland replacement plans involving more than one local government unit, approval of all local government units involved or as specified in part 8420.0200 shall constitute final approval of the replacement plan and is required before the project may proceed. The local government unit with jurisdiction for the impact site must approve all components of the replacement plan, following the procedures in parts 8420.0500 to 8420.0630. The local government unit with jurisdiction for the replacement site shall limit the review to evaluation of the replacement site as in parts 8420.0540 to 8420.0630 and make a decision accordingly. As part of the approval of the replacement plan, the local government unit with jurisdiction for the replacement site assumes responsibility for ensuring compliance with monitoring provisions according to parts 8420.0600 to 8420.0630. The local. • government unit with jurisdiction for the replacement site may enter into joint powers agreements with a local government unit with jurisdiction for the impact site; assess fees, or develop other procedures considered necessary to facilitate the process. SA: MS s 14.06; 1038.101; 1038.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 8420.0235 WETLAND BANKING PROCEDURES. For wetland banking procedures, refer to parts 8420.0700 to 8420.0760. Appeals of the local government unit banking decisions are taken according to part 8420.0250. SA: MS s 14.06; 1038.101; 103B.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 8420.0240 TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL PROCEDURES. For each local government unit, there is a technical evaluation panel of three persons: a technical professional employee of the board, a technical professional employee of the soil and water conservation district of the county in which the activity is occurring, and a technical professional with expertise in water resources management appointed by the local • government unit. One member selected by the local government unit shall act as the contact person and coordinator for the panel. Two members of the panel must be knowledgeable and 21 decision. Appeal may be made by the landowner, by any of those required to receive notice of the decision, or by 100 residents of the county in which a majority of the wetland is located. Appeal is effective upon mailing of the notice of appeal to the board with an affidavit that a copy of the notice of appeal has been mailed to the local government unit. The local government unit shall then mail a copy of the notice of the appeal to all those to whom it was required by part 8420.0230 to mail a copy of the notice of decision. Subp. 2. Appeal of exemption and no -loss determinations. A. An exemption or no -loss determination may be appealed to the board by the landowner after first exhausting all local administrative appeal options. B. Those required to receive notice of replacement plan decisions as provided for in part 8420.0230 may petition the board to hear an appeal from an exemption or no -loss determination. The board shall grant the petition unless it finds that the appeal is meritless, trivial, or brought solely for the purposes of delay. In determining whether to grant the appeal, the board shall also give consideration to the size of the wetland, other factors in controversy, any patterns of similar acts by the local government unit or landowner or petitioner, and the consequences of the delay. C. The determination of the local government unit on the exemption or no -loss application is final unless an appeal or petition is mailed to the board within 30 days after the decision is mailed to the landowner. The appeal or petition must be accompanied by an affidavit that a copy has been sent to the local government unit, and to the landowner if it is a petition. Subp. 3. B' and appeal procedures. The appeal will be decided by the board within 60 days after receiving the notice of appeal and affidavit or granting the petition. Parties to the appeal are the appellant, the local government unit, and in the case of replacement plan appeals, all those required to receive notice of the local government unit decision. Upon appeal, the local government unit shall forward to the board the record on which it based its decision. The board will make its decision on the appeal after hearing. Thirty days' notice of the hearing shall be given by the board to the parties. The parties may present written and oral argument. When the local government unit has made formal findings contemporaneously with its decision and there is an accurate verbatim transcript of the proceedings and the proceedings were fairly conducted, the board will.base its review on the record. Otherwise it may take additional evidence, or remand the matter. The board will affirm the local government unit's decision if the local government unit's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous; if the local government unit correctly applied the 23 for compensation the applicant will convey to the state a perpetual conservation easement in the form required by Minnesota Statutes, section 103F.516. The applicant must provide an abstract of title demonstrating the ability to convey • the easement free of any prior title, lien, or encumbrance. Failure to provide marketable title negates the state's obligation to compensate. The applicant must submit official documentation from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the watershed district or water management organization if any, the county, and the town or city, as applicable, that the proposed drain or fill activity and the proposed subsequent use of the wetland are lawful under their respective legal requirements. The landowner must demonstrate that the proposed drain or fill is a feasible and prudent project and that the replacement plan as proposed is a reasonable good faith effort to fulfill the replacement requirements of parts 8420.0500 to 8420.0630 and the act. If the plan was approved, but with conditions or modifications, the applicant must show that the conditions or modifications make the replacement unworkable or not feasible. A plan is unworkable or not feasible if the replacement must be on land that the applicant does not own, the applicant has made good faith efforts to acquire a replacement site and not succeeded, and there is not a qualifying replacement available • in a wetland bank. A plan is also unworkable or not feasible if it is not possible to carry out for engineering reasons. The applicant must show that not going ahead with the proposed project will cause the applicant damages and that disallowing the proposed use will enhance the public values of the wetland. The applicant must submit the requirements in this part in writing, by certified mail, to the board. If the applicant wants to make oral argument to the board, it must be indicated as part of•the application. The board may require that the applicant appear before the board. If the board finds that the applicant has submitted a complete application and proved the requirements in this part, the board shall compensate the applicant as required by law within 90 days after the board received a completed application, provided that within the same time period the applicant must convey to the board a conservation easement in the form required by Minnesota Statutes, section 103F.516. If the board does not provide the required compensation in exchange for the conservation easement, the applicant may drain or fill the wetland in the manner proposed, without replacement. SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.101; 103B.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 25 unit or the technical evaluation panel shall make a decision within three weeks.from the date of the application. The local government unit or technical evaluation panel shall review evidence of exemption or no -loss produced by the landowner, inspect the site if necessary, and determine: (1) if the area in question is a wetland; and (2) if the activity qualifies for an exemption or no -loss determination under parts 8420.0210 and 8420.0220. In cases where the cease and desist order has been issued to a local government unit, the determination of exemption or no -loss shall be made by the board. If the decision is that the activity is exempt or results in a no -loss determination, the decision maker shall issue a certificate of exemption or no -loss, request that the enforcement authority rescind the cease and desist order, and notify the soil and water conservation district, the department, and the landowner. If the application is denied, the decision -maker shall immediately notify the soil and water conservation district, the department, the enforcement authority, and the landowner. Subp. 3. Restoration and replacement orders. The enforcement authority shall issue a restoration order or replacement order when the drain or fill has already been completed when discovered, or after a cease and desist order has been issued and the landowner does not seek an exemption or no -loss determination within three weeks, or the local government unit denies the application. Promptly upon being informed by the enforcement authority of the need, the soil and water conservation district staff person shall inspect the site and prepare a plan in consultation with the local government unit for restoring the site to its prealtered condition, unless the soil and water conservation district person concludes that restoration is impossible. The soil and water conservation district shall incorporate its plan into a restoration or replacement order and send it to the enforcement authority for service in person or by certified mail to the landowner. The restoration order must specify a date by which the landowner must either: A. restore the wetland according to the soil and water' conservation district plan and obtain a certificate of satisfactory restoration from the soil and water conservation district; or B. submit a replacement plan to the local government unit. The order shall state that it will be canceled when the landowner obtains a certificate of exemption or no -loss from the local government unit, or a certificate that restoration has been completed according to an approved restoration plan. Otherwise, the landowner must restore the wetland in the manner 27 approved but not initiated before July 1, 1993, until the operating plan or annual report as required in the permit to mine includes an approved wetland replacement plan for the undisturbed wetlands. The wetland replacement plan shall meet • the same principles and standards for replacing wetlands under parts 8420.0500 to 8420.0630; (2) for filling activities that were approved and initiated before July 1, 1993, the placement of fill atop a stockpile, roadway, or other mining- related facility that occupies a wetland filled before July 1, 1993, shall be allowed to continue within the areal extent, as it existed on July 1, 1993, of the stockpile, roadway, or other mining - related facility without the requirement of a replacement plan or amendment of the permit to mine. An expansion of the areal extent of the fill in the wetland requires an approved replacement plan in the operating plan or annual report as required in the permit to mine, according to subitem (1); (3) for draining activities that were approved and initiated before July 1, 1993, the draining of a wetland to facilitate mining, using ditches and other drainage facilities that existed on July 1, 1993, shall be allowed to continue without the requirement of a replacement plan or amendment of the permit to mine. Maintenance of the ditches and structures shall be allowed without the requirement of a replacement plan or amendment of the permit to mine, provided that as a result of the maintenance, wetlands are not drained beyond the extent that • existed as of July 1, 1993. Otherwise, the permit to mine must be amended to provide for replacement according to subitem (1). C. Applicable procedures are those required for permits to mine. D. This part shall not apply to peat mining as defined under Minnesota Statutes, section 93.461, that is subject to the mine permit and reclamation requirements under Minnesota Statutes, sections 93.44 to 93.51 and the rules of the commissioner adopted under those sections. E. Mining that is not subject to the permit and reclamation requirements under Minnesota Statutes, sections 93.44 to 93.51, must replace drained and filled wetlands according to parts 8420.0500 to 8420.0630. SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.101; 1038.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 HIGH PRIORITY REGIONS AND AREAS 8420.0350 HIGH PRIORITY REGIONS AND AREAS. Subpart 1. High priority regions. Parts of the state that are high priority regions for preservation, enhancement, restoration, and establishment of wetlands include all of the 411 counties that have lost 50 percent or more of their presettlement wetland base, which are those listed in part 29 recreation. Watersheds with a low wetland and watershed ratio should be considered as priority preservation and restoration areas. (3) Soil erosion rates. Wetlands located in watersheds where erosion rates are high are likely to have high value for water quality. Watersheds with high erosion rates should be considered as priority preservation and restoration areas. (4) Watershed gradient. Wetlands in watersheds where the difference between the highest and lowest points of the watershed is great are likely to have high value for flood water retention and water quality. Watersheds with a high gradient should be considered as priority preservation and restoration areas. (5) Surface water retention. Wetlands in watersheds where direct runoff is high are likely to have high value for flood water retention and water quality. Watersheds with high levels of direct runoff should be considered as high priority preservation and restoration areas. (6) Soil fertility. Wetlands in watersheds where soil fertility is high are likely to have high value for wildlife habitat and commercial uses. Watersheds with high soil fertility should be considered as high priority preservation and restoration areas. (7) Geology. Wetlands in watersheds with high subsurface permeability are likely to have high value for groundwater recharge and water quality. Watersheds with high subsurface permeability should be considered as high priority preservation and restoration areas. (8) Wetland complexes. Wetlands in watersheds where a diversity of wetland types and sizes are or were historically present are likely to have high value for public recreation. Watersheds with an existing or historical high diversity of wetland types should be considered as priority preservation and restoration areas. (9) Proximity to population centers. Wetlands in watersheds that are close to population centers are likely to have high value for water quality, flood water retention, public recreation, and commercial uses. Watersheds near population centers should be considered as high priority preservation and restoration areas. (10) Public ownership. Wetlands in watersheds with a high proportion of land in public ownership are likely to have high value for public recreation. These watersheds should be considered as high priority preservation and restoration areas. (11) Significant wildlife use. Wetlands in watersheds with current or historical records of use by significant numbers or species of wildlife or fish are likely to have high value for public recreation and commercial uses. 31 and water conservation district, the regional development commission, the local government unit, and the board. Subp. 4. Applicable statutes. In addition to this chapter, wetland preservation areas are subject to Minnesota Statutes, sections 103F.612 to 103F.616, and the property tax provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 272.02, subdivision 1, clause (10). SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.101; 103B.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING WETLAND REPLACEMENT PLANS 8420.0500 PURPOSE. Parts 8420.0500 to 8420.0630 specify the procedures and criteria for avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts and for ensuring adequate replacement of lost public values for unavoidable wetland impacts. SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.101; 1038.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 8420.0505 INTERIM REPLACEMENT PLANS. Replacement plans approved under the interim guidelines in Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.2369, must be completed in entirety by June 30, 1995. If the replacement plan is not completed by June 30, 1995, replacement of the impacted wetland becomes subject to the process and provisions in parts 8420.0500 to 8420.0630. This does not apply to phased projects approved during the interim period. Phased projects may be completed under the conditions and guidelines for which they were approved. SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.101; 103B.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 8420.0510 PROCEDURES. Subpart 1. Generally. No person shall drain or fill a wetland, wholly or partially, without first having a wetland value replacement plan approved by the governing body of the local government unit, or the lead local government unit if so designated by the board, consistent with parts 8420.0120 to 8420.0290, and provided that the activity is not prohibited under the special considerations provisions in part 8420.0540, subpart 9. Subp. 2. Preapplication conference and site visit. Before preparation of a wetland value replacement plan, it is recommended that the landowner meet with the local government unit for a preapplication conference and site visit. The local government unit is encouraged to inform the landowner of all sequencing requirements and the criteria used to evaluate replacement plans. A landowner may submit the information required in part 8420.0520 and request a determination of 33 unit before preparing a replacement plan. The local government unit may request additional information needed to make a determination. For projects impacting wetland areas less than 0.1 acres the local government unit may provide an on -site sequencing determination without written documentation from the applicant; except for projects which are located in wetlands adjacent to and within 1,000 feet of outstanding resource value waters as defined in chapter 7050; trout streams as designated in Commissioner's Order Number 2294; and trout lakes as designated in Commissioner's Order Number 2230. Subp. 3. Determination of impact avoidance. A. Avoidance must be required when indicated by part 8420.0540, subpart 9. B. Wetland dependence determination: (1) Based on information provided by the applicant, the local government unit shall determine if the proposed project is wetland dependent. A project is wetland dependent if wetland features, functions, or values are essential to fulfill the basic purpose of the project. A wetland present at the site of a proposed project does not make that project wetland dependent. (2) A project that has been determined by the local government unit to be wetland dependent is exempt from the analysis of avoidance alternatives in item C. C. Alternatives analysis: (1) The applicant shall provide the local government unit with documentation describing at least two alternatives in addition to the proposed project, one of which may be the no -build alternative, that would avoid impacts to wetlands. The alternatives may include consideration of alternate sites or alternative project configurations on the proposed site.,-The alternatives must be judged by the local government unit as good faith efforts, or the local government unit may require the applicant to redraft them for reconsideration. (2) The local government unit shall determine whether any feasible and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid impacts to wetlands. An alternative shall be considered feasible and prudent if it is capable of being done from an engineering point of view, is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices, is consistent with reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare, is an environmentally preferable alternative based on a review of social, economic, and environmental impacts, and would create no truly unusual problems. The local government unit shall consider the following in evaluating alternatives as applicable: (a) whether the basic project purpose can be reasonably accomplished using one or more other sites in the • same general area that would avoid wetland impacts. An 35 writing, its objections to the project. If, within 30 days, the applicant does not withdraw the project proposal or indicate intent to submit an amended project proposal satisfying the local government unit's objections, the statement of objections. shall constitute a denial. Subp. 5. Determination of impact rectification. Temporary impacts to a wetland must be rectified by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland. A. Activities may qualify for a no -loss determination in part 8420.0220 by meeting all of the following conditions: (1) the physical characteristics of the affected wetland, including ground elevations, contours, inlet dimensions, outlet dimensions, substrate, and hydrologic regime, are restored to preproject conditions sufficient to ensure that all preproject functions and values are restored; (2) the activity is completed and the physical characteristics of the wetland are restored within six months of the start of the activity; and (3) the party responsible for the activity provides a performance bond to the local government unit for an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost to restore the wetland to preproject conditions. The local government unit shall return the performance bond to the responsible party upon a determination by the local government unit that the conditions in this item and item B have been met. B. An applicant shall be granted a no -loss determination under the criteria in item A once in a ten -year period for a particular site within a wetland, except that repairs to the original project shall be allowed under the no -loss determination, if the local government unit determines the request to be necessary and reasonable. C. Wetland impacts that do not qualify for a no -loss determination according to the criteria in item A are subject to replacement under the criteria in parts 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. Subp.'6. Determination of reduction or elimination of impacts over time. After an activity is completed, further wetland impacts from the draining or filling must be reduced or eliminated by maintaining, operating, and managing the project in a manner that preserves and maintains remaining wetland functions and values. The local government unit must require applicants to implement best management practices to protect wetland functions and values. Subp. 7. Unavoidable impacts. Unavoidable wetland impacts that remain after efforts to minimize, rectify, or reduce or eliminate them must be replaced according to parts 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. • Subp. 8. Wetlands on cultivated fields. If the wetland is located on a cultivated field, replacement must be accomplished through restoration without regard to the priority order in subpart 1. A wetland drained or filled under this provision 37 sedge; (6) a soils map of the site showing soil type and substrate, where available; (7) the size of the watershed that drains surface water into the wetland as determined from a United States Government Survey topographical map or other suitable topographical survey; (8) the locations of any surface inlets or outlets, natural or otherwise, draining into or out of the wetlands, and if the wetland is within the floodplain of a stream, river, or other watercourse, the distance and direction to the watercourse; (9) a map, photograph, or written description of the land use of the immediate watershed within one mile of the impacted wetland. The surrounding land use information shall also indicate the presence and location, if any, of wetland preservation regions and areas, wetland development avoidance regions and areas, and wetland deficient regions and areas as identified in the comprehensive water plan; (10) the nature of the proposed project, its areal extent, and the impact on the wetland must be shown in sufficient detail to allow the local government unit to determine the amount and types of wetland to be impacted and to demonstrate compliance with the replacement sequencing criteria in part 8420.0520, if applicable; (11) evidence of ownership or rights to the affected areas, including a legal description. When two or more landowners are involved, including both the impact site and the proposed replacement site, a contract or other evidence of agreement signed by all landowners and notarized must be included with the replacement plan. The contract or agreement must contain an acknowledgment of the covenant provisions in item D, subitem (6), by landowners on which a replacement wetland is,proposed and the location and acreage of replacement wetlands. The contract becomes binding upon final approval of the— replacement plan; (12) a list of all other local, state, and federal permits and approvals required for the activity; and (13) other information considered necessary by the local government unit for evaluation of the activity; D. for the replacement wetland, item C, subitems (1) to (9) and (11) to (13), and: (1) an explanation of the size and type of wetland that will result from successful completion of the replacement plan; (2) scale drawings showing plan and profile views of the replacement wetland and fixed photo - reference points for monitoring purposes. Photo - reference points should include views of any control structures and enough additional points to adequately depict the entire project; 39 replacement plan in meeting the project goal in subitem (1), and as specified in parts 8420.0610 and 8420.0620; and (12) other information considered necessary for evaluation of the project by the local government unit. E. The applicant must provide information known to the applicant or readily available concerning the special considerations criteria in part 8420.0540, subpart 9. SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.101; 103B.3355 GIST: 18 SR 274 8420.0540 REPLACEMENT PLAN EVALUATION CRITERIA. Subpart 1. Sequencing. Before consideration or approval of a replacement plan, the local government unit must ensure that the applicant has exhausted all possibilities to avoid and minimize adverse wetland impacts according to sequencing in part 8420.0520. The applicant must demonstrate to the local government unit that the replacement plan complies with this part and part 8420.0550. Subp. 2. Type of replacement. The order of preference for the method of replacement, from most preferred to least preferred, is project- specific restoration, project- specific creation, then wetland banking. Modification or conversion of nondegraded wetlands from one wetland type to another, for example by impoundment of additional water, does not constitute adequate replacement. Wetlands drained or filled under an exemption may not be restored for replacement credit for ten years after draining or filling. Subp. 3. Timing of replacement. Replacement of wetland values must be completed before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland, unless an irrevocable bank letter of credit or other security acceptable to the responsible government unit is submitted to the responsible government unit to guarantee successful completion of the replacement. All wetlands to be restored- or =cr eated for replacement must be designated for replacement before restoration or creation. Submission to the local government unit of the information required in part 8420.0530 and subsequent approval shall be considered evidence of designation for replacement, provided the information is submitted before the actual restoration or creation. Subp. 4. Location of replacement wetlands. Replacement wetlands shall be located within the same watershed or county as the impacted wetlands, except that counties or watersheds in which 80 percent or more of the presettlement acreage is intact may accomplish replacement in counties or watersheds in which 50 percent or more of the presettlement wetland acreage has been filled, drained, or otherwise degraded. Replacement wetlands should be located as close to the impacted wetland as possible, preferably in the same watershed. 41 REMAINING ACREAGE OF PRESETTLEMENT WETLANDS Figure 1. Distribution of remaining acreage of presettlement wetlands by county with watersheds super- imposed. Adapted from: Anderson and Craig, 1984. 43 REMAINING ACREAGE OF PRESETTLEMENT WETLANDS Figure 1. Distribution of remaining acreage of presettlement wetlands by county with watersheds super-imposed. Adapted from: 411 Anderson and Craig, 1984. • 43 REMAINING ACREAGE OF PRESETTLDIENT WETLANDS Figure 1. Distribution of remaining acreage of presettlement wetlands by county with watersheds super- imposed. Adapted from: Anderson and Craig, 1984. 43 program will not be approved if the local government unit determines that the proposed activities will permanently . adversely affect the natural community. C. Special fish and wildlife resources. A replacement plan for activities that would have a significant adverse impact that cannot be mitigated on a special or locally significant fish and wildlife resource will not be approved. These activities include, but are not limited to: (1) fish passage and spawning areas; (2) colonial waterbird nesting colonies; (3) migratory waterfowl concentration areas; (4) deer wintering areas; and /or (5) wildlife travel corridors. Activities involving streams must not block fish passage unless approved by the department. D. Archaeological or historic sites. A replacement plan for activities that involve the modification of known archaeological or historical sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, as designated by the state historic preservation officer, will not be approved if the local government unit determines that the proposed activities will have a significant adverse impact on the archaeological or historical value of the site. E. Groundwater sensitivity. A replacement plan for activities will not be approved if the local government unit determines the activities would have a significant adverse impact on groundwater quality. The publication "Criteria and Guidelines for Assessing Geologic Sensitivity of Ground Water Resources in Minnesota" (MDNR, 1991) may be used as a guide in determining potential impacts. F. Sensitive surface waters. A replacement plan will not.be approved if the local government unit determines the activities will have a significant adverse impact on the water quality of outstanding resource value waters listed in part 7050.0180 or on trout waters designated by the commissioner. G. Education or research use. Wetlands known to be used for educational or research purposes must be maintained or adequately replaced. H. Waste disposal sites. The local government unit must evaluate the type and amount of waste material found at the site. Activities involving known or potential hazardous wastes or contaminants must be conducted according to applicable federal and state standards. I. Consistency with other plans. The local government unit must consider the extent to which proposed activities are consistent with other plans, such as watershed management plans, land use plans, zoning, and master plans. Subp. 10. Evaluation of wetland functions and values. A. Evaluation options. Replacement wetlands must replace the functions and values that are lost from a wetland 45 PSSY PSB 6 PSSZ PSC 6 PSSU PSC 6 PFOA PFA 1 PFOB PFB 7 PFOC PFC 7 PFOD PFC 7 PFOE PFC 7 PFOF PFC 7 PFOG PFC 7 PFOE PFC 7 PFOJ PFA 1 PFOR PFC 7 PFOW PFA 1 PFOY PFB 7 PFOZ PFC 7 PFOU PFC 7 PML (all) PSX 8 PAS (all) PA 5 PUB (all) PU 5 PRB (all) PU 5 POW (all) PU 5 PUS (all) PU 5 Ll (a1L) L2 (all) Ll L2 R2 (all) R2 R3 (all) R3 R4 (all) R4 5* 5 * Circular No. 39 does not classify deep water as a wetland type, but for purposes of this table, these areas can be approximated as a type 5. ** No equivalent. Circular No. 39 does not address riverine wetlands. NOTE: In the case of wetland identified using the Cowardin system with both numerator and denominator wetland types, the numerator type is considered the dominant wetland type, with the exception that the denominator wetland type is to be used when the numerator wetland type vegetation is dead. Table 4, in part 8420.0550, provides technical specifications for constructing wetland types. In evaluating a 47 functions lost as a result of drainage or filling are to be replaced by creating a wetland or restoring a wetland of a different type than the impacted wetland, or if the replacement Aft wetland is in a watershed other than the impacted wetland or had different inlet and outlet characteristics than the impacted wetland, the replacement shall be considered to be out -of -kind and the local government unit shall use the replacement ratios in this subpart to determine the amount of replacement wetland needed to replace the lost wetland values. (1) Wetland type ratio. Differences in wetland functions and values among wetland types are to be evaluated and replaced using the wetland type ratio table in this part, to be applied as specified in subitem (5). The wetland type ratio table incorporates an evaluation of public values as specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 1038.3355, for the purposes of comparison among wetland types. If a wetland to be drained or filled exhibits more than one wetland type as determined by the technical evaluation panel, and more than one wetland type is proposed- to - -be drained or. filled, the local government unit shall use the following procedure to determine needed replacement. The acreage of each wetland type to be converted to nonwetland shall be determined. The wetland type ratio table shall then be used to determine the amount of replacement wetland for each wetland type. The sum of the replacement for each wetland type shall be the resultant acreage requirement for the wetland type ratio. 410 49 *See text of subpart 10, item B, for wetland classification equivalency. NOTE: Wetland types Ll, L2, and R2 are generally not subject to this chapter and cannot be used for wetland replacement, but are included for possible future coordination purposes. (2) Hydrologic unit ratio. (a) Except as noted in unit (b), when a replacement wetland is located in a different hydrologic unit than the impacted wetland, as indicated by the United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit Map for Minnesota (Figure 2), the following ratios must be applied, as specified in subitem (5): Location of sites Replacement ratio Within same watershed 0.0 Different watershed 0.1 Different accounting unit 0.3 Different subregion 0.5 Different region_ 1.0 (b) The hydrologic unit ratio does not apply when replacement for impacts within counties or watersheds having 80 percent or more of their presettlement wetland acreage intact is accomplished in counties or watersheds in which 50 percent or more of the presettlement acreage has been drained or filled. (3) Inlet and outlet characteristics ratio. If the inlet and outlet characteristics of a replacement wetland differ from those of the impacted wetland, the following ratios shall be applied, as specified in subitem (5). The inlet and outlet characteristics ratio does not apply when replacement for impacts within counties or watersheds having 80 percent or more of their presettlement wetland acreage intact is accomplished in counties or watersheds in which 50 percent or more of the presettlement acreage has been drained or filled. Table 3. Inlet and Outlet Characteristics. Impact Replacement Flow- Tributary Floodplain Isolated Wetland Wetland Through Riverine Riverine 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 Flow - Through 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.8 Tributary 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 Floodplain 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.2 Isolated 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.0 51 STATE OF MINNESOTA WATERSHED BOUNDARIES - 1979 (81 MAJOR WATERSHED UNITS) Figure 3. 80 9 tri r0 14 °116,110° 6 71 75 4,t41164* 62 41: 57 20: . 38 81 �:40 82 46 S3 (4) Local public value ratio. A local government unit may by ordinance establish additional local public value ratios to address wetland conservation or preservation issues of local concern. These ratios must have a minimum value of zero and should be based on wetland management objectives of a local water management plan adopted under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103B or 103D. The local preservation ratios must be applied as specified in subitem (5). (5) Application of replacement ratios. The required replacement ratio for out -of -kind replacement shall be the sum of the wetland type ratio plus the hydrologic unit ratio plus the inlet and outlet characteristics ratio plus the local public value ratio. When this ratio is less than the minimum in -kind ratio of 1:1 for wetlands on agricultural land or in counties or watersheds in which 80 percent or more of the presettlement wetland acreage exists, or 2:1 for wetlands on nonagricultural lands in counties where 50 percent or less of presettlement wetlands exist, the minimum in -kind ratio shall be the required replacement ratio. E. Determining impacts of partial drainage. In cases where wetlands will be partially or incompletely drained, the amount of wetland to be replaced must be determined according to the following formula: 1 Where: NI =OA - - - -(RA) RR NI = Net impact (acres of original wetland type to be replaced) OA = Original acreage of original wetland type RR = Replacement ratio, determined from table 20, using the original wetland type as the impacted wetland type and the wetland type resulting from the partial drainage as the replacement wetland type RA = .Remaining acres of the original wetland Calculation of partial drainage credit is explained by the following example: A ten -acre type 3 (PEMC) wetland is partially drained resulting in a five -acre type 1 (PEMA) wetland. (NI = 10 - 1/3(5) = 8 1/3) Eight and one -third acres of type 3 wetland is the net impact subject to replacement. F. Determining credit for restoration of partially drained wetlands. In cases where partially drained wetlands are restored to their former state, the acres credited for restoring a partially drained wetland is in two parts. The first is the new wetland credit (NWC) caused by the restoration (for example, if the prerestoration wetland is one acre and postrestoration will be three acres, the new wetland credit is two acres). The second credit is for the change in value of the prerestoration wetland acres. This is the public value credit (PVC) and must 54 satisfied. Ten acres must still be found to satisfy the 2:1 requirement. Site one still has three and one -third acres of public value credit, as does site two; (3 1/3 + 3 1/3 = 6 2/3). An additional three and one -third acres of either new wetland ' credit or public value credit must be found to meet the additional acreage requirements. G. Special cases or appeals. For projects of unusual complexity, or replacement plans that have been denied and are being appealed, and for which the local government unit believes an alternative evaluation process may produce a substantially different replacement requirement, the local government unit may evaluate the replacement plan using the current version of the Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology or another scientifically accepted methodology approved by the board, in consultation with the commissioner, that evaluates all wetland functions and values for both the impacted and replacement wetlands. When using the Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology or another board, in consultation with the commissioner, approved methodology to evaluate replacement plans, the ratio of impact wetland to replacement wetland must not be less than the minimum acreage requirements as listed in part 8420.0540, subpart 6. Further, the hydrologic unit ratio in item D, subitem (2), the inlet and outlet characteristics ratio in item D, subitem (3), and the local public value ratio, if any, in item D, subitem (4), must also be considered when using the Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology or another board, in consultation with the commissioner, approved methodology. H. Adequacy decision. A replacement plan that fails to meet the requirements in items A to G must be considered inadequate in replacing lost functions and values and shall not be approved by the local government unit. A replacement plan that has been considered by the local government unit and not approved may be revised and resubmitted for consideration by the local government unit. As required by part 8420.0250, the decision of a local government unit to approve, approve with conditions, or not approve a replacement plan becomes final if not appealed to the board within 30 days after the date on which the decision is mailed to those required to receive notice of the decision. Before construction of the replacement wetland may proceed, the notice specified in part 8420.0530, item D, subitem (6), must be recorded and proof of recording provided to the local government unit. I. Replacement wetlands eligible for RIM. A landowner who drains or fills a wetland and replaces it by restoring an impacted wetland on the landowner's property under an approved replacement plan may apply to the board for enrollment of the replacement wetland into the Reinvest in Minnesota program no sooner than one year after completion of the replacement project. 56 • G. Sideslopes of created wetlands and buffer strip must not be steeper than 5:1, five feet horizontally for every one foot vertically as averaged .around the wetland. Sideslopes of 10:1 to 15:1 are preferred. H. Created wetlands should have an irregular edge to create points and bays to be consistent with part 8420.0540, subpart 8. 58 government unit may extend the required monitoring period for not more than an additional five -year period if, at the end of the initial five -year period, the goal of the replacement plan has not been achieved, but may be achieved with more time. SA: MS s 14.06; 1038.101; 1038.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 8420.0620 MONITORING ANNUAL REPORT. Subpart 1. Purpose. The purpose of the annual report is to describe actual wetland restoration or creation activities completed during the past year, activities planned for the upcoming year, and the information in subpart 2. The applicant shall submit the annual report to the local government unit on a date determined by the local government unit until the applicant has fulfilled all of the requirements of the local government unit. The local government unit, at its discretion, may prepare the annual report for the applicant. Subp. 2. Report content. The annual report shall include the following information and other site - specific information identified by the local government unit: A. a description of the project location, size, current wetland type (Cowardin classification), and desired wetland type (goal); B. a comparison of the as -built specifications versus the design specifications (first annual plan only) and a rationale for significant changes; C. hydrology measurements: seasonal water level elevations during the period April through October (msl or referenced to a known bench mark); D. a list of the dominant vegetation in the wetland, including common names of the vegetation exceeding 20 percent coverage and an estimate of coverage, for example, 50 percent willow, 20 percent cattail, and 30 percent sedge; and E. color photographs of the project area taken anytime during the period June through August, referenced to the fixed photo- reference points identified on the wetland replacement plan and labeled accordingly. SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.101; 103B.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 8420.0630 MONITORING DETERMINATIONS BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT. The local government unit responsible for monitoring as determined under part 8420.0230: A. must inspect the project when construction is complete and certify compliance with construction specifications, and may inspect the project at any time during the construction and monitoring period, and any time after that to assess the long -term viability of the replaced wetland. When the local government unit certifies that the construction specifications have been met, the local government unit shall so 60 agency, or organization that is the owner of credits. Subp. 4. Applicant. "Applicant" is a person, corporation, government agency, or organization that makes an application to withdraw wetland credits from the wetland bank. Subp. 5. Credits or wetland credits. "Credits" or "wetland credits" means acres or parts of acres of restored or created wetland, catalogued by abbreviated Cowardin, et al. wetland type from part 8420.0540, subpart 10, item B, and inlet and outlet characteristics deposited in the wetland bank. Subp. 6. State wetland banking system, wetland bank, or bank. "State wetland banking system," "wetland bank," or "bank" means a system of identifying wetlands restored or created for replacement credit, providing for, and facilitating and tracking the exchange of wetland credits for projects that require replacement plans. SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.101; 103B.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 8420.0720 PRINCIPLES OF WETLAND BANKING. Subpart 1. Goal. Implementation of a wetland banking system must comply with the purposes and goals of the act by achieving a no -net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands. Subp. 2. Sequencing prerequisite. The state wetland banking system may only be used for replacement of drained or filled wetlands when the local government unit determines that the applicant has complied with all of the sequencing requirements of part 8420.0520; that the project would otherwise be allowed if adequate replacement could be secured by the applicant; that project- specific replacement is not reasonable or desirable; and that the owner of the account agrees to the withdrawal of credits from the account. Subp. 3. Geographic limitations. In counties having greater than 80 percent of their presettlement wetlands intact, wetland banking is allowed for any impact. Wetland banking in counties with less than 80 percent of their presettlement wetlands intact can be considered only in situations involving impacts of less than five acres, except in certain circumstances as noted in part 8420.0740, subpart 2, item B, subitem (2). Subp. 4. Eligible wetlands. Restored wetlands are eligible for deposit into the wetland bank. Created wetlands are eligible for deposit in the wetland bank in counties in which 80 percent or more of the presettlement wetlands are intact. In other counties, created wetlands are eligible for deposit in the bank only if they are created by excavation in nonwetlands, by dikes or dams along public or private drainage ditches, or by dikes or dams associated with the restoration of previously drained or filled wetlands. Modification or z..� conversion of nondegraded naturally occurring wetlands from one type to another are not eligible for enrollment in a statewide 62 the monitoring provisions in part 8420.0750 are fulfilled. A local government unit may decline to certify all wetlands within its jurisdiction or, based on a comprehensive local water plan, a local government unit may elect to certify wetlands for deposit into the wetland bank only in selected areas, for example, high priority regions and areas. If the local government unit elects to reject or limit banking, it must do so by rule or ordinance, as applicable. Subp. 3. Annual report. Each.local government unit participating in the wetland bank shall submit an annual report to the board on a form prescribed by the board. SA: MS s 14.06; 103B.101; 10311.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 8420.0740 PROCEDURES. Subpart 1. Deposits and credits. A. Restored wetlands are eligible for deposit into the wetland bank. Created wetlands are eligible for deposit in the wetland bank in counties in which 80 percent or-more-of the presettlement wetlands are intact. In other counties,- created wetlands are eligible for deposit in the bank only if they are created by excavation in nonwetlands, by dikes or dams along public or private drainage ditches, or by dikes or dams associated with the restoration of previously drained or filled wetlands. Modification or conversion of nondegraded naturally occurring wetlands from one type to another are not eligible for enrollment in a statewide wetlands bank.. B. Wetland replacement credits approved before July 1, 1993, are eligible for deposit into the state wetland banking system if the wetland replacement credit was authorized by a public agency specifically for a wetland bank that has been approved by the commissioner. Also, wetland replacement credits that have been deposited in a local government unit bank before July 1, 1993, and after January 1, 1992, are eligible for deposit into the state wetland banking system if the deposit meets all the criteria in parts 8420.0700 to 8420.0760 based on a site inspection and review by the board and the commissioner. C. After July 1, 1993, wetlands restored or created without prior local government unit approval as specified in this part are not eligible for deposit into the wetland bank. D. The minimum wetland acreage eligible to establish an account in the wetland bank is 0.1 acres. E. There is no maximum wetland acreage eligible for deposit in the wetland bank. The local government unit, upon recommendation of the technical evaluation panel, must identify the acreage that will receive credit. As an incentive to encourage the deposit of small wetlands, the local government unit shall assign credit to wetland acreage as follows: Wetland Credit Acreage 64 construction specifications is sufficient grounds for the local government unit to deny consideration of the wetland for banking. R. No sooner than six months after construction has been completed and approved for restored wetlands, and no sooner than one year after construction has been completed and approved for created wetlands, the depositor shall contact the local government unit to request a final determination of wetland bank acceptability and approved quantities of wetland credits for deposit. The technical evaluation panel shall ensure that sufficient time has been allowed for the wetland to become established, especially vegetation and hydrology, before making this determination. If the technical evaluation panel has reason to believe that the wetland characteristics may change substantially, the panel must postpone its recommendation to the local government unit until the wetland has stabilized. Based on a site visit, the technical evaluation panel will determine the size and type of wetland, using the abbreviated Cowardin et al. classification in part 8420.0540, subpart 10, item -B, as well as inlet and- outlet characteristics resulting from the to be deposited wetland. The technical evaluation panel will provide the information to the local government unit. L. The local government unit shall notify the depositor of its findings as to the suitability of the wetland and approved wetland credits. If the depositor chooses to proceed with a deposit into the bank, the depositor must record the notice specified in part 8420.0530, item D, subitem (6), and submit proof of the recording to the local government unit for the wetlands to be deposited. If the depositor chooses not to proceed with the deposit, the depositor may return the wetland to its preconstruction condition without replacement within five years. At any time within the five -year period, the depositor may request certification for deposit into the bank or may amend the bank plan and submit the plan to the local government unit for approval and subsequent certification. After five years, any activity in the wetland is subject to this chapter. M. To be deposited into the bank, the following information concerning the wetland must be submitted to the board by the local government unit in which the wetland is located: (1) name, address, and telephone number of the depositor; (2) location of the wetland, including legal description, public land survey coordinates, county, and watershed; (3) a copy of the deed for the property containing the wetland with the required covenant recorded; (4) size of the wetland acreage to be deposited, to the 0.1 acre, by wetland type, using the abbreviated Cowardin, et al. classification in part 8420.0540, subpart 10, item B, and inlet and outlet characteristics; and 66 and watershed. E. The applicant may then contact, negotiate, and purchase the required wetland acreage from the account holder. When the account holder and applicant come to agreement, the applicant will provide requested information on a notarized credit transfer form developed by the board, and include the credit transfer form as part of the wetland replacement plan transmitted to the local government unit. The credit transfer form will include information indicating the wetland type by acres for transferal, location of banked wetland, and the inlet and outlet characteristics of the banked wetland. F. The local government unit must circulate the applicant's wetland replacement plan and the credit transfer form to identify specific wetland bank credits as the applicable replacement wetland, using the public comment and review process in part 8420.0230 and to the local government unit whose jurisdiction covers the location of the wetland bank acreage. The local government unit must contact the board to verify that replacement credits indicated on the credit transfer form are available before final approval of wetland bank withdrawals. G. Wetlands impacted by public transportation projects may be replaced statewide, provided the replacements are approved by the commissioner under an established wetland banking system or under the rules for wetland banking as provided for in parts 8420.0700 to 8420.0760. The commissioner shall notify the local government unit and the board of the decision within 30 days of the date that the replacement plan is received by the commissioner. If the commissioner does not approve the replacement plan, the local government unit shall not approve the replacement plan. H. On approval of the applicant's wetland replacement plan using wetland bank acreage as wetland replacement, the local government unit shall notify the board to debit the appropriate banked wetland by type and acreage. The board will complete the accounting transactions and send a notice of credit transfer to the account holder. I. The applicant shall not be allowed to begin proposed drain or fill activities until the local government unit formally approves the wetland replacement plan using the acknowledged wetland bank credits as replacement. J. An individual, corporation, local government unit, or other organization may buy and hold credits from account holders in the bank for later use or resale. Transfer of credits must be accomplished through use of a board credit transfer form, and must be maintained in an account in the state wetland banking system. An account will be established for the individual or organization on presentation to the board of a credit transfer form, and required organization information. The board will notify both account holders on transfer of the wetland credits. An account transfer must be accompanied by 68 8420.0760 ENFORCEMENT AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. A. Enforcement of parts 8420.0700 to 8420.0750 is 410 governed by part 8420.0290 and Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.2372. B. If, on inspection, the board determines that wetlands deposited in the wetland bank are not in compliance with this chapter, the board must prescribe corrective measures to the local government unit to bring the wetland into compliance. C. If satisfactory remediation does not result, the board may refuse future wetland bank certifications by the local government unit and require all wetland replacements to be on a project- specific basis. D. If a local government unit determines that a banked wetland does not substantially meet the specifications in the approved bank plan, the local government unit must notify the board, and the board shall restrict further withdrawals from the account until the local government unit notifies the board that the wetland has been brought into compliance.. The board may also restrict withdrawals when a local government unit is the account holder and the board determines that a banked wetland does not substantially meet the specifications in the approved bank plan. E. The local government unit or the board can undertake reconstruction work and require reimbursement of reasonable costs from the fee title owner or easement or license holder. SA: MS s 14.06; 1038.101; 103B.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 • STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION, PROTECTION,.,AND MANAGEMENT OF CALCAREOUS FENS 8420.1010 PURPOSE. The purpose of parts 8420.1010 to 8420.1060 is to provide minimum standards and criteria for the identification, protection, and management of calcareous fens as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.223. Calcareous fens may not be drained or filled or otherwise altered or degraded except as provided for in a management plan approved by the commissioner. Part 8420.0120 does not apply to calcareous fens. SA: MS s 14.06; 1038.101; 1038.3355 HIST: 18 SR 274 8420.1020 IDENTIFYING CALCAREOUS FENS. A calcareous fen is a peat - accumulating wetland dominated by distinct groundwater inflows having specific chemical characteristics. The water is characterized as circumneutral to alkaline, with high concentrations of calcium and low dissolved oxygen content. The chemistry provides an environment for 70 Appendix H M.S. 103B.3365 Water Retention Law Guidelines on Water Retention A guide for local governments on how to comply with. Minnesota Statutes 103B.3365 when approving developments creating inore.. pp g than one acre of .impervious surface. 7w ONO Minn -.Ito . 11 . &Sock Resources orwwwwwww Developed by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 155 S. Wabasha Suite 104 St. Paul, MN 55107 612- 296 -3767 August 1993 August 25, 1993 Guidelines on Water Retention Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.3365 Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Overview of Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.3365: During the 1991 legislative session, a law was enacted that required local governments to require the provision of water retention devices or areas for all developments in Minnesota that create more than one acre, cumulatively, of impervious "surface. A copy of the law, Chapter 160, Laws of 1991, is included as Attachment A. The law is codified as Section 103B3365 of the Minnesota Statutes. The law was effective August 1, 1991 and directed the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to develop guidelines to assist local government with implementing Subdivision 1 of the law. These guidelines reflect the comments received by the BWSR on four separate drafts of the guidelines from state agencies involved with water management in addition to various associations either representing local governments or water management interests. These guidelines may be subject to change at some future date based on feedback received. Questions relating to these guidelines should be directed to the nearest Board Conservationist representing your area or to: Brace Sandstrom Board of Water and Soil Resources 155 South Wabasha Street St. Paul, MN 55107 Phone: (612) 297 -4958 While there is no specific penalty for non - compliance, local governments must comply with the law to avoid possible citizen lawsuits relating to mal, non or misfeasance. Likewise, state agencies could withhold approvals of projects under their jurisdiction if a local government is not making a good faith effort to enforce this law. Local governments who are lacking controls which provide for specific performance standards for erosion control and storm water design with respect to waterborne nutrients and rate control should seriously consider adopting some stop -gap controls that accomplish this as soon as possible. Below are three key highlights of MS 103B3365: 8/25/93 Version 1 Local governments should also note that MS 103B.3365 requires that local water management plans specify controls that implement best available technology to: • minimize off-site. runoff • maximize overland flow over vegetated surfaces • replicate pre - development hydrologic conditions • minimize off -site discharge of pollutants to ground or surface water • encourage natural filtration functions While these guidelines are not rules and consequently do not have the force and effect of law, local governments will avoid excessive scrutiny and potential citizen lawsuits if they can demonstrate that they are in compliance with these guidelines. Local governments may not require a state agency (such as the Minnesota Department of Transportation or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) to comply with this law. When local agencies review state projects, attention should be given to whether MS 103B3365 would apply if the project was in fact a private project. In such cases, the local government and the state agency should cooperate to the degree practical to provide for adequate retention of surface water. Instances where a state agency is uncooperative should be brought to the attention of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. • Part IL - Definitions. The following definitions apply to interpretations of Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.3365 and these guidelines: Subpart L Best Available Technology or BAT. Best available technology means Best Management Practice or BMP. Subpart 2. Best Management Practice or BMP. Best management practice means erosion and sediment control and water quality management practices that are the most effective and practicable.means of controlling, preventing, and minimizing degradation of surface water, including construction-phasing, minimizing the length of time soil areas are exposed, prohibitions, and other management practices published by state or designated area wide planning agencies. Subpart 3. Impervious Surface. Impervious surface means a constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than prior to development Examples include, but are not limited to, rooftops, sidewalks, patios, storage areas, and roads, streets, driveways and parking lots constructed of concrete, asphalt or compacted soils. Subpart 4. New development. New development means any project, including re- development projects that create more than one acre of impervious surface over what 8/25/93 Version 3 wetlands in proper manner. Wetlands can serve essentially as tertiary treatment to storm water runof, provided the nutrient and sediment load of the runoff water receives. adequate pretreatment in order to preserve a wetland's natural functions and values. In some cases this may mean only removing fine sands, in other cases it may mean the removing 95 percent of the sediment load of the runoff Subpart 1. - The Use of "Wet Ponds" in Meeting the Retention Requirement The treatment of storm water runoff from projects reviewed in accordance with any one of the following will meet the intent of the 'water retention" requirement Projects approved by a watershed management organization in the seven- county metropolitan area that certifies that the development conforms with - its watershed management plan (Plan) adopted in conformance with - Section 103B.231, provided the Plan specifies pond design standards for, managing both water quality and quantity, b. Projects approved by a local governmental unit (LGU) in the seven- county metropolitan area that certifies that the development conforms with its local water plan adopted in conformance with Section 103B.235, provided the local wateunanagement plan specifies pond design standards for - managing both water Quality and quantity. — c. Projects approved by a local governmental unit outside the seven - county metropolitan area that certifies the development conforms with the county comprehensive local water management plan (Plan), approved and adopted in conformance with Section 103B.325, provided the BWSR's approval of said Plan included certification that the Plan is compliant with Section 103B.3365, Projects approved by a local governmental unit within the seven county metropolitan area that has adopted and is enforcing_ local controls relating to storm water design and erosion control consistent with (at a minimmn) Parts 8.1 to 8.16 of the Metropolitan Council's model ordinance developed as a component of the Counal's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Water Bodies (See Attachment B of these Guidelines). e. Projects authorized by a permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or certified by a local governmental unit to be compliant with local controls adopted to carry out a program delegated to the local unit of government by the MPCA. 8/25/93 Version 5 additional benefits to the community in terns of increased wildlife habitat, public safety, lessen maintenance costs, and enhance the efficiency of the treatment of stone water runoff. 1. Provision for splitting the pond into one or more cells if the site conditions allow for such partitioning 2 Provision for a protective vegetative buffer strip above and surrounding the permanent pool that is at least 16.5 feet wide (I rod). 3. Provision for a skimming device at the outlet that prevents floatable materials from discharging from the pond. - 4. Provision for a forebay area or sump at each inlet to trap course sediments to allow for easier partial maintenance operations to extend the sediment storage design life of the basin. Subpart 2. - Alternative Methods of Storm Water Retention When the local governmental unit (LGU) has determined that Subpart 1 is not applicable, alternative methods of meeting the storm water retention requirement may be allowed by the LGU. These methods include the following alternative& a. Natural wetlands may only be used as an alternative method of retention if: 1. all necessary permits are received from the Department of Natural Resources if the impacted wetland is a public water, 2. the wetland is designated as a water quality treatment area in a BWSR approved water management plan or the practice is specified as a permitted practice in a BWSR approved water management plan and the local governmental unit is abiding by the provisions of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) ; a sediment trapping device or area is installed prior to discharge into the wetland that is designed to trap sediments 0.05 millimeters in size or greater with a trap volume size based upon a prescribed maintenance schedule; an easement is provided to the LGU to allow for proper - -- maintenance of the sediment trap and any outlet control device; a maintenance plan is in place that defines the frequency of maintenance, who is responsible for the maintenance and how the work will be accomplished and recorded with the property, if the property is not in public ownership; the natural outlet control elevation of the wetland, if it is not a public water, is not changed except when either a) the outlet is intended to restore the wetland to its original elevation, b) the wetland basin is landlocked and the artificial outlet control is placed 8/25/93 Version 7 development permits and plat approvals. Below are listed some existing publications that contain acceptable standards and criteria: Acceptable standards and criteria for erosion control 1. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, 1988. Minnesota Construction Lion Site Erosion Control Planning Handbook Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989. Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas b. Acceptable standards and criteria for storm water design. L Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989. Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. 2. Wallcer, W. W., 1987. Design Calculations for Wet Detention Ponds Prepared for St Paul water Utility and Vadnais Lakes Area Water Management Organization. Pitt, Robert E., and Voorhees, John, 1991. A Water Quality Detention Pond Analysis and Design Program. Subpart 3. Local governmental units may adopt and enforce unique, free standing controls for erosion control and design of storm water facilities that recognize local conditions, provided they are equivalent to the standards and criteria listed in the publications cited in Subparts 1 and 2, above. Commentary: When developing its own unique ordinance for evasion control and storm water design, the local governmental unit must take cave to avoid conflicts with existing laws and odes relating to wetlands protection and water quality. In all cases, the goal should be to avoid or minimize increases in pre- development runoff rates and discharges of nonpoint pollutants, to the greatest practical extent There should also be recognition of high value downstream receiving waters and note that local conditions and water quality management goals may require more restrictive standards (ie. longer retention times). This can most effectively be accomplished through comprehensive watershed planning under the pro. visions of Minnesota Statutes 103B and 103D. Attachment C is a graphic showing the percent removal of typical storm water contaminants as related to retention time. This relationship of retention time and efficiency of removal of pollutants should be considered when establishing water quality management goals for specific individual water bodies in a community. 8/25/93 Version 9 ATTACHMENT A MS 103B3365 Water retention Subdivision 1. Impervious surface over one acre. New development that covers or replaces surface vegetation with an impervious surface of one acre or more may not take place without water retention devices or areas being required for the development site by the local unit of government. Subd. 2. Exemptions. Linear projects such as sidewalks, paths, trails, and the reconstruction, repair, reconditioning, or resurfacing of existing roads or impervious surfaces are exempt from this section. Subd. 3. Application. This section does not preclude a local unit of government from imposing more stringent requirements authorized by law on the development site. Subd. 4. Local water plans. Each water management plan required by sections 103B.201 to 103B. 355 must specify controls that utilize the best available technology to minimize off -site stormwater runoff, maximize overland flow and flow distances over surfaces covered with vegetation, increase on -site infiltration, replicate predevelopment hydrologic conditions as nearly as possible, minimize off -site discharge of pollutants to ground and surface water, encourage natural filtration functions, and reduce mosquito breeding habitat. Subd. 5. Guidelines. By January 1, 1992, the board of water and soil resources must develop guidelines to assist local units of government in implementing subdivision 1. Laws 1991, c. 160, eff. Jan. 1, 1992. f ATTACHMENT B 121/93 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612 291 -6359 TDD 612 291 -0904 MODEL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE • The model storm water management ordinance should assist communities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area in implementing the Metropolitan Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Water Bodies. The Council adopted the strategy for the Minnesota River Basin, effective September 30,1992, and for the remainder of the metropolitan area effective January 1, 1993. The strategy includes three essential requirements. These requirements are important components to addressing the water quality problems caused by nonpoint source pollution in the metropolitan area. The first requirement is that local governments throughout the metropolitan area must adopt design standards for new storm water ponds that will reduce the contaminant loadings from surface water runoff. One set of design criteria that is widely accepted is from the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP). The second requirement is that local governments in the metropolitan area must also follow the urban 'best management practices" as outlined in protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas, published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or an equivalent set of standards. Sections 8.1 through 8.16 of the model ordinance detail suggested design criteria and best management practices. These sections form the heart of the ordinance. The remaining sections of the model ordinance are not as critical. The remaining sections essentially establish a process for the implementation of the design criteria and best management practices. The third requirement is that all local governments in the metropolitan area must adopt the Minnesota Department of Natural Resour .choreland regulations. These regulations are found in Statewide Standards For Management of Shorelaand Areas published by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has established a timeline and format for the adoption of the shoreland regulations. The model ordinance does not address the shoreland regulations. Local governments should work with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to determine the most effective way to implement the shoreland regulations. The model ordinance is intended to be a resource for communities to use in adopting official controls which are consistent with design standards for new storm water ponds which will reduce the contaminant loadings from surface water runoff and which are consistent with the "best management practices" for land development with respect to storm water runoff. The ordinance provides a comprehensive approach to addressing the issue of storm water runoff. It is impossible to draft a model ordinance to fit perfectly into all of the innumerable varieties of regulatory programs that exist at the local government level. The ordinance is designed to be adapted to the unique characteristics of each local government organization. The ordinance could be combined with or replace existing ordinances, such as erosion control ordinances, which address issues covered by the model ordinance. It is presumed that some provisions of the ordinance will be modified or possibly even rejected altogether. Other provisions may have to be added. The ordinance can be used as a "checklist" by local governments to analyze the adequacy of existing controls. If a local government determines that a major element, such as inspection and maintenance, ORDINANCE NO. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE PROMOTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF MINNESOTA, BY AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ADOPTING NEW SECTIONS REQUIRING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. 1. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section [462.351 for cities and towns, 394.21 for counties having a population of less than 300,000 according to the 1950 federal census] (1990). 2. FINDINGS The [City, County, Town] of hereby finds that uncontrolled and inadequately planned use of wetlands,_ woodlands, natural habitat areas, areas subject to soil erosion and areas containing restrictive soils adversely affects the public health, safety and general welfare by impacting water quality and contributing to other environmental problems, creating nuisances, impairing other beneficial uses of environmental resources and hindering the ability of the [City, County, Town] of to provide adequate water, sewage, flood control, and other community services. In addition, extraordinary public expenditures may be required for the protection of persons and property in such areas and in areas which may be affected by unplanned land usage. 3. PURPOSE The purpose of this ordinance is to promote, preserve and enhance the natural resources within the [Cary, County, Town] of and protect them from adverse effects occasioned by poorly sited development or incompatible activities by regulating land disturbing or development activities that would have an adverse and potentially irreversible impact on water quality and unique and fragile environmentally sensitive land; by minimizing conflicts and encouraging compatibility between land disturbing and development activities and water quality and environmentally sensitive lands; and by requiring detailed review standards and procedures for land disturbing or development activities proposed for such areas, thereby achieving a balance between urban growth and development and protection of water quality and natural areas. 4. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this ordinance, the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivatives shall have the meaning stated below. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense, words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singular number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directive. 4.1 Applicant. Any person who wishes to obtain a building permit, zoning or subdivision approval. 4.2 Control measure. A practice or combination of practices to control erosion and attendant pollution. 4.3 Detention facility. A permanent natural or man -made structure, including wetlands, for the temporary storage of runoff which contains a permanent pool of water. 5. SCOPE AND EFFECT 5.1 Applicability. Every applicant for a building permit, subdivision approval, or a permit to allow land disturbing activities must submit a storm water management plan to the [planning department, department of community development, zoning administrator]. No building permit, subdivision approval, or permit to allow land disturbing activities shall be issued until approval of the, storm water management plan or a waiver of the approval requirement has been obtained in strict conformance with the provisions of this ordinance. The provisions of section 9 of this ordinance apply to all land, public or private, located within the [City, Town, County] of 5.2 Exemptions. The provisions of this ordinance do not apply to: a) Any part of a subdivision if a plat for the subdivision has been approved by the [City Council, County Board, Town Board] on or before the effective date of this ordinance; Any land disturbing activity for which plans have been approved by the watershed management organization within six months prior to the effective date of this ordinance; A lot for which a building permit has been approved on or before the effective date of this ordinance; d) Installation of fence, sign, telephone, and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; or e) Emergency work to protect life, limb, or property. 5.3 Waiver. The [City Council, Town Board, County Board], upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, may waive any requirement of this ordinance upon making a finding that compliance with the requirement will involve an unnecessary hardship and the waiver of r , such requirement will not adversely affect the standards and requirements set forth in Section 6. The [City Council, Town Board, County Board] may require as a condition of the waiver, k"' such dedication or construction, or agreement to dedicate or construct as may be necessary to adequately meet. said standards and requirements. 6. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVAL PROCEDURES 6.1 Application. A written application for storm water management plan approval, along with the proposed storm water management plan, shall be filed with the [planning department, department of community development, zoning administrator] and shall include a statement indicating the grounds upon which the approval is requested, that the proposed use is permitted by right or as an exception in the underlying zoning district, and adequate evidence showing that the proposed use will conform to the standards set forth in this ordinance. Prior to applying for approval of a storm water management plan, an applicant may have the storm water management plans reviewed by the appropriate departments of the [city, town, county]. Two sets of clearly legible blue or black lined copies of drawings and required information shall be submitted to the [planning department, department of community development, zoning administrator] and shall be accompanied by a receipt from the [governmental unit's chief financial officer] evidencing the payment of all required fees for processing and approval as set forth in Section 7.5, and a bond when required by Section 7.4 4) Schedule of anticipated starting and completion date of each land disturbing activity including the installation of construction site erosion control measures needed to meet the requirements of this ordinance; and 5) Provisions for maintenance of the construction site erosion control measures during construction. c) Plan of final site conditions. A plan of final site conditions on the same scale as the existing site map showing the site changes including: 1) Finished grading shown at contours at the same interval as provided above or as required to clearly indicate the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and remaining features; A landscape plan, drawn to an appropriate scale, including dimensions and distances and the location, type, size and description of all proposed landscape materials which will be added to the site as part of the development; . A drainage plan of the developed site delineating in which direction and at what rate storm water will be conveyed from the site and setting forth the areas of the site where storm water will be allowed to collect; The proposed size, alignment and intended use of any structures to be erected on the site; A clear delineation and tabulation of all areas which shall be paved or surfaced, including a description of the surfacing material to be used; and Any other information pertinent to the particular project which in the opinion of the applicant is necessary for the review of the project. 7. PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE 7.1 Process. Storm water 'management plans meeting the requirements of Section 6 shall be submitted by the [planning department, department of community development, zoning administrator] to the Planning Commission for review in accordance with the standards of Section 8. The Commission shall recommend approval, recommend approval with conditions, or recommend denial of the storm water management plan. Following Planning Commission action, the storm water management plan shall be submitted to the [City Council, Town Board, County Board] at its next available meeting. [City Council, Town Board, County Board] action on the storm water management plan must be accomplished within 120 days following the date the application for approval is filed with the [planning department, department of community development, zoning administrator]. (COMMENTARY: The process outlined in Section 7.1 can be modified to be consistent with the regulatory process of the pan7adar local government unit. For example, one local government may have a particular department which reviews land use regulatory matters except the final decision to approve or deny a land use plan or permit which is reserved for the governing body of the local government unit. Another local governmental unit may provide the department which reviews land use regulatory matters with full authority to take final action on the application. Other local governments may use a hybrid process where some permits are acted upon by the appropriate regulatory department while other land use matters are left to the governing body for final approval.) 7.2 Duration. Approval of a plan submitted under the provisions of this ordinance shall expire 8.4 Tracking. Each site shall have graveled roads, access drives and parking areas of sufficient width and length to prevent sediment from being tracked onto public or private roadways. Any sediment reaching a public or private road shall be removed by street cleaning (not flushing) before the end of each workday. Drain inlet protection. All storm drain inlets shall be protected during construction until control measures are in place with a straw bale, silt fence or equivalent barrier meeting accepted design criteria, standards and specifications contained in the MPCA publication "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas." 8.6 Site erosion control. The following criteria (a. through d.) apply only to construction activities that result in runoff leaving the site. ) Channelized runoff from adjacent areas passing through the site shall be diverted around disturbed areas, if practical. Otherwise, the channel shall be protected as described below. Sheetflow runoff from adjacent areas greater than 10,000 square feet in- area shall .also be diverted around disturbed areas, unless shown to have resultant runoff rates of less than 0.5 ft)/sec. across the disturbed area for the one year storm. Diverted runoff shall be conveyed in a manner that will- not erode the conveyance and receiving channels. b) All activities on the site shall be conducted in a logical sequence to minimize the area of bare soil exposed at any one time. Runoff from the entire disturbed area on the site shall be controlled by meeting either subsections 1 and 2 or 1 and 3. 1) All disturbed ground left inactive for fourteen or more days shall be stabilized by seeding or sodding (only available prior to September 15) -or by mulching or covering or other equivalent control measure. 2) For sites with more than ten acres disturbed at one time, or if a channel originates in the disturbed area, one or more temporary or permanent sedimentation basins shall be constructed. Each sedimentation basin shall have a surface area of at least one percent of the area draining to the basin and at least three feet of depth and constructed in accordance with accepted design specifications. Sediment shall be removed to maintain a depth of three feet. The basin discharge rate shall also be sufficiently low as to not cause erosion along the discharge channel or the receiving water. For sites with less than ten acres disturbed at one time, silt fences, straw bales, or equivalent control measures shall be placed along all sideslope and downslope sides of the site. If a channel or area of concentrated runoff passes through the site, silt fences shall be placed along the channel edges to reduce sediment reaching the channeL The use of silt fences, straw bales, or equivalent control measures must include a maintenance and inspection schedule. d) Any soil or dirt storage piles containing more than ten cubic yards of material should not be located with a downslope drainage length of less than 25 feet from the toe of the pile to a roadway or drainage channel. If remaining for more than seven days, they shall be stabilized by mulching, vegetative cover, tarps or other means. Erosion from piles which will be in existence for less than seven days shall be controlled by placing straw bales or silt fence barriers around the pile. In-street utility repair or construction soil or dirt storage piles located closer than 25 feet of a roadway or drainage channel must be covered with tarps or suitable .alternative control, if exposed for more than volume of the permanent pool be equal to or greater than the runoff from a 2.0 -inch rainfall for the fully developed site) c) A permanent pool length -to -width ratio of 3:1 or greater, d) A minimum protective shelf extending ten feet into the permanent pool with a slope of 10:1, beyond which slopes should not exceed 3:1; A protective buffer strip of vegetation surrounding the permanent pool at a minimum width of one rod (163 feet) fthis width is consistent with the draft rules developed by the Board of Water and Soil Resources under the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991); All storm water detention facilities shall have a device to keep oil, grease, and other floatable material from moving downstream as a result of normal operations; Storm water detention facilities for new development must be sufficient to limit peak flows in each subwatershed to those that existed before the development for the 10 year storm event. All calculations and hydrologic models/information used in determining peak flows shall be submitted along with the storm water management plan; h) All storm water detention facilities must have a forebay to remove coarse- grained particles prior to discharge into a watercourse or storage basin. g) 8.9 Wetlands. a) Runoff shall not be discharged directly into wetlands without presettlement of the runoff. ) A protective buffer strip of natural vegetation at least one rod (16.5 feet) in width shall surround all wetlands. [This width is consistent with the draft rules developed by the Board of Water and Soil Resources under the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.1 Wetlands must not be drained or filled, wholly or partially, unless replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value. Replacement must be guided by the following principles in descending order of priority. 1) Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the wetland; Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation; 3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland environment; 4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity; and 5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute . wetland resources or environments. [Compensation, including the replacement ratio and quality of replacement should be consistent with the requirements outlined in the rules which will be adopted by the Board of Water and Soil Resources to implement the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.1 &10 Steep slopes. No land disturbing or development activities shall be allowed on slopes of 18 9.4 Buffer zone. Fertilizer applications shall not be made within one rod (16.5 feet) of any wetland or water resource. [This distance is consistent with the draft rules developed by the Board of Water and Soil Resources under the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.1 10. PENALTY Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this ordinance shall be fined not less than five dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each offense, and a separate offense shall be deemed committed on each day during or on which a violation occurs or continues. 11. OTHER CONTROLS In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this ordinance and the provisions of an erosion control or shoreland protection ordinance adopted by the [City Council, Town Board, County Board], the more restrictive standard prevails. 12. SEVERABILTTY The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application 13. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall be effective the day of . 199: ATTACHMENT C