Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/28/2001 Env Bd PacketCity of Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting November 28, 2001 6:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. OPEN MIKE 5. ACTION ITEMS A. No new formal applications received 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Clearwater Creek 3`d Addition B. Surface Water Management Plan Discussion C. Wildland Urban Interface i) Fire Risk Assessment/Milo Bennett ii) Minnesota Land Classification /Update D. Trade A Tree E. Nemo F. Residential Moratorium 7. DEPARTMENT REPORTS A. Forestry B. Solid Waste Recycling 8. ADJOURN Agenda Item 6A Environmental Board Meeting Date: November 28, 2001 Topic: Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition Summary: I have enclosed a map of the Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition restoration areas, and the past correspondence from Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company and North American Prairies. This will be a discussion item. If you have a chance, please visit the site. Attachments: 1. Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition map 2. Correspondence from Mark Kjolhaug dated 5/12/00 3. Correspondence from Mark Kjolhaug dated 12/19/00 4. Correspondence from Mark Kjolhaug dated 11/15/01 41/ U Q. a ilw ILI rim e �- .0A/ ate 44) • 4#`4'1 ► 4 z ¢ W W FE w w U. CO0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05/12/2000 08:48 6124018798 Fax KJOLHAUG ENVIR SERV PAGE 01 KJOLITIAUG ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY Plw;cig sound Eeaawed CamprehanstA0 Name Resource Sowions 1 u Marty A. NOn. Mark Kjolhaug Pant 851-8V-2499 Pee 5 Phone. Deft 5/12/00 R.e CC 3'" Vegetation Information CC: Me Quigley (755 -1117) 0 Urgent 0 For Review ❑ Mao* Comment 0 PI.... Reply 0 PI.... R.nyc. • Comments: Short-dry would be above trail, mesic below trail to approx. wetland boundary and wet mix in wetlands. Grasses and grass types are on the first page, with forbs for each mixture type following on pages 2 through 4. Please call if you need clarification. Mark 28105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331. Phone: 812- 401 -8757, Fax 812- 401=8798 05/12/2000 08:48 6124018798 FPT1 : NORTH AmER!CAN PRAIRIES CO PHONE NO. : 320 274 5316 KJOLHAUG ENVIR SERV PAGE 02 rats m xTx lMioun J shot dri ttrae4 mix [1/4 Little biuestem Sideoats gramma Blue gramme Slender Whet Grass Ponca • 'no Grose 5074 20.0% 20.096 7.096 3.096 total acrt a aq 1211000 192000 1280000 81800 3284 115 . 12 2000 07:50AM P2 PLS • • •i :u 'for, :r Indian Grass Big dueatsrn Chile blutetsm sldeoeta graimma Canada wild rya Switch grass Slender Wheat Graq 1 /Abe Amount 1 20% 3096 1096 1596 596 6096 100% 288000 720000 98000 124800 112000 44000 13NMID MINIM Bigblusstem R1.0% Indian grails 4.0% Canada wild rye 29.0% Cord grass 3.0% SWItth SN'Stt 20.096 Giant Marna grass 7.096 8oftstan bulrush 2.096 Oant green bulrush 2.096 River bulrush 2.0% Blue Joint grass 2.0% Bottlebrush sedge 3.096 WOOIIy Bulrush 4.096 Giant Bur Bed 2.0% j011b4 40.0% Wek ritC acre 67800 241280 31860 448000 898000 90200 840000 9800 896000 144000 5440000 8000 1189300 211 55 CYO 6C/AN,, 701t.t. 108 LA - 1424:r `/t S c a ` ems. ' 8 32 3.2 1.12 0.48 6.61 68.4096 0.32 82.0096 0.32 62.00% 0.10 70.00% 0.03 100.0096 2.4 0.63 28.4996 3.2 0.54 38.87% 4.8 0.51 58.4096 1.6 0.18 820096 2.4 0.19 78.00% 0.8 0.07 75.23% 0.8 0.07 70.00% 3.2 0.432339 4896 0.64 0.0531491 75% 4.84 0.3717949 7894 0.48 0.03 10096 3.2 0.2808667 75% 1.12 0.07 100% 0.32 0.02 10096 0.32 0.02 100°6 0.32 0.02 10096 0.32 0.02 100% 0.48 0.03 100% 0.84 0.04 10096 0.32 0.02 10096 05/12/2000 08:48 6124018798 FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO KJOLHAUG ENVIR SERV PAGE 03 PHONE NO. : 320 274 5316 May. i2 2000 07:51AM P4 Amount orders! 7,4 ' �_ t�ci.ntlflc Nam... • om� name _ iX of oar order cost / L Co.ti i of nli?� Rudbeckia hlrta " Blackeyed susan 7.00% 0.07 825 0.35 Monage fistulosa Mid bergamont 3.00% 0.03 4.5 0.30 di i.a purpuree Purple prairie lover 12.00°% 0.12 9 0.90 Aster ool.rttangensis SkY blue aster 2.00% 0.02 4.5 0,30 Verbena s$cta Hoary vervain 7.00% 0.07 5.25 0.30 Potentiila arm Prairie Potentllla - 0.50% 0.005 an Dales candidum 0.05 7.5 0.50 Monorail puncista Z.00% 0.02 9 0.60 White prairie lover 5.00% Dotted Lemon Mint Rattiblda columnifere Prairie Coneflower 5.0096 Artemisia frigid* Fringed Sage 0:50% SofIdapo sprdosa ` Showy Goldenrod SdldegO missouriensis Missouri goldenrod Geum trim Prairie Smoke Amorpfte oanescens Leadplalt Saldego nemoralis gmr Goldenrod PulsaMis nutalliana Pogue flower Oahe villosum . . Silky Clover Wi y o rigida Stiff Goldenrod Onosmodrum viginlenum Fads. romweu Penstemon grandiflorus Large flowered beardstounge Llatr s were Rough biatingetar Astrapalus c rasslcarpus Prairie plum Helianthus rlpidus Stiff sunflower Rose tekansena Prairie rose Cassia fasciculata Partridge Pea _ 2.00% Asdepias tuberose Butterfly milkvreed 3.00% Edllneoaa usdfolis Pale -� purple gone 3.00% Asdepies vurtkaliata Whorled Milkweed 2.0096 Aster drummondii Drummond* ester " 1.00% Coraopolis palmate Prairie Coreopsls 3.00% Llatrispunotpga Dotted Bietingstar 4.00% 0.05 7.5 0.55 0.005 1.5 0.10 2.00% 0.02 8 0.40 1.00% 0.01 4.5 0.30 2.00% 0.02 9 7.00% 0.07 15.75 2.00% 0.02 4.5 2.00% 0.02 8 2.00% 0.02 5.00% _ 0.05 e 1.00%. : 0.01 1.5 3.00% 0.03 9 3.00% . 0.03 6 2.00% 0.02 0 5.00% 0.05 12.45 1.00% 0.01 2.498 100.00% 0.02 1.3 0.03 11.25 0.03 11..25 0.02 0.01 3 0.03 27 0.04 10.998 1~ 193.947 0.90 1.05 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.10 0.60 0 0.40 0.53 0.17 0.19 0.76 O.ao 0.20 1.00 0.73 il4.9 05/12/2000 08:48 6124018798 FRO'1 : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO Amount ordered $gjgntrflc name Rudbeckle hide Dales purpuroa Aster oolontsnglensis Monsrds fistulae Dalai candidum Lespedece capit Verbena strict" Anemasla ludovieIans So lklego missouriensie Radblda pinata Thalictnim dasycerpurn. Sollda ° rigida • Amwphe censeoens Potsntllle ncvegice Solidego Ptannlooldes Soildego speciosa Hellopels heiienthoides Pulsed* nuttallana Hellanthus maxlmlllianl Geum triflorum Cassia Vesiculate Deamodlum canadensse Ccraopsis palmate Onoemadium molds Pe Ioulsrle cs nedensss Echinaves sngu Ifolla Ross a kansene ' Usti18 spars Lathyrue venosus PoterttNla *guts KJOLHAUG ENVIR SERV PAGE 04 PHONE NO. : 320 274 5316 ontmon name Blaokeyed susen Purple prairie clover Sky Blue Aster Wald bergamont Whits preirle clover Round- Headed Bush Clover Hoary vervain Prairie sage Missouri goldenrod Grey - headed oonefcr Yell meadow rue Stiff Goldenrod leedpldr* Rough potentllle Upland Goldenrod Showy goldenrod False sunflower Pasqua flower Hearten/ golden sls sander Maxlmilden sunflower Prairie smoke Partridge Pea Canada tick trefoil Prairie Compels False gromursll Wood betony Pale purple Cone wad prairie rose Rough blazingster Veiny Pee Prairie Cinquefoil 21l ondar 0.05 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.005 0 0.16 0.062 0.02 0.05 0.005 0.03 0.005 0.14 0 0.02 0.035 0 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.005 0,02 0 0.013 0 0.006 4.008 May. 12 2000 07:5041 P3 Price/Lb Costioz of mix 3.73 0.25 7.6 0.6 4.5 0.3 8 0.4 7.6 0.5 6.75 0.45 5.25 0.35 1.995 0.133 0 0 16.8 1.12 3.9 0.26 2.4 0.18 11.25 0.76 1.875 0.125 6.76 0.46 1.6 0.1 10.5 0.7 0 0 3 0.2 3.832$ 0.2555 0 0 3 0.2 3.6 0.24 18 1.2 1.5 0.1 2.26 0.16 7.6 0.6 O 0 3.9 0.26 O 0 3 0.2 147,8026 9.8635 19 0.003125 0.00626 0.00125 0.0025 0.003126 0.001875 0.003125 0.000313 0 0.01 0.00326 0.00126 0.003126 0.000313 0.001876 0.000313 0.00676 0 0.00126 0.002188 0 0.0025 0.001875 0.00125 0.000825 0.000313 0.00126 0 0.000813 0 0.000313 0.062513 05/12/2000 08:48 FRU1 NORTH 6124018798 KJOLHAUG ENVIR SERV PAGE 05 AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO PHONE NO. : 320 274 5316 0140140:4WilegatialtME EMI Scientific name Common name Eupatorium perfoilatum Boneset Rudbeckia hirta $lackeyed susan Verbena haslet' Blue Vervain Verontcastium virginicum Cuivers root Mallards Astulosa Wild bergamont Aster umbellabu Flattopped aster Aster novaaangtlae New england aster Hypericum pyramtdetum St. Johns wort TheHctrum dasycarpurn Tali meadow rue Dales Candidum White prairie clover Gentians andrewe►I Bottle gentian Maims suboordaturtn mud plantain Eupatortum meculatum Joepye weed Verrania fasicutata Ironwsad Delve purpursa Purple prairie plover Zlzea cures Golden nlexander Heliopsis hellanthptdee False sunflower Aster puniclus Red stemmed aster Hetlanthus Mosciminlan sunflower Liable pycnast.chys Prairie blazing star Pedicular s lanceolate Marsh botany Asdepias incarnate Amorpha fruticoea iris malodor Rattbida pinnate Sffphium perfoliatum Aster Lanoeolatus Glycyrrhiza leptdota. Helianthus arossessmstus Marsh milkweed False Indigo Slue flag his Grey- Heeded Caneflower Cuppiant Panioled Aster Wild licorice Sawtooth Sunflower 16 Ink 5.0096 4.00% 4.00% 0.25% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 0.75% 5.0096 5.00% 0.50% 1.0096 5.00% 4.00% 7.0096 3.00% 8.00% 1.00% 6.00% 5.00% 0.50% 8.00% 1.00% 2.0091 7.0095 2.0095 3.00% 1.00% 2.00% 5 of easpds!oo 180000 100000 100000 800000 80000 87000 86000 190000 20000 22000 280000 60000 33000 24000 18000 12000 6300 65000 13000 11000 44000 4800 3700 1300 30000 1400 80000 3000 15000 May. 12 2000 07 :52AM P5 migoz 8000 4000 4000 2000 2400 2680 3300 1425 1000 1100 1400 900 1850 980 1280 360 604 650 850 550 220 288 37 28 2100 28 30 16 20 itog 15.00 5,00 10.00 66.00 10.00 16.00 15.00 25.00 5.00 10.00 40.00 10 11,80 16.00 5.00 15.00 5.00 30.00 7.30 8.80 30.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 7.00 15.00 30.00 15.00 20.00 gamin 0.050 0.040 0.040 0.003 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.008 0.050 0.050 0.005 0.010 0.050 0.040 0.070 0.030 0.080 0.010 0.060 0.050 0.006 0.080 0.010 0.020 0.070 0.020 0.030 0.010 0.020 FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO PHONE NO. 320 274 5316 Dec. 19 2000 12:S4PM P1 %+� t tR. vs a *to 3 - 4.5I-L(. • Deieniber.•19• 2000 Mark Kjoli*g • • • .1Cjolhaug Envirorunental Services 26105 Wild Rose Lane' • • • •Shorewood,..MN 55331. . • t. • Dear Mark, • • . • •••;. i1<;�warittng td update you about rhe.native plant: community restoration •' .• =woiit at�:Clcarwater Greek I must.flrst•ti tc this' is a large and unusual.. . . project for.various reason.. The characteristics of the project are reflective ••• . of the landscape within. the': project.area,..varicd and nondescript.. We knew . entering 'into this project.thcre were going,to be issues' with'weather and't s ,. ' soil conditions; that may effect to get• stages *of :the project coidoplete. . • . 9iiirag• Project: is. moving. along.fnie. After delving: into the•projectWe.: reel' tlret this project would not advance, in terms of a restoiation . bce 1 sSe s :' otiventionally:. The maj r ty of .the project• entails re- vegetatioln •• ', _ ' •• • •• ofaround'..acres,of existing wetlands Currently •infestedtwith Reedacy (crass.. Reed:Canaay is an exotic.:grass used for forage.' It is a.prolifc•aeed• producer and•re- grows' vigorously from its'roots, even. after multiple • herbicide treatment. Ocnerally,. as:was in this. project, it•grows in wetlands • • that range from seasoirail ► wet to year jround• saturation." As you •wool d expect. due .to its nigh forage' characteristics, Recd: Canary leaves a .. . significant amount •of residual Materials .that needs to'be dealt.with before: planting .seed.• .. • A prescribed burn is by far the most desired method' foir removal of residual.. plant material, method has added`benefits•of exposing the. topsoil: for • . . proper seed' to soil contact as well as providing•for •effective herbicide I175'4 .Parr/a .loe J•I.10, . 4 1 I I artir.*1■P; ,11444. ►* 35302.- (9. ?0)274- s4 f. .•,sx .(3130)374 -31Pa7 • FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO f\VVLI IIIVM 1 PI\Al.. V J PHONE NO. 320.274 5316 Dec. 19 2000 12:55PM P2 application., . Normally, when entering a project with demands like, these; the • .first step is to burn the dead material in the spring before there is new growib that'wif inhibit a clean burn. Since.the project was given to us "afte? this • spring window, the next step was to use chemical to kill and thus create conditions that would enable us to burn early summer. Unfortunately, the site was a little to wet early on to get spray equipment on site and effectively kill the Reed Canary grass. In the meantime while we waited for the dry down of the wetlands we worked on exotic brush control in the.understory of most of the woodland set - asides. This was done in stages to provide the best results. First, the smallest saplings of Buckthorn, Honeysuckle and Prickly Ash were curt off at . about 2 feet to put all on equal height level andmake eventual herbicide • treatment Th t easier. The idea was thatthe saplings would leaf out at the same heigbt.and make herbicide to plat contact most efficient Secondly, in mid summer we proceeded further with brush control by cutting all saplings•of • invasive exotic species noted above, then stump treating each one with • Gallon Herbicide. The•process was methodical and labor intensive but 1 feel very effective in controlling and reducing the existing plants of these : • • undesirable species. However, it most be noted, this does not effect new growth•that may potentially occur from an existing'seed bank. • *When we got back to work on the wetlands we were in late summer and into a drought. This was fortunate in that it allowed us full access to all the now dry wetlands with our spray equipment. It was unfortunate though, because once we sprayed and killed existing the vegetation a burn ban was put on statewide, preventing us from accomplishing this very important step in.the restoration process. So we waited. Unfortunately time ran out on us this fall to bum and thus . properly prepare the site for an effective installation of all the restorative materials.. In many.'ways this works out fine for us and for the ultimate 12 /2b /'/Ji bb: Y4 b1'14b1tl (ytl FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRRIRIES CO KJULHAUU LNV.K 5LKV F'A(±. 174 PHONE NO. : 320 274 5316 Dec. 19 2800 12:55PM P3 success of the project. Because of the site and condition of this project a ionger.time line should have been drawn into the original plans. The initial time line to install the project' was one season. This was in retrospect, • pushing the limits of what could be effectively done with a site of this magnitude, considering the size of the project area and the massive infestation of hearty exotic and invasive species. . • In the spring of 200l the first task to be performed will be a prescribed turn. After. at period of time has elapsed sufficient to allow re- growth from. seed or residual roots systems, a finial herbicide treatment will.be applied. Anytime • after the final herbicidetreatment all native plant materials will be installed using the most effective method given the precise landscape involved (drilling seed with Truax drill whereever accessible, broadcasting seed when less accessible). After the initial installation. we will monitor the site for. further management issues. I hope the elongated timeline we are now dealing with has not created an inconvenience or caused any problems with any of the parties iinvolved, including, Goren), The city of Lino Lakes or Kjolhaug Environmental. I assure you, although this project may be running longer than originally • thought, it will be completed and completed successfully. If any inembers of the parties noted above need more clarification about this letter,1 would be well disposed to answer any questions. aslc to me regarding any aspect.of . this project. Sincerel Tony Rieger -Borer President l72/14/41701 tJ( :ltJ 70L41710( FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIE: CO L •is w 11 c4 . h4 BILL TO nJucnr+uu c1Yv nuL kJ L. PHCNE N0. : 320 274 5316 Feb. 13 2001 02:1GPM P4 ;_Fe n, z�, b'er) e_ �o 4 $le, 6.9 Kjolhaug Environmental Service's PauI Xjolhaug 17465 2nd stsw Cokaso. MN 55321' P.O. NUMBER QUANTITY TERMS Due on recalpt ITEM CODE REP TRB 7.5 74 7.5 1 ru h removal Spraying Spraying SHIP TO DATE ' INVOICE # 11/29/2000 2625 . j SHIP VIA l2/29/2000 F.O.B. DESCRIPTION .PROJECT' PRICE EACH AMOUNT Woodland !via moment Activities Cutting book brush in woodland greemrays. this will give equal hie ht throughout to allow Or more efficient ovorspaay of %orlcm" herbicide for woody plants. Applying Grimm herbicide to newly emerging understrory brush. Applying °arl. m for 2nd time If necessary. Buffer Strips 10 Spraying . Applying Rod(o herbicide to misting vcgitation at proposed are*. 10 Spraying Applying Rodc o and Plateau herbicide to proposed area. Newly treater. Retention Ponds 4 Spraying Applymg Roin;d -up end Plateau herbicide to existing veg tatlon at proposed arm. Reed Canary ',Wands. (I came up with approximately 15 acres) NAPCO requires 25% down on all projc ets before any wok will performed. Page 1 • 300.00 200.00 200.00 135.00 1350.00 150.00 140000 105.00 • 420.00 Total d2 /14 /2t7bl 10(:lb 7Y4010/7tl FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO 411 • BILL TO r ULfHUU citiv PHCNE NO. : 320 274 5316 Feb. 13 2001 02:16PM P5 Kjolhaug Environmental Services Paul Iiiolhauwg 17465 2nd st sw Cokato, MN 55321 SHIP TO P.O. NUMBER QUANTITY 15 15 DATE INVOICE # 11/29/2000 2625 TERMS REP SHIP VIA Due on receipt TRB 12/298000 . . • ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION Mowing Spraying Spraying Mow Ere brash. Applying Rocto herbicide to existing vegitation at proposed etas. Applying Rodeo and Plateau (for control of Reed Canary) heah.cide to existing vry*stion at proposed'a tea. . Sales Tax F.0.8. NAPCO requires 25% down on all pre (cots, before any a orl; will perthtaaed. • PROJECT l . Clearwater Creek .PRICE EACH 1,000.00 135.00 150.0D 6.50% *MOW I Total . Page 2 513,795.00 FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIES CO PHCNE NO. : 320 274 5316 Feb. 13 2001 02:15PM P2 ` ` Can 'l'�'u°Y='►‘ � ..�.� !!� d � 5 5 ►e �' r: �s ..-_. a* DATE Shipping Orde... 1._. 03/03/2000 .. 1287 III . L NAME /ADDRESS KyolhaugEnvlrorunental Services Paul K,iolhaug 17465 2nd at sw . . Cokato, MN 55321- • ITEM I : REP DESCRIPTION PROJECT DUE DATE 03/03/2000 Mow fire breaks. Applying Rollo herbidde to c7 isring vegltation at proposed area . . . . • Applying Rodeo and Plateau (ion award of Road Canary) herbicide to existing vegkation • at proposed area eadcaating r rowing Lightly harrow in grass had fit aver seed. ogress mix At a rate of 7 lbs per sore a Flowers At *rate of 31bs per sore The Reed ca nary wetlands wi 1 be Judged after initial hum and spray. as to welter a broadleaf herbidde s tcmld be used and thus wait till fall to install the flowers. Or if the burn and sp ray releases some (misting natives then we will not disturb the site futther, rather tpcx manage the si .e for re- ooauing Reed Canary MAN. or Hours Total labor hours for installed m and stewardship. Management of site the follot► ins 2 years. The numbers that will follow will repent the best estimate the t 1 can give fbr now. Stewardship Includes burn and follow IT w sod centre!. I need some armor on this estin rate for unknowns Sales Tsr dyar stswardsl,•p . tPCO rpouires 25% down on all projects„ befit+: any work will per formed, Page 2 Clearwater Creek QTY RATE TOTAL 1 1,000.00 1,000. 15 200.00 3,000. 15 135.00 aj 15 15 15 105 45 150.00 58.00 69.00 40.00 1.83.00 65,00 4,000.00 5,000.00 6.5096 Total 870, 1,035. 4,200. 8.325.. . 1,950. ' • 4,000. 5,000. 1,638. 862,345. UL/ 1'+/ LUUi U f : 1O 70.44010f= FROM : NORTH AMERICAN PRA IRIEE CO • ORTFi7lmERmein 1FtAff:lt uate wo 4. eaw iMd th4mr lbdiaral k4defNiis & a t eie is I_ NAME /ADDRESS Kjolhatte Environmental Servioea Paul Kjolheug 17465 2nd st sw Calcato, MN 55321 ITEM a • I REP . KJULr14UU CIYV PHCNE NO. :•320 274 5316 DESCRIPTIOI'I ring Light diming Drill grass with Truax drill qr Straw Mulching Mil side for a rosic n control c Anchor '04118 Applying Curtail to existing v agitation at proposed arca. ling Drill flowers (Sortie wetland t ceases) wirh 9riili,ia style seeder from late sum-met to snowfh11. ac VOA To be used at a rate of lbs p r acre and mixed'vith.tbe wet mix to provide the best possible diversity. grass mix To be mixed with the,Mesle; a :ix at a rate oft lb; ptr•atre. novas Various flowers . sic Flowers Various flowers Newly created Retention Pon Is PROJECT rmut U3 Feb. 13 2001 02 :15PM P3 • DATE t I Shipping O iie. 03/03/2000 • r- 1287 DUE DATE. 03/03/2000 Clearwater Creek :'urg rowing • tying Applying Round- up.and Platen herbicide to exit ting vesication at proposed area. • ling Drill grass with Truax drill Ching Straw Mulching hill skis for e %ion control e Anchor Ong Applying Curtail broadleaf hes Maids to weeds tenting grasses unefibcted. ling • Drill flowers with brillion st i seeder. ieo grass To be used in the upland built r8. •dcFlowers Various flowers ' • ' grais mix To be used in Hydrio ions arcs end wetland paint, ter: Flowers Itrequires 25% down on all projects bafor any work will performed. Rod Canary wetlands. (1 carne • up with approximately 15 acres) Page 1 QTY I RATE 10 • 300.00 rTotaJ 10 . 95.00 10 • 69.00 10 117.00 10 400.00 10 70.00 10 125.00 10 . 117.00 80 20 15 15 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 40 9' 10 3 • 14.00 40.00 185.00 150:00 • 95.00 69.00 105.00 117.00 400.00 70.00 105.00 117.00 14.00 • 150.00 40:00 185.00 TOTAL 3,000. 950. 1 4,000. 700. 1,250. 1,170. 1,120. 800. 2,775. 2,250. 380. 276. 420, • 468. 1,600. 280. • 420. . • 468. 560. • 1,350. 400. . 555: Agenda Item 6B Environmental Board Meeting Date: November 28, 2001 Topic: Surface Water Management Planning Summary: John Powell will be at the November meeting to update you on the current Surface Water Management Plan revisions. I asked Janelle Mierch, the acting director for the Rice Creek Watershed for some basic information on the changes that the Watershed District has made to their plan. Enclosed please find some summary information on the changes, as well as rules adopted in 1998. Attachments: 1. Rice Creek Watershed District Overall Plan for Water Management — dated June 2000 2. Rice Creek Watershed District Rules — Adopted 8/12/98 RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT OVERALL PLAN FOR WATER MANAGEMENT JUNE 2000 MISSION STATEMENT Prevent flooding and enhance water quality in harmony with development for the common good. i RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT COUNTIES OF ANOKA, HENNEPIN, RAMSEY AND WASHINGTON In the Matter of Adoption of Rice Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Amendment. ORDER STATE OF MINNESOTA RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS WHEREAS, the Rice Creek Watershed District, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes sections 103B.201 to 103B.251 intends by amendment to update and extend its Watershed Management Plan implementation programs through the year 2005; WHEREAS, the Rice Creek Watershed District, in accordance with its Plan and Minnesota Statutes section 103B.231, subdivisions 7, 8, 9, and 11, has submitted the proposed amendment to its Watershed Management Plan for review and comment to the towns, cities, counties in the watershed district, the Metropolitan Council, the state review agencies, and the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 103B.231, subdivision 9 the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources by Order dated May 24, 2000, approved the attached Watershed Management Plan Amendment labeled Section 9 (Supplement) Implementation Plan, Years 2000 -2005. Order: THEREFORE, the Rice Creek Watershed District by its Board of Managers makes the following ORDER Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.231, subdivision 10, the Rice Creek Watershed District adopts the attached Amendment to its Watershed Management Plan, entitled Section 9 (Supplement) Implementation Plan, Years 2000 -2005. Dated: q y70(.1 RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS By: %CJ4c �2(/ c-e- 40 RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT COUNTIES OF ANOKA, HENNEPIN, RAMSEY AND WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA • In the Matter of Adoption of the revised Watershed Management Plan for the Rice Creek Watershed District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 103B.231, subdivision 10. RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS ORDER WHEREAS, the Rice Creek Watershed District is statutorily required to revise and update its Watershed Management Plan; WHEREAS, in order to revise its Watershed Management Plan, the Rice Creek Watershed District as required under Minnesota Statutes section 103B.231, subdivisions 7, 8 and 9, has submitted proposed amendments to its Watershed Management Plan for review and comment to the towns, cities, counties in the watershed district, the Metropolitan Council, the state review agencies, and the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 103B.231, subdivision 9 the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources by Order dated September 24, 1997 approved the attached revised Watershed Management Plan, including proposed amendments, as the Watershed Management. Plan for the Rice Creek Watershed District; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 103B.231, subdivision 10 requires the Rice Creek Watershed District to adopt the revised Watershed Management Plan, including proposed amendments, within 120 days of the date of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources' Order of approval. THEREFORE, the Rice Creek Watershed District by its Board of Managers makes the following Order: ORDER Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 103B.231, subdivision 10, the Rice Creek Watershed District adopts the attached revised Watershed Management Plan, including approved amendments, as the Watershed Management Plan for the Rice Creek Watershed District. Dated: October 22, 1997 RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS 2 By: Euggine Peterson, President • RESOLUTION TO ADOPT MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Rice Creek Watershed District (District) has proposed minor amendments to its Watershed Management Plan (Plan); WHEREAS, the proposed minor amendments have been forwarded to all required agencies, including the Metropolitan Council, Department of Health, Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency, Board of Water and Soil Resources, and local units of government for their review and comment; ' WHEREAS, the District has held a public hearing on the proposed minor amendments and has reviewed all comments received regarding them; WHEREAS, the Board of Water and Soil Resources on May 11, 1994, approved the proposed minor amendments. The Board of Water and Soil Resources found "[t]he amendments are thorough and well - thought out," and the District's responses to the comments it received from the governmental units and agencies which reviewed them acceptable; WHEREAS, such proposed amendments are minor in nature; WHEREAS, the vast majority of the Plan is unchanged, and the District has refrained from full - scale rewriting in this amendment process to minimize the extent of changes; WHEREAS, there currently is pending litigation which may affect the outcome of the Locke Lake project described in Section 7 of the Plan; because of the uncertainty of the outcome of this litigation, the District should not at this time adopt any proposed minor amendments to Section 7 of the Plan; WHEREAS, the proposed minor amendments do not amend or affect the section of the Plan's Capital Improvement Program regarding the Locke Lake capital improvement project; WHEREAS, adoption of the proposed minor amendments does not constitute a readoption of the Plan; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Rice Creek Watershed District Board of Managers adopts all of the proposed minor amendments to its Plan as approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, except for those proposed minor amendments to Section 7 of the Plan dealing with Locke Lake. PASSED AND ADOPTED Y BOARD OF MANAGERS. �m.G�'z Af, /9�% BY THE RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT ATTEST: Secretary ; j • RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS PRESIDENT Eugene L. Peterson FIRST VICE PRESIDENT W. Tom Waddell SECOND VICE PRESIDENT Ordeen J. Braathen SECRETARY Andrew J. Cardinal, Sr. TREASURER Robert M. Hult • JUNE 2000 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Board of Managers of the Rice Creek Watershed District wish to express their appreciation to the members of the Technical Advisory Committee and the Citizens 509 Task Force for their support and input through the Watershed Management Plan development process. These groups provided the technical advice and public input necessary to produce a comprehensive and usable Watershed Management Plan. Both the Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees held five meetings from May 2, 1995 through September, 1996. Technical Advisory Committee Members Brian Fritsinger Mark Graham Chuck Lenthe, P.E. James Keinath Kathyjean Young Ron Hance Alan Borsheim John Flora, P.E. Debra Barnes Susan Rani, P.E. Dave Ahrens John Olinger Mike Ulrich Les Proper Karl Keel Larry Hamer Mark Maloney Mark Burch Bill Short Chris Lord Doug Fischer Bruce Sandstrom Terry Noonan Tom Petersen Celine Lyman Joseph Lux Konrad Koosman Arden Hills Birchwood Blaine Circle .Pines Columbia Heights Dellwood Forest Lake Fridley Hugo Lauder Lino Lakes Mahtomedi Mounds View New Brighton Roseville St. Anthony Shoreview White Bear Lake White Bear Anoka Conservation Anoka County Highway Department Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Ramsey County Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Washington County Department of Public Works Washington Soil and Water Conservation District Citizens Advisory Committee Members Elizabeth Cowie Robert Glazer Andrea Hendrickson Jeffrey Houchins Richard Jarosak Kathleen Mclsaac David Schumann Isabella Wilk Dick Larson Tom Ryan St. Paul Mounds View Forest Lake Lino Lakes New Brighton Forest Lake Township Hugo Mounds View Shoreview Blaine 10/97 Citizens Advisory Committee Members Marlene Rasmussen Circle Pines • Donald Jolly Columbia Heights Ann Bolkcom Fridley Will Riopel Hugo Brian Bourassa Lino Lakes Diane Wuori Mounds View Dave Koubsky New Brighton Norm Kelzenberg Spring Lake Park Dick Enrooth St. Anthony John Steinworth White Bear Lake Mary Sue Simmons Birchwood Erling Weiberg St. Anthony Mike Clemens White Bear Lake 10/97 ABBREVIATIONS ac acre ACD Anoka Conservation District AF acre feet BWSR Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources CAC Citizen Advisory Committee CAMP Citizen Associated Monitoring Program CD County Ditch Chl -a chlorophyll -g cfs cubic feet per second DNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIS Flood Insurance Study ft feet ft /sec feet per second gal /min gallon per minute in inch ISTS Individual Sewage Treatment System JD Judicial Ditch LCMR Legislative Committee on Minnesota Resources LLCOL Long Lake Chain of Lakes MDH Minnesota Department of Health MD OT Minnesota Department of Transportation mg /1 milligrams per liter MGY million gallons per year mi mile µg/1 micrograms per liter MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency M.R. Minnesota Rules MSL mean sea level NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NURP Nationwide Urban Runoff Program N W I National Wetlands Inventory ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PWI Protected Waters Inventory RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCWD Rice Creek Watershed District rng range RSWCD Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District SBBS streambed and bank stabilization SDT Secchi disk transparency sect section SLR streambank, lakeshore, roadside SPWU St. Paul Water Utility sq ft square feet sq in square inch sq mi square mile SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District TAC Technical Advisory Committee 10/97 Cost Summary 5-84 SECTION 6 - LOCAL RESPONSIBILITIES 6-1 Local Planning 6-1 Local Plan Contents 6-1 Watershed District Review 6-2 Regulatory Controls 6-5 Financial Impact 6-6 Coordination 6-7 SECTION 7 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 7 -1 Introduction 7 -1 Locke Lake Restoration and Improvements 7 -1 Need 7 -1 Scope of Project 7 -2 Alternatives Considered 7 -2 Cost 7 -2 Financing 7-3 Lake Sediment Sealing 7-3 Need 7-3 Scope of Project 7-3 Alternatives Considered 7-4 Cost 7-4 Financing 74 Hardwood Creek Chemical Addition 7 -5 Need 7 -5 Scope of Project 7 -5 Alternatives Considered 7 -5 Cost 7 -5 Financing 7-6 Lake Sediment Sealing 7-6 Need 7-6 Scope of Project 7-6 Alternatives Considered 7 -7 Cost 7 -7 Financing 7-7 Howard Lake Revegetation 7 -7 Need 7 -7 Scope of Project 7-8 Alternatives Considered 7-8 Cost 7-8 Financing 7-8 Marsden Lake Restoration 7 -9 Need 7 -9 Scope of Project 7 -9 Alternatives Considered 7 -9 Cost 7 -10 Financing 7 -10 Clearwater Creek Trunk Improvements 7 -10 Need 7 -10 Scope of Project 7 -11 Alternatives Considered 7 -11 iii 10/97 Cost 7 -11 Financing 7 -11 SECTION 8 - AMENDMENTS 8 -1 Amendment Procedures 8-1 Future Amendments 8-1 SECTION 5 - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Years 2000 -2005 9 -1 APPENDICES RCWD Permit Information Brochure/Standards Assessment of District 103B and 103D Compliance DNR Protected Waters and Wetlands (PWI Maps) State (Non -WCA) and Federal Wetland Regulations Discussion Design Considerations for Wildlife Pond Construction and Wetland Alterations Typical Baffled Weir Detail Typical Pond Detail Typical Outlet Details Easement Acquisition Policy Non - Regulatory Wetland Protection Options Stormwater Runoff Study Results Variance Policy iv 10/97 FIGURE NO. Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES FOLLOWING. TITLE PAGE 2 -1 Geologic Cross - Section of District 2-5 3-1 High Water and Bed Profiles for Rice Creek 3-5 3-2 St. Paul Water Utility System 3-14 3-3 Runoff Hydrograph Summary 3-16 3-4 Long and Silver Lake Levels 3-16 3-5 White Bear and Turtle Lake Levels 3-16 3-6 Lake Johanna Lake Levels 3-16 3-7 Rice Creek Flows: April 9 -July 31,1993 Flow Rates 3416 3-8 Lower Rice Creek Monitoring Stations 3-24 3-9 Middle Rice Creek Monitoring Stations 3-24 3-10 Upper Rice Creek Monitoring Stations 3-24 3-11 Hardwood Creek Monitoring Stations 3-24 3-12 Clearwater Creek Monitoring Stations 3-24 5-1 Subwatershed Rate Control Policies 5-10 5-2 Runoff Volume Sensitive Areas 5.14 5-3 Trunk Drainage System 5-79 7 -1 Capital Improvement Projects • 7 -1 9 -1 Completed &.Proposed Projects .9 -7 vii 10/97 Ch. 9 6/00 Table of Contents LIST OF MAPS FOLLOWING MAP NO. TITLE PAGE 1 Municipalities 2-3 2 Surficial Geology and Soils 2-7 3 Potential Natural Vegetation 2-15 4 Occurrence of Rare and/or Sensitive Species 2-22 5 Existing Land Use 2-28 6 Metropolitan Urban Service Area 2-28 7 Projected Land Use 2 -28 8 Regional Recreation 2-33 9 Permitted Animal Feed Lots 2-34 10 Potential Sources of Groundwater Contamination 2-38 11 Oil and Gas Pipelines 2-40 12 Drainage Pattern 3-4 13 Wetland Vegetation. 3-13 14 Protected Waters and Wetlands 3-13 15 100 -Year Flood Plain 3-13 16 Water Quality Monitoring Stations Deleted 17 Groundwater Recharge Areas 3-29 viii 10/97 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION Both the Watershed Act (Minnesota Statute M.S. 103D) and the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act (M.S. 103B) require the Rice Creek Watershed District (District) to revise its Overall Water Management Plan. The District is required to update the plan at least at five year intervals. The plan, which is the subject of this document, is a consolidation and update of the 1974,1986, and 1994 watershed plans. The District's policies, objectives, and historic accomplishments have been directed by the people who have served on the Board of Managers (Table 14). The Managers of the District are appointed by their respective County Commissioners. The Board consists of two representatives from Anoka County, two residents of Ramsey County, and one representative from Washington County. Due to the extremely small percentage of the District within Hennepin County, Hennepin County is not represented on the Board. Combined 103D/103B Plan Development As outlined previously, this plan consolidates the previous planning efforts of the District in accordance with directives of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). Portions of the plan which have undergone substantial revisions have been reviewed by Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees compris ed of naem bers from participating communities (or their representatives) who have attended meetings in 1991 and 1995. M.S. 103B required management plans to extend through years evenly divisible by five. This plan extends to 2000 and will include the actual cost associated with plan implementation for 1996. Statutory Authority Under M.S. 103D A watershed district is a special district approximating natural watershed boundaries, established by the BWSR (after a nominating petition has been filed) in accordance with the TABLE 1 -1 RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT MANAGERS ANOKA COUNTY Andrew J. Cardinal, Sr. Ernest A. Petrangelo C. Wade Savage Eugene L. Peterson RAMSEY COUNTY George V. Dimke Robert R. Hamilton Diane N. Harstad Lloyd H. Scott, Sr. Gerald A. Sande Arndt J. Duvall Herbert G. Lancaster Carole V. Ryden Barbara A. Haake David T. Cooper W.To n Waddell Ordeen J. Braathen WASHINGTON COUNTY Wilbur L. Goyer Charles T. King Donald E. Willcoxen Arthur J. Potts Roger L. Oberg Robert M. Hult January 1972 - January 1972 - January 1987 - January 1993 - January 1987 January 1993 January 1972 - April 1980 January 1972 - April 1981 January 1981 - January 1985 April 1981 - October 1988 January 1985 January 1994 February 1989 - September 1990 February 1991 - January 1994 January 1994 - January 1997 February 1994 - December 1998 January 1997 - December 1998 January 1999 — January 1999 — January 1972 January 1980 May 1990 January 1986 January 1989 January 1992 January 1995 January 1980 January 1986 January 1992 January 1989 May 1990 January 1995 1 -2 there are numerous herbs replacing the shrubs. Table 2-8 shows some of the plant and animal species which may occur in this community. Wetland- aquatic communities are interspersed throughout the other three communities, and are predominantly in the northern portion of the District. Vegetation types range from aquatic plants to trees that emerge along wetland boundaries. Table 2-9 lists potential plant and animal species found in the wetland aquatic communities. A more detailed description of wetland communities and their locations can be found in Section 3. Important Plant and Animal Communities The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has completed county biological surveys of Anoka, Ramsey, and Washington Counties. The surveys document the biological diversity present and provide information for use in implementing improvement projects and planning for development impacts. Detailed information is available from the DNR Section of Wildlife. An additional reference worth noting is the recently published St. Croix River Valley and Anoka Sandplain: A Guide to Native Habitats, which is published by the University of Minnesota Press. Colonial water birds rank among the District's more visible wildlife. Two large heron colonies are located within its boundary. The Howard Lake Colony in the Lamprey Pass Wildlife Management Area is among the larger and more diverse colonies in Minnesota. A 1982 inventory listed nearly 1,100 active nests occupied by one of four different species: great blue herons, great egrets, black - crowned night herons, and double- crested cormorants. The Howard Lake site was only recently (1979) discovered. The District's other colony has been known since the 1940s. This colony recently moved from Rice Lake to Peltier Lake. Though much smaller in size, the Peltier Lake colony remains one of the larger sites in the Twin Cities area. The colony supports primarily great blue herons, but great egrets, black - crowned night herons, and cormorants also nest there. The sandy outwash plain that characterizes the Rice Creek watershed also provides ideal habitat for the Blanding's Turtle. This species of turtle is limited in distribution and vulnerable to overcollecting. Preserving wetland areas in the watershed is important to the species' survival. 2 -18 10/97 TABLE 2-8 MAPLE- BASSWOOD FOREST COMMUNITY Trees Sugar Maple Basswood Ironwood American Elm Slippery Elm Shrubs Hazelnut Chokecherry Juneberry American Elder Herbs Hepatica Violet Virginia Creeper Climbing Bittersweet Sweet, Cicley Large- flowered Bellwort Mammals Vole Chipmunk Squirrel Cottontail Rabbit Red Fox Reptiles and Amphibians Frog Garter Snake Birds Woodpeckers Black- capped Chickadee House Wren American Redstart Least Flycatcher Ovenbird Rose - breasted Grosbeak Source: Hickok, 1977. 2 -19 8/94 RICE CREEK WATERSHEE 1995 MUSA MAP LEGEND 7KAPF/ 1995 MUSA AREA ::•� 02'W 1 11 r 1 J ■HrE 400(Q '.N 0 1r mom 0 .000 5000 .0.000 'art { { MONTGOMERY WATSON to q1 • Potential Environmental Hazards In the District, the greatest potential source of surface water contamination is nonpoint source pollution from urban runoff, soil erosion, and animal wastes from feed lots. Potential groundwater contamination comes from existing dumps and industry or petroleum pipelines. Urban runoff and soil erosion sources are discussed in another section of this plan. Feedlots. There are six permitted animal feed lots in Anoka County and 30 such lots in Washington County. This is a large increase from the 16 permitted feed lots identified in the 1986 water resource management plan. Feedlots, if located close to a waterway and without proper safeguards, can contribute significant amounts of nutrients (including phosphorus) and biological oxygen demand to receiving waters. Of these 36 feed lots, 14 have 25 or more animal units and are considered commercial operations rather than hobby operations. Map 9 shows the location of permitted feed lots, and Table 2 -13 gives a brief description of each feed lot operation. Potential Groundwater Contamination. The MPCA conducted an open dump survey in 1980 and has since continually updated this survey. The MPCA, through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit system, maps locations where hazardous waste is either generated, stored, processed, or disposed. Map 10 shows the location of potential groundwater contamination as identified in these two programs. Table 2-14 gives the name of the potential site of groundwater contamination and a listing of the type of materials disposed at each location. The MPCA, under state and federal Superfund programs, is evaluating several sites to determine potential impacts on groundwater. Pipelines. Map 11 shows the location of petroleum pipelines throughout the District. There are three oil pipelines within the District: the American Oil Company pipeline, Williams Brothers Company pipeline, and Minnesota Pipeline Company pipeline. In addition, the Northern Natural Gas pipeline traverses the District. These petroleum and gas pipelines cross Rice Creek in several locations;- a break in these pipelines would cause harm to surface and ground waters of the District. Fish Consumption Advisory. Mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been found in some fish from certain waters of the District. The Minnesota Department of Health issued a consumption advisory to be used as a guide to choosing fish which are 10/97 likely to be lower in contaminants. Mercury concentrations are from incinerated wastes, latex paints, and burning of fossil fuels. PCBs are synthetic oils which come from electrical transformers, cutting oils, and carbonless paper. PCBs were banned in 1976 but do not decompose easily and therefore remain in water and sediments for long periods. Lakes in Ramsey County with advisories are Bald Eagle, White Bear, and Long. 2-34a 10/97 N 5 1 • (Continued) 0 1 m al X MO is 10 a z . 0. a 0. 0. :a :2 N C CI 0 N C N 0 O m C 9- m E E o 9E oEE y ° 0w 17 ta �►•of c)4 C,7 4. c�..c a � 0 o �' m' � d'm d' n m o wm o ~ m" m ~ L L 0 y c }� r u o � w l2, Uix ry ZO rr, o Ccm 0 0 0 R G Q 0 0 "C7 i 'C7 'C3 b b • 'O b w o. c o. 2 m us ri vi Ul m m U 0 4 m m 0 am °) E ca m O°i 0 0 d m 0 MI l .0 .c °0 ca m N m N N 4 1 ', 1 4 4 0 0 R 0 0 0 - as 0 0 0 Ul W CGI C4 Cs7 R1 W C4 • 1 N N N - O M N �i o c .4. cn U2 CO 02 co 2-37 10/97 MPCA, 1984, 1991. O a te g ash a1 •1 N r1 0 0 rwl .CL o O N til C/1 v O o 0 Cn F m Z u z0 • m m E .G CO O. 25 beef cattle toto .0 o N .0 ri Ch o CA ...4 M 3 3 3 I•E �2If1JI3 H1fOW 3AOGV S31111 O 01 ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE M.S.L. (1929 ADJ.) co co co co co co o O o 0 0 . o EAST RIVER ROAD LOCKE LAKE DAM --� BURLINGTON NORTHERN RR UNIVERSITY AVE 039 11V3H1S HIGHWAY 65 CENTRAL AVE SILVER LAKE ROAD MISSISSIPPI STREET LONG LAKE ROAD MINNESOTA TRANSFER RAILROAD BRIDGE POPPYSEED ROAD HIGHWAY 10 AON3f1O3Ud UV3A OOl r- 0 co co oo co A O) CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 t. m .11 a aC 0 a 00 a I a a w w 8 a V eo 10 v a 0 0 0 0 o a • in I CI V Ia o - ge ed b ea @1 !r az an 8 ts 0e M 10 100 40 0 aD N e7 00 .e v� pn eo e0 0 o 0 ° 0 0 0 0 S gl W 8 e 0.'i o S % U Z 3 -12 a 2 0 0. 0 0. .9 le 57' u a � a 5 1 2 Ins IH S a 8 1 v 'fl • Q g • S m 8/94 wetland regulation. DNR protected wetlands are defined in M.S. 105.37 as "all Types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands, as defined in United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition), not included within the definition of public waters, which are 10 or more acres in size in unincorporated areas of 2.5 or more acres in incorporated areas." Permits are required from the DNR for any alteration of protected wetlands or waters below the ordinary high water elevation. General wetland locations are shown on Map 13 with DNR protected basins shown on Map 14. Detailed maps of DNR protected waters are included in the appendix. The NWI maps were begun in the late 1970s and have recently become available in draft form for the RCWD. The NWI classifies wetland Types 1 -8 regardless of size and therefore provides a more complete accounting of wetland areas. Each municipality in the District has been sent copies of the NWI by the District for local use. Additional copies are available through the District or the Board of Water and Soil Resources. Reproduction of the NWI maps within this plan was not possible due to the large area of the District. A detailed discussion of wetland complexes and permitting requirements of the DNR and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is included in the Appendix. Also included is a chart for classifying wetlands under several different classification systems used by the various regulating agencies. Floodplain The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Flood Insurance Program have mapped the Watershed District's floodplains. Map 15, which shows the District's 100 -year floodplain, is a composite of their surveys. Map 15 delineates the floodplain areas that would be inundated as a result of a 100 -year flood. This map does not show all floodplain areas and is in part, based on approximately hydrologic methods and limited topographical data. Flood insurance studies are available from the District and each municipality. St. Paul Water Utility The St. Paul Water Department plays a significant role in the management of the water resources of the Rice Creek Watershed District. Peltier, Centerville, Bald Eagle, and Otter Lakes are all capable of being directly affected by withdrawals for the purpose of supplying water to the St. Paul system. 3-13 10/97 The 1991 TP concentrations were compared to the long -term average. Thirteen of the 19 lakes monitored had TP concentrations which were less than their respective long -term average. Overall, the 1991 TP concentrations are about 10 percent less than their respective long -term averages. The water quality in some of the lakes seems to show trends since 1972. Baldwin, Otter, and Rice Lakes seemed to have lower TP concentrations during the last few years than concentrations in the 1970s and early 1980s. Mud and Pike Lakes seem to have decreased in water quality. Secchi Transparency. In order to identify long -term changes in lake water quality, Secchi disc transparency readings were reviewed. The values shown in Table 3 -7 represent Secchi transparencies from RCWD monitoring from 1972 -91. Average Secchi transparency is also calculated. Data collected during the summer of 1991 were compared to the respective long -term averages. Of the monitored lakes, seven showed a decrease in transparency of greater than 30 percent in 1991 compared to the long -term average. Conversely, only two lakes, Otter and Sunset, showed increased water clarity of greater than 30 percent in 1991. However, during 1991 lakes were monitored only one or three times. Given the short -term fluctuations in Secchi transparencies, the 1991 data may not offer a good representation of summer water quality. Trophic Status. Using RCWD monitoring data, the average trophic state over the past 17 years was determined for 32 lakes within the RCWD. Trophic states were determined using average summer TP concentrations for the respective lakes. Values are shown in Table 3 -8. According to Heiskary (1985), lakes with trophic states of 0 -40 are oligotrophic, 41 -50 are mesotrophic, 51 -70 are eutrophic, while a trophic.. state of greater than 70 indicates a hypereutrophic lake. Using this definition, an estimate of the Minnesota lake classifications was made. The distribution is compared to the distribution of RCWD lakes in Table 3 -9. 3 -22 10/97 TABLE 3-8 LAKE CAPABILITY 1 <10 ft maximum depth 2 Ramsey County monitoring () or (X) Based on cursory review of Ramsey County data "Expected Water Quality" was determined through comparison of depth, tributary area, and Trophic State Index with other lakes in the region 3-23 10/97 Classification Lake Long- Meets or Term Exceeds Avg. TSI Expected Water Quality Lake Wetland' Significant Potential for Improvement Significant Database Exists White Bear 47 X Turtle 48 (X) X X Xl X2 Johanna 55 (X) Oneka 56 X Josephine 57 (X) Round (Ramsey) 58 X Rondeau 59 X X X X X X X' X X' X X Spring 60 X Clear 61 X Bald Eagle 61 Moore 61 X Pine Tree 61 X X X X X X X X X : X2 X X Island 62 (X) Rice 64 X Sunset 65 X Silver 65 () Karth 65 X X X X X X X Xa X X' Centerville 66 Otter 66 () Golden 66 X Valentine 67 (X) Pike 67 X X X X X X X X X Xs 1995 X2 X Reshanau 68 Mud 69 X Long (North) 69 (X) Marshan 70 X George Watch 72 X X X X X X X 1995 X Xs X X Peltier 72 Crossways 73 X Baldwin 76 - X Howard 78 X X X X X X X X 1995 X 1 <10 ft maximum depth 2 Ramsey County monitoring () or (X) Based on cursory review of Ramsey County data "Expected Water Quality" was determined through comparison of depth, tributary area, and Trophic State Index with other lakes in the region 3-23 10/97 Eagle, Otter, and Island. Efforts are underway to develop programs to control the growth of milfoil in these lakes, and to prevent its spread to other waterbodies. Because of the threat of Eurasian water milfoil, the District has undertaken several macrophyte surveys in recent years. The surveys were performed on Centerville, Peltier, Bald Eagle, White Bear and Clear Lakes. These lakes either had established colonies of the weed, were located downstream of infested lakes, or were considered at risk of becoming infested because of high transient boat traffic. Ramsey County has conducted macrophyte surveys on all the large lakes within their jurisdiction and did not find milfoil communities in any additional lakes. RCWD field staff routinely makes checks for the weed during all lake sampling events. Any suspect plant is sampled and returned to the laboratory for positive identification. In this manner, nearly all District lakes are monitored for milfoil. Additional References Detailed diagnostic/feasibility studies were completed in 1991 -92 for Centerville/Peltier.and White Bear/Bald Eagle Lakes. As part of these studies, intense monitoring was performed on many of the inlets to the lakes. These reports are on file at the MPCA. Also at the MPCA is a copy of the final report for the Long Lake Chain of Lakes Project. This project targeted water quality within the Long-Johanna-Josephine Lakes Watershed. The majority of the implementation projects were completed in the late 1970s through mid 1980s. The final report discusses some of the specific results of the program and provides additional lake and stream quality data. Each year the water quality monitoring program for the District is coordinated with the St. Paul Water Utility, Anoka Soil and Water Conservation District, and Ramsey County. Cost sharing parameters and lakes monitored vary from year to year. In addition, the Metropolitan Council has a rotating monitoring schedule which provides data for priority lakes in the Watershed. The detailed lake studies completed in the last several years have collected large amounts of information which should be assimilated into the watershed management and regulatory programs of the District. The 1992 Water Quality Monitoring Program has established a sub- budget for the District to prioritize water quality management activities. The baseline 3 -27 8/94 41) TABLE 3-12 MPCA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Use Class A. Class B Class C Class D 1. Domestic Consumption 2. Fisheries and Recreation 3. Industrial Consumption 4. Agriculture and Wildlife 5. Navigation and Waste Disposal 6. Other Uses 7. Limited Resource Value Waters Drinking quality Drinking quality Drinking quality with approved after treatment: disinfection coagulation, maintained without any treatment Quality permits propagation and maintenance of warm or cold water fish; suitable for all recreation including bathing Quality suitable for use without chemical treatment except softening Quality sufficient for irrigation Quality permits propagation and maintenance of cool or warm water fish; suitable for all recreation including bathing (Class 2Bd is also protected as a drinking water source) Quality suitable for use after moderate treatment quality sufficient for use by wildlife and livestock sedimentation, filtration, storage, chlorination Quality permits propagation and maintenance of rough fish species, suitable for bathing quality suitable for use for cooling and materials transport without high degree of treatment Drinking quality after treatment for Class C pre, post, or intermediate treatment Quality suitable for aesthetic enjoyment of scenery and to avoid any interface with navigation or property damage. May be established as determined necessary. Quality protected for aesthetic qualities, secondary body contact, and groundwater. Do not provide enough water or habitat for aquatic life and recreation. Source: Minnesota Rules, State Reviser of Statutes, 1984. 3-28 10/97 data which the District has accumulated can be utilized to define lake capabilities and expectations in order to develop a more specific water quality management plan. MPCA Water Quality Standards The MPCA has established a system of classification of intra -state waters, whereby standards of quality are based on different categories of use. The standards are outlined in Table 3 -12. Rice Creek, Bald Eagle, Centerville, and Otter Lakes are all classified as 1C, 2Bd, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, or 6. All remaining waters are classified under M.R. 7050.0430 as 2B, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, or 6. Assessment of Lake Capability Table 3 -8 provided an overview of the capability of the large open waterbodies in the District. Many of the District's lakes are more appropriately managed as Type V wetlands. These may have "poor" water quality when compared to recreational lakes, however, it is not realistic for them to have good quality due to their shallow nature. For a detailed analysis of this type, see the RCWD "Report on 1992 Water Quality Monitoring (February 1993)." GROUNDWATER RESOURCES The RCWD is located over very substantial groundwater reserves. The major aquifers include: glacial sand and gravel, the Prairie du Chien - Jordan, and the Mt. Simon - Hinckley. The Prairie du Chien - Jordan supplies 75 percent of the groundwater pumped in the Twin City metropolitan area, while the Mt. Simon - Hinckley provides 15 percent. Bedrock groundwater in the northern portion of the Watershed District generally flows toward the west; in the southern portion, the groundwater flows to the southwest. Groundwater recharge areas are not well known in the RCWD. Glacial sand and gravel aquifers are generally recharged locally. The Mt. Simon - Hinckley aquifer is recharged outside the Watershed. It has generally been documented that the Prairie du Chien aquifer does recharge within the Watershed Recent completion of groundwater atlases and protection plans for Ramsey and Washington Counties will assist in better understanding the area hydrogeology. 3-29 10/97 Information from the Minnesota Land Management Information Center was used to develop a recharge map for the Prairie du Chien - Jordan aquifer within the District (Map 17). In preparing the map, areas were plotted with a surface permeability greater than 2.5 inches per hour and a substratum permeability greater than 5- inches per hour over the aquifer subcrop. The map is not intended for specific planning purposes because of the generalized data. However, for regional planning purposes, the map provides a good view of aquifer recharge in the District. One of the recommendations in -the Management Strategies section of this plan is to request the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota or U.S. Geological Survey to prepare a detailed recharge map for the Prairie du Chien - Jordan aquifer. The MPCA has an active groundwater monitoring system in the Watershed District. The ambient groundwater wells are listed in Table 3 -13 and shown on Map 17. The purpose of the MPCA monitoring program is to characterize the physical, chemical, bacteriological, and organic properties of each water source. Data is available to the District through the STORET system. 3 -30 10/97 TABLE 3 -13 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AMBIENT GROUNDWATER MONITORING STATIONS RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT County Anoka Ramsey GWQ No. Ambient Monitoring Station Name 0274 Mike Finneman Residence 0224 City of Fridley, Well No. 5 0068 City of Shoreview (Bucher Park Well) 0070 White Bear Township, Well No. 1 0208 City of New Brighton, Well No. 6 0209 City of New Brighton, Well No. 4 0210 City of Shoreview, Well No. 3 0226 Carl Christensen Residence 0390 City of Shoreview, Well No. 2 Washington 0172 Dellwood Golf Course, Well No. 2 3 -31 10/97 CENTERVVILLE LAKE SEDIMENT SEALING REVEGETATION L rum num= hiFJ!!!VAIW]i Ir BINLIFIRMAIMPRE T i9iiibi ;TM112 a °MEN MORN Alei HARDWOOD CREEK FERRIC CHLORIDE SYSTEM 1, r-`21' MEN* L" LocKE LAKE7 Matipti SEDIMENT REMOVAL Mg EN i Lurks) imp J Ian CLEARWATER CREEK TRUNK IMPROVEMENT 14111 64P141rdir 17\ MS ?LIZ SCHUNEMAN MARSH RESTORATION MARSDEN LAKE RESTORATION CENTERVILLE LAKE SEDIMENT SEALING REVEGETAI1ON elf' , . rtital 4- wourin Jill a killer ME ._ tMEMPOIAIIIIMIL6111 ArrirAisiraffsval oriamaiiii 4 man= , ordoillowl AEI 0111% Tell I-11.11 117 MIMI -- PLIMINN T ,ITV ,,,o���� J L imemmaak J RESTOR TIO MARSH 'OIL it iteg LOCKS LAICE SEDIMENT REMOVAL o i 2 miles 0- 3.000 fleet L5gir1 EOM F "inel MARSDEN LAKE RESTORATION MONTGOMERY WATSON Rice Creek IiSreitexpmibid District rnir s • TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace # GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT 1 RELATIONSHIP OF RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT TO MUNICIPALITIES 3 RULE A: DEFINITIONS 4 RULE B: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 7 1. Application Required. 2. Forms. 3. Action by Board of Managers. 4. Issuance of Permits. 5. Permit Term. 6. Permit Assignment. 7. Permit Fees. ` 8. Performance Surety. 9. Other Permits and Approvals. RULE C: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS 11 1. Policy. 2. Regulation., 3. Design Criteria for Stormwater Management Plans. 4. Required Exhibits. 5. Platting or Easement Documents. 6. Exceptions. RULE D: EROSION CONTROL PLANS 17 1. Policy. 2. Regulation. 3. Design Criteria for Erosion Control Plans. 4. Required Exhibits. 5. Exceptions. RULE E: FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION 19.. 1. Policy. 2. Regulation. 3. Criteria for Floodplain Alteration. 4.. Drainage Easements. 5. Required Exhibits. i RULE F: WETLAND ALTERATION 23 1. Policy. 2. Regulation. 3. Criteria. 4. Local Government Unit. 5. Required Exhibits. 6. Exceptions. RULE G: BRIDGES AND CULVERT CROSSINGS 26 1. Policy. 2. Regulation. 3. Criteria. 4. Required Exhibits. 5. Exceptions. RULE H: SHORELAND DEVELOPMENT 28 1. Policy. 2. Regulation. 3. Criteria. 4. Required Exhibits. 5. Exceptions. RULE I: DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 30 1. Policy. 2. Regulation. 3. Criteria. 4. Required Exhibits. 5. Exceptions. RULE J: APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC WATERS 32 1. Policy. 2. Regulation. 3. Criteria. RULE K: ENFORCEMENT 1. Violation of Rules a Misdemeanor. 33 2. District Court Action. 3. Administrative Order. RULE L: VARIANCES 34 1. Variances Authorized. 2. Standard. 3. Term. 4. Violation. ii GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT The Rice Creek Watershed District (District) is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, established under the Minnesota Watershed Law. The District is also a watershed management organization as defined under the Minnesota Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, and is subject to the directives and authorizations in that Act. Under the Watershed Law, and the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the District exercises a series of powers to accomplish its statutory purposes. The District's general statutory purpose is to conserve natural resources through development planning, flood control, and other conservation projects, based upon sound scientific principles. As required under the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the District has adopted a Watershed Management Plan, which . contains the framework and guiding principles for the District in carrying out its statutory purposes. It is the District's intent to implement the Plan'`s principles and objectives in these rules. Land alteration affects the rate, volume, and quality of surface water runoff which ultimately must be accommodated by the existing surface water systems within the District. The watershed is large, 201 square miles, and its outlet, Rice Creek, has limited capacity to carry flows. Flooding problems already occur in the District's urbanized areas along lower Rice Creek and other localized areas. Land alteration and utilization also can degrade the quality of runoff entering the streams and waterbodies of the District due to non -point source pollution. Lake and stream sedimentation from ongoing erosion processes and construction activities reduces the hydraulic capacity of waterbodies and degrades water quality. Water quality problems already exist in many of the lakes and streams throughout the District. Projects which increase the rate or volume of stormwater runoff can aggravate existing flooding problems and contribute to new ones. Projects which degrade runoff quality can aggravate existing water quality problems and contribute to new ones. Projects which fill floodplain or wetland areas can aggravate existing flooding by reducing flood storage and hydraulic capacity of waterbodies, and can degrade water quality by eliminating the filtering capacity of those areas. In these rules the District seeks to protect the public health and welfare and the natural resources of the District by providing reasonable regulation of the modification or alteration of the District's lands and waters to reduce the severity and frequency of flooding and high water, to preserve floodplain and wetland storage capacity, to improve the chemical, physical and biological quality of surface water, to reduce sedimentation, to preserve 1 • waterbodies' hydraulic and navigational capacity, to preserve natural wetland and shoreland features, and to minimize public expenditures to avoid or correct these problems in the future. 2 RELATIONSHIP OF RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT TO MUNICIPALITIES The District recognizes that the primary control and determination of appropriate land uses is the responsibility of the municipalities. Accordingly, the District will coordinate permit application reviews involving land development with the municipality where the land is located. The District intends to be active in the regulatory process to ensure that its water resources are managed in accordance with District goals and policies. Municipalities have the option of assuming a more active role in the permitting process after adoption of a local water management plan approved by the District and adoption and implementation of local ordinances consistent with :the approved plan. The District will also review projects sponsored or undertaken by municipalities and other governmental units, and generally will require permits of the contractor for governmental projects impacting water resources of the District. These•projects include but are not limited to, land development and redevelopment, road, trail, and utility construction. The District desires to serve as technical advisor to the municipalities in their preparation of local surface water management plans and the review of individual development proposals prior to investment of significant public or private funds. To 'promote a coordinated review process between the District and the municipalities, the District encourages the municipalities or townships to contact the District early in the planning process. 3 RULE A DEFINITIONS For the purposes of these rules, the following words have the meanings set forth below. References in these rules to specific sections of the Minnesota Statutes include any amendments, revisions or recodification of those sections. Beds of protected waters - all portions of protected waters and wetlands located below the ordinary high water level. Best management practices (BMPs) - measures taken to minimize negative effects on the environment as documented in the Minnesota Construction Site :Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (MBWSR, 1988) and Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (MPCA, 1989) Criteria - specific details, methods and specifications that apply to all permits and reviews and that guide implementation of the District's goals and policies. Detention basin - any natural or man -made depression that stores storm -water runoff temporarily. Development - any proposal to subdivide land, any land disturbing activity or creation of impervious surface, including but not limited to, municipal road construction or improvement and construction or reconstruction of stormwater conveyance systems, except that plowing as part of an on -going farming operation shall not be considered.development. District - the Rice Creek Watershed District established under the Minnesota Watershed Law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D. Drainage system - a system of a ditch or tile, or both, to drain property, including laterals, improvements, and improvements of outlets. Effective impervious area - area of land which is incapable of either infiltrating rainfall or retaining runoff on site for a one - year, twenty -four hour storm. Equal encroachment - encroachment lines so stream are capable of flows. a method of determining the location of that flood plain lands on both sides of a conveying a proportionate share of flood Excavation - the displacement or removal of sediment or other material. Floodplain - the area adjoining a watercourse or natural or man- made water basin, including the area around lakes, marshes and lowlands, that is inundated during a 100 -year flood. Floodway - the channel of the watercourse, the bed of water basins, and those portions of the adjoining floodplains that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 100 -year flood may be carried without increasing the 100 -year flood elevation by more than 0.5 feet Floodway fringe - the area between the floodway and the boundary of the 100 -year flood. Governmental project - projects sponsored or paid for by a governmental agency. Landlocked basin - a basin that does not have a natural outlet at or below the 100 -year flood elevation, as determined by the 100 - year ten -day runoff event. Low floor - the lowest level of a structure, usually the basement or walk -out level. Major drainageway - any drainageway having a tributary area. of 200 acres or greater. Municipality - any city or township wholly or partly within the Rice Creek Watershed District. NURP - Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (see Appendix). Ordinary high water level (OHW) - the elevation.del.ineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water level is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. Parcel - any quantity of land capable of being described with such definiteness that its location and boundaries may be established. Person - association, corporation, Minnesota. any natural person, partnership,- unincorporated corporation, limited liability company, municipal state agency, political subdivision of the State of Public ditch - a county or judicial ditch over which the District has jurisdiction, or a ditch or tile established, constructed, or transferred to the District and over which the District has jurisdiction under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103D, 103E, or 103B. 5 Public waters all waters identified as public waters under Minnesota Statutes. section 103G.005, subdivision 15 Public waters wetlands - all wetlands identified as public waters wetlands under Minnesota Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision 15a. Redevelopment any proposal to subdivide or re- subdivide land, any land - disturbing activity or creation of impervious surface on a developed site. Sedimentation basin - a natural or man -made depression that temporarily stores storm -water runoff for the purpose of allowing a portion of the suspended solids in the runoff to settle out. Setback - The minimum horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark or between a structure or sanitary facility and a road, highway,. or property line. Shoreland zone - land areas within 1,000 feet of the OHW of a public waters lake or 300 feet of a public waters watercourse. Standards - a preferred or desired level of quantity, quality, or value. Subdivision, subdivide - the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots. Waterbasin - an enclosed natural depression with definable banks capable of containing water, that may be partly filled with waters of the state. Watercourse - a channel that has definable beds and banks capable of conducting confined runoff from adjacent land. Wetland - any area identified as wetlands under Minnesota Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision 19. RULE B PERMIT PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 1. APPLICATION REQUIRED. Any person undertaking an activity for which a permit is required by these rules shall, prior to commencing work, submit to the District a permit application, engineering design data and such other information and exhibits as may be required by these rules. All permit applications must bear the original signature of the landowner, or selected contractor for governmental projects. 2. FORMS. Permit applications must be submitted on the' form provided by the District. Applicants may obtain these forms at the District office. 3. ACTION BY BOARD OF MANAGERS. The Board of Managers shall act within sixty days of receipt of a complete permit application. A complete permit application includes all required information, exhibits, fees and surety. 4. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. The Board of Managers will issue a permit only after applicant has satisfied all requirements for the permit, has paid all required District fees, and the District has received any required surety. 5. PERMIT TERM. Permits are valid for an eighteen month period from the date of issuance unless otherwise suspended or revoked. To extend a permit, the permittee must apply to the District in writing, stating the reasons for extension. Any plan changes; and related project documents must also be included in the extension application. The District must receive this application at least thirty days prior to the permit's expiration date. 6. PERMIT ASSIGNMENT. A permittee may assign a District permit only upon consent by the Board of Managers to the assignment. STANDARD. The Board of Managers may grant the assignment of an issued permit if it finds the following conditions have been met: (a) The proposed assignee in writing agrees to assume all the terms, conditions and obligations of the permit as originally issued to the permittee. (b) The proposed assignee has the ability to satisfy the terms and conditions of the permit as originally issued. (c) The proposed assignee is not changing the project as originally permitted. 7 • (d) There are no violations of the permit conditions as originally issued. (e) The Board of Managers has received from the proposed assignee any required surety to secure performance of the assigned permit. 7. PERMIT FEES. The District will charge the applicant permit fees in accordance with the following fee schedule: *Land Development Plans Less than 10 lots $250 10 - 99 lots $500 100 or more lots $750 *Final Site Drainage Plans Less than 1 acre impervious surface $150 Greater than 1 acre impervious surface $500 . Bridge or Culvert Crossincts on Creeks, Public Ditches, Malor Watercourses in the District Rice, Clearwater, Hardwood Creeks and all Public Ditches $500 All other crossings $150 *Streets and Utilities $500 Appropriation of Surface Water $50 *A11 Other Permit Applications .$150 *An additional $500 fee will be charged to applicant if the project involves a Wetland Replacement or Banking Plan, or a crossing of Rice, Clearwater, Hardwood Creeks, or of a public ditch. PROCEDURE AND PAYMENT OF FEE. Applicant must submit the required permit fee to the District at the time it submits its permit application. GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES EXEMPT. The fees described above will not be charged to the federal government, the State of Minnesota or a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. 8. PERFORMANCE SURETY. (a) POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to conserve the District's water resources by assuring compliance with its rules. 8 Requiring a bond or other surety to secure performance of the permit conditions and the District rules is an effective way to conserve the District's water resources. (b) PERFORMANCE SURETY REQUIREMENT. A cash surety in an amount set forth below must be submitted to the District with each permit application for the activities described below: Description of Activity Cash Surety Amount 1. Site development with less than 5 acres of disturbed area 2. Site development with less than 10, but greater than 5 acres of disturbed area 3. Site development with greater than 10 acres of disturbed area 4. Any alteration of Type III, IV, or V Wetlands 5. Construction of a Public Ditch Crossing 6. Grading activity within 100 feet of Rice Creek or a Public Ditch 7. Construction activity (sewer and water line installation) in or along Rice Creek or any Public Ditch 8. Wildlife pond construction and shoreland improvement projects 9. Wetland replacement plans governed by WCA $1, 500 $2,500 if a detention pond is required $2,500 $3,500 if a detention pond is required $3,500 + $250 per ad- ditional acre over 10 $3,500 $2,500 for single -lane road or driveway $5,500 for two -lane or greater roadway $3,500 for parallel distances less than 500 feet $5,500 for parallel distances 500 feet or greater $3,500 for parallel distances less than 500 feet $5,500 for parallel distances 500 feet or greater $250 $500 + $10,000 per acre replaced An applicant may submit a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit to the District to secure performance of permit 9 • • • conditions for activities for which the required surety amount as determined above is in excess of $5,000. The performance bond or letter of credit must be submitted with the permit application. (c) FORM AND CONTENTS OF PERFORMANCE BOND OR LETTER OF CREDIT. (1) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must be in a form acceptable to the District and from a surety licensed to do business in Minnesota. (2) The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must be in favor of the District and conditioned upon the performance of the party obtaining the performance bond or letter of credit of the activities authorized in the permit, and compliance with all applicable laws, including the District's rules, the terms and conditions of the permit and payment when due of any fees or other charges required by law, including the District's rules. The performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit must provide that if the performance bond conditions are not met, the District may make a claim against the performance bond or letter of credit. (d) RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE SURETY. Upon written notification from permittee of completion of the permitted project, the District will inspect the project to determine if it is constructed in accordance with the terms of the permit and District rules. If the project is completed in accordance with the terms of the permit and District rules and the party providing the performance surety does not have an outstanding balance of money owed to the District for the project, including but not limited to unpaid permit fees, the District will release the performance bond or letter of credit, or return the cash surety if applicable. 9. OTHER PERMITS AND APPROVALS. It is the permit applicant's responsibility to secure all permits and approvals that are required by other governmental authorities, and provide the District proof that applicant has submitted these permit applications. 10 RULE C STORM -WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: (a) Manage stormwater and snowmelt runoff on a regional or subwatershed basis and promote natural infiltration of runoff throughout the District to: (1) Provide effective water quality treatment and where possible provide such treatment prior to discharge to surface waterbodies and wetlands. (2) Ensure that 'future peak rates of runoff are less than or:equal to existing rates. (3) Maximize infiltration and control run -off volume increase. (b) Require stormwater facilities to be constructed on individual sites where regional facilities are not available. 2. REGULATION. A permit and stormwater management plan is required under this rule for new development, redevelopment, or additions to an existing site. 3. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS. Stormwater management plans must comply with the following criteria: (a) A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory must be used to analyze stormwater runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels within and off the project site. (b) Stormwater runoff rates for the proposed project must not exceed pre - project runoff rates for the critical one -year or two -year and 100 -year frequency events. (c) Regional detention basins will be utilized to manage peak flow rates and meet water quality objectives where possible. On -site detention basins will be utilized when regional basins are not in place or are not feasible. (d) Analysis of flood levels, storage volumes, and flow rates for waterbodies and detention basins must be based on the range of rainfall and snow melt durations which produces the critical (highest) flood levels and discharges. (e) Detention basins must be designed to provide: 11 • (1) An outlet structure to control the one -year or two -year and 100 -year frequency events to pre- project peak runoff rates. (2) An identified overflow spillway sufficiently stabilized to convey flows greater than the 100 -year critical storm event. (3) Access for future maintenance. (f) Permanent sedimentation and water quality ponds are required and must be designed to provide: (1) Water quality features consistent with NURP criteria and District wet pond criteria (see appendix). (2) A permanent wet pool with dead storage of at least equal to the runoff from a 2.5 rainfall over the area tributary to the pond. (3) An outlet structure capable of preventing migration of floating debris and oils for at least the one -year storm. (4) Access for future maintenance. (g) The proposed project must not adversely affect water levels off the site during or after construction. (h) Stormwater Management Plans under this rule must conform with approved Municipal Stormwater Management Plans. (i) Outfall structures within wetlands and public waters and public waters wetlands must incorporate a stilling - basin, surge- basin, energy dissipater, placement of ungrouted natural rock riprap or other. devices to minimize disturbance and erosion of natural shoreline and bed resulting from stormwater discharges. (j) All new residential, commercial, industrial and other habitable or non - habitable structures must be constructed so that the lowest floor elevations are a minimum of two feet above the critical event 100 -year high water elevation and are one foot above the overflow elevation of nearby surface waterbodies wetlands and stormwater basins. 12 Within landlocked basins, lowest floor elevations must be at least one foot above the surveyed basin overflow elevation. (k) Development resulting in the creation of impervious surfaces must explicitly address use of best management practices ( BMP's) to first limit the loss of pervious area; and second, to infiltrate runoff which does occur from impervious areas to the extent feasible considering site- specific conditions. BMP's include the use of vegetated swales, pond outlets perched above groundwater levels, use of infiltration systems, roof drainage to pervious areas, minimum of twenty percent pervious surface, use of depressed /casual storage areas, and minimization of the number and width of parking stalls and use of deep - rooted native vegetation, and narrower "rural section" roads. The goal of these BMP's is to incorporate practices into €he design which are capable of infiltrating the impervious surface runoff from the Mpls - St.Paul median storm (0.34 inches) in seventy -two hours. Infiltration volume will be calculated using the appropriate hydrologic soil group classification and saturated infiltration rate from the table below. Hydrologic Infiltration Soil Group Rate Soil Textures A 0.50 in /hr sand, loamy sand, or sandy loam B 0.25 in /hr silt loam or loam C 0.10 in /hr sandy clay loam D 0.03 in /hr clay loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, or clay Source: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, SCS, June 1986. Infiltration area will be limited to the horizontal areas subject to prolonged wetting. Areas of permanent pools tend to lose infiltration capacity overtime and will not be accepted as an infiltration practice. (1) Landlocked basins may be provided with outlets only if they: (1) Retain a hydrologic regime which complies with District Wetland Alteration Rule F. 13 (2) Provide sufficient dead storage volume to retain back -to -back 100 -year, twenty- four -hour rainfalls and runoff. (3) Do not create adverse downstream flooding or water quality conditions as a result of increased discharge rate or volume, or other factors. (m) All stormwater management structures and facilities must be properly maintained in perpetuity to assure that they continue to function as originally designed. This maintenance responsibility must be assumed either by the municipality's accepting the required easements dedicated to stormwater management purposes, or by the applicant executing and recording a maintenance agreement acceptable to the District. 4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 "x17." (a) Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant. (b) Delineation of the subwatershed contributing runoff from off -site, proposed and existing subwatersheds on- site, emergency overflows, and drainageways. (c) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities' location, alignment and elevation. (d) Delineation of existing on -site wetland, marshes, shoreland and /or floodplain areas. (e) Identification of existing and proposed normal, and ordinary high and 100 -year water elevations on -site. (f) Identification of existing and proposed site contour elevations related to NGVD, 1929 datum. (g) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater management, facilities, including design details for outlet control structures. (h) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for the one and 100 -year critical events, existing and proposed conditions. (i) All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations completed to design the proposed stormwater management facilities. 14 (j) Narrative addressing incorporation of infiltration BMP's. (k) Delineation of any ponding or flowage easements or other property interest dedicated to stormwater management purposes. 5. PLATTING OR EASEMENT DOCUMENTS. Applicant must provide platting or easement documents showing sufficient drainage and ponding /flowage easements over hydrologic features such as floodplains, storm sewers, ponds, ditches, swales, wetlands and waterways. Structures and facilities subject to flood damage built within the 100 -year flood will have two feet of freeboard between the lowest floor and the 100 -year flood profile. 6. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to development or redevelopment of individual sites less than 2.5 acres in size for industrial, commercial, and multi -unit residential, and less than five acres in size for single- family residential, unless such development or redevelopment: (1) Is within the 100 -year floodplain. (2) Is within 1,000 feet of a public water or protected wetland. (3) Is within 300 feet of Rice Creek, Clearwater Creek, Hardwood Creek, or of a public ditch. (b) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to construction of a single - family detached dwelling on an isolated lot, unless such dwelling: (1) Is within the 100 -year floodplain. (2) Is within.1,000 feet of a public water or protected wetland. (3) Is within 300 feet of Rice Creek, Clearwater Creek, Hardwood Creek, or of a public ditch. (c) Rule C and its requirements will not apply to construction on individual lots within a residential subdivision approved by the District, unless the activity does not comply with the original development plan or has been superseded by state law. (d) The requirements of paragraph (f) of Section 3 will 15 be modified for redevelopment sites at which less than fifty - percent of the total site area (including any road right -of -way) will be disturbed, such that water quality ponding will be required only for the areas being disturbed. (e) Subdivision of land which does not propose construction of impervious surfaces or structures will be exempt from the requirements of Section 3 and paragraphs (c), (g), (h), (i) of Section 4. However, a Rule C permit is required when such future development does occur. (f) Rate control criteria discussed in Section 3 may be waived if the site discharges directly to a water body with large storage capacity (such as a public water) which has a time -to -peak elevation greater than that for an on -site pond and the volume discharged from the on- site pond is negligible -, relative to the volume of runoff entering'the water body. (g) The requirements of paragraphs (e) and (f) of Section 3 may be waived for sites with total impervious area of less than one acre, if infiltration BMP's have been incorporated into the project to the maximum extent possible. (h) The requirements of paragraph (j) of Section 3 may be waived for short - duration floods not associated with regulatory (FEMA -FIS) floodplain. Low floor elevations will not be allowed below the 100 -year water level, and the two -foot freeboard requirement would apply to the minimum building opening elevation. Additionally, applicant must submit calculations demonstrating the duration of the flood event was sufficiently brief to prevent saturation of the soil at the low floor. (i) In cases where structures are proposed below the runout elevation of land- locked basins, the low -floor elevation will be a minimum of two feet above the high water level as determined from an estimate of highwater levels determined from the highest of either the 100 -year, ten -day runoff event or back -to -back 100 -year, twenty- four -hour rainfalls. Aerial photos, vegetation, soils, and topography will be used to derive a "normal" water elevation for the basin for purposes of computing the 100 -year elevation. 16 RULE D EROSION CONTROL PLANS 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems by requiring preparation and implementation of erosion control plans for land disturbance activities. 2. REGULATION. A permit and an erosion control plan is required for new development, redevelopment, or additions to an existing site. 3. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR EROSION CONTROL PLANS. Erosion Control Plans must comply with the following criteria: (a) Natural site topography and soil conditions must be considered to reduce erosion and sedimentation during construction and after project completion. (b) Site erosion and sediment control practices must be consistent with recommendations of the Best Management Practices identified in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," and be sufficient to retain sediment on -site. (c) Erosion and sediment control measures must be installed prior to land altering activities and routinely inspected and maintained by permittee during the project until final turf and ground cover is established as documented in "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" (MPCA, 1989) . Permittee will inspect project sites after every rainfall event exceeding 0.5 inches and implement erosion and sediment control measures addressed as needed. The project must be phased as best possible to minimize disturbed areas and removal of existing vegetation until necessary for project progress. In order to ensure that sediment is retained on -site, the District Inspector may require the permit applicant to provide additional erosion control measures where site conditions warrant. (d) Silt fences will be removed after all disturbed areas have been permanently stabilized. 4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 "x17." (a) An existing and proposed topographic map which clearly indicates all hydrologic features and areas where grading will expose soils to erosive conditions. The Plan must also indicate the direction of all site runoff. 17 • (b) Tabulation of the construction implementation schedule. (c) Name, address and phone number of party responsible for maintenance of all erosion control measures. (d) Identification of all temporary erosion control measures which will remain in place until permanent vegetation is in place. Examples include, but are not limited to: Seeding with perennial vegetation, mulching, sodding, silt fence, erosion control matting, and hay bale filter barriers. (e) Identification of all permanent erosion control measures such as outfall spillways and riprap shoreline protection, and their location. (f) For projects over five acres of graded area, documentation that the project applicant has applied for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) . (g) Tabulation of all earthwork cut - and -fill volumes and computation of any floodplain volume and /or wetland area changes. 5. EXCEPTIONS. (a) Rule D and its requirements will not apply to development or redevelopment of individual sites less than 2.5 acres in size for industrial, commercial, and multi -unit residential, and less than five acres in size for single - family residential, unless such development or redevelopment: (1) Is within the 100 -year floodplain. (2) Is within 1,000 feet of a public water or protected wetland. (3) Is within 300 feet of Rice Creek, Hardwood Creek, Clearwater Creek, or of a public ditch. 18 RULE E FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: (a) Protect the lives and property values of persons occupying the flood plains. (b) Enhance the floodplains' water resource values. Water resource values are defined as those characteristics which promote the natural moderation of floods, maintain the streams' water quality, and provide groundwater recharge. (c) Promote the living resource values existing in flood plain areas which include the protection of fish and wildlife resources. (d) Enhance the flood plains' significant cultural values, which include preservation of open space, natural beauty, areas for scientific study, outdoor education, and recreation. 2. REGULATION. No person may alter or fill land below the 100 - year flood elevation of any public water, public water wetland or other wetlands without first obtaining a permit from the District. For permitting purposes the District is divided into Flood Plain Management Sector A and Sector B. These sectors aid in applying management principles which reflect the hydrologic importance of flood plain across the District. 3. CRITERIA FOR FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION. Permitting Rectuirements for Flood Plain Management Sector A Sector A contains those subwatersheds where the percentage of flood plain to total area is twelve percent or less, and the topography in terms of a generalized slope condition is predominantly greater than twelve percent. Flood Plain Management Sector A includes subwatershed 4, 5, 7,8,13a,14a,14b,14c,14d,14e,15b and 16. (a) Construction of impervious areas within flood plain areas will not be allowed within the designated groundwater recharge areas for the Prairie du Chien - Jordan formation except for road construction, trails, and other recreational improvements. (b) To protect water quality and the conveyance capacity of the flood plain, the District will not permit site development which would involve the outside storage of soluble, toxic, or buoyant materials. Examples of 19 acceptable flood plain uses include open space, golf courses, and parking • surfaces located outside of designated recharge areas with less than six inches of flooding occurring over the surface. (c) Encroachment within the 100 -year flood plain may occur if all the following conditions exist: (1) The flood plain storage volume after encroachment is equal to or greater than the flood plain storage volume prior to encroachment (compensatory storage is required) . (2) This encroachment does not lie within the floodway and does not result in a:violation of the District's Wetland Alteration Rule F. (3) Construction or development subject to flood damage will have a minimum floor elevation of two feet above the 100 -year flood profile. (4) Any structures, facilities, or embankments within the flood plain will be capable of passing the 100 -year flood without increasing the elevation of the 100 -year flood profile or creating excessive velocities as determined by the District Engineer. Permitting Rearuirements for Flood Plain Management Sector B Sector B contains those subwatersheds where the percentage of flood plain to total area is greater than twelve percent, and the topography is characterized by a general slope condition of predominantly less than twelve percent. Flood Plain Management Sector B includes subwatersheds 1,2,3,6,9,10,11,12a and 12b. (a) Construction of impervious areas will not be allowed within the designated groundwater recharge areas of the Prairie du Chien - Jordan formation except for road construction, trails, and other recreational improvements. (b) To protect water quality and the conveyance capacity of the flood plain, the District will not permit site development which would involve the outside storage of soluble, toxic, or buoyant materials. Examples of acceptable flood plain uses include open space, golf courses, and parking surfaces located outside of designated recharge areas with less than six inches of flooding occurring over the surface. 20 (c) Encroachment may occur in the flood plain areas of Flood Plain .Management Sector B if all the following conditions exist: (1) The encroachment lies within the floodway fringe area of the 100 -year flood plain in those areas where floodway has been identified, or in the absence of an established floodway, compensatory (live) storage is excavated. (2) The encroachment does not result in increasing the 100 -year flood profile within the floodway portion of the flood plain by more than 0.5 -foot or create velocities exceeding 2.5 feet /second or as determined by the District Engineer. (3) The encroachment does not violate the principle of "equal encroachment." (4) The encroachment does not result in violation of the District's Wetland Alteration Rule F. (5) Structures and facilities subject to flood damage built within the 100 -year flood will have two feet of freeboard between the lowest floor and the 100 -year flood profile. 4. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS. Applicant will provide drainage and flowage /ponding easements over flood plain areas inundated during the 100 -year flood and drainage easements within 100 feet from the centerline of Rice Creek, Hardwood Creek, Clearwater Creek, and Ramsey County Ditch #2, within fifty feet of the centerline of county and judicial ditches, or within twenty -five feet of the centerline of any major drainageway of the District. 5. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 "x17." (a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing elevation contours of the work area, ordinary high water elevation, and regional flood elevation. All elevations must be reduced to NGVD (1929 datum) . (b) Grading plan showing any proposed elevation changes. (c) Preliminary plat of any proposed land development. (d) Determination by a professional engineer or 21 qualified hydrologist of the local 100 -year flood elevation before and after the project. (e) Computation of change in flood storage capacity resulting from proposed grading. (f) Erosion Control Plan. (g) Soil boring results if available. 22 RULE F WETLAND ALTERATION 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: (a) Achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands. (b) Increase the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands. (c) Avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands. (d) Replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible and prudent.. 2. REGULATION. No person may fill, drain, excavate or otherwise alter the character of a wetland without first obtaining a permit from the District. 3. CRITERIA. (a) The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, as amended, and the rules implementing the Wetland Conservation Act as set forth in Minnesota Rules chapter 8420, as amended, are incorporated as part of this rule and govern draining or filling of wetlands within the District. (b) Excavations in wetlands for the purposes of wildlife enhancement must comply with the criteria described in the General Design Consideration for Wildlife Pond Construction and Wetland Alterations, included in the appendix of these rules. (c) Wetlands may be used for stormwater storage and treatment only if applicant demonstrates that the excavation will not adversely affect the function and values of the wetland, and will not substantially increase sediment load, tributary area, or water level fluctuations. The District will use the MPCA report, Guidance for Evaluating Urban Stormwater and Snowmelt Runoff Impacts to Wetlands to assist it in evaluating potential impacts. (d) Other activities which would change the character of a wetland must demonstrate that the quantity, quality and biological diversity of the wetland will not be diminished, as evaluated using a wetlands functions and values assessment system. 23 (e) For wetland alterations not regulated by WCA, functions and values diminished as a result of the alteration, must be replaced at a ratio of one -to -one. 4. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT. The District intends to serve as the "local government unit" for administration of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, unless a particular municipality in the District has elected to assume that role in its jurisdictional area. Notwithstanding the above, the District will continue to require wetland alteration permits under this rule. 5. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 "X17." (a) Site plan showing: (1) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant. (2) Existing and proposed elevation contours, including the existing runout elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet, and spoil disposal areas. (3) Area of the wetland portion to be filled, drained, excavated or otherwise altered. (b) Complete delineation of the existing wetland(s), supported by the following documentation: (1) Identification of the delineation method used in accordance with the 1987 Manual. (2) Identification of presence or absence of normal circumstances or problem conditions. (3) Basin classification using the Cowardian method and Circular 39. (4) Wetland data sheets, or a report, for each sample site, referenced to the location shown on the delineation map. In each data sheet /report applicant must provide the reasoning for satisfying, or not satisfying each of the technical criteria and why the area is or is not a wetland. (5) A delineation map showing the size, locations, configuration and boundaries of wetlands in relation to identifiable physical characteristics, such as roads, fence lines, 24 waterways, or other identifiable features. (6) The location of all sample sites and stakes /flags must be accurately shown on the delineation map. Delineations submitted by applicants will normally be field - verified by District staff. Applicants must leave stakes in the field to aid review of the site. Wetland delineations should be performed during the normal growing season for this area of the State of Minnesota (May 1 October 15). Delineations performed outside this time frame may or may not be permitted, depending on potential wetland impact in relation to the entire development or project. (c) A replacement plan, if required, outlining the steps . followed for the sequencing process and including documentation supporting the proposed mitigation plan. (d) A wetland functions and values assessment comparison before and after project. (e) An Erosion Control Plan. 6. EXCEPTIONS. Clearing of vegetation, plowing or pasturing in a wetland as part of an existing and on -going farming operation will not require a permit under this rule unless the activity results in draining or filling the wetland. 25 • RULE G BRIDGE AND CULVERT CROSSINGS 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to preserve the capacity of the present drainage systems to accommodate future needs. 2. REGULATION. No person may construct, improve, repair or alter the hydraulic characteristics of a bridge profile control or culvert structure on a creek, public ditch or major watercourse in the District, without first obtaining a permit from the District. 3. CRITERIA. Crossings must: (a) Provide equivalent hydraulic capacity as existing condition. (b) Retain existing navigational capacity. (c) Not adversely affect water quality. (d) Represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to all other alternatives. (e) Allow for future erosion, scour, and sedimentation considerations. 4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 "x17." (a) Construction details showing: (1) Existing and proposed flow line (invert) elevations. (2) End details with flared end sections, wingwalls and /or riprap (energy dissipaters). (3) Size and description of structure. (4) Emergency overflow elevation and route. (b) Construction schedule. (c) Narrative describing construction methods. (d) Erosion Control Plan. (e) Computations of watershed area, peak flow rates and elevations, and discussion of potential effects on water levels above and below the project area. 26 5 EXCEPTIONS. (a) Criteria 3(a) may be waived if the applicant can demonstrate with supporting hydrologic calculations: 1) the need for an increase in discharge rate in order to provide for reasonable surface water management in the upstream area, and. 2) that the downstream impacts of the increased discharge rate can be reasonably accommodated and will not exceed the existing rate at the municipal boundary. 27 • RULE H SHORELAND DEVELOPMENT 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to promote the adoption of local shoreland ordinances based on Department of Natural Resources regulations. 2. REGULATION. In those cities which have not adopted state - approved shoreland ordinances, the District requires a permit for development, grading or filling within the shoreland zone of public waters lakes and streams. 3. CRITERIA. A permit applicant for development, grading or filling within the shoreland zone of public waters lakes and streams must comply with the following setback criteria. • (a) Structure Setback Criteria. The placement of structures on lots is controlled in accordance with the class of public waters as follows: (1) For natural environment waters, at least 200 feet from the OHW for lots not served by public sewer and at least 150 feet from the OHW for lots served by public sewer. (2) For recreational development waters, at least 100 feet from the OHW for lots not served by public sewer and at least seventy -five feet from the OHW for lots' served by public sewer. (3) For general development waters, at least seventy -five feet from the OHW for lots not served by public sewer and at least fifty feet from the OHW for lots served by public sewer. (b) Sanitary Facilities Setback Criteria. Septic tank and soil absorption systems must be set back from the OHW in accordance with the class of public waters as follows: (1) For natural environment waters, at least 150 feet. (2) For recreational development waters, at least seventy -five feet. (3) For general development waters, at least fifty feet. Soil absorption systems will not be allowed in the following areas: 28 (1) Low swampy areas or areas subject to recurrent flooding. (2) Where the highest known groundwater table, bedrock, or impervious soil conditions are within four feet of the bottom of the system. (3) Where ground slope creates a danger of seepage of the effluent on the surface of the ground. 4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 "x17.° (a) Site plan showing building setback from the ordinary high water elevation. (b) Erosion Control Plan. 5. EXCEPTIONS. The requirements of Section 3 and of paragraph (a) of Section 4 above will not apply to boathouses provided they are not used for habitation, and do not contain sanitary facilities. 29 RULE I DRAINAGE SYSTEMS 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to regulate new construction, improvement or repair of public or private drainage systems (open and tiled) for the following purposes: (a) To preserve the capacities of drainage systems to accommodate future needs. (b) To improve water quality and prevent localized flooding. 2. REGULATION. No drainage system may be constructed, improved or repaired without first obtaining a permit from the District. 3. CRITERIA. A permit applicant for construction, improvement or repair of a public or private drainage system must: (a) Comply with all federal, state and District wetland protection rules and regulations. (b) Demonstrate that such activity will not adversely impact down stream water quality or quantity. (c) Provide stable channel and outfall. (d) Demonstrate concurrence with regional pond or subdivision drainage plans approved by the District, if applicable. (e) Retain a hydrologic regime which complies with District Wetland Alteration Rule F. (f) If drainage system is proposed to outlet a landlocked basin, provide sufficient dead storage volume to retain back -to -back 100 -year, twenty- four -hour rainfalls and runoff. 4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits must accompany the permit application. One set, full size; two sets, reduced to maximum size of 11 "x17." (a) Map showing location of project and tributary area. (b) Existing and proposed cross sections and profile of affected area. (c) Description of bridges or culverts required. (d) Narrative and calculations describing wetland impacts and affects on water levels above and below the project area. 30 5. EXCEPTIONS. The Board of Managers may waive the requirement of a permit under this rule for repair to a drainage system if the applicant proposes to repair a tiled system of less than fifty feet in length, and where such repair would not alter the invert of the system. 31 • RULE J APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC WATERS 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to regulate the appropriation of public waters as follows. 2. REGULATION. A permit from the District is required for the appropriation of water from: (a) A public water basin or wetland wholly within Hennepin or Ramsey County which is less than 500 acres in surface area. (b) A protected watercourse which has a drainage area of less than 50 square miles. 3. CRITERIA. A permit applicant for appropriation of public waters as described above must complete and submit to the District an appropriation checklist. The appropriation checklist form may be obtained from the District office. 32 RULE K ENFORCEMENT 1. VIOLATION OF RULES IS A MISDEMEANOR. Violation of these rules, a stipulation agreement made, or permit issued by the Board of Managers under these rules, is a misdemeanor subject to a penalty as provided by law. 2. DISTRICT COURT ACTION. The District may exercise all powers conferred upon it by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D in enforcing these rules, including criminal prosecution, injunction, or action to compel performance, restoration or abatement. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. The District may issue a cease and desist order when it finds that a proposed or initiated project presents a serious threat of soil erosion, sedimentation, or an adverse effect upon water quality or quantity, or violates any rule of the District. 33 • RULE L VARIANCES 1. VARIANCES AUTHORIZED. The Board of Managers may hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of these rules in instances when their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. The Board of Managers may grant variances where it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of these rules. 2. STANDARD. In order to grant a variance the Board of Managers must determine that: (a) Special conditions apply to the structure or land under consideration that do not apply generally to other land or structures in the District. (b) Because of the unique conditions of the property involved, . undue hardship to the applicant' would result, as distinguished from mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the rules was carried out. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute undue hardship if any reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the District's rules. (c) The proposed activity for which the variance is sought will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, will not create extraordinary public expense, will not adversely affect water quality, water control, drainage in the District. (d) The intent of the District's rules is met. 3. TERM. A variance shall expire one year after the date it is granted, unless implemented by applicant within that one year period. 4. VIOLATION. A violation of any condition set forth in a variance shall be a violation of the District rules, and shall automatically terminate the variance. 34 These Rules of the Rice Creek Watershed District were duly adopted by the Rice Creek Watershed District Board of Managers on August 12, 1998. Andrew J. Cardinal, Sr., Secfetary Board of Managers of the RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 35 • appendix y, 1/ I I it NJ{ Lti ¢ tr CC •SLOPES STEEPER THAN 4:1 PRESENT MAINTENANCE AND • BENCII AREAS PROAIOTE GROWTH OF EMERGENT VEGETATION. JAMES M. MONTGOMERY i 'TA / P'1 I •• 1 I I'1 i1 1 I/' I 1 1 r Irt LJ u u L COMPOUND WEIR EMERGENCY /SPILLWAY CS:TvG iC N • - SKi,UMER/ / TRASH R ACC /-BULKHE.40 OR % ORIFICE PLATE 1_ MIt►.= '-ANTI -SEE° COLLAR RISER IIIL.11 E, SIDE VIEW ANTI -SEEP COLLAR WEIR 'Wi'T/-' ORi 7CE BAFFLE BE_RIVE -, E,UE?GEVC. CAS7i i MG 1 SP! L_WAY \• OVERFLOW /%rte IE II`�ill`�lE ,API T i - SEE' -' COLLAR ORIFICE !m,ri RISER BOLTED -1 SKIMMER - - - - I PLATE I CONCRETE OUTLET -r IL ANTI -SEC' J COLLAR TOP VIEW I A 11CC- 11 t 1nktTnnt tt-"1v • ti r. Se. "OR 6" s41 s1 .x s ,7 . 7 ' aN0O3s el3d L73:1 5'0 Jo ,tl/0073n WnWlXyw NIV NIWW o1 Q3L-'1I103W WI3M HeROHH1 V V Mo7J' •-•4 .(B (1_7,N1WalL3C1 1419N37 t 1011 Mi..l1 • .4V • hArialLArtAlf/AO JAMES M. MONTGOMERY TYPICAL BAFFLED of 2 ANTI -SEEP COLLAR L' r. oY E. y¢ ;111 1 1 ilii _ 11. 11= 1 c\ DESIGN POND 4" WI N.) OVERLAP (,vMMM „z! ss v NOT TO SCALE T/O /E% A 1 O A CC! CP1 GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR WILDLIFE POND CONSTRUCTION AND WETLAND ALTERATIONS The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed information from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources on the design and construction of wildlife ponds. The RCWD recommends that the following considerations be incorporated. to the greatest possible extent, when constructing wildlife ponds or working within wetland areas. SIZE: The wildlife pond should be at least 1/4 acre in surface area size, although larger ponds (up to 1 acre) are preferred. SHORELINE CONTOUR It is recommended that a variable (rather than an even- sided) shoreline be constructed. This will increase the amount of shoreline per unit area thereby creating isolated areas conducive for waterfowl usage. BOTTOM CONTOUR: The bottom contour' should be varied to promote the growth of emergent vegetation. A 50'0 open water and 50% vegetative cover (including the emergent vegetation around the shoreline) will provide the greatest diversity of wildlife species. Water depth should be about 12 to 18 inches in the shallow area or the basin and about 3 to 4 feet maximum in the deepest areas.. SIDE SLOPES: The upland side slopes towards the pond should range from 3:1 to 10:1. The pond bottom side slope should be 8:1 to 12:1. BUFFER ZONE: It is important to re- establish and maintain an upland vegetative buffer ;one around the perimeter of the wildlife pond to provide nesting habitat and filter runoff. Mowing of upland areas should be avoided, if possible, until August 1 to protect nesting areas and allow for brood dispersal. BOTTOM MATERIAL: If possible, topsoil should be placed on the bottom of the basin to provide a more suitable base for aquatic vegetative growth. In addition, "muck" from an existing wetland should • be added to the topsoil, providing a "seed" for a beneficial biological aquatic community to be established. DREDGED SPOILS: All dredged spoils from pond excavation activity will need to be placed above the existing 100 -year flood elevation for the site. Erosion control measures such as silt fences and/or staked hay bales will need to be provided around the spoils. The spoils should be placed within a diked upland area to allow the spoils to dewater into the soil. Io,i r.• v nr RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT EASEMENT ACQUISITION POLICY There are several reasons why the District obtains drainage and ponding easements. The primary reason is to preserve the floodplain storage and drainage routes of the District. A second, but no less important, reason is to serve as a notice to present any future property owners that the areas within the drainage easements will at some time be inundated by water. Placement of fill or construction of any permanent structures within the drainage easement is not allowed. The nonexclusive nature of the easement does allow for acceptable uses by the landowner within the easement such as grazing or mowing. Lesser conveyance systems which serve to conduct or store runoff from upstream properties will also required easement establishment. The District will obtain nonexclusive drainage and ponding easements over all required stormwater detention facilities, conveyance structures, 100 -year floodplain, 100 -year pond levels, judicial and county ditches, wetlands, significant "natural" drainageways, maintenance paths, and emergency overflow routes. The trunk drainage system will require a minimum width of 100 feet from the centerline. Easements will be obtained along county and judicial ditches for a width of at least 50 feet from the centerline. Major drainageways having tributary areas greater than 200 acres shall require a minimum easement width of 25 feet from centerline. Drainage easements are obtained primarily through the permitting process under the following development conditions: 1. For any subdivision or "minor subdivision" which is greater than 5 acres single - family residential, or 2.5 acres commercial, multi - family, or industrial property. 2. Any subdivision regardless of size which occurs within 1,000 feet of public water or protected wetland; or within 300 feet of Rice Creek, a major drainage tributary of the District, or an officially established county or judicial ditch. 3. Easements are also required in instances where property subdivision is not occurring. These are obtained when development (or property improvement) is occurring on a parcel (previously subdivided or as -yet unplatted) which contains any of the water resource features described within paragraph 2 of this policy. A drainage easement is ordinarily conveyed to the appropriate township or municipality except in the case of judicial and county ditches where the easement is conveyed to RCWD as the ditch authority. Ditch easements provide for maintenance access as well as drainage and ponding capacity. In instances where easements will not be accepted by a municipality, the RCWD will accept the easement provided a perpetual maintenance agreement is provided by the applicant in a form acceptable to the District's Attorney. 10 (c l Official Publicatioe i STATE OF MINNESOTA RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT SITUATED IN THE COUNTIES OF - ANOKA. HENNEPIN. RAMSEY AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES. MINNESO- TA NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS ulTAKE NOTICE that the op- ales and Regulations were adop- Board of Managers of the Rice atershed District at a Public Hearing thereon held by said Board at Centerville. Minnesota. on July 19th. 1972. RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Statutory PNiey had Statutory Authority to Adept Ralesa.d Regulations •'112.34 WATERSHED ACT: DECLA- RATION OF POLICY: CITATION. Subdi- vision 1. In order to carry out conserva- tion of the natural resources of the state through land utilization. flood control and other needs upon sound scientific princi- ples for the protection of the public health and welfare and the provident use of the natural resources. the establishment of a public corporation. as an agency of the state for the aforesaid purposes, is pro- sided in this chapter of Minnesota Stat- utes. This chapter shall be construed and administered so as to make effective these purposes... "Subd. 2. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as "Minnesota Water- shed Act" "112.43 MANAGERS: POWERS. DU- TIES. Subdivision 1. The managers in order t0 give effect to the purpose of this chapter may: U7) Adopt rules and. regulations to effectuate the purposes of the act and the powers of the managers. xx." General Policy Statement al the Managers d the Rice Credo Watershed District The following rules and regulations and any rules and regulations supplementary thereto or amendatory thereof are and shall be adopted by the Managers *1 the Rice Creek Watershed District to effec- tuate the purposes d Minnesota Statutes Chapter 112. the Minnesota Watershed Act anti the powers of the Managers therein prescribed. It is the intention of the said managers that the said rules and regulations con - to the Legislative policy of Chapter that the said District was estab- to carry oat t a conservation of the al resources within it upon sound scientific principles for the protection of the public dank and welfare and the provident use of sad natural resources: it is their intention that said chapter be con- strued and administered by them as the Legislature provided so as to make the law effective. It is the intention of the managers to serve as advisors to the municipal of fi- nials in the preparation of the municipal drainage plan and the municipal land development guide. Zoning is a municipal responsibility ere= as otherwise provid- ed by law. - The managers will review land devel- opments and permit applications concur- rently with the city. village. or town wherever the lauds are located. All persons or municipal corporations undertaking improvements to or upon any real property lyisg adjacent to perma- nent watercourse, lakes. and marshes directly tributary to such water areas will be required to submit engineering data and such other information as may be required to determine the dfects which such activities my have on the lands. marshes, lakes had watercourses of the district. Such :formation should show present and fuere conditions and the con- struction or denlopment proposed. Per- mit application forms will be provided by the managers. The permit application should be =banked along with a written statement of due pennittee describing proposed work had any other pertinent maps, surveys or other data. Permit ap- plications may readdressed to: Rice Creek Watershed District - Bard et Managers P.O. Box 263 la 55038 P Plans for highway construction should be submitted to the managers for review and cmtment on aspects affecting the water resources of the district including the adequacy d storm water resources of c. district shall exercise control over developments only to the extent ry to sure the maintenance of needed natural water storage areas. wa- tercourses and their shorelines: and the protection of tee natural topography and vegetative sating of the land and water areas of the district in order to preserve the same for present and future beneficial uses and to prevent unwise and destruc- tive developmest. 1.01 DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. sat "District means the Rice Creek Watershed District. (b) "Board" means the board of managers d the Rice Creek Water- shed District. lc) "Managers" means the board of managers of the Rice Creek Wa- tershed District. (d) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Natural Resources. le) "Municipality" meansetty. village or town wholly or partly with- in the watershed district o t) "Shall" is mandatory and not permissive. ( g) "Public Waters' means wa- ters as defined by M.S. Section 105.36 t1). I h "Person" means an individual. firm. partnership, association or corporation. public or private. tit "Public Health" means and includes any act or thing tending to improve the general sanitary condi- tions of the district ) j) "General Welfare" means and includes any act or thing, tending to improve or benefit or contribute to the safety Of well-being of the gener- al public or benefit the inhabitants of the district. 1.02 PERMITS UNDER M.S. CHAP- TER 105. USE AND APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC WATERS), Subdivision 1. A copy of each application for a permit which is required under M.S. Chapter 105 M.S. Sections 105.37 to 105.55) together with maps, plans and specifications shall be served an the secretary of the board and prom of such service shall be includ- ed with the application filed with the Commissioner as is required by M.S. Sec - tion 105.44. 1.03 PLATS. Subdivision L All prelimi- nary plats of property abutting on or adja- cent to any stream. watercourse. lake or marsh in the distract shall be submitted to the board for examination and comment before preparation d the final plat Each of said plats shall receive final approval d the board before filing the plat for rec- ord. 1.04 MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES. DEVELOPMENT AND DRAINAGE PLANS. Subdivision 1. Copies of existing municipal ordinances relating to surface water drainage, flood plains. and shore - lands shall be filed with the board Subd. 2. Each municipality in the dis- trict shall amend its present or if it has none. shall prepare a municipal drainage plan in accordance with district guide- lines for the same for the management and transportation d surface water re- suiting from urban development and iden- tity in the municipality's land develop- ment guides and drainage plans the marshes to be lett in their natural state which should not be used as dumps. fill - sites. or otherwise altered without a per- mit Iran the bard Municipalities shall. prior to final adop ties. file with • the managers their pro- posed land development guide and drain- age plan with a statement as to proposed development standards which are deemed to be applicable and in conformi- ty with the district's overall Phan and con- sistent with Metropolitan Council poli- cies. The board shall file its comments with the municipality within 150 days thereafter. Subd. 3. Where runoff from lands that are urban or suburban in character is con- tributing to the pollution of the waters of the district. a suitable system d catch - basins. filters and settling ponds shall be maintained and cleaned by the local mu- nicipality. Subd. 4. To provide for coordinated management d surface waters a develop- er of land shall submit to the municipality a surface water drainage plan which is in conformity with the municipal drainage plan. In the absence of an approved mu- nicipal drainage plan. the 'municipality and the developer of land adjacent to lakes. permanent watercourses and marsh areas which are directly tributary to such water areas must file a drainage plan with the district and obtain the board's approval of the drainage plan prior to the commencement of any land improvement • A permit application for work not au- thorized by the municipal drainage plan shall be submitted to and cooadered by the managers d the district The permit application shall iodide a grading and sediment control plan designed to control the deposit of sediment in the public wa- ters of the district A written permit must be previously detained before any work is commented by the municipality or land developer. HWAYS AND ROADS. Subdi- vision 1. All plans for highway and road construction shall be submitted to the board for their comment. review and rec- ommendations as to the effect of the con- struction on the waters of the district and the adequacy of erosion and sediment control during and after construction. 1.06 BRIDGES. CULVERTS. Subdivi- sion 1. No bridge or culvert for the dispos- al of storm water shall be constructed. reconstructed or laid without approval of the board as to its location. size and elr vation and a permit for the installation thereof from the board. Plans and specifi- cations for all proposed bridges and cul- verts shall be submitted to the managers when an application for a permit is filed. Subd. 2. Water inlets. culvert openings and bridge approaches shall have ade- quate shoulder and bank protection in order to minimize soil erosion. 1.07 FLOOD PROTECTION AND CONTROL. Subdivision 1. A purpose for which the Rice Creek Watershed District was established was "Control or allevia- tion of damage by floodwaters ": by stat- ute. counties. cities and villages have the responsibility of enacting, administering aid enforcing reasonable and effective flood plain ordinances in order to protect human life and health and reduce private and public losses caused by flooding c L 1969. C. $90): the Shoreland Management Act authorizes the zoning of shorelands by counties in unincorporated areas t L. 1969. C. 777). Floodplain. floodway and flood fringe for the purposes of these rules and regula- tions are as defined by statute. M.S. Sec- tion 104.02. Shoreland means land located within the following distances from the ordinary high water elevation of public waters: 11) Land within 1.000 feet from the normal high water mark of a lake. pond or flowage. and 12) Land within 300 feet of a river or stream or the landward side of the floodplain delineated by ordi- nance on such a river or stream whichev- er is greater. (M.S. Section 105.465. Subd. 2.1. Subd. 2. All improvements of every nature and kird on lands within designat- ed shoreline or floodplain areas shall con- form to state approved ordinances or in their absence. to the Distract Flood Plain Map and to the State Flood Plain and Shoreland Management Standards and Criteria. Plans for all improvements within said areas shall be submitted to the managers d the district for comment. review and approval together with such pertinent data as may be required by the managers. Subd. 3. In addition to the requirements of the standards and criteria of municipal ordinances. improvements will not be al- lowed in the shore and flood plain areas that will adversely affect the ability of the Marshes or adjacent shorelines to act as a filter t0 the permanent surface wa- ters of the district, and thereby prevent or reduce the flow of =national dis- charges directly to such waters or ad- versely affect their efficiency in this re- spect or unduly restrict the water-carry- ing capacity of the channel. 1.06 WATER LOSS. Subdivision 1. In order that the waters of the district may not be routed. discharged. dissipated and lost adjacent to. outside of and along lines d drains sewer tile and pipe atter the construction of said drains. sewer tile and pipe. all excavations and ditches in which said drains. sewer tile and pipe is laid shall. to prevent the routing. dis- charge. dissipation and loss of said water. be sealed in accordance with proper engi- neering practices as may be required by the circumstances and as approved by the board. Plans for the construction of all drains, sewer tile and pipe shall be filed with the board for iii comment and re- view. 1.09 MARSHES. Subdivision 1. To pre- serve the same for beneficial use. no marsh shall be drained wholly or partially nor filled wholly or partially nor other- wise disturbed without a permit from the bard, the municipality wbere situated. and theCammissioner. 1.10 RIPARIAN IMPROVEMENTS. Subdivision 1. Permits for improvements by riparian owners d the beds. banks and shores of lakes and streams are required before' such work may be done. from the board aid the Commissioner. as required by statute and rule and regulation of the district. 1.11 SANITATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH. Subdivision L. In the interest of sanitation and for the public health and to prevent pollution 10 the waters of the dis• trict (a) No septic tank or other waste disposal facility shall outlet directly or indirectly into any lake. watercourse. or public or private drain: )b) No person. public or private corporation. associa- tion, or other entity shall dispose of any waste, human. animal. or industrial. by casting such waste. directly or indirectly into any lake or stream. public or private drainage system. or road ditch within the district and thereby pollute the waters of the district. 1.12 RULES AND REGULATIONS OF MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY. Subdivision 1. The district adopts by reference thereto the following rules and regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. including amendments & additions thereto: as pertinent: WPC 4. filed July 1964 relating to the storage d oil: WPC l4, filed August 15. 1967. re- lating to classification of intra -state water: and WPC 1. filed June 22. 1961 and WPC 23, filed April 15. 1969, stand- ards for effluents in intra -state wa- ter: SW 1 - 11 MPCA Solid Waste Dis- posal. filed February 10. 1970: SW St - 55 MPCA Wastes - Feed Lots. filed April 1971: SW 75.79 MPCA Abandoned Motor Vehicles. filed March. 1972. 1.13 LAND USE AND SOIL CHARAC- TERISTICS. Subdivision 1. All permit applications for land improvements shall show the soul type and soil limitations for the untended land use as stated in the Soil Survey Reports of the Counties of the Dis- trict. by the United States Department of Agriculture. Sal Conservation Service. and the Minnesota Agricultural Experi- ment Station. as such reports are avail- able: if not available. special soil survey reports may be required of the applicant. U soils limitations for the intended land use is ndicated, the applicant shall show the conservation practices required for the use sought. 1.14 WITHDRAWAL OF WATERS. Subdivision 1. The withdrawal of ground and surface water and the location of the place of discharge thereof shall conform to the standards of the Minnesota Pollu- lion Control Agency and the Department of Natural Resources. 1.15 DRAINS. DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. Subdivision 1. Copies of plans and medi- cations for the construction. improve- ment and repair of any private drainage system. open or tiled. shall be filed with the board and no work thereon shall be undertaken without a permit from the board. Public drainage systems shall con- form to Statutory regmrements. 1.16 EROSION PROTECTION. Subdivi- sion -1. All grading. acavations• open cuts, side slopes and other lard surface disturbances are to be so mulched. seed- ed, sodded. or otherwise protected. so that erosion, siltation. sedimentation and washing are prevented 1.17 PERMITS. Subdivision 1. All per- mits when issued. shall be signed by the president and secretary of the board or their designees Subd. 2. No matter requiring a permit shall be commenced prior to the issuance of the permit and the board shall be noti- fied when the matter for which the permit was issued. is completed. Subd. 3. An application for a permit shall be acted upon within 30 days by the board from the date it is received. Subd. 4. If a permit application is re- fused or granted subject to conditions. the applicant may withm 30 days demand a hearing an the application. Subd. 5. Obtaining a permit from the managers does not relieve the applicant from the responsibility of obtaining any other additional authorization required. 1.16 ENFORCEMENT AND SEVERA- BILITY. Subdivision 1. The district may exercise all powers conferred upon it b'y Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 112. in en- forcing the rules and regulations adopted herein. Subd. 2. I for any reason any section or subdivision of these rules and regulations should be held invalid. sucbdecision shall not affect the validity of the remaining rules and regulations. Subd. 3. These rules and regulations shall conform to Minnesota Law and if inconsistent therewith. the latter shall govern and these rules and regulations are amended accordingly. 1.19 APPEALS. Subdivision 1. Any par- ty aggrieved by these rules and regula- tions or by any order of the board made thereunder may appeal as provided in Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 112. Dated this 19th day of July 1972. s• WILBUR L GOYER President s• ROBERT R. HAMILTON Secretary I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of the Rules and Reg- ulations adapted by the Board of Manag- ers of the Rinse Creek Watershed District at a public meeting held thereon by sat Board =July 19th. 1972. ROBERT R. HAMILTON Secretary Board of Managers. Rice Creek Watershed District Dated July 19. 1972 t August 2.19721- TC-50C Agenda Item 6C Environmental Board Meeting Date: November 28, 2001 Topic: Wildland Urban Interface Summary: Please find enclosed a summary Fire Risk report from the DNR as part of the Wildland Urban Interface Program. Although this is probably tough to see detail on, the entire project has been produced in GIS with associated data base information. Milo Bennett and I met with Dave Schuller and Tom Eiber from the DNR to discuss this report and where we go from here. Milo will be at the meeting to present the findings of the Fire Risk Assessment. I think I emailed most of you on the Land Classification work status. Please find attached a copy of the correspondence from Jason Husveth. Attachments: 1. Fire Prone Property Assessment dated Fall 2001 2. Fire Risk Base Map 3. Correspondence from Jason Husveth dated 11/29/01 City of Lino Lakes Fire Prone Property Assessment Fall 2007 Based on individual property assessments completed Fall 2000 Fire Risk Assessment Intro As part of the Wildland Urban Interface Community Project that your community was a pilot for, an assessment of homes as fire prone property was completed by a contractor in the fall of 2000. Here is what we found out about your community... 1. House -by -house survey of homes looking at site hazards such as flammable trees & other materials too close to the house. Also looked at the structure for fireprone materials and design. (sample of survey sheet as handout) 2. This survey is available to your community as: a. Individual home assessment sheets b. Database of summary from the assessment sheets c. GIS point files from the database d. Analysis maps Survey Results 1. Map of homes characterized by low, moderate, high or extreme risk (handout map 1. 2. Frequency count shows 405 homes at high risk and 35 homes at extreme risk in Lino Lakes. 3. Further analysis shows concentrations of high and extreme risk homes in the following areas (Handout map 2 & 3): a. Evergreen Trail b. Knoll Drive c. Sherwood Lane d. Red Maple Lane e. Bald Eagle Lake What does this mean? - -- let's look at one example neighborhood — Lino Lakes — Evergreen The problems & Solutions •Narrow access road & driveways: —Widen shoulders & road bed •Contiguous pine bordered by open land: — Create fire breaks •Unthinned pine: —Thin & prune pine •Inadequate clearances around homes: —Remove hazardous trees & materials •Fire prone building materials: — Replace with less flammable materials during renovations •Dead end road: — Create emergency exit road • • I — ---~ ---- 3Hn10f1HIS lNOH3 +.0E JO +W 6 1 m to 9 m, or 3' to 30' FROM STRUCTURE---- - - - - -2 O to lm, or 0 to 3' FROM STRUCTURE --- - ~ - - -3 '013 '1NIVd 'SNV3 SVO '9 CO 3 0 Co 0 cn x m 1 1 1 m to 9 m, or 3' to 30' FROM STRUCTURE-- - - - - -3 9- - - -~ - - ~- 3Hf11Of1H1S WOH3 ,£ 010 JO 'W 1- MO S3lld HSO89 'S L----- -- -- ~- -- 3Hf11Of1HIS WO1113 +,0E JO ' +W 6 1 m to 9 m, or 3' to 30' FROM STRUCTURE-- - - - - -3 9--------- ----- 3HOl2fH1S WOH3 ,£ WO JO 'W L O10 4. FIREWOOD OR FUEL STORAGE (e.g. propane tanks, oil tanks) m 0 c CA Cn C Com N m C/) Cn c I x 2 0 c a' = o n: N i I� I I CO O) . Z--- ~ ~ ~-- IHDI3H .91O WO SI. Ol dfl S3SSVUD S--- 1N3S3Hd S3HONVHB MOl ONV HSfHBH30Nfl • S13t13 830091 'Z IF 20+ TREES WITHIN 9 m or 30' ADD - - - -6 P-- 008,0E JO W 6 NIHIIM S3381 OZ - 01. 3I £ - - -- 0011.0£ JO W 6 NIH.LIM S33H101- 3I 000M03XIW • IF 20+ TREES WITHIN 9 m or 30' ADD - - -10 9— OOV,OE Jo W 6 NIHIIM S3381 OZ - 01. JI T O 73 m CO - 4 z co 3 0 O 0 0 w C7 O Z m 2 m m v m IF 20+ TREES WITHIN 9 m or 30' ADD -----4 £ -- OOVA£ ao W 6 NIHIIM S33H10Z - 0l Al Z- --- O0V .0£ JO W 6 NIHIIM S338101. 3l (S331:11033V31) S000MOHVH • 533W. 9NIONO088OS ' L (Select one response only in sections 1 through 13) NOLLdIU3S30 MATERIAL ADJACENT TO STRUCTURE -- ~__ —____1 03NVH 591033WS3AV31 GRASS KEPT WATERED AND SHORT ---- __M__ - - -2 LOT CLEARED OF BRUSH WITHIN 9 m or 30' -------2 ,9J0 W Z Ol dfl 03N(1Hd S338I (Select all responses that apply for section 14 through 16) i m Cn 1 I I I 1 A O SINVH83A0 ONV SA330 '£L i N • • C ▪ 0 r -S 0 o O 04 - o m I � D g I ▪ C Co 1 1 I I i 1 1 ? O • ENCLOSED (Fire proof, i.e., concrete, metal) -----0 £ -- - - ~ ~--- 9NI133HS 000M HIIM 03SO1ON3 • • O 'O 2 NOLLVONOOE 'LL • 0 O O C, m a 0 Cn x z O m CO 1 O C---- - - - -~— 03110H / S319NIHS 11VHdSV • - - - - - -- -- SSV19H3913 HO 31111V13141 • O S1VI831VW 9NId008 '0L i 9. OUTBUILDINGS WITHIN 6 m or 20' OF STRUCTURE --------3 --- --- ----- OUVONVIS 0110N 80 801V83NI3NI/1388V9 N8n9 ON '9 --O3SLL3V8d 9NINUO9 N3d0 'L .A. NOIIdI83S30 O co O -. co m 7D c .. O —N �.H 3 m _ e,T • °fmo do CDC,; °'o 0 CL N < O O I a'. g . a N Cis 0 'Cy, y= C• v+ O 0 0 w m= =. a. 0 E =c.a. �a cw��, Sy7 ... a 7 m y ,t/i a O ton o m .t -: M° per, rn • n m o �'�o� pr 0 ®� H • 2 oo C CD CO C o w 3 o e°i.. �2w 0 0 3' 3 Co d C O ... m ▪ R m = 14 = to = = rt ^O•• 0 CD co -rI Af c, 4' o M c., eV 3 = W C. 'p. '_ O = i = C=) 1 IS 0 CCD G 0 .m.. w co m G m 0 ° •-• O m vi:' eo Gt •to m top • m g o • �o.Iatni 0. .300�.'".a 0 eo -. -�woeo .c 2 3 a .- -• 3 — 10 M. 2 o• C ep cCo r i )15183813' 3WOH1S3H03 7V101 0HVZVH 1VHfU.Of1HJ.S 1V101+ seyw F os I • 9 F I 0 0 2 FOREST HOME FIRE RISK CALCULATION N01130030 011VZV11 7V101 33HJ-OHVZVH SGNIO1Il81l0 • N • 03 0 z s m CZ') Z m v 0 Co 2 x 0 • Z 0 m 0 G) rn 0 T 70 m 0 m 0 2 C 2 C) m 0 • COMMUNICATION SYSTEM (PHONE, RADIO) - - - -1 A9HV3N A1ddfS H31VM 3l8VSfl • 1VIH31VW 318VINWV13 30 HV313 • • NON- FLAMMABLE SKIRTING ON DECKS ---------2 C, 2 C, ° Homes, Fire Prone Lino Assessment Lakes 0 • .: ij 4 — 'f � 1 Low Risk J 7 Moderate Risk r . 9,ry - p High Risk • Extreme Risk J ,, '`� j �� )as ... II L. J jy ti , 11 ire A - PI • . ._ .. _ . . . Q r J' I 1.1—I a 1---s I 1 – -, Scale: Minnesota , j nEM Na Y dF 0 1 2 mi From ground assessment of individual homes, DNR Summer 2000 /� / ADMIN, Communities, based on site and structure assessment with total fire risk calculation: V MCD 1990 Low---0-10, Moderate = 10-20, High = 20-40, Extreme =40+ \ ‘‘/ ' HYDRO, Lakes A / UNE: ROAD, ALL, 1995 (vector file only) 08/30/2001 9:49:48 AM Lino Lakes High & Extreme Fire Prone Homes Scale: 0 1 2 mi From ground assessment, Summer 2000 Enhancement of High & Extreme Homes Layer: Lino Lakes Area\Hydro, lakes ADMIN, Communities, V MCD 1990 A/ Homes of Extreme Fire Risk High Risk Homes /� / LINE: ROAD, ALL, 1995 / v (vector file only) 10/22/2001 2:50:13 PM • • • • • CD raA CD CD r r auBZ P°°''°4S • CD jT1LTJ, uaa t2.zang Cga4) CD E1D CD 1.7L coo • • • � n c� C) • CD >`' c coo 1 � e^ r' G w fir 'it S p T to , —__— mom. i 5 , MIW 11•11F—'re r - f ' -41 g i d K .y . 4J r 4 �� '. . lit �� . n • Eciihoi ir 1 rm � ' a R ca. • ix 70 WU) co ii op • S. • • ■ ti M ti N O a . 0 Co) N. CO O • • •..• • --I tip pliwir.sillitri �.�.. Ulil'! `■.� r:.�11111.r..Frr ! �, l.1 ��' •f dill' i0mi�' iiiis �►�� M "411 1141tIllbgallet '',14i, • .tmiri.s.kriat NIE i■111111PritiE imu !r j\1U!_ '.I. �► . MINI' 'i. i =IF 1 - 1 FIEV NI wok.. . Nilibmieliti ::: ..■■.gym.•. _ . om �Ma �11 1 =� /III► •r '!1 -.11k i1 '�q���� I-� '� •�,/,-�• rinn h r l u. {i0% �s ��� ;111.1tit..... '4 . MIN lia miti-r-vOrt;kollo. 1 roxempOzzili. ,„ . wmilligrw r„.1161,,,,,,i, 14%"14-111 :::� -�% I : i. ■m �.I��t , `L.-- \'11111 r A ,: r ' ra �.I. ■ must-_,, .�I��� ►� ` 11,ri.II�� ';'mn•... c9 .��' �IIII� • =�► nnu unmr • �I��wQ !J llit� ■� r 1 :.......;.. ___11L / 111111111�V.!1irR# - - - - - -- _��� ��IIIIIIIII1�I Iiiiii ��. II111111111111111.1. 1111 ■1111111111 I '_ �, �� laff II 11 ■III■ ■1111 ■:III 11111 111111111( bo.... 11P-" 1 1111 ■1.111. ■11::1 ■11111' /111 1111 '11111i1111` 1111...1 mrm11111inim 11111111r • 1 • • 14 iti tit, g ��. 3' i �i. I SIP ■ E _ �iA ��fj ull Iramir,ho. .1111.11I= ,, m, 1111~Aa _„, „RA ' • mil awl ,iimovieral-s-0-1\ immi ., ....... ing-E-160.1.1 7 ion 111 4. • • O Marty Asleson Orom: Jason Husveth [jhusveth @gwest.net] ent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 5:06 PM To: Peggy Booth; sharon.pfeifer @dnr.state.mn.us; Anokaconservation @msn.com Subject: Lino Lakes and Rice Creek Land Cover - resending Chris Lord, Sharon Pfeifer, and Peggy Booth, I am writing to update you on the status of the land cover for Lino Lakes and the greater Rice Creek MLCCS project area. I am putting the finishing touches on the Lino Lakes data, and I am striving to have the completed data layer for Lino Lakes, Circle Pines and Centerville to all of you by Wednesday, October 31. I will then work on finishing entering the land cover codes and performing QA /QC on the remaining land cover data for Columbus Township later in the week. I hope to have this project wrapped up by the Monday of next week. It may take me until Wednesday, November 7th to be entirely done. I sincerely regret not having these data to you sooner. The Rice Creek landscape is quite complex as a result of the complex soils and hydrology of this part of the Sand Plain, and there are extensive areas of natural nd emi- natral land cover types to break apart, classify, DIGITIZE and code. In addition,-I have found several new records of Endangered, Threatened, and Specieal Concern plant popultions. As an illustration of this complexity let me offer the following figures: Rice Creek Landscape: Land Cover Area: 38,643 Acres Land Cover Polygons: 8,004 Average Area per Polygon: 209,088 ft sq. (4.8 acres) Average Polygon Perimeter: 3,837 ft. Average Polygon Area /Average Polygon Perimeter: 54.5 Hennepin County Suburban /AgriculturalLandscacpe(Hassan Township): Land Cover Area: 7,737 Acres Land Cover Polygons: 1,042 Average Area per Polygon: 322,344 ft sq. (7.4 acres) Average Polygon Perimeter: 3,180 feet Average Polygon Area /Average Polygon Perimeter: 101.4 I am not sure how clearly these numbers illustrate the complexity of the Rice Creek landscape to you. Essentially the final calculation for each landscape illustrates that I have found that with regard to land cover, the Rice Creek landscape is almost two times (101.4/54.5) as spatially .omplex s many of the 'typical' landscapes I have classified in the Metro area such as Hassan Township in Hennepin County, agircultural landscapes on glacial till in Dakota County, and river bluff and river bottom 1 landscapes along the urban Mississippi River corridor in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. If I were to remove the open water land cover types from these calacuations (lakes, rivers, and open water wetlands) the distinction would be even more dramatic. Rest assured, the complexity of the Rice Creek landscape will be clear to all when the land cover layer is completed and submitted. Of course, such relative complexity and landscape diversity is promising news for natural resource managers, but it has caused much of the delay in getting these data to you in a more timely fashion. I have currently put over one hundred extra hours into this project, and I would like to complete it with the same level of effort and quality that I started started with. I realize that the Lino Lakes data is currently of the utmost importance, and I will strive to get this to you by the end of the month (Wednesday, October 31) . Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or comments. Thank you for your patience. Please copy Marty Asleson at the City of Lino Lakes if you feel this information would be useful to him. Sincerely, Jason J. Husveth, M.S. Landscape Ecologist 1284 North Avon Street Saint Paul, MN 55117 651.488.2692 w 651.247.0474 c 2 • • Agenda Item 6D Environmental Board Meeting Date: November 28, 2001 Topic: Trade A Tree Summary: I have been working with Sara Smith from the Tree Trust on the Trade A Tree inventory and mapping. The map attached shows GPS mapped trees. The tree species /size points will be linked to the GIS parcel database. Sara will be working on the public contacts and hopefully we will be removing problem trees this winter. Attachments: 1. Tree location map 2. Tree location map — Hwy 49 • • 3 3 '0 &- OM HQ .o =- a -'k •• ',milk! "110. 11111\il • Ririe? �i �� �- � • �� 0: poi. .I 4n: dm .111111111: ' ■1.:1 ■ : • ►•J'4 WI, 111 �Iii� /� wari � 1 TAI ;on; m 11� O �! , in N :1• . G11 - ::ip °ii.•ii: j111 :. G .. /11imao III '..N- •SR_Cep nab zoP Ell ii i ?i& BM UMW' It sumonn• Iuu■ nn111II mutt mutt-_ ritymummn 11IIIII .'UI 2 Tj v 1 j �1 1■ � 1 : 1 CE 1` , ` $ 01 01111111111� III 1 11111 I I I I I I I I h�' i - � � 1 IraO A ■11111 ' aI11111I 111111111: 1111111111 011111111/ 411111111 111111111/ 111111111/ 11/11111 1/1111111/ /111111111 /11111111/ MUM a 11111111! N C, 2 N 0 i i d d Ft co • 4:17 cu • • N N N 1,3 M M N L �V tO (0 O. a i' ct- Ca. a fl. fl. a_ ▪ a_ p- o- a to V a a a - - i0` - car - 0 in CL a .a a o a L L C. 0.12 Miles of 0 0 co 0 0