Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2021/07/06CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA MOUNDS VIEW COMMUNITY CENTER Tuesday, July 6, 2021 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Mueller, Hull, Meehlhause, Bergeron, Cermak Council Workshops are informal gatherings of the council at which no final decisions are made, rather consensus discussion to direct staff on council decision items. PUBLIC COMMENT Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight's agenda. Before speaking, please share your full name and address. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. AGENDA ITEMS DISCUSSED BY CONSENSUS 1. Storm Water -Don 2. Mounds View Boulevard-Nyle, Brian, Jon 3. Soderman Property -Brian NEXT COUNCIL WORK SESSION: Monday, August 2, 2021 at 6:30 pm NEXT COUNCIL MEETING: Monday, July 12, 2021 at 6:30 pm MoUrm_slViEw MEMORANDUM to: Mounds View City Council from: Don Peterson, Public Works, Parks, Recreation Director Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator re: July 6, 2021 Workshop — Storm Water Management RFP Purpose of Workshop: 1. Educate council on components of our storm water management system; a. Operation b. Regulation c. System Needs/Shortcomings d. Maintenance 2. Achieve consensus on issuance of RFP for assessment of system. Background: Along with Police, Fire, Roads, Municipal Water, and Streets; Storm Water Management is one of the core functions of local units of government. Like all other core functions, research and development, innovation, and best practices have evolved since the majority of our storm water system was first constructed starting in the 1970's. From inception, storm water management had migrated from taking the precipitation that falls and conveying away via an underground pipe or ditch as fast as possible to the present theory - taking the precipitation that falls and keeping as much as possible (or historically that stayed) where it falls to achieve the following; • Replenishment of groundwater reservoirs • Reduction in downstream flooding • Reduction in erosion -sediment transporting Director Peterson and Administrator Zikmund are recommending issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) that will assess the overall operational functionality of our system for the precise purpose of development of a capital and maintenance plan for the next decade — or longer. Regulation: Few things are more regulated by more agencies than stormwater. If the pond/wetland/lake is a public body of water, as solely determined by the Department of Natural Resources, then they have regulatory control. Public Drainage (ditches) and Storm Water rules are governed by the local watershed, in our case the Rice Creek Watershed District. Other entities that come into play less frequently include the Army Corps of Engineers, DOT, MPCA and Met Council. In our case, we will have to work primarily with the DNR and Rice Creek and to a much lesser degree, MnDOT specific to the culverts under US 10. Rice Creek Watershed, like us — has to develop/update their 10 year Water Management Plan 2020-2029. That documents (included) details Mounds View comprises 2.2% of the district, Spring Lake is 44 acres and 18' at its deepest point, there are no impaired waters in Mounds View on the impaired waters list, and that the upper 20 miles of the district (which includes Mounds View, is relatively flat with a fall of less than 1 foot per mile. That fact becomes extremely important in maintenance of the public drainage system as it results in very poor drainage. Their plan emphasizes a focus on Public Drainage Systems (ditches) and building partnerships and working collaboratively to manage the overall system. Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP): Local units are required to maintain a LSWMP and update it every 10 years, this is part of the Met Council requirement of having an updated Comprehensive Plan. This is a major component of our Storm Water Management strategy. It details all system components, structures, and most importantly —defines the seven sub -drainage districts that control/manage our stormwater. There are 10 sub -districts total of which 7 are substantive and 3 have one or more significant issues. All of our water eventually makes it to Rice Creek and from thereon, to the Mississippi River. Sub -Districts: 35W-1— Business Park North on south to our northern boundary, 35 W on east to Jackson (meandering line) with no substantive issues. Majority of management is accomplished via underground pipe with one small pond. Arden — Major sub district that drains the entire NW portion of the City. Boundary is 85t" on north, meandering line north of Hillview on South, near city border on west and Arden Park on east. Major issue with culverts under US 10 filling up with sediment therefore restricting flow and needing removal. These are DOT property and thus, coordination is needed with them. We believe water levels are 8" to 16" higher than they should be and this has contributed to numerous storm water complaints at properties within the City. The storm water management ponds are also above their normal level causing flooding in their immediate area and potential tree mortality. These ponds and the Silver View Pond also have massive invasive specifies of vegetation that should be addressed. Business Park North — Drains the entire park into two ponds along the Blvd on the west side that when full, flow into a culvert under the Blvd and then in pipe to Rice Creek. The east side uses a combination of private and public ponds on —when at overflow; go into pipe down to Rice Creek. There are no substantive issues but there is desire to determine sediment levels in the two ponds along the Boulevard and upgrade the "skimmer" on the west pond. Edgewood - which is by far the largest sub district and drains the majority of the southern half of the city. Generally defined by County I on the north and goes to the southern border and between Groveland on the west and a meandering line along Jackson to the east. It includes Silver View Pond (Wood Lake), several private ponds and several other wetlands and ponds. The major issue in this district is the sediment levels in Silver View Pond as well as the water quality of that pond. Additionally, the pond was created via the excavation of a wetland, something the DNR no longer permits. The depth of this pond may always result in ongoing problems (algae blooms). Additionally, the water management structures need attention, the culvert under the trail is rusted through, and the vegetation is dramatically in need of restoration. The district includes the two ponds adjacent the industrial are on the SE and those ponds may need water quality testing. Lastly, from Silver View Pond water flows into a wetland area (across from Random Park) and slows considerably such that decomposition of organic materials results in ongoing 911 calls report odor of natural gas (and is in fact methane). Greenfield — which covers the north central portion of our community with the Arden Sub - District on the NW side, 35W on the east, this district borders the interstate on the north and the Ardan district (County I on the south). This water is flowing north and east and joints with the Arden District (which flows east) and 35W district (which flows north and East) into a pipe just north of Oakwood Park which goes under 35W and daylights in Shoreview as it all flows into Rice Creek. Anoka County Judicial Ditch 1 comes down from Blaine (draining all of east Blaine south of 951n Avenue through the Medtronic Property and comes under US 10 into Mounds View meandering south and then east thru Greenfield Park. Branch 5 of that ditch starts just north of County I and takes the majority of the water from the district and moves it into the main ditch. Branch 5 has serious debris — downfall and garbage, from our park to the intersection of the Judicial Ditch 1. This has caused an enlargement of the "pond" adjacent to our ballfield and has created problems with maintenance and performance. Northwest — which is our smallest district, a total of 13.2 acres and is a sliver of land on the NW corner of our hamlet! Rice Creek —which covers Kingswood Terrace and the Mustang Road/Circle industrial area. There are no substantive issue. Spring Creek - which covers the South West portion from Spring Lake to the Border and our western border to a meandering line up to Long Lake. So named for Spring Creek which daylights in the woods/swampy area near the far SW boarder. The majority of the system is in a pipe with no major issues. Spring Lake is the area east of the lake to Silverview and north of County I to the boulevard with a little bit north and west. There are no major issues in the sub -district. West Central — which is another sliver of our hamlet, just south of Spring Lake and there are no know substantive or even minor issues. Past Assessments: The LWSMP, completed by Stantec — provides an overview and report of the infrastructure of the system; pipes, outfalls, catch basins, flow control devices, ponds, etc. It does not measure or assess the ponds, functionality, overall hydraulics of the system, and water quality throughout the system. In 1987 and 2012 assessments were done on Silver View Pond, both expressing concerns regarding vegetation with the 2012 assessment more specific to sedimentation levels. Barr Engineering conducted that assessment and opined a dredging need this mid -decade with an estimated cost of one to two million. However, it has been discovered that the assessment was done without the benefit of the original grading plan which may have a major impact on that assessment. The pond is very shallow with depths of 1' to 5' sans the very westernmost portion which was originally excavated to 10' to 14'. Constructed in 1982 as part of the housing and commercial development, a pre -sedimentation pond was constructed in 2004 and is less than half full. That accumulation is primarily the washout from the culvert failure resulting in us relocating part of the ditch from where it was, into the sedimentation pond! Other than these two assessments, there has not been any kind of comprehensive assessment of our "system" which does include ponds — both private and public, water quality, and with a lens on long term maintenance an optimum functionality of the system. That phrase — optimum functionality is sub -district unique. For example, Edgewood — which includes Silver View Pond would likely be defined by most as meaning the pond not turning green and the vegetation restored such that you can see the pond, wildlife flourishes, and the water quality is restored. For Arden, that phrase may mean conveying the water (that should be conveyed), away so it reduces the number of storm water complaints at or on various properties AND then our stormwater infrastructure which has failed and resulted in costly repairs due to water being backed up in the pipe would be less likely to fail saving us time and money on future maintenance and repairs. RFP Process: Stantec, Barr Engineering, and AE2S were all invited out to visit and tour the Arden, Greenfield, and Edgewood sub -districts along with visiting to discuss the project. Based on their input and our collective knowledge we would issue a RFP that would result in the assessment of the entire system, analyzed by Sub -District, and sub -district ponds for the purpose of developing a long term Capital and Maintenance Plan. Stantec has identified existing structures in the LSWMP (local surface water management plan such as outflows, skimmers, flow restrictors, etc.) that need attention or repair. However, no pond assessment (sedimentation or water quality analysis) has been done sans some work by Rice Creek Watershed but not specific to our storm water system. Due to the nature of stormwater management, the assessment may transpire over a 12 month period to allow various testing in all seasons. There are no critical failures at this time, thus minimal risk in taking the time. Funding for Storm Water Management: The existing storm water managing fee/assessment has resulted in a fund balance of just over $2 million and is adding just over $220,000 per year. Absent a large dredging bill, there would be adequate existing funds and ongoing revenue to rehabilitate and improve our system. Conversely, if sediment has to be removed and disposed of, an increase in the levy may be warranted. We know of several infrastructure needs; skimmer, Culvert from open ditch to the pre -sediment pond, at Silver View and several small flow control devices that need rehabilitation or replacement. Timing/Strategic Plan: With the final phase of the Municipal Water upgrade in process, near completion of our street reconstruction, and ongoing systematic rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer system, it is now prudent to lay the ground work for a storm water rehabilitation plan. The timing is also consistent with the HOPP program which defines stormwater as one of the three focal points. Finally, as a Green Step city which has demonstrated environmental concern and commitment, storm water management is the foundation of preservation of our precious and highly valuable resource — water. Future Needs: This process has made it apparent that more resources are needed to ensure our system remains functional and ideally, at an optimum level. To accommodate that it has become clear that a second Public Works employee is needed in the Storm Water Division, who would be wholly dedicated to maintenance and Inspections of the entire Storm Water System. Currently, there is a single individual assigned to storm water maintenance. The assessment may reveal an ability to re -direct existing levy from accumulating fiscal assets to maintenance with a goal of reducing or eliminating costly repairs and sediment dredging. It is possible to construct a system using various features and infrastructure that catches sediment that can be removed prior to its introduction into our ponds. Current equipment such as the back hoe and Vactor are sufficient to remove nearly 100% from pre -sediment ponds, a4+4 sumps and grit chambers. Additionally, by becoming the Local Governing Unit (LGU) controlling permitting and inspection we can strictly enforce sediment control on all construction projects which is/can be a potential major contributor to sediment in the storm water system. Current Maintenance: 4 to 6 city wide street sweepings. Vacuum/cleaning of 18 to 24 infiltration basis with sumps Repair of catch basins Cleaning/clearing of intake/infiltration basins Cleaning/clearing of 2 storm scepters (discharging into Spring Lake) Future Maintenance: All of the above plus Additional one or two more sweepings Annual inspection of 20% of all Storm Water Ponds in sub -Drainage Districts clearing/cleaning of debris Annual inspection of 20% of all Private Storm Water Ponds in sub -Drainage Districts Annual inspection of 20% of all vegetation impinging on any storm water management component and clearing/removal of invasive species Annual inspection of 20% of all flow control devices and repair as needed Annual inspection and clearing of debris and deadfall from ACJD1 and Branch 5 Once every five years, or as needed removal of sediment from Silver View pre -sediment pond. Attachments: Maps of Storm Water System and Drainage Districts. Surface Water 1957 Aerial Photo Various storm water infrastructure photos 2012 Barr Engineering assessment of Silver View Pond Wood Lake/Silver View Pond history/timeline Wood Lake/Silver View Pond and pre -sediment pond drainage plan 41e 7 1 IV MF Aa:z po , tl ILI V I T4r:'— 40W UJI 3 IMMMOgift, GF-2.01 * �12 n 1 12• v� ° NW-1 12 's. a 1 n 0 15 io + ❑ ❑ ' 84t_hrA\u4e:N1E o GF-1 Mn36n 3sEl o, 12' 's. 0' °36'n 0. 1 i 12' 15, - M I- GF-2.P1 _ 2' ❑ O� 1 Q. 1( 15 OJ h o N ^ b,P2 ' 1 N 42' 42' 30' 30' 36' 36' �- 1 M - `�s. 36' 36' 36• 36' 36' 36' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' bti N �A vn ^'� � I e W) GF-1.P1 ' _ i• '�+� . ° 1 21' 21' 21'Zn I �2. � 1 in �y�^ GF-z.P2 -, I * o h rl AA-1. 02 -2 12' Groveland Ct 1 N AA-1.01 ), I y0 AA-1.P1 �❑ "s- El El 27' h _0 o, 15' 15' ° ZLI 0' G El ' U) AA-1.P2 ° 21' ❑ 12 ❑ N❑ , N ¢ 24' ® 24' h, 15, GF-2.P3 ^� T cn `A�rd'a�n.Ave 4Z-0'° ♦66' _� 18' 0- _ 36' �36'_� �6" _ - - ---------------------- -+ AA-3 18' 1 �I! �' 'I N AA-5.01 N I AA-5 24' 24' 24' 24' 24' 24' 24' ♦ ° El 18 Ardan venue (A42'��ok ❑ o' '- 42' 12• o Q ° ❑ 30' 30' 30' 36' ,N 21' n 3p• Ardan-Ave q ., ❑ ,2n �se ❑ N N b Judicial 0 U ,z N 18 y _ GF-3 a \N• 12 AA-6 - o w Laport Dr 12' AA�4 P1 18 e-y La • ort,Dr N °o G� `� at USTH o 10 0 a AA-4 aGai 3492 0 ° �r Sherwood■PI J Y U ro 12' (a O Q ,5• 15' 12' 15' AA:2 15 � ` ^° ` r12 She,�rwood'Rd-SIN o St-, j�j IW �? G F-5 ^s 0 15 G5.01 fiC� o W Greenfield j l ` r ll^^ L M ♦ O Q > U ♦ 12' k0 Y GF01 ' > Gre nfield Park (GF) �. C � o OA 0 r GF-5.02 54' 54' 54' 54' 35W-1 54' Sy- LL 12 U7 12' r N o h y Z. p ^5 �5_ , 15 15 GF 6.02 18' 24' 24' 24' 15' 15' 18' 60' 35W-1. �? 12 H'il`hview Rd 15 ti o N ;,j a HiI'Iv'iew id 60' SL-1.15 ' 1 G GF-4 a� ° - (6 zn o O , L 0 � 3 d GF-o>r I N i. 15' 15' ' " Spring Ake (SL) ° ro❑ N _ �� Oa'kwo'o'd Dr SL-1.S11 n ° o. m W c SL 1.01I N (((��� SL-1lH1 Qall(WOO&i-Dr 15 GF-4.02 GA P,2 GF-4.P1 v GF 4.S1 z7• zr z7 ;-4.03 2. N L-1.03! L SL-1.S14 C N GF-4!01 r. GF=4'.P3 SL-1 SL-1.04�s pLT S ,g 12' 15' 12' 15' _ G 9�5, 1,155' N U) M in Terrace Dr U) zr ° ❑ 1 SL-1.0_ r-o EW;o- o �O ^ti -Pinewood Cir - N �- .. ° 15' CO Lake Y " _ EW-1.01 , 15' 15' 15' o: o N 12. Pinewood D55 o ;� 15' 18' in 18' 24' 24' 30'��! 30' Bo 30' 36' iq 36' �b 36' 'f isAS 237 CSAH 3 1z' 00 1 r 00 1s• tib °'" ^ ❑1 zo �a.4j`L ^ >_ E � U 35W-'3r01 16' Z ja.��21'W404N ?�° L O 12 v ° 35W-3.02 °' w ° 35W (35W) u EW-5 a) o Q. L � � _ N 0 _I w I � 'S ;� 15' in a o fO P EW-2 EW-4.P4 0^ 18' 18' 18' 15' 12'w� 42. � Ay Y a n o 0 Bronson -Dr C9 O O v � � 12' ^° ems. ° ° o .� 35W-2 Belle La a U W1iS�/� °J °. 42' 42'W//�SC-4.11 Q12' NC/ ^� r 12' N N m WC-1 w W EW-4 18• EW-6 N * 18' ■ 21, 44' cn 15' ' 24' 24' 48' m 5 Z a 12'-c 18' C �" Bronson Dr �'- " ' ^WC-1.0.1 24' 24' 24' 21' 21' 0' De o. 12' a 'w. 10' 0' -tL rsronson Dr EW-4.05 0' b EW-4.S1 G❑ �s b W-6.P1 ^� �> ca • 1o, 0 6• 6' �� (n 15' Q in o• J QEW-4.02 EW-4.04 S1jUe1' °?• 15' 0�, EW-7.01 0 0• 0' N 1 J EW-4.03 ❑EW=7.P.1�. 12 35W-4 a ; 21 0' ° View �� i� Pond y "' EW-7.oz o. °. ❑ > N o El Z�N12, QICY- N >2• 12' �r 0 139V11-3� 12' EW-4.07 r��`oi -p ark view do 2. 18' c P EW-4.06' EW-7 ❑ o ° o 15' A❑ o, Lambert Ave M �� '�. Edgewood (EW) EW-4.S2 N N ti° '? N U ° CD I15 EW-6.P2 Y EW-3 Hodges La • EW-4.08 of N 7 h N 27' I � 30' 1 15• EW-4.09 M EW-7.S11 EW-7.P1 36 M 21 0 1� ;o b - 15' N ° N2 ;EW 7103 EW-8.12N ❑ � 12• Z. N 15' 15' 96 15' 15' 15' 2T 27' � 27' 15' 12' M-41 1 0' o' EW-4.P2 EW=41P1 18, EEW.�S12 z �►`�, MSAS-2�34 , 18, 18, �--�� EW-8.01 N �► 1 15, 15, " 33' o o�q o ElN-4!S11 • - ' EW-8.11 EW-8.13 C-4 SC-4.S1 S� SC-1.11 d SC-4.P1 SC-1.01 1a ' b^�1� 15, EW_g ti BPN-1 sc.Pz ^ N Louisa Ave 0 0 2r o N N� qs BPN-4 � SC-4.P5 N � I - 1 0` SC-1 24• SC-2.01 15' 15' ® O 24' Q 15' -p o. 27' M N J C SC-4.04 4 15 0) EW-8.02 - G M° 33' 42' fM SC- tSC'2�02 0 � Clearview Ave �15'' Clearview Ave G�� 12' ° °p ° ° ° sC:4:P4 .�_ Y c� �, �j Woodalet©r ,'c:?4"c0 Spring Creek (SC) N N1 �' N �!P' Business 'ark North (BPN) ;. 1 I 27 27' �,p- 27' 0 0 BPN-4.S1 BPN-2 - o ^ry ♦-� 1s' 95 Ridge La >, - 27' N N 24' Z. gPN-5 C BPN-5.P1 ° SC04.03.� .P6 N o 15' l J JO n 15' a Weeda'le )r _ 30, N 15 15' OBPN-3.01 Woodale �r 15 '8' EW 11.04 0� te' ° B'ti�N-3 6° 1 h _ Woodale La !a SC-2 z� ,�a� N 1 e- SC-4.02 1z IY EW_g \ ti^ N `} J 1s ° �❑ [off 4657 cS' SC�P1 SC-2.04 J J m EW-11 ° 3 • -o EW-11.03 '�. �tiJV�w14�2 ?� 12 ❑ �O/ `? ' - 4b'•i' 15' Woodcrest Dr °' L N ° L.L N LL L O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 36' Si'i 2.03`SC-2.P2 0 J C_ 15, -O 0' 27' 27' G 27' 15' 15• �• _ 15' 3 �h SC-3 ram'--���co �� 2 ��- RC 2.01 , M-63 e N Wyoodcrest Or G ° N o l C p � � E 1 �. 4 _ cI L O ro N ^4 ❑ tib 15. SC-4:01 �� � m W m 15' zQ, z4' ❑ ° \ r ' � 0 EW 90 LL o N o - Springview La 12' 15• N o ❑ N° RC 2 4 N O 0 ° 0 d ? O NEW-11:S2 ° ° C Z. 15, EW-11.S1 EW-11.P2 ❑ n u ° o- ' _ 0 � EW-11.F3 °' ° 15' RC-1.04 SC-5 1 j EW-10.'02 EW_1"1!0,1 58.5' 36' 36' Gs 15' EW=10.01 EW-11.02 _ - -- EW-10.03 cP> .. o ST I Creek : RicC RC- 1.03 0' y� 70 ' r-- 1 p RG-1.02 0,_ Z Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Rice Creek (RC) RC-1 RC-1.010' J� �■ Subdistrict ID Area (Acres) Subdistrict ID Area (Acres) Subdistrict ID Area (Acres) Subdistrict ID Area (Acres) 1 0 � 35W-1 69.20 BPN-2 8.78 EW-5 8.37 NW-1 13.24 a 01 35W-2 9.45 BPN-3 18.78 EW-6 112.14 RC-1 74.32'' ' o 35W-3 160.34 BPN-4 24.22 EW-7 41.27 RC-2 60.01 1 Fn1 35W-4 37.50 BPN-5 6.39 EW-8 52.81 RC-3 64.15 ° =1 ^ti AA-1 145.23 EW-1 52.37 EW-9 7.27 SC-1 11.90 AA-2 58.33 EW-10 96.93 GF-1 30.21 SC-2 107.39(MR° c-3.o2 y 1 AA-3 4.82 E W-11 75.07 G F-2 105.53 SC-3 28.44 27 n 24' 24' CP RC-3.0.11 24' AA-4 4.81 EW-11A 15.12 GF-3 45.80 SC-4 165.45 y RC-3 24. Za'❑ ❑ ❑ � 21• ��� s' 6• _ Mustang Dr ��' AA-5 171.61 EW-2 11.16 G F-4 161.39 SC-5 5.76 I 0. 0 RC-3.03 AA-6 38.93 EW-3 13.88 GF-5 120.57 SL-1 116.14 o BPN-1 17.70 EW-4 158.79 GF-6 63.75 WC-1 20.89 , '------------- - -- - -- ------ - -- - -- - - StormwaterSystemMap MffUNDSVIEW City of Mounds View MS4 Regulated Structures (Example Label) Other Features - Structural Pollution Control Devices Storm Sewer Local Surface Water Management Plan 0 Hydrodynamic Seperator Device(sL-IH.2) Existing Drainage District N 0 Pond Skimmer(BPN-4.s1) Private Drainage Subdistrict Feet 1 Sub -Surface Infiltration Feature(Ew-7s") Abandoned ��•�•� ��City Boundary Map i Outfalls Storm Sewer Structures Outfall �Ew-ll.ol) ■ Private Stormwater Pond 500 0 1000 Catch Basin/Catch Basin Manhole Ponds and Constructed Features ®° Flared End Section Natural Receiving Water KManhole Watercourse ditch creek July 2018 Stormwater Pond �cF-4•Pl) � (ditch, ) 0 Surface Infiltration Feature (Ew-8•I2) Water Body �� * 2 017 Aerial Photo Background General Flow Direction Wetland V:\1938\active\l93804166\GIS\Projects\2018 Mapl.mxd 5 Stantec Local Surface Water Management Plan Project No. 193804166 April 1, 2021 Prepared for: City of Mounds View Sign -off Sheet This document entitled Mounds View Local Surface Water Management Plan was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. ("Stantec") for the account of the City of Mounds View (the "Client"). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec's professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document. Prepared by (signature) Dan Edgerton, PE Reviewed by (signature) Tyler McLeete, PE MOUNDS VIEW LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................I 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE............................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................1 1.2 SCOPE............................................................................................................................1 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING.................................................................................................................3 2.1 LOCATION AND HISTORY.............................................................................................3 2.2 TOPOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................4 2.3 SOILS..............................................................................................................................4 2.4 GEOLOGY......................................................................................................................5 2.5 GROUNDWATER............................................................................................................6 2.6 CLIMATE.........................................................................................................................7 2.7 WATER RESOURCES....................................................................................................8 MississippiRiver............................................................................................................10 PublicWatercourses......................................................................................................10 Lakes 11 Wetlands 11 3.0 REGULATORY SETTING.........................................................................................................15 3.1 OVERVIEW...................................................................................................................15 3.2 CITY SERVICES...........................................................................................................16 3.3 RAMSEY COUNTY.......................................................................................................16 3.4 RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (RCWD).........................................................16 3.5 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL.........................................................................................16 3.6 STATE BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES(BWSR)...................................17 3.7 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MPCA)............................................17 3.8 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES(MNDNR).........................18 3.9 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH(MDH)........................................................18 3.10 MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD (EQB).........................................18 3.11 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION(MNDOT)................................18 3.12 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA).............................................18 3.13 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS(COE)................................................................18 3.14 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY(FEMA).......................................19 3.15 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)...................................19 3.16 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)..........................................................................19 3.17 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE(USFWS)............................................................19 4.0 LSWMP REFERENCES...........................................................................................................20 5.0 WATER RESOURCES RELATED AGREEMENTS...................................................................26 5.1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE RCWD........................................26 5.2 SPRING CREEK REGIONAL POND AGREEMENT WITH THE RCWD........................26 MOUNDS VIEW LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 6.0 CURRENT ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................................27 6.1 OFFICIAL CONTROL ASSESSMENT...........................................................................27 6.2 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITY ......................28 6.3 WETLAND MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................28 6.4 IMPAIRED WATERS AND TMDLS...............................................................................29 6.5 NPDES PERMITTING PROCESS.................................................................................31 6.6 REGULATORY STANDARDS.......................................................................................32 6.7 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM ASSESSMENT...............................................................32 6.8 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS......................................................................................................................33 7.0 GOALS AND POLICIES...........................................................................................................37 7.1 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................37 7.2 LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT........................................................37 7.2.1 RUNOFF RATE.............................................................................................................38 7.2.2 FLOOD PREVENTION AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT........................................39 7.2.3 RUNOFF VOLUME.......................................................................................................39 7.2.4 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT LOADING........................................................................39 7.2.5 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL........................................................................40 7.3 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT........................................................................................40 7.3.1 WETLAND MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................40 7.3.2 LAKE MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................41 7.3.3 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND PROTECTION....................................................41 7.3.4 NATURAL AREA MANAGEMENT.................................................................................41 7.4 CITYWIDE PROGRAM ELEMENTS..............................................................................41 7.4.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION..........................................................................................42 7.4.2 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE............................................................................42 7.4.3 PUBLIC EDUCATION...................................................................................................42 7.4.4 FUNDING......................................................................................................................42 7.5 SUPPORT OF OTHER AGENCIES..............................................................................43 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................................................44 8.1 OFFICIAL CONTROLS.................................................................................................44 8.2 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE...............................44 8.2.1 STORMWATER POND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM...................................................45 8.2.2 DE-ICING PRACTICES.................................................................................................45 8.3 NPDES IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................................................46 8.4 PRIORITY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES ..........................46 8.5 POSSIBLE FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES.................................................48 Future Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Studies.......................................................48 Coordinate with RCWD to Address Degraded Water Quality in Spring Lake .................49 Urban Water Quality Retrofit Projects............................................................................49 8.6 POTENTIAL FUNDING.................................................................................................49 MOUNDS VIEW LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 9.0 ADMINISTRATION...................................................................................................................51 9.1 REVIEW AND ADOPTION PROCESS..........................................................................51 9.2 PLAN AMENDMENTS AND FUTURE UPDATES.........................................................51 LTi[fill ZIII'XT11��i�LS�Z�_1���1NI-IN=U%At42LV /_IIEW 4LY I=[kI 1w_I►1 Executive Summary The City of Mounds View has prepared this Local Surface Water Management Plan to serve as a comprehensive planning document to guide the City in conserving, protecting, and managing its surface water resources and comply with the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, Minnesota Statutes 10313, Minnesota Rules 8410, and the requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District. This document provides an inventory of water resource -related information including the results of assessments conducted by other governmental units, both local and state. From this inventory and assessment, Mounds View sets forth its goals and policies, and implementation program. The plan is organized as follows: Section 1 offers an introduction to the purpose and scope of the LSWMP, including Rice Creek Watershed District's LSWMP content requirements. Section 2 of this LSWMP provides an inventory of land and water resources within the City, including a description of the physical setting, information regarding pertinent water resources data, and the 2040 land use map. Section 3 includes a comprehensive list of the regulatory agencies influencing the management of surface water in Mounds View. Section 4 describes plans, studies, and rules related to surface water management in Mounds View that are referenced in the LSWMP. Section 5 identifies the surface water management agreements between Mounds View and other entities. Section 6 provides a current assessment of surface water management in Mounds View, including surface water modeling, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process, comparison of regulatory standards, and identification of issues and corrective actions. Section 7 lists the goals and policies identified to address surface water management needs in the City. Section 8 identifies implementation projects and activities to address assessment items from Section 6 and the goals and policies from Section 7. Section 9 outlines the continued administration of this plan including plan updates and amendments. ro ._:r , , t 1.1 PURPOSE This Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) will serve as a comprehensive planning document to guide the City of Mounds View (City) in conserving, protecting, and managing its surface water resources. The City has created this plan to meet the requirements detailed in Minnesota Statutes 103B and Minnesota Rules 8410, administered by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. This plan also is consistent with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Policy Plan, and the Watershed Management Plan for the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), which has jurisdiction over surface water management within the City. Mounds View may amend this LSWMP by following the procedures outlined in Section 9 to remain current with local surface water management standards and policies. 1.2 SCOPE This Plan serves multiple purposes including statutory and rule compliance. Minnesota statute 103B.235 defines content for local surface water management plans. According to the statute's text: Each local plan, in the degree of detail required in the watershed plan, shall: (1) Describe existing and proposed physical environment and land use; (2) Define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths of stormwater runoff; (3) Identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan; (4) Define water quality and water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan (5) Identify regulated areas; and (6) Set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as appropriate, a capital improvement program. Minnesota Rules 8410, administered by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, provide more detail on local plan content. Though the BWSR guidance applies specifically to watershed management organizations and watershed districts, this guidance has historically been used to frame expectations for municipal plans. According to Rules 8410, local plans must provide or address: (1) Executive summary (2) Land and water resource inventory (3) Impact on other units of government City of Mounds View 1 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 1111-47 5ta nte+c (4) Establishment of goals and policies (5) Assessment of problems (6) Implementation program (7) Implementation priorities (8) Plan contents; amendments (9) Annual reporting requirements The Mounds View LSWMP is structured to provide the information required by 8410 without holding strictly to the outline contained in the rules. Throughout this document, the City provides signposts identifying where a statutory or rulemaking requirement might be addressed. The LSWMP also must satisfy Metropolitan Council requirements as contained in 2040 Thrive MSP Water Resources Policy Plan. These requirements build on those of Rules 8410. Beyond state level requirements and those of Metropolitan Council, this plan must conform to the LSWMP plan content requirements of the RCWD. The RCWD has prepared a detailed checklist of LSWMP requirements addressing the assessment and management of surface water resources within the City. City of Mounds View 2 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 Sta nte+c 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING 2.1 LOCATION AND HISTORY Mounds View is an established residential community of small town charm and friendly folks, located primarily in northwestern Ramsey County. The City is mostly developed, and there have not been significant changes to land use or zoning in the last decade. Relatively small residential developments have been constructed along Highway 10, and more are planned. These residential developments are located in areas that are already urbanized. Bordering communities include Blaine to the north, Arden Hills and Shoreview to the east, Fridley and Spring Lake Park to the west and New Brighton to the south, as shown in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 — Location Map Blaine ANOKA Le ngton I OUNTY I—, I Spring Lak ark horevie I � 11k UNDS W >f N Fridley j Arden Hills RAM SEY 4 w B n COUNTY 0 3000 6000 .4 i The City of Mounds View was established in 1958 and has a total land area of 2,630 acres. The City is fully urbanized with a diverse residential population and a variety of commercial and industrial development. Quick access to three major highways allows for convenient transportation to neighboring communities and the entire metro area. City of Mounds View 3 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 sta nee 2.2 TOPOGRAPHY The Anoka Sandplain is the primary influence on the topography in the City of Mounds View, which leads to the gently rolling terrain seen today. As large glacial blocks from the Grantsburg Sublobe (of the larger Des Moines glacial lobe) melted, glacial streams deposited sand in broad, level plains. Shallow lakes formed as these glacial streams became dammed. The particular glacial lake that covered Mounds View is known as glacial Lake Fridley. The City has moderate topographic relief. The City is generally flat with slopes that range from zero to six percent. Several natural depression storage areas exist throughout the City. In the post -glacial period, no significant streams have drained Mounds View, though the City does discharge to the south into Rice Creek. 2.3 SOILS The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) developed a Soil Survey of Ramsey and Washington Counties, which includes the City of Mounds View. One aspect of this survey characterizes most soil types into Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSG). The HSG reflects a given soil's ability to infiltrate stormwater during long duration storms. The four hydrologic soil groups are: HSG A — high infiltration, HSG B — moderate infiltration, HSG C — slow infiltration, and HSG D — very slow infiltration. The soils in the City reflect the development of the Anoka Sandplain. According to the County Soil Survey, Mounds View includes a mix of urban and wetland soil classifications. While the County Soil Survey identifies much of City as "urban land," the soil survey categorizes a large majority of these "urban land" soils in the Zimmerman-Isanti-Lino Soils Association. Soils in this Association are typically found in level to gently rolling terrain of the Anoka Sandplain and can range from poorly drained to excessively drained, classified as HSG A and B soils. Figure 2.2 presents the soils classifications by HSG for the City of Mounds View. City of Mounds View 4 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 Sta nte+c Figure 2.2 — Soils Classification Map �? Soils Classification _ HSGref iI :CF ' Unclassified A A/D �`'` it ds View r B B/D`r gFFy������7777 C _• �1. , �i"i�E pll,I` \ I�4 C/D =,�= :s�.�.lmate PL t 2.4 GEOLOGY The geology of the region surrounding Mounds View is the result of two different geologic processes: (1) Warm, shallow seas covered the area and created conditions for the formation of sedimentary rocks. These formations are present as bedrock in the area. (2) Glacial processes have resulted in the development of surficial geology and, therefore, current landforms. The City's geology is generally ranges from 150 to 300 feet of glacial till and outwash overlying sedimentary bedrock. The bedrock units beneath the City are marine sedimentary rocks primarily of the Upper Cambrian to Middle Ordovician ages (450 to 500f million years old). Ranging from deeper/older bedrock to relatively shallow/young bedrock, the specific geologic units include the St. Lawrence/Franconia formation, Jordan Sandstone, and the Prairie du Chien group. Glacial influence on this area began around 2.5 million years ago and continued until about 10,000 years ago. However, the last episode of glaciation created the present landscape features in this area and across Minnesota. This episode lasted from about 35,000 to about 10,000 years ago. Two major glacial ice sheet movements constituted this episode during what is known as the late Wisconsinan glaciation. The first, the Superior lobe, advanced from the north. The second, the Grantsburg sublobe, advanced from the southwest. City of Mounds View 5 Local Surface Water Management Plan } } Stantec Project No. 193804166 In one period of retreat during the Superior lobe glaciation, melt waters deposited a thick layer of glacial outwash made up of sand and gravel over a widespread area including Mounds View. Another layer of till subsequently covered this outwash. This period of glacial activity lasted from about 30,000 to about 20,000 years ago. The more recent Grantsburg sublobe glaciation took place between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago. The Grantsburg sublobe, in addition to moving and redepositing materials from the Superior lobe, deposited new materials over the area. As the Grantsburg sublobe retreated and melted, these changes formed large streams that carried significant amounts of sands. These streams deposited broad level plains of sand and gravel that are referred to as the Anoka Sandplain. 2.5 GROUNDWATER In Ramsey County, there are four main drinking water aquifers present. In order of depth from shallow to deep, they are: The Quaternary Drift aquifer: found in sand and gravel glacial deposits. Yields from the drift aquifer can vary widely based on the permeability of the sediments. The Prairie du Chien -Jordan (PDCJ) aquifer: comprised of both dolomite bedrock and underlying sandstone bedrock. Yields can range from 1000-2000 gpm (gallons per minute) for most large diameter municipal wells completed in this aquifer in areas where the full thickness of the aquifer is present and fully saturated. This aquifer is the most widely used aquifer in portions of the Twin Cities area where it is present for municipal water supply systems. The Franconia -Ironton -Galesville (FIG) or Tunnel City-Wonewoc (TCW) sandstone aquifer: three bedrock units with layers of moderate to highly permeable sandstone. Yields can range between 300- 1000gpm for large diameter wells in this portion of the Twin Cities area. Current nomenclature refers to the FIG as the TCW, however FIG is still often used. The Mount Simon -Hinckley aquifer: located beneath the Eau Claire bedrock formation, a siltstone, shale, and silty sandstone -confining layer that is between this aquifer and the Franconia -Ironton -Galesville aquifer. Yields typically range between 500-1000gpm for large diameter municipal wells. The City of Mounds View currently operates five municipal wells. Well Number 1 is a multi -aquifer well open to both the FIG aquifer and the Mount Simon -Hinckley aquifer. Well Number 2 is a single -aquifer well open to the Mount Simon -Hinckley aquifer. Well Number 3 is a single -aquifer well open to the PDCJ aquifer. Well Number 5 is open to the PDCJ aquifer. Well Number 6 is a multi -aquifer well open to the PDCJ, FIG, and Mt. Simon aquifers. At present, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) has restricted cities in the Twin Cities area from drilling any additional Mt. Simon -Hinckley aquifer wells unless no viable options remain for those cities. They are restricting this use to limit the usage of this aquifer in order to ensure that aquifer withdrawals do not exceed the recharge that naturally replenishes the aquifer. The MnDNR will allow cities like Mounds View that already have existing Mt. Simon -Hinckley wells to continue to use them at their currently permitted discharge rates. Any future wells that Mounds View may need to install will most likely be required to be completed in one of the other three aquifer units, most likely the PDCJ or FIG aquifers. Figure 2.3 shows Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) within the City. Note that some of these DWSMAs are protecting groundwater sources in neighboring communities. DWSMA boundaries are City of Mounds View 6 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5tantec continually changing as cities update their Wellhead Protection Plans, with the general trend being to expand the boundaries as regulations become stricter. A significant portion of the City lies within a DWSMA and is unsuitable for stormwater infiltration practices. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual contains a flowchart that lays out MPCA and Minnesota Department of Health guidance on the use of infiltration in DWSMAs. In general, infiltration is prohibited or strongly discouraged in areas of high or very high vulnerability or in high, very high, and moderate vulnerability areas within Emergency Response Areas. Infiltration is likewise prohibited or strongly discouraged in areas of moderate vulnerability unless a higher level of review indicates that it is acceptable. Infiltration is feasible in areas with low vulnerability that are also outside Emergency Response Areas, as well as areas outside DWSMAs, subject to other potential restrictions (soil type, contamination, etc.). Figure 2.3 — Drinking Water Supply Management Areas LEGEND SOURCE V ATER PROTECTION DATA WM EMERGENCYRESPONSEAREA W WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA DRINKING WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENTAREA DWSMA VULN ERABILITY DATA SOURCE: MN DEPT. OF HEALTH SOURCE WATER PROTECTION MARCH 2-{]79 2.6 CLIMATE The National Weather Service (NWS) station at Chanhassen, Minnesota publishes climate data for the Twin Cities area. The NWS is a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Table 2.1 provides a summary of average precipitation data for the Twin Cities area. City of Mounds View 7 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 1.197 5tantec Table 2.1 - Average Monthly Precipitation — 1971-2016 Rainfall frequency estimates are used as design tools in water resource projects. Rainfall frequencies are summarized in the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Atlas 14-Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates. Previously, Technical Paper No. 40 (TP-40) Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States (NOAA) (published in 1961) was used to determine rainfall frequency estimates. TP-40 was developed using available rainfall information from far fewer stations than exist today; in Minnesota, there are 110 daily observation stations used in TP-40 estimates, whereas there are 320 daily observation stations used in Atlas 14. In addition to the fact that Atlas 14 estimates rely on a denser data network than TP-40, the stations have a longer period of record, and regional frequency analyses and new spatial interpolation techniques are used in the Atlas 14 method. Table 2.2 lists rainfall frequencies from Atlas 14 estimates, for the Twin Cities area, applicable to the City of Mounds View. The data taken from Atlas 14 are solely based on historical rainfall events and are not an extrapolation of data trends to predict future events. Table 2.2 - 24-Hour Rainfall Depths and Frequency Recurrence Interval (yrs) TP-40 24-hr Rainfall Atlas 14 24-hr Rainfall 2.7 WATER RESOURCES This section provides an overview of the water resources in and around the City. Waterbodies classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) as Public Waters, as identified by the 2011 Public Waters Inventory (PWI), and wetlands identified from the City's 2006 Wetland Inventory are identified on Figure 2.4, and a listing of the PWI basin names and the corresponding basin name from this LSWMP are presented in Table 2.3. City of Mounds View 8 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 Sta nte+c Table 2.3 - MnDNR Public Waters List I IT � 1 TV T . Lakes Spring Lake 2-71P SL-1 Wetlands Silver View Pond 62-60W EW-4 Unnamed Wetland 62-66W RC-3 Unnamed Wetland 62-168W AA-1 Unnamed Wetland 62-17OW EW-3 Unnamed Wetland 62-171W EW-7 Unnamed Wetland 62-173W EW-9 Unnamed Wetland 62-258W EW-1 Creeks Rice Creek -- -- Source: Minnesota DNR PWI Maps and Lists Mississippi River All of Mounds View's surface runoff reaches the Mississippi River via Rice Creek. The Mississippi River and its tributaries form the largest river system in North America, draining about 40 percent of the continental United States. Mounds View is located in the Middle Mississippi River Basin (upstream of Saint Anthony Falls) of the Upper Mississippi River (upstream of St. Louis, MO). According to the US Geological Survey, at gauging station Number 05288500, located at 95th Street in Coon Rapids, the normal elevation of the river is approximately 804.5 feet. The MnDNR classifies the Mississippi River as a warm water game fish resource. It is a MnDNR Protectec Watercourse and has a varying ordinary high water elevation that generally coincides with the top of the riverbank. Public Watercourses There are two public watercourses identified in Mounds View: Rice Creek and Anoka/Ramsey Judicial Ditch 1. Although not identified by the MnDNR as a public water, Spring Creek is another valuable watercourse within the City. There is also a historic unnamed ditch in the south-central portion of the City (within the Edgewood Drainage District) that has since been primarily converted to storm sewer. Rice Creek, which runs through the southeast portion of the City, is a relatively large watercourse with a drainage area of approximately 200 square miles. All of the 2,630 acres of the City of Mounds View drain to Rice Creek via various discharge points and conveyance routes through the City. According to a recent survey by MnDNR Fisheries, Rice Creek has two different types of fisheries. From its confluence with the Mississippi River up to the Locke Lake dam, the game fish species composition is similar to that found in the Mississippi River (catfish, smallmouth bass, walleye and northern). Above Locke Lake and upstream to where Rice Creek crosses into the City of Mounds View, game fish are limited to fingerling size walleye. City of Mounds View 10 Local Surface Water Management Plan } } Stantec Project No. 193804166 Anoka/Ramsey Judicial Ditch 1 (ARJD 1) drains the southern portion of the City of Blaine within the jurisdiction of the RCWD, through the northeast corner of Mounds View, prior to exiting the City under I- 35W and discharging into Rice Creek. Branch 5 of ARJD 1 crosses Hillview Road and Greenfield Park and ties into the main trunk of ARJD 1 within the northeastern portion of Mounds View. The RCWD is the drainage authority for ARID 1. Spring Creek is located in the far southwestern corner of the City. It extends from Woodcrest Park, crossing both Silver Lake Road and Knollwood Drive before it turns to the south. At County Road H, Spring Creek enters the City of New Brighton approximately midway between Knollwood Drive and Pleasant View Drive, discharging to Rice Creek a short distance downstream, and ultimately to the Mississippi River. The entire tributary drainage area to Spring Creek at the southern Mounds View city limits is approximately 323 acres. Lakes Spring Lake (MnDNR ID 2-71P) is located on the western border of the City, on its border with Spring Lake Park. Spring Lake is approximately 60 acres in size, with a maximum depth of approximately 18 feet. The location of this lake is identified on Figure 2.4 and Map 1 in Appendix A. Wetlands There are several wetland basins identified in the City's 2006 Wetland Inventory. Seven of these are MnDNR protected waters: Silver View Pond and six unnamed wetlands, as identified on Figure 2.4 and Table 2.3. Most of the wetlands in Mounds View are isolated wetlands scattered throughout the City; however, one will find a large wetland on the northern border of the City near Ardan Park and the Medtronic Campus and along the floodplain of Rice Creek in Long Lake Park. The locations of all wetlands within Mounds View are identified on Figure 2.4. Silver View Pond, located south of TH 10, between Long Lake Road and Silver Lake Road, was created in 1982 to provide stormwater storage for developments proposed within its drainage area. The pond was designed to have three distinct arms or basins with narrow connections between each to slow the movement of sediment and nutrients toward the outlet. 2.8 NATURAL RESOURCES The City of Mounds View includes no regional open space elements. Significant local open space elements are in the form of parks, trails, lakes, wetlands, and a public beach. Current City parks incorporate traditional park amenities such as athletic fields, hockey rinks, picnic areas, play areas, and pedestrian trails. 2.8.1 RARE FISH, WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES According to the MnDNR's Minnesota Biological Survey, "rare plants or animals are either protected under the provisions of the Federal or Minnesota Endangered Species Acts or are being considered for protection." According to the MnDNR's database of unique and sensitive plant species, there are natural City of Mounds View 11 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 (3 5tantec wetland plant communities and rare animal species found in the RCWD; however, none of these are found in Mounds View. 2.9 LAND USE The land cover characterizing Mounds View historically included prairies, forests, and wetlands; followed by agricultural fields; and the current urban setting. The MLCCS Land Use Classification is presented in Figure 2.5. The City's 2040 Land Use Map is presented in Figure 2.6. 2.10 DRAINAGE SYSTEMS The City's drainage system is divided into ten drainage districts and 44 drainage subdistricts, as shown on Map 1 in Appendix A. Ultimately, all drainage districts within the City flow into Rice Creek through various storm sewer connections and drainageways. The bulk of Mounds View's surface water management system was built prior to 1980. As was the practice at that time, surface water management relied heavily on large diameter trunk storm sewer to route runoff away from impervious areas quickly and discharge this runoff directly into a nearby receiving waterbody. In many areas of the City, the primary means for conveying stormwater runoff is within existing streets. At points where flows from several streets converge, catch basins are installed to route flow into storm sewer. The City's current drainage system resulted from the economic realities prevalent during system construction in the 1960s and 1970s. As such, it does not meet the City's current 5-year storm sewer design standard. However, the system design has not led to any notable flooding problems, due mainly to the gently rolling terrain providing overflows for localized surface ponding and relatively sandy soils allowing surface ponding to infiltrate before impacting adjacent structures. The storm sewer and surface water system in Mounds View are fully constructed to serve the needs of the City. Modifications to this system continue as small parcel infill development, redevelopment, and street reconstruction activities warrant. One challenge for the City as a part of this LSWMP will be to identify locations where the City's existing surface water system can be improved or new features added within existing development or redevelopment projects to enhance and restore the City's water resources. Section 6 of this plan presents an assessment that discusses each of the potential problem areas and corrective actions. 2.11 EXISTING FLOOD INSURANCE STUDIES The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 resulted in changes in flood insurance rates. As a result of this legislation, subsidized rates will be phased out over time until structures reflect their true risk based on the actual elevation of the structure compared to the base flood elevation (or the one percent annual chance flood elevation). Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the City were published in 2010. The FIRM shows Special Flood Hazard Areas subject to inundation by the one percent annual chance flood. The City of Mounds View is covered by FIRM panels 27123C0004G and 27123C0005G. These FIRM panels can be viewed at the Map Service Center Page on FEMA's website: http://www.fema.gov/. City of Mounds View 12 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5ta nte+c 85th-AvaeNE— w - - Z D D ° T DJ O �1 I fl_ O— C //t� Q I _� 1 ^Ardan•ASe �- V 7 Li d ti '—Ardan Ave La ort Dr J P Laport Dr I Sherwood PI _ II ♦ Sherwood Rd i \` > Q -0 a °o Lois c'i II w w El-' --- �° I Hillviw Rd I Hillview Rd' _ ( eI Lj \ f Oakwood Dr t_ o I j in Oakwood Dr -- Oakwood or \ Cl9 I 2 a I Terrace Dr \ o m Pinewood Cir j �_ rn —Pinewood Dr III o>a�) I ysros t w oa berg z Q� C 0 I-� I/- I �3 CID C . -DEm Bronsonr l� lL. A �1 Belle La 01 w (j I r Bronson or Bronson Dr �I Bronson Dr � _ 0 Lambert Ave o 0 _ E —1 I - ° Li _ CR_5— -- E Louisa Ave D m Q 1. o o D o r 3 Clearview Ave & ClearviewAve c \� Woodale Dr a I - > _ Woodale Dr Woodale Drcp _— O 3 j Woodcrest Dr' -0 Wooao—o—� rr dcrest-Dr—3 J 010 (� Mounds View City Boundary Lu m MLCCS Land Use Classification O10000 Artificial Surfaces and Associated Areas — 20000 Planted or Cultivated Vegetation L� - 30000 Forests O 40000 Woodland - 50000 Shrubland O60000 Herbaceous I!� 70000 Nonvascular 1 O 80000 Sparse Vegetation O 90000 Water Figure 2.5 - MLCCS Land Use Classification City of Mounds View a0 1,500 3,000 Feet N ILJ� l �'- `� ---- CR 9 41 Mustang Dr 1� August-27,, 2019 MffU—N—DS V11,r#' V:\1938\active\193804166\GIS\Projects\MLCCS.mxd Figure 2.6 — 2040 Land Use Map BzaINE _— —�--- CQ<UMTYRDJ_ _� I— --- - 7i I �— -1 l� f„ !■��-<. ,.,Future i r' — , r� Land Use BLAIhfE L �- - - -. T w F F �. L FJ:7 r'r i— oGti� � — = *HJ Y.IL: Ind *401 I y�=ill i I' ti lC 7r— �:� NlY RD H2I ///%/f J r,_ W., J =- lhj L lL��.-L�— �kl ��st%l Cam- -_-rT- ri -_ ■- - _ Future land flee Oeelg..U.. u9m ma,.onai. �wua � ns�onimei-rd � cmrm-cN puMoor SpoA.Rx-5R0 —_ �MOI+SOck'ttx firs _ N!W CAI Opar 3pS-,e 03N � Pa.erve� n�sy_e OSP �'AaM V a NEW BRIGHTDN x rn ti G City of Mounds View 14 Local Surface Water Management Plan t Stantec Project No. 193804166 3.0 REGULATORY SETTING 3.1 OVERVIEW This section describes the City's surface water resources management programs and practices and the agencies and organizations having roles in the City's management of these resources. It is the City's intent to adopt by reference and enforce RCWD's Rules C, D, E, and F and for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City. The RCWD will no longer apply its authority for Rules C, D, E, and F within the City but will continue administering the remaining RCWD rules in the City, which will require permits with RCWD. The City will work with the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) on resolutions for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement WCA in the City. Table 3.1 summarizes the City's and other agencies' resulting regulatory controls related to surface water resources management and protection. Table 3.1 - Regulatory Control Control Regulatory ResponsibilityOfficial Mechanism Construction Site and • City Code Chapter 1130 Land Disturbance City • NPDES General Permit — SWPPP MCM 4 — Runoff Control Construction site stormwater runoff control • City Code Chapter 1130 Post Construction Site city • NPDES General Permit — SWPPP MCM 5 — Post - Runoff Control construction stormwater management • City Code Section 907.06 Illicit Discharge and City, Metropolitan • NPDES General Permit — SWPPP MCM 3 — Illicit Illicit Connection Council discharge detection and elimination • Infiltration/inflow Surcharge Program • City Code Chapter 1130 Floodplain Alteration City, FEMA • FIRM Panels 27123C0004G and 27123C0005G Storm Water City •City Code Section 203.07 Management Fund • City Code Chapter 1130 Wetlands and Public City, MnDNR, COE MnDNR — Public Waters Work Permit Waters • COE — Section 404 of the Clean Water Act City of Mounds View 15 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 (3 Stantec 3.2 CITY SERVICES The City maintains the residential streets, sewers, waterlines, surface water management facilities, and park lands within Mounds View. Drinking water in Mounds View is supplied by a number of municipal wells within the City. The City sanitary sewer system collects wastewater for transport to the Metro Wastewater Treatment Facility where it is treated. As noted in Section 3.1, it is the City's intent to accept the authority and responsibility to implement the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City. City staff coordinates with the RCWD and other outside agencies in surface water resource management and conservation. The City's current regulations are available on the City's website at: http://www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us/. 3.3 RAMSEY COUNTY Ramsey County was created in 1849 and is one of Minnesota's original nine counties. The County provides many services to Mounds View residents, including health services and property records. County government also includes Ramsey County Parks and Recreation, Soil and Water Conservation Division, which encourages the protection of natural resources. 3.4 RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (RCWD) The City lies entirely within the RCWD. The RCWD encompasses approximately 185 square miles of Anoka, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington counties in Minnesota. Portions of the RCWD are in the following municipalities: Arden Hills, Birchwood Village, Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Columbus, Dellwood, Falcon Heights, Forest Lake, Fridley, Grant, Hugo, Lauderdale, Lexington, Lino Lakes, Mahtomedi, May Township, Mounds View, New Brighton, Scandia, Roseville, Shoreview, Spring Lake Park, Saint Anthony, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township, and Willernie. The RCWD updated their Watershed Management Plan (WMP) in 2020 and updated their rules in December 2020 (effective January 2021). This LSWMP reflects these updated rules. As noted in Section 3.1, it is the City's intent to adopt by reference and enforce RCWD's Rules C, D, E, and F. The RCWD will no longer apply its authority for Rules C, D, E, and F within the City but will continue administering the remaining RCWD rules in the City, which will require permits with RCWD. 3.5 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Established by the Minnesota Legislature in 1967, the Metropolitan Council is the regional planning organization for the Twin Cities, seven -county metro area. The Council manages public transit, housing programs, wastewater collection and treatment, regional parks, and regional water resources. The Metropolitan Council reviews municipal comprehensive plans, including this LSWMP. The Council adopted the 2040 Thrive MSP Water Resources Policy Plan in 2015, establishing expectations to be met in local plans. The Council's goals focus on water quality standards and pollution control, "to reduce the effects of nonpoint source pollution on the region's wetlands, lakes, streams and rivers." City of Mounds View 16 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5tantec 3.6 STATE BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES (BWSR) The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) works through local government agencies to implement Minnesota's water and soil conservation policies. BWSR is the administrative agency for soil and water conservation districts, watershed districts, watershed management organizations, and county water managers. BWSR is responsible for implementation of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and the Wetland Conservation Act. Staff members are located in eight field offices throughout the state. First established in 1937 as the State Soil Conservation Committee, the agency became part of the University of Minnesota in the 1950s, transferred to the Department of Natural Resources in 1971, then transferred to the Department of Agriculture in 1982. In 1987, the State Legislature established the current Board of Water and Soil Resources. The Board consists of 17 members, appointed by the governor to four-year terms, and includes representatives from multiple state and local agencies. In 1992, BWSR adopted rules (8410), establishing the required content for local surface water management plans. 3.7 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MPCA) The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the state's lead environmental protection agency. Created by the State Legislature in 1967, the MPCA is responsible for monitoring environmental quality and enforcing environmental regulations to protect the land, air, and water. The MPCA is the permitting authority in Minnesota for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the federal program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address polluted surface water runoff. Certain cities in Minnesota are defined as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and are subject to stormwater regulation under the Clean Water Act and Minnesota Rule 7090. There are multiple ways for a City or township to be subject to the MPCA's stormwater regulation under the MPCA's general permit. The MPCA regulates the entire jurisdiction of a city (or township) that is located fully or partially within an urbanized area as determined by the latest Decennial Census and that owns or operates an MS4. Consequently, Mounds View has developed a stormwater pollution prevention program (SWPPP) to address six minimum control measures: 1) Public education 2) Public involvement 3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination 4) Construction site runoff control 5) Post -construction runoff control 6) Pollution prevention in municipal operations In addition to the NPDES program, the MPCA is required to publish a list of impaired waters: lakes and streams in the state that are not meeting federal water quality standards. For each waterbody on the list, the MPCA is required to conduct a study to determine the allowable Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for each pollutant that exceeds the standards. The proposed 2018 MPCA list of impaired waters identifies 2,627 TMDL reports needed for the lakes, rivers, and streams in the state. Local governments are required to incorporate completed TMDL studies into their Local Surface Water Management Plans and review their SWPPPs to determine if additional BMPs are needed to comply with the TMDL waste load allocation. The City has one impaired waterbody in its boundaries: Rice Creek, due to fish, macroinvertebrate, and E. coli bioassessments. In addition, runoff from Mounds View discharges to Long Lake, a downstream stretch of Rice Creek, and to the Mississippi River, that are also identified as City of Mounds View 17 Local Surface Water Management Plan 5tantec Stantec Project No. 193804166 �i impaired waters according to the MPCA. Further discussion about the impaired waters receiving discharge from the City is included in Section 6.4. In response to these multiple regulatory activities, the MPCA published the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. This publication provides surface water management tools and guidance. The Manual presents a unified statewide approach to surface water practices. 3.8 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (MNDNR) Originally created in 1931 as the Department of Conservation, the MnDNR has regulatory authority over the natural resources of the state. MnDNR divisions specialize in waters, forestry, fish and wildlife, parks and recreation, land and minerals, and related services. The Division of Waters administers programs in lake management, shoreland management, dam safety, floodplain management, wild and scenic rivers, the public waters inventory (PWI), and permitting of development activity within public waters. 3.9 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (MDH) The MDH manages programs to protect the public health, including implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The MDH has regulatory authority for monitoring water supply facilities such as water wells, surface water intakes, water treatment, and water distribution systems. The MDH also is responsible for the development and implementation of the wellhead protection program. 3.10 MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD (EQB) The EQB is comprised of five citizen members and the heads of ten state agencies that play an important role in Minnesota's environment and development. The EQB develops policy, creates long-range plans, and reviews proposed projects that may significantly influence Minnesota's environment. 3.11 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MNDOT) Within the City, MnDOT administers several state highway systems. MnDOT approval is required for any construction activity within state rights -of -way. MnDOT also administers a substantial amount of funding for transportation projects completed in the City. MnDOT periodically publishes their anticipated activities in their State Transportation Improvement Plan. 3.12 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) The EPA develops and enforces the regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress; however, the MPCA bears responsibility for implementing many of the resulting programs within Minnesota. The NPDES program and the Impaired Waters List are both the result of the Clean Water Act, administered by the EPA. 3.13 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (COE) Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including subsequent modifications, the EPA and the COE regulate the placement of fill into all wetlands of the U.S. In 1993, there was a modification of the definition of "discharge of dredged material" to include incidental discharges associated with excavation. City of Mounds View 18 Local Surface Water Management Plan } } Stantec Project No. 193804166 This modification meant that any excavation done within a wetland required the applicant to go through Section 404 permitting procedures. In 1998, however, this decision was modified so that the COE only regulates excavation in wetlands when it is associated with a fill action. 3.14 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) FEMA manages federal disaster mitigation and relief programs, including the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This program includes floodplain management and flood hazard mapping; however, Mounds View is within an unmapped area. Additional information regarding floodplain mapping can be found in Section 2.11. 3.15 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS) The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Formerly named the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the NRCS provides technical advice and engineering design services to local conservation districts across the nation. The Soil Conservation Service published the official soils survey for Anoka and Ramsey Counties. The SCS also developed hydrologic calculation methods that are widely used in water resources design. 3.16 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) The USGS provides mapping and scientific study of the nation's landscape and natural resources. USGS maps provide the basis for many local resource management efforts. 3.17 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) The USFWS works to conserve and protect the nation's fish, wildlife, plants, and habitat. The USFWS developed the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) beginning in 1974, to support federal, state and local wetland management work. City of Mounds View 19 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 (i 5tantec 4.0 LSWMP REFERENCES 4.1 2020 RCWD WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN The 2020 RCWD Watershed Management Plan (WMP) provides the guidance and implementation strategies for the RCWD to manage its water and natural resources set forth in Minnesota Statutes 103B.231 and Minnesota Rule 8410. The RCWD organizes its 2020 WMP into nine management categories that are used to describe the diversity of resources and issues across the District. These categories encompass specific resource concerns and associated issues. The management categories are the foundation by which the RCWD will organize its actions and efforts to meet measurable goals and address priority issues of the RCWD. These management categories are: 1. MS 103E Public Drainage Systems 2. Non-103E Drainage Systems 3. District Facilities 4. Flooding 5. Water Quality Management 6. Funding 7. Collaborations 8. Regulatory 9. Communication, Outreach, and Education 4.2 RCWD RULES Following its last WMP update, the RCWD Board of Managers adopted a revised set of rules. Designed to protect the public's health, welfare, and natural resources, these rules govern stormwater management, soil erosion and sediment control, floodplain alterations, wetland alterations, and other activities. The latest version of these rules is enforceable under Minnesota Statute and can be found at the RCWD's website at.http://www.ricecreek.org/. As noted in Section 3.1, it is the City's intent to adopt by reference and enforce RCWD's Rules C, D, E, and F and for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City. 4.3 SOUTHWEST URBAN LAKE STUDY REPORT AND MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN The RCWD completed the Southwest Urban Lake Study in 2009. This study analyzed 24 urban lakes in the southwest portion of the RCWD, which included Spring Lake. The goal of the report was to assess water quality in relation to state standards and to develop Management Action Plans (MAPS) for each lake. Phase I of the report included: • An assessment of existing lake quality data • Lake -bottom sediment sampling and analysis City of Mounds View 20 Local Surface Water Management Plan } } Stantec Project No. 193804166 • Delineation of sub -watershed boundaries and land use determinations for each lake studied • Listing of current impairments for the 24 lakes studied • Summary of available lake quality data • Recommendations for additional lake quality monitoring via the Metropolitan Council's Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) • Identification of available in -lake and watershed BMPs to address impairments of the lakes studied The report identified Spring Lake as a shallow basin due to a littoral area that encompasses more than 95% of the lake. The existing lake quality data for Spring Lake was limited, with only one full year of sampling data available at the time the report was written. The report recommended that Spring Lake be added to the CAMP in 2008 to begin to compile additional lake quality data. The report also notes that Spring Lake has experienced significant water level fluctuations in the recent past. New data could provide insight into the level of impact the water level fluctuations are having on lake quality. Phase II of the report focused on soliciting input from lake stakeholders to identify any "impairments" to the beneficial uses they identified. This phase used the existing lake quality data and identified impairments to develop MAPS for each of the 24 lakes studied. The MAPS included a discussion of water quality, public input, and recommendations regarding data collection and specific BMPs to address impairments. 4.4 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SUIP) As identified in the City's 2008-2009 Action Plan, the City implemented the Street and Utility Improvement Program (SUIP). The basis for this program followed the recommendations of the Streets and Utilities Task Force: Reconstructed or rehabilitated all streets within 9 years. No assessments to individual property owners. The City financed the SUIP in part by a tax levy on all properties. Adopted a uniform street standard making engineering of individual projects straightforward. Recommended standards included: o Structurally strong street section with durable concrete barrier -style curbs. o Repaired and upgraded water mains and sewers. o Considered sidewalks or trailways where indicated in the City's Comprehensive Sidewalk/Trailway Plan. o Applied the most cost-effective stormwater management practices to comply with RCWD Rules; this generally meant rain gardens or infiltration swales. o Group mailboxes in accordance with Municipal Code. Significant flexibility to accommodate individual property owners needs remained. Information about the SUIP can be found on the City's website. 4.5 STORMWATER INFILTRATION PROGRAM (SIP) To address the RCWD volume control requirements for the SUIP areas, the City implemented a program that approached volume control for all projects in a uniform and cost-effective manner. The City Council adopted a resolution establishing the Stormwater Infiltration Program (SIP) to provide a uniform and City of Mounds View 21 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5tantec cost-effective process to address RCWD volume control requirements. Per the City Council's resolution, the main components of the SIP were: 1) The City Responsibility for Standard Surface Infiltration Features included with the Street and Utility Improvement Program are/were to: a) Furnish and install all materials to establish turf grass infiltration swales at all locations designated by the City, including at a minimum: i) Provide necessary curb cuts. ii) Grade an infiltration swale within City right-of-way. iii) Restore the infiltration swale with turf. b) Provide the owner of the property adjacent to the swale with educational materials and a list of technical resources regarding the maintenance of the swale. c) Inspect the feature regularly to ensure functionality and effectiveness from a stormwater management perspective. Minimum inspection period is once every 5 years. d) Perform activities as necessary to maintain functionality and effectiveness from a stormwater management perspective. 2) The Responsibility of Owners of Property adjacent to Standard Surface Infiltration Features included with the Street and Utility Improvement Program are to: a) Perform ongoing maintenance of the turf surface within the swale in accordance with the City Code. 3) Owners of Property adjacent to Standard Surface Infiltration Features included with the Street and Utility Improvement Program shall have the opportunity to perform Optional Improvements to the infiltration swale in accordance with the following: a) Any portion of the turf surface may be replaced with plantings, retaining walls, or other landscaping elements, subject to the following: i) Modifications of the underlying soil will not be allowed. ii) Any modification of the surface of the swale that adversely affects the infiltration functionality will not be allowed. iii) Any modification of the swale size, shape, depth, or other parameters requires advance approval of the City. iv) Upon request, the City will provide the Property Owner with a list of technical resources for plantings. b) The Property Owner will be solely responsible for initial and ongoing costs of Optional Improvements. c) The Property Owner will be solely responsible for the installation of Optional Improvements. d) The Property Owner will be solely responsible for all ongoing maintenance of Optional Improvements. e) Optional Improvements may be performed at any time following the construction of the swale. City of Mounds View 22 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5tantec 4) The City Responsibilities and Rights regarding Optional Improvements within Infiltration Features included with the Street and Utility Improvement Program shall be: a) Upon request, the City shall provide to the Property Owner any information it may have regarding possible financial assistance programs for the Optional Improvements. b) The City shall have the authority to prevent Optional Improvements from becoming unsightly or causing any other type of nuisance to the public. c) The City shall have the right to remove any Optional Improvements as necessary for activities to maintain the stormwater management functionality of the swale. i) Any areas disturbed by the City in the course of maintenance activities will be restored by the City with the Standard turf as described in Part 1 of this Resolution. ii) Any reinstallation or replacement of Optional Improvements in areas affected by City maintenance activities shall be the sole responsibility of the Property Owner, in accordance with Part 3 of this Resolution. During each SUIP project, the City evaluated the streets to be reconstructed with the project and identified locations in the public right-of-way where infiltration swales were feasible. The placement of the infiltration swales was a function of various physical and property owner hardship parameters including: ■ Existing subsurface characteristics (e.g., permeability, groundwater elevation, utilities, etc.) ■ Physical obstacles (e.g., significant trees) ■ Steep slopes ■ Relative elevation (e.g., locate swales at low points) ■ Property owner safety and maintenance considerations 4.6 MUSTANG DRIVE DRAINAGE STUDY Completed in June 2007, the Mustang Drive Drainage Study presented the results of a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of local flooding issues at the intersection of Mustang Drive and Mustang Circle in the southeast corner of the City (Subdistrict RC-3). This study provided the City with recommendations for surface water system improvements to address the local flooding issues. Per the study's recommendations, an overflow system from this intersection was constructed. 4.7 EDGEWOOD DISTRICT DRAINAGE PLAN The Edgewood District Drainage Plan was completed in March 1988 to address on -going flooding issues within the Edgewood Drainage District. This Plan presents an analysis of various conveyance and regional ponding concepts as a retrofit to the existing stormwater system to more effectively manage surface water within the Edgewood District. More specifically, the Plan identifies outlet configuration improvements for the basin in Subdistrict EW-6. 4.8 SILVER VIEW POND MANAGEMENT PLAN The 2012 Silver View Pond Management Plan was prepared for Mounds View in response to neighborhood and City concerns regarding the management of Silver View Pond. This Management Plan focuses on improving the water quality and wildlife habitat value within Silver View Pond. A trail has been redone in the area, and pond dredging is planned to improve its stormwater treatment effectiveness. City of Mounds View 23 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5tantec 4.9 LAMBERT AVENUE DRAINAGE STUDY Regional drainage from Lambert Park flows north through the property at 2255 Lambert Avenue. Low flows are conveyed in a storm sewer across the property, but larger flows travel overland diagonally across the property. The property has been subdivided into four lots and is in the process of being redeveloped. Accordingly, the City prepared the Lambert Avenue Drainage Study to determine ponding requirements on the property to control runoff leaving the site. The study recommended pond volumes, peak flow rates, and high water level to provide freeboard and maintain flows at existing conditions. 4.10 LONGVIEW ESTATES DRAINAGE STUDY The Longview Estates development in 2014 modified the grading, ponding, and an existing wetland in the area south of County Road H2 between Silver Lake Road and Longview Drive. Since that time, water levels in the existing wetland have been rising, resulting in wet back yards to the north and east of the wetland. The Longview Estates Drainage Study evaluated the hydraulics of the situation and recommends various grading, storm sewer, and outlet modifications to reduce the water levels in the area. 4.11 RAMSEY COUNTY GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PLAN The draft Ramsey County Groundwater Protection Plan was last updated in 2010. Ramsey County is now in the process of updating the plan. The City of Mounds View will submit a draft of the LSWMP to Ramsey County for review and comment. The groundwater protection plan provides a summary regarding the regulatory framework for groundwater protection in Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) is the key agency that aims to prevent the pollution of water supplies to ensure safe drinking water sources and limit public exposure to contaminants. 4.11.1 WELL VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT The MDH evaluated the vulnerability of Mounds View's municipal wells to contamination from surficial contaminants. The evaluation parameters included geology, well construction, pumping rate, and water quality; wells were classified as either Vulnerable or Not Vulnerable. The geologic sensitivity rating of the aquifers within the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) was also evaluated. Using geologic logs, the geologic sensitivity of each well was rated using a score ranging from very low to very high. The DWSMA is assigned a vulnerability ranging from low to moderate. The vulnerability assessment of each well is described in Table 4.1. City of Mounds View 24 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 (i 5tantec Table 4.1 - Mounds View Municipal Well Vulnerability Assessment Mounds View Well 1 FWWeII Vulnerabilitylo Not Vulnerable Geologic Very Low Mounds View Well 2 Not Vulnerable Very Low Mounds View Well 3 Not Vulnerable Medium Mounds View Well 4 Vulnerable *High Mounds View Well 5 Vulnerable Medium Mounds View Well 6 Vulnerable High *While Well 4 has a aeoloaic sensitivitv ratina of high. the loa for Well 4 test hole (MN Uniaue # indicates that a rating of medium to low is more appropriate. 4.11.2 OBJECTIVES AND PLANS OF ACTION The City's Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP) was completed in September 2013. A copy of this plan can be obtained at City Hall. The plan contains information which the City views as security -sensitive; consequently, the full WHPP is not available online. The action steps outlined by the plan are discussed below: Well Management: Encourage proper sealing of all unused wells and proper management of existing wells in the DWSMA. Potential Contaminant Source Properties: Provide information to owners of properties that may contain a Class V well. Provide information to owners that will encourage proper operation and maintenance of storage tanks. Periodically obtain information on the status of wells and storage tanks from regulating agencies to maintain an up-to-date database of potential contaminant sources. Public Education: Distribute the Mounds View Consumer Confidence Report and information on the proper operation and maintenance of private wells. Post WHPP information on the City of Mounds View website. Work with the cities of Arden Hills, Blaine, Lexington, New Brighton, and Shoreview to identify appropriate public education opportunities. Land Use Management: Incorporate wellhead and source water protection into the City's planning process. Continued Data Collection: Record static and pumping water levels in the Mounds View municipal wells. Compile additional geologic and hydrogeologic data as it becomes available. Use new geologic/hydrogeologic data to update the groundwater flow model used to delineate the Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA). Compile updated information on potential contaminant sources. City of Mounds View 25 Local Surface Water Management Plan } } Stantec Project No. 193804166 5.0 WATER RESOURCES RELATED AGREEMENTS 5.1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE RCWD The City will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with RCWD within 180 days of the RCWD's approval of the City's LSWMP for RCWD to cease applying its Rules C, D, E, and F in the City and for the City to adopt these rules by reference (see Appendix Q. The City will also work with BWSR on resolutions for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement WCA in the City. 5.2 SPRING CREEK REGIONAL POND AGREEMENT WITH THE RCWD Mounds View made an agreement with the RCWD to address the outstanding RCWD runoff treatment requirements for the City's 2003 Street and Utility Improvement Project, which was permitted by RCWD under Permit 04-061. In 2003, the City proposed to fulfill these outstanding requirements by the construction of the Spring Creek Regional Pond. However, with further investigation into the feasibility of constructing the Spring Creek Regional Pond, the City found that construction of the pond was no longer the preferred approach to address the outstanding RCWD stormwater management requirements for Permit 04-061. This agreement officially recognized that the City will not be constructing the Spring Creek Regional Pond to fulfill the outstanding RCWD stormwater management requirements for Permit 04-061. Rather, these outstanding requirements have been addressed through the construction of infiltration features designed in accordance the City's Stormwater Infiltration Program (SIP) and included in the Street and Utility Improvement Program (SUIP) projects. The agreement states that the treatment volume necessary to fulfill the outstanding requirements of Permit 04-061 will be distributed amongst the nine SUIP projects, with the distribution being proportional to each project's percentage of the total SUIP size. The SIP and SUIP have been completed, and the City worked with the RCWD to close all open permits that address the City's treatment volume requirements. A copy of the closeout inspections is provided in Appendix B. City of Mounds View 26 Local Surface Water Management Plan } } Stantec Project No. 193804166 6.0 CURRENT ASSESSMENT The following section is an assessment of the City's current surface water system. The assessment includes surface water system issues identified by the City, found in the RCWD watershed management plan, or as discussed in a specific LSWMP reference identified in Section 4. Based on the assessment presented in this section, the City will develop effective surface water management goals and policies (Section 7) and, with the coordination of the RCWD, establish the implementation measures (Section 8) necessary to enact the goals and policies and address the surface water management issues. As noted in Section 3.1, it is the City's intent to adopt by reference and enforce RCWD's Rules C, D, E, and F and for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City. 6.1 OFFICIAL CONTROL ASSESSMENT Codes and ordinances (official controls) are necessary tools to support the implementation of this LSWMP. The intent of assessing the City's existing official controls is to identify the adequacy of these controls. As a basis for this assessment, the City's MS4 permit documents include a summary of ordinances required to meet NPDES requirements. The City Code can be found here: http://www.moundsviewmn.org/government/codes regulations and fees/city code.php It is the City's intent to adopt by reference and enforce RCWD Rules C — Stormwater Management, D — Erosion and Sediment Control, E — Floodplain Management, and F — Wetland Alteration. The corresponding ordinances in the City Code will be updated to reflect this change (see Appendix D). The RCWD will no longer apply its authority for Rules C, D, E, and F within the City but will continue administering the remaining RCWD rules in the City, which will require permits with RCWD. Additional steps for the City to adopt RCWD rules C, D, E, and F by reference are listed below: • Provide draft ordinances that adopt RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F by reference for RCWD review and approval and revise City Code within 180 days of RCWD approval of the LSWMP. • Implement inspection and administrative procedures necessary to ensure the full regulatory standards of RCWD are met, including procedures for permit application review, inspections and enforcement, permit closeout, hydraulics/hydrology data, and the RCWD audit. • Adopt resolutions to satisfy BWSR's requirements for accepting WCA authority per MN Rule 8420.0200. • Enter into a MOU with the RCWD for the City to adopt ordinances that adopt RCWD's Rules C, D, E, and F by reference within 180 days of RCWD approval of the LSWMP and for RCWD to no longer assert its authority for those rules. RCWD will continue to require permits in the City for its remaining rules. • The City understands that if these actions are not completed within 180 days of RCWD's approval of the LSWMP, RCWD will continue asserting its authority for RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F and serving as the WCA LGU in the City. City of Mounds View 27 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5tantec After adoption of this Local Surface Water Management Plan, the City will need to update all applicable portions of City Code as noted above. Per State statute, the City must amend its official controls accordingly within 180 days of LSWMP adoption. In addition, the City must periodically update codes to remain consistent with City goals, policies, and practices as well as to be consistent with any RCWD rule updates. Table 6.1 presents an assessment of City codes related to surface water management as listed in Table 3.1. Table 6.1 - Surface Water Management Official Control Assessment is Irofficiall .d L Update within 180 days of RCWD Construction Site and Land Chapter 1303 approval of the LSWMP to adopt Disturbance Runoff Control RCWD Rule D by reference and to comply with MS4 permit. Surface Water Drainage Update within 180 days of RCWD Management and Development Chapter 1302 approval of the LSWMP to adopt RCWD Rule C by reference and to Control comply with MS4 permit. Illicit Discharge and Illicit Section 907.06 Update ordinance to be compliant with Connection the recently -reissued MS4 Permit. Update within 180 days of RCWD Flood Plain Management Chapter 1301 approval of the LSWMP to adopt RCWD Rule E by reference and to comply with MS4 permit. Storm Water Management Fund Section 203.07 Fund is reviewed annually. Update within 180 days of RCWD Wetlands Zoning Regulations Chapter 1010 approval of the LSWMP to adopt RCWD Rule F by reference and to comply with MS4 permit. 6.2 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITY As noted in Section 3.1, it is the City's intent to adopt by reference and enforce RCWD's Rules C, D, E, and F and for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City. 6.3 WETLAND MANAGEMENT As noted in Section 3.1, it is the City's intent to accept the authority and responsibility to implement the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City. The City will work with BWSR on resolutions for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement WCA in the City. City of Mounds View 28 Local Surface Water Management Plan } } Stantec Project No. 193804166 6.4 IMPAIRED WATERS AND TMDLS There is one waterbody within the City of Mounds View currently identified on the state list of Impaired Waters: Rice Creek (between an unnamed lake and Long Lake and between Long Lake and Locke Lake). In addition, three waterbodies that are outside of the City but receive discharge from the City also are on the state list of Impaired Waters: Long Lake, a downstream stretch of Rice Creek, and the Mississippi River. The list of Impaired Waters is known as the 303(d) list from the applicable section of the Federal Clean Water Act; these waters are ones that do not currently meet their designated use due to the impact of a particular pollutant or stressor. If monitoring and assessment indicate that a waterbody is impaired by one or more pollutants, it is placed on the list. Information for impaired waters is identified in Table 6.2 and Figure 6.1. The absence of a waterbody from the 303(d) list does not necessarily mean the waterbody is meeting its designated uses. It may be that it has either not been sampled or there is not enough data to make an impairment determination. Table 6.2 - Impaired Waters Receiving Discharge from Mounds View Impairedb.. IL Pollutant or Stressor L Mississippi River — Aquatic Recreation Fecal coliform Crow River to Upper St. Anthony Falls 07010206-805 Aquatic Consumption PCB in fish tissue Aquatic Consumption Mercury in fish tissue Aquatic Life Nutrient/Eutrophication Upper Mississippi River Multiple Aquatic Recreation Escherichia coli Drinking Water Escherichia coli Aquatic Life Total suspended solids Rice Creek — Aquatic Life Fish bioassessments Unnamed Lake to Long Lake 07010206-583 Aquatic Life Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments Rice Creek — Long Lake to Locke Lake 07010206-584 Aquatic Life Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments Aquatic Life Fish bioassessments Aquatic Recreation Escherichia coli Aquatic Recreation Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators Aquatic Consumption Mercury in fish tissue Long Lake 62-0067-00 Aquatic Life Chloride Source: Impaired Water Viewer at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/impaired-waters-viewer-iwav City of Mounds View 29 Local Surface Water Management Plan } } Stantec Project No. 193804166 Figure 6.1 - Impaired Waters Map -d%o~ Impaired Water- Waterways EXingif. - Impaired Water- Lake r Other Waterdody Blaine Municipal Boundary _— Sprin Lak rk o T'I N LINDS g' Fridley -a ,,ce Creek e° ' FR A 1+ N I t Ne, Bright an 04 Feet 6 j o 3000 woo At some point, a strategy will be developed leading to attainment of the applicable water quality standard for these impaired waters. The process of developing this strategy is commonly known as the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process and involves the following phases: 1. Assessment and listing 2. TMDL study 3. Implementation plan development and implementation 4. Monitoring of the effectiveness of implementation efforts Responsibility for implementing the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act falls to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In Minnesota, the EPA delegates much of the program responsibility to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Information about this program is on the MPCA's website: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/water-monitoring-and-assessment. The following is an excerpt from the MPCA website describing the program and its need: 'A body of water is considered "impaired'/f it fails to meet one or more water quality standards Minnesota water quality standards protect lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands by defining how much of a pollutant such as bacteria or nutrients can be in water before it is no longer drinkable, swimmable, fishable, or useable in other, designated ways (called "beneficial uses'). Waters that do not meet their designated uses because of water quality standard violations are impaired. Monitoring suggests that about 40% of Minnesota s lakes and streams are impaired, which is comparable to impairment rates in other states "The federal Clean Water Act requires the MPCA to: 1. Assess all waters of the state to determine if they meet water quality standards City of Mounds View 30 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 (3 5ta nte+c 2. Create a list of impaired waters that do not meet standards and update the list every even -numbered year. 3. Set pollutantreductiongoals needed to restore impaired waters, called the total maximum daily load "States must develop a list of impaired waters that require total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies, and submit an updated list to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every even -numbered year for approval. The TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant a body of water can receive without violating water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources. " As a part of the NPDES program, Mounds View is required to review all discharges from their MS4 system to impaired waters, as defined by the current EPA approved 303(d) list. The review of their MS4 system to impaired waters should include the following: 1. Review the Impaired Waters List to determine whether there are any impaired waters located within one mile of the City's boundaries that receive discharge from the City's MS4. For waters that are impaired only for mercury, the review process stops here. 2. Identify the location(s) of discharge(s) from the City's MS4 to the impaired waters. Discharges may include pipes, outlets, ditches, swales, street gutters, or other discrete conveyances for surface water runoff. 3. Delineate the watershed area within the City's jurisdiction that discharges to each impaired water. 4. Prepare an impaired water evaluation addressing the hydrology, land use, and other characteristics of each watershed area delineated. 5. Prepare an impaired waters report. This report will address the results of the impaired waters evaluation along with a determination of whether the City should make changes to the Mounds View SWPPP to reduce the impact from the City's MS4 stormwater discharge to each impaired water. 6. The City will incorporate the changes identified in the impaired waters report into the City's SWPPP and be reported through the annual reporting process. To date, Mounds View has not prepared an impaired waters report for any of the identified impaired waters identified in Table 6.2. Table 8.3 identifies a proposed starting date for the necessary impaired waters. Discussion about the directives for impaired waters and ultimately TMDL studies addressing the impairments for the waterbodies listed in Table 6.2 is presented in the Implementation Section (Section 8) of this LSWMP. Section 8 identifies how Mounds View intends to be involved in the directives identified above and the City's strategy for implementing these directives. A completed TMDL study affecting Mounds View is the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL, which describes reducing E.coli loading for several stream reaches that include Rice Creek. The City is listed as a regulated MS4 on this TMDL. Policy 33 in Section 7.4.1 will help the City address the Upper Mississippi River bacteria TMDL. The Twin Cities Metro Chloride TMDL and the South Metro TSS TMDL are also officially approved. The City of Mounds View is listed as a regulated MS4 on these TMDLs. Policy 33 in Section 7.4.1 will help the City address the Twin Cities Metro Chloride TMDL. Policies 9, 12-17, 30, 33-35, and 36-38 in Section 7 as well as many of the implementation activities in Table 8.3 will help the City address the South Metro TSS TMDL. 6.5 NPDES PERMITTING PROCESS The MPCA has designated the City of Mounds View as an NPDES Phase II MS4 community (MN Rules 7090). The NPDES State Disposal System (SDS) General Permit (MNR040000) for discharges of City of Mounds View 31 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5tantec stormwater associated with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) was issued initially in 2003, and the permit is updated every five years. The permit application outlined Mounds View's SWPPP, which addresses six minimum control measures: 1. Public education 2. Public involvement 3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination 4. Construction site runoff control 5. Post -construction runoff control 6. Pollution prevention in municipal operations The City's SWPPP contains several best management practices within each of the listed control measures. These were identified using a self -evaluation and input process with City staff. Many of the goals and policies discussed in this Local Water Management Plan are directly related to requirements listed in the NPDES program. Per the requirements of the MS4 Permit, the City will review their SWPPP and update as necessary on an annual basis. A link to the City's current SWPPP can be found on the MPCA website: https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/images/5/51/City of Mounds View SWPPP Doc.pdf The City will coordinate water resource education efforts with outside agencies to complete the City's goals as outlined in their MS4 SWPPP, which may include fulfilling their public education requirements by obtaining educational information and assistance from the RCWD. 6.6 REGULATORY STANDARDS As noted in Section 3.1, It is the City's intent to adopt by reference and enforce RCWD's Rules C, D, E, and F and for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City. The City will enter into a MOU with the RCWD for the City to adopt ordinances that adopt RCWD's Rules C, D, E, and F by reference within 180 days of RCWD approval of the LSWMP and for RCWD to no longer assert its authority for those rules. The City understands that if these actions are not completed within 180 days of RCWD's approval of the LSWMP, RCWD will continue asserting its authority for RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F and serving as the WCA LGU in the City. The RCWD will no longer apply its authority for Rules C, D, E, and F within the City but will continue administering the remaining RCWD rules in the City, which will require permits with RCWD. The City will work with the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) on resolutions for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement WCA in the City. In the event of inconsistent or conflicting standards, the stricter standard will prevail. 6.7 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM ASSESSMENT The preparation of this plan included an assessment of the City's current surface water system, including storm sewer, regional stormwater basins, and drainage areas. Data related to Mounds View's surface water system was collected from a variety of sources including: City of Mounds View 32 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 11--47 5tantec • Previous versions of the City's LSWMP • RCWD Watershed Management Plan • Basemap and record plans of City street and utility projects As part of the assessment of the City's surface water system, drainage boundaries and flow paths were delineated based on the best available data. A map of Mounds View's surface water system, including drainage areas and boundaries, can be found on Map 1 in Appendix A. The City is divided into 10 drainage districts that are further divided into drainage subdistricts to account for specific surface water features, with all of the subdistricts ultimately draining to Rice Creek. The City is almost entirely developed, and the existing flooding issues can generally be categorized as small scale nuisance flooding. These types of flooding issues are best analyzed in a subdistrict level drainage study such as the studies identified in Section 4, rather than in a planning level document such as this LSWMP. Therefore, the broader approach to summarizing modeling information taken in this LSWMP is warranted. 6.8 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS The following list of items presented in Table 6.3 represent current surface water management issues as identified by the documents included in Section 4 of this plan. It is not the intent of this list to include all current surface water management issues identified in the documents in Section 4, only those issues with a possible corrective action that directly affects the City. The implementation of the possible corrective actions will be addressed in the Implementation Section (Section 8). It may be necessary to conduct further investigation into the feasibility and scope of the possible corrective actions identified in Table 6.3 prior to proceeding with the improvements. Note that compliance with the City's adopted ordinances and the Wetland Conservation Act will be needed in order to proceed with the corrective actions. City of Mounds View 33 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5tantec Table 6.3 - Surface Water Management Issues and Possible Corrective Actions Drainage , Subdistrict Su Surface water Issue Identified Possible Corrective Actions The City has limited financial ability to RCWD • The City is interested in working with RCWD 1 City-wide implement water quality WMP on funding water quality BMPs BMPs • Numerous improvement projects have been Insufficient water quality completed as part of the SUIP. In areas not 2 City-wide treatment and runoff City within a SUIP area, investigate the need and volume control feasibility to construct water quality improvements. High water levels occurring across City, • Develop detailed City-wide 3 City-wide resulting in rising water City hydrologic/hydraulic model to estimate tables and impaired BMP water levels and develop solutions function • Review the findings in the Southwest Urban Low water levels in Lakes Study regarding low water levels in 4 SL-1 Spring Lake RCWD, City Spring Lake, and potentially implement the recommended activities. Lack of rate control from wetland causing *Construct an outlet skimmer structure to 5 AA-3 downstream pipe City control discharge rates and reduce the capacity issues, existing clogging potential of the outlet pipe flared end frequently clogs with debris Current detention basin outlet north of Red Oak •Rebuild structure to provide proper rate 6 AA-4 Court requires frequent City control and reduce maintenance issues maintenance due to the outlet structure design Sedimentation in drainageway east of 7 AA-5 Ardan Avenue has City •Remove sediment and restore drainage clogged channel and is corridor creating drainage issues Erosion issues from • Construct volume control measures 8 GF-4 Bona Road flared end to City upstream (as part of the SIP) to reduce erosion due to small, frequent rainfall wetland events City of Mounds View 34 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 Stantec Table 6.3 (continued) - Surface Water Management Issues and Possible Corrective Actions Drainage Subdistrict Su Surface water Issue Identified Possible Corrective Actions • Coordinate a stabilization project with RCWD to resolve erosion issues Channel erosion issues • Modify outlet configuration 9 GF-6 in Judicial Ditch 1 RCWD, City e Evaluate need for additional flood storage between Lois Drive and • Consult with RCWD to ensure any Hillview Road modifications to the public ditch system follow RCWD process and meet statutory requirements Safety concerns at the • Construct an inlet structure configuration to trunk storm sewer inlet reduce flow velocities and reduce the 10 GF-6 at Quincy Street and City potential for inlet blockage to address the Hillview Road during safety concerns high flows. Existing wetland has no • Install a wetland outlet when Silver Lake 11 EW-2 outlet, causing water City level fluctuations Road is reconstructed. Existing wetland has no • Install a wetland outlet when Silver Lake 12 EW-3 outlet causing water City level fluctuations Road is reconstructed. 13 EW-4 Silver View Pond slope city • Regrade and restore slopes with native stabilization issues vegetation to stabilize pond slopes • Implement weed management techniques Silver View Pond — poor • Dredge the pond to remove deposited water quality, excessive sediment 14 EW-4 weed/algae growth, loss city • Provide in -pond water quality treatment of habitat value such as iron -enhanced bench • Implement upstream water quality BMPs Existing flooding issues • Modify the outlet to reduce the potential for inlet blockage 15 EW-5 adjacent to the existing City *Provide additional storage to reduce basin in Subdistrict EW-5 flooding potential Wetland water levels are creating backyard 16 SC-2 ponding and wet city • Lower wetland EOF backyards near 5177 • Add pond outlet skimmer structure and EOF Longview Drive (see Section 4.10) City of Mounds View 35 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5tantec Table 6.3 (continued) - Surface Water Management Issues and Possible Corrective Actions Dri Drainage ' ,istrict Surface water Issue Issue Identified P.ssible Corrective Actions Sedimentation in by: Woodcrest Park basin •Remove sediment from basin and swale and 17 SC-2 and swale are impeding City restore channel drainage and creating flooding issues Backyard drainage .Perform field survey of the site 18 SC-4 patterns have been City •Determine what mitigation may be needed altered Redevelopment of the property at 2255 •Implement stormwater improvements in Lambert Avenue could accordance with the Lambert Avenue 19 35W affect drainage patterns City drainage study to control runoff leaving the and increase offsite peak site and provide adequate freeboard to local flows (see Section 4.9) properties 1 City of Mounds View 36 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5tantec 7.0 GOALS AND POLICIES 7.1 SUMMARY Surface water management issues within the City are primarily defined by the requirements of current or pending programs. The goals and policies outlined in this plan are grouped by their relationship to the key issues listed below: • Section 7.2 Land Development and Redevelopment — Goals and policies to prevent flooding and adverse impacts to water resources from land disturbance and impervious surfaces. • Section 7.3 Resource Management — Goals and policies for managing Mounds View's wetlands, lakes, and groundwater, to preserve the functions and values of these resources. • Section 7.4 Citywide Program Elements — Goals and policies for managing water resources and drainage systems on a citywide scale, to effectively achieve surface water management goals. • Section 7.5 Support of Other Agencies — Goals and policies to coordinate local surface water management with the work of the RCWD and state agencies. As noted in Section 3.1, It is the City's intent to adopt by reference and enforce RCWD's Rules C, D, E, and F and for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City. The City will enter into a MOU with the RCWD for the City to adopt ordinances that adopt RCWD's Rules C, D, E, and F by reference within 180 days of RCWD approval of the LSWMP and for RCWD to no longer assert its authority for those rules. The City understands that if these actions are not completed within 180 days of RCWD's approval of the LSWMP, RCWD will continue asserting its authority for RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F and serving as the WCA LGU in the City. The RCWD will no longer apply its authority for Rules C, D, E, and F within the City but will continue administering the remaining RCWD rules in the City, which will require permits with RCWD. The City will work with the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) on resolutions for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement WCA in the City. In the event of inconsistent or conflicting standards, the stricter standard will prevail. 7.2 LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT Overall Goal: Manage land disturbance from new development, redevelopment, street reconstruction projects, or any other public or private land disturbing activity that creates new impervious surface to prevent flooding and adverse impacts to water resources through consistency with RCWD Rule C, adopted by reference by City ordinances. To make this process effective, the City will strive through an upfront stormwater assessment and planning process to incorporate best management practices that focus on treating runoff at the source and not in typical end of pipe treatments. The incorporation of these Best Management Practices will coincide with the guidance provided in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. City of Mounds View 37 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 (3 5tantec The upfront stormwater assessment and planning processes implemented at the project submittal stage will include guidance and recommendations for projects to include volume management features at the most ideal locations throughout a project's corridor. At a minimum, the City will look to provide pretreatment of stormwater before it enters the existing stormwater system. 7.2.1 RUNOFF RATE Goal: Control the rate of surface water runoff from development to reduce downstream flooding and erosion. Policy 1: Adopt RCWD Rule C by reference. Develop Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plans (CSMP) for required stormwater management as an alternative to meeting the requirements of RCWD Rule C, Sections 6 and 7. The RCWD is required to approve any CSMP. Review and update City code to reflect this policy. Policy 2: As the City is entirely located within the RCWD's defined Flood Management Zone, peak runoff rates from regulated new development, redevelopment, or site expansion projects shall not exceed 80% of existing rates for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year rainfall events. Rate control below existing rates may be necessary where downstream capacity issues are identified, which will require coordination with the RCWD and adjacent municipalities. Policy 3: Coordinate with RCWD to ensure stormwater practices are implemented to prevent increases in peak runoff rates at RCWD-designated intercommunity flow locations. Intercommunity flow locations are shown with arrows at the City boundary on Map 1. Specific intercommunity flow rates identified in the RCWD District -wide model are tabulated below. It is anticipated that implementing the City's adopted ordinances will reduce intercommunity flow rates under full build -out conditions. Peak Flow (cfs) Discharging Receiving watercourse 2-Year, 24- 10-Year, 24- 100-Year, 24- 100-Year, 10- City City Hour Rainfall Hour Rainfall Hour Rainfall Day Snowmelt Arden Hills Mounds Rice Creek 215 421 957 1377 View Mounds ARJD 1 Main 89 Blaine View Trunk 47 74 100 Mounds View New Rice Creek 230 443 958 1376 Bri hton ARJD 1 Main Mounds View Shoreview Trunk 42 59 114 118 Policy 4: Require that the maximum duration for rainfall critical event analysis shall be 24 hours. Require the use of the hydrograph method of analysis and NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall amounts and distribution. City of Mounds View 38 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5ta nte+c Policy 5: For new construction, ensure that stormwater features have emergency overflow spillways sufficiently sized and stabilized to convey flows greater than the 100-year critical storm event. 7.2.2 FLOOD PREVENTION AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Goal: Provide adequate storage and conveyance of runoff and control development in floodprone areas to protect the public safety and minimize property damage. Policy 6: Adopt RCWD Rule E by reference. Review and update City code to reflect this policy. In the event of inconsistent or conflicting standards between Rule E and FEMA requirements, the stricter standard will prevail. Policy 7: Require that the low floor elevation of new structures provide a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard above the 100-year High Water Level and 1 foot of freeboard above the emergency overflow of an adjacent pond. Policy 8: Preserve the existing water storage capacity within the 100-yr floodplain by prohibiting encroachments into the floodplain. 7.2.3 RUNOFF VOLUME Goal: Reduce pollutant loads and impacts to waterbodies and encourage groundwater recharge by reducing the volume of surface water runoff from development and redevelopment areas. Policy 9: Adopt RCWD Rule C by reference. Develop Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plans (CSMP) for required stormwater management as an alternative to meeting the requirements of RCWD Rule C, Sections 6 and 7. The RCWD is required to approve any CSMP. Review and update City code to reflect this policy. Goal: Reduce the volume of surface water runoff from existing developed areas. Policy 10: Coordinate efforts with the RCWD to minimize impervious surfaces (where feasible) when reconstructing streets and other paved surfaces to provide volume control benefit. Policy 11: Where practical, encourage the use of infiltration BMPs in existing developed areas, taking into consideration site limitations such as soil conditions, depth to groundwater, safety, snow removal, and maintenance issues. Also consider the use of stormwater reclamation for reducing stormwater runoff volume. 7.2.4 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT LOADING Goal: Reduce the nutrient and sediment loads discharged from land development or redevelopment. Policy 12: Adopt RCWD Rule C by reference. Develop Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plans (CSMP) for required stormwater management as an alternative to meeting the requirements of RCWD Rule C, Sections 6 and 7. The RCWD is required to approve any CSMP. Review and update City code to reflect this policy. City of Mounds View 39 Local Surface Water Management Plan } } Stantec Project No. 193804166 Policy 13: Strive for the nondegradation of receiving waters in Mounds View by enforcing current surface water management standards, and in conformance with adopted RCWD Rules. Policy 14: Require nutrient and sediment load reductions consistent with the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency guidelines in design and construction of new or modifications to existing surface water conveyance systems. Encourage the use of the MPCA's Minimal Impact Design Standards and Minnesota Stormwater Manual (https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Main Page) methodology for evaluating load reductions. Policy 15: Require outlet skimming up to the 1-year storm event HWL in all new surface water ponds. 7.2.5 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Goal: Prevent sediment from construction sites from entering the City's surface water resources. Policy 16: Adopt RCWD Rule D by reference. Review and update City code to reflect this policy. Policy 17: Require that erosion and sediment control practices be consistent with the standards identified in the current MPCA Construction General Permit, the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, and the adopted RCWD Rules. 7.3 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Overall Goal: Protect the City's wetlands, lakes, groundwater, and natural areas to preserve the functions and values of these resources for future generations through the Wetland Conservation Act, buffer standards, groundwater protection rules, and coordination with outside agencies. 7.3.1 WETLAND MANAGEMENT Goal: Protect and preserve wetlands to maintain or improve their function and value. Policy 18: Adopt RCWD Rule F by reference. Review and update City code to reflect this policy. Policy 19: Accept the authority and responsibility to implement the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City. Policy 20: Require that runoff from new development, redevelopment, or site expansion projects be pretreated prior to discharge to wetlands. Policy 21: Require that, before development activities or public projects, the owner or developer complete a wetland delineation, including a field delineation and a report detailing the findings of the delineation. Policy 22: Require that a wetland inventory and assessment be prepared for any new development, redevelopment, or site expansion project containing a wetland. Wetland assessments will be City of Mounds View 40 Local Surface Water Management Plan 5tantec Stantec Project No. 193804166 �i completed in accordance with the methods defined in the most current version of MnRAM or other acceptable method. Policy 23: A minimum wetland buffer width around all wetlands of 16.5 feet, measured horizontally, is required and the procedures for the City's Wetland Alteration Permit and Wetland Buffer Permit (City Code Chapter 1010) must be followed. 7.3.2 LAKE MANAGEMENT Goal: Improve water quality and protect resource value of Spring Lake. Policy 24: Cooperate with the RCWD to identify possible activities to improve water quality in Spring Lake. This includes the findings presented in Phase II of the RCWD Southwest Urban Lakes Study. 7.3.3 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE AND PROTECTION Goal: Protect groundwater resources and groundwater -dependent surface water and natural resources. Policy 25: Cooperate with Ramsey County, the Minnesota Department of Health, and RCWD to identify and protect critical groundwater resource areas. Policy 26: Coordinate efforts with other agencies to implement the recommendations identified in the City's Wellhead Protection Plan and Ramsey County Groundwater Quality and Protection Plan. 7.3.4 NATURAL AREA MANAGEMENT Goal: Protect and enhance natural areas within the City to provide wildlife habitat and water resource benefits. Policy 27: Support programs to maintain and restore the resource value of natural areas and enhance water -based recreational opportunities. Policy 28: Review and update City code as necessary to include language specific to shoreland management, consistent with state and RCWD guidance. Policy 29: Coordinate with the MnDNR to enhance fish and wildlife habitats and protect rare and endangered species. 7.4 CITYWIDE PROGRAM ELEMENTS Overall Goal: Manage water resources and public and private drainage systems on a citywide scale, including monitoring and maintenance of drainage systems, targeted pollution prevention, public education, system reconstruction projects, and equitable collection of supporting funds. City of Mounds View 41 Local Surface Water Management Plan } } Stantec Project No. 193804166 7.4.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION Goal: Detect and address urban pollutants discharged to storm sewers. Policy 30: Implement the NPDES Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as stated in the most current version of the MS4 permit. Policy 31: Review and update City code to include language for Illicit Discharge and Illicit Connections consistent with current state guidance. Policy 32: Enforce an ordinance requiring that animal waste on public property is disposed of properly. 7.4.2 MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE Goal: Maintain the function and effectiveness of the City's surface water management system through monitoring and maintenance. Policy 33: Continue to conduct biannual street sweeping. Policy 34: Continue inspection and maintenance of the City's surface water conveyance and ponding system as outlined in the City's SWPPP. Policy 35: Complete employee training in the operation, maintenance, and inspection of the City's storm sewer system. 7.4.3 PUBLIC EDUCATION Goal: Inform and educate residents, property owners, and business operators about surface water pollution, the effects of urban runoff, and the need to protect natural resources. Policy 36: Implement a public education and outreach program as identified in the City's MS4 permit and coordinate these activities with the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Soil and Water Conservation Division and RCWD where feasible to maximize the impact of these efforts. Policy 37: Promote citizen and volunteer efforts to protect, restore, and enhance local water and natural resources. Policy 38: Use available opportunities through its newsletter, public meetings, website, Comprehensive Plan, or interpretive elements at parks and open space sites to inform its residents about the value of local water resources, the effects of stormwater runoff, and opportunities for stewardship of water and natural resources. 7.4.4 FUNDING Goal: Secure adequate funding to support implementation of the LSWMP. City of Mounds View 42 Local Surface Water Management Plan 5ta nte+c Stantec Project No. 193804166 �i Policy 39: Review the adequacy of the existing Storm Water Management Fund (City Code Section 203.07) to pay for the implementation of the projects and actions identified in Section 8. The Fund rates will be revised accordingly. Policy 40: Seek grant funds or other resources to assist with special projects or implementation of plan goals. 7.5 SUPPORT OF OTHER AGENCIES Goal: Cooperate and coordinate local surface water management with the work of the RCWD and state agencies. Goal: Cooperate with other organizations to complete management plans and studies for water resources in Mounds View. Policy 41: Work with RCWD, Ramsey County, and others when appropriate and as resources are available to participate in resource management plans or studies that benefit water and natural resources in Mounds View. Goal: Cooperate with other organizations working to protect groundwater resources. Policy 42: Cooperate with RCWD, Ramsey County, and others to implement the recommendations of the Ramsey County Groundwater Quality and Protection Plan and the City's Wellhead Protection Plan, to protect groundwater quality by reducing the potential for transport of stormwater pollutants into the groundwater and maintaining the functions of groundwater recharge areas. City of Mounds View 43 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5tantec 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION 8.1 OFFICIAL CONTROLS As noted in Section 3.1, It is the City's intent to adopt by reference and enforce RCWD's Rules C, D, E, and F and for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City. The City will enter into a MOU with the RCWD for the City to adopt ordinances that adopt RCWD's Rules C, D, E, and F by reference within 180 days of RCWD approval of the LSWMP and for RCWD to no longer assert its authority for those rules. The City understands that if these actions are not completed within 180 days of RCWD's approval of the LSWMP, RCWD will continue asserting its authority for RCWD Rules C, D, E, and F and serving as the WCA LGU in the City. The RCWD will no longer apply its authority for Rules C, D, E, and F within the City but will continue administering the remaining RCWD rules in the City, which will require permits with RCWD. The City will work with the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) on resolutions for the City to accept the authority and responsibility to implement WCA in the City. In the event of inconsistent or conflicting standards, the stricter standard will prevail. From the assessment of the City's official controls presented in Table 6.1, Table 8.1 identifies the implementation actions necessary to address this action. Table 8.1 — City Code Implementation Actions = Construction Site and Land Disturbance Update within 180 days of RCWD approval of the Runoff Control LSWMP to adopt RCWD Rule D by reference and to comply with MS4 permit. Update within 180 days of RCWD approval of the Post Construction Site Runoff Control LSWMP to adopt RCWD Rule C by reference and to comply with MS4 permit. Update within 180 days of RCWD approval of the Flood Plain Management LSWMP to adopt RCWD Rule E by reference and to comply with MS4 permit. Update within 180 days of RCWD approval of the Wetlands and Public Waters LSWMP to adopt RCWD Rule F by reference and to comply with MS4 permit. 8.2 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Mounds View's existing surface water management system is a major investment for the City. The ongoing maintenance of this existing surface water management system is critical to protecting this valuable investment. The City's surface water system maintenance responsibilities and the schedule for these responsibilities are included in Table 8.2: City of Mounds View 44 Local Surface Water Management Plan } } Stantec Project No. 193804166 Table 8.2 - Stormwater System Maintenance Schedule BMP Street sweeping Maintenance Schedule Twice annually Catch basins Inspected every 5 years, cleaned and repaired as needed Trunk storm sewer Televised and jetted on a scheduled rotation Stormwater ponds Inspected every 5 years, cleaned as needed Stormwater pond inlets/outlets Inspected every 5 years, cleaned as needed Structural treatment devices, including sump manholes and grit chambers Inspected annually, cleaned as needed Generally, surface water system maintenance in Mounds View is funded by the City's Storm Water Management Fund. The City's Storm Water Management Fund rates are reviewed annually to verify that the Fund balance is adequate to fund the surface water management implementation activities identified in the City's Capital Improvement Plan. 8.2.1 STORMWATER POND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM In addition to the City's current inspection procedures for City -maintained stormwater ponding basins, City staff has expressed interest in developing a Stormwater Pond Maintenance Program. The intent of this program is to establish specific guidelines for stormwater pond maintenance, including: ■ Design volume estimation ■ Tracking sediment deposition ■ Sediment removal triggers ■ Sediment disposal process 8.2.2 DE-ICING PRACTICES The City receives approximately 54 inches of snow during a typical year. This requires a large amount of de-icing chemicals (primarily salt) to be applied to roads and sidewalks each winter. Estimates indicate that 80 percent of the environmental damage caused from de-icing chemicals is a result of inadequate storage of the material (MPCA 1989). Improper storage as well as overuse of salt increases the risk of high chloride concentrations in runoff and groundwater. High chloride concentrations can be toxic to fish, wildlife, and vegetation. Stockpiles of de-icing material in the City are stored in an enclosed building on an impervious surface. Runoff from stockpiles is managed to minimize the possibility of flowing directly into streams or wetlands where environmental damage can occur. The City follows established snow and ice removal practices to address winter maintenance needs. Street conditions are assessed for each individual event, and ice control material application is adjusted accordingly. Equipment is maintained in good working order to place ice control material on roadways City of Mounds View 45 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5ta nte+c and is properly calibrated to prevent excessive application. Operators are trained in proper winter salt usage and certified through the MPCA. 8.3 NPDES IMPLEMENTATION As discussed in Section 6.5, the City of Mounds View is designated as an NPDES Phase II MS4 community. As part of Mounds View's application to obtain permit coverage, the City's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) identifies many specific implementation items related to surface water management in Mounds View. While it is not the City's intent to reproduce the specific implementation items from their SWPPP in this LSWMP (see link to the current SWPPP in Section 6.5), the specific items identified in the SWPPP can be lumped into implementation categories, including: ■ General ongoing SWPPP implementation items, including: o system inspections o educational materials o website updates, etc. ■ Ordinance updates, specifically: o Construction Site and Land Disturbance Runoff Control o Post Construction Site Runoff Control o Illicit Discharge and Illicit Connection ■ Plan review procedures and standards ■ NPDES Annual Report ■ Surface Water System Map The cost for implementing the items listed above will vary from year to year, but, for budgeting purposes, estimated costs for these items are included in Table 8.3. 8.4 PRIORITY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Based on the assessment of the City's current surface water management program and the implementation items in the preceding sections, a list of system improvement activities has been identified. The system improvements identified range from those being driven by regulatory requirements to those driven more by the functionality of the City's regional surface water management system. Table 8.3 presents a summary of recommended surface water management activities. The budget amounts included in this table should be considered planning -level cost estimates, with more specific cost estimates to be determined as the project or activity approaches. Any implementation projects will need to comply with applicable RCWD and state rules. For capital improvement projects, the City will continue to rely on its detailed 5-year capital improvement planning process to schedule and plan for funding these projects. The City creates its CIP on a five-year basis and will reassess priorities and the implementation schedule annually. For purposes of this LSWMP, the City is planning to spend an estimated $500,000 per year on stormwater system maintenance, upgrades, and retrofits for the period 2022-2028. The activities listed in Table 8.3 will be used as a reference for particular projects and activities specific to surface water management to be included in the capital improvement planning process. Potential funding sources for the activities are listed in Section 8.6; no specific mix of funding sources has yet been determined for individual projects. It should be noted that the activities identified in Table 8.3 are listed chronologically by activity category. A number of City of Mounds View 46 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 1111-47 5tantec projects identified as corrective actions in Table 6.3 are for future implementation and are not scheduled within the City's 5-year capital improvement plan, and no cost estimates have yet been developed. These are shown below as post-2028, and costs are to be determined (TBD). As noted in Table 6.3, Activity #10, JD1 channel restoration at Lois Lane, will require consultation with RCWD to ensure any modifications to the public ditch system follow RCWD process and meet statutory requirements Table 8.3 - System Improvement Activities Listed by Activity Category Activity Category Project Description Est. Est. ResponsibleActivity Capital Woodcrest Park Remove sediment from 1 Improvement basin/swale basin and swale and 2021 $50,000 City restoration restore channel 2 Capital Ardan Avenue Remove sediment and 2021 $50,000 City Improvement channel restoration restore drainage corridor 3 Capital Silver View Pond Evaluate pond 2024 $50,000 City Improvement reassessment improvement options Capital Silver View Pond Dredge the pond to 4 Improvement dredging remove deposited 2027 $2.1M City sediment Capital Silver View Pond Install recirculating pump 5 Improvement water quality and iron -enhanced bench 2030 $100,000 City treatment Capital Quincy Post- 6 Improvement Street/Hillview Modify inlet structure 2022 TBD City, RCWD Road inlet Capital Silver View Pond Regrade and restore Post- 7 Improvement slope stabilization slopes with native it 2028 TBD City vegetation Capital Groveland Road Construct outlet skimmer Post- 8 Improvement wetland outlet structure 2028 TBD City skimmer 9 Capital Red Oak Court Rebuild outlet structure Post- TBD City Improvement basin outlet 2028 Capital JD1 channel Stabilize channel, modify Post- 10 Improvement restoration at Lois outlet, evaluate need for 2028 TBD City, RCWD Drive additional flood storage Capital EW-5 basin Modify outlet structure Post- 11 Improvement improvements provide and pre additional 2028 TBD City floodovidstorage Capital Longview Drive Lower wetland EOF and Post- 12 Improvement drainage add pond outlet skimmer 2028 TBD City improvements structure City of Mounds View 47 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5tantec Table 8.3 (continued) - System Improvement Activities Listed by Activity Category Activity Category Project Description Est. Est. ResponsibleActivity Capital Avenue Implement improvements Post- L1LILambert mprovement drainage in accordance with 2028 TBD City improvements drainage study Develop detailed City- wide hydrologic/hydraulic 14 MS4 System City-wide H/H model to estimate water 2021 $200,000 City Improvement modeling levels and develop solutions to high water levels 15 MS4 Permit Annual NPDES Writing and administering Ongoing $5,000 City Compliance Reporting MS4 annual reports annually General inspection and maintenance of the City's stormwater management system, including: General Inspection ' Biannual street 16 MS4 Permit and Maintenance sweeping Ongoing $250,000 City Compliance Program ' Ditches and storm annually sewer ■ Outfalls and stormwater ponds ■ Structural pollution control devices Complete City staff MS4 Permit Complete Staff training in the operation, $2,000 17 Compliance Training maintenance and Ongoing annually City inspection of the City's storm sewers stem 8.5 POSSIBLE FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES These activities generally include coordination efforts with other agencies or potential future activities that have yet to be defined. The future implementation activities identified below are relevant to overall surface water management within the City and should be considered in future Capital Improvement Plan discussions. Future Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Studies As discussed in Section 6.4, there is one waterbody within the City of Mounds View currently identified on the state list of Impaired Waters: Rice Creek (between an unnamed lake and Long Lake and between Long Lake and Locke Lake). In addition, three waterbodies that are outside of the City but receive City of Mounds View 48 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 5 5ta nte+c discharge from the City are also on the state list of Impaired Waters: Long Lake, a downstream stretch of Rice Creek, and the Mississippi River. The City recognizes that the responsibility for completion and implementation of the TMDL studies lies with the primary stakeholders contributing to the impairment. The City intends to cooperate with the RCWD and other agencies in the development of the TMDL studies, acknowledging that these outside agencies will take the lead on these studies. It is the intention of the City to implement the items/actions identified in future TMDL Implementation Plans, funding the implementation items/actions as necessary. Coordinate with RCWD to Address Degraded Water Quality in Spring Lake The RCWD finalized the MAP for Spring Lake in 2009 as part of Phase II of the Southwest Urban Lakes Study. The MAP included a management approach aimed at addressing the degraded water quality in Spring Lake where the City is identified as a contributing partner. The report outlined recommendations regarding watershed management and internal lake management. Watershed management recommendations included six BMP retrofit opportunities that were identified in a preliminary field reconnaissance. The MAP also included general practices to reduce nutrient runoff that could be implemented even before data are available that can illuminate a more targeted management approach. Internal lake management recommendations included developing an aquatic vegetation management plan, developing a model to evaluate changes in the lake's water level, and assessing the feasibility and cost of curly -leaf pondweed control options. The RCWD identifies specific programs on their website (www.ricecreek.org) that are available to provide funding assistance to Mounds View for stormwater management improvements, including: Urban Stormwater Remediation Cost -Share Program Water Quality Grant Program Urban Water Quality Retrofit Projects The City will look for opportunities in developed areas to install retrofit water quality improvement BMPs to improve the overall water quality in Mounds View. The City will consider working with private property owners to implement improvement projects, using the City's Stormwater Infiltration Program as a model to accomplish these retrofit improvements. The RCWD identifies specific programs on their website (www.ricecreek.org) that could be applied when partnering with Mounds View, including: Urban Stormwater Remediation Cost -Share Program Water Quality Grant Program 8.6 POTENTIAL FUNDING Implementation of the proposed studies, programs, and improvements identified in this plan will affect City finances. A review of the City's ability to fund these studies, programs, and improvements should be completed regularly. Below is a listing of various sources of revenue that Mounds View will attempt to use: City of Mounds View 49 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 1111-47 5tantec ■ Storm Water Management Fund ■ General Fund ■ Grant and partnership monies possibly secured from various agencies for projects ■ Project funds could be obtained from watershed district levies as provided for in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D.905 for those projects being completed by or in cooperation with the RCWD. Specific information regarding the most current RCWD cost share programs can be found on their website, as follows: www.ricecreek.org/grants ■ Special assessments for local improvements performed under authority of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 ■ Revenue generated by Watershed Management Special Tax Districts provided for under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473.882 ■ Other sources potentially including tax increment financing, tax abatement, state aid, and others The City's current primary funding source for the studies, programs, and improvements identified in this Plan is the Storm Water Management Fund. It is understood that the City regularly reviews the Fund balance and sets appropriate Fund rates to cover surface water management improvement costs. City of Mounds View 50 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 (i 5tantec 9.0 ADMINISTRATION 9.1 REVIEW AND ADOPTION PROCESS Review and adoption of this LSWMP will follow the procedure outlined in Minnesota Statutes 10313.235: After consideration but before adoption by the governing body, each local government unit shall submit its water management plan to the watershed management organization[s] for review for consistency with the watershed plan. The organization[s] shall have 60 days to complete its review. ' 'Concurrently with its submission of its local water management plan to the watershed management organization, each local government unit shall submit its water management plan to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment. The council shall have 45 days to review and comment upon the local plan. The council's 45-day review period shall run concurrently with the 60-day review period by the watershed management organization. The Metropolitan Council shall submit its comments to the watershed management organization and shall send a copy of its comments to the local government unit' After approval of the local plan by the watershed management organization[s], the local government unit shall adopt and implement its plan within 120 days, and shall amend its official controls accordingly within 160 days ' 9.2 PLAN AMENDMENTS AND FUTURE UPDATES This Local Surface Water Management Plan will be incorporated into the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan update and will be applicable until 2028, at which time an updated plan will be required. This timeline marks a change from previous updates; previously, Local Surface Water Management Plan updates were done when the watershed districts or watershed management organizations updated their Watershed Management Plans. Periodic amendments may be required to incorporate changes in local practices. Changes to the RCWD Watershed Management Plan may necessitate revisions to this plan. Plan amendments will be incorporated by following the review and adoption steps outlined above. City of Mounds View 51 Local Surface Water Management Plan Stantec Project No. 193804166 (i 5tantec APPENDICES (5� Stantec APPENDIX A - SURFACE WATER SYSTEM INFORMATION Stantec GF-2.01 * �12 n 1 12• v� ° NW-1 12 's. a 1 n 0 15 io + ❑ ❑ ' 84t_hrA\u4e:N1E o GF-1 Mn36n 3sEl o, 12' 's. 0' °36'n 0. 1 i 12' 15, - M I- GF-2.P1 _ 2' ❑ O� 1 Q. 1( 15 OJ h o N ^ b,P2 ' 1 N 42' 42' 30' 30' 36' 36' �- 1 M - `�s. 36' 36' 36• 36' 36' 36' 42' 42' 42' 42' 42' bti N �A vn ^'� � I e W) GF-1.P1 ' _ i• '�+� . ° 1 21' 21' 21'Zn I �2. � 1 in �y�^ GF-z.P2 -, I * o h rl AA-1. 02 -2 12' Groveland Ct 1 N AA-1.01 ), I y0 AA-1.P1 �❑ "s- El El 27' h _0 o, 15' 15' ° ZLI 0' G El ' U) AA-1.P2 ° 21' ❑ 12 ❑ N❑ , N ¢ 24' ® 24' h, 15, GF-2.P3 ^� T cn `A�rd'a�n.Ave 4Z-0'° ♦66' _� 18' 0- _ 36' �36'_� �6" _ - - ---------------------- -+ AA-3 18' 1 �I! �' 'I N AA-5.01 N I AA-5 24' 24' 24' 24' 24' 24' 24' ♦ ° El 18 Ardan venue (A42'��ok ❑ o' '- 42' 12• o Q ° ❑ 30' 30' 30' 36' ,N 21' n 3p• Ardan-Ave q ., ❑ ,2n �se ❑ N N b Judicial 0 U ,z N 18 y _ GF-3 a \N• 12 AA-6 - o w Laport Dr 12' AA�4 P1 18 e-y La • ort,Dr N °o G� `� at USTH o 10 0 a AA-4 aGai 3492 0 ° �r Sherwood■PI J Y U ro 12' (a O Q ,5• 15' 12' 15' AA:2 15 � ` ^° ` r12 She,�rwood'Rd-SIN o St-, j�j IW �? G F-5 ^s 0 15 G5.01 fiC� o W Greenfield j l ` r ll^^ L M ♦ O Q > U ♦ 12' k0 Y GF01 ' > Gre nfield Park (GF) �. C � o OA 0 r GF-5.02 54' 54' 54' 54' 35W-1 54' Sy- LL 12 U7 12' r N o h y Z. p ^5 �5_ , 15 15 GF 6.02 18' 24' 24' 24' 15' 15' 18' 60' 35W-1. �? 12 H'il`hview Rd 15 ti o N ;,j a HiI'Iv'iew id 60' SL-1.15 ' 1 G GF-4 a� ° - (6 zn o O , L 0 � 3 d GF-o>r I N i. 15' 15' ' " Spring Ake (SL) ° ro❑ N _ �� Oa'kwo'o'd Dr SL-1.S11 n ° o. m W c SL 1.01I N (((��� SL-1lH1 Qall(WOO&i-Dr 15 GF-4.02 GA P,2 GF-4.P1 v GF 4.S1 z7• zr z7 ;-4.03 2. N L-1.03! L SL-1.S14 C N GF-4!01 r. GF=4'.P3 SL-1 SL-1.04�s pLT S ,g 12' 15' 12' 15' _ G 9�5, 1,155' N U) M in Terrace Dr U) zr ° ❑ 1 SL-1.0_ r-o EW;o- o �O ^ti -Pinewood Cir - N �- .. ° 15' CO Lake Y " _ EW-1.01 , 15' 15' 15' o: o N 12. Pinewood D55 o ;� 15' 18' in 18' 24' 24' 30'��! 30' Bo 30' 36' iq 36' �b 36' 'f isAS 237 CSAH 3 1z' 00 1 r 00 1s• tib °'" ^ ❑1 zo �a.4j`L ^ >_ E � U 35W-'3r01 16' Z ja.��21'W404N ?�° L O 12 v ° 35W-3.02 °' w ° 35W (35W) u EW-5 a) o Q. L � � _ N 0 _I w I � 'S ;� 15' in a o fO P EW-2 EW-4.P4 0^ 18' 18' 18' 15' 12'w� 42. � Ay Y a n o 0 Bronson -Dr C9 O O v � � 12' ^° ems. ° ° o .� 35W-2 Belle La a U W1iS�/� °J °. 42' 42'W//�SC-4.11 Q12' NC/ ^� r 12' N N m WC-1 w W EW-4 18• EW-6 N * 18' ■ 21, 44' cn 15' ' 24' 24' 48' m 5 Z a 12'-c 18' C �" Bronson Dr �'- " ' ^WC-1.0.1 24' 24' 24' 21' 21' 0' De o. 12' a 'w. 10' 0' -tL rsronson Dr EW-4.05 0' b EW-4.S1 G❑ �s b W-6.P1 ^� �> ca • 1o, 0 6• 6' �� (n 15' Q in o• J QEW-4.02 EW-4.04 S1jUe1' °?• 15' 0�, EW-7.01 0 0• 0' N 1 J EW-4.03 ❑EW=7.P.1�. 12 35W-4 a ; 21 0' ° View �� i� Pond y "' EW-7.oz o. °. ❑ > N o El Z�N12, QICY- N >2• 12' �r 0 139V11-3� 12' EW-4.07 r��`oi -p ark view do 2. 18' c P EW-4.06' EW-7 ❑ o ° o 15' A❑ o, Lambert Ave M �� '�. Edgewood (EW) EW-4.S2 N N ti° '? N U ° CD I15 EW-6.P2 Y EW-3 Hodges La • EW-4.08 of N 7 h N 27' I � 30' 1 15• EW-4.09 M EW-7.S11 EW-7.P1 36 M 21 0 1� ;o b - 15' N ° N2 ;EW 7103 EW-8.12N ❑ � 12• Z. N 15' 15' 96 15' 15' 15' 2T 27' � 27' 15' 12' M-41 1 0' o' EW-4.P2 EW=41P1 18, EEW.�S12 z �►`�, MSAS-2�34 , 18, 18, �--�� EW-8.01 N �► 1 15, 15, " 33' o o�q o ElN-4!S11 • - ' EW-8.11 EW-8.13 C-4 SC-4.S1 S� SC-1.11 d SC-4.P1 SC-1.01 1a ' b^�1� 15, EW_g ti BPN-1 sc.Pz ^ N Louisa Ave 0 0 2r o N N� qs BPN-4 � SC-4.P5 N � I - 1 0` SC-1 24• SC-2.01 15' 15' ® O 24' Q 15' -p o. 27' M N J C SC-4.04 4 15 0) EW-8.02 - G M° 33' 42' fM SC- tSC'2�02 0 � Clearview Ave �15'' Clearview Ave G�� 12' ° °p ° ° ° sC:4:P4 .�_ Y c� �, �j Woodalet©r ,'c:?4"c0 Spring Creek (SC) N N1 �' N �!P' Business 'ark North (BPN) ;. 1 I 27 27' �,p- 27' 0 0 BPN-4.S1 BPN-2 - o ^ry ♦-� 1s' 95 Ridge La >, - 27' N N 24' Z. gPN-5 C BPN-5.P1 ° SC04.03.� .P6 N o 15' l J JO n 15' a Weeda'le )r _ 30, N 15 15' OBPN-3.01 Woodale �r 15 '8' EW 11.04 0� te' ° B'ti�N-3 6° 1 h _ Woodale La !a SC-2 z� ,�a� N 1 e- SC-4.02 1z IY EW_g \ ti^ N `} J 1s ° �❑ [off 4657 cS' SC�P1 SC-2.04 J J m EW-11 ° 3 • -o EW-11.03 '�. �tiJV�w14�2 ?� 12 ❑ �O/ `? ' - 4b'•i' 15' Woodcrest Dr °' L N ° L.L N LL L O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 36' Si'i 2.03`SC-2.P2 0 J C_ 15, -O 0' 27' 27' G 27' 15' 15• �• _ 15' 3 �h SC-3 ram'--���co �� 2 ��- RC 2.01 , M-63 e N Wyoodcrest Or G ° N o l C p � � E 1 �. 4 _ cI L O ro N ^4 ❑ tib 15. SC-4:01 �� � m W m 15' zQ, z4' ❑ ° \ r ' � 0 EW 90 LL o N o - Springview La 12' 15• N o ❑ N° RC 2 4 N O 0 ° 0 d ? O NEW-11:S2 ° ° C Z. 15, EW-11.S1 EW-11.P2 ❑ n u ° o- ' _ 0 � EW-11.F3 °' ° 15' RC-1.04 SC-5 1 j EW-10.'02 EW_1"1!0,1 58.5' 36' 36' Gs 15' EW=10.01 EW-11.02 _ - -- EW-10.03 cP> .. o ST I Creek : RicC RC- 1.03 0' y� 70 ' r-- 1 p RG-1.02 0,_ Z Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Drainage Rice Creek (RC) RC-1 RC-1.010' J� �■ Subdistrict ID Area (Acres) Subdistrict ID Area (Acres) Subdistrict ID Area (Acres) Subdistrict ID Area (Acres) 1 0 � 35W-1 69.20 BPN-2 8.78 EW-5 8.37 NW-1 13.24 a 01 35W-2 9.45 BPN-3 18.78 EW-6 112.14 RC-1 74.32'' ' o 35W-3 160.34 BPN-4 24.22 EW-7 41.27 RC-2 60.01 1 Fn1 35W-4 37.50 BPN-5 6.39 EW-8 52.81 RC-3 64.15 ° =1 ^ti AA-1 145.23 EW-1 52.37 EW-9 7.27 SC-1 11.90 AA-2 58.33 EW-10 96.93 GF-1 30.21 SC-2 107.39(MR° c-3.o2 y 1 AA-3 4.82 E W-11 75.07 G F-2 105.53 SC-3 28.44 27 n 24' 24' CP RC-3.0.11 24' AA-4 4.81 EW-11A 15.12 GF-3 45.80 SC-4 165.45 y RC-3 24. Za'❑ ❑ ❑ � 21• ��� s' 6• _ Mustang Dr ��' AA-5 171.61 EW-2 11.16 G F-4 161.39 SC-5 5.76 I 0. 0 RC-3.03 AA-6 38.93 EW-3 13.88 GF-5 120.57 SL-1 116.14 o BPN-1 17.70 EW-4 158.79 GF-6 63.75 WC-1 20.89 , '------------- - -- - -- ------ - -- - -- - - StormwaterSystemMap MffUNDSVIEW City of Mounds View MS4 Regulated Structures (Example Label) Other Features - Structural Pollution Control Devices Storm Sewer Local Surface Water Management Plan 0 Hydrodynamic Seperator Device(sL-IH.2) Existing Drainage District N 0 Pond Skimmer(BPN-4.s1) Private Drainage Subdistrict Feet 1 Sub -Surface Infiltration Feature(Ew-7s") Abandoned ��•�•� ��City Boundary Map i Outfalls Storm Sewer Structures Outfall �Ew-ll.ol) ■ Private Stormwater Pond 500 0 1000 Catch Basin/Catch Basin Manhole Ponds and Constructed Features ®° Flared End Section Natural Receiving Water KManhole Watercourse ditch creek July 2018 Stormwater Pond �cF-4•Pl) � (ditch, ) 0 Surface Infiltration Feature (Ew-8•I2) Water Body �� * 2 017 Aerial Photo Background General Flow Direction Wetland V:\1938\active\l93804166\GIS\Projects\2018 Mapl.mxd APPENDIX B - RCWD SPRING CREEK REGIONAL POND AGREEMENT, SUIP CLOSEOUT INSPECTIONS Stantec 0�RCWD 00"111 RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT October 23, 2018 City of Mounds View Inspection Report for RCWD Permit #08-071, 2009-2010 Street & Utility Improvement Project -Mounds View Date of Inspection: 10/12/2018 Reason for Inspection: Closeout Site Conditions: Cloudy Location: Mounds View Overall Comments: City made corrections at the end of September; drawdown and vegetation establishment were confirmed; previously noted non-functioning basins are functioning Erosion Prevention Exposed Soils Requirement: Soils that have been exposed and unworked must be stabilized within 14 calendar days (or 7 days if the area drains to and is within 1 mile of a Special or Impaired water). Stabilization must Compliant be initiated immediately after work has ceased. Comments: Ditch Bottoms Stabilized Requirement: Any drainage ditch or swale within 200 feet from the property edge (or from the point Not of discharge into any surface water) must be stabilized within 24 hours after connecting to a surface Applicable water or property edge. Comments: Energy Dissipation Not Requirement: Energy dissipation must occur at all pipe outlets within 24 hours after connection to a Applicable surface water or permanent stormwater treatment system. Comments: Final Stabilization Requirement: All construction activity must be complete and permanent cover must be installed over Compliant all areas. Vegetative cover must consist of a uniform perennial vegetation with a density of 70 percent of its expected final growth. Comments: 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 1 Blaine, MN 554491 T: 763-398-3070 IF: 763-398-3088 1 www.ricecreek.org BOARD OF Barbara A. Haake Michael J. Bradley Patricia L. Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller MANAGERS Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County Temporary Sediment Control Removal Requirement: All temporary synthetic sediment control practices, including silt fence and inlet Compliant protection, must be removed from the site after vegetation has established to a density of 70%. Comments: Stormwater Management Stormwater Features Requirement: Ponds, infiltration/filtration basins, underground systems, and other stormwater Compliant features must be built in accordance with the approved plan. Infiltration/filtration features must drawdown within 48 hours for surface features and 72 hours for underground systems. Comments: Floodplain Alteration Floodplain Alteration Not Requirement: Any work within the floodplain must be in accordance with the approved plan. Applicable Comments: Wetland Alteration Wetland Alteration Not Requirement: All wetland impacts must be in accordance with the approved plan. Applicable Comments: Mitigation Area Signage Not Requirement: Wetland boundary signs must be installed in accordance with the approved plan if Applicable required by the permit. Comments: Administrative Items Administrative Items Compliant Requirement: All stipulations listed on the permit must be completed prior to permit closure. Comments: Follow-up information was provided on 10-23-2018 for Basin AA-6.iA. Please visit www.ricecreek.org for a complete copy of the RCWD's rules. If you have any questions, please contact me at (763) 398-3082, or aricci@ricecreek.org. ' �. Ashlee Ricci, District Inspector CC: City of Mounds View; RCWD file #08-071 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 1 Blaine, MN 554491 T: 763-398-3070 IF: 763-398-3088 1 www.ricecreek.org BOARD OF Barbara A. Haake Michael J. Bradley Patricia L. Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller MANAGERS Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County 0�RCWD 00"111 RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT October 23, 2018 City of Mounds View Inspection Report for RCWD Permit #12-002, 2012 Street and Utility Improvement Project -Area E, Mounds View Date of Inspection: 10/12/2018 Reason for Inspection: Closeout Site Conditions: Cloudy Location: Mounds View Overall Comments: last non-functioning basin EW-10.I24 drawdown and vegetation establishment confirmed after City made corrections at the end of September Erosion Prevention Exposed Soils Requirement: Soils that have been exposed and unworked must be stabilized within 14 calendar days (or 7 days if the area drains to and is within 1 mile of a Special or Impaired water). Stabilization must Compliant be initiated immediately after work has ceased. Comments: Ditch Bottoms Stabilized Requirement: Any drainage ditch or swale within 200 feet from the property edge (or from the point Not of discharge into any surface water) must be stabilized within 24 hours after connecting to a surface Applicable water or property edge. Comments: Energy Dissipation Not Requirement: Energy dissipation must occur at all pipe outlets within 24 hours after connection to a Applicable surface water or permanent stormwater treatment system. Comments: Final Stabilization Requirement: All construction activity must be complete and permanent cover must be installed over Compliant all areas. Vegetative cover must consist of a uniform perennial vegetation with a density of 70 percent of its expected final growth. Comments: 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 1 Blaine, MN 554491 T: 763-398-3070 IF: 763-398-3088 1 www.ricecreek.org BOARD OF Barbara A. Haake Michael J. Bradley Patricia L. Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller MANAGERS Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County Temporary Sediment Control Removal Requirement: All temporary synthetic sediment control practices, including silt fence and inlet Compliant protection, must be removed from the site after vegetation has established to a density of 70%. Comments: Stormwater Management Stormwater Features Requirement: Ponds, infiltration/filtration basins, underground systems, and other stormwater Compliant features must be built in accordance with the approved plan. Infiltration/filtration features must drawdown within 48 hours for surface features and 72 hours for underground systems. Comments: Floodplain Alteration Floodplain Alteration Not Requirement: Any work within the floodplain must be in accordance with the approved plan. Applicable Comments: Wetland Alteration Wetland Alteration Not Requirement: All wetland impacts must be in accordance with the approved plan. Applicable Comments: Mitigation Area Signage Not Requirement: Wetland boundary signs must be installed in accordance with the approved plan if Applicable required by the permit. Comments: Administrative Items Administrative Items Compliant Requirement: All stipulations listed on the permit must be completed prior to permit closure. Comments: Please visit www.ricecreek.org for a complete copy of the RCWD's rules. If you have any questions, please contact me at (763) 398-3082, or aricci@ricecreek.org. ' �. Ashlee Ricci, District Inspector CC: City of Mounds View; RCWD file *12-002 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 1 Blaine, MN 554491 T: 763-398-3070 IF: 763-398-3088 1 www.ricecreek.org BOARD OF Barbara A. Haake Michael J. Bradley Patricia L. Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller MANAGERS Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County 0�RCWD 00"111 RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT October 23, 2018 City of Mounds View Inspection Report for RCWD Permit #14-004, 2014 Street and Utility Improvement Project - Area G Date of Inspection: 10/12/2018 Reason for Inspection: Closeout Site Conditions: Cloudy Location: Mounds View Overall Comments: City made corrections at the end of September; drawdown and vegetation establishment were confirmed; previously noted non-functioning basins are functioning Erosion Prevention Exposed Soils Requirement: Soils that have been exposed and unworked must be stabilized within 14 calendar days (or 7 days if the area drains to and is within 1 mile of a Special or Impaired water). Stabilization must Compliant be initiated immediately after work has ceased. Comments: Ditch Bottoms Stabilized Requirement: Any drainage ditch or swale within 200 feet from the property edge (or from the point Not of discharge into any surface water) must be stabilized within 24 hours after connecting to a surface Applicable water or property edge. Comments: Energy Dissipation Not Requirement: Energy dissipation must occur at all pipe outlets within 24 hours after connection to a Applicable surface water or permanent stormwater treatment system. Comments: Final Stabilization Requirement: All construction activity must be complete and permanent cover must be installed over Compliant all areas. Vegetative cover must consist of a uniform perennial vegetation with a density of 70 percent of its expected final growth. Comments: 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 1 Blaine, MN 554491 T: 763-398-3070 IF: 763-398-3088 1 www.ricecreek.org BOARD OF Barbara A. Haake Michael J. Bradley Patricia L. Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller MANAGERS Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County Temporary Sediment Control Removal Requirement: All temporary synthetic sediment control practices, including silt fence and inlet Compliant protection, must be removed from the site after vegetation has established to a density of 70%. Comments: Stormwater Management Stormwater Features Requirement: Ponds, infiltration/filtration basins, underground systems, and other stormwater Compliant features must be built in accordance with the approved plan. Infiltration/filtration features must drawdown within 48 hours for surface features and 72 hours for underground systems. Comments: Floodplain Alteration Floodplain Alteration Not Requirement: Any work within the floodplain must be in accordance with the approved plan. Applicable Comments: Wetland Alteration Wetland Alteration Not Requirement: All wetland impacts must be in accordance with the approved plan. Applicable Comments: Mitigation Area Signage Not Requirement: Wetland boundary signs must be installed in accordance with the approved plan if Applicable required by the permit. Comments: Administrative Items Administrative Items Compliant Requirement: All stipulations listed on the permit must be completed prior to permit closure. Comments: Please visit www.ricecreek.org for a complete copy of the RCWD's rules. If you have any questions, please contact me at (763) 398-3o82, or aricci@ricecreek.org. ' �. Ashlee Ricci, District Inspector CC: City of Mounds View; RCWD file #14-004 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 1 Blaine, MN 554491 T: 763-398-3070 IF: 763-398-3088 1 www.ricecreek.org BOARD OF Barbara A. Haake Michael J. Bradley Patricia L. Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller MANAGERS Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County 0�RCWD 00"111 RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT October 23, 2018 City of Mounds View Inspection Report for RCWD Permit #15-012, 2015 Street and Utility Improvement Project - Area H Date of Inspection: 10/19/2018 Reason for Inspection: Closeout Site Conditions: Cloudy Location: Mounds View Overall Comments: City made corrections at the end of September; drawdown and vegetation establishment were confirmed for all but i basin on 10/12/2o18, follow-up on 10/19/2oi8 showed it was functioning; all previously noted non-functioning basins are functioning Erosion Prevention Exposed Soils Requirement: Soils that have been exposed and unworked must be stabilized within 14 calendar days (or 7 days if the area drains to and is within 1 mile of a Special or Impaired water). Stabilization must Compliant be initiated immediately after work has ceased. Comments: Ditch Bottoms Stabilized Requirement: Any drainage ditch or swale within 200 feet from the property edge (or from the point Not of discharge into any surface water) must be stabilized within 24 hours after connecting to a surface Applicable water or property edge. Comments: Energy Dissipation Not Requirement: Energy dissipation must occur at all pipe outlets within 24 hours after connection to a Applicable surface water or permanent stormwater treatment system. Comments: Final Stabilization Requirement: All construction activity must be complete and permanent cover must be installed over Compliant all areas. Vegetative cover must consist of a uniform perennial vegetation with a density of 70 percent of its expected final growth. Comments: 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 1 Blaine, MN 554491 T: 763-398-3070 IF: 763-398-3088 1 www.ricecreek.org BOARD OF Barbara A. Haake Michael J. Bradley Patricia L. Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller MANAGERS Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County Temporary Sediment Control Removal Requirement: All temporary synthetic sediment control practices, including silt fence and inlet Compliant protection, must be removed from the site after vegetation has established to a density of 70%. Comments: Stormwater Management Stormwater Features Requirement: Ponds, infiltration/filtration basins, underground systems, and other stormwater Compliant features must be built in accordance with the approved plan. Infiltration/filtration features must drawdown within 48 hours for surface features and 72 hours for underground systems. Comments: Floodplain Alteration Floodplain Alteration Not Requirement: Any work within the floodplain must be in accordance with the approved plan. Applicable Comments: Wetland Alteration Wetland Alteration Not Requirement: All wetland impacts must be in accordance with the approved plan. Applicable Comments: Mitigation Area Signage Not Requirement: Wetland boundary signs must be installed in accordance with the approved plan if Applicable required by the permit. Comments: Administrative Items Administrative Items Compliant Requirement: All stipulations listed on the permit must be completed prior to permit closure. Comments: Please visit www.ricecreek.org for a complete copy of the RCWD's rules. If you have any questions, please contact me at (763) 398-3082, or aricci@ricecreek.org. ' �. Ashlee Ricci, District Inspector CC: City of Mounds View; RCWD file #15-012 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 1 Blaine, MN 554491 T: 763-398-3070 IF: 763-398-3088 1 www.ricecreek.org BOARD OF Barbara A. Haake Michael J. Bradley Patricia L. Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller MANAGERS Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County 0�RCWD 00"111 RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT August 20, 2018 City of Mounds View Inspection Report for RCWD Permit *15-109, 2016 Street & Utility Improvement Project - Area I Date of Inspection: 07/27/2018 Site Conditions: Partly cloudy Reason for Inspection: Closeout Location: Mounds View Overall Comments: All basins are vegetated; ready for closure Erosion Prevention Exposed Soils Requirement: Soils that have been exposed and unworked must be stabilized within 14 calendar days (or 7 days if the area drains to and is within 1 mile of a Special or Impaired water). Stabilization must Compliant be initiated immediately after work has ceased. Comments: Ditch Bottoms Stabilized Requirement: Any drainage ditch or Swale within 200 feet from the property edge (or from the point Not of discharge into any surface water) must be stabilized within 24 hours after connecting to a surface Applicable water or property edge. Comments: Energy Dissipation Not Requirement: Energy dissipation must occur at all pipe outlets within 24 hours after connection to a Applicable surface water or permanent stormwater treatment system. Comments: Final Stabilization Requirement: All construction activity must be complete and permanent cover must be installed over Compliant all areas. Vegetative cover must consist of a uniform perennial vegetation with a density of 70 percent of its expected final growth. Comments: Temporary Sediment Control Removal Requirement: All temporary synthetic sediment control practices, including silt fence and inlet Compliant protection, must be removed from the site after vegetation has established to a density of 70%. 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 1 Blaine, MN 554491 T: 763-398-3070 1 F: 763-398-3088 1 www.ricecreek.org BOARD OF Barbara A. Haake Michael J. Bradley Patricia L. Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller MANAGERS Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County Comments: Stormwater Management Stormwater Features Requirement: Ponds, infiltration/filtration basins, underground systems, and other stormwater Compliant features must be built in accordance with the approved plan. Infiltration/filtration features must drawdown within 48 hours for surface features and 72 hours for underground sstems. Comments: Floodplain Alteration Floodplain Alteration Not Requirement: Any work within the floodplain must be in accordance with the approved plan. Applicable Comments: Wetland Alteration Wetland Alteration Not Requirement: All wetland impacts must be in accordance with the approved plan. Applicable Comments: Mitigation Area Signage Not Requirement: Wetland boundary signs must be installed in accordance with the approved plan if Applicable required by the permit. Comments: Administrative Items Administrative Items Compliant Requirement: All stipulations listed on the permit must be completed prior to permit closure. Comments: Please visit www.ricecreek.org for a complete copy of the RCWD's rules. If you have any questions, please contact me at (763) 398-3082, or aricci@ricecreek.org. 1 # r Ashlee Ricci, District Inspector CC: City of Mounds View; RCWD file #15-109 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE #611 1 Blaine, MN 554491 T: 763-398-3070 IF: 763-398-3088 1 www.ricecreek.org BOARD OF Barbara A. Haake Michael J. Bradley Patricia L. Preiner Steven P. Wagamon John J. Waller MANAGERS Ramsey County Ramsey County Anoka County Anoka County Washington County APPENDIX C - MOU TO BECOME RCWD LEVEL 2 CITY AND TAKE ON WCA LGU AUTHORITY Stantec APPENDIX D - ORDINANCES Stantec ORDINANCE NO.973 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING CERTAIN RULES OF THE RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT REGARDING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Mounds View hereby amends Title 1100 of the Mounds View Municipal Code to add a new Chapter 1130 as follows: CHAPTER 1130 WATERSHED DISTRICT RULES ADOPTED SECTION: 1130.01: Rules Adopted 1130.02: Incorporation; Conflicts 1130.03: Severability 1130.01: RULES ADOPTED: Subd. 1. Stormwater Management Plans: The City of Mounds View hereby adopts by reference, and as may be amended, the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule C related to Stormwater Management Plans. Applications related to stormwater management plans will be reviewed by the Local Governing Unit (LGU) in accordance with the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule C. Subd. 2. Erosion and Sediment Control: The City of Mounds View hereby adopts by reference, and as may be amended, the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule D related to Erosion and Sediment Control. Applications related to the modification or alteration of erosion sediment control will be reviewed by the Local Governing Unit (LGU) in accordance with Rice Creek Watershed District Rule D. Subd. 3. Floodplain Alteration: The City of Mounds View hereby adopts by reference, and as may be amended, the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule E related to Floodplain Alteration. Applications related to the modification or alteration of floodplains will be reviewed by the Local Governing Unit (LGU) in accordance with Rice Creek Watershed District Rule E. Ordinance 973 Page 2 of 2 Subd. 4. Wetland Alteration: The City of Mounds View hereby adopts by reference, and as may be amended, the Rice Creek Watershed District Rule F related to Wetland Alteration. Applications related to the modification or alteration of wetlands will be reviewed by the Local Governing Unit (LGU) in accordance with Rice Creels Watershed District Rule F and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. 1130.02: INCORPORATION; CONFLICTS: The Rice Creek Watershed District Rules C, D, E, and F, as may be amended from time to time, and which are expressly adopted in Section 1130.01 above, shall be made part of this Chapter as if fully set forth herein. In the event of a conflict between a provision of this Chapter, including any provision contained in the Rice Creek Watershed District Rules expressly adopted herein, and any other provision in the Mounds View Municipal Code, the more restrictive standard or provision shall prevail. 1130.03: SEVERASILITY: In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any part of this Chapter, including any provision contained in the Rice Creek Watershed District Rules expressly adopted herein, to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provision contained within this Chapter, including any other provision contained in said Rice Creels Watershed District Rules, unless specifically included within that judgment. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after its passage and publication, in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter. Introduction and First Reading by the Mounds View City Council on November 9, 2020. Second Reading and Adoption by the Mounds View City Council on November 23, 2020. Publication Date: December 8, 2020. r Carol A. Mueller Mayor Attest: r Nyl ikm71"' City Admtrator (SEAL) 2 APPENDIX E - PERMITTING DOCUMENTS Stantec Cityof Mounds View Protocol Guidefor Issuing Permits Upon completion of a Rice Creek Watershed District Board approved Local Surface Water Management Plan and satisfactory City Ordinances, the City will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding which will cease Rice Creek Watershed District's administration of permits within the City for the following Rice Creek Watershed District Rules: • Rule C, Stormwater Management Plans • Rule D, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans • Rule E, Floodplain Alteration • Rule F, Wetland Alteration Pursuant to the Rice Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Chapter 8.3.2 the City of Mounds View must also formulate inspection and administrative procedures necessary to ensure that the full regulatory standards of the District are met. This should include the following listed below: 1. Written procedural protocol for permit application review 2. Hydrologic/hydraulic data transmittal as it relates to the District model 3. Record keeping and Audit procedure The District will cease to administer the identified rules within the City and the City must demonstrate an equivalent administration as well as applicant compliance with the Rules. By adopting ordinances, which reference the District rules verbatim, it is important to note that the City will be enforcing its own ordinances. It should be noted that the District may periodically amend any given rule and the City will be responsible to administer the rules through their ordinance to be consistent with their adoption date. The District will communicate any potential rule change through the statutory process for rule adoption. The City will complete the items listed below as requested by the District. If the City were to ever decide that they no longer wanted to administer their ordinances which reference RCWD rules within its jurisdiction, the District would want records of any permit application to be consistent and as detailed as any permit issued by the District. 1. RCWD Permit Application Review and Closeout Procedure a. Permit Application Review i. During the first year or at the time that the first permits are issued by the City, the District and the City will complete a joint permit review to ensure that the City understands the requirements and expectations of the District's rules. This review will consist of the City sitting down with the RCWD permitting engineer to review plans and permit specificities. ii. Permit application review must develop a record documenting the project review in comparison with District rules. Permit application review for the City will include a checklist to document the proposal, the applicable rule criterion, and facts relevant to finding the criteria are met and in compliance with District rules; a file containing these documents will be maintained for a period of 10 years. iii. All administration is to be pursuant to MN § 15.99. iv. As part of the development review process, the City Council shall approve the final issuance of a permit. v. The City will choose to not incorporate a legal review process for issuing permits. vi. The City will provide the District with the required documentation demonstrating the maintenance obligations for Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as stormwater basins, used to meet the permit requirements. The City will also provide documentation on how these BMPs will be maintained. vii. Permit applications that trigger the need for an easement in the District's favor, such as those along the public drainage system, will be recognized early in the review process by the City and directed to the District to ensure that the appropriate easement is obtained. b. Permit Closeout Procedure i. As part of the final close-out procedures, the City will require as -built plans or some verification that the BMP meets the approved plans and is functioning as designed. As-builts will verify the required treatment volume, emergency overflow elevations, inlet/outlet/sump elevations, drain tile elevations, surface contours, etc. ii. The City will require and ensure inspection of a 48- or 72-hour drawdown of all infiltration and filtration features. This will be completed by City contracted personnel. iii. The City will provide documentation showing all permit stipulations have been met. Stipulations typically include an as -built survey of stormwater features, quantification of floodplain or wetlands impact and mitigation areas, etc. iv. The City will require establishment of 70% vegetative cover prior to permit closure. Once established, all sediment and erosion control measures must be removed. 2. Hydrologic/Hydraulic Data Transmittal a. The City will provide the items listed below at the District's request. i. Submittals of GIS shape files with the location of the permits. ii. Submittal of Rule F, Wetland Alteration, digital file requirements, which include: 1. A GIS shapefile of all delineated boundaries. 2. For on -site replacement wetland and buffer areas, a GIS or CADD file documenting sign locations. iii. The District regularly updates a District Wide Model and requests the transmittal of any hydrologic and hydraulic data for permitted projects that may pertain to it. This may include things like altering drainage patterns, replacing culverts, etc. Most likely this is only relevant for RCWD Rule C as the District will retain permit authority for culvert structures under Rule G, Crossings of Natural & Artificial Conveyance Systems and Rules I, Drainage Systems. iv. RCWD Rule C.2 (c) and (d) include provisions for cumulative impacts to trigger the rule. Therefore, it is possible for some work to have occurred under the District's jurisdiction, and any additional work thereafter to trigger regulation under the City's assumption of sole rule administration. For that reason, please be advised that the District's files are available for consideration of cumulative impacts. 3. Audit Process a. The City will provide up to two of the permits issued by the City annually to the District for review. b. The City will require that all exhibits required as part of a selected permit to be submitted for the audit process. As part of the review process, the City will require, but is not limited to, the following: i. A full set of project plans. ii. Soil borings at the BMP locations, reflecting compliance with approved design. iii. Drainage maps showing disturbed existing impervious surface and proposed impervious surfaces, and a summary tabulation. iv. Calculations used to determine the required runoff rates/volumes. v. Identification of the specific location of all BMP(s) and associated formal and/or recorded maintenance agreements. vi. Any increase in impervious area requires either a hydrologic model, or additional calculations to show compliance with Peak Stormwater Runoff Control. vii. Guidance Worksheets or supporting calculations used to determine water quality volumes. viii. As-builts were obtained and show compliance with approved design and water quality treatment volumes. City of Mounds View 2401 Mounds View Blvd, Mounds View, MN 55112 Phone: 763-717-4000 Permit Application Form Project Name: Project Location: City or Township: Quarter: Project Purpose: Section: I For Office Use Only I Permit App. #: Date Received: Amount/Payer: ICheck Number: I County: Township Range: Area of New and/or Reconstructed Impervious Area of Land Disturbance (acres): Surface (acres): Applicant/Landowner (must be landowner or easement holder of record, and must sign application on Name: Address: Phone: Email: City: State: Zip: Official Representative (do not complete if same as above): Name: Address: Company: Phone: City: Email: M Permitting Contact (developer, engineer, architect, wetland consultant, etc.): Name: Authorized Agent? Address: Company: Phone: City: Email: State: Zip: Permitting Contact (developer, engineer, architect, wetland consultant, etc.): Name: Authorized Agent? Address: Company: Phone: City: Email: State: Zip: Yes Yes No No Submittal Requirements Applications submitted to the City must be complete and contain all required materials for each applicable Rule. See the Rice Creek Watershed District website for additional guidance and complete rules. The City will communicate an incomplete application status to the applicant, and no further action will be taken until additional submittals are received. Applicant must submit one (1) full sized copy (a readable 11" x 17" is acceptable) and either one (1) reduced size copy or an electronic copy of all required information. Projects involving a Wetland Replacement Plan have special noticing requirements and require the submittal of four (4) copies of all wetland -related submittal materials. Permit applications involving wetland noticing must be submitted a minimum 50 calendar days prior to a regular City Council meeting; permit applications not involving wetland noticing must be submitted a minimum 40 calendar days prior to a regular City Council meeting. 1 City of Mounds View Stormwater Permit Application Rule C (Stormwater Management Plan) Rule E (Floodplain Alteration): Single Lot, Single Family Residential Development ❑ No mitigation required ❑ Home, accessory structure, driveway $150 ❑ Mitigation required All other Development ❑ <1 acre impervious surface ❑ 1 to 2.5 acre impervious surface ❑ >2.5 to 5 acres impervious surface ❑ >5 acres impervious surface * capped at $10,000, round to the nearest whole acre Rule D (Erosion Control Plans): ❑ <2.5 acres of land disturbance ❑ 2.5 to 5 acres land disturbance ❑ >10 acres land disturbance $1,000 Rule F (Wetland Alteration) $2,000 ❑ Exemption $3,500 ❑ < 1 acre of mitigation required $5000 + $1,000/ac* ❑ 1 to 5 acres of mitigation required $100 $250 $500 ❑ > 5 to 10 acres of mitigation required ❑ > 10 acres of mitigation required ❑ Banking Plan Note: Permit fee is the cumulative total of all individual aspects of a project Total Permit Fee: checked above. Government entities are exempt from permit fees. Applicant Signature $0 $100 $250 $875 $1,750 $3,500 $5,250 $1,750 "I understand that, as the permittee, I am legally accountable to ensure compliance with terms and conditions of the permit. I understand that I am not authorized to begin the project until I receive the permit and the sign is posted on site. If the project is modified, I will obtain approval by the City before I continue with the project. I authorize the City, and its agents, employees, officers and contractors, to enter the worksite at all reasonable times until permit closure to inspect the work authorized hereunder, and to take any reasonable action to address existing or threatened discharge of sediments or other pollutants into waters or offsite." "I recognize that, as the permittee, I will be responsible for site conditions and permit compliance until the permit is closed or transferred by written City approval to a subsequent property owner. I confirm that the Applicant address stated on the front of this form is the official address to which all notices and correspondence relating to this application are to be addressed, unless the address of an authorized agent appears below. I certify that I have thoroughly read and understand the above information." Signature of landowner Date Print signer's name Company (if applicable) Title City of Mounds View Stormwater Permit Application City of Mounds View 2401 Mounds View Blvd Mounds View. MN 55112 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW/ PERMIT 21-0 Expires on /_/ Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the City of Mounds View and the Rice Creek Watershed District policies and standards, and based upon the statements and information contained in the permit application, letters, maps, and plans submitted by the applicant and other supporting data, all of which are made part hereof by reference, permission is hereby granted to the Permittee named below to conduct the activity described below. If an extension to the permit is needed, the Permittee should submit a written request to the City at least 2 weeks prior to the expiration date. Name of Project Project Description Project Location Permittee Name Permittee Company Permittee Address (No. & Street, City, State, Zip Code) Permittee Phone No. Permittee Fax No. Permittee Cell No. Permittee E-Mail In accordance with the attached plan received at the City on (date received): .,uLIlul 1«U aIrpIQLUI Date of Issuance:_-/2021 Page 1 of 2 City of Mounds View 2401 Mounds View Blvd Mounds View. MN 55112 STIPULATIONS The permit will be issued with the following stipulations as conditions of the permit. By accepting the permit, the Permittee agrees to these stipulations: GENERAL 1. An as -built survey of all stormwater BMPs (ponds, rain gardens, trenches, swales, etc.) is to be submitted to the City for verification of compliance with the approved plans. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL STIPULATIONS 2. Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to grading activities and maintained through project completion. These features can include sediment logs, erosion blankets, sod, riprap, silt fence and temporary or permanent vegetation. Hay bales are no longer recommended due to the impedance of water flow. 3. All exposed soils, including stockpiles, shall be stabilized within 14 days if not being actively worked and after the completion of grading. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be stabilized within 7 days. 4. The City Inspector may require additional erosion control features, dependent on site condition. 5. Refer to the MPCA "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" manual at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/gzgha87 for BMP's. 6. Please contact , the , at-_ -- if you have questions or to discuss site stabilization practices. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The project shall be in accordance with the plans most recently submitted and approved by the City as part of the record of this project. 2. This permit is not assignable by the Permittee, except with the written consent of the City. 3. The Permittee shall grant access to the site at all reasonable times during and after construction to authorized representatives of the City for inspection of the work authorized hereunder. 4. In all cases where the Permittee, by performing the work authorized by this permit, shall involve the taking, using, or damaging of any property rights or interests of any other person or persons, or of any publicly owned lands or improvements thereon or interests therein, the Permittee, before proceeding, shall obtain the written consent of all persons, agencies, or authorities concerned, and shall acquire all property, rights and interests needed for the work. 5. This permit is permissive only. No liability shall be imposed on the City of any of its officers, agents, or employees, officially or personally, on account of the granting hereof or on account of any damage to any person or property resulting from any act or omission of the Permittee or any of its agents, employees, or contractors. This permit shall not be construed as estopping or limiting any legal claims or right of action of any person against the Permittee, its agents, employees, or contractors, for any damage or injury resulting from any such act or omission, or as estopping or limiting any legal claim or right of action of the City against the Permittee, its agents, employees, or contractors for violation of or failure to comply with the permit or applicable provisions of law. 6. Any stormwater management facilities approved as part of this permit shall be properly maintained in perpetuity to assure that they continue to function as originally designed. 7. After vegetation is in place and erosion control features have been removed, notify the City Inspector. Once the Inspector verifies that site conditions comply with all permit requirements, your cash surety will be returned to the remitter. 8. Failure to comply with the provisions of this permit is a violation of the law and may result in forfeiture of permittee's surety. Page 2 of 2 City of Mounds View Permit Review Checklist Project Name: Project Location: WSB Project No. Reviewed By: Date: c..k—;++�I� Qo..oh-4 Procedural ❑ Signed plans ❑ Successful Bidder Signature ❑ City Doing Work: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Additional Permits: ❑ NPDES ❑ RCWD (for rules not covered by the City) ❑ County ❑ Health Dept ❑ Mn/DOT ❑ FEMA/DNR Stormwater Management (Rule C) 1. Plan Review ❑ Datum ❑ Existing and proposed contours 0 Delineation of drainage boundaries including off -site areas ❑ Plans and specifications for all proposed stormwater management facilities, including design details for outlet control structures ❑ Easements by type ❑ EOF Locations and Elevations ❑ Basin NWL and HWLs ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Grading Limits ❑ Utility plan ❑ Certified Retaining Wall Design 2. Water Quality Treatment ❑ Sequencing: ❑ Required Water Quality Volume: ❑ Provided Water Quality Volume: ❑ Required Vs. Provided Water Quality Volume: ❑ Surplus ❑ Deficit ❑ Credit Provided for Pond Bench Toward Infiltration Requirement: ❑ Yes ❑ No 3. Rate Control ❑ Modeling calculations provided using NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall data ❑ Peak Discharge Rates < Existing for 2-year, 10-year, 100-year, and snowmelt events ❑ Model direct connected impervious separate 4. Infiltration/Retention BMPs ❑ Soil borings to confirm infiltration rate ❑ Pretreatment ❑ Drawdown within 48-hours ❑ 3' separation from seasonal high water table S. Water Quality BMPs ❑ Meets NURP standards including: ❑ Dead pool requirements ❑ Water quality volume requirements ❑ Skimmer ❑ Maintenance access 6. Freeboard ❑ Groundwater Separation ❑ Building Opening: ❑ At least 3' above 100-yr HWL; or ❑ At least 2' above 100-yr HWL with following documentation: • Provide flood storage volume within the freeboard area that is at least 50% of the flood storage volume below the 100-yr HWL; and • 25% outlet obstruction does not increase the 100-yr HWL by more than 1'; and • Adequate EOF from basin to provide assurance that 1' freeboard will be maintained for proposed low opening ❑ Low Floor Elevation: • 4' above the currently observed groundwater elevations in the area • 2' above the elevation of any known historic high groundwater elevations • 2' above the critical 100-yr HWL • 1' above EOF • For landlocked basins, low floor must be 1' above the EOF or 2' above the greater of the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall or the 100-year, 10-day snowmelt Erosion and Sediment Control (Rule D) ❑ SWPPP Provided ❑ Identification of all temporary and permanent erosion control measures. Includes, but is not limited to: 0 Silt Fence 0 Storm Inlet Protection o Rock Entrance o Street Sweeping 0 Restoration ❑ Erosion Control Contact Person Floodplain Alteration (Rule E) ❑ Floodplain elevations shown on plan ❑ Computation of change in flood storage capacity resulting from proposed grading ❑ Structure or embankments placed within the floodplain capable of passing the 100-year flood without increasing the elevation of the 100-year flood profile. ❑ 2-foot of freeboard between bottom of structures and 100-year flood profile. Wetland Alteration (Rule F) ❑ Existing and proposed wetland areas shown on plans ❑ Wetland delineation report authorized for WCA use and consistent with BWSR guidance ❑ Wetland replacement plan application conforming to WCA requirements ❑ Functions and values assessment report involving at least one acre of wetland impact Public Waters Ramsey Public Waters are defined in Minnesota Statutes, section I03G.005. The boundaries of public waters shown on this map are approximate. A public water boundary coincides with the ordinary high water level as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005 and is determined through DNR field inspection or survey. Public waters are subject to regulation as per Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.245. Current designated trout streams are listed in Minnesota Rules, part 6264.0050. Shaded Public Land Survey sections may contain designated trout stream tributaries (see Minnesota Rules, part 6264.0050) subject to permit requirements. Additional public watercourses may exist within these sections, subject to field determination. It is incumbent upon a person contemplating work in a public watercourse to investigate whether said watercourse is a designated trout stream regardless of whether said public watercourse is depicted on this map. Note: As stated in Minnesota Statutes, section I03G.205, the designation of waters of this state as public waters does not affect state law forbidding trespass on private lands. Contact the DNR office in your area for further information or visit http://mndnr.ciov. Legend —I�i�nmla The DNR Information Center Twin Cities: (651) 296-61 S7 Minnesota toll free: 1-888-646-6367 Telecommunication device for the hearing impaired (TDD): (651) 296-5484 TDD Minnesota toll free: 1-800-657-3929 oEPA rm DNR web site: http://mndnr.gov NAMAL 9SflIIACES _ This information is available in alternative format on request. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is available regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, age, or disability. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to Minnesota DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4031, or the Equal Opportunity Office, Department o f the Interior, Washington, DC 20240. © 2011 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources. This map was prepared from publicly available information only. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the factual data on which this map interpretation is based. However, the Department of Natural Resources does not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or any implied uses of these data. Users may wish to verify critical information; sources include both the references here and information on file in the offices of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. This map should not be used to establish legal title, boundaries, or locations of improvements. This map was compiled and generated using geographic information systems (GIS) technology. Digital data products are available from DNR Ecological and Water Resources at http://mndnr.gov/waters and at http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us. The Adobe PDF file represents a map created at a size of 22 inches by 34 inches (ANSI D). The data were compiled at a scale of 1 :50,000 using the Universal Transverse Mercator Projection, gridzone 15, 1983 North American Datum. This map was created on: 20 May 201 1 . Locator Map: IX 1 es I 1 A T 30N Grant Y 1 ■ ■ ■ Mahtomedi Willemie 1 Y'I 1 I -• ■ r Y r-------1 1 1 -• 1 , Pine Springs _. Washington County 1 1 • r • i N i A T 29N 1 tkdale T 28N Arden Sub -District —Top Left; Culvert on south side of US 10 showing sediment accumulation, water flowing from Arden Park ponds — north under US 10. Top Right — East Culvert on south side of 10, water (not flowing) south from Medtronic property. Sediment and low flow have caused (and possibly this is an overflow Ditch 1 (ACJD1) Top — Flow controls device/skimmer — in the woods north of Pinewood Circle Middle — Skimmer on pond in Business Park North (front of Multitech) Bottom Storm Water Pipe showing need for some clearing of debris! 2012 Assessment of Silver View Pond Stormwater Basin Prepared for City of Mounds View May 10, 2012 2012 Assessment of Silver View Pond Stormwaler Basin Prepared for City of Mounds View May 10, 2012 4700 West 771h Street Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: (952) 832-2600 BAR R Fax: (952)832.2601 2012 Assessment of Silver View Pond Stormwater Basin May 2012 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Background and assessment Methodology............................................................................. 3 2.1 Background ................... .............................................................................................................. 3 1 ? �.� Evaluation Process ..................... ...... 2.3 Stormwater Pond Selection.........................................................................................................5 2.4 Stormwater Pond Historic Information Evaluation .....................................................................6 2.5 Stormwater Pond Survey and Visual Inspection.............. ...........................................................6 2.6 Stormwater Pond Field Watershed Delineation..........................................................................7 2.7 Stormwater Pend Treatment Capacity Evaluation ................. 2.8 Stormwater Pond Weiland Evaluation........................................................................................9 2.9 Stormwater Pond Sediment Coring.............................................................................................9 2.10 Assessment of Stormwater Pond Expansion... .... ...... --- ...................................... .................. 10 2.l I Planning Level Cost Estimation................................................................................................10 3.0 Data Summary and 'Pond Assessment Results........................................................................11 3.1 Sionrlwater Pond Survey and Visual Inspection.......................................................................1 1 3.2 Stonnwater Pond Treatment Capacity Considerations ....................... 2 3.3 Stortwater Pond Wetland Evaluation......................................................................................14 3.4 Preliminary Planning Level Cost Estimation............................................................................ 16 3.5 Assessment of Need for Sediment Removal.............................................................................17 4.0 Recommendations and Conclusions........................................................................................18 4.1 Future Evaluations .................. IS 4.2 Expansion and Maintenance Implementation ..................... ........ .............................................. is 4.3 Permitting Requirements...........................................................................................................20 4.4 Structure Modifications.............................................................................................................21 5.0 References...................................................... .......................................................................... L" PMP6 21 N1N 62 ';{,'1OR! SO ,j Vies+ Pond Apse>;mvnt Workfilo Rerun Si1%et View Pond A&%255nlenl-Final duct List of Tables Table 1 Recommended Pond Maintenance Summary Table ? Pond Data from Survey, Record Drawings, and Sedimentation Analyses Table 3 Pond Watershed Data From GIS Based Data and MN Stormwater Manual Criteria Calculations Table 4 TP and TSS Removal Data Based on Existing and Proposed Conditions Table S Pond Expansion Quantities and Considerations Table b Summary of Sediment Disposal Costs List of Figures Figure l Silver View Pond Location Map Figure ? Silver View Pond — Existing Conditions Survey Figure 3 Silver View Pond Watershed List of Appendices Appendix A Basin Maintenance Needs 11: NSPIS _11 NIN 62 4iher View Potid .A:,%esainenl WIIrhrIles.Report Siker Vie% Pond Asses5;Men9-Fituil-doca I 1.0 Executive Summary In an effort to ensure effective stormwater management and be in compliance with its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, the City of Mounds View has begun an evaluation of its stormwater detention ponds. In 2011 the city selected Silver View Pond (see Figure 1) for evaluation to determine the amount of sediment that has accumulated since its construction, identify if it meets current treatment criteria. and determine if maintenance or upgrades are needed. The Silver View Pond assessment will also serve as a pilot assessment to help the city develop a process for per-forming a complete pond inventory and assessment for all of its stormwater ponds. This report surnntarizes Barr's findings and recommended actions for Silver View Pond. For the purposes of this analysis, only the stormwater detention and water duality treatment functions of Silver View Pond were considered. Other functions and values of the pond are not addressed in this document, but should be considered if the city snakes significant changes to the pond. Information about the original design and construction of Silver View Pond was obtained from tine City of Mounds View. This information was used to determine outlet elevations, the normal water level for the pond, and the originally excavated pond depth. The pond was also assessed to determine if it may have been built on or was a modification of a natural wetland. A survey of current conditions was conducted in 2011 on Silver View Pond to determine pond bathymetry, locate inlet and outlet structures, determine structure invert elevations and conditions, and estimate current accumulated sediment depths in the pond. Also, photos were taken of the inlet and outlet structures for the pond. 2011 survey data and historical data were combined with information about the immediate drainage area of the pond and land use for the pond drainage area to calculate the recommended design volume of the pond based on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Storrnwater Manual. The capability of the pond to remove total phosphorus and total suspended solids was also estimated. Incorporating extended detention by modifying the current pond outlet was also considered as a way to improve the water quality treatment efficiency of the basin since excavation may be very expensive or it may be difficult to obtain permits to work within the basin. The Silver View Pond assessment enables the City of Mounds View to understand the need for expansion, presence of wetlands, and overall project cost for upgrades to the pond. As part of the assessment, the need for and types of potential pond improvements were identified. The evaluation 1'! klrls'-3 NJN hA 2162 OF2 SONCT Vie" Pond Assessmem WorkrilcR HiJIPrt Solver Vieµ Pond Assessment-f final. d�+cx process used for this pond should be used for additional ponds in future phases of the city-wide pond assessment. Also, this pond assessment process should be repeated on Silver View Pond in several years to determine Elie ongoing rate of sedimentation and the water quality effectiveness of the pond. As will be described in detail, the assessment performed for Silver View Pond resulted in the following, findings: • Approximately 38% of the originally excavated pond volume is filled with sediment. • The basin was, in all likelihood, built in what was a natural wetland. ■ There remains ample volume in the basin to meet MPC'A minimum guidelines. • The basin's treatment efficiency could be improved by removal of the accumulated sediment. modification of the basin's outlet structure, or both. ■ There is the potential for short-circuiting* in the basin due to the close proximity of storm sever inlets to the outlet of the basin. • There are several basin maintenance items that need to be attended to in a relatively short time frame. Recommended actions for the city to consider include: 1. Performing an analysis of the pond's sediment to determine its level of contamination and better understand the possible costs to remove the accumulated sediment. 2. Applying for a cost share grant from the Rice Creek Watershed District for pond maintenance and modifications. 3. At a minimum, consider modifying the pond's outlet to provide extended detention of the 1-year to 2-year, 24-hour event, and in turn improving on the basin's treatment efficiency. 4. Commit to re -assessing the pond at least once every 5 years (this is consistent with the city's current MS4 permit'). 5. Consider monitoring the pond to document its treatment efficiency and demonstrate Mounds View's commitment to anti -degradation of waters leaving the city. b. Consider attending to the basic maintenance items described in Section 4.2 of this report. P: Mpls 23 Ath (42 23h21092 Sil+er VjeA Pond hs.. to nl Work il�, kvporl Sihia Vim Pond hsscssmrnl-rin;,IA,c4 3 2.0 Background and Assessment Methodology 2.1 Background The City of Mounds View (city) is essentially a fully developed municipality that uses stormwater detention ponds for flood control and water quality treatment. In 2011 the city started its stormwater pond assessment program in accordance with its MS4 permit with Silver View Pond (see Figure 1). Silver View Pond's current configuration was created by excavation in 1982. Though likely excavated partly for aesthetic concerns, the pond's three distinct arms serve to slow the movement of storm flows allowing sediment and nutrients to be removed before flows leave the pond. A management plan for Silver View Pond was developed around 1989. The management plan addressed four objectives for the pond; improved water quality, wildlife habitat enhancement, creation of a viable fishery, and improved aesthetics. The management plan included several recommendations: • Pre-treatment of stormwater runoff from new developments • Enacting an ordinance to limit the use of phosphorus containing fertilizers • Performing limited harvesting of aquatic macrophytes in specific areas of the pond • Reducing mowing in several areas adjacent to the pond to improve upland wildlife habitats • Converting some areas adjacent to upland nest cover plantings • Adding, additional nesting structures near the pond • Monitor the use of the pond by Canadian geese and prevent nesting • Monitor beaver activity in and around the pond and prevent colonization At this time it is unknown if the city completed or is continuing to follow the recommendations made in the 1989 management plan. Silver View Pond was selected for assessment in 2011 because there has been no sediment maintenance in the nearly 30 years since the pond was created, and it was felt that significant sediment accumulation in the pond was likely. The MPCA recommends that stormwater ponds be evaluated for sediment removal when the permanent pool volume is reduced to 50% by sediment accumulation. Without completing an assessment, it is difficult to know the amount of accumulated sediment in a pond: however, one rule of thumb indicates that accumulation of sediment to reduce the permanent pool volume by 50% occurs in roughly 30 years. The results of the 2012 assessment of P. Mpis 21 MN 6' 23h21092 Silver Vic* Pond Am ossinenI workh I e�.kepori silver View Pond.&a,vssmcnt•rina I. don 3 Silver View Pond indicated that the permanent pool volume has been reduced by approximately 38%. The complete results are summarized in Table 1. The city is covered under the MPCA's General NPDES/SDS Permit MNR04000 for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) for operation of the city's stormwater management system, and has developed a storm water pollution prevention program (SWPPP) in compliance with the MS4 permit requirements. As part of the city's SWPPP, the city must manage. operate. and maintain the storm sewer system in a mariner to reduce the discharge of pollutants "to the maximum extent practicable." The SWPPP requirements address maintenance of stormwater ponds as part of the following MS4-listed minimum control measures (MCMs): Minimum Control Measure #3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination, which requires cities with MS4 permits to map their storm sewer system, including ponds. lakes, streams, and wetlands connected to the system and identify pond outfalls. + Minimum Control Measure #5: Post Construction Storm grater Management, recognizes that ponds are part of the city's "post construction proggram" and must prevent or reduce water quality impacts. MCM #5 requires that MS4s ensure short- and long-term operation and maintenance of ponds. Minimum Control Measure #6: Pollution Prevention, which requires cities perform the following: o Operate and maintain its stormwater management system in a manner so as to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. o At a minimum, inspect 20% of all outfalls, sediment basins, and ponds each year on a rotating basis. This requirement was developed to ensure the city inspects and maintains or upgrades, as needed, all of its outfalls, basins and ponds at least every 5 years. This report summarizes the assessment of one of the city -owned surface water quality treatment basins. 2.2 Evaluation Process To meet the city's stormwater management needs and to comply with the minimum control measures required by (lie city's MS4 SWPPP, the first pond assessment of a city-wide stormwater pond evaluation program was performed. The evaluation was generally comprised of: 1. Selecting ponds for evaluation. Silver View Pond was selected as a pilot assessment to help the city learn from it and develop its pond assessment and maintenance program. It was selected as it is one of the city's oldest constructed basins and it has not been maintained or monitored to any extent since it was constructed. ?. Evaluating historic information for the selected pond. P. Nip Is 21 MN 62 23ts'1082 Silver View Pond Anmfilvnl WorUile; Reporn SiINet Picµ Popid .Amesw.nrun•F iaai.d�rcr 4 3. Performing a bathymetric survey, visual inspection. and taking photographic documentation of the inlets and outlets of the selected pond. 4. Evaluating pond capacity and water quality improvement potential based on typical MPCA basin sizing recommendations and requirements of the city's MS4 permit. 5. Evaluating the current and historic wetland status at the selected pond site. 5. Completing planning -level opinions of cost for sediment removal and outlet structure modifications for improved water quality treatment. 7. Performing a preliminary prioritization of pond improvements and maintenance needs. This stormwater pond evaluation and prioritization process is intended to aid city staff with scheduling and budgeting appropriate resources for future pond maintenance and/or expansion and to provide the city a better understanding of Silver View Pond's current condition and water quality treatment and flow detention functionality. An ancillary benefit of this stonnwater pond evaluation is that it can also be used as a first step in determining the pond's current or baseline treatment efficiency and how that efficiency compares to Rice Creek Watershed District's (RCWD) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) discharge requirements for the area. Any pond improvements should be coordinated with the RCWD, MnDNR, and the US Army Corps of Engineers. To better determine the benefit of any proposed water quality improvements, it would be advisable to install monitoring, stations before any construction begins and monitoring, should take place prior to and after construction. The preconstruction monitoring would provide a better understanding of the basin's current treatment efficiency and baseline functionality. The post -construction monitoring would help verify, quantify, and document the basin's improved treatment efficiency and functionality. Modeling could also be done to estimate the benefit to Rice Creek or other downstream water bodies of any pond improvements. 2.3 Stormwater Pond Selection As a pilot project to develop the city's storm'. aicr pond inventory program, the city chose Silver View Pond for evaluation in 2011 (see Figure 1). The city selected this pond because it was likely to have significant sediment accumulation due to its age and location. The Silver View Pond assessment represents 1 of S2 strictures located within the City of Mounds View that are regulated by their MS4 permit. 11 is intended that the evaluation process used for Silver View Pond be refined (if needed/ and then used for evaluating the city"s additional ponds in future phases as the city continues to assess its 11 MPIs'3 MN 6+ 21fQ1092 Silver Fick Pood Asir ;rncnl Woirkhles Rerorl SiI4et View Pond Assrsimeuf-TinaI.docx ponds and outfalls in accordance and compliance with its MS4 permit. It is also intended that the evaluation process established for this study and as refined for subsequent basins, be used when each pond is re-evaluated in future years. This would allow for a comparison of two or more surveys for each pond to help estimate continuing sedimentation and plan for the future maintenance work since the estimates for sedimentation could be used to develop a projected maintenance timeline for each stortnwater pond. In turn the city could use that information for developing its 5-year or 10-year capital improvement programs. 2.4 Stormwater Pond Historic Information Evaluation The city provided all available information on Silver View Pond. This information included the 1989 Silver View Pond Management Plan, the 1988 Edgewood District Drainage Plan, and nearby storm sewer information. Original construction contours for the pond were estimated based on depth readings and a normal water level reported in the 1989 pond management plan as well as the current side slopes of the pond. Since these measurements were not taken initially after the construction of the pond, these measurements likely represent a conservative estimate of the original design of the pond. These estimated contours were used to compare the original design pond volume with current conditions determined by performing the bathymetric survey for this study. 2.5 Stormwater Pond Survey and Visual Inspection A field survey of Silver View Pond was performed. The survey included performing a bathymetric survey of the pond. surveying the current water level, collecting data for each pond inlet and outlet photographing the inlet and outlet structures, and performing a visual inspection of pond's inlet and outlet structures and banks. A bathymetric survey is an elevation survey of the area below the pond's normal water elevation. Figure ? shows the results of the bathymetric survey. The bathymetric survey was performed by physically measuring the depth from the water surface to the pond bottom using a survey rod at various locations within the pond and recording the measurements using a Global Positioning System (GPS ) data logger that tracks latitude and longitude. Sonar/radar was not used to characterize the pond bottom because vegetation and floating organic material has been found to, at times, introduce significant error in these types of shallow water surveys using sonar/radar devices. At four locations in the pond.. an estimate of the soft sediments was also taken. This was measured by applying pressure to the GPS rod until the rod reached a more solid bottom. By comparing the "solid" bottom elevation to the elevation of the top of the sediment, an estimate of the depth of soft sediment was determined. i': A1pls 21 NIN 62 23t,=IOX2 Serer Vie% Pond Ati5,msntcnI Wor6I iles Report Soher Vie% I'Dad.Assessinem-rinal docx The perimeter of the pond at its waters edge was also recorded using a GPS data logger and the water surface elevation was surveyed. The outlet control elevation was also surveyed at the pond. Field technicians photographed and recorded the type and size of the pond's inlets and outlet. Elevations recorded during the field surveys were referenced to a unique benchmark at the pond. This benchmark was surveyed using GPS and all field elevations were recorded in mean sea level (NAVD 1988 datum using reference monument Round AZ MK MNDOT bolt). The horizontal coordinates were referenced to Ramsey County Coordinates, NAD83 (1996) datum using reference monument Round AG MK MNDOT bolt. 2.6 Stormwater Pond Field Watershed Delineation As part of the data collection process for this assessment, the city staff provided their available storm sewer data and subwatershed delineations for the area. Upon review of the subwatersheds near Silver View Pond, there were multiple areas where there were questions about the accuracy of the subwatershed divides. In some locations the divides passed through what was shown on the mapping as a pond, while in other areas the divides crossed storm sewer systems where it was not likely that There was a break in the grade of the system. Since the MPCA Stormwater Manual calculations for recommended pond capacity are based largely on the size of the direct watershed contributing to a pond. the city authorized Barr to complete a field watershed delineation for Silver View Pond. Using the provided subwatershed divides as a guide, Barr staff completed a field delineation of the Silver View Pond watershed. The held delineation included visiting the watershed and observing the likely flow path of runoff in the area. This entailed noting changes in grade, catch basin inlet points. and surface obstructions that might route or re -direct flow. While several changes were made to the watershed divide for Silver View Pond, many of the changes were relatively minor. The largest change to the watershed was at the property bounded by Long Lake Road, County Road 1, and County Road 10. After Barr's review of the watershed. this property was removed from the watershed tributary to Silver View Pond because no evidence was seen of a way for the water to be conveyed from the property to the South, across County Road 10. The field delineated watershed of previously untreated water that reaches Silver View Pond is 138.5 acres. The total tributary area (treated and untreated) to Silver View Pond is 196.8 acres. Figure 3 shows the field delineated watershed. 11: IvtW 2 V 62 1-W1082 Silver Vic% Pond Asses swerI WorLl'dcs Rcvort SPitcr Victy Pond A doe% 2.7 Stormwater Pond Treatment Capacity Evaluation GPS and elevation data from the stormwater pond survey was imported into AutoCAD Civil3D software. The geographically -referenced survey data points including water surface, pond bottom transects, and inlet and outlet location points were used to create elevation contours which represent the current pond bottom conditions. These contours were (lien used to calculate current pond volumes for comparison to MPCA recommendations and to estimate the volume of sediment that has been deposited in the pond since it was constructed. The figure below shows a conceptual profile of a typical stormwater pond. The permanent pool, or dead storage Volume, is the volume below the pond's outlet elevation. The flood pool is the volume between the outlet elevation and the flood elevation or overflow point. Using the contours created of the pond in AutoCAD Civil 3D, AutoCAD Civil 3D volume calculation tools, and the outlet elevation data, the permanent pool volume and wetted surface area of the pond were determined. The degree of sediment deposition (as a percentage of original permanent pool volume) and the quantity of sediment needing removal to recreate the pond's originally constructed contours were evaluated by comparing existing permanent pool volume estimates to "original" permanent pool volumes. As such, the "original" permanent pool volumes were estimated based on information found in the 1989 Silver View Pond Management plan and current conditions. Current pond permanent volume and surface size were compared with MPCA Stormwater Manual pond design recommendations to determine whether opportunities exist to improve the functionality of the pond beyond its original construction or existing condition. MPCA recommends a permanent pool volume of 1,800 cubic feet of storage per acre of watershed area. MPCA recommends an additional water quality storage volume of 0.5 inches per acre of impervious area within the watershed of the pond. The MPCA Stormwater Manual method was selected for this analysis to aid P: h1pis 23 MN 612462102 SiNct view Pond Asset menl Worki dc, Ripon %llvvr view Pond Assessmcnl-rinpt.dnen in the permitting process should excavation need to take place. The permanent pool storage volume that is needed to meet MPCA recommendations was calculated for Silver View Fond using the impervious area and the direct drainage area of the pond. First, the direct drainage area for the pond was identified by performing a field watershed delineation, Next, the impervious area within (lie drainage area was determined by digitizing impervious area as seen in aerial photographs of the watershed. These values were then used to compute the MPCA recommended design volume for Silver View Pond. 2.8 Stormwater Pond Wetland Evaluation If wetland areas are disturbed or altered during pond construction or expansion, wetland permitting and possibly wetland mitigation are required. Therefore, the Silver View Pond area was evaluated to determine its potential to be considered a historic wetland. The area was compared to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetland maps, hydric soils maps, and topographic maps. The wetland type was determined. The pond was also checked to determine if it is listed in the MnDNR Public Waters Inventory. 2.9 Stormwater Pond Sediment Coring No sediment coring was completed as a pan of this analysis; however, corings should be completed prior to any pond improvements and the total project cost estimate revisited once a sediment analysis has been performed. Sediment samples should be analyzed for a list of baseline parameters established by the MPCA. Based on the most recent MPCA guidance, "Managing Dredged Materials in the State of Minnesota (December 2011 )," sediment samples from urban stormwater ponds must be analyzed for copper, arsenic, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The historic land use within the drainage area of a stormwater pond should also be reviewed to help determine the reasonable likelihood of other pollutants being present in the sediment. The level of chemical contaminants dictates the disposal method for the excavated sediment. The disposal method required far the sediment is a major factor in determining the cost of sediment removal. The number of sediment cares recommended in the MPCA's guidelines is primarily based on the volume of material to be excavated, if any sediment maintenance is performed. including localized removal at inlets. sediment cores should be obtained to determine the constituents of sediment material. The number of cores needed would be based on the expected sediment removal volume. If the entire volume of accumulated sediment in Silver View Pond were to be removed, at least five cores would be recommended. For planning purposes. it is recommended that the city allocate $4,000 per sediment core to cover the field collection. laboratory testing and reporting costs. This cost estimate is based €'. Mpls'1 MN 62'+F`_'1091 Silver Vine Pond A+srss[nenl Works ilex kepirl tiih'er VICM Pond .hssessntenf-F'inal.d;wx on recent Barr sediment sampling of stonriwater ponds in ether local municipalities. Additional preparation costs are associated with collecting sediment cores. A sampling plan will need to be created to dune the locations of the cores, the required depth of the cores, and material sampling intervals; and a watershed review will need to be conducted to determine historic land uses. These preparation costs are not included in the $4,000 per sample planning -level cost estimate above. 2.10 Assessment of Stormwater Pond Expansion The stortnwater pond expansion assessment considered several factors including the degree of sedimentation found for the pond, its wetland characterization, the potential water quality benefits of increasing the permanent pool volume, and proximity to other waters. luring our survey of the pond, our review included looking for other maintenance needs (i.e.. erosion, structure deterioration, excessive or undesired vegetation growth, etc.). Items identified that require general maintenance are described in Section 3 of this report. Such general maintenance needs typically require a more immediate response, and are usually included in ongoing maintenance programs as opposed to being included in a pond expansion or modification plan. This is because it may make more sense to correct a pipe, structure deterioration problem, or an erosion problem ahead of performing other major, but not urgent, pond maintenance activities. 2.11 Planning Level Cost Estimation The cost of expanding the current permanent pool volume for storinwater ponds greatly depends on the amount of material to be removed and the required method of material disposal, which is based on the chemical constituents of the pond sediments. The disposal costs, as well as the costs associated with excavation, loading, and short -distance hauling were included in a cost estimate of pond maintenance for Silver View Pond depending on the level of contamination found in the sediment. As sediment cores were not collected as part of this phase of the assessment process, three costs, one representing each management level for materials, were used to prepare a possible range of costs fir planning and budgeting purposes. The cost estimate does not take into account additional casts for wetland permitting/mitigation, permitting associated with the disposal of contaminated material, engineering and design costs, or costs for easements. These additional project costs could easily equal the cost of the sediment removal, effectively doubling the cost of the project. V- Mpls 21 Mk 62 2tt" I082 Silver Vie" Pond Assetii;mvni World ilec kepori tiihci View fond Assncsti%cnl-rinal.doc% 10 3.0 Data Summary and Pond Assessment Results 3.1 Stormwater Pond Survey and Visual Inspection Table 2 summarizes the information collected as part of the stormwater pond survey including water surface elevation. pond bottorn elevation, and the primary outlet control elevation. Table 2 also summarizes the calculated information such as permanent pool surface area and permanent pool storage volume. Maintenance needs based on the visual inspection were noted for the pond site. Appendix A contains information on the specific observations and accompanying site photos for Silver View Pond. Estimates of the soft sediments were taken at 4 locations in the pond. Figure 2 shows the location of the survey shots on the "rnuck elevation" of the pond. Location I is at about the mid -point of the southern arm of the pond, near the bank. The muck layer thickness at Location l is 0 feet, This reveals that minimal sedimentation has occurred in the upper levels of the pond. Location 2 is in the southern arm of the pond, near the center of the pond. The muck layer thickness at Location 2 is 3.8 feet. As such, significant sedimentation has occurred in this location. Location 3 is in the eastern arm of the pond, near the center of the pond. The muck layer thickness at Location 3 is 2.8 feet. This indicates that significant sedimentation has also occurred in the southern arm of the pond, where there are several inlet pipes. Location 4 is in the eastenl arm of the pond, at approximately the mid- point of the arm. The muck layer thickness at Location 4 is 2.7 feet, revealing that sedimentation is extensive and relatively uniform across the eastern arm. The average muck layer thickness across the entire pond is 2.3 feet. Given that the pond is about 11.5 acres in size and assuming 2.3 feet of sediment, there is approximately 26.7 acre-feet of sediment (43,076 cubic yards) accumulated in Silver View Pond. This value is similar to the volume of sediment calculated by comparing current pond bathymetry to estimated pond original construction conditions (28 acre-feet). Therefore the soft sediments likely represent sedimentation that occurred after the pond was constructed, and they are occupying a significant portion of the pond's design volume. it is possible that the bulk of this sedimentation occurred as the watershed was developed due to poor erosion control during construction. An analysis of past and current watershed activities would be needed to confirm this idea and identify major sources of sediment. But it is clear that approximately 38% of the pond's originally excavated volume has been lost due to sediment accumulation. P_ Mpis 23 MN li_' '3621OV-2 libel Vie% Pond Asaesalncnl wnrkrik;s Rtpt,rl Siher View Pond Assrssmcni-rinal.docx I I 3.2 Stormwatelr Pond Treatment Capacity Considerations The extent of sediment deposition in the stormwater pond was evaluated by comparing the existing permanent pool volume to the estimated "original" permanent pool volume for the pond. Determining the original permanent pool volume of a pond can be a challenge, as accurate data on the "as -built - construction of the pond is not often readily available. In this case, information from a 1989 pond management plan (developed a few years after the initial construction of the pond) and information on the current configuration of the pond were used to estimate the `original" permanent pool volume for the pond. Information on the pond depth in 1989 was input into AutoCA❑ Civil 3D software. The software was then used to create pond bottom contours based on the depth measurements and the current side slopes of the pond. The digital contours were then measured and compared to existing conditions. The total storage volume needed to meet MPCA guidelines (based on a drainage area of 196.8 acres and an impervious fraction of 32%) was computed to be 10.82 acre-feet if the entire tributary area to the pond was considered, and 7.84 acre-feet if only the previously untreated tributary area to the pond (138.5 acres and an impervious fraction of36%) was considered. The estimated existing storage volume of the pond is 45.7 acre-feet. However, even considering the full loading from the entire watershed tributary to the pond, Silver View Pond still contains nearly four times the MPCA"s minimum recommended volume for water treatment if it were to be constructed today. None -the -less. 38% of the pond's original volume is tilled in with sediment. A summary of this data is provided in Table 3. Silver View Pond was also analyzed for its current potential to treat stormwater for total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) removal. TP removal was calculated using Figure 5 from Lake ami Reservoir Management: 17ol (me Ill, p 314-326 (..Phosphorus Removal by Urban Runoff Detention Basins'-) by William W. Walker, Jr., 1987. Using that document, Silver View Pond currently has the potential to remove about 7594) of the total phosphorus load entering the pond when considering the entire tributary area. These results and calculation parameters can be found in Table 4. Similarly, the potential TSS removal for the pond was calculated using Figure 13 in Merhodologi br Analv.vis cif-Delen ion -Basins for Control of'Urhtm RunoffQuality, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. The potential TSS removal efficiency was predicted to be 95% when considering the entire tributary area. Due to the pond`s depth and large surface area. the pond has the potential to be a highly functioning treatment basin. However, since there are multiple inlet pipes located relatively close to the nutlet pipe of the pond, some of the water entering I'- Mrls 23 AIN 62 2162I082 silver View Pond Assmmneni W';orkrilea Relretrl Silver View Pond Assesctnent-finai.dncx 12 the pond is likely short-circuiting, and the pond is not achieving the high pollutant removal rates that the generic tables would indicate it has the potential to attain_ Since Silver View Pond currently exceeds MPCA minimum pond sizing guidelines, no urgent action is needed. However, since the pond does have significant sedimentation (approximately 39% of the estimated constructed desi(n volume has been removed by accumulated sediment), the city should consider (a) removing sediment to return the pond to its original estimated design conditions or (b) modifying the pond's current outlet structure to serve as an extended detention basin and to help prevent short-circuiting of flaws. While these improvements are not urgent. they would improve the pond's functionality and water quality treatment potential and they would enable the city to demonstrate compliance with its MS4 permit requirements. There are several issues to be considered and understood to determine if removal of sediments is feasible at this time including but not limited to: the level of contamination in the sediment to be removed, options for sediment disposal, availability of land for sediment disposal, and/or wetland mitigation requirements. For stormwater ponds that were constructed in upland areas and were not previously wetlands, sediment may be removed and the permanent pool volume expanded by dredging or excavating without any major concerns for wetland issues. However, for stormwater ponds that were wetlands or partial wetlands prior to the original construction, the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) requirements are applicable and wetland mitigation may be required, especially if the pond is to he expanded beyond its original construction. In cases where excavation to remove accumulated sediment is proposed, but only to the extent that the excavation recreates the original excavation contours, a ,permit is required but mitigation is not typically a permit requirement. If expansion of the pond surface area or pond volume is desired in a pond that was originally constructed in an existing wetland, the city would need to obtain a permit and would likely be required to perform wetland mitigation. Further discussion of wetland permitting is included below. In those instances the city could opt for an alternative to pond expansion or sediment removal, Such an alternative would involve modifying the pond's outlet structure to force the pond to act as an extended detention basin for frequently occurring storms such as a I -year or ?-year event. The outlet structure modification option is only possible if additional land surrounding the pond is available to enable a slightly higher I00-year flood bounce than currently exists. Typically extended detention modifications only increase the I00-year flood level by a few inches. But if that increase would cause the I00-year flood to encroach on homes or buildings, an extended detention modification may not be viable. WCA requires mitigation/replacement for excavation in Type 3. 4, or 5 wetlands, but provides an exemption for maintenance of wetland stormwater treatment ponds. 'Typically. proof that the V %Ipls'.? MN n� :;(I l] '_ Si IN Ur Vic" hili! Ntics,wenl WorkFlies litport SONer View Panl Assec:rncnr-i-hi aLdon 13 wetlands/ponds were established prior to 1991 is required to qualify for the exemption. Proof can include (a) engineering plans for the ponds, (b) documents that show the ponds were originally designed and constructed as stormwater treatment ponds, (c) a sediment lneasurementlanalysis that demonstrates where natural soils exist that are covered by recent sedimentation, (d) outlet information which provides evidence confirming that a wetland fonned as a result of the construction of the stormwater treatment pond, or (e) permits obtained for pond construction. Under the exemption, the wetland stormwater treatment ponds can be excavated to regain their original design characteristics. However, excavation which increases the wetland/pond's surface area or depth beyond its original design will likely require wetland replacement. Wetland replacement may also be required if [lie wetland ecosystem has been stabilized and the excavation will significantly disturb the stabilized system. Excavation (other than the removal of sediment deposition deltas) in any ponds that were wetlands, partial wetlands, or lacustrine wetlands prior to their original construction is generally not recommended because wetland mitigation would likely be required, and such mitigation can be very expensive. This requirement could greatly increase the cost of the pond upgrade. Therefore. in those instances, the city may wish to consider meeting its water quality treatment goals or requirements by modifying the pond's outlet structure to make the pond operate as an extended detention basin. This has the potential to delay sediment removal by many years. possibly a decade or more. Also extended detention structures can significantly reduce (if not remove) a short-circuiting problem for basins where their inlets are in close proximity to the outlet. Since some of Silver View Pond's inlets are close to the pond's outlet, short-circuiting is likely occurring in the pond. Since Silver View Pond has the potential to be a highly efficient basin, no increase in pond depth is recommended beyond sediment removal necessary to recreate the pond's original configuration. MPCA guidelines suggest that treatment ponds should be 4 to 10 feet in depth. Most of Silver View Pond would fall within this guideline if its accumulated sediment is removed. The shallowest areas of the pond are at sediment deltas at the inlets to the pond. These deltas alone could be removed, as opposed to widespread sediment removal, to improve localized efficiencies and delay future maintenance issues in the pond. 3.3 Stormwater Pond Wetland Evaluation Silver View Pond was evaluated for (lie likelihood of having been constructed out of historic wetlands as opposed to constructed wholly out of uplands. Available data used in the assessment included aerial photos ranging froin 1991 to the present, National Wetland Inventory data, USDA 1' MpK 21 MIN ti':1621002 SiIivF View Pond Assesmiew W'orAriIt: ti Roport Sivtr V iew fond Assessmul-nu t.doex 14 NRCS soils data, and a pond management report prepared for the City of Mounds View (Environmental Specialists 1959). The 1991 aerial photo shows the pond as having a sharply -defined shoreline and little to no vegetation. A large area of shrub Carr/wet forest was present in 1991 and remains in place today. This may be a remnant of historic wetland left unaltered. By 2003, the pond vegetation had grown in considerably, with a tree -lined bank, vegetated shoreline, and nearly complete coverage of floating vegetation, This is suggestive of vegetative succession occurring within a pond that was constructed in the recent past. The National Wetland Inventory recognizes two separate emergent (herbaceous) wetlands within the pond that range from seasonally flooded to semi-pemianently flooded. The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Data Mart for Ramsey County was consulted for review of'onsite soil properties. The hydric sail rating was generated from the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Geographic Database (USDA MRCS SSVRGO) using the Soil Data Viewer `Hydric Rating by Map Unit' option. The resources revealed that the areas of the pond that appeared to be native, historic wetlands are underlain by (540) Seelyeville Muck and (543) Markey Muck, which are 100% hydric soils. These are very poorly drained, frequently ponded, depressional soils with organic content (muck) of about 62 to 70 percent. This information lends to further support to the pond having been constructed in a natural wetland. But these sources also revealed that there are areas that may have been excavated in upland soils ((158B) Zimmerman loamy fine sand, 0 to 6% slopes) or soils that may have been historically wetlands prior to urban development ((] 027) Udorthents, wet substratum). As a result of the aerial photography review and other available data, it is concluded that Silver View Pond was mostly, but not necessarily entirely, constructed out of historic wetlands. It appears that dredging occurred to (a) connect two historically separate wetlands, (b) expand storage capacity outside the limits of the historic wetlands, and (c) create open water for aesthetics. A summary of the wetland evaluation is shown in Table 5. This conclusion was further confirmed in the city's 1989 pond management report, where it states that Silver View Pond was excavated in 1982 and goes on to say that 82% of the current pond configuration was originally wetland. P: Mn1s 2 MN h?14621082 :Sil%er Vie hind Asses,,wvpv Work ices Rerov Siker Vi" Pond AIse stn7enI-I inat doo, 15 3.4 Preliminary Planning Level Cost Estimation Preliminary planning -level cost estimates for returning Silver View Pend to its estimated design conditions were prepared since it is recommended that the city remove the significant accumulation of sediment. Sediment removal costs are based on the cubic yards of material to be removed and the three possible MPCA disposal options depending on the level of contamination that may be found in the sediment. The unit casts used in the estimate are based on recent past bidding and project work experience. The estimates are generalized and do not include specific considerations for Silver View Pond as the sediments have not been sampled or analyzed. The opinions of costs exclude wetland restoration/mitigation, maior storm sewer work, mobilization, pennitting, engineering and design, and easernent acquisition. The estimates include excavation, loading, off -site disposal, and short - distance hauling. For SRV I material (low contamination, residential re -use), the estimated unit cost is $ 2 per cubic yard. For SRV Il material (medium contamination, industrial re -use), the estimated unit cast is $30 per cubic yard. For SRV III material (highly contaminated, landfill disposal), the estimated unit cost is $45 per cubic yard. The costs for additional work not included in these estimates could easily equal the cost of sediment removal, effectively doubling the cost of the project. Table 6 shows the results of the cost estimate. A cost estimate to modify the pond's outlet to convert it to an extended detention basin was performed. This cost is based on adding a section of pipe and a special manhole that is equipped with an oil skimming and a flow attenuation device that detains flows up through a I -year or ?-year storm event for approximately 24 ]tours to the pond's outlet to enable the pond to act as an extended - detention basin with a floatable material skimmer. This option may be a viable way to enhance water quality treatment and enable the city to delay the time and expense for sediment removal. It will not eliminate the need to eventually remove sediment, but it may provide a way for the city to plan for and save over time so it can perform the needed removals with saved funds as opposed to borrowed funds at a later date. A detailed hydrologic and hydraulic study would be needed to address if such an extended detention option would be viable. A preliminary review of the existing outlet structure indicates that to add an extended detention structure, it would require a 4-foot-deep, 72-inch- diameter manhole with interior weir and appurtenances and an 8-foot section of 15-inch-diameter RCP pipe. A conceptual sketch of these types of structures is shown in Section 4.4 of this report. A more in-depth analysis would be needed to refine the cast estimate and extent of the project after additional hydrologic and hydraulic analysis is performed to understand the possible impacts on surrounding properties that could result from an extended detention outlet modification. The opinions of cost described in Section 4 for the extended detention structure are also included in Table I . As F Mpis 23 MN CC 21h110*2 4iircr Vic% Pund %ssyssikicw M orLhIcs kcporl SO%cr View Pond Nsscisinenl-FimLdoex 16 extended detention is typically only needed for relatively small frequency storms, these devices typically do not significantly increase the 100-year flood level. In most cases, the increase of the I00-year flood level is a few inches. As such, the costs to acquire easements are not extensive because the added easement area (if any) needed to accommodate a small increase in the I00-year flood level is typically not large. Most often we have found the increase to be within the existing pond easement. The opinions of cost for extended detention structure improvements listed in Table l do not include the cost of acquiring additional land for increased minor flooding, completing the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, or engineering design. But they do include cast for subsurface explorationlgeotechnical analyses, and construction including foundation support. See Section 4.4 for additional details on extended detention structures. 3.5 Assessment of Need for Sediment Removal Silver View Pond was assessed for its need to have accumulated sediment removed to maintain its functionality as a water quality basin and return it to its originally constructed configuration. Due to the basin's large storage capacity and continued high pollutant removal efficiencies, Silver Vieux Pond does not require immediate sediment removal. However, since the volume of accumulated sediment in 'Silver View Pond is significant. nearly 40% of the original design volume is occupied by sediment, sediment removal should be planned for in the near future assuming such construction is within city budget. When sediment removal is performed, a watershed analysis should also be performed to identify potential sources of past and future sedimentation. Ways to minimize future sedimentation should be included in the design of the pond clean -out. Silver Vieux Pond was given an over-all moderate priority rating for major pond improvements. However. there are multiple areas of the pond which should receive maintenance more immediately. Provided an extended detention structure does not adversely impact neighboring properties, it is advisable to modify the outlel structure to prevent short-circuiting and improve water quality treatment efficiencies. Additional housekeeping maintenance needs for Silver View Pond were identified such as inlet scour, riprap deterioration, and pipe degradation. Individual maintenance items have varying impacts on infrastructure protection, water quality treatment, and flood mitigation aspects of the pond and should be prioritized by the city based on the severity of the impacts and the feasibility of the maintenance or minor modifications. A preliminary prioritization of the additional maintenance needs for the basin is found in Section 4.2. P Nlpi+?; MN Iti'_'-M_?1 1Q SiI%cr View 1'md Asnssmenl Workriles Itcport SiI%rr View Popid .A. r .onrirl-I ill aIdoc\ 17 4.0 Recommendations and Conclusions 4.1 Future Evaluations To meet its MS4 requirements, the city must operate and maintain its stormwater management system in a manner so as to reduce the discharge of'pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and must, at a minimum, inspect 20% of all outfalls, sediment basins, and ponds each year on a rotating basis. The work performed for this study can help the city to meet the 20% inspection requirement for 2012. Further, the assessment of Silver View Pond completed in 2012 will serve as a lielpfui tool as the city completes future phases of its pond inventory program. The Silver View Pond assessment was selected as a pilot project to assess the extent of sedimentation and guide the city in developing a future pond assessment maintenance program for managing all of its ponds and outfalls. Further, the information collected during this pond assessment has established a 'base] ine' condition that can serve as a foundation for future sedimentation surveys in Silver View Fond. It is recommended that the city continue to monitor the sedimentation in this pond in future years (perhaps every 5 years if sediment is not removed and every 10 years if major sediment removal has been performed). 4.2 Expansion and Maintenance Implementation Silver View Pond sediment removal recommendations were made based on the water quality treatment capacity found in the pond, its wetland characterization, the potential water quality benefits of increasing the permanent pool volume, the proximity and type of receiving waters, and the cost of pond improvements. It is recommended that before any dredging or expansion is completed, that the feasibility ofan extended detention structure is determined as this type of pond modification has the potential to provide significant water quality improvement at a comparatively low cost, and could enable the city to delay major fund expenditures and in turn plan for and save funds for expensive sediment removal to bring the pond back to its constructed configuration. This would require a hydraulic and hydrologic study of the pond's watershed to determine if there could be negative impacts to neighboring properties, homes, and businesses due to minor increased flooding inherent with the placement of an extended detention structure. It is also recommended that as part of any sediment removal project that the installation of a forebay downstream of each pond inlet be considered with that project. A forebay would likely make future sediment cleanout easier and more feasible. and would allow For large particle sediment removal in a localized area near each pond inlet. P. hlpls 21 MN 6_' ?36211182 Sll%VT VIC% Pond Acsessmcnl Wotki ile€ Rel,nn tiilver Vice Pond Amssmenl-1 omi.does 18 The forebay could be constructed with gabion baskets, steel or fiberglass sheeting, or ether methods that also serve to slow and spread flows to cause large sediment particles to settle out, and to enable flows to more uniformly flow through the remainder of the basin for improved treatment efficiency. Sediment sources within the watershed should be identified and ways to minimize sediment entering the pond should be implemented as part of or prior to completing sediment removal on the pond, This will minimize the need for future pond clean -out efforts. As part of the pond visual inspection and survey, miscellaneous pond maintenance needs were identified. These miscellaneous maintenance observations and photos are detailed in Appendix A. A preliminary prioritized list of maintenance needs for Silver View Pond is found below. It is recommended that the city review these identified housekeeping maintenance needs and incorporate these maintenance activities into the city"s ongoing pond maintenance program. Maintenance activities should also be coordinated with Rice Creek Watershed District, MnDNR and the i.ISACE. when such work falls under their jurisdiction. Sliver View Pond Maintenance Needs (as evaluated in 2011): The following maintenance activities are recommended: Branches obstructing the outlet pipe should be removed. They will likely collect additional debris, further blocking flow from the pond. • The eastern 24" inlet nitre has been partially crushed, which is restricting flow through the pipe. The damaged section(s) should be removed and replaced. • Displaced riprap at the large, western CMP inlet should be replaced with properly designed riprap and filter material. • Sediment and debris near the western 24_" inlet pipe should be removed and the outfall protected with properly designed riprap and filter. Sediment and debris near the southwestern 24" inlet pipe should be removed and the outfall protected with properly designed riprap and filter_ • Sediment and debris near the southwestern 18 inlet pipe should be removed and the outfall protected with properly designed riprap and filter. • Sediment accumulation in the large, western CMP inlet pipe should be removed and the outfall protected with properly designed riprap and filter. • Sediment and debris near the eastern 24" CMP inlet pipe should be removed and the outfall protected with properly designed riprap and filter. P: MPrs 27 MN 62 2?h'_ f09? Sih or Vk" Pond A4s!c,lnenl WmLf ilv� KC111irl Sl It vt \ irtk Vond Asgcsi Tnenkf roof. filcX l Q ■ Rocks, sediment, and debris should be removed from the southwestern 12" inlet pipe and the outfall protected with properly designed riprap and filter. a Sediment and debris near the eastern 24" RCP inlet pipe should be removed and the outfall protected with properly designed riprap and filter. a Vegetation growth at the eastern 24" inlet pipe should be monitored and removed as necessary to ensure flow into the pond is not restricted. a Vegetation growth at the western CMP inlet pipe should be monitored to ensure that flow is net restricted. • Vegetation growth near the outlet structure should be monitored to ensure that flow is not restricted. a Vegetation growth near the eastern 24" RCP inlet pipe and in the channel between the inlet pipe and the pond should be monitored to ensure that flow is not restricted. a Pieces of concrete oil the shoreline near the southwestern 18" inlet pipe should be removed so that they do not fall into the pond and block flow from the inlet. One piece is already inside the flared end section. a Garbage should be removed Bonn the pond. • Tine fallen tree near tine central. northern 18" inlet pipe should be monitored to ensure that it is not causing debris build-up and blocking flow. a The northeastern 18" inlet pipe should be monitored. A tree is growing on top of the flared end section and should be removed. a The wooden skimmer at the nutlet structure is beginning to decay. Repair is not yet critical, but the skimmer should be monitored to ensure that it remains functional and does not block the outlet pipe. « A broken Hlooden railing at the edge of the trail near the eastern 24" inlet pipe should be repaired. While this does not affect the pond, it is a hazard to pedestrians :tear the pond. 4.3 Permitting Requirements As discussed in Section 3.2, the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) requires replacement for excavation in Type 3, 4, or 5 wetlands, but provides an exemption for maintenance of previously constructed wetland stormwater treatment ponds. If sediment is to be removed but to no greater extent than recreating the basin's originally constructed configuration, LGU coordination and a WCA permit will be required. If more extensive excavation to expand the basin beyond its original configuration is performed, then wetland replacement will be required. This requirement would P Mtpk 1 MN 62 '36,IIN2 Silver vww Pored Assessment WnrW ile, kcpt�ro tiil.er Vi"k Pond Ac�essmem-l'mll.docx 20 greatly increase the cost of the pond improvements. Therefore, we do not recommend expanding the pond beyond its original contours. Converting the pond to an extended detention basin by a simple outlet modification would not likely pose any significant permitting issues. See Section 4.4 for further discussion about extended detention basins. The MPCA has the authority to issue permits for the management of dredged materials under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and/or the State Disposal System (SDS) permitting programs. In December 2011, the MPCA released its most recent version of "Managing Dredged Materials in the State of Minnesota." which includes specific guidance for projects involving sediment removal from municipal or urban stormwater systems. Based on this guidance, the MPCA does not require a permit or reporting of results for small maintenance projects (i.e., when project maintenance activity is less than 3,000 cubic yards (CY) of excavation and chemical sample data indicate that the dredge material meets sediment disposal category SRV I). The MPCA stresses the importance of determining, if the sediment presents a potential adverse impact to human health or the environment and indicates that proper risk evaluation, sampling protocol, and site consideration for where the sediment will be reused or disposed is necessary. The accumulated sediment volume in the pond was computed to be 45,335 CY. Since the excavation at Silver View Pond will exceed 3,000 CY, the MPCA will require that a Construction Stormwater Permit Application. Stormwater Facility Dredge Project Supplement form, and a sediment sampling plan be submitted for review. 4.4 Structure Modifications Typically water quality treatment basins have been designed with outlet structures that enable flows that reach the outlet to exit the basin quickly. And, typically, water duality treatment basins with ample dead storage volume and minimal potential for short-circuiting do a good job removing sediments and phosphorus. However there are instances when a typical open -water pond with sufficient dead storage cannot or should not be built and/or when short-circuiting decreases the basin's potential to treat runoff. Such instances include, but are not limited to: 1. Where basin construction may he too costly due to the presence of bedrock 2. When basins are sited within a mile of an airport 3. When an outlet structure needs to be constructed near a basin inlet structure 4. When [lie basin is located in a historic wetland P A1pis :3 KIN Q 21e2II 81- Sku Virs Pond Assessnrcni Workriles Report Silva Vic% Pnn.l Assesmtient-hndkiriex ? I In such instances, traditional open -water water quality treatment basins can be supplanted by an extended detention basin which has a significantly different outlet structure than a normal wet detention basin outlet. And, in instances where it is desired to further improve on an existing basin's treatment efficiency, the basin's outlet structure can be modified or fitted with an extended detention basin -type outlet structure. Such a structure tnodifrcation would detain flows from a 1-year to 2-year storm event for up to 24 hours. With the vast amount of sediment and pollutants that enter a pond coming from storms of that magnitude, if flows from those storms can be held in the basin over a longer period of time, significantly improved water quality treatment can be achieved. in the case of the city's current water quality treatment ponds. there may be reason and opportunity to retrofit certain basin outlet structures with a new extended detention basin -type structure. Such a structure modification is recommended for Silver View Pond. Following are a few situations where the city may want to analyze performing such modifications: 1. Where an existing basin is also a historic wetland and where excavation of the sediments may prove to be very costly, because wetland replacement will be required by the local governmental unit (LGU) that administers the Wetland Conservation Act. In this case, the city may be able to forego or significantly delay the point in time where excavation is needed by simply retrofitting, the pond's existing outlet structure with an extended detention basin - type structure. 2. Where a basins inlet(s) and outlet are in close proximity, which enables inflows to short- circuit and not use the full extent of the basin. In this case, the extended detention structure can force waters to be detained long enough to utilize the full treatment capacity of the basin, 3. When higher treatment efficiencies are required due to regulations, MS4 permits, or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements. 4. When the city decides on its own to provide even better treatment than its current pond is providing,. This may he based on monitoring results or other decision factors. The cost for adding an extended detention nutlet structure to Silver View Pond is included in Table 1. Because extended detention basins and their structures are less well-known, the following paragraphs are intended to provide the reader of this document a better understanding of how such facilities function. I' MpI-23 MN 62 'iW SiIker Vie" fond Assessment Workriks keporl NiIVcI Vie" I'nnri Aisevinnent !innI,daca 22 Extended Detention Basins and Their Structures: Extended detention basins function similarly to wet detention basins, except they perform their treatment without much (if any) open water (dead storage). They are designed to force water to pool long enough for the majority of pollutants to settle out by the normal settling processes. This forced detention is accomplished through the construction of specially designed, multi -tiered outlet structures. The following describes the design considerations and design parameters for extended detention basins. Extended Detention Basin Design Considerations: There are four key considerations for extended detention basin design: 1. The primary removal process for most water quality treatment basins is particulate settling. The longer water is held (or detained) in a basin, the more likely pollutant particles are to settle out, hence, the term extended detention. The EPA"s National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) documents indicate that there may be diminishing returns on particulate removal for detention times beyond 24 hours. 2. From numerous case studies, the vast majority of the mass -volume of pollutants carried by runoff occurs during; storms of 1-year or 2-year magnitude or less. For much of Minnesota, a 2.5-inch rainfall in 24 hours is considered to be a 1-year storm event. 3. Further, as published in the EPA's NURP documents, the average time between storm peaks in Minnesota is about 87 hours, or a little more than 3 days. If flows are to be detained in a basin, the basin typically must be dewatered in no more than 2 days to enable the basin to be ready for the next storm. 4. The NURP documents reveal that the surficial size of a basin (the wetted area for the water quality treatment portion of a basin) is important to the basin's treatment efficiency. In general, the bigger the surface area the better. But there are diminishing returns on basins with wetted surface areas that are larger than Y2% to 1 % of the total untreated tributary area of the basin. Extended Detention Basin Design Parameters: Based on the key considerations described above, the following are the key design parameters for extended detention basins and their structures: r- h7lsis 23 MN fi' 2362I0fi2 Suter Vitw Bond Assessinrnl Wnrkf'iies Reporl Silver View Pond Assrssmcnl-final.doe% 23 1. Detain runoff from storms up through a 1-year or 2-year event for about 24 fours. 2. Excess flows from storms greater than a 1-year or ?-year event can be more quickly discharged from the basin in accordance with the city's stormwater management plan (SWMP). 3. The runoff V plume to be detained for an extended period of time (24 hours) should be at feast the runoff from a 2.5-inch rainfall in 24 hours. 4. In general the I 00-year, 24-hour SCS Type II storm outflow rate from the basin and the I00-year, IU-day snowmelt event outflow rate from the basin should not exceed the peak discharge rate designated in the city's SWMP. These parameters in turn dictate the tiers in a specially designed, multi -tiered outlet structure. Outlet Structure/Tier Description: ■ Tier-1: The lowest opening(s) is designed to force flows from a 1-year or 2-year storm event to pool in (lie basin for at least S hours and typically no more than 24 hours. The volume of a basin below the overflow elevation of the next tier (Tier-2) in the structure should be the runoff volume of the I -year or 2-year, 24-hour duration storm. This volume can be live storage (100% between the invert elevation and the Tier-2 overflow elevation) or a combination of live storage and dead storage. Dead storage is the volume of water below the Tier-1 invert. • Tier-2: The starting overflow elevation of Tier-2 is to be set at the elevation where 1 il0% of the runoff from the 1-yeas. 24-Hour or ?-year. 24-hour duration event is stored below this elevation. The wetted surface area of the basin at this elevation should be at least ?/i% to I of the total untreated tributary watershed to the basin. The size of the Tier-2 overflew is computed to meet the city's SWMP I00-year peak outflow requirement. In certain site - specific cases, Tier-2 may need to be a multi -tier overflow, but in most cases this requirement can be managed in a single second tier. • Tier-3: The overflow elevation of Tier-3 is to be set at the computed 100-year flood level of the basin, which is established by the i 00-year. 24-hour duration storm or the 100-year. 10-day snowntelt event, whichever is more severe. This could be a natural overflow, a structure overflow, or a combination thereof. P: MP 23 MN 622162I0A2 Silver view- F id NI se"Puent WorWles Report Silver V ica Pond Assessrneni-Fitie I dcwx 74 Typical Extended Detention Basin Outlet Structure: The figure below shows an example of a typical extended detention basin nutlet stnicture. t; f � 1' Mris'_? MN 0-2 23t+'102 Silver View fond Assecmneni WorkFiles Regan %0%er Virw Pont .Assrssmcni•E inal.siGc4 15 5.0 References City of Mounds View (prepared by SEH). 1988. Edgewood District Drainage Plan. City of Mounds View (prepared by Environmental Specialists), 1989. Silver View Pond Management Plan. City of Mounds View. Storm Sewer As -Built Plans. City of Mounds View (prepared by Bonestroo). 2009. Stormwaler System Map. Map 1. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 1-008. Minnesota Stormwater Manual (Version 2). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), 2011. Managing Dredged Materials in the State of Minnesota. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1986. Methodology for Analysis of Detention Basins for Control of Urban Runoff Quality. Walker. W.W. 1987. Phosphorus Removal by Urban Runoff Detention Basins. Lake and Reservoir Management. Volume III. North American Fake Management Society. Ir Mpis'_i MN 62 23621OS= Sihel 4 ie% Pond AF�-Cssrncnl Wori.Flles Rerorr, Sihi' r View Pond A>SCSslrcnI_FIna lAwl, 26 Tables AIM G v w cl w Ley cp 4w ❑ Ld 'd y ?cn r� ❑ yq C � L4 � � a p "d Q G c v CL71 � m 07 7 a x x ui 0 U L V V 0 {9 a°m+ Lv ui LU N c OTC mom. a d T7� L N r ''a m 0. #_ X 3 .. � O �! a ui L9 Ln co4o a A d 47 E W A ❑ a N Q N 47 N E W L: � C C7 � cc Cc � N lG C C y [4 -❑ Cp LD V Q a ca w C rn c Q) 3° Y E ir7 ❑ OD m C 47 N N D Oy O A v N a G _ Q, {n ❑ 4) w in❑ S al i ❑ C [� E E U FF7 'O ja M r @ ❑ 7+ > c0 C to C N E Q ':R tC CV 4� 47 ou C «i Ui w U1 4f • E T y 1]7 H 4n C > C 48 w N a: 7 3 L CD C C � N ❑ V C U N 7 [G ❑ O cco ri 4 b Lry N w a c N `7 = m d ti C ..; _ y ❑7 o d N > r C E ❑ ' L 0 En / ] 2 G m S �= 3 {.g. _ a ƒ@ ? \ / j$-6cg 7 \ [§> o§= b o w m 6E7� / OL @7 §];� \/ ( ui § ( \ # < . \ \ \ § @ \ \\ c k # m o 0 ) — \ f t ® k 5 \ § ƒ / % \ $ \ E z \ f� q7 2 o c } o x 5 \ E(9 \ \ o _� E cc ` / / 0 >_ » � d = } 5 2 [ A o 0 ƒ 3 \ } k k ƒ 3 $ \ 2 3 \ e I w= a s fu / C / E \ ) ! \ \\ / \ » > > 5 ¥ \ 7 (A _ > �E;( \�a.K/ @ @ / \0li e to co 0 @0 7=. 2 2 ; 4D u =E£a z #0 2 \ ( 0 § § ) IL 2 @ 7=:= SS ° ` ƒ � 2 ± y y _$ a ®Z ® § E k � k $ �}k CL § § k k2 7 § k _. 9 w 2(D�—ma 7 0 & « 2 k .7 e g § k k § t § CO ) a \ k IL IL g g k k .U) a � � E \ / \ E § ui m k 2 D m \ y } / $ \ S § 3 = E % 0f o � k \ m § \ k d m o \ } \ Q R e 5 a _ R £ § cc CZ E / a W _ CL -FZj A '[ 0 ( =b ( m / t / } § 0 o�GN m % m a 5 0 • « @ > § £ L - / E _ \ / ƒ \ _ k'D .2 ��——e E22'a0d ; o § 3 � z u 0 V)EIf = CL . m �. w 2 z k � k E�>% k §0 � o o _ e e 0 $ Q 2 3 0- CL 2 CL z z » G . � E � c k 2- k � m R = y I E tCL CL E z f 2 CL ■ R k @ 2 LL » _ co In o _ a 'C 75 ¥ 2 § 5 = e 2 @ to ° cc) f « / \ \ E ƒ 0 b § ƒ ! \ 2 I '2 / ) \ k \ / \ 0 g = A / \ / \ / \ / .0) 2 2&§¥ a a R\/ƒ 0 $ - - - CL y rL % \ & « w@@ e e e e c a i � `a 0 a o 6s us a C? d c" a m 6q C ^ C11 p 7 X N W C,u3 C 3 n O p a yQ a C3 C __CL , K W fl) a-+ w O M C to C� C W w i0 m .. L Cl 6', n r H N N x a y Y o Ia, V � L c E (: E 5 Z 0 U r a LO @ 61 CL to lC! K 0 U7 t W a r} ar N a U �e tV x LLJ N a1 � w U a. N W � O O E (D pL7 Z Q. O. o v 0- o "0 a a .. a ix CL w a m � m L L C u) en 0 N Q� CD � T C)- 0 m CL p7 'n N M CI3 cc-N C x W ro •CL N a (D 0 iL7 - 0 'D ❑ C-33 ❑ E .0 p 3 to C m0 C 0 0. cc y 0 = C O >, C 'U ❑ U C3 Stl •C U) C7 — m p C LA -0 C L !� 0 ❑ m CD .0 U1 m 6q 3 0 y 3 0 ix N ❑ � C D 2`1 N (2 CC Vl _ > m CiS a3 "❑ CI] D � � C ❑7 0 � M a. O -0 o-€> �' E E c'c" E ro L) is E N o c6 C Cp FM C [ii [53 [C cC CV C, C ccp 'U U C Lnn cu N c � c0 urn m cc ra X > ro n m e 3 m a a �rto� N 03 ❑ m =_ _ l y U) T U) E E C31 O ❑ Q1 � c d � 21 fCi L [D o o •TA ==-nc o o F- 113 [n G7 � � it U DU Figures Appendices Appendix A 41 i �f iL 1 ■ •fs.« " fir. -. ■S'� r loop Y „.�."�� ;¢. _ -� ”" ,,� -#' - � •;� ;' err, � r.r.F r 00 o SN 774 Fit 40 r i s - - t a r i �y . s � Material accumulating near center of pond Material and debris accumulating near southwestern 18" RCP and 24" RCP inlet pipes g41 ♦ ,� 4 � � y'tt� 7 G Y s I Y try Alt" /r r s ` + r W.- [ fw a lw ,,ma�+,��yy `s s� �..R� �.• r �?low` • .� ,�.� _ . �. � yam. �, `�*-[y-S'��...�rk#. _ r� `. _r -t - —A^ - r :., 40 1 Tree growing on top of northeastern 18" RCP inlet pipe Tree growing on top of northeastern 18" RCP inlet pipe ., ti. Displaced concrete near southwestern 18" RCP inlet pipe low S. qN1 4t • -`A h t Displaced concrete in invert of southwestern 18" RCP inlet pipe Minor spalling on the inside of southwestern 18" RCP inlet pipe JA Garbage in pond near southwestern 12" RCP inlet pipe 4. ,4- , 1� ,W - Avtp A6 aL� lk" Rocks, sediment, and debris in southwestern 12" RCP inlet pipe Minor spalling inside southwestern 12" RCP inlet pipe Broken railing at edge of trail near eastern 24" CMP inlet pipe Sediment and debris build-up and warping pipe at eastern 24" CMP inlet r 1�:`�, i "`,, � • ����� � ,��� i � cam, !� �,! _� • a Branches obstructing outlet pipe Vegetation growth at outlet structure Oak Park Lake/Oak Park Lake Pond/Scotland Green Pond Silver View Lake/Silver View Pond/Wood Lake History/Information/Fun Stuff April, 2021 1937 and 1938 — Aerial showing no storm water retention pond/lake but clearly wetland type 1960 and 1964—Aerial showing no storm water retention pond/lake but a much defined wetland type area 1967 — Village of Mounds View Street Improvement does not show Lake Court, Lake Drive, Hodges, etc. 1970 Department of Agriculture— Aerial showing clear definition of storm water retention pond/lake 1971-1973 - Scotland Green Apartments built, Sanitary Sewer and Water provided (Project 1971-A) 1978, December 27 — Memo from Parks Director 1979 — Resolution 996 Authorizing staff to negotiate land for Silver View Park using $136,000 of grant funds. Resolution states City already owns 16.9 acres. 1978 L.A.W.C.O.A. Grant to acquire 19 more acres if possible. 10% park land dedication to be awarded at time of subdivision by the developer ordinance 42.13. Acquisition from Minars/Kraus Anderson/Engelsma (M & E Realty) 1980 April — Resolution 1100 Preliminary Concept Approval of Sketch Plan for PUD with Krause Anderson to develop 100 acres — Item 8 requires developer to complete the lake and obtain all necessary approvals from RCWS and the DNR. Item 4 requires land swap for park. 1980, August — Resolution 1141— Confirming desire of P & Z and Park and Rec wanting a lake for recreational use. 1980, June to October — Various correspondence from/between City, DNR, Park and Rec, Council — debating project with some wanting a lake that includes a swimming beach and others denying the project to preserve the last remaining wetland in Mounds View. 1980, October 10 — Grading and site plan for Oak Park Lake Pond — Sunde Engineering Document 1980, December 16 — Letter from DNR to City of Mounds View advising preliminary approval of Permit 80-6158 t M & E Development allowing excavation of an unnamed wetland (62-60W). 1981, April 1— Silver Lake Woods Planned Unit Development, Marvin H. Anderson Construction. 1981— Silver Lake Woods Project 1981-03 — Streets, Sewer and Water 1981- Projects — Oak Lake Park Pond project 1981-03. RCWS Permit 80-127 1981, March 16 — DNR Permit 80-6258 to M & E and Krause Anderson to excavate stormwater pond and construct outlet. 1981, February 27 — Option agreement between M & E, Krause Anderson, and Marvin Anderson Construction. 1982 — Development Agreement 82-52 between city, Kraus Anderson and M & E Reality (unable to locate) 1982, March 31— Sunde (Cities Consulting Engineer) letter to DNR and RCWS detailing revised grading and drainage plans — not excavating adjacent to Scotland Green, modifying outlet discharge by narrowing weir, and reducing excavation on north side to preserve wetland vegetation. (DNR File) 1982, April 7 P & Z Meeting — Marvin Anderson Homes — Development Plan Tract D. Case 85-81 1982, April 30 — RCWS issues permit 80-127 to M & E Realty approving Revised Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan — Wetland Alteration and Riparian Improvement for the Oak Park Lake Pond. 1982, May 3 — Rice Creek Watershed issues permit 82-01 to M & E Realty — Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan for Oak Lake Park Pond 1982, August 2. Plats — Silver Lake Woods 1982, November 3 — Short Elliot Hendrickson preconstruction meeting for Oak Lake Pond Outlet. SEH File - 82021 1984/1985 — Silver Lake Woods homes built — Mary Anderson Builder 1985, December — Plats - Silver Lake Woods Second Edition 1986-1988 — Silver Lake Woods Condos built (Lake Court Drive, Lake Court Circle, and Mounds View Drive) 1989 — Management Plan completed by Environmental Specialists. Recommendations include 3 specific measures to improve water quality and 5 specific items related to vegetation and wildlife habitat. 2004 — Construction of Pre -Sediment (forebay) pond and structure. Project Number 2004-12/2004-14 2012 — Pond Assessment done by Barr Associates. Reports indicates pond has reached 38% sediment capacity and provides numerous recommendations for water quality, vegetation and wildlife habitat as well. Pond Elevation: April 5, 1982 Grading Plan by Sunde Engineering: South "arm" of the pond excavated to 890'. Path/shore elevation 896 "East-West portion of Pond" West pond excavated to 884. Top of pond at 898 Middle of the pond excavated to 890. Path/shore elevation 896 East portion of the pond excavated to 894. Path/shore elevation 896 NOTE — On the north side, beginning in the middle and going east, land topography rises rapidly 910. Naming a Lake: (Should we wish to change the name from Wood Lake) Naming a lake in Minnesota, or changing the name, is guided by Minnesota Statue 83A.04 - 83A.07. The process begins at the county where the lake is located. Fifteen or more voters registered in that county must petition the county board of commissioners for a public hearing. If the county board agrees on the proposed name, the board adopts a resolution in support of the name. The resolution is forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources Commissioner for approval. The Commissioner will not approve a name that commemorates or may be seen to commemorate, a living person. Approved names are submitted to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names for federal approval and use. I 0 x906 2 CLIENT: Kraus -Anderson Development Co. Minneapolis, Minnesota 904 904 I i P0"PLARS "902 \ j x9ol o �� x9os o / \\ �e9s 9024 _902 � � x901 0 '� _ 899 \� 976 6 � � �) I 1 \ x903 x9 90y� \ 0q x9ol so4 zao 73 9074x x901 4� x 04 0 898 0 905 x 89 8 7 - Ck 7QQ - QO \ \ 90S x ` 1 D 9046x 896 �— x 93 888` 9015x / 8997z \\\ \ 9Q93x 9103 898 8970x I 1 \ 901 3x 15x ` 899 I\\ \ ` x91I3 �// g 9000 /� �08970 9 0 ax - 89 C7 3 1 x902 2 x x r 899 0 9� 90 2��� i�'x899 2 / x 8995, 898 0 899 x` 99 78��/ / \\ 8 6 5 906 6x i ^ p^ = 98 5 899 jl / - �ag a699 6 _ - - - __ __ - _ / — �� � x 01\ � ICJ x _� `_-� x8954 960 4x .894 7 894 3' DEEP f / \ 9067x / 8994 x8940 06— 9046x 1 °� V r 8 5 95A 896 0 x899 2 Y L A �3/90 / �� / / J I 894 2 894 0 �( y \ \ \ 904 (8850) 8977\ \ — 902900 / 1 9015x - 895 5. \ —900 / x8970 3 O 9044x i4 D � EEP / z907 % / \ 9033 / � / / / 941 ', I � 89� C R � �\ � 8942 H \� --898`-\ x898 4 � l 011 ( / 945 18940 4 (8850) �' x89 75 1 x903 tT1 (883 0) ` /^� ( 43 \ ( �60 / f 8 80x ) 8 I. y 896-Q��I/. x8970 8974x x8970 it 901 x 901 x x x8975 M >Y _ �� 895 •. .,,�.�. \ I 1 \ x894 z 1 8 \ O l 1 B 0 C7 x 694 8 1 Y � x x 894 i�'� x695 7\ C 898 (086 8) x695 3 vV � x897 6 _ � � 901 9 I I 8 O x 894 3 1 xg 895 ��.\� 894 x 896 t _ — — — 3 /x898 �\ -0 89i Ox x898 0 �I 3 x695 2x_ 94 8 N H949x r 8 x V � (8920)x x(89 ) �� � C 2 \J / I / 894 4 t 694 x V /�,p H9T 5 \\ \ 7 x x 896 3 z902 0 / I �/ a �S (890 5)'� '/ x8950 L (893 6) I 4 7 =892 2\ x 8995x 1 1 `__ C98 \ x9027 90033"(I1`8960 ai I y v y Y—/H �/ x89s6 \ 945 8�g-894- 89 x 5 x 695 9 6--" _"-895'--- ` 895 0 894 4.�--�_ i� -8 896 7 z �8 5 x x693 8 x x 5 �� x 898 4 899 OK x897 I x 896 8 x896 4 8930 903Ox\ 900 / \\ (b 89� - -//'' x8964 -�_�1� 8952x {-f�8967 �-' x8� \� — -_898 x8967 �!_ 996 1 897 9898� 8974x \\ Y \ =— 90t 01 I x898 2 \ �' 8 a 976 T 89j8x xr95 8947x L��g� 6� T 8983TC 1 I 8934� 1 TIC I I vo x8963 89 q \ 03 90�/ 0 xB95 I I x896 I 0 O O \ I I892 7x x x 976 z 8 3 x \�� x p0 ) S x895 7 I O) O� 89 5x x892 5Il 899 0 I I -- - - \ / -' - 1 II x 0 _ _ ✓09g ' ~�_ I I 00, _%_ / I Ariff'OP 1(s Body)— 11 -7% x 896 8 / 96 x 9 6 8 8954 a ie X8970 r/ 0 902 8 I \ I x8981 89518 8981� 89 I / 0�5 ( 8951x/x896 a8 x8975 , .8953 895.Ix / 900 902 Ix � 9 0 54 � g 7 �- 1 x �1� � �s000 I x89r54 NOTES x695 I" 895 ix 1. Dredged materials will be removed and placed in an upland area / I x 6 \ 896 Ix) 899 9012 suitably protected from erosion and siltation such that materials I / x8964 89 Y / will not be redeposited into the wetlands. I / x9002 xH951 2. The Contractor shall install the skimmer structure near the outlet I � � 971x0849"4 695 1 - - prior to general pond grading. x9034 5x8951 �/ �� 9x / I 1 / 3. All disturbed surfaces outside of the pond limits (at elevation 950 r ( 893.0) shall be seeded and mulched within 30 days after completion of grading operations. / 900 0 8981xg9e 96�__ f ✓ / / x9012 / PP 9 896 9 x —__ PP x902 2 9028 901 0 - 901 7x 02 12 �--x�- 901 99 x 90 2 3 x 9 'M H x902 5 9024 SEE OUTLET DETAILS ,I •I I I 1 892 7 898 2x Il 92 6xl +-897 8980 3' CULVER� i 6987 it 80 8 to 9000x1 fNV= 927E983 II�8911$ I OD�I I I I I8 5 I I 898 6 900 0 II I 11 J1 A74�12 CULT ERT 101 l00 0 /00 200 SCALE IN FEET I hereby certify that this plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Reg- istered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Gerald M. Sunde, P.E. Date October 8 1980 Reg. No. 8734 REVISED October 10, 1980 --� REVISED March _30, 1982 .C�Y� 17-80-C ,t+ i t a T� /�'4,re �i 1'j�� t � � ' !t+ �9 ,� � � f �r � � t lei 0 did •` �� � ' }� y , �. + .. sue • _ ii a, ' � iy. • "SO Al �q y.. ,...-. -•,dirt "�ii���r!_�ti• � f� '�� 71 ..L r 1t- 0 0 P"7Mkled by j Arjpro,6.rl bv.{.. _.. . 1 1 II � Z I li �► � 6 I ' � I i ;;r. I I29 t 1 I ' I 1 I r I.. I I i 1 i I I ¢ I t C j I a I' �I , 1 1 I i `i i U I t t J I i . I 34 I .t_ i i I i 1 fr I it I I' ! r , I 1 it i i i is 3 I , f � I ';1 i I � � � I r{ • .. _ - I 1 i It39 I. I f r I _ R� r I S F-00006-03 r DEPARTMENT of Natural Resources Division of Waters TO: PERMIT FILE 9 10 - (. 2--5 9 STATE OF M ]- OTA Office emorandum DATE: 2--18 F7 FROM: De �-�`' PHONE: 296-7523 METRO REGION DIVISION OF WATERS SUBJECT: PERMIT STATUS Y�1� Permit f 0 �W Z5 � has been satisfactorily completed and the file is closed. Additional comments: lkr SF-00006-02 C7 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO THRU FROM SUBJECT: File 80-6258 Kent Lokkesm , Regional Hydrologist 4Boudreau, Hydrologist 0Met o Region Waters FIELD INSPECT DN STATE OF R iUESOTA Office" Memorandum DATE: April 29, 1982 PHONE: I visited the construction site on April 21, 1982 with Jerry Sunde, Fred Haas (Mary Anderson Homes), and Bruce Anderson (City of Mounds View Parks). Most of the excavation has been completed per the revised plans, so no work was done in the floating bog area, nor was any of the willow area excavated on the southwest corner of the basin. The only work remaining is the neck between the main basin and the northwest corner. All of the property immediately surrounding the basin is dedicated to the city. They will allow that property to re-establish itself in natural vegetation. It has been seeded and mulched at the southwest end of the basin. The remainder of the seeding still must be done. The City of Mounds View will be installing the outlet structure as per Sunde`s palns. My only concern is the water depth where cattail are supposed to re-establish ---- two feet. Jerry and Bruce are confident that a fringe area will re-establish itself. ch E ADMIN 1000A DEPARTMENT STATO MMESOTA Office Memorandum TO DATE: 4 FROM 6v SUBJECT: A•wwv,dm�n�t ru,"� _ wi tot,P4c Wsjmte.. STATE Or C-�jj Im s T- o UZ4, Metro Region Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN .55106 t'H C}tiF iy 0._ 96_ 7U3 Fi UE%O._�.____ April 20, 1982 Mr. Gerald M. Sunde 10524 Zion Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437 RE: DNR PERMIT 80-6258, OAK LAKE PARK PONDING AREA, (62-6011) , MOUNDS VIEI•., RAT-ISEY COUNTY Dear Mr.. Sunde: Based on your letter dated March 31, 1982, and the accompanying support data, permit 80-6258 is hereby amended to read: Permittee shall excavate stormwater pond and construct outlet structure all as indicated in letter and revised plans received April 5, 1982. All other terms and conditions of the permit shall remain in effect. If you should have any questions relating to this matter, please contact. Judy Boudreau of my staff for assistance. Sincerely,. Kent Lokkesmoe, Regional Hydrologist Metro Region Waters �I KL/ h cc: Fred Haas, Mary Anderson Const. Dale Cremers, Kraus Anderson USCOE Ramsey County SWCD Mike Thesing, C.O. Citv of Mournds View Rice Creek WSD Lloyd Knudson, Wildlife St. Paul Waters Wetland file 62-60W I%N EDUAL OPPORTUNITY ENAIPLOYER . 0 4 GERALD M. SUNDE, Consulting Engineer 10524 ZION AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55437 • PHONE (612) 881.3344 Mr. Pete Willenbring Rice Creek Watershed District c/o E. A. Hickok and Associates, Inc. 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Mr. Kent Lokkesmoe Department of Natural Resources Region 6 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 Gentlemen: March 31, 1982 V'A7 Re: DNR Permit 80-695,8, Oak Lake Park Ponding Area Moundsview, Minnesota PF APk5 1982 a REGION V! WATERS Based on discussions with our clients, Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company and Kraus Anderson Development Corporation, we have prepared revised grading and drainage plans and performed new calculations for the above ponding area. Changes are as follows: 1. The new plans will eliminate any excavation work in the pond area to the south of the'existing ditch and along the west property line of the Scottland Green apartment complex. This is done in order to prevent soil movement on the apartment lands and also to preserve vegation in that area. 2. The tributary drainage area considered to flow to the pond at final development is reduced from 266 acres to 203 acres. Areas eliminated from the tributary drainage area include the O'Neill property to the east, the City hall area, and the shopping center north of Highway 10. Residential and commercial lands to the north of County Road I and resi- dential lands west of Silver Lake Road are assumed to drain to the Oak Lake Park ponding area. The tributary drainage area boundary is shown on a drawing included with our calculations. 3. The outlet structure is slightly modified in order to reduce discharge from the ponding area for the 100 year runoff event from 15.0 cfs to 12.5 cfs. This is done by narrowing the weir overflow by about 1.0 foot. Work is presently completed on all areas to be excavated to elevation 889 or deeper as shown on the original submittal drawings. During the .Wj Messrs. Kent Lokkesmoe and Pete Willenbring Page 2 March 31, 1982 course of the excavation work, it became obvious that organic soil areas near to the underwater excavation would tend to move laterally to the lower areas. This resulted in additional quantities of excavation par- ticularly in the north central and south portions of the site. The excavation contractor expressed concern that any excavation near to the Scottland Green apartment complex property line could result in similar soil movement and settlement in improved areas on that site (such as parking lots, lawns, etc.). The contractor recommended that no excava- tion work be done adjacent to the property lines. The area in question is presently heavily vegetated with marsh grass, willows, and other wetland vegetation. The second consideration in leaving this area rather than performing excavation work is that such inplace vegetation would be conserved. If the described area is not excavated, the storage available at the ponding area is changed. We have recalculated the hydrologic and hydraulic requirements for the ponding area based on full development of the tributary drainage area and the 100 year runoff event.. Our cal- culations are enclosed. The results indicate that the ponding area will adequately accomodate the design storm event and that discharge from the area can be slightly reduced. The following table summarizes previous and proposed ponding area design values. Approved Revised ' Plans Plans 1. Tributary Drainage Area 266 A 203 A 2. Normal Pond Level 893.0 893.0 3. 100 Year Pond Level 895.7 895.7 4. Available Storage (100 yr.) 51.6 AF 40.5 AF 5. Pond 100 Year Discharge 15.0 cfs 12.5 cfs Revised grading and outlet detail plans are also enclosed. We request your early consideration of this request to modify the existing permits for work in Oak Lake Park pond. Please contact me if you have any questions or 'require further information. Yours very truly, A._�W4(ft� Gerald M. Sunde GMS:skw cc: Fred Haas, Mary Anderson Const. Dale Cremers, KA REVISED HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS OAK LAKE PARK PONDING AREA MOUNDSVIEW, MINNESOTA Gerald M. Sunde, Consulting Engineer Bloomington, Minnesota March 31, 1982 s A. Tributary Draina ae Area The tributary drainage area to the Oak Lake Park ponding area includes the Kraus Anderson development, a major portion of the Scottland Green Apartments complex, and lands to the west of Silver Lake Road and north of County Road I that are presently tributary to the wetlands. Not included are the ONiell property to the east, the Mounds View City Hall area, and the shopping center at County Road I and Highway 8. The attached figure shows the limits of the drainage area that is considered as tributary to the ponding area. The total area involved is 203 acres. In terms of land use, the breakdown of the tributary drainage area is as follows: Multiple Residential (Apt.) 18.0 A Single Family Residential 19.8 Park (includes pond) 53.7 Multiple Residential + Comm. 45.5 Single Family and Commercial 66.0 Total 203.0 A. At final development, the amount of impervious surface can be calculated as follows: Acres % Impervious Acres Imn. Acres Perv. Multiple Apt. 18.0 60 10.8 7.2 Single Family 19.8 35 • 6.9 12.9 Park 36.7 10 3.7 33.0 Lake 17.0 (100) 17.0 0.0 Mult. Res. and Comm. 45.5 60 27.3 18.2 SFR and Comm. 66.0 50 33.0 33.0 Totals 98.7 104.3 Total Percentage 49% 51% B. Derivation of the Unit Hydroaraph Method used in calculating the unit hydrograph is from the "Denver Method" L = 5400/5280 = 1.03 Lca = 0.57 Ct = 0.45 Cp = 0.40 tp = 0.45(1.03x0.57) = 0.38 hrs. = 23 min. qp = 0.4(640)/0.38 = 674 cfs. Qp = 674(203)/640 = 214 cfs Time to peak = 23 + 15 = 38 min. Vol for 1" runoff = 203/12 = 16.91 AF. Hydrograph width @ 75 percent = 23 min, @ 50 percent = 40 min. L DRAWAGrE - ,. AREA 1'- 600 The attached drawing shows the calculated unit hydrograph for the area tributary to Oak Lake Park pond. C. Storage at Oak Lake Park Pond The following calculations are based on the originally approved final contours for the ponding area with the following changes. a. No excavation work was assumed south of the inplar_e ditch near the Scottland Green Apartments. This includes the "floating bog" area and east of that area to near County Road I. b. -To the west of the Scottland Green Apartments, only the area shown to be excavated to elevation 889 was removed. No grading was assumed between the deep part of the pond and the apartment property line. A revised grading plan for the site is enclosed with this report. Available storage volumes at the site are as follows: Contour Area, acres Al + A L/2 Volume Sum Volume 893 11.0 0.0 25.3 0.5 12.7 894 14.3 12.7 30.8 0.5 15.4 895 16.5 28.1 37.3 0.35 13.0 895.7 20.8 41.1 This calculation does not allow for any settlement in areas that will not be excavated to the east and south of the major pond excavation areas. However, such settlement will occur when the general water levels are lowered. D. Rating of the Outlet Structure Plans for the outlet structure show it as having a 12 inch diameter opening at the pond outlet elevation of 893.0. When water rises to elevation 894.9, flow will begin over a weir having a width of 4'9". This has been narrowed from previous designs to reduce the 100 year pond discharge. At a water level of 895.7, the total flow through the structure will be approximately 13.2 cfs. The following assumptions were made. For orifice flow through the 12" diameter hole, we assumed that tailwater on the orifice would be below elevation 893.5 for the interval from normal pool (893.0) to the weir overflow elevation (894.9). Above that level, tailwater would be higher on the orifice rising to 894.9 when the pond level would be at elevation 895.7. Tailwater on the outlet -structure for maximum water level was assumed to be 894.9. This was calculated using a water level downstream from County Road H-2 or 894.5 and approximately 0.4 feet of head loss from the outlet structure to a point south of the County Road. Flows over the weir were calculated using the normal weir equation. As noted above, the tailwater at the weir should not exceed the weir sill elevation for the 100 year event. Calculations follow: 1. Orifice (893.0 to 894.9) Use the normal inlet control charts from MnDOT. Pond Elevation HW/D Q-cfs 893.5 0.5 0.8 894.0 1.0 2.6 894.5 1.5 3.6 894.9 1.9 4.4 At maximum pond, use the submerged orifice formula. Then prorate discharge between 894.9 and 895.7. Hw = 895.7 TW = 894.9 H = 0.8 ft. 0 = CA(2gh)� = 0.6(0.785)[2(32.2)O.8]k = 3.4 cfs 2. Weir Calculation method from Kings "Handbook of Hydraulics" Q = CLH3/2 Elevation C L H H3/2 O 895.1 2.69 4.8 0.2 0.0894 1.15 895.3 2.72 4.8 0.4 0.2530 3.30 895.5 2.75 4.8 0.6 0.4648 6.60 895.7 2.85 4.8 0.8 0.7155 9.76 3. Combination Orifice and Weir Elevation Q-Orifice Q-Weir Q-Total 893.5 0.8 0.8 894.0 2.6 2.6 894.5 3.6 3.6 894.9 4.4 4.4 895.1 4.2 1.2 5.4 895.3 4.0 3.3 7.3 895.5 3.7 6.6 10.3 895.7 3.4 M 13.2 E. Rating Curves for the outlet structure and pond storage are enclosed. 8%7. DISCHA E STORAGE 895 J sror� any a 894 --LAIKE POND OAK PARK 893 0 I I I DISCHARGE CFS 0 S 2 25 3 3 STORAGE - ACRE FEET I* 0' 0" MAWS Dale Prepared By Approved By i»?e i r i �q �• La w Y9 % cj i "z /--_ a_ :_°• ur 1 0 1 u7 _� I - - J_ i I Sp lye i .. Q• Z ' S_ o.oZ7 . Q 1.6-1 A i S a.t�$ czl ' uz.ai 6!7Z �I Flii V. 3r'el. 0 so a0q A ja Ipia,', 1. r.s 7.a Qua-- -a 731 . VI - O-/7) 1.uY1 — - - - - - - - - - - -- i /. pi /� I ji. 9•6. UI?Y- .1. �.5 M- - - -- - -- - 1i3 _i.�✓.4i�.� I lJ,o,6� I� - - - 9._° - - �vY 1..>4 a.30 I. ? - 1 Q z i ` I i a I 1 �1400 a ia.a 0.5"�� �3,o4y _�- O _� I ;T 14 /, . I / , G]ZIyS� /i.4-- �... 0.;4F1,� •t� a�-zy�g•7at3- � — 1- -- I ' r - - - G i 1L�Y � p1O$�OI r I I 95, 1,7 l I i • i off°' 1 41, 1� 73o- � � a,y 4 ----- ;tl I � qq . /S S QX13 I r 17 IL./lam+ & lofty Z, ZC.G [I_9Zlo S:S'D Zorn QG3S S51 - I �.olSi aO?st I QGZaSf , r 5 C_9s 3 - - -A % GzJ �11DZ ;2.2-S C,-Cr?1-- .5.777 4d- - -- - L..-_ ? - �Js� i � Pre iareA f3 rl�T� Approved By , = - -_hlxv /IFS, ,t- �•�F Al' ?! . _ - �v.: - a - 4 ? ;, AF (! 04 , da ;fir i° mz 52 a - - .i 3� 1 ? r, jq 7 i a S t :' 1 —Z� err — 21 25 T 26 o•'�f�� 391. -) z� i 1 � � - I , 7 - �. �1.._ _ �3 !� ,-So 39•.?� 15- OF .32 3 I 1io /9 v _ - 3 X — — €./J G Z 1 �►..3L Via,i?13 se r Zi—s I a r Ad A L44 50 April 2.2, 1931 Mr. Gerald M. Sunde Consulting gnylneer 10524 Zion Avenue south Minneapolis, minnesotfa 55437 0 w PEPJ,'-TT #80--6258, M & E DETIELOPI-TI L mr. su dee April 21, 1901 80-6258 Jtne 30, 1982 cce mlkwa rhesing, Conservation Officer GERALD M. SUNDE, Consulting Engineer 10524 ZION AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55437 • PHONE (612) 881-3344 Ms. Judy Davidson Department of Natural Resources Region 6 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 Dear Ms. Davidson: Re: April 21, 1981 � �I� � 6.a✓ �., 1L L _ q { {i►d� :',PR 2 21981 REGION VI WATERS DNR Permit No. 80-6258 Scottland Green Pond Moundsview, Minnesota The DNR permit for the above project shows an expiration date of .Tune 30, 1981. This is about the time when we plan to begin work on the ponding area excavation. We would appreciate a permit extension for one year until June 30, 1982. Please contact me if you have any questions or require further information. Yours very truly, Gerald M. Sunde GMS:skw s STATE OF NllNNESOTA >: 'G,C E3`tP;:!3 ';v:rPr7 Oi• f�, VFURAL RESOU Rev. t t:70 •U; ;rlSiQi�t OF kNATERS, SOILS AND M,!NWLS P.A_ No. 80-6258 Centennial Office Guiiriing, 5t. Paid, Pciinn_-sota, 55101 IN THE s.4ATTER OF THE APP;.WATIOlN' Ot- M & E DEVELOP14ENT, .INCORPORATED for a PERLiIT TO CHANGE THE COURSE, CURRENT, OR CROSS SECTIOi,: of Unnamed Wetland (62-60W) Ramsey County. PERMIT Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105, an-1 on the basis of statements and information contained in the permit application, letters, maps, and pions submitted by the applican t, and other supportin• data, all of vihich are made a part hereof by reference, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to ii & E _De veOgment..n_COrporatPd whose address for the purpose of notices and other communications pertaining to this permit is C/o Dale Cremers which address is subject to change by written notice from the permittee. Kraus Anderson of St. Paul To 2510 Minnehaha Avenue South, Minneapolis, 14N 55404 excavate stormwater pond and construct outlet structure as indicated in application received June 9, 1980, in amended plans received October 13, 1980, and in outlet structure plans and supporting material received February 17, 1981. outlet control shall be at 893.0 NGVD, 1929. All work shall be in accordance with the special provisions attached. PROPERTY DESCRIBED as: Oak Lake Park Addition, NE4, Section 7, T30N, R23W for the purpose of stormwater management. Ramsey COUNTY This permit is granted subject to the following GENERAL and SPECIAL PROVISIONS: GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This permit is permissive only and shall not release the permittee from any liability or obligation imposed by Minnesota Statutes, Federal Law or local ordinances relating thereto and shall remain in force subject to all conditions and limitations now or hereafter imposed by law. 2. This permit is not assignable except with the written consent of the Commissi3ner of Natural Resources. 3. The Director of the Division of Waters, Soils and M,iner3ls shall be notified at least five days in advance of the commencement of the work authorized hereunder and shall be notified of its completion within five days thereafter. The notice of permit issued by the Commissioner shall be kept securely posted in a conspicuous place at the site of operations. 4. No change shall be made, without written permission previously obtained from the Commissioner of Natural Resources, in the hydraulic dimensions, capacity or location of any items of work authorized hereunder. 5. The permittee shall grant access to the site at all reasonable times during and after construction to authorized representatives of the Commissioner of Natural Resources for inspection of the vtiork authorized hereunder. 6. This Permit may be terminated by the Commissioner of Natural Resources, without notice, at any time he deems it necessary for the conservation of the water resources of the state, or in the interest of public health and welfare, or for violation of any of the provisions of this permit, unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions. SPECIAL PROVISIONS I. Construction work authorized under this permi t shalt be completed on or before , June 30., 1991 Upon written request to the' Commissioner by the Permittee, stating the reason therefore, an extention of time may be obtained. II. The excavation of soil authorized herein shall not be construed to include the removal of organic matter_ DOE'S NOT APPLY unless the area from which such organic matter is removed is impervious or is sealed by the application of bentonite after excavation. 111. In all cases where the doing by the permittee of anything authorizedbythispermitshaltinvolvethetaking,using,ordamagingofanyproperty rights or interests of any other person or persons, or of any pub!icly owned lands or improvements thereon or interests therein, the permittee, before proceeding therewith, shall obtain the written consent of a!l persons, agencies, or authorities concerned, and shall acquire all property, rights and interests necessary therefor. IV. This permit is permissiveonly.Noliability shall beimposeduponorincurredbytheStateofMinnesotaoranyofitsofficers,agentsoremployees, officially or personally, on occau:,t Cf the granting hereof or on account of any damage to any person or property resulting from any act or omission of the permittee or any of its agents, employees, or contractors relating to any matter hereunder. This permit shall not be construed as estopping or limiting any legal clairns or right of action of any person other than the state against the permittee, its agsnts, employees, or contractors, for any damage or injury resulting from any such act or omission, or as estopping or limiting any legal claim or right of action of the state against the permittee, its agants, employees, or contractors for violation of or failure to comply with the provisions of the permit or appficahle provisions of la.: V ?•la material a:.cavawri by authority of this permit our rni ur;al to7,z! .any other s:,urce, except as specified herein, shall he placed on any po.rtiop of Ehfr tied of swirl oiaters :which ti25 i.atUv:. ��}!-,•_4�.5=] n_- nazgTU high-water 1pVP1 I j`-_ ' 1,1� 1^rr [futy nl ih<_• ;•t'rn)it[ter ru d2tem);ile Correctly 311 pertinent elevations at ;r' site of th= .cram: for the purpoirt of c,;rr,;,Ijmg -,-kf: tt....•n,x: ',r•ti: of [his purr„ir. '1[ [.r.ti =_. �ns.0 t of th^ surface of �.a[,_I , r^r, r ;;.:l:,nrf I: ol:: titer, awilorize['. 3>y this I)ermit shall I)PCOML' public slater:. and left open and SPECIAL PROVISIONS a V11. Receipt is herehv acknowledge of 46ES NOT APPLY as payment for cubic yards of sang, grave! Or rock and cut,ir, ytitk Of muck anJ paiE, .,::stimaTed amount of material to be removed nureur.,:_ computed at the rate of ten cents per cubic yard for sand and gravel and two cents per cubic yard for muck and silt. Permittee agrees by acceptance of this permit as shown by commencement of work authorized hereunder to nay, by certified check, bank or postal money order, made payable to the State Treasurer and delivered to the Director, Division of Waters. Soils and Minerals, Department of Natural Resources, Centennial Office Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, for any material removed from the bed of puhlic raters in excess of that so estimated, at the above rate within thrity days after completion of the +work authorized hereunder. VIII. Final alignment of outlet structure Moundsviewrs letter dated February by the Regional Hydrologist. shall be as requested in the City of 20, 1981, subject to final approval IX. During and immediately after.construction erosion is a hazard if proper cover is not maintained. The surface soil shall be stripped and returned after construction to allow for easier revegetation. Where-sandy'soil material is exposed on pond side slopes, a topdressing of loamy soil material shall be worked into the top 4--6 inches of soil. Revegetation can be accomplished with sod or by seeding. Where seed'is used, clean hay or straw mulch should be applied at the rate of 2500 to 3500 lbs/acre. Mulch should be anchored with netting material or by driving over it with a straight set blunt disk. X. This permit does not authorize the creation of a swimming beach at the northwest corner of this wetland. 'Such a project must be evaluated under separate permit. SEE ATTACHED SPECIAL PROVISIONS m&L" a,., 3 -19-8! CC: USCOE Ramsey County SWCD mike Thesing, C.O. City of Moundsview - Rice Creek GJSD Lloyd Knudson, Wildlife St. Paul Waters Wetland file Gerald Sunde, Consulting Engineer DATED AT ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF Omes F. Cooper, Administrator Water Development Section PERMIT NO. WRK IN THE' BEDS OF PU3iT" ::ATE ;S � DATE: so-6zsa SPECIAL PROVISIONS (Only the numbered Special Provisions apply to this permit) XI.- The permittee shall comply with all rules, regulations, requirements, or standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and other applicable federal, state, or local agencies. xxx. The use of explosives in any of the -raters of the state is prohibited unless the local State Conservation Officer is notified thereof at least 48 hours in advance of the time the work'is to be done.- (M.S., Sec. 101.42, Subd. 11). Before construction and after completion of the project authorized, permittee shall supply the Regional Hydrologist with photographs of the project area. Spoil material shall not be placed on the beds of public waters, and, wherever possible, such material should not be placed anywhere within areas subject to flooding. In the event spoil must be placed within flood plain areas because areas free from flooding are not readily available, the spoil should be placed parallel to the direction of flood flow and/or spread over a large area so as to minimize any possible obstruction to the passage of flood waters. Future maintenance of this project shall not exceed the dimensions herein authorized. Prior to commencing any maintenance, permittee shall advise the Regional Hydrologist. Maintenance excavation shall not be commenced until permittee's receipt of the Regional Hydrologist's approval. x1il. This permit does not obviate any requirement for federal assent from the U.S. Corps of Engineers, 1210 U.S. Post Office and Custom House, St. Paul, IJV. 55101 Permittee shall seed a strip of land abutting both sides of the ditch to permanent grasses and legumes, these strips to meet one of the following standards: a. Each strip shall be at least 40 feet wide for the full length of the excavated ditch and shall not be mowed prior to July 15 in any year: or b. Each strip shall be at least 25 feet wide for the full length of the excavated ditch, provided mowing of these narrower strips shall not be done. Any organic materials or mud wave that may be raised or pushed up above the existing lakebed as a result of grade fill placement shall be removed to the satisfaction of the Department of Natural Resources. xIv. Permittee shall notify the Regional Hydrologist at 296-7523, and Conservation Officer Mike ThesincT__, at 483-1479 , 48 hours prior to intent to commence authorized work. xv. Permittee shall notify the Regional Hydrologist irmaediately upon completion of author- ized work so that a final inspection can be conducted. (SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDiTIC)NAL PROVISIONS, IF ANY) When work is performed by contract, the permittee shall, prior to commencement of work, notify the Regional Hydrologist, in vrriting, the name of the contractor, the address, phone number and project foreman for project. Permittee shall prepare or require the contractor to prepare a comprehensive erosion and sediment control plan addressing construction and final grade stabili- zation to prevent erosion and sedimentation into public Craters. Such plan shall include, but not be limited to, bale diking, temporary ponding, temporary and/or permanent sodding, seeding, mulching and netting_ Such plan shall be completed prior to commencement of authorized work and submitted to the Regional Hydrologist for inclusion in permit file. xvI. Permittee shall ensure that the contractor has received and thoroughly understands all conditions of this permit. xvrr. Permittee and contractor are hereby advised that any violation of the conditions of this permit constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $500 and/or 90 days in jail. Xyiii. All exposed soil resulting from the authorized activity shall, within 48 hours of completion of such work, be seeded with a mixture of perennial and annual grasses and then mulched with straw or similar mulch. The use of sod as erosion protection will preclude the need for seeding and mulching, provided the sod is installed with- in the alotted time period and is staked on slopes steeper than 4 feet horizontal distance every 1 foot of vertical rise. N442622-01 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT of NATURAL RESOURCES -- (Rev 74) r �0 O� �7 8 1e ."", Cj 19 4 APPLICATION FO PERMIT TO WORK IN PUBLIC WATERS , GoV M S E Develo ment Inc kA1ATER p 5 , the owner of land in Go n s) , print or type app scants name quarter section(s) NEk , section(s) 7 township no'.(s) 30 range(s) 23 , Moundsview, Minnesota Oak Lake Park Addition , Tre no., box no. or address) (lot, bZock & sx tviaion county(ies) Ramsey , which is riparian to Unnamed Marsh and Ditch name of take or stream applies pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter IGS and other applicable statutes for a permit to work in the public water(s) named above, in accordance with all data, maps, plans, and other information submitted herewith and made a part hereof. PROPOSAL IT IS PROPOSED TO: (check) M7 excavate, Q fill, Q construct, Q remove, = install, abandon, or = other(specify) THE FOLLOWING: Q dam, Q shore -protection, Q shoreline, Q harbor, Q channel, = bridge, (check) Q culvert, Q wharf, = obstruction, or $$] other(specify) Stormwater Pond TI IcTTv1rATTnkr Explain why this project is needed: Development of stormwater pond is required by the City of Moundsview as a part of their overall stormwater plan. Pond will reduce downstream discharge rates during major runoff events. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1, Anticipated changes in water and related land resources: Pond size will increase as shown on attached plans. An outlet structure will limit rates of discharge from the site and drainage area. 2. Unavoidable but anticipated detrimental effects: There will be modification of present wetlands vegetation. ..Also, there will be an increase in pond size and some decrease in upland habitat area. 3. Alternatives to the action proposed: No action. Will result in continuation of severe flooding iu downstream areas or will greatly restrict development in the tributary drainage area due to the need to limit peak discharges. PROJECT SITE DATA 1. Describe the type and amount of aquatic vegetation present: See the attached report by Dr. James A+ Jones. 2. Describe the nature of the material beneath the water: Peat and organic soils. Sands in upland areas. 3. Describe the nature of the upland area: Relatively level to rolling grassland with groves of mature trees (oaks). Apartment development to the south. 4. Describe type and amount of nearby shoreland development: Apartment development along south marsh boundary. S. ENCLOSE SKETCH DESCRIBING WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS. (see instructions) ATTACH EXTRA SHEETS IF NECESSARY (continued on reverse side) See enclosed letter by G. M. Sunde, P.E. CONSTRUCTION DATA (also attach sketch or drawing) Channelling Existing Proposed Total length (feet) - - - - - - - Length in lake/stream (feet)- - - Bottom width (feet) - - - - - - - Side slopes (ratio) - - - - - - - Average depth (feet)- - - - - - - Alterations along shore Distance along shore (feet)- - - - - Distance waterward (feet)- - - - - - - Thickness of fill material (feat)- - - NA-02622-01 (W-S4) (Rev 74) Proposed Gradient W - - - - - - - - - - - Depth of excavation (feet) - - - - - -4�8 f t, 1. Describe type of excavation equipment to be used, if known: Scrapers and dragline. 2. Describe location (include nup) and characteristics of spoil disposal site proposed: Spoils are to be disposed of in adjacent park lands and residential areas shown on the attached overall concept plan. 3. Would maintenance excavation be necessary? (check) JV YES i= NO Explain: Routine cleanout will be necessary near storm sewer outlets at the pond. 4. Volume of material to be removed initially (cubic yards): Muck or silt 1 4 Q.00 r v Sand or gravel 50,000_a Rock or stone ATTACHMENTS 0 $15.00 filing fee, ® photographs, )W other (speoify)plgnns. hydrologic acid - eny3.ronm ntal Applicant declares that information submitted herewith and statements made herein are a true and correct reports. representation of the facts, and that the filing of this application and information with the Commissioner of Natural Resources is prima facie evidence of the correctness thereof. COMPLETE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO: (1) City of Moundsview z�ol° ig way,8 p Moundsvi street & poet office (2) Rice Creek W. D. Name of watershed tract (3) 5horeland Management Administrator of County State of Minnesota } ss. County of ) on this day of Dated.this 5 y e 19 80 Signer] Da a Cremers Aiithorixed.Agent iappticant) Kraus -Anderson of St. Paul eases 2510 Minnehaha Ave. So. Address Minneapolig City Minneapolis, State Minnesota lip code 55404 AFFIDAVIT Phone 721-4877 19 &W before me personnally appeared Dale L. Cremers --I who being first duly sworn and to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing application, acknowledgedDthat `-�W executed the same as own free act and deed and that the statements, maps, plans, documents, and other supporting data are true and correct according to best knowledge and be 'e ptANE M. GEARS / �G -!. NpTAW PUSUC . MINNESOTA 14EN11EMN C0 Notary Public _*&unty * 1984 commiubw FBAs my My commission expires � 19 0 PERMIT APPLICATION CHECK LI* Reviewer's date received: � � ! - gl0 Fees: requested received filing ✓ field r 9-1-7 - 8 d Pequested more information from applicant: -7- A.q - �-D Other agency's comments: requested U.S. C.O.E. WSD Rica CK SWCD d CITY V, TO[NL SHIP COUNTY Permit Number �D - 69sg Received information: -q- 4 " s o to received �O-a7 Lon&honal approv FISHERIES REVIDJ: (date in) (date out) (cost) $ WILDLIFE REVIEW : (date in) (date out) -� ' 9 8 (cost) $ Miscellaneous reminders: erosion control spoil disposal land use (floodplain, scenic rivers) review 'similar -projects Waters field inspection: date: -7J),q - $ dJi So q- who's present: mileage: time spent @ site: comments: Compliance with DNR rules --- Date submitted for signature: - -- - - -- -- -- -_ To whom: Rule No. 0 MINNESOTA SOIL AND WATER i RAMSEY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS EVALUATION OF PERMIT APPLICATION INVOLVING WORK IN PUBLIC WATERS CONSERVATION DISTRICT Mid -America Bank Building 1827 North Saint Paul Road Maplewood, Minnesota 55t09 Telephone (612) 777.0127 1IjN 271980 REGION -41 WATERSO APPLICANT: M. & E. DEVF.LOPA?IIdI', INC. ... ._. _ DNR APPL, NO.: $ Ci r 2S $ fJ 17 DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC WATER: Unnamed wetland in Mounds View 11 EVALUATION CONMTTEE M1EFA ER: Bill Downing DATE: Applicant proposes to make the following change or changes in he present conditions: excavate stormwater pond. llpproVal recommended royal conditional Approval not recormlended ommants 1. Soil types and topographic features. X Satisfactory 2. Erosion and siltation hazard as a result of X Sedimentation into the basin will occur if change. continuous cover is not maintained during excavation and development.. 3. Nutrient and pollutant hazard as a result of Removal of emergent vegetation will reduce change. pollution absorption - normal water level sl be shallow, not deep. 4. will change improve This is a matter of taste, but a wetland appearance of the X properly maintained has great visual intere; affected area? 5. Other characteristics No perm -went stable outlet at elevation 842 taken into consideration X shown, and ditch planned will require contt cleariizg of sediment . OVERALL RECOhl�NDATION: X lould �t. is luous Modification of proposal is suggested, to incorporate shallower water conducive to emergent vegetation, and an outlet structure to cut down on consult main- tenance. Please see accompanying meTm from Rod Hunter. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MINNESOTA SOIL AND WATER June 20, 1980 RAMSEY SOIL * WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT CONSERVATION DISTRICTS MEd -America Bank Building 1827 North Saint Paul Road Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Telephone (612) 777-0127 TO: Supervisors, Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District FROM: Rod Hunter, Conservation Technician 9P.#-. SUBJECT: Review of DNR Application for Permit to Work in Public Waters, Oak Lake Park Addition, Mo mds View. #80-6258. The applicant, M. and E. Development, Inc, proposes to excavate a stormwater pond in a wetland area to reduce downstream discharge rates during major run- off events. The proposed excavation will increase pond size and decrease emergent wetlands vegetation. Map 1 shows the location of the proposed project. The following remarks correspond to the items on the attached evaluation sheet. 1. Soil types and topographic features : The soils information contained herein is from the soil survey of Ramsey County. It is general in nature and should be used for planning purposes. Where specific uses are proposed for specific sites, a professional soil scientist should be consulted. Man 2 is a soils map of the project area. The area of proposed pond excavation consists of the following soils (see attached soils map): Seelyeville Truck is a level, very poorly drained organic soil. It occurs in bogs on plane or slightly concave side slopes on outwash plains and moraines. This soil is subject to flooding by runoff from adjacent steeper mineral soils. - Good potential for wetland wildlife habitat. - Poorly suited to building site development. - Subject to settling,is highly compressi.ble,and has law bulk density. - Depth of organic material is greater than 51 inches. Markey muck is a level, very poorly drained organic soil. It is in small depressions or on fringes of large bogs on outwash plains. The soil is subject to flooding by runoff from adjacent rmre sloping soils. - Good potential for wetland wildlife habitat. - Poorly suited to building site development. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page 2 - 6/200 - Oak Lake Park Addition - Has low bulk density, is very compressible, and is susceptible to frost action. - Depth of organic material is generally 3 feet or less. Udorthents, wet substratum is made up of heterogeneous, earthy fill material that has been placed on poorly drained and very poorly drained mineral and organic soils. The thickness of the fill is variable as is the source of the material. The areas indicated for development within the project consist mostly of Zimmerman loamy fine sand, 0 to 6% slopes and Urban land - Zimnerman complex, 1 to 87. slopes. These soils are well suited to building site development. Because these soils erode easily, erosion control, espe- cially during and immediately following construction, is desirable. 2. Erosion and siltation hazard as a result of change. During and immediately after construction erosion is a hazard if proper cover is not maintained. The surface soil should be stripped and re- turned after construction to allow for easier revegetation. Where sandy soil material is exposed on pond side slopes, a topdressing of loamy soil material should be worked into the top 4-6 inches of soil. Revegetation can be accomplished with sod or by seeding. Where seed is used, clean hay or straw mulch should be applied at the rate of 2500 to 3500 lbs/acre. Mulch should be anchored with netting material or by driving over it with a straight set blunt disk. Sediment from street sanding operations will most likely enter the wetland, but a storm drainage plan was not available to determine this. Regular scheduled maintenance excavation @ storm sewer outlets should be considered. 3. Nutrient and pollutant hazard as a result of change. At present, the wetland has considerable nutrient assimilative capacity. If the wetland is converted into open water much of this assimilative capacity will be lost. Nutrient input to the pond will increase due to the proposed development. Efforts should be made to retain as much emergent wetland vegetation as possible. This can be accomplished through more gradual side slopes or by "stepping" side slopes to provide more shallow water areas during periods of normal water elevation. 4. Will change improve appearance of the affected area? A mutter of personal preference concerning emergent wetland vegetation vs. open water. 5. Other characteristics An ice -clogged outlet in late winter or early spring combined with increased runoff from impervious areas could accentuate flooding in the pond area. POAD It h M C'A F I ........ .......... ........... ........ ................ ............. 1: N D WTZ ............. A '1% t 2.0 I 0 0 SLOTTL.AMb L.REEN P6ND VAi7ttprS H ►+is, MINNE;saTf* 4�s 15 S 6 7-1Mf4C-V-Mf4N L060AJ FjNC SAK)Da C) Tt)(a °Io SLO?E• i S $ G iz- + M to [ e N ui L.o P�-i t`f T= , N e 5 NSA , to T3 !:L `/m 5 L-[7PC . I [uf l s�r�r+ �.oa+µ� �i3.lE S►+��D. yD Se&LVGViL-LE MUC< SH 3 l'YI A IZK e y ty1 UCK d6gB LARB4N LAN 0--?-' iMMEV:V16,N CaroPLE)(, 1 TO `b'SWPE 10 al u D R p f n'! GG 4TS y W C-T bLA STfz 4TIA M . Mqr 2 OK / '0� g o 4 Z-s 5 Hr a � c w► aim or,/-- /fibrssi�r*�c --------___ ___ r February 20, 1981 Gerald M. Sunde Consulting Engineer 10524 Zion Avenue So. Minneapolis, MN 55437 Re: Oak Lake Park Addition Mounds View, Minnesota Dear Jerry: 0 III C of RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2401 HIGHWAY 10 MOUNDS VIEW, MINN. 55112 _ 2 41981 REGION V1 WATERS I have received a copy of your letter to Ms. Davidson of -the D.N.R. regarding the permit for Oak Lake excavation. After review of your plan for the outlet structure, I would recommend a minor re- location. As you are aware, the City plans to have a natural walkway around the lake perimeter. Further, that access to the walkway will be given along the west side of Long Lake Road. Due to the need for more walkway space, I would request that you re- locate the outlet in a more northwest direction as shown on the enclosed modified plan. I also would request that you please copy the City's Consulting Engineer, Dan Boxrud, with such information. Should you have any questions, please contact me at my office. Thank you. Sincerely, TY OF MOUNDS VIEW Stev�enA�Ro sle Building & Zoning Official AR/bc:Encs. cc: Dan Boxrud, Short -Elliott -Hendrickson XMs. Davison, Department of Natural Resources Dale Cremers, Kraus -Anderson Bruce Anderson, Parks, Recreation & Forestry Director rI ADMIN • DEPARTMENT Q Natural ResQur ._ TO Lloyd Knudson, Wildlife Manager Carlos Avery Game Farm FROM Judy Davidson Metro Region W rs STATIO MINNESOTA Off ice Memorandum SUBJECT: PERMIT APPLICATION 80-6258, M & E DEVELOPMENT meeting DATE: Oct. 28, 1980 Present were: Jerry Sunde, Consulting Engineers; Peter Willenbring, Rice Creek Watershed District; Steve Rose, City of Moundsview; and Dan Boxrud, Short, Elliott, Hendrickson. Jerry worked up new plans --contour map --which reveals a floating bog straddling the ditch which goes through wetland. Jerry can manage to save much of the vegetation if he can excavate the west and north edges for open water. The far northwest corner (above the OHW) will be excavated for more storage and a possible swimming beach. The watershed district likes an alternate wet -dry condition for nutrient assimilation. Jerry can accomodate and so WSD is happy with revised project with certain provisions (erosion control, etc.). The city wants as much storage as possible --Steve Rose wants letter. The pond drains the steep gradient of groundwater --discharge is at 894. Jerry wants water level control at 893.2 (lowered,a8 feet). ch • • Pa - -- � -- � - f�!2....� Cav�,rrL _ f v� �� r s � ,X4 �•_�� . . - .. L✓rr� . -!�? ►jcft-s � _ ��N�'/aL - - - - . . �._ __._� __— ._Tftil� _ �ylJr%'`�..� _B_!�/ _ � w .��G.�i1 ., _ ,c�,vm�_ _ /��►c-c% ��•*4+,c d - - - -- � f v�,.�- cv �r�,,,t � � �4rz�.,I7 !-�C�-�,/a�•y�_T_�_--�— � � ..lr/[rr.�� .. Pietro Region Waters, 2200 Marner Road, St, Paul, Nil 55I06 296-7523 December 16, 1960 PIr, Steve Rose City of Moundsview 2401 Highway 10 St, Paul., XIV 55212 REi PERMIT APPLICATION 80-6158, f! & E DEVEWPMENT, FXCAVATXON OF UNNAMED WETLAND (62-60tf ), NOWIDSVITsT'i, RaMSEY COUN2 Y, RS s, SECTION 7 f TOWNSHIP 30 NORTH, RAliCE 23 hTST Dear 1lr. Rose: The fiscal puns for the above-descrlbed project have been preliminarily approved subject to concrete puns for the water level control structure. The basis for our allowAng such extended excavation Is that the water level srIll be lowered a feat (to 893.0 AFGVD, 19.29).. Therefore, the con - trot must be estab2ished concurrent with, or pxevlous to the excavation. (It Is our understanding that dcanstream conditions In the ditch control the current 2eve1.. not the existing culvert at the southeast .end of the wetland,) The control structure and downsetream alterations must be covered by a DUR pernit—elther that of the developer or a separate application by the City of Noundsview. Please advise us of who will be designing and Installing the culvert so that the appropriate follow-up can be implemented as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact me at your canvenleanre If you should have arty further questions pertalnAng to this mutter. Sincerely, Judy Davidson Hydrologist J cct Gerald Sunde Pete Willenbring m - ADM iN 1000 4Rev. 1178) S F-00006-01 DEPARTMENT Natural Resources - wildlife STATE OF&NESOTA Office M emorandum TO Judy Davidson, waters j1 ` DATE: 11/12/80 �) 1Z.) L Y�7 0 V 171980 FROM : Lloyd W. Knudson RMON A PHONE:464-5200 Area wildlife Manager PN P nTER �i I R SUBJECT: P.A. 80-6258 I have reviewed the revised plans for the above permit application, for Oak Lake Park Pond in Moundsview. I have attaced a copy of my memo of 7/3/80 relative to this permit application. The revised plan would still call for excavation of a large portion of this basin. In my oinion there would be an adverse wildlife impact if this revised plan were to be implemented. LWK:to cc: Roger N. Johnson PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER DEPARTMENT _Natural i0ources - Wildlife A r. t+; a�:,.' K e m t L o k k e s ids e, Regional Waters Supervisor STA'I E OF MINN E&Y A /1or, Q_e emu!urr _:,�,��,,, DATE: 7/3/80 ? ' FROM Lloyd W. Knudson, PHONE:. 464-5200" .' Area Wildlife Manager SUBJECT: P.A. 80-6258 -r•' ;'': I made a field inspection of the above permit application on 7/1/80. The area in question is a type III and type VI wet- land located in the Village of Moundsview. The above permit application proposes to excavate this wetland area to develop' a storm water pond. The wetland in its present condition provides some very' .;,,•:,, r valuable wildlife habitat for a variety of wildlife specie&,. It is also somewhat unique in that it is the last- size.;-. *'' :,.�' •'� S� able wetland ' of this t y <.G.3 type left in the City of Mbu.ndsview. �? The above proposal would destroy much of the vegetation, ' wh,i`c,h,':Ak is present in this basin and would create an op r. ponq open c•�' r, This..wou.ld reduce both the abundance and 'diversit', of the - plant and animal species which inhabit this wetl'ad ,,... asp It would be m recommendation e,<� �h•k ``` that this bas:,n ,not'`,be,''' altered y''� �. '��+". and the above permit application be denied .'ti',' R`'4�i'?''" You should also be aware that some small amdbin'ts of efti, have been placed in this wetland area within the'�Aaat "you1e,rr;Y+'F of months. This fill i`" s just off the Scotland dr5een Ap&�r`iiint'." Complex parking lot. c'c.. Roger Johnson " .* • .+. • µy5. � .,,^: •.Yf ...ilk,` AMAIN 1000 Aw�g DEPARTMENT Natural Resources - Wildlife TO Kent Lokkesmoe, Regional Waters Supervisor FROM Lloyd W. Knudson, Area Wildlife Manager SUBJECT: P.A. 8 0- 6 2 5 8 —L j STATE 5SINNESOTA Office M emorandum DATE: 7/3/80 1,-464-5200 � )U J U L 9 1980 EGION Vl WATERS I made a field inspection of the above permit application on 7/1/80. The area in question is a type III and type VI wet- land located in the Village of Moundsview. The above permit application proposes to excavate this wetland area to develop a storm water pond. The wetland in its present condition provides some very valuable wildlife habitat for a variety of wildlife species. It is also somewhat unique in that it is the last size- able wetland of this type left in the City of Moundsview. The above proposal would destroy much of the vegetation, which is present in this basin and would create an open water pond. This would reduce both the abundance and diversity of the plant and animal species which inhabit this wetland. It would be my recommendation that this basin not be altered and the above permit application be denied. You should also be aware that some small amounts of fill have been placed in this wetland area within the last couple of months. This fill is just off the Scotland Green Apartment Complex parking lot. LWK:to cc: Roger Johnson GERALD M. SUNDE, consulting Engineer 10524 ZION AVENUE SOUTH • MIN!46POLUS, MN 55437 • PHONE (512) 8B1-3344 Mr. Kent Lokkesmoe, Regional Hydrologist Department of Natural Resources Region 6 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 Dear Mr. Lokkesmoe: June 6, 1980 Ts iP Q 1 J�3 REGION V1 WATERS Re: Oak Lake Park Addition . Moundsview, Minnesota This letter provides supporting information for the attached permit application. Work involved in the construction of Scottland Green Pond includes grading work in a wetlands area and construction of an outlet structure for the proposed pond. The following data is enclosed: 1. Completed permit application form W-54. 2. U.S.G.S. quadrangle map showing site location. 3. A preliminary grading plan for the Scottland Green Pond site. 4. A generalized development plan for the Kraus -Anderson development that will include the subject pond. 5. Design calculations for sizing of the Scottland Green Pond storage area and the outlet structure. 6. A report "An Ecological Study for Environmental Assessment" by Dr. James A. .zones. 7. Various photographs of the exisitng wetlands area. The area proposed for development is one of the few remaining undevel- oped areas within the City of Moundsview. It has long been eohsidered for a major stormwater storage site. In a report by Short, Elliott, Hendrickson and Associates, Inc., entitled "Report on StorM Water Drainage Facilities for City of Moundsview, Minnesota" dated August 1976, a pond having similar sized surface area was proposed. The storage requirements were somewhat larger due to the plan at that time for diversion of added drainage area to the pond. That plan was not adopted. h^ • Mr. Kent Lokkesmoe Page 2 June 6, 1980 The basis for design of the,ponding area was to limit peak flows downstream. Our calculations indicate that present 100 year runoff event peak flows from the pond area should be approximately 64 cubic feet per second. Following pond construction, the 100 year pond discharge will be appreximately 5.2 cubic feet per second. This should have a beneficial effect in downstream areas where flooding presently occurs. Please contact me if you have any questions or require further information. Yours very truly, Gerald M. Sunde GMS:skw NA-02622-01 -54) (Rev 74) w STATE OF- MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT of NATURAL RESOURCES APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO WORK IN PUBLIC WATERS M & E Development, Inc. , the owner of land in Government lot(s) , print or type applicant's none quarter section(s) NE14 , section(s) 7 , township no.(s) 30 range(s) 23 , Moundsview, Minnesota Oak Lake Paris Addition Ire no., box no. or reel(lot, block & su ivision Ramsey Unnamed Marsh and Ditch county(ies) which is riparian to (name of Lake or strem) applies pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 105 and other applicable statutes for a permit to work in the public water(s) named above, in accordance with all data, maps, plans, and other information submitted herewith and made a part hereof. PROPOSAL IT IS PROPOSED TO: (check) C.L)_I excavate, Q fill, Q construct, = remove, Q install, Q abandon, or = other specify) THE FOLLOWING: Q dam, Q shore -protection, Q shoreline, Q harbor, Q channel, Q bridge, (check) Q culvert, Q wharf, = obstruction, or M other(specify) Stormwater Pond JUSTIFICATION Explain why this project is needed: Development of stormwater pond is required by the City of Moundsview as a part of their overall stormwater plan. Pond will reduce downstream discharge rates during major runoff events. ENVIRONMENTAL 114PACf 1. Anticipated changes in water and related land resources: Pond size will increase as snown on attached plans.. An outlet structure will limit rates of discharge from the site and drainage area. 2. Unavoidable but anticipated detrimental effects: There will be modification of present wetlands vegetation. Also, there will be an increase in pond size and some decrease in upland habitat area. 3, Alternatives to the action Oroposed: No action. Will result in continuation of severe flooding iit downstream areas or will greatly restrict development in the tributary drainage area due to the need to limit peak discharges. PROJECT SITE DATA 1. Describe the type and amount of aquatic vegetation present: See the attached report by Dr. .lames A. Jones. 2. describe the nature of the material beneath the water: Peat and organic soils. Sands in upland areas. 3. Describe the nature of the upland area: Relatively level to rolling grassland with groves of mature trees (oaks). Apartment development to the south. 4. Describe type and amount of nearby shorelind development: Apartment development along south marsh boundary. S. ENCLOSE SKETCH DESCRIBING WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS. (see instructions) ATTACH EXTRA SHEETS IF NECESSARY (continued on reverse side) See enclosed letter by G. M. Sunde, P.E. CONSTRUCTION DATA (also attach sketch or draring) Channelling Existing Proposed Total length (feet) - - - - - - - Length in lake/stream (feet)- - - Bottom width (feet) - - - - - - - Side slopes (ratio) - - - - - - - Average depth (feet)- - - - - - - Alterations along shore Distance along shore (feet)- - - - - - Distance waterward (feet)- - - - - - - HA-02622-01 (W-54) (Rev 74) Proposed Thickness of fill material (feat)- - - Gradient (%)- - - - - - - - - - - Depth of excavation (feet) - - - - - -4 — 8 _� t. 1. Describe type of excavation equipment to be used, if known: Scrapers and dragline. 2. Describe location (include nap) and characteristics of spoil disposal site proposed: Spoils are to be disposed of in adjacent park lands and residential areas shown on the attached overall concept plan. 3. would maintenance excavation be necessary? (check) lW YES Q NO Explain: Routine cleanout will be necessary near storm sewer outlets at the pond. 4. Volume of material to be removed initially (cubic yardq): Muck or silt 1 4 0.000 cy __ Sand or gravel 50,000 Sy Rock or stone ATTACHMENTS KV $15.D0 filing fee, ® photographs, $% other (specify) 1 n 3 hydrologig and enyJrgnMpntal Applicant declares that information submitted herewith and statements made herein are a true and correct reports. representation of the facts, and that the filing of this application and information with the Commissioner of Natural Resources is prima facie evidence of the correctness thereof. COMPLETE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO: (1) City ffof Moundsview NN Z�lcklig�iway0 s p Moundsvi street S post office (z) Rice Creek W. D. Name of watersh distmct (3) Shoreland Management Administrator of County State of Minnesota ) ss County of ) r on this S day of Dated this 5 y e 19 du signed Da a L. Cremers Aiithorized.Agent (applicant) Kraus -Anderson of St. Paul eases 2510 Minnehaha Ave. So. Address MinneaRglis City Minneapolis, State Minnesota lip code 55404 AFFIDAVIT Phone 721--48 7 Z _ Dade L. Cremers 19 (J L/ before me personnally appeared "" who being first duly sworn and to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing application, acknowledge D that `�W executed the same as own free act and deed and that the statements, maps, plans, documents, and other supporting data are true and correct according to best knowledge and be 'ee DIANE M. GEARS NOTARY PUBLIC • MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY 1484 Notary Public / unty MY Cummilsim E�Ira 1 / L / 19 y� My commission expir / O 41 i GENERALIZED. -CONCEPT PLAN KRAUS-ANDERSON MiOUNDSVIEW PROJECT fames p GS olUm r b r7 DOC.74T arc itac 23420 O�r�P� park street excelsior, nnesot 5 1 8 a 33 '5.2 W_. i Pop 4.0 4. PAC 4.G Air.- - Go U MT`r H 2 "rUl�j- KA.. 100 -AC-. 79rAj. 6f JY !s y . =Z� 3-& A& SCOTTLAND GREEN POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS A. FINAL LAND USE IN DRAINAGE AREA From drainage area boundaries shown in the report entitled "Report on Storm Water Drainage Facilities for City of Moundsview" by Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Associates, Inc., the tributary drainage area to the proposed Scottland Green Pond was determined to be 266 acres. The final land use breakdown is based on present land use for all areas except the -proposed Kraus Anderson development. In that area, the land use is as shown on the attached generalized development plan. Any idle land not in the development area was assumed to be developed to 50 percent impervious. The following table shows a breakdown of land uses. Percent Total Land Use Impervious Area Impervious Pervious__ Open Space 10 34.0 3.4 30.6 Residential 35 94.0 32.9 61.1 Mult. Res. 55 25.5 14.0 11.5 Commercial 75 25.6 19.2 6.4 TH--10 ROW 40 26.0 10.4 15.6 City Hall 40 18.2 7.3 10.9 Subtotal 87.2 136.1' Undeveloped Land not on KA proj. 50 25.7 12.8 12.9 Pond Area 17.0 Totals 266.0 100.0 149.0 SUMMARY FOR VOLUME COMPS: LAKE 17.0 Acres IMPERVIOUS 100.0 " PERVIOUS 149.0 " B. INFILTRATION IN TURFED AREAS (PERVIOUS AREAS) Soil types in the area are sands having high infiltration rates. These are common all over the City of Moundsview. In the Kraus Anderson project, water table is normally more than six feet in depth. Use the SCS classification of soils as Zimmerman Soils From the SCS curves for CN a 50, the runoff for a 24 hour rainfall event of 5.9 inches will be 1.1 inches. For this calculation, we used 1.3 inches per hour for the turfed areas. C. STAGE VOLUME CALCULATIONS Following are area and volume computations for the proposed pond based on the contours shown on the attached plan sheet Contour Area -Acres A, + A, L/2 Volume-AF 892 14.99 894 18.78 896 21.30 33.77 1.0 33.77 40.08 1.0 40.08 The cumulative volume between elevation 892.0 (the control elevation) and 895.7 (the 100 year flood level) will be 67.84 Acre Feet. D. ELEVATION CONTROLS Following are elevation controls used in selecting the control and 100 year pond elevations for Scottland Green Pond. a. Invert of driveway culvert near the east side of the Scottland Green Apartments = 891.5. b. Ice elevation (water level) in ditch downstream from Scottland Green Apartment east driveway = 892.4. c., Low basement elevation in Scottland Green Apartments - 897.72. d. Overflow elevation of Long Lake Road about k mile south of the Scottland Green Apartments. = 893.2. The normal pond level selected of 892.0 was somewhat higher than the present culvert invert to the east of the apartments. It should be noted that some ditch cleanou t must be done south of County Road H-2 in order for this elevation to function as the control level (see the above ice elevation). The 100 year maximum pond level of 895.7 will provide 2 feet of free- board above the pond to the low basement of the Apartment complex. E. DISCHARGE -VOLUME CALCULATIONS Duration 1 hr 2 hr 3 hr 6 hr 12 hr 24 hr 2 day 4 day 10 day 30 day TP-40 2.90 3.40 3.80 4.30 5.10 5.90 7.00 8.20 Lake (17 A) 4.1 4.8 5.4 6.1 7.2 8.4 9.9 11.6 Impervious (100 A) 21.8 25.5 28.5 32.3 38.3 44.3 52.5 61.5 (7") (10") Pervious (149 A) 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 Runoff Volume AF 42.0 46.4 50.0 54.5 61.6 68.8 78.5 89.2 155.1 221.7 Store 67.8 AF 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 AF req'd AF/day out out - -- - - - 1.0 - - -- - - 1.0 10:.7 5.3 21.4 5.3 87.3 8.7 153.9 5.1 For the relationship of 2 AF/day = 1 cfs, the required discharge will be about 4.35 cfs. Because the volume type of analysis slightly under- estimates required discharge, we have increased this value by 20 percent F. SUMMARY Design discharge = 4.35(1.20) = 5.2 cfs Normal Pond Elevation = 892.0 100 Year Pond Level = 895.7 Design Storage - 68.7 AF Design Discharge = 5.2 cfs AOMIN 1000 _43010M * STATE *+iINNESOTA Natural Resources • DEPARTMENT Office /VI @mQl'QR [!n't TO Judy Davidson, DATE: Region VI Waters `1-,kw-,11/13/80 O V 171980 19810, FROM Bob Glazer, REGION V1 PHONE: 464-5200 Ecological Ser ices WATERS ERS SUBJECT: P.A. 80-6258 Lloyd Knudson passed your memorandum of October 28, 1980, dealing with permit application 80-6258 (M & E Development) on to me for comment. I share the opinion with Lloyd that the revised plan, although somewhat modified from the original plan calling for excavation of the entire marsh, is none -the -less still unacceptable as far as the wildlife community is concerned, and from my viewpoint poor as far as maintaining water quality is concerned. As you may recall from our earlier field trip and from my comments to you at that time, the marsh has historically supported a diverse, abundant assortment of fauna and flora. Song birds, waterfowl, shore birds, furbearers small mammals, aquatic insects, and a unique complex of marsh vegetation populate the area. I think that due consideration should be given to the term complex in this discussion for we are dealing with a system, an ecosystem to be correct, and there is an interdependence amongst the plants, animals and their food chains and a relationship to soil types and amounts of standing water that is beautifully demonstrated by the present situation. For instance, the animals draw from many parts of the marsh complex for their life support needs, not just from the floating bog portion nor from the cattail sections alone. To think about converting a sizeable portion of the marsh to open standing water without compensation and not anticipating an upheaval of the present ecological balance would be naive. In response to any argument that creation of open water will simply result in a reshuffling of wildlife types (more ducks for instance), it should be kept in mind that there is already an ample supply of it in the northern suburbs to accomodate duck loafing area needs. It is really the small diverse marsh complexes such as the one under discussion that are in critical supply now in the metropolitan area, and this is presum- ably one of the very reasons the legislature saw the need for wetlands protection in the first place. it should be remembered that the marsh in question is the last remaining marsh of significance in Mounds View that is covered by our wetlands ordinance. cont'd. % - 2 - The creation of the swimming pool at the northwestern tip of the project will surely require that chemical disinfection for pathogen be injected into the water system later because of storm water run-off supplies. The use of such chemical agents is not compatible with the aquatic organisms of plants and I believe this question should be addressed as a first order or business. As far as the water quality is concerned, it should not take a great deal of research for us to realize that if fifty percent of the marsh vegetation and its underlying soil are removed, a corresponding loss of filter and holding capacity will also be lost. This may not be a trivial point since musch more run-off will go into the marsh site after development than we see now and we may need the extra capacity. I am disturbed that the DNR may rule on this matter before getting its input from concerned citizens at a public hearing. It appears that such a decision will be made now on the basis of a limited number of meetings with a few city officials, ourselves and the developer that took place without public notification. I think that time will show that there are a number of citizens in the community at large who will not greet the developers plans with open arms and my own sense of fair play tells me that they should "have their day in court" at a hearing to plead their case before the primary protective state body. The motive to excavate the marsh is pragmatic and economic for the developer. His strategy will allow him to meet the city's storm -water run-off rate requirement (Resolution 983) with minimum, if any loss of building opportunity at the expense of the marsh resource. I do not think that the DNR with its basic charter to protect the states environment and being a court of last resort in this instance, should compromise its protective mandate for the economic aims of the developer or drainage needs of the community. I doubt that we should ever be a part to any scheme which allows a protected wetland to be adulterated to create dryer building sites. I understand that the Section of Waters will prioritize all inputs in its final ruling on the matter. With this in mind, I would like to state that a favorable ruling on the present proposal will be contrary to the wishes of the Section of wildlife as I perceive it. Perhaps leaving the marsh as it is now will have the effect of leaving a few non -material joys for the community at lzrac and vay indeve, leave something for the next generation, to hz,re atE say in. RG r to cc: Lloyd Knudson Metro Region Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, fill 55106 296-7523 Se+pteriber 30, 1980 I'r. Steve Rose City of Moundsview 2401 Highway 10 St. Paul, Minnesota 55112 AD: PLWUT APPLICAT10N 80--6258, 11 6 E DLTELOPMENTI DXCAVATION OF UIVRAI-OD WF'EME'D (62-60W), 1,OUNDSVIE1, RA115EY COUIITY, 1124, SEC -AXON 7, TOWNSHIP 30 RAIICE 23 LT-ST Dear fir. Rose: This letter shall servdeto confirm the results of our rieetinq on Friday, September 26, 1980, including Jerry Sunde/ Pete Willenbring, ,Rice Creek Watershed District, and Dan Loxrud, Short -Elliott -Hendrickson, The Department of Natural Resources (DM?) supports leaving wetlands in their natural state. Aowever, we are willing to accept changes which would enhance a public purpose (in this case, increase storm water re- tention) as long as these changes are the 'minimal inpact• solution (Minnesota Code of Agency Rules, 6 MCU 6 1.5033 D.I.c.). The original puns for this project did not present the mininal impact solution in that catch of the aquatic vegetation would have been removed, and hence wildlife habitat ;mold have been ninimal. The revised plan, as discussed at Frdday's neeting, seems to be a practical give-and-take solution in that the present storage will be increased (we suggest 50 a.f.), the outfdioav velocity will be decreased (to 1C cfs) ,and much of the wildlife habitat will be preserved. The proposed excavated corridors could also serve al attractive canoe trails. Should a se,dnnJng beach be ddsired at the northwest end of the pond, :oe Mould prefer that the city apply separately and far enough in the future SG to allow reevaluat6m based on water quality, etc., resulting from the current project. Please feel free to call tie should your have any further que:5tions. cc: Jerry Sundt? Peter Willenbrin g, Liars Bossud, S.E.H. Sincerely,, Judy Davidson Hydrologist Rice Creek WSD vs. arcs [�µ.y LL1 tcGG L[.r G'.7 Lloyd Knudson! Wildlife Manager Oct. 28, I980 Cardds Avery Game Farm r Judy Davidson ` Metro Region � ers PERMIT APPLICATION 80-6258, M & E DEVEZOPMENT meeting Present weee: Jerry Sunde,, Consulting Engineers; Peter Willenbring, Rice Creek Watershed District; Steve Rose, City of soundsview; and Dan Boxrud, Snort, Elliott, Hendrickson. Jerry worked up new plans ---contour .map --which reveals a floating bog stadddling the ditch which goes through wetland. Jerry can manage to save much of the vegetation if he can excavate the west and north edges for open water. The far northwest corner (above the OHQ will be excavated for more storage and a possible solmming beach. The watershed district lilies an alternate wet --dry condition for nutrient assimilation, Jerry can accorgodate and so WSD is haggy with revised project with certain provisions (erosion control, etc.). The city wants as much storage as passible ---Steve Rose wants letter. l The ponds drains the steep gradient of groundwater• --discharge is at 894. Jerzy wants water level control at 893.2 (lowered, a feet). ch 0 A T_o, UV From: Jb Re: pA Sp - 6,q5g - M�g Develoonnen� Pre so A � W-6 re il?rrl 6160, cle Co 7 -s t t 1/i nj i - kv s Seve Rose Cr c,�w Boxrkel .sham eill;4 lqm4j,;CxqvA jet�UP nelj MaIO 7Ke /he wafervv,e 4-D �6sirlqi la� �L za n as Ar - _jj9e_,PQL,?_d_.. J�(/95 kle tom+ -�-.t, • RESOLUTION NO. 1141 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW � COUNTY OF RAMSEY D PUT STATE OF MINNESOTA � a REQUEST TO REVIEWING GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIESE� O�g8O REGARDING PROPOSED LAKE BY M & E REALITY REGION VI COMPANY AND KRAUS-ANDERSON, INCORPORATED. WATE WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Mounds View is considering the execution of a land dev- elopment agreement with M & E Reality Company and Kraus -Anderson Incorporated; WHEREAS, the land development agreement para- graph 7 and 7A include quantity amounts and a grade plan for the proposed lake; WHEREAS, the Park and Rec Commission of the City of Mounds View on 10-25-79 passed a motion which approved the lake which would solve storm water run- off created by development; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Mounds View on 3-19-80 passed a motion requiring a lake which would satisfy the Cit_y's Resolution 983 which regulates storm water runoff caused by devel- opment; WHEREAS, the Park and Rec Commission on 3-27--80 passed the following motion - Commissioner Linke made a motion that, because we, as a Park Commission, have a deep desire to provide the citizens of. Mounds View with both varied and the best recreational facilities possible, we are now formally adopting the position that "Oak Lake" be made a recreational lake in view of the non -recreational pond or swamp as siiggested by the developer. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Motion passed. 9 Ayes 0 Nays WHEREAS, the Council. of the City of Mounds View passed Resolution 1100 (a copy attached) in which paragraph 2 requires a mirrored lake effect; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Park and Rec Commission, Planning Commission and the Council of the City of Mounds View have determined that there is a Community need,benefit and desire for the proposed lake by M & E Reality Company and Kraus -Anderson, Inc. el tion No. 1141 i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Mounds View request the Governmental Agencies reviewing the proposed lake consider the need, benefit and desire of the Community. The Clerk/Administrator is hereby ordered to send this resolution to the Depart- ment of Natural Resources, Rice Creek Water District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agencies and other reviewing agencies. Adopted this llth day of August,1980. i ATTEST: Ma (SEAL) mac. Clerk/Adminis Eor 0 GC fiXH IV If FA KK Z&.5 AG. fAMILY 0 ACKF,h E C I V I rB4, r, rAMILY O,RT FLOUr �-ljrl, lo.4 A(,Fee, rg-E—P 9`2 COMMA(AAL, 9.2, A(/. ,rwo rta Mf,Vlum Mm"ATT b Url IT17 ffF, AA- ZZ .9 AMI�7 ; .......... 1;r- ................. - Kt�- IZ.49 AC, SCAi� � r� . �a r o fJ K FA K Y, l9-58 AO. 1260RAMP &K�F-N AFAF\-f MUITI-2 ST. PAM FAKY- k.& AC,. INCLUDE* LAK.E ve" - 2-9 - Bo jr�_ nm ril sa o)2.) _,--- C! 0- ua-fil� i c fc -- 1 LA - - -j r TM wl .AwlnO 5) b-rs_ 0 so -t .. . 1980 REGION V1 GERALD M. SUNDE, Consulting Engineer WATERS 10524 ZION AVENUE SOUTH , MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55437 • PHONE (612) 881-3344 1 J August 30, 1980 1 I Ms. Judy Davidson Department of Natural Resources Region 6 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 Dear Ms. Davidson: Re: Oak Lake Park Addition Moundsview, Minnesota During a field inspection of the ponding area on the above project, you indicated that information was needed concerning the storage and discharge relationship of the proposed lake. Enclosed are calculations for the pre -development 100 year discharge, an analysis of land use at final development of the drainage area, and storage -discharge relation- ships for various pond designs. Pre -development discharge was computed to determine the limits of peak flow from the ponding area. The Rice Creek Watershed District normally requires that peak discharges after development of a site not exceed pre -development rates. In our previous letter of June 6, 1980, we indicated that the pre -development 100 year peak discharge from the on -site wetland area should be about 64 cfs. The land use breakdown for the tributary drainage area is included with these calculations. Aporoximate discharges were calculated for pond storage varying from 40 to 65 acre feet. The relationship is plotted in the attached figure. In our June 6, 1980, letter, we recommended that design of the site use a storage of 68.7 acre feet and a peak discharge of 5.2 cfs. Should it be desired to design for less developed storage, the curve indicates the probable resulting discharges. Yours very truly, Gerald M. Sunde GMS:skw cc: Dale Cremers Steve Rose, City of Moundsview KRAUS ANDERSON - MOUNDS VIEW SCOTTLAND GREEN POND - ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING LAND USE Following is a breakdown of present land use in the 266 acre drainage area tributary to Scottland Green Pond. The area of the pond is presently undeveloped, is partially marshy, with the remainder being idle upland in grasses and trees. The following table breaks down land use for the watershed. Percent Total Area Area. Land Use Impervious Area Imp . _ Perv. . Open Space 10 136.3 13.6 122.7 Single Family Res. 27 51.7 14.0 37.7 Multiple Residential 55 21.7 11.9 9.8 Commercial 80 12.1 9.7 2.4 T.H. 10 ROW 40 26.0 10.4 15.6 City Hall Property 40 18.2 7.3 10.9 Totals 266.0 66.9 199.1 Note that all areas are in acres. It is assumed that approximately 5 acres of the 199.1 acres of pervious area will be pond. -or open water area and as such will have 100 percent runoff potential. On an overall drainage area basis, the existing conditions percent- age impervious is 66.9/266.0 = 0.25 or 25 percent. INFILTRATION IN TURFED AREAS Soil types in the area are sands having high infiltration rates. Such soils are common all over the City. A major control to infiltra- tion is depth to water table. Where the pre -storm water table is shallow infiltration will be limited by the capacity of the soil. On the Kraus Anderson property (the major pervious area), the water table is normally more than six feet in depth. Infiltration is estimated in two ways: a. SCS Curve Number: From the SCS Hydrology manual, curves are given that relate rainfall and runoff for various soil types. We assumed that the pervious area soils would be Zimmerman Soils (Class A). From the SCS tables for fair pasture land (should be reasonably equivelant to lawns), we should use curve number 49. Use CN = 50. For Cn = 50 and a 100 year-24 hour rainfall of 5.9 inches, runoff should be approximately 1.1 inches. b. Rainfall Hyetograph: The enclosed hyetograph of rainfall versus time shows a distri- bution of rainfall in 20 minute increments for a 6 hour storm event (100 year). If it is assumed that the 24 hour 100 year storm event includes all shorter duration 100 year storm events as given in TP--40, then rainfall prior to and after the 6 hour storm event shown will be of low intensity. The hyetograph shows horizontal lines for infiltration rates of 111 and 2 inches per hour. These appear to be reasonable rates based on the very sandy mature of Mounds View soils. The two infiltration rates give the following runoff values. Infiltration Rate Runoff -inches Vi in./hr. 1.59" 2 in./hr. 1.29. Based on the above information, a.runoff rate of 1.45 inches is used in our calculations for all duration runoff events. EXISTING STORAGE IN SCOTTLAND GREEN POND Topographic information for the pond area is based on a site sur- vey by Egan, Field and Nowak in 1971 and selected shots by our field crews in 1980. The additional work was required to determine elevations along the north line of the apartment porject. The control elevation at the present outlet of the marsh area is 891.5 (invert of culvert). However the ice level in the outlet channel for the marsh was at 892.2. The following table shows elevation versus area and volume for the existing marsh area. Contour Area Acres A + A 1 2 L/2 Volume AF Cumulative Volume AF 892.2 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.9 0.77 894.0 0.85 0.77 10.77 1.0 10.77 896.0 9.92 11.54 898.0 19.58 29.50 1.0 29.50 41.04 POND OUTLET RATING CURVE Under the City of Mounds View ordinance, after development discharge cannot exceed predevelopment discharge. We assumed tailwater control for the 36 inch diameter outlet pipe. The tailwater elevation used was 894.0 which is the case that has existed in the past when flooding occurred at Long Long Lake Road and Ridge Lane (this assumes 0.8 feet of water at the centerline of the road at Ridge Lane). I&WOCW o AAC, a 11YArrO&ACAR er --/40 YA? noe,#sws .Aowioams ow - /vo u.Vvs �w =EJ :Zoo TiwyE � /�'�i�ufers • i • , r — - J— I .a 1 i.,.a a The following table shows estimated pond elevation versus discharge for the case of tailwater control (at 894.0), a 36 inch diameter pipe, and an estimated pipe length of 50 feet. Head Discharge Headwater feet . Length_ cfs 895.0 1.0 50 34 896.0 2.0 50 47 897.0 3.0 50 59 898.0 : 50 67 The Minnesota Dept of Transportation outlet control curves were used in the calculation. Inlet control was also checked but was not critical. Note that the above assumption of high tailwater results in discharges that may be lower than is actually the case. EXISTING POND VOLUME -DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIPS: The following table shows the relationship between storage and discharge for the existing pond for various duration storm events. Note that the critical duration storm varies for differing amounts of available storage. Land Use 30 m 1 hr 2 hr. 3 hr 6 hr 12 hr 24 hr 48 hr 96 hr TP-40 2.40 2.90 3.40 3.80 4.30 5.10 5.90 7.00 8.20 Lake 5.0 Imp 66.9 Pery 194.1 1.0 '12.0 23.3 1.2 14.6 23.5 1.4 17.1 23.5 1.6 19.1 23.5 1.8 21.6 23.5 2.1 25.6 23.5 2.5 29.6 23.5 2.9 35.1 23.5 3.4 41.1 23.5 Total Vol. 36.3 39.3 42.0 44.2 46.9 51.2 55.6 61.5 68.0 Store 30 AF 30.0 30:0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 AF out 6.3 9.3 12.0 14.2 16.9 21.2 25.6 31.5 38.0 AF/day out 302.4 223.2 144.0 113.6 67.6 42.4 25.6 15.8 9.5 Q out cfs 151.2 111.6 72.0 56.8 33.8 21.2 12.8 7.9 4.8 Store 35 AF 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 AF out 1.3 4.3 7.0 9.2 11.9 16.2 20.6 26.5 33.0 AF/day out 62.4 103.2 84.0 73.6 47.6 32.4 20.6 13.3 8.2 Q out cfs 31.2 51.6 42.0 36.8 23.8 16.2 10.3 6.7 4.1 Store 40 AF 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 AF out - - 2.0 4.2 6.9 11.2 15.6 21.5 28.0 AF/day out - - 24.0 33.6 27.6 22.4 15.6 10.8 7.0 Q out cfs - - 12.0 16.8 13.8 11.2 7.8 5.4 3.5 Store 45 aF 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 AF out - - - - 1.9 6.2 10.6 16.5 23.0 AF/day out - - - - 7.6 1204 10.6 8.3 5.8 Q out cfs - - - - 3.8 6.2 5.3 4.2 2.9 /:a I V i .6 f f S I ' IND :D+SGMA�� 4 Fft spmiaG P OO SHAOV F f ' I Aci J. 96TWL40 '"u I ry �a DOOM~ fort G � i 4 � I I , I E i RP I i SUMMARY For existing conditions in the 266 acre tributary watershed, a 100 year runoff event would result in the following conditions at the outlet of the Scottland Green Ponding area. Discharge 64 cfe Storage 34 AF Pond Elev. 897.5 With this large discharge, it is obvious that significant flood- ing will occur in the area of Long Lake Road and Ridge Lane. The storm sewer outlet from the Ridge Lane area consists of a 27 inch dia- meter pipe. The proposed design should reduce discharges considerably from the present amount and make provisions for increasing the time that stormwater would remain in the storage pond. SCOTTLAND GREEN POND DESIGN CALCULATIONS A. FINAL LAND USE IN DRAINAGE AREA From drainage area boundaries shown in the report entitled "Report on Storm Water Drainage Facilities for City of Moundsview" by Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, and Asscciates, Inc., the tributary drainage area to the proposed Scottland Green Pond was determined to be 266 acres. The final land use breakdown is based on present land use for all areas except the•propoded_Kraub:Afiderson development. In that area, the land use is as shown on the attached generalized development plan. Any idle land not in the development area was assumed to be developed to 50 percent impervious. The following table shows a breakdown of land uses. Percent Tbtal Land Use Impervious Area Impervious Pervious Open Space 10 34.0 3.4 30.6 Residential 35 94..0 32.9 61.1 Mult. Res. 55 25.5 14.0 11.5 Commercial 75 25.6 19.2 6.4 TH--10 ROW 40 26.0 10.4 15.6 City Hall 40 18.2 703 10.9 Subtotal 87.2 136.1 Undeveloped Land not on KA proj. 50 25.7 12.8 12.9 Pond Area 17.0 Totals 266.0 100.0 149.0 SUMMARY FOR VOLUME COMPS: LAKE 17.0 Acres IMPERVIOUS -100.0 " PERVIOUS 149.0 " B. INFILTRATION IN TURFED AREAS (PERVIOUS AREAS) Soil types in the area are sands having high infiltration rates. These are common all over the City of Moundsview. In the Kraus Anderson project, water table is normally more than six feet in depth. Use the SCS classification of soils as Zimmerman Soils. . From the previous.,undevelb ed calculationb°, Use a -turfed area ilunoff of - 1.45 incher: for! all duration events. r C. STAGE VOLUME CALCULATIONS Following are area and volume computations for the proposed pond based on the contours shown on the attached plan sheet Contour Area -Acres A + X,/2 Volume -Al? 892 14.99 33.77 1.0 33.71. 894 18.78 40.08 1.0 40.08 896 21.30 ij The cumulative volume between elevation,$92.0 (the control elevation) and 895.7 (the 100 year flood level) will be 67.84 Acre Feet. D. ELEVATION CONTROLS Following are elevation controls used in selecting the control and 100 year pond elevations for Scottland Green Pond. a. Invert of driveway culvert near the east side of the Scottland Green Apartments = 891.5. b. Ice elevation (water level) in ditch downstream from Scottland Green Apartment east driveway = 892.4. c. Low basement elevation in Scottland Green Apartments = 897.72. d. Overflow elevation of Long Lake Road about � mile south of the Scottland Green Apartments. - 893.2. The.:normal pond level selected of 892.0 was somewhat higher than the present culvert invert to the east of the apartments. It should be noted that some ditch cleanout must be done south of County Road H-2 in order for this elevation to function as the control level (see the above ice elevation). The 100 year maximum pond level _of 895.7 will provide 2 feet of free- board above the pond to the low basement of the Apartment complex. E. POND VOLUME DISC4ARGE RELATIONSHIPS In table form and by graph, the relationship between volume of storage in the ponding area and required discharge is shown for a range of storage values. The previously recommended storage amount that is shown on the plans is 68.7 acre feet. This would require a discharge of about 5.2 cfs. (Normal level = 892.0, 100 year level = 895.7). POND VOLUME DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIPS AT FINAL DEVELOPMENT The following cdi�ulation derives expected average diachAiges .from storage for Various amounts. of ' s.torage provided in the Scottl$nd Green Pond. Land Use 30 m 1 hr 2 hr 3 hr 6-hr 12 hr 24 . hr - 2• �.da..: 4. da 10 da 30 da Rainfall 2.40 ' 2.90 3.40 3.80 4.30' 5:10 5.90 7:04. .8.20 Lake 17A 3.4 4.1 4.8 5.4 6.1 7.2 8.4 9.9. 11.6' Imp 100A :$ 0 21.8 25.5 28.5 32.3 344.3 52.5 61.5 7" 10" Pery 149A 16.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0. 18.0 18.0- Total Vol. In.39.4 4309 48.3 51.9 56.4 63.5 70.7 `80.4 91.1 155.2 221.7 Store 40 AF 40.0 4Q.0 40.0. 40.0 40.0 40:0 40.0 •40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 AF out - 3.9 8.3 11.9 16.4 23.3 30.7 40.4 51.1. 93.2 181.7,�! AF/day out, - 93.6 99.6 95.2 65.6 46.6 30.7 20.2 12;8 9.3 6.1' Avg. CFS out - 46.8 49.8 47.6 32.8 23.3 15.4 10.1 6.4 4.7 3.1 Store 45 AF 45.0 45.0 45.0 45 A 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 AF out - - 3.3 6.9 11.4 18.5 25.7 35.4 46.1 110.2 176.0 AF/day out - 39.6 55.2 45.6 37.0 25.7 17.7 11.5 11.0 5.9' Store 50 AF 50.0 50.0 5040 50.0 50.0 56-0. 50.0 50.0 50.6 50.0 50.0 AF out - - 1.9 6.4 13.5 20.7 30.4 41.1 105.2 171.7 AF/day out - - - 15.2 25.6 27.0 20.7 15.2 1013 10.5 5.7 Avg. CFS out - - - 7.6 .12.8 13.5 10.8 7.6 5.2 5.3 2.9 Store 55 AF. 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 AF out - - - - 1.4 8:5 15.7 25.4 36.1 100.2 166.7 AF/day-out - - - - 5.6 17.0 15.7 12.7 9.0 10.0 5.6 Avg. CFS out - - - -- 2.8 i.5 7.8 6.4 4.5 5.0 2.8 Store 60 AF 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 AF out - - - - - 3.5 10.7 20.4 31.1 95.2 161'7 AF/day out - - - - - 7.0 10.7 10.2 7.8 9.5 5.4 Avg. CFS out -- - - - - 3.5 5.4_ 5.1 3.9 4.8 2.1 Store 65 AF 65.0 65.0 65.0 .65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 AF out - - - - - - 5.7 15.4 26.1 90.2 156.7 AF/day out - - - - - 5.7 7.7 6.5 9.0 5,2 Avg. CFS out - - - - - - 2.9 '3.9 3.2 2.6 Plotting.Chart of Storage versus Discharge Storage's da out '"Ayg.�CFS 'o-it '1.20(CFS) 40 AF 99.6 49.8 59.8 45 AF 55.2 27.6 33.1 50 AF 27.0 13.5 16.2 55 AF 17.0 =8.5 1042 60 AF 10.7 5.4 6.5 65 AF 9.0 4.5 5.4 I_. 1 -. . 1 ....r � ♦ •_-...j.. .,Y _. _. _._}.1. �..r • y-a.,«_ - .. i._ .4.w-.i-. .L. a-.. •- a-• v .y _ '._.. �. _. �. r,. ...a..i . 1 ' f STORAGE - --• r- F .. .. -. i .- t'- _ •_. � _ `_ r.. .. _. ..... _} ' .4-�:.. i r-•r- 1..:...'_.:-� .�. .w � .�., 1...}..:- �--t .�_ � ,. , .-- .t /� � . _.;...� _fy.- .1-!.?-'r_�I 10. _ � I .. � . ... ,. n - «._ .. a r _ - i Y� r ....a_: • t- }. }_r. .. pp .S_r. .l .I . «. L.. x_;_ r- a F- _ ...� J -:: {-.....-'—�-F...... Drr7� :.. . _ . . . . ..,._ :.......... I.. .-•- _. _ .! --��• ... ...i- � u.+--.-J_ _a. 4_i.i.-:�' �-�_ i..y...i-• :_....�w��.*.-. x '_ -i..{-�..a... 1.1-..ti•r.._,. ~.t-+-.. _x_�_ r =- r �_.+..1_f_.� _1--r,..._:-.:-_k-' i : t + 1... � 4 -�"`r . -. •�1� .�1 - �ii � � . . .,.-.-. �. ti •_ .{ ._-_r-_ ..r-1 .�.i-r-1_�_a..:.». . .�._lti�_�L_�y. r..k- .. •3- _w •..�.1._�t -:. ..-.-- ,� ._I..,,�, � 1 » .. ._. � _. ... r * ...+-1 _. ..._.i. -t._ . . .- � .k. � _'-I�....r-L.., •;�,F �, a _ `_Y:y_ _� .�1�. -=_M .�+ � � ~_.. ., . � ..�. J _ :_ � r . -_. __�-.i.,._..i.._.:..i-_.. .l.f.i.l��.a.._L. _k �f-j—� •-�•� 1 �'�'� •" r -__: i�—�-`s-- -A.•-�--*-��--=-L . ♦.•.-1--..t..� ..f.. L.�..�...I�+-f-'i-r�. .r,l_�_.�.L..�......... .r-1._.!`i-'-.a-r �'•-L-t--� i._�-��..;.. .-.�.�`..1..=w«..r.j.i. '\j-�.,'�. t {�. j. } u .�_.. L4-.�._+_.. � :- .. 1..[. G--r.-�f--_1 .__ .4_4-r L;...r_J-.{+�r .!.-_L.i._�Y....�}..�. J. . �-J--- �-F�-i--' -�-- } L. •L_ i_. �..1..- _i—: _-r,�__�. i, ('� . ._ . ljj a .. . -i i r �.� w 1. . -,i i+, _I._r~ L.��+-•I, i �1_ _� L -i 1—i 1 i`-.L_� 1 �L�+/ .^ M Z rnw� .'�� . ... . _ E-..� _ ._`-1.__'h-. _T".....ti.-L-... i .L..�� �' ..-:...l--p--i...",:�r. «_w_.4..-��. L4_Y...... L-r..... 1 {.. {.._. i Y_r :..F.. �y,._i._.i...}. o con i..._...._k...wT---•-i--y-•....:-:_i. _.- . . f� .� �...'._�.-.:..-i.. Nr- r ° ��� v _ ❑ • * - .- -^ .. _s_ - .. ...i- i..l L- �'._� .r�. a_l._i� }_ ._1•. .�..i.. �--; ._�i--.3... ....- .L.....;r._4-}..� . »..._ �. • l..i r-.i_ _i- •.5..^_ �.� �� ...,.♦,_ .. .:�� .. -�.. .. .-�_.i.-i-•.i i---i- _}--}.. 1..�-��i--i_.-.1.. _}.�..-' ...}._F..1 �- ems.- !- -s--j .i...�. 22 Y/ r+��.. . . Y7 = -+-. . s s ;. .� .! t+-L _•_a ;_#. } s. s i ;_.�L ^r 1 p_s_T. ; e-rt r �+-i-i. F..._� .. ''_4*. .�.. Vt -+1 a zm� -�lil � Oy 4 � .. } .i _.._ +_ s ... a. ~ ..^ ..,{..i.:--'-' _ �-` -. i..:..;�._� ..-L�.1.3.:_ s. _i.-» .� .,! � :_.«- a. it +-«_1..: _...1_.. t. -.- _._ :_ « ' � a-i.... 1 � a �-��•fr•- j J--b �%x _.. ,. .♦ }...,r.. r_I.. . -T��: . r-. »..r -r-t-1_'. «-i-.� ' �- -_-«.� _�.i- �.�_� a.._ r--:.ter- a.i... 1;., Y _f.. -t"°"'s-^r---i---yL-+�-:. .�:- �..+-.� ,� �+--*--«..1 .- +_i.. i_s .4--i�h_�...�-r..-' ... ...,i- •.r�.«�..,.'7- -'�-5-'--' .-.I. 3-L-L- ...-.L_r ..- :.-.�.. _. L-.� µ - !' i •+-+ •� # .�-�--1� yt... i_��i..:_i._�. 1_i �, r _ . : .....1--� 1•-__ » . i .s . s �_� -r _. r � � s_-� �--^ f- -i- i - �.}: + �. rL L -+ - -•' - +•� � ,. ... --... . i i • -- t.-:. -... �1 GERALD M. SUNDE, Consulting Engineer 10524 ZION AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLI5, MN 55437 • PHONE (612) 881-3344 June 6, 1980 Mr. Kent Lokkesmoe, Regional Hydrologist Department of Natural Resources C�+ j�� >�� Region 6 REDID' " 1200 Warner Road WATERS St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 Dear Mr. Lokkesmoe: Re: Oak Lake Park Addition Moundsview, Minnesota This letter provides supporting information for the attached permit application. Work involved in the construction of Scottland Green Pond includes grading work in a wetlands area and construction of an outlet structure for the proposed pond. The following data is enclosed: 1. Completed permit application form W-54. 2. U.S.G.S. quadrangle map showing site location. 3. A preliminary grading plan for the Scottland Green Pond site. 4. A generalized development plan for the Kraus -Anderson development that will include the subject pond. 5. Design calculations for sizing of the Scottland Green Pond storage area and the outlet structure. 6. A report "An Ecological Study for Environmental Assessment' by Dr. James A. Jones. 7. various photographs of the exisitng wetlands area. The area proposed for development is one of the few remaining undevel- oped areas within the City of Moundsview. It has long been considered for a major stormwater storage site. In a report by'Short, Elliott. - Hendrickson and Associates; Inc., entitled "Report on Storm Water Drainage Facilities for City of Moundsview, Minnesota" dated August 1976, a pond having similar sized surface area was proposed. The storage requirements were somewhat larger due to the plan at that time for diversion of added drainage area to the pond. That plan was not adopted. (O QL59 Mr. Kent Lokkesmoe Page 2 June 6, 1980 The basis for design of the.ponding area was to limit peak flows downstream. Our calculations indicate that present 100 year runoff event peak flows from the pond area should be approximately 64 cubic feet per second. Following pond construction, the 100 year pond discharge will be appreximately 5.2 cubic feet per second. This should have a beneficial effect in downstream areas where flooding presently occurs. Please contact me if you have any questions or require further information. Yours very truly, Gerald M. Sunde GMS : s kw GENERALIZED CONCEPT PLAN KRAUS-ANDERSON MOUNDSVIEW PROJECT James pj&� gwjj?_� l d�scap r7 GOG • 77 arc itec 2 3 1 a u Q�L&� PAP< pwrla Street excelsior, and nnesota b S 3 3 1 Ae, PAP .s 7H-. 10. 44 •G,K. . WWWr 7afu. 6rtrr r� . Frrl 22•RA4• PAK !9 • b pG 0aiuse 3•6 Ae, 0 kO- 611;t58 In Cooperation With: Gerald M. Sunde Sunde Engineering 10524 Zion Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55437 KRAUS ANDERSON PROJECT MOUNDS VIEW, MINNESOTA AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT B James A. Jones Environmental Consulting Service 8900 Normandale Road Bloomington, MN 55437 I KRAUS ANDERSON PROJECT, MOUNDS VIEW i This project was examined as per arrangements made with Gerald M. Sunde, of Sunde Engineering, consultant to Kraus Anderson on certain aspects of this Mounds View Project. The project site is approximately delineated by the perimeter border of County Road H, Silver Lake Road, County Road I, and Long Lake Road excluding the Apartment Complex. More specifically, attention is directed to the lower, central portion of this property which is now wetland in character and a fringe area which has the potential to be excavated and made a part of an enlarged water storage site. Several formations are more and less distinguishable and are treated seperately as follows: 1. Open water of•distinct dredged channel and of a more natural and wider bog area. 2. Quaking bog. 3. Oak to aspen transition forest. 4. Grassland. Method of observation The area was examined by zones. The open water of the channel and bog was examined at many points from the ditch at the parking lot to the dry ditch in the north-west extension. The quaking bog was examined by taking a zig-zag course from the open water on the south to the various upland formations to the north. The oak to aspen belt was traversed from west to east, following a zig-zag course from the oak crest to the edge of the aspen line below. The grassland was traversed from east to west following a wind- ing course from the aspen line to the wetland border. The north end was covered from the proposed park area over to H2 on the highland then back along the wetland border to the channel crossing. Open water The water quality is good as evidenced by odor, color,•clarity, and diversity of biota. The water is cold and flowing suggesting the drainage of ground water. Certain purely aquatic plants suggest that the water table is fairly constant and exposed throughout the summer. Coontail, water lily, and bulrush are generally associated with permanent typo waters, (See Appendix One for more complete listing of aquatics.) 2 The animal life of the open water was diverse. The microcrustaceans, copepods and cladocera, were observed. Chironomid midge larvae were seen on the bottom. Adult insects including.backswimmers, water boatmen, crawling water beetles, predacious diving beetles, whirligig beetles, and water striders were abundant. Five drake and one hen blue -winged teal and two drake mallard ducks were observed. One painted turtle was observed sunning itself on a log in the water. Quaking (Floating) bog A somewhat unique feature for this level in Minnesota (common north) is the closing of this water body by Carex bog formation. This is charac- terized by the overgrowth of the water body by the quaking bog formation. The complex of plants growing here support the interpretation: Carex (sedge, several species), marsh fern, sensitive fern, bluebells, joe-pyeweed, spike rush, swamp goldenrod, canada willow, sandbar willow, red -osier dogwood, and sparse and scattered cattails and blue -joint grass. This formation is fairly extensive over the central bog area. Aspen -to -oak transition belt The north boundary of the basin under consideration is represented by a sharp rise in elevation with a corresponding change in vegetation. The crown is covered with oak forest; down the slope and encroaching onto the bog or grassland formations below, aspen becomes dominant, (See Appendix Two for a list of the predominant species observed.) Grassland between the wetland and the tree line Edging the forest and extending over to the wetland edge is a strip of land sufficiently high to have upland character but for some reason not forested. Frequent fires, mowing, grazing, and soil Character are possible explanations. Grasses observed include blue grass, quack grass, brome grass, and panic grass. Other plants noted include blackberry, common milkweed, butterfly milkweed, goldenrods, yellow mustard, mullein, hawkweed, common ragweed, and horsewsed. This area shows no characteristics of native prairie, either of the dryer sandplain prairie found in some parts of the Anoka Sandplain, or of the mesic prairie found in island areas around the metropolitan area. 0 0 3 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS I have examined the site designated the Kraus -Anderson Project in Mounds View, Minnesota. I have identified four distinct community types on the site as: open water, quaking bog, aspen -to -oak transition belt, and grassland. These varied habitat types, in their present form, provide for a correspondingly varied fauna especially notable in the many species of birds. It is my understanding that the north-west portion of the property is to be set aside as park; that the aspen -to -oak transition belt along the north border of the proposed ponding area will be preserved; that the present wetlands and bog as well as the lower grasslands will be excavated to provide water storage; and that the remaining upland forested and grassed area will be variously developed. The designated park land, the oak -aspen belt along the north border of the basin, and trees that will be preserved in the developed forested portions of the property will preserve many of the excellent environmental qualities of this site. The grasslands within the project site are of low quality and have none of the characteristics of native prairie either of the sandplain prairie of the Anoka Sandplain or of the tall grass prairies found in isolated areas around the metropolitan area and to the west. Grazing -or cropping has promoted the development of various introduced and domestic species. The trade-off between the present bog formation (open water, quaking bog, and wetland forest) and the proposed more open water is a judgement of relative values and personal tastes. There is no doubt but that open water gives greater visibility and greater satisfaction to many more people. The present formation gives greater diversity and interest to those willing to endure the rigors of wet feet, biting insects and ticks, and prickly brush. In view of the approximate trade=off in life forms of bogs and open water and the fact that the shoreline will be constructed with a gradual slope to promote the development of a vegetated border and in view of the dire need for water quantity control in the watershed, it appears to me that the proposed plan for development environmentally sound. Y 4 APPENDIX ONE Arrowleaf (Sagittaria) Beggars ticks (Bidens) Black willow (Salix) Harebell (Campanula) Blue -joint grass (Calamogrostis) Bulrush (Sc� irpus) Bush willows (Salix spp.) Canada willow (Salix) Cattail (Typha) Coontail (CeratophZllum) Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) Daisy fleabane (Erigeron) Duckweed (Lemna) Joe pye-weed (Eupatorium spp.) Marsh fern Pondweed (Naj as) Cinquefoil (Potentilla) Red osier dogwood (Cornus) Reed's canary grass (Phalaris) Sandbar willow (Salix) Scouring rush (Equisetum) Sedges (Carex spp.) 'Sensitive fern Spike rush (Eleochris) Swamp dock (Rumex Swamp goldenrod (Solidago) Water lily (probably Nuphar) J 40 APPENDIX TWO Blue grass (Poa) Bull thistle (Cirsium) Bur oak ( ercus) Mint (Mentha) (Catnip) Common milkweed (Ascl�as} Elderberry (Sambucus) Goldenrod (Solidago) Ground cherry (Physalis) Honeysuckle (Lonicera) Nightshade (Solanum) Northern red oak { uercus) Panic grass (Panicum) Red -osier dogwood (Cornus) Red raspberry (Rubus) Sensitive fern Smooth sumac (Rhus) Stinging nettle (Urtica) Strawberry (Fragaria) Trembling aspen (Populus} Wild plum (Prunus) Woodbine (Parthenocissus) �ivr i �'1fd i980 REGION VI WA TERs Sir VIEW NORTH FROM SCOTTLAND GREENS APARTMENTS PARKING LOT VIEW WEST FROM LONG LAKE ROAD NEAR OUTLET SCOTTLAND GREEN POND DESIGN OF OUTLET STRUCTURE'AND ROUTING OF DESIGN STORM 1. General -r� � 7tssa H'GION V1 WATERS The attached plans for the Scottland Green Pond and outlet struc- ture are intended for the following design conditions: a. Normal Pond Level = 893.0 b. 100 Year Pond Level = 895.7 c. Pond Storage = 51.6 AF d. Pond 100 Yr. Discharge - 15.0 cfs Previously we submitted information that estimates the pre - development discharge based on land use and existing pond storage. Also, The pond area was sized based on final land use and a 100 year runoff event for the site. This report includes our sizing calculations for the proposed outlet structure and also routing of a'100 year, 24 hour storm event through the completed pond and structure. 2. Rating of the Outlet'Structure The plans show the outlet structure as having a 12 inch diameter opening at the pond control elevation of 893.0. When water rises to elevation 894.9, flow will begin over a weir having a width of 519". At a water level of 895.7, the total flow through the structure will be approximately 15.0 cfs. The following assumptions were made. For orifice flow through the 12" diameter hole, we assumed that tailwater on the orifice would be below elevation 893.5 for the interval from normal pool (893.0 to the weir overflow level (894.9). Above that level, tailwater would be higher on the orifice rising to 894.9 when the pond level would be at elevation 895.7. Tailwater on the outlet structure for maximum water level was assumed to be 894.9. This was calculated using a water level down- stream from County Road H-2 of 894.5 and approximately 0.4 feet of head loss from the outlet structure to a point south of the County Road. The City has indicated their intent to place flows in this reach of the existing ditch in pipe. We have reviewed sizing with the City's consulting engineer. It appears that a 36" diameter reinforced concrete pipe would be required. Flows over the weir were made using the normal weir equation. As noted above, the tailwater at the weir should not exceed the weir sill elevation for the 100 year event. The attached drawing shows the rating curve for the outlet structure and also the volume -elevation storage curve for the proposed Scottland Green Pond. 3. Flood - Routing Calculations are enclosed for developing a unit and inflow hydro - for the storage area and for routing the inflow hydrograph through the Scottland Green Pond. Methods used were the "Denver Method" for the unit hydrograph and the SCS Type I storm rainfall distribution. The calculations indicate that the outlet structure will restrict flows for the 100 year event to approximately 15 cfs and that water will rise to approximately 845.7. 4. Debris Skimmer Structure and Erosion Control The plans show a single plank debris skimmer to be placed upstream from the concrete outlet structure. This skimmer will limit floatables from leaving the ponding area during low or moderate rainfalls. • 0 1 ,G r 4iuTe F T �s7/tuc7u�� f I ZaGU IO,.v7'. AT G a.V6- ZOx<r 3� �i 65T cv. ?�ou.�vsTie�.9.v1 of c - o_ 757y s o z r i / ,, OF 36 f2G P 7-10 OE" 4 1 i,Pv� Rs f'-z 60 (""Apra/ SXr. f,e-lt w,�v�n a_ lee _ s" o Poo v 0 t.�G so.✓ EtiT FXiT. ZF 5/ 0. ;/,p 1 04- 40 ) D_ 33 0 ;? � /,vLFT CAMWt MAIM jeep 9W. a -7?Y. 9 97Y5 w 17 /�T /17.9X �o.v0 GlS�' ,Su�/�'%FipG&O o�/F�C� �o UG46 = 8 s5 : 7 72v = YIYY 9 D.6(�F.Z5 GY. 3y�fs Z_ 4%/z 7z 9-7s: sJ Z.75- S 1S.7 Z. sfs" /M CL�y32 L hy 3/ ' s Az 4401" 017 s 8 a. y _ Z53a 4.yzyS 7.97 47.7/3s" //_8D ��m,�iyeTld�c1 �L�U �a�iFicE 3sy 5, Y,ry,F S 51. i V5-13 g9S. s" �01 4 3c 41y yz NO 3� 3y vro y,�t G 04 Z.6 34 yy, .S. 6 ga 4107 15-� Z- 4 S El r s' � 1:,' -i' �- .. 1-� � _ L _.— - .., - - - ��" - � •-^ t - .- •- Sw ... _ ...� - -- � r-y -- r ;r Y - -�.-, . _.. _. _ _. , - - - �- -- f -• ,ate •�"j - 1 _. ,, •_ - —_.__ - - _- _. �-. _ Y � t -• - _y , .-. ..._ _ .1L ....,_�.__. .. :� �. ...�- �- �.--• -r -r � .F ... ,.. , 1 .. _. �� - . r w � + ' - - ..._ - + ,[-_ — Lam_ - •• - -_ f _. ♦ f_ «- _ _ ` _» ._ i-. _ � _ _. -- r - �'_. '--_ _ .._ .. _... � - .. - ._, r �- i r t..: hill ,;, .. _ 3 1 � L _ � •� - - - ' y# •"'1- - _- 'i - - -�--�_ � - •,_ • _ - - ^ 1 � - - - � r � + +-. ��*•e i . = t_.; ..t..i S �- r .. � --- --_..._-.f• _ . . � � - .'i.• ,_ate_. _ ~ .� . _-. _ � � y .... � .- _ i � _ ° _ - - < ._ _ 5 9"06 d/579 4 - /. a3 0- 5~-�7 Cfs oy� C� rya a 0-3 G_ 57 d 3 G_ s 7 S, 4.30 e'7YK G YU 11-rne ZFD 6.05. z3 15-,= 35 irn41- ^ J�J� aF /�c�-� = G- 3 F - Z3r �"� X,,4 - d 6 7 : Ya. r i ^;F� �""r �'T --- r `�.-..�7 _ ._,.�r 1 _. • ».... ._ ... ; - _ ._ y i -- ��.����lA _ fc%/'F Gl F r.— /. �+•v�S _ . _ t __ _ .._ . -� ^-- •- L 4 -F- -�+- - - - TT I•'' � y� L � Liy� �J- - � _ ._.= 1. -.. - - .-_ r _ .. �- —• _ _ L _�.. • ---� - 1 _ _ ._ . _ - � -. �- ._ -. i4i� ����JJr''.ltf-•.7 �a �-, -' y ... 4 .w-»� ..�.. w r. I _ . � k - y_._ � _ ..'r r..a. � .`y..i-•_ ,T _rt"? } - �_ T _ T �. .. S - ..� .. _ v �� ___ _ i _."..'.. 11 1 - ni.hafs 6a 10. Prepared By AR11foved By 3 5 ar 'p, 6, e/ TyeL rrmQ. -.. _ - —� -. X I. s .; '0 0 .0.11- 0.1 zz L Ilk - L 0 IS 0.0,1, Z. Ai- .51 4 Z' o 076 o, Y;9L.-j 1. ! 10 Elf L L iz 5:5, 0.//z Fz� (71 1 Zl 13�1 6.6 O. /11.5' a '7q ...... ..... -76 0. 0.713 syI-;.Jyl - it -_I_~ ;-- b./I jl dap ; �G. o� ;�'! - 10 zo; 9.S Q3a3 /$a3 _ ��- 1- -p: i� --�i- - �-��—--f-��: I ��-- - .�_��.'S�I'�,.o. _ �I jas-� ,�_'_ fj q Z�z 5-51 Y-W.01- - - ... - ?^�; //.a p.�2 3.713_-�-- fit" - --�-- - - ._I -I' -- I- - '�- �o /� � .� � �� � , �� �.��Z � 25 40 zr�i Il_s a. i�+ yZ6�_f_ !<1 .�- —!- - I-t,a_I/�9I �I..�� � �" 10_G5►� i I �, 7. A . .. � � � _ - b�r..�- _ _ -- ----..1. _ _ �. ��I � ���� iI bays � " I 5' q6FY7 A io.;5 0. 7V '/.770 3 "7;6 1.917 A4. > S O$r N' 71 414) z- i I 6 ',!! /9.a o.9oz ;:3C� ; Q.� � l - - - - -� ���� _ II I ��� ,� I � ,��9 I � �� 1y3' a. 91Y 2 o _5' .4, c:�7, IFZC .5'lo - I { I A I `� €; �aSJ O.93S` SS4,3 i ._ 0..� `1 E I �I �� a io5- _� �_ I G ���1 � n� ?W C 40 05 go Z/ 5' p.9S3 y.-670 a" 02. z LOA;, .9-71 5.7 -nI# a OY6- 1 A 1,. C, rfw PAM'. 0 W-11vm" 1-tolo. ^ � — _ _----__ — —''------_--__'--_ � ��— oirepafpd BY / , | Ap p*veo By _| ---_—__—____ --'_------'--_—__—� —_----- ' ' `-----_— _' ' 12 13 17 22 23 25 Izz 0.0 ZYO 61, 001. 122 J" 30 01 39 n ,_ i SCOTTLAND GREEN POND NUTRIENT ANALYSIS Part of the requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District include an analysis of the nutrient assimilative capabilities of the wetland areas that are affected by development projects. The Scottland Green Pond project consists of enlarging an existing wetl.ands.area to provide stormwater storage for a large drainage area in central Moundsview. As such, there will be some modification to existing wet- lands and also the addition of ponding areas. Following is a breakdown of existing and planned vegetation type areas within the wetlands. a. Existing Marsh Based on our field survey, we estimate that approximately 6.5 acres of wetlands are presently on the site. The wetlands are mainly cattail marsh with an area of about 2.5 acres of floating bog. Using the nutrient assimilation values given in the watershed district's Wetlands Preservation Guideline, the present assimilative capacity is 6.5 Acres x 4.0 lbs/acre/yr = 26 lbs/yr b. Developed Pond After grading the pond, several different vegetation types are planned for the pond. The enclosed drawing shows the different pond depth areas. The floating bog area is essentially preserved with shallow water and wet -dry areas are added. The open water areas shown are the result of a compromise between the City of Moundsview and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The marsh areas break down as follows on the attached figure Open Water 8.6 Acres Cattail Marsh 3.7 " Floating Bog 2.5 " Wet --Dry 2.1 The assimilative capacity of the proposed marsh -and pond area will be: 3.7 Acres x 4.0 lbs/acre/yr = 14.8 lbs/yr 2.5 Acres x 4.0 lbs/acne/yr = 10.0 IT 2.1 Acres x 12.0 lbs/acre/yr = 25.2 it Total 50.0 lbs/yr Therefore, it can be seen that the project will improve the nutrient assimilative capcity of the Scottland Green ponding area. GERALD M. SUNDE, Consulting Engineer 10524 ZION AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55437 • PHONE (612) 881-3344 February 12, 1981 �f Cf3171981 REGION VI Ms. Judy Davidson WATERS Department of Natural Resources Region 6 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 Dear Ms. Davidson: Re: Oak Lake Park Addition Moundsview, Minnesota For your review the permit for the above project, enclosed please find the following information: 1. Plan showing design of the pond outlet structure and debris skimmer. Design of this structure is being coordinated with the City's consulting engineer. Design of reinforcing steel for the concrete control structure is presently underway. 2. Calculations for the outlet structure showing rat- ing of the facility and routing of a 24 hour 100 year storm event through the pond and outlet struc- ture. 3. Nutrient assimilation calculations as required by the Rice Creek Watershed District. If further information is required, please contact me. Yours very truly, Gerald M. Sunde GMS/sl cc: Dale Cremers Steve Rose G%G�3aMS ANDERsq Co.NSTRUC ".U".. BQ L_T :REQUIREMENTS P{PE :SIZE: .:: 'U'BOLT AAA. WIDTH 2i' 9 LESS 1/2 2q 42•T01-1" • � .24" fi0" 9 GREATER.1". .24•• A:DED END SECTION �� APB o ry GRADING AND SITE PLAN FOR: OAK LAKE PARK POND MOUNDSVIEW, MINNESOTA 905ax 896 r 1906 CLIENT: Kraus -Anderson Development Co. Minneapolis, Minnesota 1 POPLARS ' ti x•3 _ 4aZ5k r x'90 _ 005 6 76 ' -x4a3 5 �1rs� -- 973 M �„�_•. 19'11 :; `]L-�i 'ail r 1Fi `3 FS 0 x9ii, a: f 41 R x898' B98 Ox 901 5x 899 7 x &9? 43■ Slij9 3x 3 9 � a 3 90! 3 x ' 5 x �I, + .48-98`4 1 9 � � . - 899 i 1, 9+CD6 5x , x xe384j ~��'a, 9�00 -yn>3g g��..� .n9a f ;ss�u 8970. 149004 ?r _ '' e9 8 190c' _ " 'use u �� _ 9v 999 9 99 89�]'4x 8997x Y8995 ' '!�� ,� i,�98 � 9'9i � 899 4a - _ 'F h b 'S 884 a$99 6 �� Z. :899 4 `48 9s a fig$ 4 x iI �~ �g x894 710 ` �$!�J 8 # 9a671/ x894 0�1 90061 . 1 'Ux • � r �� ��� 1 f '�950 x899 � n9G3.a 4pnAr f .` 996,�a j894 2 * ,x } _� 894 j p V y 9U4 qu? A 3 yf 1 9044x + r �i` t an Sx CK10 _ r %19a3 'F � '� i ! 94 4 Ik 1 x 894 � � £_ � 8 3+3 2 _ 9$.0 �'-__ F8945 88301 i ("5'D) t H.169 x898 4 j29a4 3 ! x9a3 r mot__ 1 9p6 G 8 8.a1 �7 �� [j 94�' i gal7�x '� 1. �lV f 91 xx x6975 1 m r d" 9 �� 89R. f I F r -n 1824 t r '� x 894 x 1.B ` J ��• r f B 0 G ii # ie sal ! !� i�94 x$9i' ���� 18957 901 9 x � I t 4 �` 1 � r N x[B8B`Jr l x694.6 $9'S r� 8g4.i x 836 - � 894'91 � � ife9 �'? x895P 44yap-! 897 - 89'9 � J { �, (89Aafx -'�- ifl "J` 894 4 894 ZILr 4 x d95 - r933 s) 1 1 r' 5 i r 0 T 89z r � - - x90E 7 f' 9a .:x $9sa r � � 9,8 a3.3 1 t aye a , x$96 s 94a yr - -- E ."^$9� 89!, xa94.�� ig98 a 899 a1 x8971k�36 8 94S' 1 �& 5 x 9+33.0xX W94 —1 x 383' t' C0 x 896 4 893.$x $9fi I t - - - 89EI � �/ 8974x l �961 8974jB913 901 011 a8982 y x c�3 ?pr C Q 8947x, `g998 �9 ti T.C, - ®98.3TC 899.a ❑3 [� 9 03.6 °� x 89b.3 z _ '- fiC x Q a 895� YF CI}} x896 I 1 0 J .. x895 7 ' �.�7�,G• rn x 636 E r• I n �$4@ ��r _ � • ���T '$gee 6� � -- � ----- — - �1. A9eLr P a06 f4 _y ails r� u // f ' 4 902.8pxsit J 1 x898.r P V YJ A •�,,. r peep s$$g 4 r 895 ,x x89&8• x 9975 ' 8135 3 902 lit 9jfa 4 1- 3 4 8gg 7 x8954 +4 `1 �^�, C 1 1 t x996. Ii • I' V, NO 1 ES 895 1 x !! 1 �. 0r'PdqLkd materials will he removed and placed in an upland area x e t Y 896 111; e9909 5ui"tdibl y protected from erosion and siltation such that Ridterial s t x8964 r will not be redeposited into the wetlands. P A 77 VO 3,0 6, x x90Cr; z 1 2. They Contractor shall install the skimpier structlrre near the nutlet. I 97,x priryr- to raeneral pond nradinq. x903 4 {4 x®961 8�49 r 5 -8999x All 'listurbed surfaces outside of the pond limits (at elevation 950 R!gt.n) oall be seeded and miilched within 30 days after completion ± of grading operations. s ' 902.ap a1.7x 2 -9T4 90N 931 —9023x 9 x902 5 9024 xa96 4 x896 7 SEE OUTLET DETAILS s F4' 8914x e89-fo 898 2 xl x89' 89F 7 3' GUI-'JERt 1 i89.Y ' II 8r� Jx x 'NVI�w^J'4 12 ':i;:,tiE RT APF 5 1982 REGION VI WATERS LOCATION MAP y Leh• Laddie Lake r 4. PD -- is KA d vexes RAMSEY CO - WRING ,LAKE r � POP. 64 r? _ S tin p r �kIL�YItiHFu / RNA RD. FA zvratrzvis s ' VIEW POP.ra 599 - 4 �b� a C1► Y FRIDLE" =� ARDEiVrsrn, pop 2y.t±;i ``�.��.,::, � _ - HILLS Lake a Long jib P[3FLL i1fgCrry �`R 00 li ltTlsi7 _ h F a I,1 Q�-fir" Lake --- < ,aArket' da. ♦+a .ter " - J . � f� �� j r t ; 1! /00 C /UG 200 SCALE /N FEET T hereby certify that this plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Rea- istered professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Gerald Y. Date Cxtfzder 8 r 1 f_ _ Rc-q , N o . 8734 F `JIBE March 1932 SUNDE LAND SURVEYING, INC. 9001 E BLOOMiNGTON FREEWAY (35W) BL°OOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420 PHONE file - 881- 2455 ,� All Aiiiiiiiiiiiii L GERALD M. SUNDE P E. CONSULTING ENGINEER 10524 ZION AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55437 PHONE 612-881 -3344 0 9OZ54 1 GRADING AND SITE PLAN FOR: OAK LAKE PARK POND MOUNDSVIEW, MINNESOTA CLIENT: Kraus -Anderson Development Co. Minneapolis, Minnesota ti Y P 0 P90a l L ARS 90 xH�l] 901 x963 5 89'3 •, � � _ _� x9_�' �ri k`w rr99E[? � _ � _ x9d3•� - 9074, (7 I. Sur 4. : n 4 co .] 935p1 'J Kr \\ �Y 'f. 7[ �Q'� _ �_- Q f BCE Q% 11 l x 896 1 5 x L _:�: * 9[7+ 849"7x 898 33 �'• 897 ❑s 9C31.3x �1}9fs g49 3x X 9313 9!0 3x ■ ;902 2 ■ x !8B9y ❑ 4U, gC5& 92 K 699 . @b Q E97 U x 960 H99 fir,1 8995 9lG _ - �9 i 4 9C}fi Fit 8 7s?� �� 8997 H994a x$95 F K901 a F ■ 1 x89"a 4 *g95 C. ` ` $p241 f' DE[rl f x634 ]� f x099 - 1l �-� � � •f � R� - 1 j '� t j` ., _ �r 4e 11 r /`� i 4 a� ' f } r~ E E �- r 9e q 1 xBfNS .9?4 494u K y9aa- - —838 '. •il H .. xH96 4 a9G3i tT• RR' fJ1 f ''�__ x89 -. l R3Q6 B B Dr r —9 6.9743t • x9�1'i.$ I 1.^, �y � �' rXB94 � CYF'Y I f { B 0 G f x &ya f �a ° R94 41 T.. 9�1 9 t Eli ,� Mae1 / XB 3 xE95 - �. y xB9�s +I f BB6 7! a8946 69" i 894 ■ �E - - - x$se 3 x •• _ 897p= ><898 s} I 1 { u 8949x 1 KSB9 ; } a895? ��'7P 99 94 8 $ 1 s) 694 4 j z, x ■90i C +r � 994= _ --- B47r+• - ' fC: 1 Y 4j4 ' xB3i. 4' '�1rP �J 99"' z� Px 699 . �a 4898 3 x3C�:' 9O O% B3n'.0 7 IF �. 9B 033I 44 ._ Yie��a3fhr� x&9' r a x896 A xfi9 N x 5 x8964 x xE4'.;' 99iDi E97 3x B95.2x B98 2 f _ 898 ` �96 1 8974�89a— x8982 xR96 7 ' 849:* 9398� ti 9C�I OI I — f 89ga �f u91ax x�95 1 r 9 89B.'ST,C 8934 , , 9c 7 C am .. _ 899 ❑ a-}36 0 O} r89S.3 x$4 --:- Syr------- TC 303 CX x a x895.: + x896 i 4 �� 89: 'a '= .197r, B99 ❑ o � � �-~- ❑, ,� r LF_� x892 5 ti x 895. B e a a 0 ■ ter. I k':5 "k 8981fr89�sp +i95 i r 1897,5 895 x %6968• Wet /Dri (Elevafio =V3.0)90QIx 3(:•0 54 I �900 f - 8097 - ti 9u0 ii ! '%895a � f f • `� � ' x895 ', 1 I 'r, 69RI1j Deep ( lbq -0) - x + Y Y 96�ir x - (` rL R- r r �. (1evatior, = 009.0) 47 r5899 9x x9p34Deep x B9'3 1 F lo o f i h 80 (No F k ca- va 1 of 0)') 9u:7 YE 1 �... �. - _ x901 � ,�' -� F9fi9x vp +� 904 91 _ - 902.3" a _µ� X902 K 90? 4 190,52 x9pb a 1' Picpo lt� K0� yyen'J P. W. � 0 LOCATION MAP 7 Laddse F a a • s •::L Lake Lake - - _ r � RArtSEY SPREN G LAKE -- 5prrrn HILL'JIEW RE. ". P•+rxs •.c J•it'+4'Y'4•s.lL . r y i VIEW ry, PAP. ]�= s19 _ M 1C M •~f� 8 R ! l S' L.r` 4 - - x ".: " �� ac•�r.sa •,a�,c w wis4 FRII)LEY _ ARDENSunfisi- `.� HILLS Lake Wore 11.x . Lake 1 -, rsai� - Sze 1� air t _ t Lakf• ! - 11,17Ir -� '~_ 1 N .SCALE IN FEET I hereby certify that this plan or report was prepared by me ar ender my direct Sl.igery i si on and that I ant a duly Req- k tered Professional Engineer under the Taws of the State of Minnesota. Gerald M. Sunde, P.E. Date October 8.-Ic-R-o Reg. No. 8734 REVISED -1. ober Via, I PA - 80 - ,�58 UNDE LAND SURVEYING, INC. 9001 E BLOOMINGTON FREEWAY t35Wi BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420 PHONE B 12 - 881- 24 55 56 A.F V10reAeS So lw- C-f =S . GERALD M. SUNDE P E. CONSULTING ENGINEER 10524 ZION AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55437 PHONE 612-88I -3344 FRONT ELEV 896.74 a 3 ELEV SZ g� �o S a DRAM By, BRH/AMC $ DESIGNER: DC CHECKED BY PDH DESIGN TEAM B L A i N E LOCATION MAP }I SIDE MEV 897.92 GERM J<< - - 15' ddP ®r WOOD SKIMMER STRUCTURE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE REVISIONS TOTAL NUMB 6" DIAMETER 8" DIAMETER 10" DIAMETE 12" DIAMETE 14' DIAMETE 24' DIAMETE 28" DIAMETE 36' DIAMETE 20 � e T- I hereby c�Ufy that lhla plan was Prepared by me a ©SfiDRT E]JJDtt HFNDRIf:16gN 7900, ANY USE OR FiQ7 under my dlract s,pvWalon and that I an a duty TTMS PtAN/bRA11t 10 AND RE OORRE"DING OdAPUTER MDED Raglataod Pmfaealanal Englna under the lam of the PHDNE: &5t) 490-2000 DE90V/bRAFTING FAES g11HDUf THE EJQ'R m MTTEN ODHs NT ta otaof Mhnaaota. 35M V (AIS CENTER DR. OF SN. IS PROHINTF). m: H SHALL NOT BE RE pMsiELE FOR SEHST. PAUL. MN 55110 ANY UNAUTHORIZED US= oR REUSE OF THESE MATETaALS, OR Dot= 08 01 04 Rag. No. 41674 DAMAGES RESULTNG THEREFROM. BENCHMARK APPROX. 400 FEET NORTH OF CMP ARCH CROSSING TNH HYD_NEAR PAIAWON SEDIMENTSLVERVIEW • '. MOUNDS VIEW, MINNE80TA FILE NO. OUND0403.00 FIGLM DATE 0B/Ot/04 MOI ND5 VIEW MEMORANDUM to: Mounds View City Council from: Brian Beeman, Assistant City Administrator Jon Sevald, Community Development Director Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator re: July 6, 2021 Workshop — Mounds View Blvd. Purpose of Workshop Discussion: 1. Follow-up discussion on Boulevard i. Strategic Plan (Complete Trail & Beautification) ii. Economic Development iii. Uniter 2. Achieve consensus on actionable steps i. Complete Trail ii. Beautification iii. Safety iv. Economic Development/Commerce Background: Mounds View Boulevard — aka; Ramsey County State Aid Highway 10 serves as the transportation and commerce corridor for Ramsey County the City of Mounds View. Since our transition from a township to a city, major upgrades to the highway have occurred as well as nearly 100%turnover of commercial properties on the corridor. As part of the strategic planning discussion that began in 2019 and adoption of plan in 2020, completion of the trail (south side, west end) and beautification were included. Additionally and subsequently, Council/EDA has continuously been dealing with development and re- development on the corridor. The Boulevard is clearly a major and integral component of the fabric of the community and Council/EDA focus is appropriate. Process: Staff has invested considerable time in preparation for the discussion including research of past consultant reports, discussions, meeting with the development committee, and discussions with various other entities such as Ramsey Public Works Department and Twin City Gateway. Page 2 of 5 Staff is suggesting we discuss the Boulevard thru defined lenses; Transportation, Commerce, Economic Development and as a Uniter. Transportation would include commercial, personal, mass transit traffic, pedestrian and non - motorized traffic, and safety. Commerce would focus on what is present and what is missing. To wit, restaurants, gas stations, car repair, entertainment, and the community center, are all desirable by residents and guests, but what is not here that we (council/residents) want? That leads to economic development which we spend a fair amount of time on, thus council is familiar. Lastly is the lens of being a Uniter which can be defined by activity such as shopping, entertainment (Splash Pad, Movie Theater, Community Center, activity —trail, eating (restaurants) and to some degree — living (multi -family housing). And specific to this lens, the City of Mounds View is, by far; the largest property owner on the Boulevard with multiple amenities ranging from athletic venues to parks to the Splash Pad and Community Center. We also possess the most vacant or redevelop -able land — such as "adding" to the Community Center to enhance it further in uniting us. Transportation Lens: The primary purpose of the Boulevard is to carry traffic as detailed in the process section. With the construction and opening of US 10 in 1999 traffic counts dropped on the Boulevard from 43,000 per day in 1999 to around 20,000 trips per day today. Since it was built as a major corridor from St. Paul to the Brainerd Lakes area and beyond, the two line, divided construction with full median and shoulders easily accommodates current traffic volumes. At peak, there were 43 intersections which is a lot and do/can contribute to traffic accidents. Over time, that number has reduced as well as some intersections being reconfigured to "square -up" versus the acute angle. Today, Groveland Road, Long Lake Road and County Road H2 still intersect at an angle and there are 40 intersection points. In 2019, as part of the 35W MNPASS Lane, DOT upgraded the timing of signals at all intersections which improved flow and safety. Page 3 of 5 Crash data over the last five years from Mounds View PD. Since 2016, there have been no pedestrian or driver fatalities on the Boulevard. There have been three serious injuries; two drivers and one pedestrian. Intersection # of Crashes # of Fatalities/Serious Injuries Long Lake Road 31 Drivers seriously injured (2017 incident) County Road 1 30 None County H2 30 None Woodale Drive 29 None Groveland Road 26 Pedestrian seriously injured Edgewood 22 None County Road H 17 None Spring Lake Road 11 None Red Oak/Silver Lake 6 None Specific to the trail, as part of the 2022 street project, the pedestrian/bike trail will be completed on the south and north side as part of that project. Policy Questions: 1. Beautification of the corridor probably fits best in this area. The real policy question is what amount of fiscal resources is the council willing to allocate to this endeavor? Possibilities to beautify, which includes improving functionality to entice more use — benches, picnic tables, signage; for example. a. New/more robust monument signs at entry points. b. Benches along trail. c. Picnic benches along trail. d. Landscaping (very strategic) along trail. e. Burying of power lines. f. Fountain in retention pond(s) Safety at intersections, based on the data, could presumably be improved by redesign and reconstruction. Estimates exceed $1 million per intersection. Where is this on the Council priority list? Commented [DPI]: ADA is Ramsey County Responsibility, must have plan in place by 2024 to upgrade all ADA PED RAMPS Commented [IS2]: There's two pans to this: (1) pedestrian safety (e.g. ADA compliant curb ramps); and (2) motorist (e.g. improved sight triangles). Realignment is only practical at Groveland. But, realignment is not necessarily the best option (R- type Left -turn lanes may be better, and much less expensive). Page 4 of 5 Commerce Lens: Residents and guests value a commercial center/corridor in which goods and services can be obtained absent traveling great distances. While choices are clearly personal, fast food options are adequate with chain brands as well as local fare. Sit down restaurants are available, however, Comprehensive Plan and Social Media feedback have indicated desire for additional options. Pharmacy, auto repair, car wash, liquor and tobacco, gasoline and limited grocery combine with limited entertainment/activity with the movie theater, bowling and city park/community center. Specialty commerce includes stucco, bike shop, veterinary, dental, library, car sales, barbershops/salon, pharmacy, insurance, legal, accounting, appliance and limited basic goods) (Dollar Store and Shady Deals). Additionally, while not commercial, there is multi -family housing for workforce, market rate apartments, and senior living options on/along the corridor which is in close proximity to the commercial goods and services as well as mass transit (bus and parking lot) components. Missing is the fine dining, brew house, and higher end grocery. Policy Questions: 1. Are there other commercial businesses or services council wishes to attract? The top five, according to the City's 2018 community opinion survey were; Gas Stations; Large Grocery Store; Sit -Down Restaurant; and a Bakery/Fast Casual Restaurant/Ice Cream Shop (tied). 2. What investment(s) is/are the Council willing to make to secure one of the aforementioned? Economic Development Lens: Council/EDA is very familiar with this lens as it has been the primary area of all recent redevelopment. Additionally, Council/EDA and staff just spent a substantive time at workshop discussing redevelopment city-wide but much of the discussion was around properties on the Boulevard and in fact, that discussion is in part — what has led to this discussion. Policy Questions: 1. Pastor Enterprises has indicated) a willingness to revamp their entire site. Staff shared with the Development Committee a project in Mendota Heights that is similar in size. Should staff pursue this discussion with Pastor (knowing at some point Pastor is likely to request/expect city contribution of some kind). Commented [DP3]: Add Pharmacy (have two on the corridor, both within walking distance of Senior living. Commented [JS4]: This was some time ago. We need to check - in with them before July if this is still on their radar. I don't think we need CC permission to do this. Page 5 of 5 Uniter Lens: Under this lens we view the corridor as one that brings people together— unite them. Like the commerce component, eating, shopping, and entertainment such as the movie theater brings people, most of them our residents; together. Being the largest property owner along with being responsible for the trail system and operation of the Parks and Recreation system, the City is uniquely poised to further leverage our existing assets with expansions or additions. Policy Questionsi: 1. Is council supportive of further exploration of expansion of our campus? a. MemoriallPark? b. Additional gyms on Community Center? c. Outdoor plaza space for wedding and other reception venues. d. Additional parking near treatment plant/well 1. e. Expansion/upgrades to volleyball facilities? f. Additional park/recreation activity— obstacle course with virtual feature? Commented [J55]: Tfthe PRF Commission is discussing this now. Let's revisit after Commission meeting, and before CC WS. Commented [DP6]: Council was supportive before, parks commission also Planning Commission MEMO to: Mounds View Planning Commission from: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director re: County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program Presentation date: September 2, 2005 The consultant working on the County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program (Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates) is making a presentation to the Mounds View City Council at their worksession on Tuesday, September 6, 2005. The presentation will bring the Council up to date on the work that has been accomplished to date, much of which has been reviewed by the Design Theme Subcommittee and Project Management Team. Because many of you have expressed an interest in this project, you are all invited to attend the worksession meeting. Attached please find Greg Lee's summary report on the item along with some black & white design sheets illustrating various ideas and concepts for the corridor. I will bring the color versions to the Commission meeting, if anyone would like to view them.) If you should have any questions before the worksession meeting, please feel free to call me (763-717-4021) or Public Works Director Greg Lee at 763-717-4051. CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, September 6, 2005 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas PUBLIC COMMENT Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight's agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. Agenda Items Discussed by Consensus 1. 6:00 pm — 6:30 pm Joint Meeting with EDA and EDC: TIF Philosophy, Goals and Spending Priorities 2. 6:30 pm — 7:30 pm County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program Update 3. 7:30 pm — 8:30 pm 2006 Budget Items a. Review City's 2005-06 LMCIT Insurance Coverage (Maguire and Associates) b. Review Proposed 2006 City Budget/Preliminary Levy c. Discuss Assistant to the City Administrator Position, Payroll/Utility Billing Technician, and discuss a request for a new job description (Receptionist/Communications Coordinator) 4. 8:30 pm — 9:00 pm Review Golf Course Closing: a. Closing Schedule b. Review Cancellation of Contracts 1.) Pepsi Contract 2.) Scorecard Contract — KDM (Golf Score Cards) c. Disposition of fixed assets 5. 9:00 pm — 9:15 pm Review Consideration of Extraordinary Water Bill at 2237 Pinewood Drive 6. 9:15 pm — 9:30 pm Review Meeting Locations/Cable Coverage During City Hall Remodeling/Consideration of Closing City Hall on Friday, September 30, 2005. 7. 9:30 pm — 10:00 pm Review City Council Meeting Protocol. 8. Executive Session Immediately Following this Work Session to discuss the City Administrator Performance Review, and to discuss Threatened Litigation with Innovative Images. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 3, 2005 @7pm Next City Council Meeting: Monday, September 12, 2005 @7pm Item No. 2 Meeting Date: September 6, 2005 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearin CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council B , s City Administrator Review City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program Update Background: On July 5, 2005 a project update report for the County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program was submitted to the City Council. Attached is a copy of this report. Discussion: Two representatives of the City engineering consulting firm Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates will be providing a presentation to the City Council at this Work Session. Kevin Hoglund, Project Engineer, will discuss funding issues and grant opportunities as they relate to signalized intersections and trailways. Attached is a copy of the project funding summary. Stuart Krahn, Registered Landscape Architect, will discuss activities conducted by the Theme Committee and design and theme elements and concepts proposed for this corridor. Attached is a copy of theme development materials. Recommendation: Staff is looking for direction on this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for Council input on whether this is the direction the City Council is interested going forward with the County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item No. 6 Meeting Date: July 5, 2005 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing, CA: Consent Agenda; CB- Council Business City Administrator Review _ (amity of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Item Title/Subject: County Road 10 Project Status Update Background: On November 22, 2004 the City Council approved Resolution 6399 approving a contract award to the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Incorporated (BRAA) for work associated with the County Road 10 Redevelopment and Revitalization Project. Discussion: Attached is a letter submitted by BRAA outlining the current status of this program. Recommendation: Staff is looking for direction on this matter. Specifically, Staff is looking for Council input on the work that has been done thus far and any planned actions as they pertain to this program. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Lee, Director of Public Works Bonestroo Rosene Anderlil< & Associates Engineers & Architects County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program Project Update June 29, 2005 City Project No. 2004-022 Bonestroo File No. 435-04-11.4 This project update is a brief summary of the progress made to date in the development of the County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program through Mounds View. Topographical Survey and Mapping The topographical survey has been completed including all roadways and ground information within the County Road 10 right of way and 50 feet outside the right of way along the entire corridor. An existing parcel map has been prepared including the surveying and mapping information along the corridor. Additional boundary survey work is still being performed. Work to the existing mapping is also being performed to complete tying together the survey and boundary information along the corridor. Existing Intersection Traffic Operations Review and Analysis We have examined the existing conditions, including traffic flow during the peak hours, pedestrian crossing times, and crash rates at individual intersections. Detailed level of service results were presented to City and Ramsey County Staff showing generally adequate traffic operations with some minor movements in need of improvements. Pedestrian crossing times showed some need for adjustments based upon current standards. As expected, existing crash rates were the highest, and above Metro area averages, for the intersection of CR 10 and CR. H. The intersection of Long Lake Road and CR 10 also showed a high amount of crashes, but lower than the Metro averages. Using the level of service results, crash summaries, and other traffic information in the area, a list of potential improvements was developed and presented to City and County Staff. This list of improvements is now being analyzedtodetermine potentialeffectson traffic operations. Once analyzed, the list will be pared to those that demonstrate clear improvement to traffic and/or pedestrian operations and safety. The list will also be ordered based on the most important and feasible projects first. A final report will document our process, procedures, and recommendations for the corridor. County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program Page 2 Project Update .tune 29, 2005 EVP Installation for Signalized Intersections This portion of the project has been completed. The signals were examined for compatibility with providing Emergency Vehicle Preemption and found to have the necessary capabilities. A report was created describing the existing conditions, any previous planning, and the necessary irnprovements to provide for EVP operations. The report also outlined next steps and a preliminary cost estimate for completion of the project. Following approval by the City Council, plans and special provisions were developed to install EVP on eight signals, seven on the CR 10 corridor and one at the intersection of CR I and Quincy Street. The plan set is currently being reviewed by the County. Following their review, the project is expected to move forward quickly with installation occurring this summer. Corridor Design Development As part of the overall process to develop a theme throughout the corridor, a design theme subcommittee was developed. The committee includes: Greg Lee, Public Works Director Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Cindy Palm, MV Parks and Recreation Commission Gary Stevenson, MV Planning Commission Barbara Thomas, MV City Council Jackie Entsminger, MV Economic Development Commission Stuart Krahn, Bonestroo Landscape Architect This committee is currently in the process of reviewing initial corridor concepts and developing various themes along the corridor. This committee will be involved in development of the trail, landscaping, lighting and gateway sign themes for the corridor. The status of each of these features is described below. Landscaping and Lighting Existing opportunities and constraints have been discussed in meetings with the Project Management Team (PMT) and the Design Theme Subcommittee. Past theme proposals for the corridor, as well as design precedents from other parts of the state and the world have been reviewed. The following has been concluded: The corridor can be organized into four districts, which, starting on the east end, are: Entry/Commercial District Civic/Entertaimnent District Community Retail/Multi-Family Neighborhood District Single and Multi-Farnily Neighborhood District The meeting groups have discussed the difference between "landscape as entertainment" and "landscape as experience," with the idea that County Road 10 should be designed to create a series of positive experiences. While the elements used to create the experiences will be consistent along the corridor, they will be used differently in each of the districts to create a different experience. Those elements are structure, landform, vegetation, and water, and the experiences for each of the districts (starting on the east end) are progress, arrival, interaction, and retreat. The design of each of these elements within the districts is currently being refined. County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program Project Update June 29, 2005 Page 3 Traihvay plan The desire for continuous trailway connections along both sides of County Road 10 has been confirmed in meetings with the PMT. The corridor has been organized into three existing and eleven proposed trail sections for further feasibility analysis and cost estimating. Additional potential lateral coruiections into the surrounding neighborhoods have also been identified. Gateway sign Alternative designs for a gateway sign have been developed for the hillside between McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken, and a preferred design has been selected for further development. Two locations on the hill side were staked and reviewed by City staff, and a preferred location was selected. The gateway sign is currently being developed further in a manner consistent with the landscape and lighting plan development. Funding As the review of the corridor has progressed, implementation of the proposed projects will also be addressed. We have determined some intersection improvements and future trail locations but further refinement and prioritization will occur over the next couple of months. In conjunction with developing a schedule and a plan for implementation, a review will be performed of various funding sources, which will also affect the final prioritization of the projects. The Met Council is currently soliciting projects to compete for and potentially receive federal finnding. Although we have not set the final prioritization of projects, it is essential that the City does not miss an opportunity to apply for funding when it becomes available. This solicitation only occurs every 2 years and the funding will be provided in 2009 or 2010. We are anticipating submitting finding request for the 2 highest accident intersections, CR 10 at CR H and CR 10 at Long Lake Road. In order to apply for the finding certain criteria must be met. Bonestroo is currently reviewing the locations and criteria with City staff to determine the size and type of improvement that will likely receive federal funding. In addition to the intersection projects, we are also reviewing the possibility of submitting funding for portions of rh the trail along the CR 10 corridor. Applications are due to Met Council by July 29. CRY OF OMG�D� JA Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects County load 10 Corridor Improvement Program City Project No. 2004-022 Bonestroo file No. 435-04-114 Project Funding Summary 8-30-2005 Innovative Transportation Programming Profile (ITPP)T"' As part of the County Road 10 corridor Improvement Program, Bonestroo will be developing an Innovative Transportation Prograiruning Profile (ITPP)T" for the City. The ITPPT" will include a review of the existing City Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to coordinate future projects with funding program cycles while using multiple sources of funding for various project segments. We will be inventorying federal, state and regional transportation programs available to cities and match them to components making up the County Road 10 corridor projects. Prior to developing the ITPPT` it is important that we examine the existing conditions along the corridor and develop a plan for various improvements. Once a more specific theme and concept are developed we will identify projects and the priority for implementation. The County Road 10 projects will be compared to the City's CIP as part of the overall ITPPT"' process. As the corridor improvement program has progressed, opportunities have been presented for the City to potentially acquire funding for some of the desired improvements. Solicitation for federal funding only occurs once every two years, and 2005 is a federal solicitation year. Funding applications were due in August 2005 to compete for funding available in federal fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Due to this solicitation, a potential list of projects were reviewed and funding applications were submitted for projects that have a high likelihood of being selected. Although these projects are likely to rank high during the selection process, the final selection and ranking of each project submitted is always dependent on how the project compares relative to other project submittals. The following is a surmnary of the programs and applications made. Hazard Elimination Safety Program (HES) This programprovidesfunding-far low cost intersection improverrient projects that will reduce crashes, thus improving the overall safety of the intersection. A worksheet is completed for each intersection that reviews the existing crash problems and the recommended improvement to the intersection. Using this information a benefit vs. cost (b/c) ratio is established which is used to rank the projects. In order to apply for the funding the b/c ratio must be greater than one. The typical projects that receive funding have b/c ratios close to three. Applications were submitted for three intersections that each had a significant number of crashes that could be corrected by low cost improvements. The applications include: County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program Page 2 Funding Summary August 30, 2005 1. County Road H a Number of Crashes from 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2002 = 30 ® Recommended Improvements: - Reconstruct the northeast leg of County Road H to provide separate left, tluru and right turn lanes. - Replace existing signal system - Install advance warning flashers on County Road 10. ® Benefit vs. Cost Ratio = 2.86 ® Project Estimated Cost = $570,000 - Federal finding requested = $513,000 - Local match = $57,000 2. Long Lake Road ® Number of Crashes from 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2002 = 17 • R.econn wended Improvements: - Restripe Long Lake Road to create opposing left turn lanes. - Restripe so that each approach leg on Long Lake Road becomes a single lane. - Replace existing signal system ® Benefit vs. Cost Ratio = 3.10 ® Project Estimated Cost = $300,000 - Federal funding requested = $270,000 - Local match = $30,000 Silver Lake Road/Red Oak Drive • Number of Crashes from 1/I/2000 to 12/31/2002 = 13 ® Reconunended Improvements: - Restripe Silver Lake R.oad/Red Oak Drive to create opposing left turn lanes. - Restripe so that each approach leg on Silver Lake Road/Red Oak Drive becomes a single lane. - Replace existing signal system ® Benefit vs. Cost Ratio = 2.58 ® Project Estimated Cost = $300,000 - Federal funding requested = $270,000 - Local match = $30,000 Transportation Enhancements Program (TE) This program provides funding for transportation -related activities designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic and environmental aspects of the nation's intermodal transportation system. This program typically funds bicycle and pedesf ian facilities that improve safety, provide for - educational opportunities, improve aesthetics and provide a connection to public facilities and regional trail systems. The County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program is focusing on the development of a trail system along both sides of the corridor. Due to the limitation of TE funding, it would not be possible to receive enough funding to construct the entire trail along both sides of the corridor in a single project. Working with City staff, the most beneficial segments of trail were identified and were included in the funding application. The project submitted includes the following: K:\435\43504114\Word\Work_ln_Procress\Funding Summary 8-30-05 - MV doc County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program Funding Summary August 30, 2005 1. Pedestrian/Bicyclist trail on the northeast side of County Road 10 from County Road H to Silver Lake Road ® Project will include: - 10' bituminous trail - landscaping - lighting - interpretive and educational signage ® Trail provides local and regional coiuiections to: - Rice Creek Regional Trail System - Park and Ride lot at I-35W - City Hall and Community Center - Ramsey County Library - Silverview Park - Northside Christian School - Entertaiiunent and Cominercial Centers ® Project Estimated Cost = $625,000 - Federal fiuiding requested = $500,000 - Local match = $125,000 Page 3 It is anticipated that the federal selection process will be completed in December 2005 with notification to applicants occurring in January 2006. Although projects selected will receive funding in 2009 or 2010, there are opportunities to construct the trail earlier with other local funds and then receive the federal fiords when they become available in a future year. It is anticipated that the ITPPT"' will be developed over the next few months in conjunction with the prioritization of the corridor projects. The ITPP7"' will also outline the anticipated funding programs and solicitation schedules so the City will not miss critical fiinding opportunities. KA435\43504114\word\Work_In_ProgFes s\Funding Summary 5-30-05 - MV doc Traffic Crashes by Intersection Long Lake Road & MV Blvd — 31 CR I & MV Blvd — 30 H2 & MV Blvd - 30 Woodale Dr & MV Blvd 29 Groveland RD & MV Blvd — 26 Edgewood Dr & MV Blvd — 22 CRH&MVBlvd -17 Spring Lake RD & MV Blvd — 11 Red Oak & MV Blvd — 6 2017- Crash at Long Lake Road & MV Blvd drivers were seriously injured 2019 - Crash at Groveland and MV Blvd where Pedestrian was seriously injured Fatalities on MV Blvd- 0 Pedestrian deaths on MV Blvd-0 Report from 2016 to current date based off MN Crash and RMS* Item 02 Page 1 of 10 Corridor Examples Silver Lake Road, New Brighton Silver Lake Road, New Brighton �M`Yfndd �sti i 0 off Item 02 Page 6 of 10 Co Rd 96, Arden Hills Co Rd 96, Arden Hills T � _ i �&b mt ¢ ' r � : tom,! •'>' �Ea ., � � i, �' '�S '�` ►n, y_ ' `�` � fit.. � � .�+ �s � r. `gyp• ,_ , ,aC'�y 'i k - ,gig. jaw- 17 AIR 4 r. -i 71 Item 02 Page 10 of 10 q4t .14C . Snelling Ave, Roseville Main Street, Blaine MOUN-DS VtVW City of Mounds View Staff R To: Mayor and City Council From: Brian Beeman, Assistant City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Soderman Property Item No: 3 Meeting Date: July 6, 2021 Type of Business: EDA Administrator review: Background Recently, staff was approached by Dustin Soderman to see if the EDA is interested in purchasing their property located at 2510 Ardan Avenue. The property is .89 acres and sits adjacent to the City owned property at 8283 Long Lake Rd. The subject property currently has a small home that has been vandalized and is not inhabitable. At their June 28, 2021 meeting the EDA agreed to move forward in the process of acquiring the property. Ramsey County's estimated market value 2021 for taxes payable in 2022 is $104,200. The owner is claiming that they put about $25,000 into the building when an unlicensed contractor gutted the building, damaged and removed the floor and heater, and ripped out the plumbing then left never to be heard from again. Water is from an existing well and there is a septic system that needs to be inspected prior to any renovations. Vandals and others have broken into the home several times, people were illegally entering and living in the building. The owners have tried to secure the building however they have stated that it continues to get broken into and they are afraid to go near the property at night. The owner is asking $150,000 in order to be made whole and had declined two offers one being $120,000. The owner states that if the City is not interested or if they can't get $150,000 for the property then they will list it on the open market. Discussion The Council to further discuss the details in purchasing the property including the Council's comfort level in recommending a price range for staff to continue negotiations and make an offer on the property. Financial Impact Staff has indicated that there are sufficient funds to acquire the property. Recommendation Should the Council decide to continue to move forward in acquiring the property, staff recommends the Council authorize staff to coordinate with Kennedy & Graven to write an offer on the property within the identified price range. Respectfully submitted, AJ140;0-- Brian Beeman Assistant City Administrator Attachment(s): 1) EDA Staff Report from June 28, 2021 2) Picture The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community MaU--NDitSVVftW City of Mounds View Staff R To: EDA President and Commissioners From: Brian Beeman, Assistant City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Soderman Property Discussion Item No: 6A Meeting Date: June 28, 2021 Type of Business: EDA Administrator review: Background Recently, staff was approached by Dustin Soderman to see if the EDA is interested in purchasing their property located at 2510 Ardan Avenue. The property is .89 acres and sits adjacent to the City owned property at 8283 Long Lake Rd. The subject property currently has a small home that has been vandalized and is not inhabitable. Public Works has shown some interest in the past to take ownership because the house is not currently on city services. The closest services to connect is in Longlake Road which would be costly. There was also the idea to set the property aside for future expansion of Ardan Park and/or the compost site. In addition, the city has past development plans that shows a larger development south of Ardan Park. Discussion The EDA to discuss the interest level of purchasing the property. Staff is just determining if the EDA is interested in the property or not at this point. Recommendation Should the EDA decide to continue to pursue the property, staff recommends that the item be placed on the July 6 Council Worksession for further discussion where more details about the property, including price, and other pertinent information can be discussed. If the EDA decides not to continue pursuing the property then staff will notify Mr. Soderman so that he can list the property on the market. Respectfully submitted, AV&44v-- Brian Beeman Assistant City Administrator Attachment(s): 1) Map of Subject Property The Mounds View Vision A Thriving Desirable Community U h 360 346 51} 0 �}9J ] 1;3a7 3250 8230 R (3i) J 8206 (a3) 8200 (64 ) 8150 (0) 140 m A rd 8283 2510 113? a} 8271 ?Kl 0 {}1} 0 (3) 8247 (31) 8239 { (30) 23} 8225 oea aa:i 8217 ca; (M ) 425) 8205 (aa} R 7} 8145 (10) 0 Qq} 8133 .� � : 3 {\ (m\ A+\'\