Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUtility System PlansUTILITY SYSTEM PLANS WATER SUPPLY Water Supply Chapter 2040 Comprehensive Plan Rosemount, Minnesota ROSEM 146456 | May 2, 2019 WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 2 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................. 3 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................. 3 2 Existing Water System Facilities ................................. 4 2.1 Supply .................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Treatment .............................................................................................. 5 2.3 Distribution ............................................................................................. 6 2.4 Storage .................................................................................................. 6 3 Population and Community Growth ............................ 7 3.1 Population and Relationship to 2040 Comprehensive Plan.............................................................................. 7 4 Water Requirements ................................................... 8 4.1 Variations in Customer’s Demand & Pumpage ...................................... 8 4.2 Water Consumption History ................................................................... 9 4.3 Hourly Demand Fluctuations .................................................................. 9 4.4 Water System Demand Projections ..................................................... 10 4.5 Water Needs for Fire Protection .......................................................... 11 5 Adequacy of Existing Water System ........................ 13 5.1 Water Supply, Storage and Distribution Relationship ......................................................................................... 13 5.2 Supply (Wells and Pumps) ................................................................... 13 5.3 Storage ................................................................................................ 15 5.4 Distribution System .............................................................................. 15 6 Water System Improvements ................................... 16 6.1 Treated Water Supply .......................................................................... 16 6.2 Storage ................................................................................................ 16 6.3 Distribution System .............................................................................. 17 6.4 Potential Service to Coates .................................................................. 17 6.5 Phasing of Improvements .................................................................... 17 6.6 Cost Recovery System ........................................................................ 18 7 Additional Recommendations ................................... 18 7.1 Partnerships and Grants ...................................................................... 18 7.2 Sustainability ........................................................................................ 18 7.3 Infrastructure Improvements ................................................................ 19 WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 3 Water Supply Chapter 2040 Comprehensive Plan Prepared for City of Rosemount, Minnesota 1 Introduction The City of Rosemount municipal water system consists of nine (9) active water supply wells, four (4) elevated storage tanks, and approximately 136 miles of transmission and distribution water mains, ranging in size from four (4) inches up to 36 inches in diameter. The distribution system is comprised of two pressure zones (East and W est) with pressure maintained by the water level in the elevated storage tanks. Rosemount provides potable water to multiple large and small-scale industrial customers and numerous commercial and residential customers. With proper planning and coordination, the municipal water system facilities will be prepared for short-term and long-term community needs. The City is expecting continued growth and development throughout the planning period. Therefore, proper planning is essential to coordinate the expansion of municipal water system facilities to meet the short-term and long-term needs of the community. 1.1 Purpose Sound engineering and long range planning have guided the development and expansion of Rosemount’s municipal water system since its inception. Prior reports have provided detailed engineering evaluations, resulting in the orderly, efficient, and cost effective expansion of Rosemount’s water system. A complete review of the entire water system was last conducted in 2007. Numerous focused updates to the 2007 plan have been made to address more specific pending development. In 2016, the City undertook a thorough review of the Eastern Service Area. The City’s 2016 Local Water Supply Plan (Appendix A) meets the minimum planning requirements of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Metropolitan Council. The 2016 Water Supply Plan details historic and projected water use, the adequacy of the existing water system, water conservation, resource sustainability, and emergency preparedness. The purpose of this Water Supply Chapter is to summarize the results of previous engineering studies and the 2016 Water Supply Plan in light of Rosemount’s 2040 Local Comprehensive Plan. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 4 2 Existing Water System Facilities The City’s drinking water system provides water for domestic and fire protection uses. The water system f acilities operated and maintained by the City include: • Nine (9) active groundwater wells; • Four (4) elevated water storage tanks; • Water system controls; and • 136 miles of water transmission and distribution system pipes, valves and hydrants. The water system consists of two interconnected pressure zones. The W est Service Area serves the majority of the City, including the downtown area. The W est Service Area operates at a high water (overflow) elevation of 1105.0 ft above mean sea level (AMSL). Rosemount's East Side water system (refer to Existing System map in Appendix C) was originally constructed by the University of Minnesota (U of M), consisting of Rural Wells 1 and 2, and a looped distribution system of 6 inch and 4 inch water mains. The original system provided domestic water use only. The U of M’s rural system was connected to the City of Rosemount’s system in 2001 with the addition of 16 inch mains and a new 500,000 gallon East Side elevated reservoir. Trunk water mains extended along US Hwy 52 and MN Hwy 55 provide water service to Flint Hills Resources and some of the adjacent industrial customers. Since the ground elevations in eastern Rosemount are lower than the west side, a new pressure zone was created in the east side. The high water (overflow) elevation of the East Side water tower is 1050.0 AMSL. Water can flow from the west side service area to the east side service area via a pressure reducing valve located near Rural Wells 1 and 2. The general location and layout of the water system facilities are illustrated on the Proposed Trunk Water System Maps (East and West Systems) in Appendix C. This section presents a summary of the design and operating characteristics of the existing water system components. 2.1 Supply 2.1.1 Groundwater Resources Water is supplied from nine (9) municipal wells located in separate well fields. The water supply wells vary in depth ranging from 400 to 507 feet, and draw water from the Jordan aquifer. Table 1 summarizes well data for each of the City’s active production wells. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 5 Table 1 – Existing City Water Production Wells Well Name Unique Well Number Depth (ft) Capacity (gpm) Capacity (MGD) Service Area Aquifer RR #1 457167 400 500 0.72 East Jordan RR #2 474335 400 500 0.72 East Jordan Well No. 7 112212 490 1000 1.44 West Jordan Well No. 8 509060 498 1100 1.58 West Jordan Well No. 9 554248 481 1200 1.73 West Jordan Well No. 12 706804 475 1500 2.16 West Jordan Well No. 14 722623 485 1300 1.87 West Jordan Well No. 15 753663 487 1300 1.87 West Jordan Well No. 16 805374 507 2000 2.88 West Jordan Total 10,400 15.0 Firm Capacity 7,900 11.4 The firm capacity listed in Table 1 is defined as the system capacity minus the capacity of the largest pump in each service area. This is the capacity that can be provided consistently, even during maintenance when a well pump might be out of service. 2.1.2 Emergency Interconnections During emergencies, water can also be supplied to the City of Rosemount through system interconnect with the City of Apple Valley. Closed valves at the interconnect locations prevent water from passing between the two systems under normal operation. During an emergency, the valves could be opened in order to maintain adequate water supply. 2.1.3 Wastewater Reuse In addition to the existing groundwater supply currently in use, the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) is studying the possibility of reusing wastewater from the Empire Treatment Plant. This would entail a level of treatment yet to be established at the MCES lift station located at the site of the former Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant. It is possible that this water could then be used for major industrial/commercial purposes in the area in the CSAH 42/US Hwy 52 vicinity. Use of this water supply would require a long term commitment in order for the infrastructure to be constructed. 2.2 Treatment The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has set primary (enforceable) standards, for drinking water. Rosemount’s water is tested regularly and is in conformance with primary standards. The USEPA also has set secondary standards (non-enforceable recommendations) for aesthetic water quality. The secondary standards are set to minimize the potentially negative aesthetic qualities (such as color, taste, odors) of water containing high levels of these contaminants. The secondary standard for iron and manganese in drinking water is set at 0.3 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and 0.05 mg/L, respectively. Water from some of Rosemount’s wells exceed the secondary standards for iron and manganese, however the City has managed WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 6 to minimize customer complaints by blending water from the wells and adding polyphosphates (for sequestering iron and manganese) at the supply wells. Rosemount currently disinfects the source water by chlorination at the well sites. Additional treatment includes fluoride (to prevent tooth decay). Existing water quality and treatment are discussed in more detail in the Adequacy of Facilities section of this report. Appendix B provides a summary of the current EPA Water Quality Requirements. 2.3 Distribution The City water distribution system provides a means of transporting and distributing water from the supply sources to customers and other points of usage. The distribution system must be capable of supplying adequate quantities of water at reasonable pressures throughout the service area under a range of operating conditions. Furthermore, the distribution system must be able to provide not only uniform distribution of water during normal and peak demand conditions, but must also be capable of delivering adequate water supplies for fire protection purposes. The current water main size inventory is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 – Existing Water Distribution System Summary Pipe Size Length (ft) Length (Miles) % of total Unknown 8,422 1.6 1.2 4-inch 17,014 3.2 2.4 6-inch 168,117 31.8 23.4 8-inch 285,672 54.1 39.8 12-inch 121,272 23.0 16.9 14-inch 297 0.1 0.0 16-inch 110,711 21.0 15.4 18-inch 100 0.0 0.0 24-inch 5,420 1.0 0.8 36-inch 989 0.2 0.1 Total 718,014 136.0 100% Notes: Hydrant leads not included Source: Rosemount GIS The Rosemount water system is comprised of about 136 miles of water main ranging in size from 4 inches up to 36 inches in diameter. The existing distribution system is shown in the map in Appendix C at the end of this report 2.4 Storage The Rosemount water distribution system is currently operated using elevated storage tanks. Water from these facilities is fed into the system by gravity. The City currently has four elevated storage tanks that have a combined storage volume of 3,500,000 gallons. Table 3 summaries the water storage facilities within the Rosemount water system. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 7 Table 3 – Existing Water Storage Facilities Facility Name Year Constructed Total Volume (gallon) Usable Volume (gallon) Overflow Elev. Style Chippendale Tower 1972 500,000 500,000 1105 Elevated Connemara Tower 1988 1,000,000 1,000,000 1105 Elevated Bacardi Tower 2007 1,500,000 1,500,000 1105 Elevated East Side Tower 1998 500,000 500,000 1050 Elevated Total 3,500,000 3,500,000 Water storage facilities are important to water systems, as they help supply water during peak hour demands. During times of peak demand, water is withdrawn from the storage tanks to provide adequate pressures throughout the system and to minimize the pumping capacity required and the size of transmission mains throughout the City. Water stored in elevated tanks also provides system reliability during power outages, fire events, and well pump outages. 3 Population and Community Growth In order to understand the requirements of the future water system, anticipated water use characteristics must be determined. This involves first understanding how water is currently used and then developing an estimate of how water might be used in the future. This section summarizes the primary assumptions regarding future growth of the City’s water service area. The present and future needs and characteristics of the identified service area have a direct impact on the need for expansion or reconfiguration of water system facilities. Therefore, the conclusions discussed in this section were used as a primary basis for projecting future water needs, evaluating the adequacy of existing water system facilities, and identifying needs for future water system improvements. 3.1 Population and Relationship to 2040 Comprehensive Plan In many cases, there is a close relationship between a community's population and total water consumption. As such, future water sales can be expected to reflect future changes in service area population. Similarly, commercial and industrial water consumption will tend to vary proportionately with the growth of the community. However, proportionally increased water use and population growth can vary greatly depending on the specific characteristics of a community. For the purposes of water system planning, City staff estimated the population served with municipal water in each service area as shown in Table 4. These projections through 2040 are consistent with Rosemount’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. For water system planning purposes, City staff estimated potential service areas beyond the formally adopted 2040 Plan. The following projections assume growth to occur within both the East Side and West Side Service Areas. The projected population served by municipal water for the City of Rosemount is summarized in Table 4. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 8 Table 4 – Projected Served Population Year Total City Population Total Population Served (1) East Side Only Service Area Population Served (2) West Side Only Service Area Population Served (1) 2016 23,544 60 23,484 2017 23,857 60 23,797 2018 24,210 60 24,150 2019 25,011 60 24,951(3) 2020 25,380 60 25,320 2025 28,562 60 28,502 2030 36,421 500 35,921 2040 46,843 1,000 45,843(4) Ultimate 98,000 28,000 70,000 Notes: (1) Source: City Estimates (2) Assume 20 homes currently served by U of M Rural Water System, but not served by municipal sanitary sewer system (3) Assumes Umore development begins (4) 38,100 per Met Council, plus Umore Phases 1-5 4 Water Requirements Projections of customer demands and service area serve as the basis for capital improvement planning. Several standard methods were used in this study to project water supply and storage needs based on estimates of population and community land use growth. This section summarizes the methodology used and the results of these projections. 4.1 Variations in Customer’s Demand & Pumpage Water demands are variable and change throughout the day, month, and year. Typically, two water demand days are used for water system planning – average day and maximum day. • Average Day Demand is defined as the total volume of water pumped throughout the year divided by the number of days in the year. It is typically recommended that a water system’s available water storage be equal to or exceed the average daily demand. • Maximum Day Demand is defined as the maximum volume of water pumped during a single day in a given year. The maximum day demand conditions typically occur during the summer, when outdoor water use is at its highest level of the year. A summary of recent MD levels is summarized in Table 5. The maximum day demand is defined as the amount of water pumped during a single day of the year with the highest water usage, and is often expressed as a ratio of the annual average day pumpage. The maximum day pumpage is of particular importance to water system planning, because water supply facilities are sized to meet this demand. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 9 4.2 Water Consumption History An analysis of past water consumption characteristics is performed by reviewing historical water use data. The data analyzed includes historical pumping records as well as select historical water billing data. Average Day (AD) water use was analyzed to develop overall water use trends. Maximum Day (MD) water consumption was analyzed for the previous 10 years to develop an understanding of maximum day peaking factors (refer to July 2016 Water Supply Plan contained in Appendix C). Peaking factors are defined as the ratio of the maximum day water use to the average day water use. Projections of future water requirements are based on the results of this analysis coupled with estimates of population and community growth and future land use. Table 5 – Recent Historical Water Use Year Population Served Total Water Pumped (MGY) Water Average Day Water Pumped (MGD) Max Day Water Pumped (MGD) MD/AD Ratio Avg Day Per Capita Water Use (gpd) Max Day Per Capita Water Use (gpd) 2007 22,474 937.5 2.57 na Na 114 na 2008 22,750 910.4 2.49 6.6 2.66 110 292 2009 23,244 937.9 2.57 6.5 2.52 111 278 2010 23,350 825.6 2.26 5.2 2.32 97 224 2011 22,239 855.8 2.34 6.3 2.67 105 281 2012 22,432 973.1 2.67 6.9 2.58 119 307 2013 22,711 880.6 2.41 6.4 2.64 106 280 2014 23,044 815.0 2.23 6.4 2.86 97 278 *2015 23,244 804.0 2.20 6.1 2.75 95 260 2016 23,574 920.1 2.52 6.0 2.47 107 255 2017 23,965 923.7 2.53 6.9 2.72 106 288 *2018 815.1 2.23 5.2 2.32 *Note: 2015 figures are estimates except for Max Day. 2018 Actual pumped water is estimated due to well meter failure. Population Served not available. Source: DNR Water Use Records, City Records Based on this analysis, the existing MD demand is determined to be 6.9 MGD (million gallons per day). 4.3 Hourly Demand Fluctuations Water demands are variable throughout the day and can vary depending on common use among users. Over the course of a given day, water uses often follow a diurnal demand distribution. Table 6 represents a typical daily demand distribution for residential water use. Commercial and industrial uses are usually more constrained and predictable. The residential demand graph depicts low water demand during the late evening and early morning periods. As the morning progresses, there is an increase in demand as indoor water use increases when people are WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 10 preparing for the day. During the summer this morning demand is also impacted by automatic lawn sprinkler systems that are typically operated in the morning. During late morning to early afternoon there is a slight recovery prior to a second peak use in the early evening after people arrive home from their daily routine. Most water systems are designed to meet the maximum daily demand rate with supply facilities such as wells, treatment processes, and pumping facilities. Storage reservoirs are used to supplement the supply of treated water during the peak usage hours within each day. During lower usage periods, the system is able to produce water in excess of the demand. This excess is used to fill the storage reservoirs. When the demand rate exceeds the production rate, the stored water in the reservoirs is used to make up for the deficit. Table 6 – Typical Diurnal Demand Curve Time Demand Multiplier Time Demand Multiplier 12:00 AM 45% 12:00 PM 110% 1:00 AM 40% 1:00 PM 103% 2:00 AM 45% 2:00 PM 103% 3:00 AM 50% 3:00 PM 105% 4:00 AM 70% 4:00 PM 110% 5:00 AM 115% 5:00 PM 120% 6:00 AM 155% 6:00 PM 118% 7:00 AM 165% 7:00 PM 110% 8:00 AM 160% 8:00 PM 100% 9:00 AM 145% 9:00 PM 90% 10:00 AM 130% 10:00 PM 75% 11:00 AM 115% 11:00 PM 63% Source: AWWA M32, Computer Modeling of Water Distribution Systems, 2012, American Water Works Association 4.4 Water System Demand Projections Estimates of future water use are established through a review of future land use and population projections. For the purposes of this study, City staff provided estimates of served population in the East, West, and UMORE areas to aid in water system capital improvement planning. Future water use projections are made using population projections and historic per capita water usage (Table 5). Historic per capita usage is then adjusted based on future land uses. This land use adjustment is especially important in the East Side Service Area, where the City is planning for a higher percentage of commercial/industrial uses. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 11 4.4.1 Summary of Projected Water Demands Table 7 provides a summary of the projected water demand. Table 7 – Projected Water Demand Year Population Served Average Day Demand (MGD) Max Day Demand West Side1 (MGD) Max Day Demand East Side2 (MGD) Total Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 2018 24,210 2.72 8.84 0.23 9.07 2020 25,380 2.93 9.50 0.27 9.77 2025 28,562 3.52 11.3 0.42 11.7 2030 36,421 4.12 13.1 0.60 13.7 2035 41,632 4.76 13.1 0.90 14.0 2040 46,843 5.40 13.8 1.20 15.0 Ultimate 98,000 13.7 21.1 13.1 34.2 Source: DNR Water Use Records, City of Rosemount Notes: 1Source: WSB Tech Memos, SEH Tech Memo 2Source: SEH 2016 East Side Utilities Study 4.5 Water Needs for Fire Protection In addition to the water supply requirements for domestic, commercial, and industrial consumption, water system planning for fire protection requirements is an important consideration. In most instances, water main sizes are designed specifically to supply adequate fire flow. Guidelines for determining fire flow requirements are developed based on recommendations offered by the Insurance Services Office (ISO), which is responsible for evaluating and classifying municipalities for fire insurance rating purposes. When a community evaluation is conducted by ISO, the water system is evaluated for its capacity to provide needed fire flow at a specific location and will depend on land use characteristics and the types of properties to be protected. However, in high value districts, fire flow requirements of up to 3,500 gpm can be expected. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, a basic fire flow requirement of 3,500 gpm for three hours was used for establishing water supply and storage requirements. Based on current insurance classification guidelines, this basic fire flow requirement is not expected to change over the planning period. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 12 Other typical fire flow requirements based on land use are outlined in Table 8. Table 8 – Typical Fire Flow Requirements Land Use Building Separation (feet) Available fire flow @ 20 psi (gpm) Single & Two Family Residential >100 500 Single & Two Family Residential 30-100 750 Single & Two Family Residential 11-30 1000 Single & Two Family Residential <10 1500 Multiple Family Residential Complexes - 2,000 to 3,000+ Average Density Commercial - 1,500 to 2,500+ High Value Commercial - 2,500 to 3,500+ Light Industrial - 2,000 to 3,500 Heavy Industrial - 2,500 to 3,500+ Source: Insurance Services Office WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 13 5 Adequacy of Existing Water System Water systems are analyzed, planned, and designed primarily through the application of basic hydraulic principles. Some important factors that must be considered when performing this analysis include: • Location and capacity of supply facilities; • Location, sizing, and design of storage facilities; • Location, magnitude, and variability of customer demands; • Water system geometry and geographic topography; • Minimum and maximum pressure requirements; and, • Land use characteristics with respect to fire protection requirements. The system was evaluated based on the following standard water industry criteria: • Pressure; • Flow Capacity; • Reliability; • Supply; and, • Storage. Prior engineering studies have evaluated the Rosemount water system in detail to determine the adequacy of the system to supply existing and future water needs and to supply water for fire protection purposes. The following comments regarding the adequacy of the existing water system are drawn from those reports. In general, the existing water system operates well. The City has adequate well supply and treatment capacity, and the existing piping network and storage facilities generally provide adequate flows and pressures. 5.1 Water Supply, Storage and Distribution Relationship Water demands over the course of a Maximum Day event are met from a combination of water supplied from the wells and water drawn from the water towers. Tower levels are drawn down during the day, when the demand is highest, and are refilled at night, when demands are lowest. Typically, water supply must equal 100% of the Maximum Day Demand, and the storage reservoirs must have sufficient capacity to supply the peak hour demands. The water distribution system pipes must be sized to convey a wide range of flow rates; such as tank filling, peak hour demands, and fire flows. 5.2 Supply (Wells and Pumps) 5.2.1 Supply Capacity The firm capacity of the existing wells (11.4 MGD) exceeds the expected 2018 MD demand. Therefore, the City has adequate well capacity to meet existing water demands. Since siting, design, permitting, and construction of new water supply wells and storage can take two (2) years, the City has a goal of adding wells and storage facilities generally concurrent with development. This approach provides the City with a safety factor to know that adequate supply and storage is available (or under construction) for all platted parcels – whether or not they are immediately developed and connected to the water system. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 14 5.2.2 Water Quality The water quality from all wells meets all enforceable EPA Primary Drinking Water Standards, and is regularly tested by City staff and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). Water from Wells 12, 14, 15, and 16 contain iron and manganese in excess of the recommended Secondary Standard. Although not a health hazard, iron and manganese levels in excess of the Secondary Standards can result in customer aesthetic complaints (red, or black colored water, staining of fixtures or clothing). The City currently manages the iron and manganese in these wells through “sequestering” agents (polyphosphates). These polyphosphates keep the iron and manganese in suspension, thus preventing the iron and manganese from settling out in the distribution system. In the future, if polyphosphate treatment is ineffective, the City may consider adding a water filtration/treatment system to remove iron and manganese. Initial sampling of water quality during the construction of Well 16 indicates that Well 16 may have radium concentrations slightly above the EPA standard for radium levels. The City will blend the water from Well 16 with water from Well 14 to provide water to all residents that is below the EPA radium standard. Additional testing will be conducted by the City as the well is placed into service. The City has been working closely with the MDH to sample, test and plan the operational strategy for placing Well 16 in service. At this time, it is not anticipated that radium removal treatment will be necessary, but the City and MDH will continue to closely monitor the well. As treatment options are considered, radium should be included as a possible contaminant to address. The City has completed and continues to actively implement a Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP). The goal of the WHPP is to prevent contaminants from entering the area that contributes to the aquifer where the City’s water supply is withdrawn. The WHPP is updated every 10 years, or when a new well is added. 5.2.3 Resource Sustainability Static and pumping aquifer water levels are recorded and trended at each of the City’s supply wells (refer to Water Supply Plan for details). Long term trends indicate a potential declining aquifer level in the region. Regional planning summarized in the Metropolitan Council’s Master Water Supply Plan suggests the following long-term concerns for a sustainable water supply in the Rosemount area: • Potential for water use conflicts between public and private wells. • Potential for significant decline in aquifer water levels. • Potential for impacts of groundwater pumping on surface water features and ecosystems. • Significant vulnerability to contamination. • Uncertainty about aquifer productivity and extent. The City has been actively performing engineering and scientific studies and working with the DNR and MDH prior to siting new wells. As each new well is installed, new aquifer and water quality data becomes available for further analysis for use in siting the next well. The last thorough well siting study was performed in 2005. It would be appropriate to update this study to account for new wells constructed and revised water use projections, particularly in light of future development south of CSAH 42 in the UMore area. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 15 5.3 Storage The City’s four (4) steel elevated storage tanks are strategically located to provide adequate pressure and fire flows to the system. The total available storage volume of 3.5 million gallons is adequate for current needs. 5.4 Distribution System 5.4.1 Water System Pressures Existing static water pressures are shown on the map in Appendix C. Pressure between 50 pounds per square inch (psi) and 80 psi are generally considered desirable. Pressures lower than 40 psi may trigger low pressure complaints, and customers with pressures above 80 psi should be fitted with in-building pressure reducing valves to provide appropriate pressure. Pressures are generally adequate throughout the system. Portions of the northwestern area of the City have lower pressures, while the eastern portion of the City tends to have some higher pressure areas. Isolated areas of low and high pressures exist throughout the system, however the City does not regularly receive water pressure complaints. The City should identify and map customers with in-home pressure reducing valves or in-home booster stations for future reference. 5.4.2 Available Fire Flow Capabilities Previous reports have utilized a computer model of the water distribution system to estimate available fire flows throughout the system. Existing fire flows are generally adequate in the Western Service Area. Existing fire flows in the East Service Area are generally adequate where connected to the recently installed trunk water mains. The existing 4 inch and 6 inch pipes from the Rural System cannot convey a significant quantity of water required for fire protection. The existing 500,000 gallon East Side water tower cannot fully provide for a 3500gpm fire for 3 hours. In the event of a large, long duration fire in the East Side, water is available to flow from the West Service to the East Service area through pressure reducing valves. Current water system design guidelines call for minimum 6-inch distribution mains to provide adequate pressures and fire flows throughout the system. The City should continue to program for replacement of the existing 4-inch mains with larger mains. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 16 6 Water System Improvements Prior engineering planning studies have laid out a plan for the cost effective expansion of the City’s water system to meet future growth. The following provides a summary of proposed improvements and triggers for implementation. 6.1 Treated Water Supply 6.1.1 West Side (Southwest and Northwest) Well Fields Wells 7, 8, 9, and 12 are in the southwestern portion of the City, while Wells 14, 15, and 16 are near Barcardi Avenue, north of CSAH 42. Near-term plans are to continue developing the Northwest Well Field first as new wells are needed, followed by addition of wells in the Southwest well field. A site for future Well 17 has already been identified and acquired south of Bonaire Path along Akron Avenue. If water treatment is needed or desired in the future, it is assumed that there would be a northwest and southwest water treatment plant. 6.1.2 East Well Field Prior studies have identified a potential new east well field east of State Highway 52. If water treatment is needed or desired in the future, an eastern water treatment plant could be constructed in the east well field. 6.1.3 Water Supply Recommendations The following is a summary of water supply recommendations. • Continue to implement the City’s Water Conservation Plan to delay or reduce the need for additional supply wells. • Identify and acquire property for future well sites (minimum 150’ x 150’) and water treatment plant sites (5 to 10 acres) in conjunction with development. • Provide corridors for raw water piping from the wells to the water treatment plant site. • Continue to monitor water levels and update groundwater analysis and planning. • Continue to implement and update the City’s WHPP to protect existing and proposed water supply. • Initiate well siting, permitting, planning, design and construction a minimum of two (2) years before the well is needed. 6.2 Storage Additional water storage is planned for both the Eastern and Western Service Areas. Preliminary sizing and locations of future storage has been identified to provide adequate pressures and flows. Actual implementation of storage additions will be guided by development. Initiate storage siting (minimum 400’ x 400’ site), planning, design and construction a minimum of two (2) years prior to needing the storage in service. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 17 6.3 Distribution System Expansion of the distribution system proceeds with development. The majority of distribution system pipes added will be eight (8) inch to serve local residential needs, however some of these pipes will be oversized to serve as the basis of a trunk pipe network that connects the water supply and storage facilities, and provides large flows required for tank filling, peak hourly usage, and fire flows. 6.4 Potential Service to Coates The City of Coates is currently served by private wells, some of which may be experiencing elevated nitrate levels. Coates is currently working with a consultant to complete a feasibility study to address the nitrate concerns with the current private wells. One of the potential recommendations that has been discussed is connecting to the City of Rosemount water distribution system. In general, it appears that the City of Rosemount could be able to provide municipal water service to the City of Coates if such service is requested. The details of a potential connection, rates, capacity and proposed cost sharing mechanisms would need to be the subject of a future engineering study. Ultimately, the decision would be made by each city’s leadership. 6.5 Phasing of Improvements Each year, City staff compare actual water use to projected water use based on current development plans to prepare the trunk water system Capital Improvement Plan. The following recommendations for phasing of trunk system improvements should be reviewed with each CIP planning cycle. • Continue to expand the water distribution (lateral) system in conjunction with development. • Install trunk mains through developments as practical and cost-effective to take advantage of the lateral benefit of oversizing lateral mains to function as trunk lines also. • Current well supply capacity is adequate to provide for projected near-term growth (up to 11.3 MGD Maximum Day Demand). The City may wish to consider adding Well 17 slightly before actually required to allow for less construction disruption to residents. • Provide water supply to serve growth of the East Side service area from the existing Rural Wells, and supplement from water supplied to the West Side service area (through pressure reducing valves). • Current water storage capacity is adequate for projected near-term growth. Acquire sites in conjunction with development plans. Consider construction of the storage facility in advance of development to minimize potential neighborhood complaints. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROS Page 18 6.6 Cost Recovery System The City of Rosemount currently recovers the cost of constructing lateral and trunk water system facilities through a combination of water rates (based on usage), and trunk system charges. In general, water rates fund the ongoing operation and maintenance of the water system, while the trunk charge system pays for supply, storage and trunk distribution system pipes. Water rates and trunk charges are regularly updated based on actual costs and projections. Recommendations: • Review the current tiered rate structure as it pertains to high water users and property owners with irrigation meters. • Consider reviewing and updating the current Water Availability Charge (WAC). 7 Additional Recommendations As Rosemount continues to develop, there are additional actions that will provide significant near term and long term benefits to the residents. Additionally, these steps may reduce the need for additional infrastructure, reduce cost and protect valuable natural resources. 7.1 Partnerships and Grants Funding for water system expansion can create challenges to studying other aspects of the system. As a result, the following recommendations are made: • Pursue grant opportunities through the MDH to manage and protect the current water supply • Work with other partner organizations to maximize opportunities to avoid duplicate work, improve aquifer understanding, and maximize resource allocation. • Partner with the residents on water conservation, surface water reuse (i.e. rain barrels, rain gardens, etc), and native vegetaion as appropriate. 7.2 Sustainability By insuring that there is a sufficient and safe water supply in the future, it is recommended that Rosemount consider the following for resource sustainability: • Continue education efforts aimed at water conservation. This may include community outreach, utility billing inserts, blog posts, and open house type discussions. • Review existing public infrastructure that can be improved to promote better efficiency and reduce system leaks. • Promote the use of infiltration practices that are essential to aquifer recharge. This should include new development, redevelopment, public improvements and even private home owner improvements such as rain gardens. • Continue to improvement of enforcement of current irrigation ordinances and policies. • Review the potential for additional restrictions on irrigation and other less essential water usage. WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER ROSEMPage 19 7.3 Infrastructure Improvements In addition to the preceding recommendations, Rosemount should consider the following factors when planning, designing and constructing/reconstructing public improvements:  Implement new standards and smart technology as it becomes available to insure that the long term financial viability and efficiency of the system.  Monitor existing infrastructure and ensure that replacement/reconstruction is planned as appropriate to reduce repair, maintenance and operating costs.  Review and adopt as appropriate best management practices from other communities.  Calibrate the current water system model on a periodic basis to insure that decision making is performed with the best available information.  Continue coordination as appropriate with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for wastewater reuse. Maps Figure 1 – Existing Water System Figure 2 – Ultimate Water System Figure 3 – Static Water Pressure @?@?!! @? !R !R !R !R @? @? @? @? @?@? @? @? @? !! !! !! !!!! !! !! !! !!)p ?ØA@ G±WX ?§A@ SÈ GÑWX G¸WX GªWX G¥WX )p ?ØA@ G±WX G±WX ?§A@ )p G¥WX Water Distribution System October 2018 F00.5 10.25 Mile MXD: T:\Project\CommDev\CompPlan\2018Update\FinalDrafts\WaterDistributionSystem.mxd PDF: I:\GIS\Map_Library\CommDev\CompPlan\2018Update\FinalDrafts !!Manhole @?Monitoring W ell @?Production W ell !R Reservoir Water Main ULTIMATE WATER SYSTEM MAP #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#*#*#* #* #* #* #* 3Q 3Q 3Q NNNN IIIUT D D D D IIIUT D D D D IIIUT D D D D IIIUT D D D D IIIUT D D D D IIIUT D D D D IIIUT D D D D IIIUT D D D D ChippendaleTower ConnameraTower BacardiTower East SideTower 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (888) 908-8166TF: (800) 325-2055www.sehinc.comPath: S:\PT\R\ROSEM\146456\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\MXDs\Maps\Figure X - Ultimate Water System.mxdRosemount, MN Map by:Projection: Dakota County CoordinatesSource: Dakota County, City of Rosemount, SEH Project: ROSEM 135036Print Date: 4/5/2019 This map is neith er a legally recorded map nor a survey ma p and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH doe s not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH doe s not represent that the GIS Data can be u sed for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. T he user of this map acknowledges that S EH shall not beliable for any dama ges which arise out of the user's acce ss or use of data provided. Legend IIIUT D D D D Future Tank IIIUT D D D D Existing Tank N PRV 3Q Future WTP #*Existing Well #*Future Well Future Trunk Water Main Pressure Zone BoundaryExisting Water Main 4-Inch 6-Inch 8-Inch 12-Inch 14-Inch 16-Inch E A S T P R E S S U R E Z O N EWEST P R E S S U R E Z O N E 0 3,6001,800 Feet I Draft STATIC WATER PRESSURE Empire GreyCloudIsland Nininge r Vermillion Coates CottageGrove AppleValley Eagan InverGroveHeights Lake ville RosemountRobert Tr SCourthouse Blvd US Hwy 52Co urthouseBlvd Hastings Tr 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DR.ST. PAUL, MN 55110PHONE: (651) 490-2000FAX: (888) 908-8166TF: (800) 325-2055www.sehinc.comPath: \\sp3020-1\projects\PT\R\Rosem\135036\5-final-dsgn\51-drawings\90-GIS\MXDs\Water\Overall Static Pressure Map.mxdRosemount, MN Map by:Projection: Dakato County CoordinatesSource: Dakato County, City of Rosemount, SEH Project: ROSEM 135036Print Date: 8/21/2018 This map is neith er a legally recorded map nor a survey ma p and is not intended to be used as o ne. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from vario us sources listed on this map and is to b e used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, o r any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this map acknowledges that SEH shall not beliable for any dama ges which arise out of the user's acce ss or use of data provided. Legend Pres. Zone Bound. Municipal Boundary Static Water Pressure 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80 - 89 90 - 99 0 3,5001,750 Feet I 2040 WATER SUPPLY CHAPTER Appendix A MNDNR Water Supply Plan Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 1 Local Water Supply Plan Template Third Generation for 2016 -2018 Formerly called Water Emergency & Water Conservation Plan Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 2 Cover photo by Molly Shodeen For more information on this Water Supply Plan Template, please contact the DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources at (651) 259-5034 or (651) 259-5100. Copyright 2015 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources This information is available in an alternative format upon request. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is available to all individuals regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, public assistance status, age, sexual orientation, disability or activity on behalf of a local human rights commission. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to Minnesota DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4049; or the Equal Opportunity Office, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 3 Table of contents INTRODUCTION TO WATER SUPPLY PLANS (WSP) ............................................................. 6 Who needs to complete a Water Supply Plan .......................................................................................... 6 Groundwater Management Areas (GWMA) ............................................................................................. 6 Benefits of completing a WSP ................................................................................................................... 6 WSP Approval Process .............................................................................................................................. 7 PART 1. WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION ................................ 9 A. Analysis of Water Demand................................................................................................................ 9 B. Treatment and Storage Capacity .................................................................................................... 11 Treatment and storage capacity versus demand ................................................................12 C. Water Sources ................................................................................................................................. 12 Limits on Emergency Interconnections ...............................................................................13 D. Future Demand Projections – Key Metropolitan Council Benchmark ............................................ 13 Water Use Trends ..............................................................................................................13 Projection Method ..............................................................................................................15 E. Resource Sustainability ................................................................................................................... 15 Monitoring – Key DNR Benchmark ....................................................................................15 Water Level Data ...............................................................................................................18 Potential Water Supply Issues & Natural Resource Impacts – Key DNR & Metropolitan Council Benchmark ............................................................................................................19 Wellhead Protection (WHP) and Source W ater Protection (SWP) Plans ............................23 F. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) ...................................................................................................... 24 Adequacy of Water Supply System ....................................................................................24 Proposed Future Water Sources ........................................................................................25 Part 2. Emergency Preparedness Procedures ..........................................................................27 A. Federal Emergency Response Plan ................................................................................................. 27 B. Operational Contingency Plan ........................................................................................................ 27 C. Emergency Response Procedures ................................................................................................... 27 Emergency Telephone List ................................................................................................28 Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 4 Current Water Sources and Service Area ..........................................................................28 Procedure for Augmenting Water Supplies ........................................................................28 Allocation and Demand Reduction Procedures ..................................................................29 Notification Procedures ......................................................................................................31 Enforcement ......................................................................................................................32 PART 3. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ...............................................................................34 Progress since 2006 ................................................................................................................................ 35 A. Triggers for Allocation and Demand Reduction Actions ................................................................. 35 B. Conservation Objectives and Strategies – Key benchmark for DNR ............................................... 36 Objective 1: Reduce Unaccounted (Non-Revenue) Water loss to Less than 10% ..............36 Objective 2: Achieve Less than 75 Residential Gallons per Capita Demand (GPCD) .........38 Objective 3: Achieve at least a 1.5% per year water reduction for Institutional, Industrial, Commercial, and Agricultural GPCD over the next 10 years or a 15% reduction in ten years. .................................................................................................................................39 Objective 4: Achieve a Decreasing Trend in Total Per Capita Demand ..............................40 Objective 5: Reduce Peak Day Demand so that the Ratio of Average Maximum day to the Average Day is less than 2.6..............................................................................................41 Objective 6: Implement a Conservation Water Rate Structure and/or a Uniform Rate Structure with a Water Conservation Program ...................................................................41 Objective 7: Additional strategies to Reduce Water Use and Support Wellhead Protection Planning .............................................................................................................................44 Objective 8: Tracking Success: How will you track or measure success through the next ten years? ................................................................................................................................44 A. Regulation ....................................................................................................................................... 45 B. Retrofitting Programs ..................................................................................................................... 45 Retrofitting Programs .........................................................................................................46 C. Education and Information Programs ............................................................................................. 46 Proposed Education Programs ..........................................................................................47 Part 4. ITEMS FOR METROPOLITAN AREA COMMUNITIES .................................................51 A. Water Demand Projections through 2040 ...................................................................................... 51 Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 5 B. Potential Water Supply Issues ........................................................................................................ 51 C. Proposed Alternative Approaches to Meet Extended Water Demand Projections ....................... 51 D. Value-Added Water Supply Planning Efforts (Optional) ................................................................. 52 Source Water Protection Strategies ...................................................................................52 Technical assistance ..........................................................................................................52 GLOSSARY ..............................................................................................................................53 Acronyms and Initialisms ........................................................................................................................ 55 APPENDICES TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE WATER SUPPLIER ............................................57 Appendix 1: Well records and maintenance summaries – see Part 1C ................................................. 57 Appendix 2: Water level monitoring plan – see Part 1E ........................................................................ 57 Appendix 3: Water level graphs for each water supply well - see Part 1E ............................................. 57 Appendix 4: Capital Improvement Plan - see Part 1E ............................................................................. 57 Appendix 5: Emergency Telephone List – see Part 2C ........................................................................... 57 Appendix 6: Cooperative Agreements for Emergency Services – see Part 2C ....................................... 57 Appendix 7: Municipal Critical Water Deficiency Ordinance – see Part 2C ............................................ 57 Appendix 8: Graph showing annual per capita water demand for each customer category during the last ten-years – see Part 3 Objective 4.................................................................................................... 57 Appendix 9: Water Rate Structure – see Part 3 Objective 6 .................................................................. 57 Appendix 10: Adopted or proposed regulations to reduce demand or improve water efficiency – see Part 3 Objective 7 .................................................................................................................................... 57 Appendix 11: Implementation Checklist – summary of all the actions that a community is doing, or proposes to do, including estimated implementation dates – see www.mndnr.gov/watersupplyplans ................................................................................................................................................................ 57 Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 6 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES – DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES AND METROPOLITAN COUNCIL INTRODUCTION TO WATER SUPPLY PLANS (WSP) Who needs to complete a Water Supply Plan Public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people, large private water suppliers in designated Groundwater Management Areas, and all water suppliers in the Twin Cities metropolitan area are required to prepare and submit a water supply plan. The goal of the WSP is to help water suppliers: 1) implement long term water sustainability and conservation measures; and 2) develop critical emergency preparedness measures. Your community needs to know what measures will be implemented in case of a water crisis. A lot of emergencies can be avoided or mitigated if long term sustainability measures are implemented. Groundwater Management Areas (GWMA) The DNR has designated three areas of the state as Groundwater Management Areas (GWMAs) to focus groundwater management efforts in specific geographies where there is an added risk of overuse or water quality degradation. A plan directing the DNRs actions within each GWMA has been prepared. Although there are no specific additional requirements with respect to the water supply planning for communities within designated GWMAs, communities should be aware of the issues and actions planned if they are within the boundary of one of the GWMAs. The three GWMAs are the North and East Metro GWMA (Twin Cities Metro), the Bonanza Valley GWMA and the Straight River GWMA (near Park Rapids). Additional information and maps are included in the DNR webpage at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gwmp/areas.html Benefits of completing a WSP Completing a WSP using this template, fulfills a water supplier’s statutory obligations under M.S. M.S.103G.291 to complete a water supply plan. For water suppliers in the metropolitan area, the WSP will help local governmental units to fulfill their requirements under M.S. 473.859 to complete a local comprehensive plan. Additional benefits of completing WSP template:  The standardized format allows for quicker and easier review and approval.  Help water suppliers prepare for droughts and water emergencies.  Create eligibility for funding requests to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) for the Drinking Water Revolving Fund.  Allow water suppliers to submit requests for new wells or expanded capacity of existing wells.  Simplify the development of county comprehensive water plans and watershed plans.  Fulfill the contingency plan provisions required in the MDH wellhead protection and surface water protection plans.  Fulfill the demand reduction requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.291 subd 3 and 4. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 7  Upon implementation, contribute to maintaining aquifer levels, reducing potential well interference and water use conflicts, and reducing the need to drill new wells or expand system capacity.  Enable DNR to compile and analyze water use and conservation data to help guide decisions.  Conserve Minnesota’s water resources If your community needs assistance completing the Water Supply Plan, assistance is available from your area hydrologist or groundwater specialist, the MN Rural Waters Association circuit rider program, or in the metropolitan area from Metropolitan Council staff. Many private consultants are also available. WSP Approval Process 10 Basic Steps for completing a 10-Year Water Supply Plan 1. Download the DNR/Metropolitan Council Water Supply Plan Template www.mndnr.gov/watersupplyplans 2. Save the document with a file name with this naming convention: WSP_cityname_permitnumber_date.doc. 3. The template is a form that should be completed electronically. 4. Compile the required water use data (Part 1) and emergency procedures information (Part 2) 5. The Water Conservation section (Part 3) may need discussion with the water department, council, or planning commission, if your community does not already have an active water conservation program. 6. Communities in the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area should complete all the information discussed in Part 4. The Metropolitan Council has additional guidance information on their webpage http://www.metrocouncil.org/Handbook/Plan-Elements/Water- Resources/Water-Supply.aspx. All out-state water suppliers do not need to complete the content addressed in Part 4. 7. Use the Plan instructions and Checklist document to insure all data is complete and attachments are included. This will allow for a quicker approval process. www.mndnr.gov/watersupplyplans 8. Plans should be submitted electronically – no paper documents are required. https://webapps11.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login 9. DNR hydrologist will review plans (in cooperation with Metropolitan Council in Metro area) and approve the plan or make recommendations. 10. Once approved, communities should complete a Certification of Adoption form, and send a copy to the DNR. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 8 Complete Table 1 with information about the public water supply system covered by this WSP. Table 1. General information regarding this WSP Requested Information Description DNR Water Appropriation Permit Number(s) 76-6069 Ownership ☒ Public or ☐ Private Metropolitan Council Area ☒ Yes or ☐ No (Dakota County) Street Address 2875 145th Street West City, State, Zip Rosemount, MN 55068 Contact Person Name Jim Koslowski Title Public Works Supervisor Phone Number 651-322-2022 MDH Supplier Classification Municipal Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 9 PART 1. WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION The first step in any water supply analysis is to assess the current status of demand and availability. Information summarized in Part 1 can be used to develop Emergency Preparedness Procedures (Part 2) and the Water Conservation Plan (Part 3). This data is also needed to track progress for water efficiency measures. A. Analysis of Water Demand Complete Table 2 showing the past 10 years of water demand data.  Some of this information may be in your Wellhead Protection Plan.  If you do not have this information, do your best, call your engineer for assistance or if necessary leave blank. If your customer categories are different than the ones listed in Table 2, please describe the differences below: Water used for non-essential purposes includes irrigation water used for city parks and lawns etc. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 10 Table 2. Historic water demand (see definitions in the glossary after Part 4 of this template) Year Pop. Served Total Connections Residential Water Delivered (MG) C/I/I Water Delivered (MG) Water used for Non- essential Wholesale Deliveries (MG) Total Water Delivered (MG) Total Water Pumped (MG) Water Supplier Services Percent Unmetered/ Unaccounted Average Daily Demand (MGD) Max. Daily Demand (MGD) Date of Max. Demand Residential Per Capita Demand (GPCD) Total per capita Demand (GPCD) 2005 17600 5,989 569 128.4 0 697.0 761.6 8.5% 2.09 6.05 88.5 118.6 2006 20,700 6,212 721 97.7 0 818.8 944.1 13.3% 2.59 5.47 7/5/2006 95.4 125.0 2007 18,100 6,304 756 103.6 0 859.5 937.5 8.3% 2.57 5.08 7/8/2007 114.4 141.9 2008 18,400 6,425 771 125.3 0 906.1 910.4 9.4 0.5% 2.49 6.65 7/3/2008 114.9 135.6 2009 19,100 6,525 786 126.9 0 923.4 937.9 10.6 1.5% 2.57 6.47 6/5/2009 112.7 134.5 2010 19,400 6,615 573 101.1 142.6 0 825.6 825.6 9.1 0.0% 2.26 5.24 5/30/2010 80.9 116.6 2011 19,600 6,681 623 88.9 154.7 0 878.0 855.8 11.0 -2.6% 2.34 6.26 6/8/2011 87.1 119.6 2012 20,600 6,755 693 94.5 173.7 0 971.7 973.1 10.0 0.1% 2.67 6.88 7/3/2012 92.2 129.4 2013 20,900 6,847 635 113.4 130.9 0 889.4 880.6 9.8 -1.0% 2.41 6.37 8/27/2013 83.3 115.4 2014 21,200 6,939 570 102.0 121.4 0 809.0 815.3 15.4 0.8% 2.23 6.40 8/16/2014 73.7 105.4 2015 21,400 7,024 547 119.4 107.2 0 794.6 813.1 20.7 2.3% 2.23 6.05 10/5/2015 70.1 104.1 Avg. 2010- 2015 20517 6810 607 103 138 0 861.4 861 12.7 -0.1% 2.36 6.20 N/A 81.2 115.1 MG – Million Gallons MGD – Million Gallons per Day GPCD – Gallons per Capita per Day See Glossary for definitions Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 11 Complete Table 3 by listing the top 10 water users by volume, from largest to smallest. For each user, include information about the category of use (residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or wholesale), the amount of water used in gallons per year, the percent of total water delivered, and the status of water conservation measures. Table 3. Large volume users Customer Use Category (Residential, Industrial, Commercial, Institutional, Wholesale) Amount Used (Gallons per Year) Percent of Total Annual Water Delivered Implementing Water Conservation Measures? (Yes/No/Unknown) Flint Hills Resources Industrial 41,024,000 5.2% Unknown City of Rosemount Commercial 31,455,830 4.0% Yes Hawkins, Inc. Industrial 18,099,000 2.3% Unknown Rosemount Woods Residential 11,337,000 1.4% Unknown Rosemount High School Institutional 9,120,000 1.1% Unknown Dakota Count Technical College Institutional 7,403,000 0.9% Unknown Waterford Commons Residential 3,796,000 0.5% Unknown The Spa Car Wash Commercial 3,757,000 0.5% Unknown Connemara Crossing HOA (Irrigation) Residential 3,233,000 0.4% Unknown El Dorado Shipping Commercial 2,703,000 0.3% Unknown B. Treatment and Storage Capacity Complete Table 4 with a description of where water is treated, the year treatment facilities were constructed, water treatment capacity, the treatment methods (i.e. chemical addition, reverse osmosis, coagulation, sedimentation, etc.) and treatment types used (i.e. fluoridation, softening, chlorination, Fe/MN removal, coagulation, etc.). Also describe the annual amount and method of disposal of treatment residuals. Add rows to the table as needed. Table 4. Water treatment capacity and treatment processes Treatment Site ID (Plant Name or Well ID) Year Constructed Treatment Capacity (GPD) Treatment Method Treatment Type Annual Amount of Residuals Disposal Process for Residuals Do You Reclaim Filter Backwash Water? Rosemount does not currently have a water treatment plant. Because Rosemount water quality meets all primary drinking water standards, treatment is not mandated. Disinfection is accomplished by chlorination at the source wells. Additional treatment includes fluoridation and polyphosphate at the source wells. Complete Table 5 with information about storage structures. Describe the type (i.e. elevated, ground, etc.), the storage capacity of each type of structure, the year each structure was constructed, and the primary material for each structure. Add rows to the table as needed. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 12 Table 5. Storage capacity, as of the end of the last calendar year Structure Name Type of Storage Structure Year Constructed Primary Material Storage Capacity (Gallons) Chippendale Tower Elevated storage 1972 Steel 500,000 Connemara Tower Elevated storage 1988 Steel 1,000,000 Bacardi Tower Elevated storage 2007 Steel 1,500,000 East Side Tower Elevated storage 1998 Steel 500,000 Total NA NA NA 3,500,000 Treatment and storage capacity versus demand It is recommended that total storage equal or exceed the average daily demand. Discuss the difference between current storage and treatment capacity versus the water supplier’s projected average water demand over the next 10 years (see Table 7 for projected water demand): The City of Rosemount currently has 3,500,000 gallons of elevated storage between four steel elevated storage tanks. Typically, it is desired to maintain a storage capacity greater than the average day demand (based on Ten States Standards). In 2016, the average day demand is projected to be 2.27 MGD. Using the Ten States Standards and comparing the average day demand to total storage capacity, there is a surplus of 1.23 MG in 2016. Future projections over the next 10 y ears indicate the City of Rosemount will maintain a storage capacity greater than the average day demand. In 2025, the City will have a projected average day demand of 2.99 MGD, yielding a storage surplus of 512,634 gallons. However, by 2040, a deficit in storage volume of 922,016 gallons is projected. Therefore, additional storage is needed between 2030 and 2040. The City of Rosemount does not operate any water treatment plants since the water quality meets all primary drinking water standards. The City currently has a total well capacity of 10.1 MGD with a firm capacity (largest well out of service) of 8.28 MGD. These well capacities are based on running the wells for 20 hours per day. It is common practice to run the wells for only 20 hours per day maximum. Comparing future demands to current and future water supplies is common for determining when and how many new sources of water are needed. Typically, the water sources should have a firm capacity greater than the maximum day demand. From the future projections in Table 7, it can be seen that in 2016 a maximum day demand of 6.59 MGD is predicted. This leads to a surplus of 1.69 MGD of well water capacity using current firm well capacity. However, future projections indicate that by 2024 a deficit in firm well capacity of 0.11 MGD (74 gpm) will occur, and additional wells will be required to meet the maximum day demand of 8.39 MGD. There is not enough well capacity to supply the City of Rosemount for the next 10 years unless a new well is added. However, the City has a new well, Well No. 16, that will be operational soon which will supplement the current water supply. The City also plans to drill another well by 2019, which will supplement the current well supply and provide enough water to meet projected demands. C. Water Sources Complete Table 6 by listing all types of water sources that supply water to the system, including groundwater, surface water, interconnections with other water suppliers, or others. Provide the name of each source (aquifer name, river or lake name, name of interconnecting water supplier) and the Minnesota unique well number or intake ID, as appropriate. Report the year the source was installed or established and the current capacity. Provide information about the depth of all wells. Describe the Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 13 status of the source (active, inactive, emergency only, retail/wholesale interconnection) and if the source facilities have a dedicated emergency power source. Add rows to the table as needed for each installation. Include copies of well records and maintenance summary for each well that has occurred since your last approved plan in Appendix 1. Table 6. Water sources and status Resource Type (Groundwater, Surface water, Interconnection) Resource Name MN Unique Well # or Intake ID Year Installed Capacity (Gallons per Minute) Well Depth (Feet) Status of Normal and Emergency Operations (active, inactive, emergency only, retail/wholesale interconnection)) Does this Source have a Dedicated Emergency Power Source? (Yes or No) Groundwater RR #1 457167 1989 500 400 Active Yes Groundwater RR #2 474335 1990 500 400 Active Yes Groundwater Well No. 7 112212 1976 1000 490 Active Yes Groundwater Well No. 8 509060 1990 1100 498 Active Yes Groundwater Well No. 9 554248 1996 1200 481 Active Yes Groundwater Well No. 12 706804 2004 1500 475 Active Yes Groundwater Well No. 14 722623 2005 1300 485 Active Yes Groundwater Well No. 15 753663 2009 1300 487 Active Yes Groundwater Well No. 16 805374 2015 2000 507 Inactive Yes Groundwater Monitoring Well 141 798068 2013 NA 51.5 Inactive No Groundwater Test Well 16 802726 2014 50 506 Active No Groundwater Monitor Umore Well 767876 2012 NA 439 Inactive No Groundwater Monitoring Well 14 East 702834 2004 NA 518 Inactive No Groundwater Monitoring Well 14 West 783280 2011 NA 194 Inactive No Groundwater Irrigation Well 767870 2012 250 280 Active No Limits on Emergency Interconnections Discuss any limitations on the use of the water sources (e.g. not to be operated simultaneously, limitations due to blending, aquifer recovery issues etc.) and the use of interconnections, including capacity limits or timing constraints (i.e. only 200 gallons per minute are available from the City of Prior Lake, and it is estimated to take 6 hours to establish the emergency connection). If there are no limitations, list none. Interconnect available with the City of Apple Valley. The capacity o f the interconnect is 23,000 GPM. D. Future Demand Projections – Key Metropolitan Council Benchmark Water Use Trends Use the data in Table 2 to describe trends in 1) population served; 2) total per capita water demand; 3) average daily demand; 4) maximum daily demand. Then explain the causes for upward or downward trends. For example, over the ten years has the average daily demand trended up or down? Why is this occurring? Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 14 The historic trend in population served shows a consistent increase in the population served within the City of Rosemount. Over the last ten years, the City saw an increase in the service population of 21.5%. The population served over the last 10 years follows the expected trend. As the population served increased, the total number of connections also increased. The rate of population increase remained constant each year. Overall, the average total per capita water demand averaged 122 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). From Table 2, it can be observed that the trend in total per capita demand has decreased over the last 10 ye ars to 104 gpcd. There are years with higher demands: such as 2007 where the demand was 142 gpcd and 2008 where the demand was 136 gpcd. The overall trend is a decreasing total per capita demand. This could be contributed to an increasing population served with a decrease in total water pumped from wells. It appears that during wet years (years with higher amounts of rain) the per capita demand decreases while dry years see an increase in total demand. The average daily demand has averaged 2.41 over the last 10 years. This has remained consistent during the last 10 years of historical monitoring. There is no significant change in the average day demand. However, the City saw a lower average demand during the last 5 years. This is due to less water being pumped from the wells and more water conservation measures. The maximum day demand has also remained constant over the last 10 years. The historical data shows that the maximum day demand averaged 6.1 MGD. There is no increasing or decreasing trend in the maximum day demand. It is important to note that 2011 and 2013 saw an unusual occurrence in unaccounted for water. From Table 2 it can be seen that there was 2.6% and 1% of all water was unaccounted for during these two years, respectively. This is not typical as it means that there was more water sold than water pumped. Most likely, the total water pumped was under estimated in these two years due to a malfunctioning data logger. Use the water use trend information discussed above to complete Table 7 with projected annual demand for the next ten years. Communities in the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area must also include projections for 2030 and 2040 as part of their local comprehensive planning. Projected demand should be consistent with trends evident in the historical data in Table 2, as discussed above. Projected demand should also reflect state demographer population projections and/or other planning projections. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 15 Table 7. Projected annual water demand Year Projected Total Population(1) Projected Population Served Projected Total Per Capita Water Demand (GPCD) Projected Average Daily Demand (MGD) Projected Maximum Daily Demand (MGD) 2016 23,544 21,425 106 2.27 6.59 2017 23,857 21,710 106 2.30 6.67 2018 24,210 22,031 106 2.34 6.77 2019 25,011 22,760 106 2.41 7.00 2020 26,026 23,684 106 2.51 7.28 2021 27,012 24,581 106 2.61 7.56 2022 28,003 25,483 106 2.70 7.83 2023 28,994 26,385 106 2.80 8.11 2024 29,985 27,286 106 2.89 8.39 2025 30,970 28,183 106 2.99 8.66 2030 35,921 32,688 106 3.46 10.05 2040 45,843 41,717 106 4.42 12.82 (1) Total population includes MetCouncil projections (38,100) plus Umore phases 1-5 when fully developed. GPCD – Gallons per Capita per Day MGD – Million Gallons per Day Projection Method Describe the method used to project water demand, including assumptions for population and business growth and how water conservation and efficiency programs affect projected water demand: The 2016 Peer Review Report for the City of Rosemount contains population estimates that were used for future City population. The estimates for the ultimate total City 2040 population include MetCoucil projections (38,100) plus Umore phases 1-5 projections when fully developed. Historically, the service area population average is 91% of the total population. This ratio was applied to future population proj ections to calculate future service population. It was assumed that the projected average per capita water demand would remain constant at 106 gallons per capita per day through 2040. The peak per capita demand was assumed to be 307 gallons per capita per day, yielding a peaking factor (peak day to average day ratio) of 2.90. It was assumed that the peaking factor would remain constant through 2040. E. Resource Sustainability Monitoring – Key DNR Benchmark Complete Table 8 by inserting information about source water quality and quantity monitoring efforts. List should include all production wells, observation wells, and source water intakes or reservoirs. Add rows to the table as needed. Find information on groundwater level monitoring program at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/obwell/index.html Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 16 Table 8. Information about source water quality and quantity monitoring MN Unique Well # or Surface Water ID Type of monitoring point Monitoring program Frequency of monitoring Monitoring Method 457167 (Rural Well No. 1) ☒ production well ☐ observation well ☐ source water intake ☐ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☒ routine water utility sampling ☐ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 474335 (Rural Well No. 2) ☒ production well ☐ observation well ☐ source water intake ☐ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☒ routine water utility sampling ☐ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 112212 (Well No. 7) ☒ production well ☐ observation well ☐ source water intake ☐ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☒ routine water utility sampling ☐ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 509060 (Well No. 8) ☒ production well ☐ observation well ☐ source water intake ☒ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☒ routine water utility sampling ☐ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 554248 (Well No. 9) ☒ production well ☐ observation well ☐ source water intake ☐ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☒ routine water utility sampling ☐ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 706804 (Well No. 12) ☒ production well ☐ observation well ☐ source water intake ☐ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☒ routine water utility sampling ☐ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 722623 (Well No. 14) ☒ production well ☐ observation well ☐ source water intake ☐ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☒ routine water utility sampling ☐ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 753663 (Well No. 15) ☒ production well ☐ observation well ☐ source water intake ☐ routine MDH sampling ☒ routine water utility sampling ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 17 MN Unique Well # or Surface Water ID Type of monitoring point Monitoring program Frequency of monitoring Monitoring Method ☐ source water reservoir ☐ other ☐ quarterly ☐ annually 805374 (Well No. 16, Not Active) ☒ production well ☐ observation well ☐ source water intake ☐ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☒ routine water utility sampling ☐ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 702837 (Monitoring Well 14 East) ☐ production well ☒ Test well (monitoring well) ☐ source water intake ☐ source water ☐ routine MDH sampling ☐ routine water utility sampling ☒ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 783280 (Monitoring Well 14 West) ☐ production well ☒ Test well (Monitoring well) ☐ source water intake ☐ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☐ routine water utility sampling ☐ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☐ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 767876 (Monitoring Well Umore) ☐ production well ☒ Test well (Monitoring Well) ☐ source water intake ☐ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☒ routine water utility sampling ☐ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 798068 (Monitoring Well 141) ☐ production well ☒ Test well (Monitoring Well) ☐ source water intake ☐ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☒ routine water utility sampling ☐ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 802726 (Test Well No. 16) ☐ production well ☒ Test well ☐ source water intake ☐ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☒ routine water utility sampling ☐ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge 767870 (Irrigation Well) ☐ production well ☒ Test well (Irrigation Well) ☐ source water intake ☐ source water reservoir ☐ routine MDH sampling ☐ routine water utility sampling ☒ other ☒ continuous ☐ hourly ☐ daily ☐ monthly ☐ quarterly ☐ annually ☒ SCADA ☐ grab sampling ☐ steel tape ☐ stream gauge Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 18 Water Level Data A water level monitoring plan that includes monitoring locations and a schedule for water level readings must be submitted as Appendix 2. If one does not already exist, it needs to be prepared and submitted with the WSP. Ideally, all production and observation wells are monitored at least monthly. Complete Table 9 to summarize water level data for each well being monitored. Provide the name of the aquifer and a brief description of how much water levels vary over the season (the difference between the highest and lowest water levels measured during the year) and the long-term trends for each well. If water levels are not measured and recorded on a routine basis, then provide the static water level when each well was constructed and the most recent water level measured during the same season the well was constructed. Also include all water level data taken during any well and pump maintenance. Add rows to the table as needed. Provide water level data graphs for each well in Appendix 3 for the life of the well, or for as many years as water levels have been measured. See DNR website for Date Time Water Level http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/obwell/waterleveldata.html Table 9. Water level data Unique Well Number or Well ID Aquifer Name Seasonal Variation (Feet) Long-term Trend in water level data Water level measured during well/pumping maintenance 112212 (Well No. 7) Jordan 96 feet ☒ Falling ☐ Stable ☐ Rising Daily 509060 (Well No. 8) Jordan 95 feet ☐ Falling ☒ Stable ☐ Rising Daily 554248 (Well No. 9) Jordan 70 feet ☐ Falling ☒ Stable ☐ Rising Daily 706804 (Well No. 12) Jordan 85 feet ☐ Falling ☒ Stable ☐ Rising Daily 722623 (Well No. 14) Jordan 50 feet ☒ Falling ☐ Stable ☐ Rising Daily 753663 (Well No. 15) Jordan 87 feet ☒ Falling ☐ Stable ☐ Rising Daily 457167 (Rural Well No. 1) Jordan 119 feet ☒ Falling ☐ Stable ☐ Rising Daily Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 19 Potential Water Supply Issues & Natural Resource Impacts – Key DNR & Metropolitan Council Benchmark Complete Table 10 by listing the types of natural resources that are or could be impacted by permitted water withdrawals. If known, provide the name of specific resources that may be impacted. Identify what the greatest risks to the resource are and how the risks are being assessed. Identify any resource protection thresholds – formal or informal – that have been established to identify when actions should be taken to mitigate impacts. Provide information about the potential mitigation actions that may be taken, if a resource protection threshold is crossed. Add additional rows to the table as needed. See glossary at the end of the template for definitions. Some of this baseline data should have been in your earlier water supply plans or county comprehensive water plans. When filling out this table, think of what are the water supply risks, identify the resources, determine the threshold and then determine what your community will do to mitigate the impacts. Your DNR area hydrologist is available to assist with this table. For communities in the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area, the Master Water Supply Plan Appendix 1 (Water Supply Profiles, provides information about potential water supply issues and natural resource impacts for your community. Table 10. Natural resource impacts Resource Type Resource Name Risk Risk Assessed Through Describe Resource Protection Threshold* Mitigation Measure or Management Plan Describe How Changes to Thresholds are Monitored ☐ River or stream N/A ☐ Flow/water level decline ☐ Degrading water quality trends and/or MCLs exceeded ☐ Impacts on endangered, threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ☐ Other: _____ ☐ GIS analysis ☐ Modeling ☐ Mapping ☐ Monitoring ☐ Aquifer testing ☐ Other: ___ ☐ Revise permit ☐ Change groundwater pumping ☐ Increase conservation ☐ Other Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 20 Resource Type Resource Name Risk Risk Assessed Through Describe Resource Protection Threshold* Mitigation Measure or Management Plan Describe How Changes to Thresholds are Monitored ☒ Calcareous fen (mapped in nearby area) N/A ☐ Flow/water level decline ☒ Degrading water quality trends and/or MCLs exceeded ☒ Impacts on endangered, threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ☐ Other: _____ ☐ GIS analysis ☐ Modeling ☒ Mapping ☒ Monitoring ☐ Aquifer testing ☐ Other: ___ Lower limit on acceptable changes to the state- protected calcareous fen. ☐ Revise permit ☐ Change groundwater pumping ☒ Increase conservation ☐ Other Evaluate maps of known fens to determine stability of the fen. Monitor historic data and compare to current habitat to determine trends in habitat loss or growth. ☒ Lake Spring Lake ☒ Flow/water level decline ☒ Degrading water quality trends and/or MCLs exceeded ☐ Impacts on endangered, threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ☐ Other: _____ ☐ GIS analysis ☐ Modeling ☒ Mapping ☐ Monitoring ☐ Aquifer testing ☐ Other: ___ Lower limit of acceptable water levels on lakes. Water quality out of acceptable range. ☐ Revise permit ☐ Change groundwater pumping ☒ Increase conservation ☐ Other Compare historic water level data to any new data to determine trends in water level. Compare historic water quality measurements to new measurements. ☒ Lake Kegan Lake ☒ Flow/water level decline ☒ Degrading water quality trends and/or MCLs exceeded ☐ Impacts on endangered, threatened, or ☐ GIS analysis ☐ Modeling ☒ Mapping ☒ Monitoring ☐ Aquifer testing ☐ Other: ___ Lower limit of acceptable water levels on lakes. Water quality out of acceptable range. ☐ Revise permit ☐ Change groundwater pumping ☒ Increase conservation ☐ Other Compare historic water level data to any new data to determine trends in water level. Compare historic water quality measurements Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 21 Resource Type Resource Name Risk Risk Assessed Through Describe Resource Protection Threshold* Mitigation Measure or Management Plan Describe How Changes to Thresholds are Monitored special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ☐ Other: _____ to new measurements. Compare surface water measurements to known well pumping to determine the effect of well pumping on surface water levels. This lake being monitored is representative of other water bodies within the City of Rosemount ☒ Wetland Schwarz Park Pond ☒ Flow/water level decline ☒ Degrading water quality trends and/or MCLs exceeded ☐ Impacts on endangered, threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ☐ Other: _____ ☐ GIS analysis ☐ Modeling ☒ Mapping ☒ Monitoring ☐ Aquifer testing ☐ Other: ___ Lower limit of acceptable water levels in wetland. Lower limit of acceptable water quality. ☐ Revise permit ☐ Change groundwater pumping ☒ Increase conservation ☐ Other Monitor wetland to determine water level trends. This wetland being monitored is representative of other water bodies within the City of Rosemount. ☒ Wetland Wetland at Innisfree Park ☒ Flow/water level decline ☒ Degrading water quality trends and/or MCLs exceeded ☐ Impacts on endangered, threatened, or ☐ GIS analysis ☐ Modeling ☒ Mapping ☒ Monitoring ☐ Aquifer testing ☐ Other: ___ Lower limit of acceptable water levels in wetland. Lower limit of acceptable water quality. ☐ Revise permit ☐ Change groundwater pumping ☒ Increase conservation ☐ Other Monitor wetland to determine water level trends. Compare historic water quality reports to current reports to Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 22 Resource Type Resource Name Risk Risk Assessed Through Describe Resource Protection Threshold* Mitigation Measure or Management Plan Describe How Changes to Thresholds are Monitored special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ☐ Other: _____ determine trends in wetland water quality. This wetland being monitored is representative of other water bodies within the City of Rosemount. ☒ Trout stream (mapped in nearby area) Vermillion River ☒ Flow/water level decline ☒ Degrading water quality trends and/or MCLs exceeded ☐ Impacts on endangered, threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ☐ Other: _____ ☒ GIS analysis ☐ Modeling ☒ Mapping ☒ Monitoring ☐ Aquifer testing ☐ Other: ___ Lower limit on acceptable flow in river. Water quality outside of acceptable trout stream limits. ☐ Revise permit ☒ Change groundwater pumping ☒ Increase conservation ☐ Other Monitor water levels and compare to historic values to determine long-term trends in river data. Compare current water quality testing to historic water quality testing to determine water quality trends of the river. ☒ Aquifer Prairie du Chien- Jordan ☒ Flow/water level decline ☒ Degrading water quality trends and/or MCLs exceeded ☐ Impacts on endangered, threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ☐ GIS analysis ☐ Modeling ☐ Mapping ☒ Monitoring ☒ Aquifer testing ☐ Other: ___ Lower limit on acceptable water level in aquifer. Declining water levels in monitoring wells. Withdrawals that exceed the permitted amount. ☐ Revise permit ☒ Change groundwater pumping ☒ Increase conservation ☐ Other Seven City wells are connected to the Jordan aquifer and draw water yearly from it. Surface waters in this area may be directly connected to groundwater. Continue to monitor water levels in monitoring wells. Compare Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 23 Resource Type Resource Name Risk Risk Assessed Through Describe Resource Protection Threshold* Mitigation Measure or Management Plan Describe How Changes to Thresholds are Monitored ☐ Other: _____ water level monitoring data to historic monitoring data to determine trends in aquifer water level. ☐ Endangered, threatened, or special concern species habitat, other natural resource impacts N/A ☐ Flow/water level decline ☐ Degrading water quality trends and/or MCLs exceeded ☐ Impacts on endangered, threatened, or special concern species habitat or other natural resource impacts ☐ Other: _____ ☐ GIS analysis ☐ Modeling ☐ Mapping ☐ Monitoring ☐ Aquifer testing ☐ Other: ___ N/A ☐ Revise permit ☐ Change groundwater pumping ☐ Increase conservation ☐ Other N/A * Examples of thresholds: a lower limit on acceptable flow in a river or stream; water quality outside of an accepted range; a lower limit on acceptable aquifer level decline at one or more monitoring wells; withdrawals that exceed some percent of the total amount available from a source; or a lower limit on acceptable changes to a protected habitat. Wellhead Protection (WHP) and Surface Water Protection (SWP) Plans Complete Table 11 to provide status information about WHP and SWP plans. The emergency procedures in this plan are intended to comply with the contingency plan provisions required in the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH) Wellhead Protection (WHP) Plan and Surface Water Protection (SWP) Plan. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 24 Table 11. Status of Wellhead Protection and Surface Water Protection Plans Plan Type Status Date Adopted Date for Update WHP ☐ In Process ☒ Completed ☐ Not Applicable Part I: 2010 Part II: 2012 Part I: 2020 Part II: 2022 SWP ☐ In Process ☒ Completed ☐ Not Applicable NA NA F. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Please note that any wells that received approval under a ten-year permit, but that were not built, are now expired and must submit a water appropriations permit. Adequacy of Water Supply System Complete Table 12 with information about the adequacy of wells and/or intakes, storage facilities, treatment facilities, and distribution systems to sustain current and projected demands. List planned capital improvements for any system components, in chronological order. Communities in the seven- county Twin Cities metropolitan area should also include information about plans through 2040. The assessment can be the general status by category; it is not necessary to identify every single well, storage facility, treatment facility, lift station, and mile of pipe. Please attach your latest Capital Improvement Plan as Appendix 4. Table 12. Adequacy of Water Supply System System Component Planned action Anticipated Construction Year Notes Wells/Intakes ☐ No action planned - adequate ☒ Repair/replacement ☒ Expansion/addition Well 17: 2018 Add one new well within 10 years. Maintain existing wells. Water Storage Facilities ☐ No action planned - adequate ☒ Repair/replacement ☒ Expansion/addition 2016 - 2020 Add an additional 1.5 MG water storage tank near the Bacardi Tower (ground storage) Water Treatment Facilities ☐ No action planned - adequate ☐ Repair/replacement ☒ Expansion/addition 2019 Construct new WTP in 2019 to treat City water. Distribution Systems (pipes, valves, etc.) ☐ No action planned - adequate ☒ Repair/replacement ☒ Expansion/addition 2016 – 2040 Water main replacement during street reconstruction projects. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 25 System Component Planned action Anticipated Construction Year Notes Extension of 16” water main for fire flow protection. Pressure Zones ☒ No action planned - adequate ☐ Repair/replacement ☐ Expansion/addition NA Pressure zones are adequate. Other: ☒ No action planned - adequate ☐ Repair/replacement ☐ Expansion/addition Proposed Future Water Sources Complete Table 13 to identify new water source installation planned over the next ten years. Add rows to the table as needed. Table 13. Proposed future installations/sources Source Installation Location (approximate) Resource Name Proposed Pumping Capacity (gpm) Planned Installation Year Planned Partnerships Groundwater Rosemount, MN Well No. 17 500 – 1000 2018 N/A Surface Water None None None None None Interconnection to another supplier None None None None None Water Source Alternatives - Key Metropolitan Council Benchmark Do you anticipate the need for alternative water sources in the next 10 years? Yes ☐ No ☒ For metro communities, will you need alternative water sources by the year 2040? Yes ☒ No ☐ If you answered yes for either question, then complete table 14. If no, insert NA. Complete Table 14 by checking the box next to alternative approaches that your community is considering, including approximate locations (if known), the estimated amount of future demand that could be met through the approach, the estimated timeframe to implement the approach, potential partnerships, and the major benefits and challenges of the approach. Add rows to the table as needed. For communities in the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area, these alternatives should include approaches the community is considering to meet projected 2040 water demand. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 26 Table 14. Alternative water sources Alternative Source Considered Source and/or Installation Location (approximate) Estimated Amount of Future Demand (%) Timeframe to Implement (YYYY) Potential Partners Benefits Challenges ☐ Groundwater ☐ Surface Water ☐ Reclaimed stormwater ☒ Reclaimed wastewater Met Council 10% N/A MCES Potential to reuse Empire wastewater and reduce aquifer use. Plumbing code change required. ☐ Interconnection to another supplier Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 27 Part 2. Emergency Preparedness Procedures The emergency preparedness procedures outlined in this plan are intended to comply with the contingency plan provisions required by MDH in the WHP and SWP. Water emergencies can occur as a result of vandalism, sabotage, accidental contamination, mechanical problems, power failings, drought, flooding, and other natural disasters. The purpose of emergency planning is to develop emergency response procedures and to identify actions needed to improve emergency preparedness. In the case of a municipality, these procedures should be in support of, and part of, an all-hazard emergency operations plan. Municipalities that already have written procedures dealing with water emergencies should review the following information and update existing procedures to address these water supply protection measures. A. Federal Emergency Response Plan Section 1433(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, (Public Law 107-188, Title IV- Drinking Water Security and Safety) requires community water suppliers serving over 3,300 people to prepare an Emergency Response Plan. Do you have a federal emergency response plan? Yes ☒ No ☐ If yes, what was the date it was certified? ___2007________ Complete Table 15 by inserting the noted information regarding your completed Federal Emergency Response Plan. Table 15. Emergency Preparedness Plan contact information Emergency Response Plan Role Contact Person Contact Phone Number Contact Email Emergency Response Lead JIM KOSLOWSKI 612-322-2022 JIM.KOSLOWSKI@CI.ROSEMOUNT.MN.US Alternate Emergency Response Lead CHRISTINE WATSON 651-322-2091 CHRISTINE.WATSON@CI.ROSEMOUNT.MN.US B. Operational Contingency Plan All utilities should have a written operational contingency plan that describes measures to be taken for water supply mainline breaks and other common system failures as well as routine maintenance. Do you have a written operational contingency plan? Yes ☒ No ☐ At a minimum, a water supplier should prepare and maintain an emergency contact list of contractors and suppliers. C. Emergency Response Procedures Water suppliers must meet the requirements of MN Rules 4720.5280 . Accordingly, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people to submit Emergency and Conservation Plans. Water emergency and conservation plans that have been Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 28 approved by the DNR, under provisions of Minnesota Statute 186 and Minnesota Rules, part 6115.0770, will be considered equivalent to an approved WHP contingency plan. Emergency Telephone List Prepare and attach a list of emergency contacts, including the MN Duty Officer (1-800-422-0798), as Appendix 5. A template is available at www.mndnr.gov/watersupplyplans The list should include key utility and community personnel, contacts in adjacent water suppliers, and appropriate local, state and federal emergency contacts. Please be sure to verify and update the contacts on the emergency telephone list and date it. Thereafter, update on a regular basis (once a year is recommended). In the case of a municipality, this information should be contained in a notification and warning standard operating procedure maintained by the Emergency Manager for that community. Responsibilities and services for each contact should be defined. Current Water Sources and Service Area Quick access to concise and detailed information on water sources, water treatment, and the distribution system may be needed in an emergency. System operation and maintenance records should be maintained in secured central and back-up locations so that the records are accessible for emergency purposes. A detailed map of the system showing the treatment plants, water sources, storage facilities, supply lines, interconnections, and other information that would be useful in an emergency should also be readily available. It is critical that public water supplier representatives and emergency response personnel communicate about the response procedures and be able to easily obtain this kind of information both in electronic and hard copy formats (in case of a power outage). Do records and maps exist? Yes ☒ No ☐ Can staff access records and maps from a central secured location in the event of an emergency? Yes ☒ No ☐ Does the appropriate staff know where the materials are located? Yes ☒ No ☐ Procedure for Augmenting Water Supplies Complete Tables 16 – 17 by listing all available sources of water that can be used to augment or replace existing sources in an emergency. Add rows to the tables as needed. In the case of a municipality, this information should be contained in a notification and warning standard operating procedure maintained by the warning point for that community. Municipalities are encouraged to execute cooperative agreements for potential emergency water services and copies should be included in Appendix 6. Outstate Communities may consider using nearby high capacity wells (industry, golf course) as emergency water sources. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 29 WSP should include information on any physical or chemical problems that may limit interconnections to other sources of water. Approvals from the MDH are required for interconnections or the reuse of water. Table 16. Interconnections with other water supply systems to supply water in an emergency Other Water Supply System Owner Capacity (GPM & MGD) Note Any Limitations On Use List of services, equipment, supplies available to respond CITY OF APPLE VALLEY 23,000 GPM EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTION GPM – Gallons per minute MGD – million gallons per day Table 17. Utilizing surface water as an alternative source Surface Water Source Name Capacity (GPM) Capacity (MGD) Treatment Needs Note Any Limitations On Use NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE If not covered above, describe additional emergency measures for providing water (obtaining bottled water, or steps to obtain National Guard services, etc.) N/A Allocation and Demand Reduction Procedures Complete Table 18 by adding information about how decisions will be made to allocate water and reduce demand during an emergency. Provide information for each customer category, including its priority ranking, average day demand, and demand reduction potential for each customer category. Modify the customer categories as needed, and add additional lines if necessary. Water use categories should be prioritized in a way that is consistent with Minnesota Statutes 103G.261 (#1 is highest priority) as follows: 1. Water use for human needs such as cooking, cleaning, drinking, washing and waste disposal; use for on-farm livestock watering; and use for power production that meets contingency requirements. 2. Water use involving consumption of less than 10,000 gallons per day (usually from private wells or surface water intakes) 3. Water use for agricultural irrigation and processing of agricultural products involving consumption of more than 10,000 gallons per day (usually from private high-capacity wells or surface water intakes) 4. Water use for power production above the use provided for in the contingency plan. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 30 5. All other water use involving consumption of more than 10,000 gallons per day. 6. Nonessential uses – car washes, golf courses, etc. Water used for human needs at hospitals, nursing homes and similar types of facilities should be designated as a high priority to be maintained in an emergency. Lower priority uses will need to address water used for human needs at other types of facilities such as hotels, office buildings, and manufacturing plants. The volume of water and other types of water uses at these facilities must be carefully considered. After reviewing the data, common sense should dictate local allocation priorities to protect domestic requirements over certain types of economic needs. Water use for lawn sprinkling, vehicle washing, golf courses, and recreation are legislatively considered non-essential. Table 18. Water use priorities Customer Category Allocation Priority Average Daily Demand (GDP) Short-Term Emergency Demand Reduction Potential (GPD) Residential 1 1,664,000 1,465,000 C/I/I 2 283,000 213,000 Non-Essential 3 415,000 200,000 TOTAL NA 2,362,000 1,878,000 GPD – Gallons per Day Tip: Calculating Emergency Demand Reduction Potential The emergency demand reduction potential for all uses will typically equal the difference between maximum use (summer demand) and base use (winter demand). In extreme emergency situations, lower priority water uses must be restricted or eliminated to protect priority domestic water requirements. Emergency demand reduction potential should be based on average day demands for customer categories within each priority class. Use the tables in Part 3 on water conservation to help you determine strategies. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 31 Complete Table 19 by selecting the triggers and actions during water supply disruption conditions. Table 19. Emergency demand reduction conditions, triggers and actions (Select all that may apply and describe)Emergency Triggers Short-term Actions Long-term Actions ☒ Contamination ☒ Loss of production ☒ Infrastructure failure ☒ Executive order by Governor ☒ Other: storage capacity, water demand______ ☐ Supply augmentation through ____ ☒ Adopt (if not already) and enforce a critical water deficiency ordinance to penalize lawn watering, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation & other nonessential uses. ☐ Water allocation through____ ☐ Meet with large water users to discuss their contingency plan. ☐ Supply augmentation through ____ ☒ Adopt (if not already) and enforce a critical water deficiency ordinance to penalize lawn watering, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation & other nonessential uses. ☐ Water allocation through____ ☐ Meet with large water users to discuss their contingency plan. Notification Procedures Complete Table 20 by selecting trigger for informing customers regarding conservation requests, water use restrictions, and suspensions; notification frequencies; and partners that may assist in the notification process. Add rows to the table as needed. Table 20. Plan to inform customers regarding conservation requests, water use restrictions, and suspensions Notification Trigger(s) Methods (select all that apply) Update Frequency Partners ☒ Short-term demand reduction declared (< 1 year) ☒ Website ☐ Email list serve ☐ Social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) ☐ Direct customer mailing, ☒ Press release (TV, radio, newspaper), ☐ Meeting with large water users (> 10% of total city use) ☐ Other: ________ ☐ Daily ☐ Weekly ☒ Monthly ☐ Annually ☒ Long-term Ongoing demand reduction declared ☒ Website ☐ Email list serve ☐ Social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) ☐ Direct customer mailing, ☒ Press release (TV, radio, newspaper), ☐ Meeting with large water users ☐ Daily ☐ Weekly ☒ Monthly ☐ Annually Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 32 Notification Trigger(s) Methods (select all that apply) Update Frequency Partners (> 10% of total city use) ☐ Other: ________ ☒ Governor’s critical water deficiency declared ☒ Website ☐ Email list serve ☐ Social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) ☐ Direct customer mailing, ☒ Press release (TV, radio, newspaper), ☐ Meeting with large water users (> 10% of total city use) ☐ Other: ________ ☐ Daily ☐ Weekly ☒ Monthly ☐ Annually Enforcement Prior to a water emergency, municipal water suppliers must adopt regulations that restrict water use and outline the enforcement response plan. The enforcement response plan must outline how conditions will be monitored to know when enforcement actions are triggered, what enforcement tools will be used, who will be responsible for enforcement, and what timelines for corrective actions will be expected. Affected operations, communications, and enforcement staff must then be trained to rapidly implement those provisions during emergency conditions. Important Note: Disregard of critical water deficiency orders, even though total appropriation remains less than permitted, is adequate grounds for immediate modification of a public water supply authority’s water use permit (2013 MN Statutes 103G.291) Does the city have a critical water deficiency restriction/official control in place that includes provisions to restrict water use and enforce the restrictions? (This restriction may be an ordinance, rule, regulation, policy under a council directive, or other official control) Yes ☒ No ☐ If yes, attach the official control document to this WSP as Appendix 7. If no, the municipality must adopt such an official control within 6 months of submitting this WSP and submit it to the DNR as an amendment to this WSP. Irrespective of whether a critical water deficiency control is in place, does the public water supply utility, city manager, mayor, or emergency manager have standing authority to implement water restrictions? Yes ☒ No ☐ If yes, cite the regulatory authority reference: City Council or Utility Board, and City Administrator. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 33 If no, who has authority to implement water use restrictions in an emergency? The City of Rosemount’s Emergency Operation Plan states that the Mayor or City Administrator is responsible for providing overall direction and control of the City government resources involved in the response to a disaster. Typically, the Utilities Commission and City Council implement water restrictions. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 34 PART 3. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Minnesotans have historically benefited from the state’s abundant water supplies, reducing the need for conservation. There are however, limits to the available supplies of water and increasing threats to the quality of our drinking water. Causes of water supply limitation may include: population increases, economic trends, uneven statewide availability of groundwater, climatic changes, and degraded water quality. Examples of threats to drinking water quality include: the presence of contaminant plumes from past land use activities, exceedances of water quality standards from natural and human sources, contaminants of emerging concern, and increasing pollutant trends from nonpoint sources. There are many incentives for conserving water; conservation:  reduces the potential for pumping-induced transfer of contaminants into the deeper aquifers, which can add treatment costs  reduces the need for capital projects to expand system capacity  reduces the likelihood of water use conflicts, like well interference, aquatic habitat loss, and declining lake levels  conserves energy, because less energy is needed to extract, treat and distribute water (and less energy production also conserves water since water is use to produce energy)  maintains water supplies that can then be available during times of drought It is therefore imperative that water suppliers implement water conservation plans. The first step in water conservation is identifying opportunities for behavioral or engineering changes that could be made to reduce water use by conducting a thorough analysis of:  Water use by customer  Extraction, treatment, distribution and irrigation system efficiencies  Industrial processing system efficiencies  Regulatory and barriers to conservation  Cultural barriers to conservation  Water reuse opportunities Once accurate data is compiled, water suppliers can set achievable goals for reducing water use. A successful water conservation plan follows a logical sequence of events. The plan should address both conservation on the supply side (leak detection and repairs, metering), as well as on the demand side (reductions in usage). Implementation should be conducted in phases, starting with the most obvious and lowest-cost options. In some cases one of the early steps will be reviewing regulatory constraints to water conservation, such as lawn irrigation requirements. Outside funding and grants may be available for implementation of projects. Engage water system operators and maintenance staff and customers in brainstorming opportunities to reduce water use. Ask the question: “How can I help save water?” Priority 1: Significant water reduction; low cost Priority 2: Slight water reduction, low costs (low hanging fruit) Priority 2: Significant water reduction; significant costs Priority 3: Slight water reduction, significant costs (do only if necessary) Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 35 Progress since 2006 Is this your community’s first Water Supply Plan? Yes ☐ No ☒ If yes, describe conservation practices that you are already implementing, such as: pricing, system improvements, education, regulation, appliance retrofitting, enforcement, etc. N/A If no, complete Table 21 to summarize conservation actions taken since the adoption of the 2006 water supply plan. Table 21. Implementation of previous ten-year Conservation Plan 2006 Plan Commitments Action Taken? Change water rates structure to provide conservation pricing ☒ Yes ☐ No Water supply system improvements (e.g. leak repairs, valve replacements, etc.) ☒ Yes ☐ No Educational efforts ☒ Yes ☐ No New water conservation ordinances ☐ Yes ☐ No Rebate or retrofitting Program (e.g. for toilet, faucets, appliances, showerheads, dish washers, washing machines, irrigation systems, rain barrels, water softeners, etc. ☐ Yes ☐ No Enforcement ☒ Yes ☐ No Describe other ☐ Yes ☐ No What are the results you have seen from the actions in Table 21 and how were results measured? Decreasing residential and total per capita demand while overall customer numbers increased. A. Triggers for Allocation and Demand Reduction Actions Complete table 22 by checking each trigger below, as appropriate, and the actions to be taken at various levels or stages of severity. Add in additional rows to the table as needed. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 36 Table 22. Short and long-term demand reduction conditions, triggers and actions Objective Triggers Actions Protect surface water flows ☒ Low stream flow conditions ☒ Reports of declining wetland and lake levels ☐ Other: ______________ ☒ Increase promotion of conservation measures ☐ Other: ____________ Short-term demand reduction (less than 1 year ☐ Extremely high seasonal water demand (more than double winter demand) ☐ Loss of treatment capacity ☐ Lack of water in storage ☐ State drought plan ☒ Well interference ☐ Other: _____________ ☒ Adopt (if not already) and enforce the critical water deficiency ordinance to restrict or prohibit lawn watering, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation & other nonessential uses. ☐ Supply augmentation through ____ ☐ Water allocation through____ ☐ Meet with large water users to discuss user’s contingency plan. Long-term demand reduction (>1 year) ☐ Per capita demand increasing ☒ Total demand increase (higher population or more industry)Water level in well(s) below elevation of _____ ☐ Other: _____________ ☒ Develop a critical water deficiency ordinance that is or can be quickly adopted to penalize lawn watering, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation & other nonessential uses. ☒ Enact a water waste ordinance that targets overwatering (causing water to flow off the landscape into streets, parking lots, or similar), watering impervious surfaces (streets, driveways or other hardscape areas), and negligence of known leaks, breaks, or malfunctions. ☒ Meet with large water users to discuss user’s contingency plan. ☒ Enhanced monitoring and reporting: audits, meters, billing, etc. Governor’s “Critical Water Deficiency Order” declared ☐ Describe ☐ Describe B. Conservation Objectives and Strategies – Key benchmark for DNR This section establishes water conservation objectives and strategies for eight major areas of water use. Objective 1: Reduce Unaccounted (Non-Revenue) Water loss to Less than 10% The Minnesota Rural Waters Association, the Metropolitan Council and the Department of Natural Resources recommend that all water uses be metered. Metering can help identify high use locations and times, along with leaks within buildings that have multiple meters. It is difficult to quantify specific unmetered water use such as that associated with firefighting and system flushing or system leaks. Typically, water suppliers subtract metered water use from total water pumped to calculate unaccounted or non-revenue water loss. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 37 Is your five-year average (2005-2014) unaccounted Water Use in Table 2 higher than 10%? Yes ☐ No ☒ What is your leak detection monitoring schedule? (e.g. monitor 1/3rd of the city lines per year) There is no formal leak detection monitoring schedule as leak detection is done as needed during the year. Water Audits - are intended to identify, quantify and verify water and revenue losses. The volume of unaccounted-for water should be evaluated each billing cycle. The American Water Works Association (AWWA) recommends that ten percent or less of pumped water is unaccounted-for water. Water audit procedures are available from the AWWA and MN Rural Water Association / . Drinking Water Revolving Loan Funds are available for purchase of new meters when new plants are built. What is the date of your most recent water audit? _______ Frequency of water audits: ☐ yearly ☒ other (specify frequency) _No Schedule_______ Leak detection and survey: ☐ every year ☐ every other year ☒ periodic as needed Year last leak detection survey completed: The City of Rosemount does not have a citywide leak detection survey. However, a leak detection survey is performed as part of street paving projects. If Table 2 shows annual water losses over 10% or an increasing trend over time, describe what actions will be taken to reach the <10% loss objective and within what timeframe There is a less than 10% loss for each year over the last 10 years. The year 2006 has the only loss greater than 10%. Metering -AWWA recommends that every water supplier install meters to account for all water taken into its system, along with all water distributed from its system at each customer’s point of service. An effective metering program relies upon periodic performance testing, repair, maintenance or replacement of all meters. AWWA also recommends that water suppliers conduct regular water audits to ensure accountability. Some cities install separate meters for interior and exterior water use, but some research suggests that this may not result in water conservation. Complete Table 23 by adding the requested information regarding the number, types, testing and maintenance of customer meters. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 38 Table 23. Information about customer meters Customer Category Number of Customers Number of Metered Connections Number of Automated Meter Readers Meter testing intervals (years) Average age/meter replacement schedule (years Residential 7440 7440 N/A As needed 10 years / Replace as needed Irrigation meters 82 82 N/A As needed 6 years / Replace as needed Institutional 30 30 N/A As needed 7 years / Replace as needed Commercial 163 163 N/A As needed 7 years / Replace as needed Industrial 34 34 N/A As needed 10 years / Replace as needed Public facilities 32 32 N/A As needed 5 years / Replace as needed TOTALS 7781 7781 NA NA For unmetered systems, describe any plans to install meters or replace current meters with advanced technology meters. Provide an estimate of the cost to implement the plan and the projected water savings from implementing the plan. None. The entire system is metered. Table 24. Water source meters Number of Meters Meter testing schedule (years) Number of Automated Meter Readers Average age/meter replacement schedule (years Water source (wells/intakes) 9 As needed 9 13 years / As needed Treatment plant The City of Rosemount does not currently operate a WTP. Objective 2: Achieve Less than 75 Residential Gallons per Capita Demand (GPCD) The 2002 average residential per capita demand in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area was 75 gallons per capita per day. Is your average 2010-2015 residential per capita water demand in Table 2 more than 75? Yes ☒ No ☐ What was your 2010 – 2015 five-year average residential per capita water demand? 81.2 g/person/day Describe the water use trend over that timeframe: The residential water demand has been decreasing since 2008 where the peak demand of 115 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) occurred. The residential per capita demand in 2015 was 70.1 gpcd. The overall residential water sold has also declined during this period, which corresponds to the decreasing water demand. The number of Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 39 customers has increased as well as the total population. The average day demand has also decreased during this time from a peak of 2.67 MGD in 2012 to 2023 MGD is 2015. Complete Table 25 by checking which strategies you will use to continue reducing residential per capita demand and project a likely timeframe for completing each checked strategy (Select all that apply and add rows for additional strategies): Table 25. Strategies and timeframe to reduce residential per capita demand Strategy to reduce residential per capita demand Timeframe for completing work ☒ Revise city ordinances/codes to encourage or require water efficient landscaping. Ongoing. City continues to review and revise as needed. ☐ Revise city ordinance/codes to permit water reuse options, especially for non-potable purposes like irrigation, groundwater recharge, and industrial use. Check with plumbing authority to see if internal buildings reuse is permitted ☒ Revise ordinances to limit irrigation. Describe the restricted irrigation plan: No watering during specific times Ongoing. Education on lawn watering. The city currently has an ordinance on odd/even day watering they enforce. ☐ Revise outdoor irrigation installations codes to require high efficiency systems (e.g. those with soil moisture sensors or programmable watering areas) in new installations or system replacements. ☒ Make water system infrastructure improvements Construct new WTP and maintain distribution system as needed. ☐ Offer free or reduced cost water use audits) for residential customers. ☐ Implement a notification system to inform customers when water availability conditions change. ☒ Provide rebates or incentives for installing water efficient appliances and/or fixtures indoors (e.g., low flow toilets, high efficiency dish washers and washing machines, showerhead and faucet aerators, water softeners, etc.) Ongoing ☐ Provide rebates or incentives to reduce outdoor water use (e.g., turf replacement/reduction, rain gardens, rain barrels, smart irrigation, outdoor water use meters, etc.) ☐ Identify supplemental Water Resources ☒ Conduct audience-appropriate water conservation education and outreach. (Pop-up for online payment with usage information) Ongoing ☐ Describe other plans Objective 3: Achieve at least a 1.5% per year water reduction for Institutional, Industrial, Commercial, and Agricultural GPCD over the next 10 years or a 15% reduction in ten years. Complete Table 26 by checking which strategies you will used to continue reducing non-residential customer use demand and project a likely timeframe for completing each checked strategy (add rows for additional strategies). Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 40 Where possible, substitute recycled water used in one process for reuse in another. (For example, spent rinse water can often be reused in a cooling tower.) Keep in mind the true cost of water is the amount on the water bill PLUS the expenses to heat, cool, treat, pump, and dispose of/discharge the water. Don’t just calculate the initial investment. Many conservation retrofits that appear to be prohibitively expensive are actually very cost-effective when amortized over the life of the equipment. Often reducing water use also saves electrical and other utility costs. Note: as of 2015, water reuse, and is not allowed by the state plumbing code, M.R. 4715 (a variance is needed). However several state agencies are addressing this issue. Table 26. Strategies and timeframe to reduce institutional, commercial industrial, and agricultural and non-revenue use demand Strategy to reduce total business, industry, agricultural demand Timeframe for completing work ☐ Conduct a facility water use audit for both indoor and outdoor use, including system components ☐ Install enhanced meters capable of automated readings to detect spikes in consumption ☐ Compare facility water use to related industry benchmarks, if available (e.g., meat processing, dairy, fruit and vegetable, beverage, textiles, paper/pulp, metals, technology, petroleum refining etc.) ☒ Install water conservation fixtures and appliances or change processes to conserve water Ongoing through Met Council grant program ☒ Repair leaking system components (e.g., pipes, valves) Ongoing ☐ Investigate the reuse of reclaimed water (e.g., stormwater, wastewater effluent, process wastewater, etc.) ☒ Reduce outdoor water use (e.g., turf replacement/reduction, rain gardens, rain barrels, smart irrigation, outdoor water use meters, etc.) Ongoing ☐ Train employees how to conserve water ☐ Implement a notification system to inform non-residential customers when water availability conditions change. ☐ Rainwater catchment systems intended to supply uses such as water closets, urinals, trap primers for floor drains and floor sinks, industrial processes, water features, vehicle washing facilities, cooling tower makeup, and similar uses shall be approved by the commissioner. Proposed plumbing code 4714.1702.1 http://www.dli.mn.gov/PDF/docket/4714rule.pdf ☐ Describe other plans: Objective 4: Achieve a Decreasing Trend in Total Per Capita Demand Include as Appendix 8 one graph showing total per capita water demand for each customer category (i.e., residential, institutional, commercial, industrial) from 2005-2014 and add the calculated/estimated linear trend for the next 10 years. Describe the trend for each customer category; explain the reason(s) for the trends, and where trends are increasing. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 41 The overall trend for total water demand has been decreasing for the last 10 years. The projected 10- year linear trend also shows a decreasing total demand trend. The reason for the decreasing trend is due to lower water usage and a decrease in the amount of residential and water used for non-essential purposes. It can also be assumed that leak detection during street projects has helped reduce the amount of water lost thus reducing total demand. Water conservation techniques can also have reduced demand. This, paired with a moderate increase in population served has led to the decreasing trend of total demand. The residential demand also follows a decreasing trend. However, there are three years where the demand was greater than 100 gpcd. The 10-year linear trend shows a residential demand that continues to decrease. The moderate increase in population served coupled along with a decrease in the residential water sold leads to the decreasing residential demand. The reduced demand could be from an increase in water efficient appliances and water conservation techniques. Adjusting water rates also may play a key role is the reduction of the residential water demand. The C/I/I demand has remained consistent but shows a slight decline over the last 10 years. The future linear trend shows the C/I/I demand to slightly decrease. This could be from increased education on water conservation and new water efficient appliances. There are slight fluctuations in the demand data where years with higher total demands correspond to higher C/I/I demands. This could be due to larger than average water usage in the commercial/industrial/institutional category. Objective 5: Reduce Peak Day Demand so that the Ratio of Average Maximum day to the Average Day is less than 2.6 Is the ratio of average 2005-2014 maximum day demand to average 2005-2014 average day demand reported in Table 2 more than 2.6? Yes ☐ No ☒ Calculate a ten year average (2005 – 2014) of the ratio of maximum day demand to average day demand: 2.53 The position of the DNR has been that a peak day/average day ratio that is above 2.6 for in summer indicates that the water being used for irrigation by the residents in a community is too large and that efforts should be made to reduce the peak day use by the community. It should be noted that by reducing the peak day use, communities can also reduce the amount of infrastructure that is required to meet the peak day use. This infrastructure includes new wells, new water towers which can be costly items. Objective 6: Implement a Conservation Water Rate Structure and/or a Uniform Rate Structure with a Water Conservation Program Water Conservation Program Municipal water suppliers serving over 1,000 people are required to adopt demand reduction measures that include a conservation rate structure, or a uniform rate structure with a conservation program that achieves demand reduction. These measures must achieve demand reduction in ways that reduce water demand, water losses, peak water demands, and nonessential water uses. These measures must Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 42 be approved before a community may request well construction approval from the Department of Health or before requesting an increase in water appropriations permit volume (Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.291, subd. 3 and 4). Rates should be adjusted on a regular basis to ensure that revenue of the system is adequate under reduced demand scenarios. If a municipal water supplier intends to use a Uniform Rate Structure, a community-wide Water Conservation Program that will achieve demand reduction must be provided. Current Water Rates Include a copy of the actual rate structure in Appendix 9 or list current water rates including base/service fees and volume charges below. Volume included in base rate or service charge: per 1000 gallons or ____ cubic feet ___ other Frequency of billing: ☐ Monthly ☐ Bimonthly ☒ Quarterly ☐ Other: _________________ Water Rate Evaluation Frequency: ☒ every year ☐ every ___ years ☐ no schedule Date of last rate change: January 2016 Table 27. Rate structures for each customer category (Select all that apply and add additional rows as needed) Customer Category Conservation Billing Strategies in Use * Conservation Neutral Billing Strategies in Use ** Non-Conserving Billing Strategies in Use *** Residential ☐ Monthly billing ☒ Increasing block rates (volume tiered rates) ☐ Seasonal rates ☐ Time of use rates ☒ Water bills reported in gallons ☐ Individualized goal rates ☐ Excess use rates ☐ Drought surcharge ☐ Use water bill to provide comparisons ☒ Service charge not based on water volume ☐ Other (describe) ☐ Uniform ☐ Odd/even day watering ☐ Service charge based on water volume ☐ Declining block ☐ Flat ☐ Other (describe) Commercial/ Industrial/ Institutional ☐ Monthly billing ☒ Increasing block rates (volume tiered rates) ☐ Seasonal rates ☐ Time of use rates ☒ Water bills reported in gallons ☐ Individualized goal rates ☐ Excess use rates ☐ Drought surcharge ☐ Uniform ☐ Service charge based on water volume ☐ Declining block ☐ Flat ☐ Other (describe) Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 43 Customer Category Conservation Billing Strategies in Use * Conservation Neutral Billing Strategies in Use ** Non-Conserving Billing Strategies in Use *** ☐ Use water bill to provide comparisons ☒ Service charge not based on water volume ☐ Other (describe) ☐ Other * Rate Structures components that may promote water conservation:  Monthly billing: is encouraged to help people see their water usage so they can consider changing behavior.  Increasing block rates (also known as a tiered residential rate structure): Typically, these have at least three tiers: should have at least three tiers. o The first tier is for the winter average water use. o The second tier is the year-round average use, which is lower than typical summer use. This rate should be set to cover the full cost of service. o The third tier should be above the average annual use and should be priced high enough to encourage conservation, as should any higher tiers. For this to be effective, the difference in block rates should be significant.  Seasonal rate: higher rates in summer to reduce peak demands  Time of Use rates: lower rates for off peak water use  Bill water use in gallons: this allows customers to compare their use to average rates  Individualized goal rates: typically used for industry, business or other large water users to promote water conservation if they keep within agreed upon goals. Excess Use rates: if water use goes above an agreed upon amount this higher rate is charged  Drought surcharge: an extra fee is charged for guaranteed water use during drought  Use water bill to provide comparisons: simple graphics comparing individual use over time or compare individual use to others.  Service charge or base fee that does not include a water volume – a base charge or fee to cover universal city expenses that are not customer dependent and/or to provide minimal water at a lower rate (e.g., an amount less than the average residential per capita demand for the water supplier for the last 5 years)  Emergency rates -A community may have a separate conservation rate that only goes into effect when the community or governor declares a drought emergency. These higher rates can help to protect the city budgets during times of significantly less water usage. **Conservation Neutral**  Uniform rate: rate per unit used is the same regardless of the volume used  Odd/even day watering –This approach reduces peak demand on a daily basis for system operation, but it does not reduce overall water use. *** Non-Conserving ***  Service charge or base fee with water volume: an amount of water larger than the average residential per capita demand for the water supplier for the last 5 years  Declining block rate: the rate per unit used decreases as water use increases.  Flat rate: one fee regardless of how much water is used (usually unmetered). Provide justification for any conservation neutral or non-conserving rate structures. If intending to adopt a conservation rate structure, include the timeframe to do so: N/A Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 44 Objective 7: Additional strategies to Reduce Water Use and Support Wellhead Protection Planning Development and redevelopment projects can provide additional water conservation opportunities, such as the actions listed below. If a Uniform Rate Structure is in place, the water supplier must provide a Water Conservation Program that includes at least two of the actions listed below. Check those actions that you intent to implement within the next 10 years. Table 28. Additional strategies to Reduce Water Use & Support Wellhead Protection ☐ Participate in the GreenStep Cities Program, including implementation of at least one of the 20 “Best Practices” for water ☐ Prepare a master plan for smart growth (compact urban growth that avoids sprawl) ☒ Prepare a comprehensive open space plan (areas for parks, green spaces, natural areas) ☒ Adopt a water use restriction ordinance (lawn irrigation, car washing, pools, etc.) ☒ Adopt an outdoor lawn irrigation ordinance ☐ Adopt a private well ordinance (private wells in a city must comply with water restrictions) ☒ Implement a stormwater management program ☐ Adopt non-zoning wetlands ordinance (can further protect wetlands beyond state/federal laws- for vernal pools, buffer areas, restrictions on filling or alterations) ☐ Adopt a water offset program (primarily for new development or expansion) ☐ Implement a water conservation outreach program ☐ Hire a water conservation coordinator (part-time) ☒ Implement a rebate program for water efficient appliances, fixtures, or outdoor water management ☐ Other Objective 8: Tracking Success: How will you track or measure success through the next ten years? Observe a decreasing trend is water usage for residential customers. Monitor and document water levels in monitoring wells. Observe a decrease in the percent of unaccounted-for water to less than 10% yearly. The City will continue to monitor usage across all categories of users to determine if water efficiencies and water reductions are occurring. The City will also continue to monitor unaccounted for water, which will help determine if the City is properly metering and monitoring water use within the City. Tip: The process to monitor demand reduction and/or a rate structure includes: a) The DNR Hydrologist will call or visit the community the first 1-3 years after the water supply plan is completed. b) They will discuss what activities the community is doing to conserve water and if they feel their actions are successful. The Water Supply Plan, Part 3 tables and responses will guide the discussion. For example, they will discuss efforts to reduce unaccounted for water loss if that is a problem, or go through Tables 33, 34 and 35 to discuss new initiatives. c) The city representative and the hydrologist will discuss total per capita water use, residential per capita water use, and business/industry use. They will note trends. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 45 d) They will also discuss options for improvement and/or collect case studies of success stories to share with other communities. One option may be to change the rate structure, but there are many other paths to successful water conservation. e) If appropriate, they will cooperatively develop a simple work plan for the next few years, targeting a couple areas where the city might focus efforts. A. Regulation Complete Table 29 by selecting which regulations are used to reduce demand and improve water efficiencies. Add additional rows as needed. Copies of adopted regulations or proposed restrictions or should be included in Appendix 10 (a list with hyperlinks is acceptable). Table 29. Regulations for short-term reductions in demand and long-term improvements in water efficiencies Regulations Utilized When is it applied (in effect)? ☐ Rainfall sensors required on landscape irrigation systems ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared Emergencies ☒ Water efficient plumbing fixtures required ☒ New development ☐ Replacement ☒ Rebate Programs ☐ Critical/Emergency Water Deficiency ordinance ☐ Only during declared Emergencies ☒ Watering restriction requirements (time of day, allowable days, etc.) ☒ Odd/even ☐ 2 days/week ☐ Only during declared Emergencies ☒ Water waste prohibited (for example, having a fine for irrigators spraying on the street) ☒ Ongoing ☒ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared Emergencies ☐ Limitations on turf areas (requiring lots to have 10% - 25% of the space in natural areas) ☐ New development ☐ Shoreland/zoning ☐ Other ☒ Soil preparation requirement s (after construction, requiring topsoil to be applied to promote good root growth) ☒ New Development ☒ Construction Projects ☐ Other ☐ Tree ratios (requiring a certain number of trees per square foot of lawn) ☐ New development ☐ Shoreland/zoning ☐ Other ☐ Permit to fill swimming pool and/or requiring pools to be covered (to prevent evaporation) ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared Emergencies ☒ Ordinances that permit stormwater irrigation, reuse of water, or other alternative water use (Note: be sure to check current plumbing codes for updates) ☒ Describe: Possible Met Council wastewater reuse. B. Retrofitting Programs Education and incentive programs aimed at replacing inefficient plumbing fixtures and appliances can help reduce per capita water use, as well as energy costs. It is recommended that municipal water Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 46 suppliers develop a long-term plan to retrofit public buildings with water efficient plumbing fixtures and appliances. Some water suppliers have developed partnerships with organizations having similar conservation goals, such as electric or gas suppliers, to develop cooperative rebate and retrofit programs. A study by the AWWA Research Foundation (Residential End Uses of Water, 1999) found that the average indoor water use for a non-conserving home is 69.3 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The average indoor water use in a conserving home is 45.2 gpcd and most of the decrease in water use is related to water efficient plumbing fixtures and appliances that can reduce water, sewer and energy costs. In Minnesota, certain electric and gas providers are required (Minnesota Statute 216B.241) to fund programs that will conserve energy resources and some utilities have distributed water efficient showerheads to customers to help reduce energy demands required to supply hot water. Retrofitting Programs Complete Table 30 by checking which water uses are targeted, the outreach methods used, the measures used to identify success, and any participating partners. Table 30. Retrofitting programs (Select all that apply) Water Use Targets Outreach Methods Partners ☒ Low flush toilets, ☐ Toilet leak tablets, ☐ Low flow showerheads, ☐ Faucet aerators; ☐ Education about ☐ Free distribution of ☒ Rebate ☐ Other ☐ Gas company ☐ Electric company ☒ Watershed organization ☒ Water conserving washing machines, ☐ Dish washers, ☐ Water softeners; ☐ Education about ☐ Free distribution of ☒ Rebate ☐ Other ☐ Gas company ☐ Electric company ☒ Watershed organization ☒ Rain gardens, ☒ Rain barrels, ☐ Native/drought tolerant landscaping, etc. ☒ Education about ☐ Free distribution of ☐ Rebate for ☐ Other ☐ Gas company ☐ Electric company ☐ Watershed organization Briefly discuss measures of success from the above table (e.g. number of items distributed, dollar value of rebates, gallons of water conserved, etc.): The water efficiency rebate program is new. Success will be measured by seeing a reduction in residential per capita demand and the number of rebates submitted. C. Education and Information Programs Customer education should take place in three different circumstances. First, customers should be provided information on how to conserve water and improve water use efficiencies. Second, information should be provided at appropriate times to address peak demands. Third, emergency notices and educational materials about how to reduce water use should be available for quick distribution during an emergency. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 47 Proposed Education Programs Complete Table 31 by selecting which methods are used to provide water conservation and information, including the frequency of program components. Select all that apply and add additional lines as needed. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 48 Table 31. Current and Proposed Education Programs Education Methods General summary of topics #/Year Frequency Billing inserts or tips printed on the actual bill Water conservation tips 1 ☒ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Consumer Confidence Reports Water conservation tips 1 ☒ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Press releases to traditional local news outlets (e.g., newspapers, radio and TV) Water conservation tips 1 ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☒ Only during declared emergencies Social media distribution (e.g., emails, Facebook, Twitter) ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Paid advertisements (e.g., billboards, print media, TV, radio, web sites, etc.) ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Presentations to community groups ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Staff training ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Facility tours ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Displays and exhibits ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Marketing rebate programs (e.g., indoor fixtures & appliances and outdoor practices) ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Community news letters ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Direct mailings (water audit/retrofit kits, showerheads, brochures) Water conservation tips New Residents ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 49 Education Methods General summary of topics #/Year Frequency ☐ Only during declared emergencies Information kiosk at utility and public buildings Water conservation tips Continual ☒ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Public service announcements ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Cable TV Programs ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Demonstration projects (landscaping or plumbing) ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies K-12 education programs (Project Wet, Drinking Water Institute, presentations) ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Community events (children’s water festivals, environmental fairs) ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Community education classes ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Water week promotions ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Website http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/index Water conservation and previous water usage Continual ☒ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Targeted efforts (large volume users, users with large increases) ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Notices of ordinances Water conservation tips As Required ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Emergency conservation notices Water conservation tips As Required ☐ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 50 Education Methods General summary of topics #/Year Frequency ☐ Only during declared emergencies Other: Water conservation tips available on website Year- Round ☒ Ongoing ☐ Seasonal ☐ Only during declared emergencies Briefly discuss what future education and information activities your community is considering in the future: Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 51 Part 4. ITEMS FOR METROPOLITAN AREA COMMUNITIES Minnesota Statute 473.859 requires WSPs to be completed for all local units of government in the seven-county Metropolitan Area as part of the local comprehensive planning process. Much of the information in Parts 1-3 addresses water demand for the next 10 years. However, additional information is needed to address water demand through 2040, which will make the WSP consistent with the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act, upon which the local comprehensive plans are based. This Part 4 provides guidance to complete the WSP in a way that addresses plans for water supply through 2040. A. Water Demand Projections through 2040 Complete Table 7 in Part 1D by filling in information about long-term water demand projections through 2040. Total Community Population projections should be consistent with the community’s system statement, which can be found on the Metropolitan Council’s website and which was sent to the community in September 2015. Projected Average Day, Maximum Day, and Annual Water Demands may either be calculated using the method outlined in Appendix 2 of the 2015 Master Water Supply Plan or by a method developed by the individual water supplier. B. Potential Water Supply Issues Complete Table 10 in Part 1E by providing information about the potential water supply issues in your community, including those that might occur due to 2040 projected water use. The Master Water Supply Plan provides information about potential issues for your community in Appendix 1 (Water Supply Profiles). This resource may be useful in completing Table 10. You may document results of local work done to evaluate impact of planned uses by attaching a feasibility assessment or providing a citation and link to where the plan is available electronically. C. Proposed Alternative Approaches to Meet Extended Water Demand Projections Complete Table 12 in Part 1F with information about potential water supply infrastructure impacts (such as replacements, expansions or additions to wells/intakes, water storage and treatment capacity, distribution systems, and emergency interconnections) of extended plans for development and redevelopment, in 10-year increments through 2040. It may be useful to refer to information in the community’s local Land Use Plan, if available. Complete Table 14 in Part 1F by checking each approach your community is considering to meet future demand. For each approach your community is considering, provide information about the amount of Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 52 future water demand to be met using that approach, the timeframe to implement the approach, potential partners, and current understanding of the key benefits and challenges of the approach. As challenges are being discussed, consider the need for: evaluation of geologic conditions (mapping, aquifer tests, modeling), identification of areas where domestic wells could be impacted, measurement and analysis of water levels & pumping rates, triggers & associated actions to protect water levels, etc. D. Value-Added Water Supply Planning Efforts (Optional) The following information is not required to be completed as part of the local water supply plan, but completing this can help strengthen source water protection throughout the region and help Metropolitan Council and partners in the region to better support local efforts. Source Water Protection Strategies Does a Drinking Water Supply Management Area for a neighboring public water supplier overlap your community? Yes ☒ No ☐ If you answered no, skip this section. If you answered yes, please complete Table 32 with information about new water demand or land use planning-related local controls that are being considered to provide additional protection in this area. Table 32. Local controls and schedule to protect Drinking Water Supply Management Areas Local Control Schedule to Implement Potential Partners ☒ None at this time N/A N/A ☐ Comprehensive planning that guides development in vulnerable drinking water supply management areas ☐ Zoning overlay ☐ Other: Technical assistance From your community’s perspective, what are the most important topics for the Metropolitan Council to address, guided by the region’s Metropolitan Area Water Supply Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee, as part of its ongoing water supply planning role? ☒ Coordination of state, regional and local water supply planning roles ☒ Regional water use goals ☒ Water use reporting standards ☐ Regional and sub-regional partnership opportunities ☐ Identifying and prioritizing data gaps and input for regional and sub-regional analyses ☐ Others: ___________________________________________________________________ Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 53 GLOSSARY Agricultural/Irrigation Water Use - Water used for crop and non-crop irrigation, livestock watering, chemigation, golf course irrigation, landscape and athletic field irrigation. Average Daily Demand - The total water pumped during the year divided by 365 days. Calcareous Fen - Calcareous fens are rare and distinctive wetlands dependent on a constant supply of cold groundwater. Because they are dependent on groundwater and are one of the rarest natural communities in the United States, they are a protected resource in MN. Approximately 200 have been located in Minnesota. They may not be filled, drained or otherwise degraded. Commercial/Institutional Water Use - Water used by motels, hotels, restaurants, office buildings, commercial facilities and institutions (both civilian and military). Consider maintaining separate institutional water use records for emergency planning and allocation purposes. Water used by multi- family dwellings, apartment buildings, senior housing complexes, and mobile home parks should be reported as Residential Water Use. Commercial/Institutional/Industrial (C/I/I) Water Sold - The sum of water delivered for commercial/institutional or industrial purposes. Conservation Rate Structure - A rate structure that encourages conservation and may include increasing block rates, seasonal rates, time of use rates, individualized goal rates, or excess use rates. If a conservation rate is applied to multifamily dwellings, the rate structure must consider each residential unit as an individual user. A community may have a separate conservation rate that only goes into effect when the community or governor declares a drought emergency. These higher rates can help to protect the city budgets during times of significantly less water usage. Date of Maximum Daily Demand - The date of the maximum (highest) water demand. Typically this is a day in July or August. Declining Rate Structure - Under a declining block rate structure, a consumer pays less per additional unit of water as usage increases. This rate structure does not promote water conservation. Distribution System - Water distribution systems consist of an interconnected series of pipes, valves, storage facilities (water tanks, water towers, reservoirs), water purification facilities, pumping stations, flushing hydrants, and components that convey drinking water and meeting fire protection needs for cities, homes, schools, hospitals, businesses, industries and other facilities. Flat Rate Structure - Flat fee rates do not vary by customer characteristics or water usage. This rate structure does not promote water conservation. Industrial Water Use - Water used for thermonuclear power (electric utility generation) and other industrial use such as steel, chemical and allied products, paper and allied products, mining, and petroleum refining. Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 54 Low Flow Fixtures/Appliances - Plumbing fixtures and appliances that significantly reduce the amount of water released per use are labeled “low flow”. These fixtures and appliances use just enough water to be effective, saving excess, clean drinking water that usually goes down the drain. Maximum Daily Demand - The maximum (highest) amount of water used in one day. Metered Residential Connections - The number of residential connections to the water system that have meters. For multifamily dwellings, report each residential unit as an individual user. Percent Unmetered/Unaccounted For - Unaccounted for water use is the volume of water withdrawn from all sources minus the volume of water delivered. This value represents water “lost” by miscalculated water use due to inaccurate meters, water lost through leaks, or water that is used but unmetered or otherwise undocumented. Water used for public services such as hydrant flushing, ice skating rinks, and public swimming pools should be reported under the category “Water Supplier Services”. Population Served - The number of people who are served by the community’s public water supply system. This includes the number of people in the community who are connected to the public water supply system, as well as people in neighboring communities who use water supplied by the community’s public water supply system. It should not include residents in the community who have private wells or get their water from neighboring water supply. Residential Connections - The total number of residential connections to the water system. For multifamily dwellings, report each residential unit as an individual user. Residential Per Capita Demand - The total residential water delivered during the year divided by the population served divided by 365 days. Residential Water Use - Water used for normal household purposes such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes and dishes, flushing toilets, and watering lawns and gardens. Should include all water delivered to single family private residences, multi-family dwellings, apartment buildings, senior housing complexes, mobile home parks, etc. Smart Meter - Smart meters can be used by municipalities or by individual homeowners. Smart metering generally indicates the presence of one or more of the following:  Smart irrigation water meters are controllers that look at factors such as weather, soil, slope, etc. and adjust watering time up or down based on data. Smart controllers in a typical summer will reduce water use by 30%-50%. Just changing the spray nozzle to new efficient models can reduce water use by 40%.  Smart Meters on customer premises that measure consumption during specific time periods and communicate it to the utility, often on a daily basis.  A communication channel that permits the utility, at a minimum, to obtain meter reads on demand, to ascertain whether water has recently been flowing through the meter and onto the Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 55 premises, and to issue commands to the meter to perform specific tasks such as disconnecting or restricting water flow. Total Connections - The number of connections to the public water supply system. Total Per Capita Demand - The total amount of water withdrawn from all water supply sources during the year divided by the population served divided by 365 days. Total Water Pumped - The cumulative amount of water withdrawn from all water supply sources during the year. Total Water Delivered - The sum of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, water supplier services, wholesale and other water delivered. Ultimate (Full Build-Out) - Time period representing the community’s estimated total amount and location of potential development, or when the community is fully built out at the final planned density. Unaccounted (Non-revenue) Loss - See definitions for “percent unmetered/unaccounted for loss”. Uniform Rate Structure - A uniform rate structure charges the same price-per-unit for water usage beyond the fixed customer charge, which covers some fixed costs. The rate sends a price signal to the customer because the water bill will vary by usage. Uniform rates by class charge the same price-per- unit for all customers within a customer class (e.g. residential or non-residential). This price structure is generally considered less effective in encouraging water conservation. Water Supplier Services - Water used for public services such as hydrant flushing, ice skating rinks, public swimming pools, city park irrigation, back-flushing at water treatment facilities, and/or other uses. Water Used for Nonessential Purposes - Water used for lawn irrigation, golf course and park irrigation, car washes, ornamental fountains, and other non-essential uses. Wholesale Deliveries - The amount of water delivered in bulk to other public water suppliers. Acronyms and Initialisms AWWA – American Water Works Association C/I/I – Commercial/Institutional/Industrial CIP – Capital Improvement Plan GIS – Geographic Information System GPCD – Gallons per capita per day Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 56 GWMA – Groundwater Management Area – North and East Metro, Straight River, Bonanza, MDH – Minnesota Department of Health MGD – Million gallons per day MG – Million gallons MGL – Maximum Contaminant Level MnTAP – Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (University of Minnesota) MPARS – MN/DNR Permitting and Reporting System (new electronic permitting system) MRWA – Minnesota Rural Waters Association SWP – Source Water Protection WHP – Wellhead Protection Local Water Supply Plan Template –July 8, 2016 57 APPENDICES TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE WATER SUPPLIER Appendix 1: Well records and maintenance summaries – see Part 1C Appendix 2: Water level monitoring plan – see Part 1E Appendix 3: Water level graphs for each water supply well - see Part 1E Appendix 4: Capital Improvement Plan - see Part 1E Appendix 5: Emergency Telephone List – see Part 2C Appendix 6: Cooperative Agreements for Emergency Services – see Part 2C Appendix 7: Municipal Critical Water Deficiency Ordinance – see Part 2C Appendix 8: Graph showing annual per capita water demand for each customer category during the last ten-years – see Part 3 Objective 4 Appendix 9: Water Rate Structure – see Part 3 Objective 6 Appendix 10: Adopted or proposed regulations to reduce demand or improve water efficiency – see Part 3 Objective 7 Appendix 11: Implementation Checklist – summary of all the actions that a community is doing, or proposes to do, including estimated implementation dates – see www.mndnr.gov/watersupplyplans Appendix B Water Quality Requirements National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Contaminant MCL or TT1 (mg/L)2 Potential health effects from long-term3 exposure above the MCL Common sources of contaminant in drinking water Public Health Goal (mg/L)2 Acrylamide TT4 Nervous system or blood problems; increased risk of cancer Added to water during sewage/ wastewater treatment zero Alachlor 0.002 Eye, liver, kidney, or spleen problems; anemia; increased risk of cancer Runoff from herbicide used on row crops zero Alpha/photon emitters 15 picocuries per Liter (pCi/L) Increased risk of cancer Erosion of natural deposits of certain minerals that are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known as alpha radiation zero Antimony 0.006 Increase in blood cholesterol; decrease in blood sugar Discharge from petroleum refineries; fire retardants; ceramics; electronics; solder 0.006 Arsenic 0.010 Skin damage or problems with circulatory systems, and may have increased risk of getting cancer Erosion of natural deposits; runoff from orchards; runoff from glass & electronics production wastes 0 Asbestos (fibers >10 micrometers) 7 million fibers per Liter (MFL) Increased risk of developing benign intestinal polyps Decay of asbestos cement in water mains; erosion of natural deposits 7 MFL Atrazine 0.003 Cardiovascular system or reproductive problems Runoff from herbicide used on row crops 0.003 Barium 2 Increase in blood pressure Discharge of drilling wastes; discharge from metal refineries; erosion of natural deposits 2 Benzene 0.005 Anemia; decrease in blood platelets; increased risk of cancer Discharge from factories; leaching from gas storage tanks and landfills zero Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs)0.0002 Reproductive difficulties; increased risk of cancer Leaching from linings of water storage tanks and distribution lines zero Beryllium 0.004 Intestinal lesions Discharge from metal refineries and coal-burning factories; discharge from electrical, aerospace, and defense industries 0.004 Beta photon emitters 4 millirems per year Increased risk of cancer Decay of natural and man-made deposits of certain minerals that are radioactive and may emit forms of radiation known as photons and beta radiation zero Bromate 0.010 Increased risk of cancer Byproduct of drinking water disinfection zero Cadmium 0.005 Kidney damage Corrosion of galvanized pipes; erosion of natural deposits; discharge from metal refineries; runoff from waste batteries and paints 0.005 Carbofuran 0.04 Problems with blood, nervous system, or reproductive system Leaching of soil fumigant used on rice and alfalfa 0.04 LEGEND DISINFECTANT DISINFECTION BYPRODUCT INORGANIC CHEMICAL MICROORGANISM ORGANIC CHEMICAL RADIONUCLIDES LEGEND DISINFECTANT DISINFECTION BYPRODUCT INORGANIC CHEMICAL MICROORGANISM ORGANIC CHEMICAL RADIONUCLIDES National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004 | MAY 2009 Contaminant MCL or TT1 (mg/L)2 Potential health effects from long-term3 exposure above the MCL Common sources of contaminant in drinking water Public Health Goal (mg/L)2 Carbon tetrachloride 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from chemical plants and other industrial activities zero Chloramines (as Cl2)MRDL=4.01 Eye/nose irritation; stomach discomfort; anemia Water additive used to control microbes MRDLG=41 Chlordane 0.002 Liver or nervous system problems; increased risk of cancer Residue of banned termiticide zero Chlorine (as Cl2)MRDL=4.01 Eye/nose irritation; stomach discomfort Water additive used to control microbes MRDLG=41 Chlorine dioxide (as ClO2)MRDL=0.81 Anemia; infants, young children, and fetuses of pregnant women: nervous system effects Water additive used to control microbes MRDLG=0.81 Chlorite 1.0 Anemia; infants, young children, and fetuses of pregnant women: nervous system effects Byproduct of drinking water disinfection 0.8 Chlorobenzene 0.1 Liver or kidney problems Discharge from chemical and agricultural chemical factories 0.1 Chromium (total)0.1 Allergic dermatitis Discharge from steel and pulp mills; erosion of natural deposits 0.1 Copper TT5; Action Level=1.3 Short-term exposure: Gastrointestinal distress. Long- term exposure: Liver or kidney damage. People with Wilson’s Disease should consult their personal doctor if the amount of copper in their water exceeds the action level Corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits 1.3 Cryptosporidium TT7 Short-term exposure: Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps) Human and animal fecal waste zero Cyanide (as free cyanide)0.2 Nerve damage or thyroid problems Discharge from steel/metal factories; discharge from plastic and fertilizer factories 0.2 2,4-D 0.07 Kidney, liver, or adrenal gland problems Runoff from herbicide used on row crops 0.07 Dalapon 0.2 Minor kidney changes Runoff from herbicide used on rights of way 0.2 1,2-Dibromo-3- chloropropane (DBCP) 0.0002 Reproductive difficulties; increased risk of cancer Runoff/leaching from soil fumigant used on soybeans, cotton, pineapples, and orchards zero o-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 Liver, kidney, or circulatory system problems Discharge from industrial chemical factories 0.6 p-Dichlorobenzene 0.075 Anemia; liver, kidney, or spleen damage; changes in blood Discharge from industrial chemical factories 0.075 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.005 Increased risk of cancer Discharge from industrial chemical factories zero LEGEND DISINFECTANT DISINFECTION BYPRODUCT INORGANIC CHEMICAL MICROORGANISM ORGANIC CHEMICAL RADIONUCLIDES National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004 | MAY 2009 Contaminant MCL or TT1 (mg/L)2 Potential health effects from long-term3 exposure above the MCL Common sources of contaminant in drinking water Public Health Goal (mg/L)2 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007 Liver problems Discharge from industrial chemical factories 0.007 cis-1,2- Dichloroethylene 0.07 Liver problems Discharge from industrial chemical factories 0.07 trans-1,2, Dichloroethylene 0.1 Liver problems Discharge from industrial chemical factories 0.1 Dichloromethane 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from industrial chemical factories zero 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 Increased risk of cancer Discharge from industrial chemical factories zero Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate 0.4 Weight loss, liver problems, or possible reproductive difficulties Discharge from chemical factories 0.4 Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.006 Reproductive difficulties; liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from rubber and chemical factories zero Dinoseb 0.007 Reproductive difficulties Runoff from herbicide used on soybeans and vegetables 0.007 Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)0.00000003 Reproductive difficulties; increased risk of cancer Emissions from waste incineration and other combustion; discharge from chemical factories zero Diquat 0.02 Cataracts Runoff from herbicide use 0.02 Endothall 0.1 Stomach and intestinal problems Runoff from herbicide use 0.1 Endrin 0.002 Liver problems Residue of banned insecticide 0.002 Epichlorohydrin TT4 Increased cancer risk; stomach problems Discharge from industrial chemical factories; an impurity of some water treatment chemicals zero Ethylbenzene 0.7 Liver or kidney problems Discharge from petroleum refineries 0.7 Ethylene dibromide 0.00005 Problems with liver, stomach, reproductive system, or kidneys; increased risk of cancer Discharge from petroleum refineries zero Fecal coliform and E. coli MCL6 Fecal coliforms and E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Microbes in these wastes may cause short term effects, such as diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They may pose a special health risk for infants, young children, and people with severely compromised immune systems. Human and animal fecal waste zero6 LEGEND DISINFECTANT DISINFECTION BYPRODUCT INORGANIC CHEMICAL MICROORGANISM ORGANIC CHEMICAL RADIONUCLIDES National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004 | MAY 2009 Contaminant MCL or TT1 (mg/L)2 Potential health effects from long-term3 exposure above the MCL Common sources of contaminant in drinking water Public Health Goal (mg/L)2 Fluoride 4.0 Bone disease (pain and tenderness of the bones); children may get mottled teeth Water additive which promotes strong teeth; erosion of natural deposits; discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories 4.0 Giardia lamblia TT7 Short-term exposure: Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps) Human and animal fecal waste zero Glyphosate 0.7 Kidney problems; reproductive difficulties Runoff from herbicide use 0.7 Haloacetic acids (HAA5)0.060 Increased risk of cancer Byproduct of drinking water disinfection n/a9 Heptachlor 0.0004 Liver damage; increased risk of cancer Residue of banned termiticide zero Heptachlor epoxide 0.0002 Liver damage; increased risk of cancer Breakdown of heptachlor zero Heterotrophic plate count (HPC)TT7 HPC has no health effects; it is an analytic method used to measure the variety of bacteria that are common in water. The lower the concentration of bacteria in drinking water, the better maintained the water system is. HPC measures a range of bacteria that are naturally present in the environment n/a Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 Liver or kidney problems; reproductive difficulties; increased risk of cancer Discharge from metal refineries and agricultural chemical factories zero Hexachloro- cyclopentadiene 0.05 Kidney or stomach problems Discharge from chemical factories 0.05 Lead TT5; Action Level=0.015 Infants and children: Delays in physical or mental development; children could show slight deficits in attention span and learning abilities; Adults: Kidney problems; high blood pressure Corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits zero Legionella TT7 Legionnaire’s Disease, a type of pneumonia Found naturally in water; multiplies in heating systems zero Lindane 0.0002 Liver or kidney problems Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on cattle, lumber, and gardens 0.0002 Mercury (inorganic)0.002 Kidney damage Erosion of natural deposits; discharge from refineries and factories; runoff from landfills and croplands 0.002 Methoxychlor 0.04 Reproductive difficulties Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on fruits, vegetables, alfalfa, and livestock 0.04 Nitrate (measured as Nitrogen)10 Infants below the age of six months who drink water containing nitrate in excess of the MCL could become seriously ill and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blue-baby syndrome. Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from septic tanks, sewage; erosion of natural deposits 10 LEGEND DISINFECTANT DISINFECTION BYPRODUCT INORGANIC CHEMICAL MICROORGANISM ORGANIC CHEMICAL RADIONUCLIDES National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004 | MAY 2009 Contaminant MCL or TT1 (mg/L)2 Potential health effects from long-term3 exposure above the MCL Common sources of contaminant in drinking water Public Health Goal (mg/L)2 Nitrite (measured as Nitrogen)1 Infants below the age of six months who drink water containing nitrite in excess of the MCL could become seriously ill and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blue-baby syndrome. Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from septic tanks, sewage; erosion of natural deposits 1 Oxamyl (Vydate)0.2 Slight nervous system effects Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on apples, potatoes, and tomatoes 0.2 Pentachlorophenol 0.001 Liver or kidney problems; increased cancer risk Discharge from wood-preserving factories zero Picloram 0.5 Liver problems Herbicide runoff 0.5 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)0.0005 Skin changes; thymus gland problems; immune deficiencies; reproductive or nervous system difficulties; increased risk of cancer Runoff from landfills; discharge of waste chemicals zero Radium 226 and Radium 228 (combined) 5 pCi/L Increased risk of cancer Erosion of natural deposits zero Selenium 0.05 Hair or fingernail loss; numbness in fingers or toes; circulatory problems Discharge from petroleum and metal refineries; erosion of natural deposits; discharge from mines 0.05 Simazine 0.004 Problems with blood Herbicide runoff 0.004 Styrene 0.1 Liver, kidney, or circulatory system problems Discharge from rubber and plastic factories; leaching from landfills 0.1 Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from factories and dry cleaners zero Thallium 0.002 Hair loss; changes in blood; kidney, intestine, or liver problems Leaching from ore-processing sites; discharge from electronics, glass, and drug factories 0.0005 Toluene 1 Nervous system, kidney, or liver problems Discharge from petroleum factories 1 Total Coliforms 5.0 percent8 Coliforms are bacteria that indicate that other, potentially harmful bacteria may be present. See fecal coliforms and E. coli Naturally present in the environment zero Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) 0.080 Liver, kidney, or central nervous system problems; increased risk of cancer Byproduct of drinking water disinfection n/a9 Toxaphene 0.003 Kidney, liver, or thyroid problems; increased risk of cancer Runoff/leaching from insecticide used on cotton and cattle zero 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)0.05 Liver problems Residue of banned herbicide 0.05 1,2,4- Trichlorobenzene 0.07 Changes in adrenal glands Discharge from textile finishing factories 0.07 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004 | MAY 2009 Contaminant MCL or TT1 (mg/L)2 Potential health effects from long-term3 exposure above the MCL Common sources of contaminant in drinking water Public Health Goal (mg/L)2 1,1,1- Trichloroethane 0.2 Liver, nervous system, or circulatory problems Discharge from metal degreasing sites and other factories 0.2 1,1,2- Trichloroethane 0.005 Liver, kidney, or immune system problems Discharge from industrial chemical factories 0.003 Trichloroethylene 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from metal degreasing sites and other factories zero Turbidity TT7 Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of water. It is used to indicate water quality and filtration effectiveness (e.g., whether disease- causing organisms are present). Higher turbidity levels are often associated with higher levels of disease-causing microorganisms such as viruses, parasites, and some bacteria. These organisms can cause short term symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches. Soil runoff n/a Uranium 30μg/L Increased risk of cancer, kidney toxicity Erosion of natural deposits zero Vinyl chloride 0.002 Increased risk of cancer Leaching from PVC pipes; discharge from plastic factories zero Viruses (enteric)TT7 Short-term exposure: Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps) Human and animal fecal waste zero Xylenes (total)10 Nervous system damage Discharge from petroleum factories; discharge from chemical factories 10 RADIONUCLIDESORGANIC CHEMICALMICROORGANISMINORGANIC CHEMICAL DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTDISINFECTANT LEGEND 1 Definitions • Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals. • Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards. • Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants. • Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL): The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants. • Treatment Technique (TT): A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. 2 Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L) unless otherwise noted. Milligrams per liter are equivalent to parts per million (ppm). 3 Health effects are from long-term exposure unless specified as short-term exposure. 4 Each water system must certify annually, in writing, to the state (using third-party or manufacturers certification) that when it uses acrylamide and/or epichlorohydrin to treat water, the combination (or product) of dose and monomer level does not exceed the levels specified, as follows: Acrylamide = 0.05 percent dosed at 1 mg/L (or equivalent); Epichlorohydrin = 0.01 percent dosed at 20 mg/L (or equivalent). 5 Lead and copper are regulated by a Treatment Technique that requires systems to control the corrosiveness of their water. If more than 10 percent of tap water samples exceed the action level, water systems must take additional steps. For copper, the action level is 1.3 mg/L, and for lead is 0.015 mg/L. 6 A routine sample that is fecal coliform-positive or E. coli-positive triggers repeat samples- -if any repeat sample is total coliform-positive, the system has an acute MCL violation. A routine sample that is total coliform-positive and fecal coliform-negative or E. coli- negative triggers repeat samples--if any repeat sample is fecal coliform-positive or E. coli-positive, the system has an acute MCL violation. See also Total Coliforms. 7 EPA’s surface water treatment rules require systems using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water to (1) disinfect their water, and (2) filter their water or meet criteria for avoiding filtration so that the following contaminants are controlled at the following levels: • Cryptosporidium: 99 percent removal for systems that filter. Unfiltered systems are required to include Cryptosporidium in their existing watershed control provisions. • Giardia lamblia: 99.9 percent removal/inactivation • Viruses: 99.9 percent removal/inactivation • Legionella: No limit, but EPA believes that if Giardia and viruses are removed/ inactivated, according to the treatment techniques in the surface water treatment rule, Legionella will also be controlled. • Turbidity: For systems that use conventional or direct filtration, at no time can turbidity (cloudiness of water) go higher than 1 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU), and samples for turbidity must be less than or equal to 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of the samples in any month. Systems that use filtration other than the conventional or direct filtration must follow state limits, which must include turbidity at no time exceeding 5 NTU. • HPC: No more than 500 bacterial colonies per milliliter • Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment: Surface water systems or ground water systems under the direct influence of surface water serving fewer than 10,000 people must comply with the applicable Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule provisions (e.g. turbidity standards, individual filter monitoring, Cryptosporidium removal requirements, updated watershed control requirements for unfiltered systems). • Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment: This rule applies to all surface water systems or ground water systems under the direct influence of surface water. The rule targets additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements for higher risk systems and includes provisions to reduce risks from uncovered finished water storages facilities and to ensure that the systems maintain microbial protection as they take steps to reduce the formation of disinfection byproducts. (Monitoring start dates are staggered by system size. The largest systems (serving at least 100,000 people) will begin monitoring in October 2006 and the smallest systems (serving fewer than 10,000 people) will not begin monitoring until October 2008. After completing monitoring and determining their treatment bin, systems generally have three years to comply with any additional treatment requirements.) • Filter Backwash Recycling: The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule requires systems that recycle to return specific recycle flows through all processes of the system’s existing conventional or direct filtration system or at an alternate location approved by the state. 8 No more than 5.0 percent samples total coliform-positive in a month. (For water systems that collect fewer than 40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample can be total coliform-positive per month.) Every sample that has total coliform must be analyzed for either fecal coliforms or E. coli. If two consecutive TC-positive samples, and one is also positive for E. coli or fecal coliforms, system has an acute MCL violation. 9 Although there is no collective MCLG for this contaminant group, there are individual MCLGs for some of the individual contaminants: • Haloacetic acids: dichloroacetic acid (zero); trichloroacetic acid (0.3 mg/L) • Trihalomethanes: bromodichloromethane (zero); bromoform (zero); dibromochloromethane (0.06 mg/L) NOTES NATIONAL SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATION National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations are non-enforceable guidelines regarding contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. EPA recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not require systems to comply. However, some states may choose to adopt them as enforceable standards. To order additional posters or other ground water and drinking water publications, please contact the National Service Center for Environmental Publications at: (800) 490-9198, or email: nscep@bps-lmit.com. Contaminant Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level Aluminum 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L Chloride 250 mg/L Color 15 (color units) Copper 1.0 mg/L Corrosivity Noncorrosive Fluoride 2.0 mg/L Foaming Agents 0.5 mg/L Iron 0.3 mg/L Manganese 0.05 mg/L Odor 3 threshold odor number pH 6.5-8.5 Silver 0.10 mg/L Sulfate 250 mg/L Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L Zinc 5 mg/L visit: epa.gov/safewater call: (800) 426-4791 FOR MORE INFORMATION ON EPA’S SAFE DRINKING WATER: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations EPA 816-F-09-004 | MAY 2009 Sustainable buildings, sound infrastructure, safe transportation systems, clean water, renewable energy and a balanced environment. Building a Better World for All of Us communicates a companywide commitment to act in the best interests of our clients and the world around us. We’re confident in our ability to balance these requirements. WASTEWATER Feasibility Report Comprehensive Sewer Plan City of Rosemount May 2018 Submitted by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 1960 Premier Drive Mankato, MN 56001 P: 507-625-4171 F: 507-625-4177 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Certification City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Certification Feasibility Report for Comprehensive Sewer Plan City of Rosemount T18.114157 April 2019 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, a nd that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. By: , P.E. License No. Date: Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Table of Contents City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] i Table of Contents 1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 1 2.BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 3 3.Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 3 Land Use Categorization .................................................................................. 3 Developable Areas ........................................................................................... 3 4.Growth Projections ....................................................................................................... 4 Projected Residential Growth ........................................................................... 4 Projected Non-Residential Growth .................................................................. 5 Projected Land Use Phasing and Summary ..................................................... 6 5.Existing Sanitary Sewer System ................................................................................... 6 Current Service Areas ...................................................................................... 6 Existing Wastewater Flows .............................................................................. 6 Infiltration/Inflow ............................................................................................. 8 Evaluation of Existing Facilities .................................................................... 10 6.FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ................................................................ 12 Future Service Areas ...................................................................................... 12 Future Waste Water Flows ............................................................................. 13 Future Trunk Sanitary Sewer System ............................................................. 18 7.CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) .............................................................. 22 Estimated Cost of Trunk System Improvements ............................................ 22 Future Trunk System Funding ........................................................................ 22 8.ADDITIONAL COMMENTS .................................................................................... 25 Peak Flow Methodology ................................................................................ 25 Model Updates ............................................................................................... 25 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Table of Contents City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] ii Tables Table 1 Capital Improvement Plan by Sewershed 2 Table 2 Gross Developable Acreage 4 Table 3 MCES Population Estimates 4 Table 4 Potential Ultimate Service Area 6 Table 5 Existing Wastewater Generated per Sewershed 7 Table 6 Water Demand to Wastewater Flow Ratio 8 Table 7 Existing Peak Flow Factors 9 Table 8 Existing Lift Station Capacities and Flows 10 Table 9 Existing System Trunk Main Capacity 11 Table 10 Summary of Gross Developable Acres by Sewershed 14 Table 11 Future Wastewater Flows by Sewershed 15 Table 12 Ultimate Regional Wastewater flows by MCES Connection Point 16 Table 13 Future Regional Wastewater Flow my MCES connection point and 10-year Increment 17 Table 14 Capital Improvement Plan by Sewershed 22 Table 15 Core Fund Assume Gross Acres Development 24 Appendix Appendix 1: Figures Appendix 2: Opinion of Probable Costs Appendix 3: Trunk Facility Construction Schedule Appendix 4: Dakota County Maintenance Facility and Communication s Center Cooperative Agreement Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 1 1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan is intended to serve as a guide to completing the future sanitary sewer trunk system, and to help the City of Rosemount meet its short-term and long-term sanitary sewer needs. The report, analysis, and figures were based on the City’s existing sanitary sewer system and future development plans as of July 31st, 2018. Future development plans or the existing sewer system may have changed since the “snapshot” in time the report was based on. To estimate existing system wastewater flows and project future system wastewater flows the ultimate land use plan was used as opposed to the 2040 land use plan. There are differences between the land use plans, however, it was important to size infrastructure for service beyond the 2040 land use plan. The ultimate land use plan included in Figure 3-1 was used for ultimate system infrastructure sizing. Estimated flows for each of the MUSA boundaries were also calculated and can be found in Section 6.2 of the attached report. The existing area with sanitary sewer service has been divided into sixteen (16) sewersheds, of which the majorities are fully developed in accordance with the ultimate land use plan. Wastewater is collected by the City’s sewer system, then conveyed to Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptors that flow to MCES wastewater treatment plants. The majority of the City’s existing sewage flows to the Empire Wastewater Treatment plant The existing sanitary sewer system is shown in Figure 5-1. The future service area was divided into seven (7) sewersheds. Existing and future sewersheds are shown in Figure 6-1. Each sewershed contributes wastewater flow to the sanitary sewer collection system. The volume of wastewater that each sewershed contributes depends on the future land use. The topography of the undeveloped areas was studied to determine the extents of gravity sewer areas for future trunk facilities. The intention with laying out the future system was to minimize the number of trunk lift stations, while keeping the maximum depth of gravity sewers to less than 35 feet deep. The City’s topography generally slopes from west to east, making it possible to avoid constructing many lift stations. The layout of the future trunk sewer system is shown in Figure 6-2. The layout is general in nature and exact routing will be determined at the time of final design. It is important that the general concept and sizing be adhered to for assurance of an economical and adequate ultimate system. Construction cost estimates were developed for the completion of the trunk sewer system. Typically, developers are required to construct sewers and lift stations necessary to serve their development at their own cost. Some gravity trunk sewers included in the ultimate system for this plan were as small as 8 inches in diameter, which is the minimum sewer size construction standards allow. It was assumed that developers would fund and construct all 8-inch sewers, so the estimated quantity of trunk sewers 8 inches in diameter has been included, but not the cost. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 2 Table 1 below shows the estimated system expansion costs. Future improvement costs were based on 2017 construction prices, including a 10% construction contingency, and including 30% overhead (i.e., legal, engineering, and administrative). Street and easement costs and other miscellaneous costs that may be related to final construction are not included. Detailed cost estimates for each district are available in Appendix 2. Furthermore, construction schedules for trunk facilities in each sewershed are included Appendix 3. Current development fees were reviewed and appear to be adequate to fund the future system expansion costs, but should be reviewed on a regular basis. Table 1 Capital Improvement Plan by Sewershed Capital Improvement Plan by Sewershed District 2020 2030 2040 Ultimate Total MWCC09 $0 $2,727,922 $0 $1,004,202 $3,732,124 Southeast $0 $5,415,200 $13,585,978 $0 $19,001,178 South Central $0 $1,356,162 $353,930 $3,556,893 $5,266,985 MWCC08 $1,944,498 $5,757,143 $0 $7,846,927 $15,548,568 Southwest $0 $0 $0 $1,078,451 $1,078,451 Lan-O-Ken $0 $969,620 $0 $0 $969,620 Northwest $0 $0 $0 $413,700 $413,700 MWCC10 $0 $456,680 $0 $0 $456,680 Total $1,944,498 $16,682,727 $13,939,908 $13,900,173 $46,467,306 1.Costs are for budgeting purposes only, and are subject to change as projects are studied, designed, and constructed. 2.Costs are estimated based on 2017 construction costs. 3.Land acquisition costs are not included. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. BACKGROUND City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 3 2.BACKGROUND The City of Rosemount is located in north central Dakota County in the southeast suburbs of the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. Rosemount has experienced considerable growth in recent years and anticipates similar growth to continue. It continually experiences development pressures due to its location relative to transportation arterials (US 52) and its proximity to St. Paul. The purpose of this study is to update the existing Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer System Plan in accordance with Minnesota Statute 473.513. It provides the City with a plan to serve future development and an estimate of future sanitary sewer system costs. The plan provides flow projections through the year 2040, and ultimate system development in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This plan examined sanitary sewer service to future development. Population and water use estimates from the City’s Comprehensive Water System Plan, initially from the Comprehensive Plan, were used to maintain consistent planning for water and sewer service. Also, the plan estimated opinions of probable cost for future improvements to develop a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Sanitary sewer plans have been developed for various locations throughout Rosemount. However, these studies have not been linked together to examine the future system as a whole. This study will tie together previous studies in a sanitary sewer model (SewerCAD V8i) in an effort to determine service requirements for all remaining developable acres. The existing sanitary sewer system is sufficient to serve the existing developed area and was not included in the SewerCAD model. However, the existing sewers were included in the analysis to confirm the capacity was adequate to serve existing development and future development if necessary. 3.LAND USE Land Use Categorization Figure 3-1 is the current ultimate land use plan for the City of Rosemount. The ultimate land use plan was used in order to size infrastructure appropriately beyond the 2040 time frame. This plan was developed by the City and separates the planning area into fifteen (15) different land use categories. Land use is a critical factor in locating and sizing future sanitary sewers because different land uses generate different wastewater flow rates. Further detail regarding wastewater flows generated by existing and future land uses is discussed in Sections 5 and 6. Developable Areas The area within Rosemount’s planning area is approximately 34 square miles or 21,800 acres, excluding the river/wetland area for the Mississippi River in the northeast area of the City. There is approximately 2,400 acres of undevelopable area (agriculture). Within the City, approximately 5,100 acres are developed with sewer service, and 2,800 acres are developed without sewer service. Therefore, the total remaining developable area within the City’s planning area is approximately 8000 acres. The total acreage for each land use area was calculated. Existing developed, serviced and unserviced areas, and undevelopable areas were subtracted to obtain developable acreage. This is identified as “Gross” Developable Acreage because it includes roads and common or public areas potentially included in developments. Roads, common areas, and parks typically consume 25% to 30% of the gross area within a development. The Gross Developable Acreage by land use categories is summarized in Table 2 and identified in Figure 3-2. Figure 3-2 indicates whether an area is developed or available for future development. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Growth Projections City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 4 Table 2 Gross Developable Acreage Gross Developable Acreage Land use Acres Agricultural Research 0 Agriculture 0 Business Park 1919 Corporate Campus 510 Downtown 0 Existing Parks/ Open Space 0 General Industrial 604 High Density Residential 147 Industrial/Mixed Use 350 Medium Density Residential 769 Neighborhood Commercial 22 Public Institutional 0 Regional Commercial 243 Rural Residential 0 Transitional Residential 0 Urban Residential 3393 Waste Management 0 Total 7957 4. GROWTH PROJECTIONS Projected Residential Growth Rosemount’s 2010 population was 21874. In the last eight years, Rosemount’s population has grown approximately 10%, with the bulk of growth occurring in areas receiving sewer service. According to the 2000 and 1990 censuses, populations were 14,619 and 8,622, respectively. Estimates of the population of the City of Rosemount, as published the Met Council have been published and are shown in Table 3 below. Table 3 MCES Population Estimates MCES Population Estimates Population 2010 2020 2030 2040 21874 25900 31700 35600 Households 2010 2020 2030 2040 7587 9300 11600 11500 Employment 2010 2020 2030 2040 6721 9900 13500 13100 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Growth Projections City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 5 DNR State Public Water Supply Inventories were obtained for the years 2000 through 2005 to determine the number of water connections in the City’s system. Typically, the number of water and sewer connections is equal, so sewer and water connections were assumed equal. Based on the number of residential connections (4,127-2000 and 5,801-2005) and the estimated serviced population (2000-12,801 and 2005-17,600), there are approximately three residents for every connection. Should this trend continue, there would be approximately 12,700 residential connections by the year 2040 based on the population projections. Further detailed growth projections are included in Sections 5 and 6. Projected Non-Residential Growth In the past, Rosemount has attracted industrial and public/institutional growth. A major industrial park consisting of Flint Hills Resources (an oil refinery serving much of the upper Midwest) and several smaller industrial users is located along US Highway 52 and north of County Road 42. Dakota Technical College is located one mile east of downtown, and the University of Minnesota owns approximately 3,000 acres south of County Road 42 and east of Biscayne Avenue. The non-residential growth trend will most likely continue in the future with the potential development of new general industrial and commercial districts. Flint Hills Resources, Dakota Technical College, and Rosemount Public Schools currently comprise the major non-residential water users for the system, and assumed sewage flow contributors. There are growth opportunities for these customers and these opportunities have been accounted for by the City in the proposed land use plan. Also, these major customers have been included in determining the appropriate wastewater flow per acreage per land use type. Non-residential connection categories listed in the DNR State Public Water Supply Inventories (2000-2005) included commercial, industrial, and other. Therefore, water customer categories do not correlate directly to land use type. For that reason, non-residential connections have been grouped together to determine future. Non-residential water connections have grown consistently. Based on the number of non- residential connections (156-2000 and 188-2005) and the estimated serviced population (2000- 12,801 and 2005-17,600), there are 80 to 90 residents for every non-residential connection. Should this trend continue, there would be approximately 475non-residential connections by the year 2030. Further detailed growth projections are included in Sections 5 and 6. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Existing Sanitary Sewer System City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 6 Projected Land Use Phasing and Summary Potential service areas are shown in Figure 4-2 and summarized in Table 4. The potential service area is shown for the years 2007, 2010, 2020, 2030, and ultimate development. Growth is projected to occur primarily by surrounding the existing western service area then expanding eastward. Table 4 Potential Ultimate Service Area Potential Ultimate Service Area MUSA 2020 2030 2040 Ultimate Total Service Area (ac) 5920 15691 18186 20787 5.Existing Sanitary Sewer System Current Service Areas Sanitary sewer systems consist of two elements: collection and treatment. The existing City sanitary sewer system is a collection system only, MCES is responsible for treatment. Also, MCES is responsible for major trunk facilities conveying wastewater across City boundaries to treatment facilities. The MCES Rosemount Interceptor flows from west to east across Rosemount to the existing Rosemount wastewater treatment plant. However, future flows will not be treated at the Rosemount wastewater treatment plant, but conveyed by the Empire Interceptor southwest to the Empire wastewater treatment plant for treatment. The existing service area is defined as the area from which wastewater flows are collected, and is approximately 5,100 acres. It can be broken down into sewersheds based on its connection points to MCES interceptors, City trunk sewers, and lift station service areas. Figure 5-1 shows the existing service area, sewersheds, MCES interceptor sewers, and the City sewer system, including lift stations. As discussed in Section 3, there is still much developable land available within the City; therefore, sewer service has not been extended to all properties. There are approximately 580 remaining properties that are not served by the City. The remaining unserved properties are generally located in the undeveloped eastern area and northwestern rural residential area, but there are some Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTSs) scattered throughout the existing served area. Figure 5-2 shows the existing ISTSs within the City limits. Existing Wastewater Flows 5.2.1 Existing Sewershed Flows The City’s existing sanitary sewer system shown in Figure 5-1 identifies trunk sewers, MCES interceptors, lift stations, and resulting existing sewersheds. The flow meters and lift station service areas were reviewed to estimate the existing sanitary sewer flow within each sewershed. The estimated unit wastewater flow, discussed in the following section, was multiplied by the number of existing platted units. Table 5 shows the estimated average flow rates for the City’s existing sewersheds compared to the 2017 average flow rates measured by the MCES flow meters in Million Gallons per Day (MGD). A possible explanation for the difference between estimated and metered data is that some units may be platted but not constructed or occupied, resulting in a higher quantity of existing units Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Existing Sanitary Sewer System City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 7 generating wastewater flow. Another factor is that the flowrates used in design tend to be conservative in nature and over predict the actual flow contributions. Since existing flows for each sewershed did correlate to the total existing flows measured at the MCES flow meters M641 and M655, estimated unit wastewater flows were assumed to be a level of accuracy sufficient for determining existing infrastructure capacity. Table 5 Existing Wastewater Generated per Sewershed Existing Waste Water Generated per Sewershed Sewershed Estimated Average Flow (MGD) Metered Average Flow (MGD) LS 3 0.335 Danville 0.101 M641 0.436 0.294 150th 0.191 Canada 0.104 LS 1 0.046 LS 4 0.126 LS 5 0.138 LS 6 0.007 LS 7 0.023 LS 8 0.089 LS 9 0.041 Auburn 0.013 Business Parkway 0.085 Biscayne 0.079 Connemara 0.233 Lan-O-Ken 0.117 MWCC10 0.018 MWCC08 0.063 M655 1.729 1.137 5.2.2 Estimated Unit Wastewater Flows The Comprehensive Water System Plan provided a detailed analysis of the estimated unit water demand for each land use type. The analysis found the existing land uses exhibited the following water demands: •Residential – 95 gallons/capita/day (gpcd) •Public/Institutional – 250 gallons/acre/day (gpad) •Commercial – 800 gallons/acre/day •Industrial – 800 gallons/acre/day •Flint Hills/Waste Management – 55 gallons/acre/day Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Existing Sanitary Sewer System City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 8 To verify existing sanitary sewer flows as a percentage of water demand, annual average flows were compared to winter water usage in Table 6 below. Winter average water usage (October through March) correlated 100% to average sanitary sewer flows. Therefore, the difference in annual water demand and sanitary sewer flows is caused by lawn watering. The ratio of annual water usage to annual wastewater flow is shown in Table 6 as well. Table 6 Water Demand to Wastewater Flow Ratio Water Demand to Wastewater Flow Ratio 2002 2003 2004 Average Winter Water Use (MGD) 1.031 1.086 1.129 1.082 MCES Sanitary Annual Avg. Flow (MGD) 1.062 1.091 1.157 1.103 WW/Water Ration Winter Avg 103.00% 100.48% 102.44% 101.97% Annual Daily Water Use (MGD) 1.463 1.872 1.818 1.718 MCES Sanitary Annual Avg. Flow (MGD) 1.062 1.091 1.157 1.103 WW/Water Ratio Annual Avg 72.58% 58.29% 63.62% 64.23% Since the majority of Rosemount is residential, it is critical to accurately represent residential density in sewer planning and design. Existing development densities for the serviced area were determined in the Comprehensive Water System Plan (Water Plan), and were based on typical development densities for each land use found throughout the City at the time. At the time the water plan was completed, there were 2,400 developed residential acres, 6,013 residential connections, and a serviced population of 18,038, yielding 2.5 units/acre and 3.0 people/connection. The Water Plan projected the following densities (per gross acre) per residential land use type. • Urban Residential – 3 units/acre (future), currently 2.6 units/acre • Transition Residential – 2 units/acre • High Density Residential – 12 units/acre (future), currently 10 units/acre • Medium Density Residential – 7 units/acre Each land use type was assumed to have 3.0 people/unit and 65% of water use flows to sanitary sewers as evidenced by Table 6 above. Therefore, the resulting wastewater flow for each existing residential unit was assumed to be 185.25 gallons per day (gpd) per unit (95 gpcd X 3 people/unit X 65%). Infiltration/Inflow 5.3.1 General Infiltration is water that enters the sanitary sewer system by entering through defects in the sewer pipes, joints, manholes, and service laterals, or by deliberate connection of building foundation drains. Water that enters the sewer system from cross connections with storm sewer, sump pumps, roof drains, or manhole covers is considered inflow. Water from inflow and infiltration can consume available capacity in the wastewater collection system and increase the hydraulic load on the treatment facility. In extreme cases, the added hydraulic load can cause bypasses or overflows of raw wastewater. This extra hydraulic load also necessitates larger capacity collection and treatment components, which results in increased capital, operation and maintenance, and replacement costs. As sewer systems age and deteriorate, I/I can become an increasing Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 9 problem. Therefore, it is imperative that I/I be reduced whenever it is cost effective to do so. The MCES has established I/I goals for each community discharging wastewater into the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS). In February 2006, MCES adopted an I/I Surcharge Program which requires communities within their service area to eliminate excessive I/I over a period of time. All communities exceeding their wastewater flow goal for the period of June 1, 2004, through June 30, 2006, were charged at the beginning of 2007, and from July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, will be charged at the beginning of 2008. The City of Rosemount was not identified by MCES as a community with excessive I/I and, therefore, is not on the MCES I/I Surcharge List. 5.3.2 I/I Analysis The majority of the City’s existing sanitary sewer system has been constructed within the last twenty years. City construction standards have been followed to minimize I/I flow contributions to the system. Included in the City’s System Statement for the 2030 Regional Development Framework adopted by the Metropolitan Council in 2004 was the City’s I/I goal for the years 2010, 2020, and 2030 based on MCES assumed flow increases. MCES assumed peak flow factors used as the limit for peak I/I flow rates are variable depending on the average flow. The sliding scale used by MCES has been included in Figure 1 on page 25 of this report. The City’s current peaking factors are well below the MCES guidelines as shown in Table 7 below. Table 7 Existing Peak Flow Factors *This peak event may have been due to a maintenance hole cover that was removed in a flooded farm field. Existing Peak Flow Factors Year Average Flow (MGD) Peak Flow (MGD) Calculated Peaking Factor MCES Maximum Peak Factor M641 2013 0.303 .77 2.5 3.8 2014 0.293 .59 2.0 3.9 2015 0.29 .65 2.2 3.9 2016 0.31 .77 2.5 3.8 2017 0.273 .63 2.3 3.9 M655 2013 1.109 5.73* 5.2* 3.3 2014 1.137 2.18 1.9 3.3 2015 1.141 3.54 3.1 3.3 2016 1.157 2.04 1.8 3.3 2017 1.139 2.28 2.0 3.3 Total 2013 1.412 6.5* 4.6* 3.2 2014 1.43 2.77 1.9 3.2 2015 1.431 4.19 2.9 3.2 2016 1.467 2.81 1.9 3.2 2017 1.412 2.28 1.6 3.2 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 10 5.3.3 Municipal I/I Reduction The City’s strategy for preventing excess I/I is based on requiring new development to conform to City standards and ongoing maintenance. The City performs maintenance on the sanitary sewer system on a consistent basis, and the City reconstructs several streets within the City annually. As a part of street reconstruction projects, sanitary sewers are replaced or lined if they are in poor condition. The City construction standards include prohibiting the connection of sump pumps, rain leaders, and passive drain tiles to the sanitary sewer system. All developments are designed and constructed as public improvement projects, therefore projects conform to the City construction standards. In addition, development construction is observed to verify construction is in accordance with plans and City standards. All newly constructed sanitary sewers are televised and pressure tested to confirm they have been constructed in accordance with City standards. Evaluation of Existing Facilities 5.4.1 Wastewater Treatment As discussed previously, the City of Rosemount is responsible for wastewater collection only. Treatment is provided by MCES at the Empire wastewater treatment plant. The Empire wastewater treatment plant is located south of Rosemount in Empire Township. There are approximately 480 remaining properties within the City with ISTSs. These properties are shown in Figure 5-2. Property owners with ISTSs are required to connect to the City collection system within ten (10) years of City service becoming available or when the City has determined the ISTS has failed, whichever is earlier. 5.4.2 Lift Stations The City currently has nine lift stations in service and their locations are noted on Figure 5-1. The total capacity, existing flow, and ultimate future flow for each lift station is listed below in Table 8. Based on the service areas for Lift Stations No. 1 and No. 8, estimated existing peak flows exceed the lift station capacity. However, City staff has indicated that there have not been any incidents involving flows exceeding lift station capacity Table 8 Existing Lift Station Capacities and Flows Existing Lift Station Capacities and Flows Lift Station Estimated Existing Avg Flow (gpd) Estimated Ultimate Ave. Flow (gpd) Estimated Ultimate Peak Flow (gpd) Lift Station Capacity (gpd) LS 1 45993 45993 183971 432000 LS 3 335168 388758 1399528 1267200 LS 4 125970 125970 491283 864000 LS 5 138382 138382 539689 612000 LS 6 7410 7410 29640 50400 LS 7 23156 23156 92625 90720 LS 8 89291 89660 358639 64800 LS 9 41126 41126 164502 216000 LS 10 58870 58870 235480 172800 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 11 5.4.3 Trunk Mains The existing City of Rosemount sanitary sewer system is comprised of gravity sewers ranging in size from 6 inches in diameter to 30 inches in diameter. The City sanitary sewer mains flow to the MCES interceptor sewers. The MCES interceptor sewers provide service to the City of Rosemount only. Figure 5-1 shows the existing City sanitary sewers and MCES interceptor. Existing peak flows from each sewershed were estimated based on the developed area within each sewershed and estimated unit wastewater flow. Table 5 shows the existing average flows generated in each of the sewersheds; however, Table 9, below, shows the peak flows from each sewershed used to evaluate the adequacy of the existing trunk sewer system. Table 9 indicates that all existing City trunk mains except for M641, have adequate capacity to serve ultimate flows. The estimated peak flows at M641 are marginally above the estimated ultimate peak flows. Further analysis of the existing sewer should be completed to determine the remaining capacity in the line before any substantial future development is undertaken. Table 9 Existing System Trunk Main Capacity All peak flows shown in the above Table 9 are based on MCES supplied peaking factors. This variable ratio, called the peak flow factor, has been found to decrease as the average flow increases. They are generally considered conservative, and are widely used for planning in municipalities throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Appendix 1 lists the peaking factors for this study. 5.4.4 Summary of Existing System Evaluation Existing system infrastructure including gravity mains, lift stations, and force mains has adequate capacity to serve existing system flows. Lift Stations No. 3, No. 7, No. 8 and No. 10 may exceed ultimate peak flows and should be monitored by City staff. Existing System Trunk Main Capacity Connemara Esisting Trunk Main Size (in) Existing Trunk Main Capacity (MGD) Estimated Ultimate Average Flow(MGD) Estimated Ultimate Peak Flow (MGD) Contributing Sewersheds M641 15 1.617 0.491 1.718 Danville, LS 3 150th 27 5.181 1.228 3.685 LS 4, LS 5, LS 6, 150th, Canada, LS 1, Biscayne, Business Pkwy Lan-O-Ken 18 2.351 0.168 0.654 Northwest, Lan-O-Ken Connemara 30 6.384 0.528 1.795 Connemara, LS 9, Lan-O-Ken, Northwest, MWCC10 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 12 6.FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM Future Service Areas The future sanitary sewer system is based upon dividing up the ultimate potential service area into major service areas or sewersheds and then dividing those major sewersheds into sub- sewersheds. The existing City sewershed locations were dictated by the location of existing infrastructure; however, selection of future sewersheds was generally governed by existing topography and or other existing features such as roadways. In addition, determining future sewersheds was generally not affected by existing sewershed locations, because existing sewersheds typically flow into MCES interceptors without crossing undeveloped areas. The ultimate future potential service area was broken up into seven (7) major sanitary sewer districts: Northwest, MWCC08, MWCC09, Southwest, South Central, Southeast, and West Central. Figure 6-1 shows the future sewersheds, and the existing sewersheds. The Northwest, Lan-O-Ken, MWCC10, and North Central sewersheds were determined based on previous studies including the North Central Sanitary Sewer Study and the CSAH 42/Akron AUAR. The following is a brief summary of the steps taken to develop the future trunk sanitary sewer system based upon the ultimate service area: 1)The ultimate potential service area was determined by eliminating large areas not likely to be served in the future, which generally included the area surrounding Flint Hills Resources. 2)The service area was divided into sub-sewersheds based on gravity sewer constraints and roadway boundaries. Sanitary sewers were designed with minimal crossing of higher capacity roads such as CSAH 42 and TH 52. 3)Sanitary sewer flows were generated for each sub-sewershed based on the gross developable acreage and the anticipated land use. The wastewater flow generation rates for the various land use categories discussed in this section were used to project future wastewater flows. 4)The sanitary sewer system was developed using the existing MCES interceptors as trunk sewers except in the east. Future trunk sewers in the east area were laid out based on ground contours which govern how far the gravity trunk sewers can feasibly be extended. All trunk sewers were designed to be no deeper than 35 feet, and no shallower than 8 feet from the existing ground surface. 5)Gravity sewer mains, lift stations, and force mains needed to accommodate the ultimate service area were then sized for peak sanitary sewer flows from those sub-districts which are tributary to each particular trunk gravity sewer main or lift station. The remaining developable area, summarized in Table 2 and shown in Figure 3-2, has been further broken down by sewershed and is shown in Table 10 on the following page. The Table shows amount of developable area in each sewershed by land use category. Some of the existing sewersheds have been included because the sewershed has not been fully developed. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 13 Future Waste Water Flows 6.2.1 Estimated Unit Wastewater Flows Future sanitary sewer flows, in conjunction with available slope, govern the capacity of sanitary sewers. To determine future sanitary flows, existing water demand and MCES recommendations were considered. MCES typically estimates 274 gpd/connection or 75 gpcd for residential estimates and 800 gpad for non-residential developments. However, these estimates are used for determining flows in the MCES interceptors. On a local design level MCES recommends sizing sanitary sewers for greater than 800 gpad for non-residential. Typically 1,000 gpad for commercial/business park areas, and 1,500 gpad for industrial/mixed use areas. The following estimated flows per acre were assumed: • Business Park – 1,000 gpad • Commercial – 1,000 gpad • Corporate Campus – 1,000 gpad • General Industrial – 1,500 gpad • Industrial/Mixed Use – 1,500 gpad • Waste Management – 1,000 gpad Future residential development was reviewed with the City Planning Department over the course of developing the Comprehensive Water System Plan. MCES recommendations of 75 gpcd were used in conjunction with planning department development projections and densities. The following estimated flows were assumed: • Urban Residential – 3 units/acre, 3.0 person/unit, 75 gpcd = 675 gpad • Transition Residential – 2 units/acre, 3.0 person/unit, 75 gpcd = 450 gpad • High Density Residential – 12 units/acre, 3.0 person/unit, 75 gpcd = 2,700 gpad • Medium Density Residential – 7 units/acre, 3.0 person/unit, 75 gpcd = 1,575 gpad • Rural Residential – 0.2 units/acre, 3.0 person/unit, 75 gpcd = 45 gpad Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 14 Table 10 Summary of Gross Developable Acres by Sewershed Summary of Gross Developable Acres by Sewershed Sewershed High Density Residential Urban Residential Medium Density Residential Business Park Trans. Residential Rural Residential Agr. Agr. Research Corp. Campus Downtown Parks/ Open Space Gen. Industrial Industrial/ Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial Public Institutional Regional Commercial Waste Manageme nt Total 150th 0 Auburn 0 Biscayne 13.0 1.0 14 Business Parkway 0.0 3.0 214.0 81.0 298 Canada 1.0 0.0 1 Connemara 0.0 0 Danville 0 Lan-O-Ken 25.0 5.0 30 LS 1 0 LS 3 3 19.0 45.0 67 LS 4 0 LS 5 0 LS 6 0 LS 7 0 LS 8 2.0 2 LS 9 0 MWCC08 59 1277.0 180.0 166.0 147.0 132.0 239.0 2200 MWCC09 12.0 5.0 79.0 0.0 338.0 20.0 120.0 574 MWCC10 105.0 105 Northwest 0 South Central 46.0 49.0 928.0 40.0 114.0 1177 Southeast 85 1748.0 446.0 512.0 218.0 94.0 91.0 17.0 9.0 3220 Southwest 178.0 73.0 18.0 269 Total 147 3393 769 1919 0 0 0 0 510 0 0 604 350 22 0 243 0 7957 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 15 6.2.2 Future Sewershed Flows The estimated unit wastewater flows previously described was tied to the remaining developable acres and potential ultimate service area in each sewershed as shown in Figures 3-2 and 4-2 to determine the future average future flows shown below in Table 11. Table 11 Future Wastewater Flows by Sewershed Future Wastewater Flows by Sewershed Sewershed Existing Avg. Flow (MGD) 2020 Avg. Flow (MGD) 2025 Avg. Flow (MGD) 2030 Avg. Flow (MGD) 2035 Avg. Flow (MGD) 2040 Avg. Flow (MGD) Ultimate Avg. Flow (MGD) 150th 0.191 0.191 0.191 0.191 0.191 0.191 0.191 Auburn 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 Biscayne 0.079 0.079 0.089 0.099 0.099 0.099 0.099 Business Parkway 0.058 0.058 0.207 0.356 0.356 0.356 0.356 Canada 0.104 0.104 0.105 0.106 0.106 0.106 0.106 Connemara 0.232 0.232 0.232 0.232 0.232 0.232 0.232 Danville 0.101 0.101 0.101 0.101 0.101 0.101 0.101 Lan-O-Ken 0.103 0.103 0.114 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 LS 1 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 LS 3 0.317 0.317 0.354 0.390 0.390 0.390 0.390 LS 4 0.126 0.126 0.126 0.126 0.126 0.126 0.126 LS 5 0.138 0.138 0.138 0.138 0.138 0.138 0.138 LS 6 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 LS 7 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 LS 8 0.089 0.089 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 LS 9 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 MWCC08 0.061 0.061 0.967 1.872 2.053 2.234 2.234 MWCC09 0.000 0.000 0.334 0.668 0.709 0.750 0.750 MWCC10 0.016 0.016 0.051 0.087 0.087 0.087 0.087 Northwest 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043 South Central 0.000 0.000 0.285 0.571 0.890 1.210 1.210 Southeast 0.000 0.000 0.454 0.908 1.447 1.987 3.146 Southwest 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.140 0.197 0.253 0.253 Total 1.789 1.789 4.082 6.374 7.512 8.650 9.809 As discussed previously, MCES regional interceptor capacities are planned for based on a average wastewater flow generation rate of 800 gpad. Therefore, regional wastewater flow projections are different than the local wastewater flow projections included in Table 11. Future regional average flow is show in Table 12 by sewershed and connection point to MCES facilities. Table 13, immediately following shows the projected future regional wastewater flows in 10 year increments Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 16 Table 12 Ultimate Regional Wastewater flows by MCES Connection Point Ultimate Regional Wastewater Flow by MCES Connection Point MCES Facility Sewershed Ex. Avg Flow (MGD) Developable Acres Future Development Avg. Flow (MGD) Ultimate Avg. Flow (MGD) Cumulative Ultimate Avg. Flow at MCES Connection (MGD) M641 LS 3 0.317 67 0.07 0.39 0.49 Danville 0.101 0 0.00 0.10 L74 to Blaine Ave. (CR 73) MWCC08 0.000 756 0.92 0.92 4.70 MWCC09 0.000 341 0.51 0.51 Southeast 0.000 3126 3.06 3.06 MWCC09 0.000 209 0.22 0.22 Blaine Ave. to Akron Ave. South Central 0.000 1235 1.28 1.28 5.98 Akron Ave. (CR 73) to Biscayne Ave. Northwest 0.043 0 0.00 0.04 8.08 Lan-O-Ken 0.103 30 0.02 0.12 LS 9 0.041 0 0.00 0.04 Connemara 0.232 0 0.00 0.23 MWCC08 0.000 885 0.82 0.82 MWCC08 0.061 708 0.56 0.62 MWCC10 0.016 105 0.071 0.09 Auburn 0.013 0 0.000 0.01 LS 8 0.089 2 0.001 0.09 LS 7 0.023 0 0.000 0.02 Biscayne Ave. to City Boundary (M655) 150th 0.191 0 0.000 0.19 9.31 Canada 0.104 2 0.002 0.11 LS 1 0.046 0 0.000 0.05 LS 4 0.126 0 0.000 0.13 LS 5 0.138 0 0.000 0.14 LS 6 0.007 0 0.000 0.01 Southwest 0.000 160 0.158 0.16 Business Parkway 0.058 297 0.299 0.36 Biscayne 0.079 13 0.021 0.10 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 17 Table 13 Future Regional Wastewater Flow my MCES connection point and 10-year Increment Future Regional Wastewater Flow by MCES Connection Point and 10-Year Increment MCES Facility Cumulative Existing Avg. Flow (MGD) Cumulative 2020 Avg. Flow (MGD) Cumulative 2030 Avg. Flow (MGD) Cumulative 2040 Avg. Flow (MGD) Cumulative Ultimate Avg. Flow (MGD) Sewershed Existing Avg. Flow (MGD) 2020 Avg. Flow (MGD) 2030 Avg. Flow (MGD) 2040 Avg. Flow (MGD) Ultimate Avg. Flow (MGD) M641 0.42 0.42 0.49 0.49 0.49 LS 3 0.32 0.32 0.39 0.39 0.39 Danville 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 L74 to Blaine Ave. (CR 73) 0.00 0.00 2.49 3.55 4.70 MWCC08 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 MWCC09 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 Southeast 0.00 0.00 0.92 1.91 3.06 MWCC09 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.22 0.22 Blaine Ave. to Akron Ave. 0.00 0.00 3.07 4.83 5.98 South Central 0.00 0.00 0.57 1.28 1.28 Akron Ave. (CR 73) to Biscayne Ave. 0.62 0.62 4.72 6.93 8.08 Northwest 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Lan-O-Ken 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.12 LS 9 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Connemara 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 MWCC08 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.82 0.82 MWCC08 0.06 0.06 0.62 0.62 0.62 MWCC10 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.09 Auburn 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 LS 8 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 LS 7 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Biscayne Ave. to City Boundary (M655) 1.37 1.37 5.88 8.16 9.31 150th 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Canada 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 LS 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 LS 4 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 LS 5 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 LS 6 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Southwest 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.16 0.16 Business Parkway 0.06 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.36 Biscayne 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 18 Future Trunk Sanitary Sewer System The future trunk sanitary sewer system layout is shown in Figure 6-2. It shows the proposed trunk sewers, lift stations, force mains, and sewersheds. Using the projected wastewater flows for each of the sewersheds and sub-sewersheds, design flows were determined for each segment of trunk sewer to determine sizing requirements. The sanitary sewer trunk system was divided into pipe lengths with collection points. Each sub- sewer shed was designated one collection point, and the collection point was assumed to be the location where the sub-district’s flow entered the pipe network. The collection points were assumed conservatively and were typically the lowest elevation in the sub-sewershed at the greatest distance from the connection point to the trunk sewer. A SewerCAD model was developed for the future trunk system based on the collection points. Laterals were extended from the collection points to the trunk mains and were sized based on the peak wastewater flow generated at the collection point. Trunk mains were appropriately si zed where collection laterals connected to each trunk main. The sanitary sewer collection system must be capable of handling not only average flows, but also the anticipated peak flows. These peak flows can be expressed as a variable ratio applied to average daily flow rates. This variable ratio, called the peak flow factor, has been found to decrease as average flow increases. The peak flow factors applied in this study are listed in Figure 1. 6.3.1 Existing City Sewersheds The City’s existing service area is located in the southwest area of the City. It was broken down into sewersheds based on existing lift stations and connection points to trunk sewers. The sewersheds named for connection points to trunk sewers were named for streets where the majority of flows would be collected. Some sewersheds are fully developed in accordance with the 2030 land use plan including Danville, 150th, Canada, LS 1, LS 4, LS 5, LS 6, LS 7, Auburn, and Biscayne. These sewersheds will not generate additional future flow unless major redevelopment occurs. The balance of the existing sewersheds, LS 3, LS 8, LS 9, Business Parkway, Connemara, and Lan-O-Ken, have developable area remaining. Wastewater from existing development is collected by sewer mains ranging in size from 8 to 30 inches in diameter. All flows are conveyed to the Rosemount Interceptor, with the exception of flows from the Danville and LS 3 sewersheds. Wastewater from those sewersheds flows through MCES flow meter M641 in the southeast corner of the City to Apple Valley and ultimately the Empire wastewater treatment plant. The fully developed existing sewersheds will not require future improvements, since additional future flows will not be generated. Of the existing sewersheds with developable area remaining, only the Lan-O-Ken will require trunk main extensions. Connemara, LS 8, LS 3, LS 9, and Business Parkway will require additional collection laterals only. The northern portion of the Lan-O-Ken sewershed is currently planned as a transitional residential zone will likely be conveyed east into the northern end of the MWCC08 sewershed via gravity line. Many of the current lots in this region are serviced by individual septic systems that are reaching the end of their design life. Many of the lots do not have enough area to construct new infiltration fields and will require sanitary service in the future. This area has a potential average flowrate of 0.085 MGD and an estimated peak flow of 0.34 MGD. The proposed trunk line from MWCC08 would be a 10” PVC gravity line to handle the future development potential of the existing Lan-O- Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 19 Ken sewershed. Other options considered for this section include tieing into the nearby Eagan sanitary sewer system or construction of a new lift station to pump the flowrates to LS 9 sewershed. 6.3.2 Northwest Sewershed The Northwest sewershed includes the existing developed rural residential area north of the existing City service area and west of Robert Trail. There is no existing sanitary sewer collection system in this developed area and wastewater treatment is accomplished by ISTSs. Due to potential development in the existing rural residential areas of the northern portion of this sewershed, the city may consider using a higher density residential landuse in its final planning stages to oversize sanitary sewers. Additional trunk sanitary sewer improvements will be necessary, although it is not likely this area will be served in the future. Sanitary sewer service to this area was originally planned for in the North Central Sanitary Sewer Study. A 12-inch trunk main would convey wastewater to the 950 gpm lift station in the Lan-O-Ken sewershed. Sewage would be pumped from the lift station to the Lan-O-Ken trunk main. 6.3.3 MWCC10 The MWCC10 sewershed is bounded by Robert Trail on the west, the Lan-O-Ken and North Central sewersheds to the north, the MWCC08 sewershed to the east and 135th Street to the South. The MWCC10 sewershed is mostly developed rural and transition residential, with the exception of some remaining developable urban residential in the west. There is no existing sanitary sewer collection system in this developed area and wastewater treatment is accomplished by ISTSs. Additional trunk sanitary sewer improvements will be necessary to serve this area. Sanitary sewer service to this area was originally planned for in the MWCC08 Sanitary Sewer Study. A 12- to 15-inch trunk main would be extended north along Bacardi Avenue from the Connemara sewershed to collect flows from the MWCC10 sewershed. 6.3.4 MWCC08 The MWCC08 sewershed was re-delineated by the City of Rosemount in 2018 and combines the sewersheds previously known as North Central, Southwest Central, and Central sewersheds. The new sewershed flows into the Empire Interceptor. The northern portion of the sewershed is planned as primarily rural residential. However, under direction from City Staff, the sewer servicing this region was sized under the assumption that the rural residential would eventually be switched to urban densities. The sanitary pipes were further sized with the capacity to carry sanitary flows from the northern end of the Lan-O-Ken sewershed as previously described. Further south towards CSAH 42 the land use transitions to urban residential with small sections of commercial and high density residential near the highway. The southern portions of the sewershed are primary urban residential with some sections of agricultural research on the far southern end of the sewershed. Due to the hilly topography of the northern portion of the sewershed, an 850 gpm lift station would be required to collect and pump wastewater south to an 18- to 21-inch trunk main that would convey flows to the West Akron trunk main. If the rural residential area in the west were to be served, three small lift stations with capacities of 5 gallons per minute (gpm), 15 gpm, and 25 gpm would be required to pump wastewater to the 850 gpm lift station in the northern tier of the sewershed. It may be necessary to install temporary lift stations to serve new developments. One such location can be seen in Figure 6-2 of the attached appendix. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 20 The southern portion of the MWCC08 watershed services the central portion of the UMore property. This section of MWCC08 was redesigned in the spring of 2019 based on the proposed development plan for the UMore property. The southern end of the section will drain to a localized low point where it will be lifted by a proposed 1200 gpm lift station. From their it will gravity flow to the north and connect to the MCES interceptor under 145th St E. Additional trunk sanitary sewer improvements will be necessary to serve future development as shown in Figure 6-2. Due to potential development in the existing rural residential areas of the northwest portion of this sewershed, the city may consider using a higher density residential landuse in its final planning stages to oversize sanitary sewers. 6.3.5 MWCC09 The MWCCO9 sewershed was also re-delineated by the City of Rosemount in 2018 to combine what was previously the Southeast Central and the Northeast sewersheds. The proposed land use for the new sewershed is almost entirely industrial or mixed use with a small section of regional commercial at the southern end near the intersection of 145th St E and Hwy 52. This sewershed flows to a centrally located L74 lift station at the site of the old Rosemount waste water treatment facility. The facility has been taken offline and the lift station now pumps the water to the Empire waste water treatment facility. A trunk main ranging in size from 8 to 15-inches was constructed in 2007 running north along TH 52 from the existing Rosemount Interceptor to Flint Hills Resources. Trunk sewer improvements will be necessary to serve future general industrial development north of the Rosemount wastewater treatment plant. An 880 gpm lift station with an 8-inch force main would be required to pump wastewater from the future general industrial area north of Pine Bend Trail and east of TH 52. Trunk mains ranging in size from 8 to 30-inch would be required to collect flows from remaining future development south of Pine Bend Trail and east of TH 52. The Flint Hills Resources trunk sewer is used to collect flows from some of the future development south of Pine Bend Trail. 6.3.6 South Central Sewershed The South Central sewershed is similar to the south portion of MWCC08 in that it is generally within UMore Park and is bounded by CSAH 42 on the north, 160th Street on the south, Southwest Central sewershed on the west, and TH 52 on the east. There is a small area north of CSAH 42 that would be included in this sewershed. The future land uses within the district include business park, regional commercial, and small section of agricultural research and medium density residential. There is no existing sanitary sewer collection system in this area. The Empire Interceptor is mostly force main along the northern border of the sewershed, being pumped from east to west. Additional trunk sanitary sewer improvements will be necessary to serve future development. The topography provided relief to create a 15 to 30-inch trunk main flowing from the southern boundary of the district, northeast to the Rosemount Interceptor in the Central sewershed. The trunk main connects to the Rosemount Interceptor just to the west of TH 52, but a crossing of CSAH 42 would be required. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 21 6.3.7 Southwest Sewershed The Southwest sewershed is within UMore Park. It includes the area east of Biscayne Avenue, west of the MWCC08 sewershed, south of CSAH 42, and North of 160th Street. It is currently undeveloped and future land use would be almost exclusively Urban Residential with a small portion of the developed area being planned as commercial space. The Empire Interceptor flows to the east along the northern boundary then south along the eastern boundary of the district. The sewershed general flows from west to east where it is lifted by a proposed 1500gpm lift station to connect to the nearby MCES lift station. Other additional trunk sanitary sewer improvements will be necessary to serve future development of the Southwest sewershed. 6.3.8 Southeast Sewershed The Southeast sewershed is generally located in the southeast corner of the City limits. It is bounded by the City limits on the east and south, Pine Bend Trail on the north, and the Northeast and Southeast Central sewersheds to the west. It is currently undeveloped, however, there are some existing rural residential areas served by ISTSs. Future development is planned to be largely urban residential, industrial/mixed use, corporate campus, and business park, but there are smaller areas of commercial, medium density residential, and high density residential. There is no existing sanitary sewer collection system or MCES interceptor sewer within this district. Additional trunk sanitary sewer improvements will be necessary to serve future development. Since there is no existing MCES interceptor east of the Rosemount wastewater treatment plant (MCES L74 Lift Station), a major City interceptor was required. The topography provided relief for a southeast interceptor flowing from the eastern border, initially 24-inches in diameter increasing to 36-inches in diameter, then west and north to a 7,400 gpm lift station located near MCES L74 Lift Station (L74) . The southeast interceptor would have to cross CSAH 42 and 140th Street. The proposed trunk sewer would flow from the southeast to the northwest across land that is largely owned by Great River Energy. Great River’s development plans are unknown; however, the future trunk sewer can be routed around the land if it is not developed. The future trunk sewer is not necessary until development occurs in the southeast sewershed, therefore, final routing should be reviewed once development begins in the southeast sewershed. In addition, as development begins to occur, the trunk lift station may not initially be constructed with 7,400 gpm capacity. The lift station could be constructed in phases with room for capacity expansions as development increases in the southeast sewershed. Lift station capacity phasing would be dependent upon the rate of development at that time. Other trunk sewer improvements would be required to convey future flows to the major City interceptor. These improvements are shown in Figure 6-2 and include sanitary sewers ranging in size from 8 to 18-inches in diameter, and three lift stations. The lift stations include a 1,400 gpm station in the northeast that would generally serve the corporate campus area, a 2500 gpm station in the southeast to serve urban residential along the southern City border, and a 120 gpm station in the southwest to serve urban residential along the southern City border. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 22 7.CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) Estimated Cost of Trunk System Improvements The projected ultimate sanitary sewer trunk system was broken down into improvements based on sewersheds and development projection time frames. The overall cost associated with trunk system components over the next 23 years is estimated to be approximately $27,717,381 in 2017 dollars and ultimately $9,045,312 more. Table 14 summarizes the trunk improvement costs necessary for each district. Detailed cost estimates for each district are available in Appendix 2. Furthermore, construction schedules for trunk facilities in each sewershed are included Appendix 3. Future improvement costs were based on 2017 construction prices, including a 10% construction contingency, and including 30% overhead (i.e., legal, engineering, and administrative). Street and easement costs and other miscellaneous costs that may be related to final construction are not included. Table 14 Capital Improvement Plan by Sewershed 1)Costs are for budgeting purposes only, and are subject to change as projects are studied, designed, and constructed. 2)Costs are estimated based on 2017 construction costs. 3)Land acquisition costs are not included. 4)Costs do not include deep trench or trenchless installation Future Trunk System Funding 7.2.1 General Future trunk sewer improvements are funded through the City’s Core Fund. As properties develop, initial costs are paid by the core fund. Then, the core fund is reimbursed by trunk area assessments and individual connection charges. The current available balance in the core fund is approximately $5,000,000.00. Trunk Area Assessments are collected when a developer applies for a plat/subdivision agreement. Any fees not collected with the plat/subdivision agreement are collected as a connection charge prior to system connection. The assessment is calculated based on the entire parcel area to be developed. The current Trunk Area Assessment is $1,075 per acre. The SAC fee, or connection charge, is collected when a new or existing property applies to connect to City sanitary sewer. The SAC charge is $1,200 per SAC unit, and is equivalent to 274 gallons per day (gpd). A single family residence is considered one Capital Improvement Plan by Sewershed District 2020 2030 2040 2050 Total MWCC09 $0 $1,497,023 $422,486 $0 $1,919,509 Southeast $2,181,291 $6,103,270 $4,149,121 $5,901,793 $18,335,474 South Central $0 $2,126,875 $1,320,784 $0 $3,447,659 MWCC08 $1,509,345 $4,525,093 $1,972,468 $0 $8,006,906 Southwest $0 $483,326 $0 $2,729,819 $3,213,144 Lan-O-Ken $0 $969,620 $0 $0 $969,620 Northwest $0 $0 $0 $413,700 $413,700 MWCC10 $0 $456,680 $0 $0 $456,680 Total $3,690,636 $16,161,887 $7,864,858 $9,045,312 $36,762,692 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 23 SAC unit, but other types of buildings pay a prorated SAC fee relative to their estimated sanitary sewer flows. 7.2.2 Future Connection Fees and Trunk Area Growth Future connection growth dictates the expected future income of the core fund based on Trunk Area Assessments and SAC collected from development Table 15 below shows the projected development fees based on the growth assumptions assumed in Sections 3 and 4. Future developable area, discussed in 3.2 and shown in Figure 3-2, was correlated to the projected land use phasing discussed in 4.3 and shown in Figure 4-2 to project the development timing of remaining developable area broken down by land use. The number of SAC units expected to develop were based on the estimated unit wastewater flows discussed in 6.2.1. SAC units for residential land uses were based on the estimated units for each type. However, SAC units for non-residential land uses were prorated based on the assumed unit wastewater flow. For example, one acre of business park development was assumed to generate 1,000 gpd, which was divided by the SAC unit flow equivalent (274 gpd), to determine that each acre of business park development would generate 3.6 SAC units of wastewater flow. 7.2.3 Core Fund Rate Analysis To accurately reflect future infrastructure expenses, the Capital Improvement Plan estimated costs for each design interval, but not increased for inflation. It was assumed that rates would be increased at a rate similar to inflation. Full development was assumed to occur in 2037. Table 15 shows existing rates’ impact on the balance of the core fund. Existing rates appear to be adequate to fund future improvements, assuming they are increased at a rate similar to inflation. The fund balance is estimated to decrease from approximately $5,000,000 to $-3,717,347 once the City is fully developed. Since the City funds the initial infrastructure cost and is then reimbursed by development fees, it is recommended to review rates on a regular basis. Some debt financing may be required to fund future improvements depending upon the cost of individual sewer improvement projects. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 24 Table 15 Core Fund Assume Gross Acres Development Core Fund Assuming Gross Acres Development 2018-2020 2020-2030 2030-2040 2040-Ultimate Total Area Developed 726 4,198 2,306 1,449 Trunk Area Charge Rate per Acre $1,075 $1,075 $1,075 $1,075 SAC Fee Rate per Unit $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 Beginning Year Balance $6,625,053 $8,089,887 $9,821,095 $4,926,254 Development Costs (CIP) $1,944,498 $16,682,727 $13,939,908 $13,900,173 Balance after Expenses $4,680,555 -$8,592,840 -$4,118,813 -$8,973,919 Total SAC Fees $2,628,452 $13,901,150 $6,566,389 $3,698,517 Total Revenues $3,409,333 $18,413,935 $9,045,067 $5,256,572 Balance after Revenues (Year End) $8,089,887 $9,821,095 $4,926,254 -$3,717,347 Balance change $1,464,835 $1,731,208 -$4,894,841 -$8,643,601 % change 22% 21% -50% -175% 1 Assumes SAC charged to newly connected properties served by ISTS Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 25 8. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Peak Flow Methodology In previous versions of the Rosemount Comprehensive Sewer Plan, average and peak flowrates were collected by Met Council at the Cities 2 gaging stations. This data was used to calculate peaking factors specific to the City and were used to size pipes in the Comp Plan. This does give the City a more accurate representation of peak flows at the major trunk lines of their sanitary sewer as opposed to using the higher more conservative peaking factors from Met Council. One concern however is that since this peaking factor was developed for the end of the line flowrates, it may in fact underestimate the peak flows in smaller trunk lines. Traditionally, the peaking factor would increase in lower flow sewers to account for the greater variablility in flows present in small sewers. In this version, the MCES Design Peaking factors found in appendix A of the Water Resources Policy Plan was used to size all trunk sewers throughout the City’s MUSA. Figure 1 MCES Peaking Factors Model Updates The current sewer flow analyses were completed using Bentley’s SewerCAD software. This software allows the City to contain all their future sanitary design within a single updatable model for future development. A major benefit of this model is that the full model is geospatially referenced so that data from the model may be incorporated directly into the Cities GIS files and mapping. Currently the model is set up to operate under a steady state condition, which is to say that the calculated base flowrates are assumed to flow continuously at the same rate. After the peak flow is calculated, the peaking factors are applied to find the assumed maximum flow in the pipe. This methodology is time tested but it has also been shown to be highly conservative in nature, often estimated peak flows at 30-50% higher than real time flow data. Several sewersheds in the existing conditions have been estimated as nearing the full capacity of the existing sewers and lift stations. Given the conservative nature of the existing model, it would is recommended that the City consider migrating the model to a fully hydrodynamic model. The updated model can be calibrate to sewer gage data and is shown to more accurately model the true conditions of the sanitary sewer. It is highly recommened that the City maintain a copy of this model to function as a “Living Model” that can be updated as new developments come online. This gives the City a powerful Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 26 tool to track sewer capacity throughout the undeveloped areas as new developments are brought online. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 27 Appendix 1: Figures Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 28 Appendix 2: Opinion of Probable Costs Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 4" PVC FORCEMAIN LIN FT 2,461 $25.00 $61,530.00 6" PVC FORCEMAIN LIN FT 2,857 $27.00 $77,140.00 8" PVC FORCEMAIN LIN FT 1,502 $35.00 $52,570.00 10" PVC FORCEMAIN LIN FT 2,388 $35.00 $83,580.00 12" PVC FORCEMAIN LIN FT 143 $36.00 $5,150.00 24" PVC FORCEMAIN LIN FT 38 $60.00 $2,280.00 10" PVC SEWER LIN FT 13,957 $56.00 $781,590.00 12" PVC SEWER LIN FT 5,297 $75.00 $397,280.00 15" PVC SEWER LIN FT 6,548 $71.00 $464,910.00 18" RCP SEWER LIN FT 7,646 $84.00 $642,260.00 20" RCP SEWER LIN FT 1,502 $94.00 $141,190.00 21" RCP SEWER LIN FT 2,042 $94.00 $191,950.00 30" RCP SEWER LIN FT 1,797 $107.00 $192,280.00 SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING)LIN FT 38,789 $1.00 $38,790.00 CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLE EACH 130 $7,000.00 $910,000.00 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 130 $650.00 $84,500.00 AIR RELEASE VALVE AND MH EACH 11 $3,500.00 $38,500.00 100 GPM LIFT STATION (Standard submersible type, no stand-by generator)LUMP SUM 1 $308,000.00 $308,000.00 850 GPM LIFT STATION (Standard submersible type, no stand-by generator)LUMP SUM 1 $485,000.00 $485,000.00 1,200 GPM LIFT STATION (Standard submersible type, no stand-by generator) LUMP SUM 1 $640,750.00 $640,750.00 $5,599,250.00 $559,930.00 $6,159,180.00 $1,847,750.00 $8,006,930.00 19 20 Cont. 10% 10 15 16 17 11 12 13 14 1. Costs are for budgeting purposes only, and are subject to change as projects are studied, designed, and constructed. 2. Costs are estimated based on 2007 construction costs. 3. Land acquisition costs are not included. SUB TOTAL 18 SUB TOTAL Engr/Legal 30% TOTAL 8 Appendix 2 - Opinion of Probable Cost Future Trunk System - MWCC08 Sewershed Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18116417\Modeling\SewerCAD\April_Updates\Appendix2_3_Dallas.xlsx Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 6" PVC FORCE MAIN LIN FT 1,723 $27.00 $46,520.00 10" PVC SEWER LIN FT 3,472 $56.00 $194,430.00 12" PVC SEWER LIN FT 4,174 $75.00 $313,050.00 18" RCP SEWER LIN FT 4,330 $84.00 $363,720.00 21" RCP SEWER LIN FT 807 $94.00 $75,860.00 SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING)LIN FT 12,783 $1.00 $12,780.00 CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLE EACH 43 $7,000.00 $301,000.00 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 43 $650.00 $27,950.00 AIR RELEASE VALVE AND MH EACH 2 $3,500.00 $7,000.00 $1,342,310.00 $134,230.00 $1,476,540.00 $442,960.00 $1,919,500.00 1. Costs are for budgeting purposes only, and are subject to change as projects are studied, designed, and constructed. 2. Costs are estimated based on 2007 construction costs. 3. Land acquisition costs are not included. SUB TOTAL Cont. 10% SUB TOTAL 5 6 8 9 7 Engr/Legal 30% TOTAL Appendix 2 - Opinion of Probable Cost Future Trunk System - MWCC09 Sewershed Item No. 2 4 3 1 H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18116417\Modeling\SewerCAD\April_Updates\Appendix2_3_Dallas.xlsx Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 10" PVC SEWER LIN FT 11,167 $56.00 $625,350.00 12" PVC SEWER LIN FT 4,023 $75.00 $301,730.00 15" PVC SEWER LIN FT 1,238 $71.00 $87,900.00 21" RCP SEWER LIN FT 1,667 $94.00 $156,700.00 24" RCP SEWER LIN FT 5,747 $105.00 $603,440.00 SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING)LIN FT 23,842 $1.00 $23,840.00 CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLE EACH 80 $7,000.00 $560,000.00 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 80 $650.00 $52,000.00 $2,410,960.00 $241,100.00 $2,652,060.00 $795,620.00 $3,447,680.00 SUB TOTAL Cont. 10% SUB TOTAL Engr/Legal 30% TOTAL 1. Costs are for budgeting purposes only, and are subject to change as projects are studied, designed, and constructed. 2. Costs are estimated based on 2007 construction costs. 3. Land acquisition costs are not included. 2 Appendix 2 - Opinion of Probable Cost Future Trunk System - South Central Sewershed Item No. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18116417\Modeling\SewerCAD\April_Updates\Appendix2_3_Dallas.xlsx Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 6" PVC FORCE MAIN LIN FT 982 $27.00 $26,510.00 8" PVC FORCE MAIN LIN FT 3,088 $35.00 $108,080.00 12" PVC FORCE MAIN LIN FT 3,175 $36.00 $114,300.00 18" PVC FORCE MAIN LIN FT 815 $52.00 $42,380.00 10" PVC SEWER LIN FT 12,315 $56.00 $689,640.00 12" PVC SEWER LIN FT 43,356 $75.00 $3,251,700.00 15" PVC SEWER LIN FT 8,933 $71.00 $634,240.00 18" RCP SEWER LIN FT 6,005 $84.00 $504,420.00 24" RCP SEWER LIN FT 1,887 $105.00 $198,140.00 30" RCP SEWER LIN FT 5,419 $107.00 $579,830.00 SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING)LIN FT 77,915 $1.00 $77,920.00 CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLE EACH 260 $7,000.00 $1,820,000.00 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 260 $650.00 $169,000.00 AIR RELEASE VALVE AND MH EACH 10 $3,500.00 $35,000.00 130 GPM LIFT STATION (Standard submersible type, no stand-by generator) LUMP SUM 1 $308,000.00 $308,000.00 770 GPM LIFT STATION (Standard submersible type, no stand-by generator) LUMP SUM 1 $425,000.00 $425,000.00 1,200 GPM LIFT STATION (Standard submersible type, no stand-by generator) LUMP SUM 1 $640,750.00 $640,750.00 1,400 GPM LIFT STATION (Standard submersible type, no stand-by generator) LUMP SUM 1 $670,450.00 $670,450.00 7,400 GPM LIFT STATION (Standard submersible type, no stand-by generator) LUMP SUM 1 $2,519,000.00 $2,519,000.00 $12,814,360.00 $1,281,440.00 $14,095,800.00 $4,228,740.00 $18,324,540.00 3. Land acquisition costs are not included. SUB TOTAL 1. Costs are for budgeting purposes only, and are subject to change as projects are studied, designed, and constructed. 2. Costs are estimated based on 2007 construction costs. 14 Engr/Legal 30% 15 TOTAL 19 16 17 18 Cont. 10% SUB TOTAL 13 9 10 11 12 8 Appendix 2 - Opinion of Probable Cost Future Trunk System - Southeast Sewershed Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18116417\Modeling\SewerCAD\April_Updates\Appendix2_3_Dallas.xlsx Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 10" PVC SEWER LIN FT 1,275 $56.00 $71,400.00 12" PVC SEWER LIN FT 9,585 $75.00 $718,880.00 15" PVC SEWER LIN FT 3,642 $71.00 $258,580.00 18" RCP SEWER LIN FT 1,267 $84.00 $106,430.00 SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING)LIN FT 15,769 $1.00 $15,770.00 CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLE EACH 53 $7,000.00 $371,000.00 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 53 $650.00 $34,450.00 1,600 GPM LIFT STATION (Standard submersible type, no stand-by generator) LUMP SUM 1 $670,450.00 $670,450.00 $2,246,960.00 $224,700.00 $2,471,660.00 $741,500.00 $3,213,160.00 SUB TOTAL TOTAL 1. Costs are for budgeting purposes only, and are subject to change as projects are studied, designed, and constructed. 2. Costs are estimated based on 2007 construction costs. 3. Land acquisition costs are not included. 2 Appendix 2 - Opinion of Probable Cost Future Trunk System - Southwest Sewershed Item No. 1 Engr/Legal 30% 3 4 5 6 7 8 SUB TOTAL Cont. 10% H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18116417\Modeling\SewerCAD\April_Updates\Appendix2_3_Dallas.xlsx Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 10" PVC SEWER LIN FT 1280.00 $56.00 $71,680.00 SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING) LIN FT 1280.00 $1.00 $1,280.00 CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLE EACH 5.00 $7,000.00 $35,000.00 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 5.00 $650.00 $3,250.00 $111,210.00 $11,120.00 $122,330.00 $36,700.00 $159,030.00TOTAL 1. Costs are for budgeting pruposes only, and are subject to change as projects are studied, designed, and constructed. 2. Costs are estimated based on 2007 construction costs. 3. Land acquisition costs are not included. SUB TOTAL Cont. 10% SUB TOTAL Engr/Legal 30% 1 2 3 4 Appendix 2 - Opinion of Probable Cost Future Trunk System - Lan-O-Ken sewershed Item No. Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 12" PVC SEWER LIN FT 1200.00 $70.00 $84,000.00 15" PVC SEWER LIN FT 2000.00 $90.00 $180,000.00 SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING) LIN FT 3200.00 $3,000.00 $9,600,000.00 CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLE EACH 11.00 $500.00 $5,500.00 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 11.00 $2,500.00 $27,500.00 $9,897,000.00 $989,700.00 $10,886,700.00 $3,266,010.00 $14,152,710.00 1. Costs are for budgeting pruposes only, and are subject to change as projects are studied, designed, and constructed. 2. Costs are estimated based on 2007 construction costs. 3. Land acquisition costs are not included. SUB TOTAL Engr/Legal 30% TOTAL 4 5 SUB TOTAL Cont. 10% Appendix 2 - Opinion of Probable Cost Future Trunk System - MWCC10 sewershed Item No. 1 2 3 Description Unit Estimated Total Quantity Estimated Unit Price Estimated Total Cost 12" PVC SEWER LIN FT 2800.00 $70.00 $196,000.00 SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING) LIN FT 2800.00 $3,000.00 $8,400,000.00 CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLE EACH 10.00 $500.00 $5,000.00 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 10.00 $2,500.00 $25,000.00 $8,626,000.00 $862,600.00 $9,488,600.00 $2,846,580.00 $12,335,180.00 2. Costs are estimated based on 2007 construction costs. 3. Land acquisition costs are not included. Engr/Legal 30% TOTAL 1. Costs are for budgeting pruposes only, and are subject to change as projects are studied, designed, and constructed. 4 SUB TOTAL Cont. 10% SUB TOTAL Appendix 2 - Opinion of Probable Cost Future Trunk System - Northwest sewershed Item No. 1 2 3 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 29 Appendix 3: Trunk Facility Construction Schedule DescriptionUnit2020 Quantity2030 Quantity2040 Quantity2050 QuantityUltimate Quantity4" PVC FORCEMAINLIN FT 155 2,306 0 0 2,4616" PVC FORCEMAINLIN FT 2,857 0 0 0 2,8578" PVC FORCEMAINLIN FT 0 1,502 0 0 1,50210" PVC FORCEMAINLIN FT 0 0 2,388 0 2,38812" PVC FORCEMAINLIN FT 0 0 143 0 14324" PVC FORCEMAINLIN FT 0 38 0 0 388" PVC SEWERLIN FT 19,066 20,496 4,567 4,037 48,16610" PVC SEWERLIN FT 4,627 7,852 1,478 0 13,95712" PVC SEWERLIN FT 1,423 2,233 1,641 0 5,29715" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 4,244 2,304 0 6,54818" RCP SEWERLIN FT 1,141 5,373 1,132 0 7,6469Appendix 3 - Trunk Facility Construction ScheduleFuture Trunk System - MWCC08 SewershedItem No.123456781011H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18116417\Modeling\SewerCAD\April_Updates\Appendix2_3_Dallas.xlsx DescriptionUnit2020 Quantity2030 Quantity2040 Quantity2050 QuantityUltimate Quantity6" PVC FORCE MAINLIN FT 0 0 1,723 0 1,7238" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 611 4,432 0 5,04310" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 3,472 0 0 3,47212" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 2,400 1,774 0 4,17418" RCP SEWERLIN FT 0 4,330 0 0 4,33021" RCP SEWERLIN FT 0 807 0 0 807SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING)LIN FT 0 11,620 6,206 0 17,826CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLEEACH 0 39 21 0 60CASTING ASSEMBLYEACH 0 39 21 0 60AIR RELEASE VALVE AND MHEACH 0 0 2 0 2Appendix 3 - Trunk Facility Construction ScheduleFuture Trunk System - MWCC09 Sewershed65412Item No.379108H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18116417\Modeling\SewerCAD\April_Updates\Appendix2_3_Dallas.xlsx DescriptionUnit2020 Quantity2030 Quantity2040 Quantity2050 QuantityUltimate Quantity8" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 6,991 4,593 2,033 13,61710" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 6,062 5,105 0 11,16712" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 294 3,729 0 4,02315" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 0 1,238 0 1,23821" RCP SEWERLIN FT 0 1,667 0 0 1,66724" RCP SEWERLIN FT 0 5,747 0 0 5,747SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING)LIN FT 0 20,761 14,665 2,033 37,459CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLEEACH 0 70 49 7 126CASTING ASSEMBLYEACH 0 70 49 7 1269Appendix 3 - Trunk Facility Construction ScheduleFuture Trunk System - South Central SewershedItem No.12345678H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18116417\Modeling\SewerCAD\April_Updates\Appendix2_3_Dallas.xlsx DescriptionUnit2020 Quantity2030 Quantity2040 Quantity2050 QuantityUltimate Quantity6" PVC FORCE MAINLIN FT 0 0 0 982 9828" PVC FORCE MAINLIN FT 0 0 0 3,088 3,08812" PVC FORCE MAINLIN FT 3,175 0 0 0 3,17518" PVC FORCE MAINLIN FT 0 815 0 0 8158" PVC SEWERLIN FT 11,198 2,846 10,975 12,088 37,10710" PVC SEWERLIN FT 3,134 1,493 1,889 5,799 12,31512" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 12,094 12,107 19,155 43,35615" PVC SEWERLIN FT 3,165 2,633 3,135 0 8,93318" RCP SEWERLIN FT 1,426 862 0 3,717 6,00524" RCP SEWERLIN FT 0 0 0 1,887 1,88730" RCP SEWERLIN FT 0 0 4,226 1,193 5,4193Appendix 3 - Trunk Facility Construction ScheduleFuture Trunk System - Southeast SewershedItem No.124567891011H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18116417\Modeling\SewerCAD\April_Updates\Appendix2_3_Dallas.xlsx DescriptionUnit2020 Quantity2030 Quantity2040 Quantity2050 QuantityUltimate Quantity8" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 0 2,013 5,329 7,34210" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 0 0 1,275 1,27512" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 3,340 0 6,245 9,58515" PVC SEWERLIN FT 0 0 0 3,642 3,64218" RCP SEWERLIN FT 0 0 0 1,267 1,267SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING)LIN FT 0 3,340 2,013 17,758 23,111CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLEEACH 0 12 7 60 79CASTING ASSEMBLYEACH 0 12 7 60 791,600 GPM LIFT STATION (Standard submersible type, no stand-by generator) LUMP SUM0 0 0 1 19Appendix 3 - Trunk Facility Construction ScheduleFuture Trunk System - Southwest SewershedItem No.12345678H:\ROSEMNT_CI_MN\T18116417\Modeling\SewerCAD\April_Updates\Appendix2_3_Dallas.xlsx DescriptionUnit2020 Quantity2030 Quantity2040 QuantityUltimate Quantity18" RCP SEWERLIN FT1,280SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING)LIN FT1,280CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLEEACH5CASTING ASSEMBLYEACH52341Appendix 3 - Trunk Facility Construction ScheduleFuture Trunk System - Lan-O-Ken sewershedItem No. DescriptionUnit2020 Quantity2030 Quantity2040 QuantityUltimate Quantity12" PVC SEWERLIN FT 1,20015" PVC SEWERLIN FT 2,000SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING) LIN FT 3,200CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLEEACH 11CASTING ASSEMBLYEACH 1145Appendix 3 - Trunk Facility Construction ScheduleFuture Trunk System - MWCC10 sewershedItem No.123 DescriptionUnit2020 Quantity2030 Quantity2040 QuantityUltimate Quantity12" PVC SEWERLIN FT1SANITARY SEWER INSPECTION (TELEVISING) LIN FT7,000CONST 48" DIA SAN SEWER MANHOLEEACH650CASTING ASSEMBLYEACH04Appendix 3 - Trunk Facility Construction ScheduleFuture Trunk System - Northwest sewershedItem No.123 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS City of Rosemount - Comprehensive Sewer Plan ǀ [T18116417] Page 30 Appendix 4: Dakota County Maintenance Facility and Communications Center Cooperative Agreement SURFACE WATER SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DECEMBER 2018 Prepared for: City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 WSB PROJECT NO. 011824-000 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MN December 2018 WSB Project No. 011824-000 CERTIFICATION Page i CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. _________________________________________________________ Bill Alms, PE Lic. No. 54301 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ii CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Title Page Certification Table of Contents Glossary SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION 2: LAND AND WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY SECTION 3: COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES SECTION 4: PROBLEMS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS SECTION 5: GOALS AND POLICIES SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES/IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Figures Figure 1: City Location Figure 2: Watershed District Boundaries Figure 3: Water Resource Problem Areas Figure 4: National Wetland Inventory Figure 5: DNR Public Waters and Wetlands Figure 6: FEMA Floodplain Boundary Figure 7: Subwatershed Delineations Figure 8: Drinking Water Supply Management Areas Figure 9: Hydrologic Soils Group Figure 10: Existing Land Use Figure 11: Future Land Use Figure 12: Zoning Figure 13: MLCCS Land Cover Figure 14: Groundwater Appropriations Figure 15: Potential Pollutant Sources Figure 16: Wetland Functional Assessment Figure 17: Wetland and Watercourse Inventory (VRWJPO) Figure 18: Conservation Corridor and Biological Significance Figure 19: Parks and Trails Appendix B – Water Resource Related Agreements Appendix C – Water Resource Related Feasibility Reports C.1: Shannon Pond Outlet/Lift Station C.2: Wachter Pond Drainage Study C.3: Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements C.4: Downtown Redevelopment Storm Water Management Plan Appendix D – City-Wide Hydrologic and Hydraulic Model Report Appendix E – City Engineering Guidelines Appendix F – Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Appendix G – Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Agreement and Maintenance Requirements Appendix H – Shoreline Stabilization Practices Appendix I – Infiltration Design Options Appendix J – NPDES SWPPP Permit Appendix K – DNR Water Appropriations Permits Appendix L – VRWJPO 2016 Standards Appendix M – MPCA Lake Water Quality Standards by Ecoregion Appendix N – Stormwater Trunk Fee Justification Report Appendix O – City Skimmer Detail Appendix P – Temporary Dewatering Figure Appendix Q – City Ordinances GLOSSARY Page iv CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AUAR – Alternative Urban Areawide Review BMP – Best Management Practice BWSR – Board of Water and Soil Resources CIP – Capital Improvement Plan City – City of Rosemount DC2030 – Dakota County 2030 Comprehensive Plan DC2040 – Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan DCES – Dakota County Environmental Services DNR – Department of Natural Resources DWSMA – Drinking Water Supply Management Area EPA – Environmental Protection Agency ERA – Emergency Response Areas FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency FHA – Federal Housing Administration FIRM – Flood Insurance Rate Maps FIS - Flood Insurance Study HOA – Homeowners’ Association JPA – Joint Powers Agreement LGU – Local Governing Unit LHRP – Lebanon Hills Regional Park LHSMP – Lebanon Hills Stormwater Management Plan LID – Low Impact Development MCBS – Minnesota County Biological Society MCES – Metropolitan Council Environmental Services MLCCS – Minnesota Land Cover Classification System MnRAM – Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions MPCA – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MS4s – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES – National Pollution Discharge Elimination System GLOSSARY Page v CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NURP – Nationwide Urban Runoff Program OHWL – Ordinary High Water Level PCB – Polychlorinated Biphenyl PFOS – Perfluorooctane Sulfonate SSTS – Subsurface Sewage Treatment System STORET – Storage and Retrieval Database SWCD – Soil and Water Conservation District SWMP – Surface Water Management Plan (also called the Plan) SWPPP – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load TSS – Total Suspended Solids U of M – University of Minnesota UMore – University of Minnesota Outreach, Research and Education VRWJPO – Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization WCA – Wetland Conservation Act WHEP – Wetland Health Evaluation Program WHPP – Wellhead Protection Plan SECTION 1 Page 1 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. General This Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP, the Plan) has been developed to provide the City of Rosemount (the City) with direction concerning the administration and implementation of water resource activities within the City. This plan is intended to meet the requirements for a local surface water management plan as required by the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and be in conformance with Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Rules Chapter 8410. In addition to being in conformance with the above state law, this plan has also been developed to meet the needs, requirements, and direction outlined by the following list: 1. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) 2. State and Federal laws regarding the need to secure a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit 3. Metropolitan Council Water Resource Management Policy Plan This plan incorporates the approaches and direction provided in the programs and documents listed above into a comprehensive plan that can be consistently applied across the City. 1.2. Background, History, and Approach of Stormwater Management in the City of Rosemount Surface water management within the City of Rosemount has been a significant issue over the past several decades due to the topography within the City, which is characterized by a number of deep depressions with no natural overflow out of the City. The following is a brief summary of some of the key highlights: · In the 1980s, the City of Rosemount had a plan to construct lift station outlets for much of the City and discharge water to the south into the Vermillion River. · The proposed outlet to the south was pursued until the mid-1990s, when the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) began to inquire about expansion of the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant. Based on regional environmental concerns related to the trout stream designation of the Vermillion River, the MCES deemed it prudent to redirect treated effluent from the expanded Empire plant to the east, into the Mississippi River, rather than directly discharging effluent into the Vermillion River. · At approximately the same time that the MCES outlet discussions were ongoing, the City of Rosemount began to re-examine additional options related to providing an overflow from the City. · The 2002 and 2007 SWMPs included plans to capture the majority of the City’s runoff and direct it to the MCES interceptor and eventually discharge water to the east to the Mississippi River. · In 2014, the VRWJPO updated its watershed wide model to include the City and found intercommunity flow standards out of the City of Rosemount through four existing discharge points south and east through Empire Township and Nininger Townships to the Vermillion River. These existing condition intercommunity flow rate standards provided the City additional options for overflows out of the City that would not require routing all runoff through SECTION 1 Page 2 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN a trunk line to the Mississippi River. Included in this plan are proposed overflow routes to both the Mississippi River and the Vermillion River through multiple discharge points out of the City. Part of this plan includes a draft proposed 80-year lease agreement with MCES to construct a temporary treated effluent outfall as part of the MCES interceptor which will discharge water to the east into the Mississippi River. This approach identifies using the excess capacity within the MCES outfall system to allow for up to a 50 cfs capacity stormwater overflow. To utilize this small discharge rate, the City requires storage of runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event for new development. For events with longer duration, a maximum peak stormwater discharge rate will be limited to 0.05 cfs/acre. It is important to note that these treatment areas do not utilize natural wetland areas to substitute for constructing stormwater ponds. As development occurs, the City anticipates construction of a permanent stormwater trunk conveyance system to the east located adjacent or near the proposed MCES outfall route. This system would be designed to manage the discharge for the critical event limited to .05 cfs per acre from the upstream drainage area (approx. 800 cfs). In addition to the agreement with the MCES for use of excess capacity within the outfall system, the City will also pursue and utilize overflow routes to the south and east through Empire Township and Nininger Townships to the Vermillion River, meeting the intercommunity flow standards the VRWJPO set with their 2014 watershed wide model update. 1.3. Executive Summary The Rosemount Surface Water Management Plan is divided into six sections. Brief descriptions of each of these sections are provided below. Section 1 Section 1 of this plan provides an introduction and purpose. An executive summary including accounts of the five remaining sections is included. This section includes a brief history of and approach to stormwater management in the City, as well as water resource related agreement descriptions. Section 2 Section 2 of this plan provides an inventory of land and water resources within the City including a general description and summary of data related to precipitation, geology, topography, flood problem areas, existing flood insurance studies, water quality, water management ordinances, surface and groundwater appropriations, groundwater, soils, land use, public utilities services, public areas for water- based recreation and access, fish and wildlife habitat, unique features, scenic areas and pollutant source locations within the City. A number of maps were also developed as part of the Plan to assist in summarizing this information. Section 3 Section 3 of this plan describes the City’s ordinances as well as other governmental controls and programs that affect water resource management. Section 4 Section 4 of this Surface Water Management Plan provides an assessment of the existing and potential water resource related concerns within the City. The problems/key issues identified below, which have a specific geographic location, have been identified in Figure 3, Appendix A. City-wide policy issues have been also identified in this section, but were not included in Figure 3, Appendix A. 1. Develop agreement to construct regional ponding at Flint Hills Resources. 2. Need for lateral drainage improvements in Rosemount along 120th Street. 3. Need to construct overflow system to east within the CSAH 42/Akron Alternative Urban SECTION 1 Page 3 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Areawide Review (AUAR) area. 4. Need for lake level monitoring on Keegan Lake. 5. Obtain approval for overflow to Mississippi River. 6. Need for lift station outlet from Shannon Pond and two options for constructing overflow from Shannon Pond to trunk system. 7. Need for overflow of basins near CR 38 to south into Marcotte Pond. 8. Need for overflow to south into Keegan Lake. 9. Need for pumped overflow at Wachter Pond. 10. Need for pumped overflow at Business Park Pond. 11. Limited freeboard and pump capacity at basin adjacent to Rosemount High School. 12. Need to address overall drainage issues at UMore. 13. Complete agreement with MCES to discharge into interceptor. 14. Need for overflow from Erickson Pond 15. Need to consider potential of redirecting flow (small subwatershed in southeast corner of City) into overflow trunk system 16. Need to pursue intercommunity agreement with the City of Coates. 17. The City discharges to multiple impaired waterbodies (Mississippi River, Vermillion River, East Lake and Farquar Lake) and will comply with any current and future TMDLs 18. The City will comply with the recommendations made in the Dakota County Environmental Services subwatershed assessment of Lebanon Hills Regional Park. Section 5 Section 5 of this plan outlines water resource management related goals and policies of the City. Section 6 Section 6 outlines implementation priorities and develops an implementation program. This section presents the program and discusses the responsibilities, priorities, and financial considerations associated with the implementation program. It also includes an amendment procedure for the Plan if needed. This document is expected to be a 10-year Surface W ater Management Plan, after which time this plan should be updated. However, if significant changes to the plan are deemed necessary prior to that date the City may revise this plan in its entirety. 1.4. Water Resource Related Agreements The City has entered into water resource-related agreements that govern in part how the City must manage its water resources. These agreements include agreements between the City and adjoining communities or agreements it may have with other governmental units or private parties. Listed below is a description of the water resource related agreements which the City has entered into. A copy of these agreements or appropriate portions thereof are included in Appendix B. ● Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Agreement: Established in 2003, the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Board, has adopted the Joint Powers Agreement with Scott County to manage the water management in the Vermillion River Watershed including the City of Rosemount. ● Cost Share Joint Powers Agreement: Established in 2007, cost share with VRWJPO related to the storm drainage improvement projects involving Dakota County’s Lebanon Hill Regional Park stormwater management. ● Agreement between City and Cities of Eagan, Apple Valley and Dakota County for downstream improvements in Lebanon Hills Regional Park and City of Eagan. SECTION 1 Page 4 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ● Agreements between City and Dakota County/VRWJPO regarding partnership and collaboration on Lebanon Hills Drainage Projects ● Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Empire Outfall Cost Share and Use Agreement – Pending ● Agreement between Flint Hills Resources and City on construction of Regional Pond. – Pending SECTION 2 Page 1 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2. LAND AND WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY In conformance with the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and as required in Minnesota Rules Section 8410.0060, this section of the plan provides a general description and summary of the climate, geology, surficial topography, surface and groundwater resource data, soils, land use, public utilities services, water-based recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, unique features, scenic areas, and pollutant sources. This section also identifies where detailed information can be obtained for many of these areas of concern. 2.1. Climate and Precipitation 2.1.1. Climate The climate for Dakota County, just south of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area is described as a humid continental climate with moderate precipitation, wide daily temperature variations, warm humid summers and cold winters. The total average annual precipitation is approximately 31 inches, of which approximately one-third occurs in the months of June, July and August. The annual snowfall average is about 56 inches and is equivalent to approximately 5.6 inches of water. Average monthly temperature and precipitation are shown in Table 2-1. The climate in Minnesota is constantly evolving and changing. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) notes that Minnesota is getting warmer and wetter, with more intense rain storms happening more frequently. Although climate conditions may vary from year to year, the DNR predicts these climate change trends will continue through the 21st century. 2.1.2. Precipitation A rainfall event having a 99% chance of occurrence in a given year, in a 24-hour period is approximately 2.5 inches. A rainfall event having a 1% chance of occurrence in a given year, in a 24-hour period is approximately 7.4 inches. These values are based on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Atlas 14 precipitation frequency estimates. Atlas 14 precipitation frequencies improve upon previously used frequencies by looking at a denser data network over a longer period of time and by using new techniques for spatial interpolation and mapping. Atlas 14 storms typically predict higher rainfall totals than previously used precipitation frequencies. The 100-year, 10-day runoff is 7.2 inches. Additional climatological information for the area can be obtained from the National Weather Service website or from State Climatologist website. 2.2. Existing and Proposed Drainage Patterns Stormwater runoff from the City is land-locked as the City has no positive outlet. The drainage in the City is characterized by a number of deep depressions. The majority of these depressions are landlocked, with no natural overflow out of the direct subwatershed of the basin. The specific drainage areas, which depict topography for areas within the City, are shown on the subwatershed delineation map on Figure 7, Appendix A and are further illustrated in the stormwater trunk system map in Appendix D. As can be observed from the subwatershed delineation map, the City is divided into many small watersheds. The subwatershed delineations, identified in Figure 7, Appendix A, utilized City topographic mapping, storm sewer as-builts, and have been further delineated to include the direct tributary subwatershed for many of the larger basins within the City. The proposed drainage pattern will include storing the 100-year, 24-hour storm event for new development. A temporary storm sewer trunk overflow system will be constructed to the east as part of the MCES treated effluent outfall to provide overflow capacity if needed to the Mississippi River. As development occurs, the City anticipates construction of a permanent stormwater trunk conveyance overflow system to the east located adjacent or near the proposed MCES outfall route. SECTION 2 Page 2 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2.3. Geology and Topographic Information 2.3.1. Geology: The City of Rosemount is located in north central Dakota County (Figure 1, Appendix A). Total area within the corporate limits is approximately 35 square miles. The northeastern boundary of the City is the Mississippi River. The City of Apple Valley borders to the west, while Eagan and Inver Grove Heights are to the north. The City of Coates, along with Empire Township and Vermillion townships border Rosemount to the south. Nininger Township borders to the east, in the areas where the Mississippi River does not. The two major geomorphic regions within the City are moraine topography and valley outwash. The Mississippi Valley Outwash Area is located along an approximate line from the southwestern part of the City to the northeast corner. This area was formed from the water associated with melting glaciers. The area appears as nearly level terraces and floodplains. On the higher terraces water tables are usually deep and in the low terraces water tables are shallow. The remaining part of the City is within the Eastern St. Croix Moraine geomorphic area. The area consists of relatively steep hills, rolling topography and some deep depressions that are filled with small lakes or peat. The area consists of a mixture of red and grey till and is composed of silt, clay, sand, pebbles, cobbles, and boulders. Water tables may be at or near the surface in the depressions, but are 10 feet or deeper in the hills. Based on the 1990 Dakota County Geologic Atlas, depth to bedrock within the City ranges from less than 50 feet in parts of eastern Rosemount to 250 feet in western Rosemount. The bedrock along the Mississippi River is between 350-400 feet below the surface. Bedrock formations include the St. Peter Sandstone and Prairie du Chien group with Jordan Sandstone and Franconia Formation near the Mississippi River. The City also contains an area in the east known as Rich Valley. Rich Valley is a covered karst valley. There are approximately 50 feet of outwash sand and gravel sediments that overlie the fractured and cavernous Prairie du Chien’s dolostones and sandstone. Additional geologic information for areas within the City can be found in the following plans: · Dakota County Geologic Atlas · Vermillion River Watershed Management Plan The Minnesota Geological Survey is in the process of updating Dakota County’s Geologic Atlas. The City will update its groundwater resource and geologic data with the new Dakota County Geologic Atlas information as necessary. SECTION 2 Page 3 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 2-1. Average Monthly Temperature and Precipitation Data for City Months Average Temp (F°) Precipitation (inches) Snowfall (inches) January 12.8 1.04 9.7 February 18.1 0.91 6.0 March 31.1 2.30 7.1 April 46.2 2.92 2.2 May 57.7 4.04 0.0 June 67.3 4.72 0.0 July 71.5 4.50 0.0 August 69.3 4.73 0.0 September 60.8 3.63 0.0 October 48.0 2.86 0.2 November 32.2 2.10 6.2 December 17.8 1.22 9.0 Totals 44.4 34.97 40.4 Source: National Centers for Environmental Information, Rosemount Research and Outreach Center 2.3.2. Topography: The topography of the City can be described as rolling, with short, steep slopes and numerous depressions. The slopes become longer and more gradual towards the east. The northeastern corner is characterized by river bluffs sloping to the Mississippi River. 2.4. City Surface Water Resource Data Available surface water resource data within the City is summarized in this section. Detailed information has been included either in the appendices to this report or has been identified by reference and is available from the Engineering Department. The hydrologic system of the City consists of wetlands, streams, and major water bodies as outlined below. 2.4.1. Wetlands The general locations of wetlands within the City are shown on different figures included in Appendix A. These figures show the National Wetland Inventory (Figure 4, Appendix A), the DNR Public Waters (Figure 5, Appendix A), Wetland Functional Assessment as identified in the City Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (Figure 16, Appendix A) and the VRWJPO Wetland and Watercourse Inventory (Figure 17, Appendix A). These wetlands provide habitat to many species of plants and animals. To comply with state and federal regulations, any wetland that may be impacted by a project within the City must be field delineated in accordance with the currently accepted wetland delineation method. When wetland modification is proposed, a more detailed functional assessment must be performed using an accepted wetland assessment methodology such as the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluation Wetland Functions (MnRAM). The VRWJPO is currently drafting a wetland banking policy for within the watershed boundary which would require replacement credits for wetland impacts occurring in the watershed. As the policy is completed the City will house a copy of the policy in the Engineering Department. The Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (WCA) states that Local Government Units (LGUs) are responsible for administering the rules of the WCA. The City acts as the LGU responsible for SECTION 2 Page 4 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN administering the WCA. 2.4.2. Major Bodies of Water There are several major water bodies that convey and store water within and through the City. These water bodies are the Mississippi River, Keegan Lake, White Lake, Birger Pond, Schwarz Pond, Wachter Lake, and many other unnamed water bodies (Figure 5, Appendix A). More information about these water bodies in included in various portions of this section. The Vermillion River Watershed Wetland and Watercourse Inventory and Assessment within the City of Rosemount is shown in Figure 17, Appendix A. This figure shows the wetland and waterway classifications as defined by the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). 2.4.3. Hydrologic Modeling (Water Quantity) The City’s hydrologic/hydraulic system consists of several land-locked depressions as the City has no positive surface water outlet. As part of this Surface Water Management Plan, the City has developed a trunk stormwater system outlet plan that will direct surface water east to the Mississippi River and south through Shannon Pond and the southeastern tributary streams to the Vermillion River. This proposed system in shown in Appendix D. As part of the Plan update project, the City’s hydrologic/hydraulic model was updated to Atlas 14 conditions and to current land use. The hydrologic/hydraulic modeling effort quantifies the peak discharge rates, outlet elevations, and other pertinent hydrologic/hydraulic information for stormwater retention areas, and trunk stormwater conveyance systems within the City. A summary of the modeling results and more detailed drainage system map is included as Appendix D. 2.5. Flood Insurance Studies A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) was completed for areas within the City in 1980 and was later updated in 2011. The Flood Insurance Study consists of a study report, a set of floodway and floodplain delineation maps, and a set of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) maps. The FIRMs are available from the City Engineering Department. The floodplain boundaries for the City are shown in Figure 6, Appendix A. The 100-year flood levels and peak discharge rates based on the City’s model are included in Appendix D. 2.6. Locations of Key Water Resource Issues A number of water resource issues/problems were identified within the City. Figure 3, Appendix A shows the locations of these key water resource issue areas which have a specific geographic location. These areas were identified through information obtained from City Advisory Committees and City Staff. City- wide policy issues and problems have been listed in Section 4 but have not been include in Figure 3, Appendix A. More detailed information about these issues is available in Section 4 of this Plan. 2.7. Water Quality Data 2.7.1. Overview Water quality data for the City has been obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) Environmental Data Access website. This database is utilized by participating agencies to compile water quality testing data and is almost entirely used for the storage of water quality parameters. Some of the available water quality information is summarized in Table 2-2: SECTION 2 Page 5 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 2-2 Water Quality Parameters for the Mississippi River Mean Total Phosphorus (ppb) Mean Chlorophyll a (ppb) Secchi Disk (meters) Carlson Trophic Status Mississippi River 244 53 0.25 Hypereutrophic 2018 List of Impaired Waters (Section 303d): Table 2-3 lists the waterbodies/water courses within the City or that the City discharges to that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency lists as having impaired uses due to excess pollutant(s): Table 2-3 Rosemount Impaired Water Bodies Waterbody/Watercourse (AUID) Year Added to List Affected Use Pollutant/ Stressor TMDL Status Completed TMDLs Mississippi River (Upper St. Anthony Falls to St. Croix) (AUID 07010206-814) 1994 Aquatic Consumption Mercury in fish Completed Minnesota Statewide Mercury TMDL Mississippi River (Upper St. Anthony Falls to St. Croix) (AUID 07010206-814) 1998 Aquatic Consumption Mercury in water column Completed Minnesota Statewide Mercury TMDL Mississippi River (Upper St. Anthony Falls to St. Croix) (AUID 07010206-814) 1998 Aquatic Consumption PCB in fish tissue 2020 Target Completion Mississippi River (Upper St. Anthony Falls to St. Croix) (AUID 07010206-814) 1998 Aquatic Consumption PFOS* in fish tissue 2025 Target Completion Mississippi River (Upper St. Anthony Falls to St. Croix) (AUID 07010206-814) 2008 Aquatic Consumption PFOS* in water column 2025 Target Completion Mississippi River (Upper St. Anthony Falls to St. Croix) (AUID 07010206-814) 2014 Aquatic Life Nutrients/ Eutrophication 2018 Target Completion Mississippi River (Upper St. Anthony Falls to St. Croix) (AUID 07010206-814) 2016 Aquatic Life Total Suspended Solids Completed South Metro Mississippi Turbidity TMDL Mississippi River (Upper St. Anthony Falls to St. Croix) (AUID 07010206-814) 2014 Aquatic Recreation Fecal Coliform 2022 Target Completion Vermillion River (AUID 07040001-507) 1994 Aquatic Recreation Fecal Coliform Completed Vermillion River Watershed TMDL Vermillion River (AUID 07040001-507) 2012 Aquatic Consumption Mercury in fish tissue Completed Minnesota Statewide Mercury TMDL Vermillion River (AUID 07040001-507) 2012 Aquatic Life Aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments 2023 Target Completion Vermillion River (AUID 07040001-507) 2012 Aquatic Life Fishes bioassessments 2023 Target Completion Farquar Lake (AUID 19-0023-00) 2002 Aquatic Recreation Nutrients/ Eutrophication Completed Long and Farquar Lakes Excess Nutrients TMDL SECTION 2 Page 6 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Waterbody/Watercourse (AUID) Year Added to List Affected Use Pollutant/ Stressor TMDL Status Completed TMDLs Unnamed Lake (East Lake) (AUID 19-0349-00) 2012 Aquatic Recreation Nutrients/ Eutrophication Completed Vermillion River Watershed TMDL *PFOS: Perfluorooctane sulfonates Figure 3, Appendix A shows the location of the impaired waters. 2.7.2. City Water Quality Monitoring The City started a water quality monitoring program in 2009 to fulfill multiple program requirements of the City’s MS4 General Permit. The City monitors between nine to fifteen water bodies a year for water quality parameters including total suspended solids, total phosphorus and chloride. The City also monitors water levels, evaporation and infiltration rates on different water bodies to help calibrate modeling and protect adjacent structures from flooding risks. Additional information on the City’s water quality monitoring can be found on the City’s website. 2.7.3. Additional Water Quality Information The City will also continue to support additional monitoring of surface waters within its jurisdictional boundaries and for waters to which the City discharges that are outside these boundaries. Data will obtained through cooperation and coordination with other various agencies, including the MPCA, adjacent cities and townships, the Metropolitan Council, the DNR, VRWJPO and Dakota County Environmental Services (DCES). The DCES completed a subwatershed assessment for the waterbodies within the Lebanon Hills Regional Park in 2017 to identify and prioritize watershed management solutions to improve the water quality and ecological communities of the lakes within the park. The northwest corner of the City eventually drains to either Jensen Lake or O’Brien Lake, two of the priority waterbodies studied in the assessment. The City will work with the DCES and adjacent cities to achieve the recommended TP load reductions of 10% and 5% to Jensen Lake and O’Brien Lake respectively. 2.8. Stormwater Asset Management Program (SWAMP) The City uses WSB’s SWAMP to monitor stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the City for water quality concerns. The program gives each BMP a score based on its estimated total suspended soils and total phosphorus removal efficiencies using survey data. The City uses SWAMP to determine which BMPs require maintenance and will be the most effective use of resources to restore. 2.9. Floodplain Management The City has adopted a Floodplain District to provide floodplain management for the City. A copy of these regulations can be found on the City’s website and are included in Appendix P. The intent of the floodplain district is to reduce risk to public health, property, and general welfare. These regulations prohibit uses or activities within the floodplain or floodway that include structures or fill or that obstruct flood flows or cause increased flood elevations. 2.10. Shoreland Management The City has adopted Shoreland Overlay Regulations. The purpose of these regulations is to protect shoreland areas to preserve and enhance surface waters. A copy of these regulations can be found on the City’s website and are included in Appendix P. SECTION 2 Page 7 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 2-3. Waterbodies Where Shoreland Regulations Apply Water Body No. Water Body Name Classification 19-8 Unnamed Natural Environment 19-9 Unnamed Natural Environment 19-10 Unnamed Natural Environment 19-12 Unnamed Natural Environment 19-5 Mississippi River General Development 19-11 Keegan Lake Recreational Development Table 2-3 lists the waterbodies and Figure 5, Appendix A shows the location of these waterbodies with the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL), if applicable. 2.11. Groundwater Appropriations Within the City, groundwater wells serve the City and private water needs. Each of these wells has a groundwater appropriation permit from the DNR. There are 16 active water supply wells in the City, all are in the western half of the City. Most of the wells in the eastern half of the City are used for industrial or agricultural purposes. Figure 14, Appendix A shows the types and locations of groundwater well sites within the City. Appendix K includes a list of the groundwater appropriations permits within the City as well as the historical pumping amounts for the last 7 years. 2.12. Groundwater Resource Data Groundwater resource data for areas within the City is contained within the Dakota County Geologic Atlas and the City’s Wellhead Protection Area Delineation report (Barr, 2002). The primary aquifers within the City of Rosemount consist of the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers. Information from the Geologic Atlas and Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP) indicate that the aquifers in Rosemount and Dakota County generally flow to the northeast. This would indicate that Rosemount’s groundwater primarily discharges to the Mississippi River. Figure 8, Appendix A shows the vulnerability of each of the Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMA) as well as the wellhead protection areas within the City. The Dakota County Comprehensive Plan (DC2030) contains information on the County’s natural systems and land use and is currently the guiding document for groundwater protection in the County. The County’s Comprehensive Plan is currently being updated (DC2040). Upon its adoption, anticipated in February 2019, DC2040 will become the guiding document on groundwater protection. The City will continue to work with Dakota County to protect groundwater resources. The City’s WHPP discusses possible connections between surface water and groundwater in the City. Tritium is an element associated with nuclear bomb testing in the 1950s and 60s and is used as a tracer of surface water and groundwater interactions. Tritium is not a health concern, but trace amounts of tritium found in the drinking water for the City indicates a likely surface water connection to groundwater. Further discussion on the interaction between the surface water and groundwater can be found in Part II of the WHPP which can be found on the City’s website. 2.13. Wellhead Protection Three wellhead protection areas have been identified by the City. Two of these areas are located in the western portion of the City and one area is located in the eastern portion of the City. Part I of the City’s WHPP was completed in 2002, amended in 2010 and includes information on areas within the City where wells and aquifers are vulnerable to impairment. In 2012, Part II of the City’s WHPP Plan was completed. Part II of the WHPP discusses plans of action the City will take to ensure risk of impairment to wells and aquifers within the City are minimized. The plans of action discussed in Part II of the WHPP include educating landowners with private wells, SECTION 2 Page 8 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), or storage tanks the importance of controlling possible contamination sources, working with other government entities to share information and create policies that prevent contamination of aquifers, and working with Minnesota Department of Health to sample and test for stable isotopes in existing and future mining areas. 2.14. Soils Information The soils within the City area generally have high infiltration rates and are susceptible to erosion. The hydrologic soil groups map is shown in Figure 9, Appendix A. The four soil classifications are defined as follows: Group A - These soils have high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. The infiltration rates range from 0.3 to 0.5 inches per hour. These soils consist chiefly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands and gravel. Group A soils have a high rate of water transmission, therefore resulting in a low runoff potential. Group B - These soils have moderate infiltration rates ranging from 0.15 to 0.30 inches per hour when thoroughly wetted. Group B soils consist of deep moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. Group C - These soils have slow infiltration rates ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 inches per hour when thoroughly wetted. Group C have moderately fine to fine texture. Group D - These soils have very slow infiltration rates ranging from 0 to 0.05 inches per hour when thoroughly wetted. Group D soils are typically clay soils with high swelling potential, soils with high permanent water table, soils with a clay layer at or near the surface, or shallow soils over nearly impervious material. The soils in the northwest and north central part of the City are from the Kingsley-Mahtomedi series and are characterized as gently sloping to very steep, loamy, and silty textured soils. The Waukegan- Wadens-Hawick association, which is common in the northeast and southern portion of the City, is defined as level to very steep, silty, loamy, and sandy textured soils. Additional information on the soil for the City is available in the Dakota County Soil Survey available at City Hall. 2.15. Land Use and Public Utilities Services The City’s land use practices include residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and public and private open space areas. Figure 10, Appendix A is a representation of the existing land use. Figure 11, Appendix A shows the future land use. Figure 12, Appendix A shows the zoning breakdown within the City. Most of the residences and businesses in the City are served by public water and sewer systems. The City does, however, contain some SSTSs. Some of these sites are anticipated to be abandoned and converted to city services in the next 10-20 years. 2.16. Public Areas for Water Based Recreation and Access There are a number of water bodies that offer passive recreation such as walking, hiking, and bird watching. Spring Lake Park Reserve is a County Park located in eastern Rosemount and is adjacent to the Mississippi River. Spring Lake Park offers picnic shelters, community garden plots and miles of trails for hiking. There are no public water accesses within the City. The Rosemount Splash Pad which opened in 2014 is in Central Park and is open throughout the summer SECTION 2 Page 9 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN to residents. The Splash Pad is an aquatic park that has little to no standing water and offers residents with smaller children a safe, fun place to play in the water during the summer. Other attractions at various parks within the City include a disc golf course, off leash dog parks, a gaga ball pit, a skate park and an amphitheater which can be rented out for private events. Figure 19, Appendix A shows the location of City and regional parks and trails. Some of the regional trails have not been constructed yet but are planned for the future. The figure also includes the alignment for the planned Regional Bicycle Transportation Network. 2.17. Fish and Wildlife Habitat The City provides habitat for a variety of small mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, and insects. Maintenance of habitat for wildlife species is important in maintaining ecological stability of the City’s natural areas. The wetland inventory found in the City’s Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan, last amended February 2013, (Appendix F) assesses a number of wetland functions such as floral diversity, wildlife habitat, and fisheries habitat for each wetland. The Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP) engages volunteers throughout Dakota and Hennepin counties to help monitor wetlands in their communities. The City will continue to participate and support the WHEP to help keep residents involved and invested in the health of community wetlands. Based on the information from the Minnesota County Biological Society (MCBS) and Natural Heritage Database, there are a variety of unique wildlife habitats and rare species within the City, much of which are located along the Mississippi River. Figure 18, Appendix A shows the location of the MCBS sites of biological significance as well as the Mississippi River Critical Area and the Metropolitan Conservation Corridor. The wildlife habitat along the River consists of Oak Forest-Dry subtype, Floodplain Forest- Silver Maple Subtype, and Dry Prairie-sand-gravel subtype. Other habitat in the City consists of Oak forest – mesic subtype and Tamarack swamp. A number of rare or endangered species have been noted in the City including Blanding’s turtles, Gopher snake, Fox snake, Red-shouldered hawk, and Loggerhead shrike. The endangered plant James’ polanisia has been noted near the River. The Mississippi River is the primary source of fish habitat in the City. Information from the DNR indicates that Schwarz Pond has been consistently stocked with bluegill and walleye over the past ten years. 2.18. High Value Natural Areas, Unique Features and Scenic Areas Unique features and scenic areas include State designated Scientific and Natural Areas, designated scenic areas, areas containing rare and endangered species, biologically diverse areas, and historic areas. The City has many natural areas, water bodies, and city/regional parks. Some of these areas contain rare and endangered species and special habitats as indicated above. The City has no Scientific and Natural Areas or wild and scenic rivers as defined by the State. The City does have a number of historical and architectural resources as identified by the Minnesota State Historical Preservation Office. The sites and locations of these resources can be found in the Water Resource Library. SECTION 2 Page 10 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 2-4. Historic Properties/Sites within the City of Rosemount Site Approximate Location Rosemount House Section 30, T115, R19 Catholic Temperance League Hall Section 29, T115, R19 St. Joseph Catholic Church Section 29, T115, R19 Houses Sections 17,25,26,28&35, T115, R19 The Well, A United Methodist Church Section 29, T115, R19 School Section 24, T115, R19 Kamps Farmstead Section 17, T115, R19 Rosemount High School Section 29, T115, R19 Old Rectory Section 20, T115, R19 Continental Nitrogen and Resources Section 18, T115, R18 Koch Refinery Section 19, T115, R18 Barn Section 19, T115, R18 Russell Farmstead Section 32, T115, R18 Jagoe Farmstead Section 31, T115, R18 Edmund Knodt Farm Section 31, T115, R19 Gopher Ordnance Works Buildings Sections 34,35&36, T115, R19 Gopher Ordnance Works Buildings Section 2, T114, R19 Pine Bend Cemetery Section 18, T115, R18 Chicago Great Western Railway Section 36, T115, R19 Bridge 9110 Section 18, T115, R18 St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Cemetery Section 26, T115, R19 St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church and School Section 25, T115, R19 Agricultural Outbuildings Section 25, T115, R19 Farmstead Section 25, T115, R19 Industrial Complex Section 25, T115, R19 Figure 18, Appendix A shows the MCBS sites of biodiversity significance, the Metropolitan Conservation Corridor, the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) regionally significant ecological areas, and the Mississippi River Critical Area. 2.19. Polluant Source Locations Information from the MPCA is shown on Figure 15, Appendix A. This figure shows the approximate locations of a variety of pollutant sites. Many of the sites on the figure have been cleaned up or are in the process of being cleaned up. The MPCA should be contacted for site-specific details. SECTION 2 Page 11 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2.20. NPDES Phase II The MPCA implemented the NPDES Phase II Stormwater Program in March 2003. Phase II requires municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) in urban areas with populations over 10,000 and under 100,000 to obtain a General NPDES permit. The City has submitted its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in conformance with the MPCA guidelines for the General NPDES permit. The 2013 reissuance application for the MS4 General Permit that was sent to the MPCA is included in Appendix J. This reissuance application was accepted by the MPCA and the City is currently permitted under the latest version of the MS4 General Permit. Separately, construction sites greater than one acre are required to obtain a NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. SECTION 3 Page 1 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 3. AGENCY COOPERATION There are a number of other local, state, and federal agencies that have rules and regulations related to stormwater management. Through this strategy, the City recognizes these other agencies’ role in this endeavor and will cooperate and coordinate with these agencies as necessary. This Plan is in conformance with but does not restate all other agency rules that are applicable to water quality and natural resource protection. The other agency rules and policies include rules, policies, and guidelines associated with the following organizations: ● Minnesota Department of Health ● Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ● Board of Water and Soil Resources and the Wetland Conservation Act ● Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ● US Army Corps of Engineers ● Minnesota Department of Agriculture ● US Fish and Wildlife Service ● Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization ● Dakota County SWCD While these other agency rules, policies, and guidelines are not all restated in this Plan, they are applicable to projects, programs, and planning within the City. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual, which is a document intended to be frequently updated, is incorporated by reference into this Plan and can be found on the MPCA’s website. 3.1. Personnel Contacts To implement this plan, a coordinated water resource management approach must be used. This approach utilizes the services of staff personnel within the City and surrounding communities, as well as staff associated with the Watershed Management Organization having jurisdiction over areas within the City. The Watershed Management Organization having jurisdiction within the City are shown on Figure 2, Appendix A. The primary implementation responsibility will lie with the appropriate staff members at the City. Assistance from the surrounding municipalities and Watershed Management Organizations will also be expected. Outlined below are the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and website address for personnel having responsibilities for overseeing or implementing various aspects of the Plan. Brian Erickson, PE City Engineer City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 (651) 322-2022 SECTION 3 Page 2 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Mark Zabel Watershed Administrator, Dakota County Dakota County / Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 891-7000 3.2. Future Outfall Cooperation Overflow routes are proposed to both the Mississippi River and the Vermillion River through multiple discharge points out of the City. The City will look to partner with MCES on part of this plan which includes a draft proposed 80-year lease agreement with MCES to construct a temporary treated effluent outfall as part of the MCES interceptor which will discharge water to the east into the Mississippi River. This approach identifies using the excess capacity within the MCES outfall system to allow for up to a 50 cfs capacity stormwater overflow. To utilize this small discharge rate, the City requires storage of runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event for new development. For events with longer duration, a maximum peak stormwater discharge rate will be limited to 0.05 cfs/acre. It is important to note that these treatment areas do not utilize natural wetland areas to substitute for constructing stormwater ponds. As development occurs, the City anticipates construction of a permanent stormwater trunk conveyance system to the east located adjacent or near the proposed MCES outfall route. This system would be designed to manage the discharge for the critical event limited to .05 cfs per acre from the upstream drainage area (approx. 800 cfs). In addition to the agreement with the MCES for use of excess capacity within the outfall system, the City will also look to partner with neighboring communities and work with the VRWJPO to pursue and utilize overflow routes to the south and east through Empire Township and Nininger Townships to the Vermillion River, meeting the intercommunity flow standards the VRWJPO set with their 2014 watershed wide model update. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 1 4. PROBLEMS, KEY ISSUES, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Outlined below is an assessment of existing and potential water resource-related problems that are known at this time. These problems have been identified based on an analysis of the land and water resource data collected as part of this plan preparation and through information from the City. A description of any existing or potential problem within the topic area has been listed and future corrective actions have been incorporated into an implementation plan. Please note that problems/key issues identified in this section which have a specific geographic location have been identified in Figure 3, Appendix A. City-wide policy issues have been also identified in this section but have not been identified in Figure 3, Appendix A. 4.1. Lake and Stream Water Quality 1. The Mississippi River, Spring Lake, Farquar Lake, East Lake and the Vermillion River are currently identified as impaired by the MPCA. It is unclear at this time what if any implications the classification of the Mississippi River may have on the permitting status of the stormwater overflow project. (Key Issue No. 17 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Actions: A. The South Metro Mississippi River Total Suspended Solids (TSS) TMDL addresses reducing the TSS load within the Mississippi River and Spring Lake. The City will comply with the TMDL requirement of an overall reduction of 20% in TSS loads to these waterbodies. B. The Vermillion River Watershed TMDL addresses bacteria and nutrient impairments for the watershed to meet State water quality standards. The City will comply with the TMDL’s requirements of maintaining the existing phosphorus loading to the Vermillion River and reducing TP loads to East Lake by 42%. The City will work with the MCPA, Dakota County, the VRWJPO and adjacent cities to promote and educate the community on improved fertilizer and manure application to reduce phosphorus loads to the Vermillion River Lower Mainstem. The City will work with agricultural landowners to identify opportunities for installation of water and sediment control basins, grassed waterways, contour farming or other conservation BMPs to improve upland/field surface runoff routed to the Vermillion River Lower Mainstem. C. The Lower Vermillion River Watershed Turbidity TMDL addresses reducing the TSS load to the Vermillion River to address turbidity concerns. The City will comply with the TMDL’s requirement of maintaining the existing TSS load to the Vermillion River. D. The Long and Farquar Lakes Nutrient TMDL addresses reducing the phosphorus load to the two lakes to address the excess nutrient and eutrophication problems in the lakes. The City will comply with the TMDL’s requirement of maintaining their existing phosphorus loading to Farquar Lake. E. Pursue grant programs for volunteer monitoring program on these waterbodies. 2. The DCES completed a subwatershed assessment for the waterbodies within the Lebanon Hills Regional Park in 2017 to identify and prioritize watershed management solutions to improve the water quality and ecological communities of the lakes within the park. A portion of the northwest corner of the City was drains to either Jensen Lake or CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 2 O’Brien Lake, and was included in the subwatershed assessment. (Key Issue No. 18 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Actions: A. The City will work with the DCES and adjacent cities to achieve the recommended TP load reductions of 10% and 5% to Jensen Lake and O’Brien Lake respectively. 3. In 2007, the City was required by the MPCA to complete a loading assessment and a nondegradation report. The report estimates change in TSS and TP from development since 1988 and future loading with development that could occur by 2020. Corrective Actions: A. The report concluded the current City standard meets the nondegradation standard for annual runoff volumes, phosphorus loads, and TSS loads on a City-wide basis between 1990 and 2020. Therefore, no impacts are expected to occur, and a mitigation plan is not necessary. B. The City will continue to require new developments to store the 100-year, 24-hour storm on-site. This, coupled with the City’s other existing policies for runoff reduction and water quality BMPs, will ensure that the vast majority of runoff volumes and pollutant loads will be retained on-site for new developments. C. As TMDLs are developed, loading reductions will be prioritized through any wasteload allocations assigned. The City will continue to use this Nondegradation Report as a reference. The report can be found on the City’s website. 4. Need to implement the City’s Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. Corrective Actions: A. Continue LGU responsibilities under WCA and Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. B. The City has a limited number of naturally occurring wetlands, most being in the northwest corner of the City. The City places a high priority on maintaining and improving the quality of the few naturally occurring wetlands it has. C. Update the City’s Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan to be in compliance with the VRWJPO’s wetland buffer requirements. D. Continue to participate in the WHEP program as identified in the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. 5. Need to consider the potential use, location and level of protection for various water quality treatment methods to provide additional water quality treatment upstream of impaired and various other waterbodies. Corrective Actions: A. The City will look for opportunities to install various water quality treatment methods to improve the quality of impaired or other waterbodies. Possible water quality treatments to be considered include water reuse, iron fillings, alum treatment, or CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 3 filtration benches among others. 6. Algae can be an issue in storm ponds and lakes and prompt resident complaints. Corrective Actions: A. The City will implement resident education in collaboration with VRWJPO on lawn fertilization and its contribution to phosphorus loading and algae growth in water bodies. The City will also work to educate residents on the importance of installing and maintaining buffers around storm ponds, lakes and wetlands. B. The City will look for prioritize pond inspection and maintenance activities in accordance with its Storm Water Asset Management Program (SWAMP) and MS4 General Permit SWPPP. 7. The possibility of contamination exists when there are connections between groundwater and surface water. Corrective Actions: C. To protect groundwater, the City will follow the objectives and plan of action as identified in its Wellhead Protection Plan. The most recent Wellhead Protection Plan can be found on the City’s website. Guidance from the MDH will be followed to determine the applicability of infiltration in the DSWMAs. The City will collaborate with Dakota County and the VRWJPO to protect this resource as feasible. 4.2. Flooding and Stormwater Rate Control 1. The City of Rosemount does not have an overflow for stormwater to exit a large portion of the City. The City has developed the proposed overflow project to the Mississippi River identified in this Plan, which includes a draft proposed 80-year lease agreement with MCES to construct a temporary treated effluent outfall as part of the MCES interceptor and discharge of water to the east into the Mississippi River. This approach uses the excess capacity within the MCES outfall system to allow for up to a 50 cfs capacity stormwater overflow. To utilize this small discharge rate, the City requires storage of runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event for new development. For events with longer duration, a maximum peak stormwater discharge rate will be limited to 0.05 cfs/acre. It is important to note that these treatment areas do not utilize natural wetland areas to substitute for constructing stormwater ponds. As development occurs, the City anticipates construction of a permanent stormwater trunk conveyance system to the east located adjacent or near the proposed MCES outfall route. This system would be designed to manage the discharge for the critical event limited to 0.05 cfs per acre from the upstream drainage area (approx. 800 cfs). This issue has been identified in previous plans, including the 2003 Rosemount SWMP. (Key Issue No. 5 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. Construct west portion of stormwater trunk line (Segment D – construct Basin #1816 outlet (Connemara Trl and Akron Ave) to #1787). B. Construct middle portion of stormwater trunk line (construct trunk line from Basin #1787 to #1599 and 2391 Flint Hills Resources). CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 4 C. Construction eastern portion of stormwater trunk line (construct trunk line from #2391 Flint Hills Resources to Mississippi River). The construction of the overflow will be phased, with portions of the project constructed as part of the development, City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and other segments incorporated along either the MCES outfall system or along the future Connemara Trail alignment. The timing for final completion of the overflow may require implementation of interim projects to provide some overflow capabilities. 2. The City is currently in discussions with Flint Hills Resources relating to construction of a regional ponding treatment area located within the southwestern portion of the Flint Hills Resources property. The purpose of this regional ponding area would be to provide water quality, rate control and volume control before overflow into proposed MCES treated effluent outfall system. The City will work to secure easements and obtain agreements for the construction of this proposed ponding area located near the trunk system on Flint Hills Resources property, possibly near Basin #1599. The final parameters related to the use and longevity of this system will be further determined as agreements with MCES and Flint Hills Resources are discussed. (Key issue No. 1 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. Develop agreement and construct regional treatment and infiltration pond located on Flint Hills Resources property. 3. The City of Rosemount does not have an overflow for stormwater to exit the City. The City is pursuing an agreement with MCES regarding specific use and discharge parameters for a temporary treated effluent outfall to the Mississippi River identified in this Plan, which includes a draft proposed 80-year lease agreement with MCES to construct a stormwater outfall system to the Mississippi River. (Key Issue No. 13 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. The City proposes an interim stormwater trunk system as part of the proposed MCES treated effluent outfall. This proposed combined system will be constructed as part of the MCES treated effluent outfall and will incorporate the necessary capacity to provide the City with capacity to implement the City’s proposed stormwater management plan and overflow system for the City. It is anticipated that the City will be authorized a peak discharge rate of up to 50 cfs. The proposed outlet structure at this facility may require monitoring to evaluate discharge rate and water quality parameters. Point of connection to the MCES outfall is projected to be near the old Rosemount Wastewater treatment plant off 140th street east of TH 52. 4. The City currently contains approximately 100-150 landlocked depressions (as identified in Figure 3, Appendix A) the majority of which do not have natural overflows and do not discharge to downstream waterbodies. These depressions are anticipated to experience increased inundation as development occurs or during wet periods. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 5 Corrective Action: A. The City will update the existing temporary dewatering plan based on Atlas 14 modeling and revised flood protection elevations to be implemented during large storm events to provide relief for landlocked basins which otherwise would have the potential to flood adjacent or downstream structures. The updated temporary dewatering plan, once completed, will be utilized as an interim solution for some of the problems presented in Section 4.2 and will be included in Appendix P when completed. B. The City will investigate these basins and provide overflows or manage water elevations as outlined in the City’s Stormwater Model. Many of these basins will ultimately be provided overflows upon completion of new developments in the area. Any overflows from these basins will comply with the City’s for rate control, runoff volume control and low floor requirements including storing runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event for new development and restricting discharge for events with longer duration to a maximum peak stormwater discharge rate of 0.05 cfs/acre. The above mentioned City standards assure that proposed overflows will comply with VRWJPO standards, including but not limited to the drainage alternation standards identified in Section 9 of the VRWJPO standards. 5. Several basins located northwest of Keegan Lake do not have an outlet or overflow. The City has determined the need to pursue a possible overflow to discharge water to south into Keegan Lake and ultimately into the City trunk storm sewer system. (Key Issue No. 8 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. The City will utilize temporary dewatering in the interim until outlets have been constructed for the landlocked basins. The City will update the existing temporary dewatering plan based on Atlas 14 modeling and revised flood protection elevations to be implemented during large storm events to provide relief for landlocked basins which otherwise would have the potential to flood adjacent or downstream structures. B. The Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Feasibility Report was completed in 2009 and updated in 2017 to providing emergency outlets to many of the landlocked basins upstream of Keegan Lake. The City will construct storm sewer system for basins northwest of Keegan Lake (Basins #1521, 1465, 1435, 1355, 1405, 1482) and construct overflow to Keegan Lake as recommended in the 2017 feasibility report. 6. There is a 153 acre subwatershed located within the southeast corner of the City that is proposed to discharge directly into the Vermillion River. (Key issue No. 15 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. As development occurs in the southeast corner the City will implement new development guidelines for this area to capture additional runoff from new impervious. Intercommunity flowrates that have been established by the VRWJPO will be enforced. 7. Shannon Pond is a landlocked stormwater basin in southwest Rosemount just northwest of the intersection of Shannon Parkway and 160th Street West. The pond currently receives direct drainage from existing neighborhoods north of the pond within Rosemount totaling approximately 143 acres. The City has identified the need for an overflow from CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 6 Shannon Pond to maintain stormwater storage. The City desires to work with VRWJPO and Empire Township to explore an increase in the determined 2016 intercommunity flow standard discharging stormwater south across CSAH 46 into Empire Township (Barton Sand & Gravel Co. ponding areas) A lift station was previously proposed from Shannon Pond as an overflow/stormwater trunk system to discharge to the east into either Basin 2302 or Basin 2274 and ultimately to the northeast into the MCES/City overflow system. . (Key Issue No. 6 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. Construct storm sewer overflow improvements from Shannon Pond across CSAH 46 into Empire Township. This will require further permitting with VRWJPO, US Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota DNR, MPCA, Empire Township, along with private property owners to gain any necessary easements. B. Alternatively, if the overflow across CSAH 46 is determined not feasible or cannot be permitted, complete a feasibility study for a lift station outlet that will connect into trunk storm sewer system to the east. This would include determining the preferred downstream routing through the Business Park Pond drainage system (Basin 1990) into the Meadows of Bloomfield Development (Basin 1864) or along the west side of the UMore property. 8. Wachter Pond is a landlocked basin and as such, has experienced high water elevations due to development of the upstream conveyance system. The City’s hydrologic model that indicates low building opening elevations within the subwatershed are lower than the 100-year peak elevation for a 100-year, 10-day runoff event. The City has recently established an operational plan once water level exceeds elevation 910 which includes frequent monitoring and temporary pumping. (Key Issue No. 9 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. Until a downstream overflow system to the Mississippi River is constructed, water level on Wachter Pond can be managed consistent with operation plan by directing discharge to designated infiltration area south of the Business Park. Water could also be directed to an infiltration system (Basin #2274) to the east. This will require easements and/or a cooperative agreement to accommodate this discharge. Infiltration will be the primary mechanism to address the Wachter Pond issues until the downstream overflow system is constructed. 9. The existing Business Park Pond (Basin #1990) is landlocked. Development of the upstream watershed is anticipated to increase the volume of water being directed to the Business Park Pond and increase the need for an overflow from the basin. (Key Issue No. 10 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. The City will utilize temporary dewatering in the interim until an outlet has been constructed for Business Park Pond. The City will update the existing temporary dewatering plan based on Atlas 14 modeling and revised flood protection elevations to be implemented during large storm events to provide relief for landlocked basins which otherwise would have the potential to flood adjacent or downstream structures. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 7 B. Construct selected option to provide overflow and storm system either through construction of lift station outlet for Business Park Pond (Basin #1990) and /or downstream trunk along 150th Street to the east or along west side of UMore area and ultimately into proposed stormwater trunk system. 10. Continue discussion related stormwater management and overflow framework/policies for basins located in the Central and eastern portion of the University of Minnesota Outreach, Research and Education (UMore) property. The City anticipates that future development or redevelopment within this area will be implemented in a manner consistent with the standards and policies in the SWMP. (Key Issue No. 12 in Figure 3, Appendix A). Corrective Action: A. The City adopted the UMore Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) in 2013 to be used as a planning tool for the UMore property. The City will continue to collaborate on stormwater management and overflow/pumping options for landlocked basins located on central/eastern portion of UMore property with representatives from UMore as the AUAR gets updated every five years. 12. Areas in Lebanon Hills Regional Park (LHRP) in Eagan are experiencing increased inundation. Under existing conditions, the City of Rosemount directs stormwater from less than 700 acres into the LHRP. Staff from the VRWJPO, Dakota County and Cities of Apple Valley, Rosemount and Eagan have worked towards solutions for the ongoing issues that have occurred within the LHRP and the City of Eagan. As part of the City’s responsibilities associated with this proposed agreement, the City will implement lateral drainage improvements along 120th Street within the Lebanon Hills Watershed consistent with this agreement and the City’s Comprehensive Plan as development occurs in the area. In addition, the City will require infiltration systems to be constructed consistent with its stormwater policies as part of any redevelopment in the area to reduce the volume of runoff generated from the watershed in the future. (Key Issue No. 2 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. The City, VRWJPO, Dakota County and Cities of Apple Valley and Eagan have reached an agreement to finance construction of an overflow project to relieve high water issues in LHRP, which has been included in Appendix B and as identified in this appendix is incorporated into this Plan by reference. B. Implement above mentioned lateral drainage improvements along 120th Street for Basins 1012 and 1009 per the agreement between the City and Dakota County/VRWJPO as development occurs in the area. The agreement defined in Appendix B, between City and Dakota County/VRWJPO regarding partnership and collaboration on Lebanon Hills Drainage Projects is incorporated into this Plan by reference. 13. Schwarz Pond currently overflows to the east into basin 1770 through a lift station outlet with a peak discharge rate of 6.8 cfs. The City has established an operational plan once water level exceeds elevation 924.5 which includes frequent monitoring and temporary pumping. However, given current pump capacity, the 10-day critical event may become a concern related to freeboard protection of the nearby Rosemount High School. (Key Issue No. 11 in Figure 3, Appendix A) CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 8 Corrective Action: A. The City will continue to work with Rosemount High School on floodproofing measures in the interim while the best long-term solution is decided. B. Complete feasibility study to determine design parameter and costs related to construction of additional lift station or of increasing the capacity of the existing lift station at Schwarz Pond. C. Construct additional Schwarz Pond lift station outlet or increase the capacity of the existing Schwarz Pond lift station. 14. The City currently does not have an inter-community agreement to manage inter- community flows from the City of Coates into the City. (Key Issue No. 16 in Figure 3, Appendix A). Corrective Action: A. The City will consider pursuing working with the City of Coates and the VRWJPO to develop an intergovernmental agreement to account for the discharge into the City from the City of Coates consistent with the VRWJPO’s allocated intercommunity flows. 15. The Area located north of CSAH 42 in the Central Portion of the City was studied as part of the CSAH 42/Akron AUAR. As this area develops, applicants will be required to construct a stormwater trunk overflow systems to be installed as part of the developers agreements. It is anticipated that this overflow will be designed to discharge the necessary capacity consistent with City rate control requirements and the City’s SWMP. (Key Issue No. 3 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. Construct overflow from CSAH 42/AUAR area to the East consistent with Problem 4.2.1. 16. Erickson Pond is a landlocked basin. The estimated high water elevation for the pond has been identified at an elevation at or near the adjacent existing low building elevations on Burgundy Court. (Key Issue No. 14 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. The City will utilize temporary dewatering in the interim until an outlet has been constructed for the Erickson Pond. The City will update the existing temporary dewatering plan based on Atlas 14 modeling and revised flood protection elevations to be implemented during large storm events to provide relief for landlocked basins which otherwise would have the potential to flood adjacent or downstream structures. B. Complete feasibility study to investigate design options and cost related to installation of a lift station at Erickson Pond. C. Construct Erickson Pond Lift Station Outlet and downstream storm system to Basin #2474. 17. Basin 1213 (near CR 38) is landlocked, has experienced high water in the past and is identified to overflow during extreme events to the north into the LHRP. The City has CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 9 identified a series of interconnected gravity overflows from Basin 1213 which would redirect discharge to the south and into Marcotte Pond. (Key Issue No. 7 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. The City will utilize temporary dewatering in the interim until an outlet has been constructed for the landlocked basin. The City will update the existing temporary dewatering plan based on Atlas 14 modeling and revised flood protection elevations to be implemented during large storm events to provide relief for landlocked basins which otherwise would have the potential to flood adjacent or downstream structures. B. Investigate the need to and construct as needed an overflow lift station system from Basin 1213 to Marcotte Pond. 18. White Lake and School House Lake are currently landlocked. The estimated high water level has been estimated at an elevation that may cause flooding concerns to the adjacent properties. (Key Issue No. 19 in Figure 3, Appendix A) Corrective Action: A. The City will utilize temporary dewatering in the interim until an outlet has been constructed for the landlocked basins. The City will update the existing temporary dewatering plan based on Atlas 14 modeling and revised flood protection elevations to be implemented during large storm events to provide relief for landlocked basins which otherwise would have the potential to flood adjacent or downstream structures. B. Construct an outlet from the lakes to Basin 1280 to Basin 1403 and ultimately to Basin 1424. 4.3. Erosion and Sediment Control 1. During significant rainfall events, soil erosion (particularly from construction sites), has carried sediment to water bodies within the City. Sediment deposits reduce the depth of water and degrade the quality of water within a basin. Corrective Action: A. Continue to monitor and repair erosion control measures as required pursuant to the SWPPP within the City. (See Appendix J for a summary of the City’s SWPPP) B. Implement City SWPPP including but not limited to the public education program consistent with the City SWPPP. (See Appendix J for a summary of the City’s SWPPP). The City will also continue to implement the Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance. 4.4. Impact on Water Resources from Land Use Practices and Development 1. City needs to continue to educate residents on water resource issues as a result of urbanization. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 10 Corrective Action: A. The public education program will educate the residents, developers, City Staff, and City Officials on the impact of land use practices on stormwater management pursuant to the City’s SWPPP education program. 2. Aesthetics, undesirable odors and unwanted vegetation in and around stormwater management features can be a concern for City residents, specifically around Wachter Pond. The City recognizes that policies that more clearly identify requirements and responsibilities for maintenance, landscaping easements and ponding side slope areas around stormwater ponds/depressions would be beneficial. These additional policies will clarify the City’s responsibilities versus landowners or HOAs and should aid in addressing concerns about invasive plants, aesthetics, and maintenance of wildlife and natural corridors. Corrective Action: A. City will review and make recommendations for updating/clarifying policy for landscaping, allowable vegetation and expectations for vegetation management and maintenance around stormwater facilities. B. The City will work to educate landowners on the importance of installing and maintaining buffers around storm ponds, lakes and wetlands. C. The City will continue to install and will require new developers to install signage in and around wetland buffers where appropriate to be in compliance with the City’s Wetland Management Plan. D. Implement stormwater system maintenance plan consistent with City SWPPP. 4.5. Adequacy of Existing Regulations to Address Adverse Impacts on Local Water Resources 1. The City of Rosemount is in the process of exploring the benefits, drawbacks, costs effectiveness and feasibility of various stormwater management treatment methods. Several alternative stormwater management /low impact development (LID) techniques have been explored to determine how these practices fit with the City’s existing approach to stormwater management. The City will pursue development of policies on implementation of alternative stormwater management/LID practices, source control and infiltration policies within the Surface Water Management Plan. Particularly for those existing developed areas constructed before the onset of existing requirements, the City will pursue the use of on-site alternative BMPs, such as rain gardens and vegetative swales, to meet the City’s infiltration and rate control requirements. For many existing developed areas use of raingardens and related practices is a cost-effective and practical alternative to improving water quality and reducing discharge volumes over existing conditions. Corrective Action: A. Develop LID education program. Hold a series of workshops for residents. B. Establish a cost share program to create voluntary demonstration sites incorporating “alternative” BMPs. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 11 2. The City is a designated MS4 community for the NPDES permit. The City has incorporated appropriate educational components, all required BMPs and measurable goals associated with each. The City will implement the 34 required BMPs as required by this program. Corrective Action: A. Develop and implement NPDES Phase II (as defined in Appendix J). B. Develop and implement non-degradation requirements. 4.6. Identification of Potential Problems to Occur in the Next 20 Years 1. The City will pursue development of policies on implementation of alternative stormwater management/LID practices, source control and infiltration policies within the Surface Water Management Plan. Corrective Action: A. Complete hands-on resident education program and workshops to educate on LID techniques. 2. Determining the performance of existing stormwater facilities throughout the City. Corrective Action: A. Included in the City’s SWPPP are established BMPs aimed at storm sewer inspection and maintenance training programs. The City is to inspect all City-owned ponds and outfalls prior to the expiration of the current SWPP and all structural pollution control devices (sumps, water quality manholes, etc.). The City will also conduct quarterly inspections of all stockpile, storage, and material handling areas. The City will evaluate records to determine if inspection frequency should be increased or decreased. More information on the City’s stormwater maintenance and inspection program can be found in the SWPPP located in Appendix J. 3. Determining the need for pond sediment removal projects. Corrective Action: A. The City will implement WSB’s SWAMP to monitor stormwater BMPs for water quality concerns. The program estimates total suspended solids and total phosphorus removal efficiencies based on survey information. The City will use SWAMP to determine which BMPs require maintenance and will be the most effective use of City resources. 4. Increasing prevalence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in stormwater ponds from runoff of roads and other surfaces. Corrective Action: A. The City will identify stormwater ponds that are contaminated and follow protocol for disposal of dredged material. The City also bans the use of materials that contain CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 12 PAHs for paved surfaces for future development and redevelopment. 5. Increasing prevalence of chloride in surface and groundwater in the Twin Cities from road salt runoff from roadways and other impervious surfaces. Corrective Action: A. The City will work to implement preventative measures to reduce the chloride runoff before it reaches surface and/or groundwater. The City will continue to record and review the annual activities of the salt distribution program and adjust current practices as necessary. Other measures may include education and outreach for salt applicators (commercial or private), promote winter best practices, partnering with the VRWJPO for training, and other initiatives noted in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Management Plan. 4.7. Availability and Adequacy of Existing Technical Information to Manage Water Resources 1. The City acknowledges that additional technical and background information is required to efficiently and effectively anticipate infiltration rates in the City. Corrective Action: A. Continue implementation of ongoing infiltration monitoring program. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 5 Page 1 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF GOALS AND POLICIES The City has developed a number of goals, strategies, and policies for the management of stormwater within the City. These goals and policies have been developed to complement any county, regional, or state goals and policies. The goals of the City are as follows: 1. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems. 2. Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality. 3. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems. 4. Promote groundwater recharge. 5. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities. 6. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground water. 7. Improve resilience to changing precipitation and temperature patterns. To order to achieve the City’s goals for managing stormwater, four strategies were developed. These strategies will assist the City in targeting its main audiences for the purposes of stormwater management as follows: Strategies Cooperation with other agencies This strategy recognizes that the City is not alone in managing stormwater within its boundaries. There are a number of other local, state, and federal agencies that also have rules and regulations related to stormwater management. Through this strategy, the City has recognized these other agencies’ role in this endeavor and will cooperate and coordinate with these agencies as necessary. Education: This strategy includes educating various groups within the City about proper stormwater management. Education of residents, City Staff, City Council, business owners, and developers is included in this strategy to assist in meeting the City’s goals. Regulation: Much of stormwater management comes in the form of regulations put on new or redevelopment within the City. These regulations will also assist the City in achieving their stormwater management goals. Policies related to the management of stormwater are included in the regulation strategy. Internal operations: The final strategy relates to the internal operations of the City. By outlining policies related to how the City’s operations will treat and manage stormwater, the City can work to achieve its stormwater management goals. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 5 Page 2 The City has identified target audiences for the polices outlined in each strategy. The target audiences and strategies are as follows: AUDIENCE STRATEGY Public – Residents and Business Owners Education, Regulation City Staff and City Council Cooperation, Education, Operation Developers Education, Regulation Review Agencies Cooperation Based on the target audience and the strategy, the City has developed a number of policies. These policies are outlined below. 5.1. Cooperation with Other Agencies The City and VRWJPO established an agreement in 2007 for financial participation in the Lebanon Hills Regional Park Stormwater overflow project and to address issues related to distribution of revenues generated within the City of Rosemount. The Cost Share Joint Powers Agreement can be found in Appendix B. The City will be maintaining full LGU and stormwater permitting authority for all water resources and wetland related programs. The City does not anticipate the need to submit proposed land development plans to the VRWJPO for review and permitting unless an application for the use and development of land requires an amendment to or variance from the City's adopted Surface Water Management Plan or implement program or if plans include one of the following: 1. Diversions 2. Intercommunity flows (to or from) 3. Project site size of 40 acres or more 4. Activities directly adjacent to the Vermillion River, its tributaries, a lake, or protected wetland Agency rules, policies, and guidelines are not restated in this Plan, but are applicable to projects, programs, and planning within the City. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual, which is a document intended to be frequently updated, is incorporated by referenced into this Plan. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 5 Page 3 5.2. Education The purpose of the education strategy in meeting the City’s goals is to foster responsible water quality management practices by educating residents, business owners, City Staff, City Council, and developers about proper stormwater management. If these targeted audiences recognize their role in responsible stormwater management in their homes, businesses, and practices, it is another means for the City to meet its goals. This education strategy has also been designed to be in conformance with the NPDES requirements. STRATEGY: EDUCATION Policy No. Policy Target Audience 1 The City will implement public education as part of the NPDES Phase II program. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council 2 The City will implement educational activities and coordinate with the Dakota SWCD, and VRWJPO to distribute educational materials and promote outreach programs. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council 3 The City will develop and update its website for water resource management information as defined in City SWPPP. Residents, Business Owners, Developers 4 Development and redevelopment will be encouraged to reduce the amount of impervious surface and use LID techniques to the greatest extent reasonable taking into consideration land use, zoning, topography, previous site uses, and site constraints. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council 5 The City will develop and distribute an annual newsletter as defined in City SWPPP aimed at fostering responsible water quality management practices. Topics may include, but not be limited to: ● Wetland buffers ● Groundwater quality and protection ● Controlling invasive species ● Water conservation and the water cycle ● Proper hazardous waste disposal ● Yard waste management ● Agricultural BMPs ● Pet waste disposal Residents, Business Owners, Developers 6 The Dakota County SWCD, the Vermillion River Watch program and others, offer a number of education opportunities, including the following: ● Citizen Monitoring ● River Clean-Up ● Riverwatch ● Storm Drain Stenciling ● Blue Thumb Workshops and Training (SWCD) ● Educational Field Day (SWCD) ● General conservation practice information (SWCD) Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 5 Page 4 STRATEGY: EDUCATION Policy No. Policy Target Audience These organizations provide many other educational opportunities. 7 To promote and encourage all properties adjacent to lakes, wetlands and basins to establish a vegetative buffer strip consisting of native non-mowed vegetation, the City will coordinate a series of “hands-on” education training sessions focusing on LID practices that landowners can do to protect water resources. Policies related to vegetative buffer strips are outlined in the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan in Appendix F. Residents, City Staff 8 The City will develop and implement a public education program to inform residents about water resource related issues in conformance with the NPDES Phase II Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council 9 City will work to educate residents and developers on possible voluntary alternative/low impact development BMP design policies. It is anticipated that the City and other state and local partners may participate to establish demonstration projects to research potential low impact development techniques, stormwater reuse systems, alternative infiltration techniques, and land use management techniques. Residents, UMore Representatives, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council 5.3. Regulation The policies developed in this strategy outline specific stormwater management elements that are required to be implemented through the development and/or permitting process. The regulation strategy is targeted at the public, developers, City Staff, and City Council. STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Policy Target Audience Rate Control 1 The City plans to direct surface water to the east to the Mississippi River and south to Vermillion River out of Shannon Pond and Southeast portion of the City in accordance with the current VRWJPO intercommunity discharge rate limitations. Residents, Developers, City Staff and Council 2 For newly developing areas, no discharge or infiltration can be assumed for purposes of establishing the 100-year, 24-hour storm event high water elevation. For events with longer duration, a maximum peak stormwater discharge rate will be limited to 0.05 cfs/acre. Residents, Developers, City Staff and Council 3 In the event that the City will not be providing a regional system, storage of the runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event is required on site. Developers CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 5 Page 5 STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Policy Target Audience 4 Landlocked depressions that presently do not have a defined outlet and do not typically overflow may be allowed a positive overflow to prevent damage to adjacent properties. Any overflows from landlocked depressions will comply with the City’s rate control, runoff volume control and low floor requirements including storing runoff from the 100-year, 24- hour storm event for new development and restricting discharge to 0.05 cfs per acre for longer duration storm events. These above mentioned City standards assure that proposed overflows will comply with VRWJPO standards, including but not limited to the drainage alternation standards identified in Policy 9.3 and Criteria A of the VRWJPO rules. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council 5 Storm events or runoff events shall be defined as outlined below: a. The 2-year storm event is defined as 2.8” of rainfall in 24-hours. b. The 10-year storm event is defined 4.17" of rainfall over 24-hours. c. The 100-year storm event is defined as 7.41” of rainfall over 24-hours. d. The 10-day snowmelt is defined as 7.2” of runoff. See the City’s Engineering Guidelines in Appendix E for additional information on allowable storm events. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council 6 New storm sewer systems shall be designed to accommodate discharge rates from a 10-year storm event. Developers 7 The City will work with neighboring municipalities to require rate control prior to the discharge of stormwater across municipal boundaries. Intercommunity discharges will be required to meet adjacent municipal or VRWJPO requirements City Staff and Council 8 Redeveloping areas will be required to meet the standards in Section 5 of this plan to the maximum reasonable extent practical. As part of the evaluation of the redevelopment plans, the site will be evaluated based on the opportunity to meet these standards by the City Engineer and City Council. This evaluation will take into consideration that a downstream system may have been constructed to accommodate newly or redeveloping areas and therefore eliminate the need for expanded on-site improvements. City Staff and Council CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 5 Page 6 STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Policy Target Audience Flood Control 1 The City prohibits activities within the 100-year floodplain unless compensatory floodplain mitigation is provided at a 1:1 ratio by volume and it is demonstrated that the 100-year floodplain will not be impacted. In addition, no filling within the designated floodway of a drainage channel shall be allowed. Suitable calculations must be submitted and approved demonstrating that filling in the flood fringe will not impact the 100-year flood profile. Additional detail is provided in the City’s floodplain ordinance on the City’s website. Residents, Developers, City Staff and Council 2 Construction of new structures within a FEMA-designated floodplain is prohibited. Residents, Developers, City Staff and Council 3 The City shall restrict or prohibit uses within the floodplain that are dangerous to health, safety, or property in times of flood or which cause increase in flood elevations or velocities. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council 4 The City requires that for any new or redevelopment, at least 3 feet of freeboard between the anticipated critical 100-year high water elevation and the minimum building opening be maintained. Any deviation from the 3 feet freeboard requirement is subject to the following conditions and could be approved by the City Engineer if the following can be demonstrated: · That within the 2-foot freeboard area, stormwater storage is available which is equal to or exceeds 50% of the stormwater storage currently available in the basin below the 100-year high water elevation. · That a 25% obstruction of the basin outlet over a 24-hour period would not result in more than 1 foot of additional bounce in the basin. · An adequate overflow route from the basin is available that will provide assurance that 1 foot of freeboard will be maintained for the proposed low building opening. Residents, Developers, City Staff and Council CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 5 Page 7 STRATEGY: REGULATION No. Policy Target Audience 5 The City requires that minimum basement floor elevations be set to an elevation that meets the following criteria: A. The basement floor elevation will be 4 feet above the currently observed groundwater elevations in the area (Federal Housing Administration (FHA policy)). B. The basement floor elevation will be 2 feet above the elevation of any known historic high groundwater elevations for the area. Information on historic high groundwater elevations can be derived from any reasonable sources including piezometer data, soil boring data, percolation testing, etc. C. The basement floor elevation will be 1 foot above the critical 100-year high water elevation for the area unless it can be demonstrated that this standard creates a hardship. If a hardship is demonstrated, this requirement could be waived if a registered geotechnical engineer documents that the basement floor will be one foot above the highest anticipated groundwater elevation that could result from high surface water elevations raising the groundwater in the area during a 100-year critical duration rainfall event. The impact of high surface water elevations on groundwater elevations in the vicinity of the structure can take into consideration the site’s distance from the floodplain area, the soils, the normal water elevation of surface depressions in the areas, the static groundwater table and historic water elevations in the area. Residents, Developers, City Staff and Council CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 5 Page 8 Water Quality Treatment 1 Treatment of stormwater to the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) guidelines prior to discharge to wetlands and waterbodies classified as Preserve and Manage 1 as outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan and infiltration basins. The NURP guidelines for the design of stormwater treatment basins are as follows: A. A permanent pool ("dead storage") volume below the principal spillway (normal outlet) which shall be greater than or equal to the runoff from a 2.5-inch storm over the entire contributing drainage area assuming full development. B. A permanent pool average depth (basin volume/basin area) which shall be > 4 feet, with a maximum depth of < 10 feet. C. Basin side slopes above the normal water level should be no steeper than 3:1, and preferably flatter. A basin shelf with a minimum width of 10 feet and 1 foot deep below the normal water level is recommended to enhance wildlife habitat, reduce potential safety hazards, and improve access for long-term maintenance. D. The pond should be wedge shaped with the inlet at the narrowest end and the outlet at the widest end. A length to width ratio of 3:1 or greater shall be used whenever possible. Distance between outfalls and outlets should be maximized. Developers 2 Sediment and nutrient pretreatment shall be provided to the extent necessary as outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan in Appendix F. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council 3 The City will require skimmers in the construction of new pond outlets, and add skimmers to the existing system whenever feasible and practical. Skimmer design shall provide for skimmers that extend a minimum of 6 inches below the water surface and minimize the velocities of water passing under the skimmer to less than 0.5 feet per second for 1-year rainfall events. A skimmer detail is shown on Appendix O. Developers 4 The City prefers the use of multi-purpose regional treatment pond areas that provide an opportunity to enhance habitat and aesthetic features of the pond. These ponds will be designed to treat stormwater levels consistent with the use classifications of the downstream receiving water while also providing upland buffers and habitat improvements around the ponds. Developers, City Staff and Council 5 The City requires that new development projects provide no net increase of TP and TSS and that redevelopment projects provide a net reduction of TP and TSS. City Staff and Council 6 The City will work with the MPCA to incorporate future TMDL plans into City policies and standards as needed. City, MPCA, agencies, VRWJPO 7 The City will work with relevant government agencies to prepare and comply with the public participation process per the City’s SWPPP. MPCA, Developers, City Staff and Council CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 5 Page 9 8 The City intends to use both designated and non-designated areas to store stormwater runoff. Non-designated areas include general depressions, low points, and streets where structures and/or property are not damaged and any inundation that occurs is only be temporary in nature and do not cause a public safety hazard. Designated stormwater ponding and infiltration treatment areas shall be covered by City easements. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council 9 Two foot sump catch basin inlets are required for all new or redevelopment within a street. A 3-foot sump catch basin or manhole is required within the street just prior to discharge to a wetland, lake, or stream. Developers, City Staff and Council 10 The City shall manage shore areas in accordance with the shoreland management ordinance. This ordinance is included in Appendix P of this plan. City Staff and Council Infiltration/Volume Control 1 Development will be required to provide 1/12 of an acre-foot/acre/day of infiltration for the entire site’s acreage. For sites that create one or more acres of new impervious surface, this City standard, NPDES requirements or the VRWJPO runoff volume control standard will be applied, whichever is greater. Pretreatment of stormwater is required prior to discharge to an infiltration basin. Options available for infiltration design are included in Appendix I. Developers 2 Infiltration rates of soils for design purposes are as follows: Hydrologic soil group A : 0.30 in/hour Hydrologic soil group B : 0.15 in/hour Hydrologic soil group C : 0.07 in/hour Hydrologic soil group D : 0.03 in/hour Different infiltration rates will be considered (up to a maximum of 3.0 in/hour) by the City Engineer on a site-by-site basis based on percolation tests or other pertinent information conducted by a professional soil scientist or Professional Engineer. Developer will be required to submit post construction infiltration testing results to the City Engineer. Developers, City Staff and Council 3 The City may choose to develop a voluntary alternative/low impact BMP program. Developers, City Staff and Council 4 The City will consider the implementation of regional treatment areas within critical subwatershed located upstream of impaired or Preserve/Manage 1 waterbodies. Residents, Developers, City Staff and Council CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 5 Page 10 Wetlands and Water Quality Corridors 1 Prior to issuance of any city grading or building permits, all development and redevelopment activities must comply with the W etland Conservation Act and Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. A copy of the Wetland Conservation Act Rules can be found at BWSR’s website and the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan is included in Appendix F. Developers, Residents 2 The City will continue to participate in the WHEP for residents to monitor plants and invertebrates within the City’s wetlands. Residents, City Staff 3 The Sensitive and Natural Areas as identified by the VRWJPO have been incorporated into Figure 18, Appendix A of the Plan which includes the locations of the MCBS sites of biodiversity significance, the Metropolitan Conservation Corridor, the MLCCS regionally significant ecological areas, and the Mississippi River Critical Area. Developers, City Staff 4 City will incorporate VRWJPO Buffer standards for the water quality corridor located in the far eastern portion of the City as identified in Map 1 of the VRWJPO standards titled Watercourse Classification and Buffer Standards - Vermillion River Watershed. Developers, City Staff 5 Where a buffer is required around a wetland or watercourse, the City shall require the protection of the buffer under a conservation easement or include the buffer in a dedicated outlot as part of platting and subdivision approval, except where the buffer is located in a public transportation right- of-way. Developers, City Staff Groundwater 1 The City will evaluate all proposed infiltration projects within or adjacent to the vulnerable DWSMA consistent with Minnesota Department of Health’s guidance manuals. City Staff and Council 2 Cooperate with state and regional agencies on groundwater monitoring programs as required within the Vermillion River Watershed. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, Staff 3 The City requires that the design, installation and inspection of individual sewage treatment systems shall be in conformance with State standards and enforced by the City’s Building Department. Residents, Developers 4 A Wellhead Protection Plan has been developed for the City. The City will protect areas in conformance with the Wellhead Protection Plan. Residents, City Staff and Council 5 Infiltration BMPs should not be allowed within the Emergency Response Areas (ERA) (<1 yr travel zone) depicted on Figure 8, Appendix A. Infiltration outside the ERA within the DWSMA (1-10 yr travel zone) can be allowed with the following restrictions: · Require NURP ponding pretreatment prior to infiltration. NURP ponds should be lined to reduce infiltration and retain a wet pool volume. Residents, Developers CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 5 Page 11 · If the infiltration practice is constructed in industrial, commercial, or transportation land uses, ensure that emergency procedures for containment of spills are established and acceptable. · Infiltration is not recommended in areas that receive discharges from vehicle fueling and maintenance. · Infiltration is not recommended in areas that receive discharges from industrial facilities that are not authorized to infiltrate industrial stormwater under an NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Permit issued by the MPCA. · Infiltration is not recommended in areas where soil infiltration rates are more than 8.3 inches per hour unless soils are amended to slow the infiltration rate below 8.3 inches per hour or as allowed by a local unit of government with a current MS4 permit. · Utilize additional guidance from MDH and MPCA for infiltration activities within the DWSMA. 6 The City will cooperate with the Minnesota Department of Health to ensure that all unsealed or improperly abandoned wells within the City are properly sealed. Technical requirements for the abandonment of these wells will be in conformance with local and state regulations. Residents, City Staff and Council Erosion and Sediment Control 1 The City shall require conformance with General Permit Authorization to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Under the NPDES/State Disposal System Permit Program Permit MN R 100001 (NPDES General Construction Permit) issued by the MPCA, August 1, 2018, as amended for projects disturbing more than 1 acre. (See Appendix J for a summary of the City’s SWPPP) Developers 2 The City will require erosion and sediment control on all construction sites to be in conformance with City ordinance in Appendix P and the policies within this Plan. Residents, Developers, 3 A stormwater pollution control plan is required for any project that requires a building permit, subdivision approval, or grading permit per the City’s Surface Water Management ordinance. Developers, Residents 4 The City has adopted the MPCA’s BMPs as guidelines for erosion and sedimentation control. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 5 Page 12 5.4. Internal Operations The City’s internal operations can have a significant impact on stormwater management. This strategy is targeted primarily at the City with some areas targeted at the public and/or another agency. These policies are aimed at operation and maintenance activities associated with water resource management within the City. STRATEGY: INTERNAL OPERATIONS No. Policy Target Audience 1 The City will update City policy related to pond maintenance to clearly identify responsibilities of landowners, Homeowners Associations (HOAs), developers and City staff. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council 2 The City will sweep the streets as outlined in the Storm Water System Maintenance Plan and NPDES Permit (Appendix J). City Staff 3 The City will follow the Storm Water System Maintenance Plan outlined in Appendix G, which includes maintenance of storm manholes, trap manholes, catch basins, storm sewer pipe, pond inlets and pond outlets. City Staff 4 The City requires as-builts of all ponding areas and designated emergency overflows. City Staff, Developers 5 The City will inspect lift stations as part of the lift station monitoring program. City Staff 6 The City will continue to update the storm sewer system map of all identified City-owned storm sewer pipes and conveyances as defined by NPDES requirements. City Staff 7 The City will continue to update the local stormwater financing mechanisms including the City’s stormwater trunk fee and stormwater utility fee programs to equitably finance stormwater maintenance and improvements based on benefit of property. Residents, Business Owners, Developers, City Staff and Council CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 1 6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 6.1. Implementation Priorities Based on the information developed in Sections 2 through 5, the City has developed this Surface Water Management Plan that reflects the needs and concerns of the City Council, City Staff, citizens, and the funding capabilities of the City. A prioritized listing of the studies, programs and capital improvements that have been identified as necessary to respond to the water resource needs within the City is outlined on the following tables. The City anticipates implementing at least to some extent the regulatory programs, studies, or improvements identified within this plan within the next 10 years. Following VRWJPO approval of this Plan, the City must amend its official controls within 180 days of plan approval (Minnesota Statutes 103B.235 Subd. 4). The City has developed a method to prioritize capital improvement projects. A three-tiered approach has been adopted that prioritizes projects as “High”, “Medium”, or “Low”. This method is based on the following criteria: High Priority: Projects meet one or more of the following criteria: · Projects with the highest benefit relative to project cost. · Projects that should be completed soon to meet regulatory or permit requirements. · Projects that are needed to address significant public safety concerns. · Projects addressing existing high water level issues · Projects connected with the trunk line extension improvements and/or MCES agreement · Projects that are needed to finish or upgrade the construction of the City’s stormwater infrastructure system to meet long-term improvement plans. · Projects that should be constructed now so as to be in conjunction with other projects that will result in a reduction in cost or impact to the public. · Projects for which funding is now available or will be available in the next few years. Medium Priority: Projects meet one or more of the following criteria: · Projects with a high benefit relative to project cost. · Projects that must be completed soon, but not immediately to meet regulatory or permit requirements. · Projects that are needed to address public safety concerns. · Projects with high water level issues that are driven by development planned within the next ten years · Projects that will address identified water quality concerns within the City · Projects that are needed to finish or upgrade the construction of the City’s stormwater infrastructure system to meet long term improvement plans, but timing for construction should be delayed to accommodate other planning or project work. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 2 · Projects that should be constructed soon and/or scheduled so as to be in conjunction with other projects that will result in a reduction in cost or impact to the public. Low Priority: These projects meet the criteria listed above, but are not urgent, have lower Benefit to Cost Ratios, can be delayed until other work can be done at the same time, or must be delayed until funds become available. These projects also included high water level issues that are driven by development planned further than 10 years out. These might also include general water quality projects. Table 6-1 contains Stormwater CIP projects, Stormwater Management Programs, and Stormwater Management Studies. Figure 3, Appendix A identifies the locations of site specific projects and programs contained in Table 6-1. The costs associated with these items reflect year 2018 costs and do not take into account inflation. These tables are for planning and budgeting purposes and are considered rough estimates. It is anticipated that these cost estimates will be reviewed annually and updated as needed. 6.2. Financial Considerations Implementation of the proposed regulatory controls, programs and improvements that are identified in this plan will have a financial impact on the City. To establish how significant this impact will be, a review of the means and ability of the City to fund these controls, programs and improvements is necessary. Toward this end, please find outlined below a listing of various sources of revenue that the City will endeavor to implement the water resource management efforts outlined in this plan. For the next ten years, the capital improvement projects are estimated to cost approximately $23,000,000. The stormwater management program costs are estimated at about $6,400,000. The stormwater studies are estimated to cost about $60,000. Over this 10-year period, these projects, programs, and studies are estimated to cost about $29,600,000. Any projects, studies, and programs and the associated funding are subject to City Council approval. DESCRIPTION OF FUNDING SOURCE REVENUE GENERATED 1. Projected revenue generated by stormwater trunk and ponding fees Variable 2. Project paybacks Variable 3. Special assessments for local improvements made under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 Variable depending on activities undertaken 4. Revenue generated by Watershed Management Special Tax Districts provided for under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473.882 Variable depending on activities undertaken 5. For projects being completed by or in cooperation with a Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization, project funds could be obtained from watershed district levies associated with their administrative funds, construction funds, preliminary funds, repair and maintenance funds or survey and data acquisition funds, as provided for in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D.905 Variable depending on activities undertaken 6. Grant monies that may be secured from various local, regional, County, State, or Federal agencies. This would include the County, Mn/DOT, MPCA, the DNR and others Variable depending on activities undertaken CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 4 Page 3 DESCRIPTION OF FUNDING SOURCE REVENUE GENERATED 7. Other Sources: These may be other sources of funding for stormwater activities such as tax increment financing, state aid, etc. The City will continue to explore additional revenue sources as they become available. Variable depending on activities undertaken 8 Tax abatement Variable 6.3. Amendment Procedures It is the intention of the City to have the Surface Water Management Plan reviewed and approved by the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Board. Once approved, no significant changes to this plan can be facilitated without the approval of the proposed revisions by the Watershed Management Organizations within the City that are affected by the change. Significant changes to the local plan shall be made known to the following parties: 1. City Administrator and City Engineer 2. Affected Watershed Management Organizations and Watershed Districts within the City 3. Metropolitan Council 4. Public within the City through a public hearing process Following notification of the above parties, they shall have 60 days to comment on the proposed revisions. The Metropolitan Council shall have 45 days to comment on the revisions. Failure to respond within 60 days constitutes approval. Upon receipt of approvals from the affected Watershed Management Organizations and Watershed Districts within the City, any proposed amendments will be considered approved. Minor changes to the Plan shall be defined as changes that do not modify the goals, policies, or commitments expressly defined in this plan by the City. Adjustment to subwatershed boundaries will be considered minor changes provided that the change will have no significant impact on the rate or quality in which stormwater runoff is discharged from the City boundaries. Minor changes to this plan can be made by the staff at the City without outside review. It is the intention of the City that this Plan be updated ten years after the adoption of this Plan unless significant changes to the plan are deemed necessary prior to that date. SECTION 62019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 20281Construct west portion of stormwater trunk line (Segment D - Construct Basin #1816 outlet (Connemara Trail and Akron Ave) to # 1787).High $7,500,000Core Fund, Developer's Agreement$1,875,000 $1,875,000 $1,875,000 $1,875,000Further Discussion of this proposed project in CSAH 42 /Akron AUAR2Construct middle portion of stormwater trunk line (Construct trunk line from Basin #1787 to #1599 and #2391 Flint Hills Resources).HighDependent on MCES agreement Core Fund Developer's Agreement$1,100,000 $1,100,000Design Variable3Construct overflow improvements or lift station and storm system for Shannon Pond and construct trunk stormwater /overflow system downstream to Basin #2274 or Basin #2302 This truck overflow /stormwater system will ultimately flow to either north (to Basin #1990) or west (into western portion of UMore property) depending on options selected.High $930,000 Core Fund $440,000 $440,000$50,0004Construct selected option to provide overflow and storm system either through construction of lift station outlet for Business Park Pond (#1990) and /or downstream trunk along 150th Street to the east or along west side of Umore area and ultimately into proposed stormwater trunk system. High $3,200,000 Core Fund$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,0005Manage water elevations in 100-150 landlocked basins as needed High $350,000 Core Fund $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,0006Construct regional treatment and infiltration pond located on or near the Flint Hills Resources Property. Infiltration basin will help address all TMDLs.High $7,500,000 Core Fund$1,875,000 $1,875,000 $1,875,000 $1,875,000Highly dependent on proposed agreement with Flint Hills Resources. 7Payment to MCES for use of interim stormwater trunk system as part of proposed MCES treated effluent outfall High Variable Core FundDependent on pending agreement with MCES.8Construct Wachter Pond (Basin #2443) overflow / lift station and related improvements to allow management of water levels consistent with basins operation plan. Medium $450,000 Core Fund $225,000 $225,0009Construct storm sewer system for basins northwest of Keegan Lake (Basins #1521, 1465, 1435, 1355, 1405, 1482) and construct overflow to Keegan Lake.Medium $476,400 Core Fund $476,40010Construct eastern portion of stormwater trunk line (Construct trunk line from Basin #2391 Flint Hills Resources to Mississippi River).MediumDependent on MCES agreement Core Fund Developer's Agreement$ X $ XDesign Variable11Construct outlet lift station system from Basin #1213 to Marcotte Pond Medium $550,000 Core Fund$550,00012Construct lateral improvements and outlets for areas within LHRP subwatershed within the City.Medium $240,000 Core Fund$60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000Partial completion with CSAH 38 Reconstruction13Construct overflow drainage systems from basins on east /central portion of UMore property Medium $850,000 Core Fund$250,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000Cost are highly variable and dependent upon development14Construct additional Schwarz Pond lift station outlet (near Rosemount High School).Medium $450,000 Core Fund$450,000Costs are highly variable.15Construct overflow from CSAH 42 AUAR area to East Medium VariableDevelopers Agreement16Construct Erickson Pond Lift Station Overflowand downstream storm system to Basin # 2474Low $600,000 Core Fund$300,000 $300,000Shell lift station has been installedTABLE 6.1SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLANNo. Project Description Draft PriorityCommentsPossibleFunding Sources 2Proposed Cost By Year110 Year Total Cost Estimate 1,3Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)Surface Water Management PlanCity of RosemountWSB Project No. 011824-000TABLE 6.1 SECTION 62019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028No. Project Description Draft PriorityCommentsPossibleFunding Sources 2Proposed Cost By Year110 Year Total Cost Estimate 1,317Implement stormwater system maintenance plan consistent with City SWPPP.High $1,261,023Stormwater Utility Revenue$110,000 $113,300 $116,699 $120,199 $123,805 $127,520 $131,345 $135,286 $139,344 $143,52518Update dewatering plan and provide temporary pumping of landlocked basins as neededHigh $300,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,00019Implement public education program consistent with the City SWPPP. Can help address all TMDLs.High $100,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,00020Continue LGU responsible under WCA and the Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan.High $120,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,00021Replace Street Sweeper.High $211,500Stormwater Utility Revenue$101,500$110,00022Lift Station operations and maintenanceHigh $283,155Stormwater Utility Revenue$24,700 $25,441 $26,204 $26,990 $27,800 $28,634 $29,493 $30,377 $31,289 $32,22723Annual inspections of high-priority outfalls and around high-risk establishments. High-risk establishments include fast food restaurants, dumpsters, car washes, and auto mechanics.High $15,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,50024Sweep City streets annually. Streets are swept once in the fall after leaf drop.High $100,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,00025Annual inspections of structural pollution control devices. This includes sumps, water quality manholes, and other devices.High $15,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,50026Quarterly locate and inspect all exposed stockpiles and storage/material handling areas on City owned properties. High $10,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,00027Training for employees including topics such as fertilizer application, spill cleanup training, parking lot and street cleaning, storm drain systems cleaning and road salt materials management. Also included: contracted repairsHigh $1,115,432Stormwater Utility Revenue$97,300 $100,219 $103,225 $106,322 $109,512 $112,797 $116,181 $119,666 $123,256 $126,95428Televise section of the storm sewer as needed. May also include collecting grab samples or performing other effective testing procedures to find illicit connections.Medium $6,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$2,000 $2,000 $2,00029Monitor and repair erosion issues within the City (general). Will help address all TMDLs.Medium $350,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,00030Cost share WHEP program as identified in the Wetland Management Plan.Medium $15,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,50031Continue implementing ongoing infiltration monitoring program and water quality. Medium $246,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,00032Consider establishment of cost share program for volunteer monitoring program on critical waterbodies.Medium $15,000 Grant Funding $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,50033Update the City's Wetland Management Plan to be in compliance with the VRWJPO's wetland buffer requirements. Medium $2,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$2,00034Conduct annual pond surveys to schedule and prioritize the necessary maintenance projects. This effort will be assisted by the SWAMP ApplicationMedium $150,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,00035The City will perform yearly cleanout of ponds identified for maintenance with the SWAMP application. Will help address all TMDLs. Medium $2,000,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,00036Annual maintenance on the SWAMP application. Medium $20,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,00037Consider development of water quality BMPs to comply with state or federal requirements. Options might water reuse, alum fillings, filtration benches among others.Low $50,000Grant Funding/Stormwater Utility Revenue$25,000 $25,000Operation and MaintenanceSurface Water Management PlanCity of RosemountWSB Project No. 011824-000TABLE 6.1 SECTION 62019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028No. Project Description Draft PriorityCommentsPossibleFunding Sources 2Proposed Cost By Year110 Year Total Cost Estimate 1,338Review and update the City's ordinance to prohibit illicit discharges as needed.High $3,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$1,000 $1,000 $1,00039Update and maintain the City's website with stormwater management informationHigh $4,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $40040Maintain and submit annual inspection reports, maintenance records, and other documentation in conformance with the NPDES permitHigh $5,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $50041Annually review mowing, road salt application, fertilizing, and herbicide practices within the City and update practices as feasible to protect water quality. Reviewing application practices will help address all TMDLs.Medium $10,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000Official ControlsSurface Water Management PlanCity of RosemountWSB Project No. 011824-000TABLE 6.1 SECTION 62019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028No. Project Description Draft PriorityCommentsPossibleFunding Sources 2Proposed Cost By Year110 Year Total Cost Estimate 1,342Complete feasibility study for design options related to construction of a lift station on Shannon PondHigh $15,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$15,000Initial feasibility study completed in 2007; needs to be updated based on current plan to discharge Shannon Pond to the south43Complete feasibility study to investigate design options and cost related to installation of a lift station at Erickson Pond Medium $20,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$20,000Lift station shell installed44Complete feasibility study to determine design parameter and costs related to construction of additional lift station or increasing capacity of existing lift station at Schwarz Pond.Medium $20,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$20,00045Investigate need for cooperative agreement with the City of Coates Low $5,000Stormwater Utility Revenue$5,000TOTAL$29,558,510 $575,900 $1,351,360 $3,699,428 $4,012,411 $4,636,017 $7,031,851 $3,386,919 $2,820,229 $3,131,789 $1,112,6061 Cost estimates are preliminary and subject to review and revision as engineer's reports are completed and more information becomes available. Table reflects 2018 costs and does not account for inflation. Costs generally include labor, equipment, materials, and all other costs necessary to complete each activity. Some of the costs outlined above may be included in other operational costs budgeted by the City.2 Funding for stormwater program activities projected to come from following sources - Surface Water Management Fund, Developers Agreements, Grant Funds, General Operating Fund, or Special Assessments.3 Staff time is not included in the cost shown. Monitor and Study Surface Water Management PlanCity of RosemountWSB Project No. 011824-000TABLE 6.1 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX A– FIGURES Figure 1: City Location Figure 2: Watershed District Boundaries Figure 3: Water Resource Problem Areas Figure 4: National Wetland Inventory Figure 5: DNR Public Waters and Wetlands Figure 6: FEMA Floodplain Boundary Figure 7: Subwatershed Delineations Figure 8: Drinking Water Supply Management Areas Figure 9: Hydrologic Soils Group Figure 10: Existing Land Use Figure 11: Future Land Use Figure 12: Zoning Figure 13: MLCCS Land Cover Figure 14: Groundwater Appropriations Figure 15: Potential Pollutant Sources Figure 16: Wetland Functional Assessment Figure 17: Wetland and Watercourse Inventory (VRWJPO) Figure 18: Conservation Corridor and Biological Significance Figure 19: Parks and Trails St. Paul HugoBlaine Eagan Minneapolis Afton Grant Lakeville May Twp. Corcoran Orono Plymouth Medina Woodbury Dayton Lino Lakes Bloomington Rosemount Eden Prairie Shakopee Maple Grove Burnsville Cottage Grove Edina Dahlgren Twp. Independence Marshan Twp. Minnetonka Lake Elmo Denmark Twp. Savage Greenfield Laketown Twp. Sand Creek Twp. Brooklyn Park Chaska Coon Rapids Chanhassen Maplewood Inver Grove Heights Fridley Prior Lake Roseville Credit River Twp. Apple Valley Hastings Oakdale ncock Twp. Nininger Twp. Shoreview Stillwater Twp. Victoria Farmington Anoka Louisville Twp. Champlin Arden Hills Stillwater St. Lawrence Twp. Richfield St. Louis Park Golden Valley North Oaks Shorewood Rogers Baytown Twp. West Lakeland Twp. Mendota Heights White Bear Twp. Carver Jackson Twp. Brooklyn Center New Brighton Wayzata White Bear Lake Hopkins Newport South St. Paul Waconia Belle Plaine West St. Paul Little Canada Deephaven Mounds View Dellwood Hanover Robbinsdale St. Paul Park Chaska Twp. North St. Paul Bayport Columbia Heights St. Anthony Oak Park Heights Coates Grey Cloud Island Twp. Sunfish Lake Spring Lake Park Cologne Osseo Vermillion Excelsior St. Bonifacius Pine Springs Lexington Spring Park Mendota Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig1_CityLocation.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:01:11 PM Legend Rosemount 0 4Miles¯1 inch = 4 miles Figure 1 - City Location City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig2_WatershedDistricts.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:02:56 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary City Boundaries Eagan-Inver Grove Heights WatershedManagement Organization Lower Mississippi River WatershedManagement Organization South Washington Watershed District Vermillion River Watershed Joint PowerOrganization CityMask 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet Figure 2 - Watershed District Boundaries City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1516 17 17 18 19 Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig3_WaterResourceProblemAreas.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 3:59:44 PM Legend !(Key Problem Areas Rosemount Boundary Impaired Waterways Impaired Waterbodies Figure 3 - Water Resource Problem Areas City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet 1. Develop agreement to construct regional ponding at Flint Hills Resources.2. Need for lateral drainage improvements in Rosemount along 120th Street.3. Need to construct overflow system to east within the CSAH 42/Akron AUAR area.4. Need for lake level monitoring on Keegan Lake.5. Obtain approval for overflow to Mississippi River.6. Need for lift station outlet from Shannon Pond and construction of overflow from Shannon Pond to trunk system.7. Need for overflow of basins near CR 38 to south into Marcotte Pond.8. Need for overflow to south into Keegan Lake.9. Need for pumped overflow at W achter Pond.10. Need for pumped overflow at Business Park Pond. 11. Limited free board and pump capacity at basin adjacent to Rosemount High School.12. Need to address overall drainage issues at UMore.13. Complete agreement with MCES to discharge into interceptor.14. Need for overflow from Erickson Pond.15. As this area develops, must implement City discharge standards to meet established intercommunity flowrates.16. Need to pursue intercommunity agreement with the City of Coates.17. City discharges to multiple impaired waterbodies: Mississippi River, Farquar Lake, East Lake (not shown) and theVermillion River (not shown).18. Comply with the recommendations made in the DCES subwatershed assessment of Lebanon Hills Regional Park.19. Need for an outlet from White Lake/School House Lake G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig4_NWI.mxd Date Saved: 5/9/2018 3:45:46 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary NWI Wetland Figure 4 - National Wetland Inventory City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. 005P 311W 185W 183W 186W 184W 345W 011P 224W 223W 221W 317W 321W 318W 322W 220W 008W 222W 012W 219W 316W 313W 312W182W 320W 344W 323W Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig5_DNR_PublicWaters.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:13:06 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary DNR Public Waters/W etlands Waterbodies Identified in City ShorelandOrdinance Figure 5 - DNR Public Waters and Wetlands City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan Schwartz Pond Birger Pond Keegan Lake White Lake Wachter Lake Mississippi River 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig6_FEMA.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:14:10 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary 100-year Floodplain 500-year Floodplain Figure 6 - FEMA Floodplain Boundary City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Shannon Pond West U of M EastRichValley City ofCoates East U of M Erickson Pond Wachter Pond HawkinsPond Keegan Lake Birger Pond MississippiRiver WestRichValley White Lake Koch Lebanon Hills Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig7_SubwatershedDelineations.mxd Date Saved: 8/29/2018 10:24:15 AM Legend Regional Basins Major Subwatershed Boundaries Minor Drainage Area Boundaries Rosemount Boundary Figure 7 - Subwatershed Delineations City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig8_DWSMA.mxd Date Saved: 8/23/2018 1:18:40 PM Legend Rosemount Supply Wells Emergency Response Areas Rosemount Boundary Wellhead Protection Areas DWSMA Vulnerability High Moderate Low Figure 8 - Drinking WaterSupply Management Areas City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig9_Soils.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:17:54 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary Hydrologic Soil Group A; A/D B; B/D C; C/D D Figure 9 - Hydrologic Soil Groups City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig10_ExistingLandUse.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:19:14 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary Land Use Agriculture Downtown Neighborhood Commercial Regional Commercial Community Commercial Agricultural Research Rural Residential Low Density Residential Transitional Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Public/Institutional Existing Parks/Open Space Business Park Light Industrial General Industrial Waste Management Figure 10 - ExistingLand Use City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig11_FutureLandUse.mxd Date Saved: 7/17/2018 12:20:17 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary Proposed Land Use Agriculture Floodplain Downtown Neighborhood Commercial Regional Commercial Community Commercial Agricultural Research Rural Residential Low Density Residential Transitional Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Public/Institutional Existing Parks/Open Space Business Park Light Industrial General Industrial Waste Management Figure 11 - FutureLand Use City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig12_Zoning.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:20:46 PM Rosemount Boundary PUD Residential: RR - Rural Residential R1 - Low Density Residential R1A - Low Density Residential R2 - Moderate Density Residential R3 - Medium Density Residential R4 - High Density Residential Commercial: C1 - Convenience Commercial DT - Downtown District C3 - Highway Service Commercial C4 - General Commercial Industrial: BP - Business Park IP - Industrial Park GI - General Industrial HI - Heavy Industrial Other: AGP - Agricultural Preserve AG - Agricultural PI - Public/Institutional FP - Flood Plain WM - Waste Management Figure 12 - Zoning City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig13_MLCCS.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:21:31 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary 11. 5-10% Impervious 12. 11-25% Impervious 13. 26-50% Impervious 14. 51-75% Impervious 15. 76-100% Impervious 21. Short Grasses 22. Agricultural Land 23. Maintained Tall Grass 24. Tree Plantation 31. Forest 32. Wetland Forest 51. Shrubland 52. Wetland Shrubs 61. Tall Grasses 62. Wetland Emergent Vegetation 63. Dry Tall Grasses 82. Mud Flat 90. Open W ater 92. Wetland Open W ater Figure 13 - MLCCS Land Cover City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig14_GroundwaterAppropriations.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:22:12 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary Groundwater Appropriations Use #Agricultural Irrigation !Industrial Processing $Non-Crop Irrigation "Power Generation k Special Categories X Water Level Maintenance !<Water Supply Figure 14 - GroundwaterAppropriotions City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet # !. ! # !. # !. !. # !. # !. !. !. ! !.!. # # !. !. !. # # ## # ## # # !. ##### !. # !. " # # # " !. !. " " ## " !." " !. " " " " " !. !. " " " " " " " " " " " " " !. " " " " " " !. " " !. " " !. " " " " " " " """ ## " !. !. " !. " " # " !. " " " ### " "!. " # " !. !. # !. !. " ## " # #" # " !. # !. ## !. " ## ### # ## # # ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! #####"## " ######### " # ## " ######## !. # !. # !. ######## !. # # #####!. !. # # # # # # " #### ## #### # !. # " # ###!. !. # ## !. !. # # # # #!. # ### # ## !. # !.# ## # # " # " #### # # # " # # ## # " # # #### ! # " ## !. # # " # # ## # ## # !. !. # # # " # ## # " " # # # # # # # !. # # " # # # # !. # # !. # !. # # # ## # # ## # " # # # # # # ### # # # # # " # " " # # ## " # " !. # " # ## # # !. # # # "" " # !. " # # " !.#" # # # # # " # # # !!" # # # # # ! #k ! ! ! # ! ! ! ! # ! ! ! # !. !. # # ! ! ! ! ! # # ! !! ! ! # !. # # # # # # # # # # ! ## ## # # # # ## # # #!. !. # " # !. ! ! # G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig15_PollutantSources.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:23:49 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary Pollution Source "Air !Feedlots "Hazardous Waste !Investigation and Cleanup !.Multiple Program s !Solid Waste #Stormwater k Superfund #Tanks and Leaks Figure 15 - Potential Pollutant Sources City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig16_WetFunctionalAssess.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:24:58 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary City Wetland Classification Utilize Manage1 Manage2 Preserve Figure 16 - WetlandFunctional Assessment City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig17_WetlandandWaterCourseInventory.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:25:36 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary Wetland Classification High Medium Low Figure 17 - Wetland and Water Course Inventory (VRWJPO) City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig18_NaturalAreas.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:26:16 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary Metropolitan Conservation Corridor MCBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance MLCCS Regionally SignificantEcological Area Mississippi River Critical Area Figure 18 - Conservation Corridor and BiologicalSignificance City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet G¸WX G¸WX G±WX )p ?ØA@ GÑWXSÈ GªWX ?§A@ G¥WXApple ValleyRosemountCoatesRosemount C ottageG ro ve R osem ountEaganRosemount Empire Twp.Rosemount Inver GroHeightsInver Grove HeightsRosemount Nininger Twp.RosemountRosemountVermillion Twp. Document Path: K:\011824-000\GIS\Maps\Fig19_ParksandTrails.mxd Date Saved: 11/20/2018 4:27:20 PM Legend Rosemount Boundary City Trails Planned Regional Bicycle TransportationNetwork Current and Planned Regional Trails City Parks Regional Parks Figure 19 - Parksand Trails City of RosemountSurface Water Management Plan 0 4,000Feet¯1 inch = 4,000 feet CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX B– WATER RESOURCE RELATED AGREEMENTS RC SE1 IOLI T EXECUTIVE SUMMARY UTILITY COMMISSION City Council Meeting: October 7, 2014 AGENDA ITEM: Lebanon Hills Subwatershed Stormwater AGENDA SECTION: Rate Change Consent PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, PE, Director of AGENDA NO. ( Works / City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Joint Powers Agreement with VR JPO, APPROVED BY: Lebanon Hills Subwatershed Map RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve Stormwater Rate Change for the Lebanon Hills Subwatershed ISSUE Storm vater rates in the Lebanon Hills sub vatershed area should be adjusted to reflect the density and drainage conditions in the area. It is appropriate to consider the costs for this subwatershed separately from the rest of the Cit because the storm water flo vs north and requires compaYativel less infrastructure. BACKGROUND fter speaking with potential developers, City staff has deteYmined that an adjusted stormwater Yate is appropriate for the Lebanon Hills subwatershed area to better reflect the density and drainage conditions. The attached figure identifies the Lebanon Hills subwatershed. The proposed stormwater rate has been calculated based on the estimated cost of improvements within the Lebanon Hills sub vatershed. A portion of these costs are obligated to the Verrrulion River Watershed Joint Po vers Organization rRWJO) based on a Joint Powers Agreement for do vnstream improvements. The remaining costs are for future City ponding and trunk storm sewer unprovements within the subwatershed. A copy of the Joint Powers r,greement is attached. Stormwater rates for this area should be adjusted from the standard rate of 6,865 per acre, to a new rate of 3,772 per acre based on the follo ving calculations: Watershed a reement lus consumer rice index 587,970 Future ondin & trunk im Yovements within watershed 1,078,500 Ci cost, er vatershed a reement includin im rovements) $1,G66,470 Ci cost, er watershed a reement includin un rovements) 1,666,470 Total develo able acres in the sub vatershed area 441.8 Pro osed er-acre storm trunk rate 3,772 G:\ENGPROJ\459\Council Items\20141007 Lebanon Hills watershed stormwater rates.docx If approved, this new rate vould be applied to all future development within the sub vatershed area identified on the attached figure. SUMMARY Staff is requesting City Council approval of the stormwater rate change for the Lebanon Hills Sub vatershed. G:\ENGPROJ\459\Council Items 20141007 Lebanon Hilis watershed stormwater rates.docx r JOINT POWERS AGREEM NT BETWEEN THE VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JOINT POWERS BOARD AND TNE CiTY OF RQSEMOt1NT FOR C05T SNARE RELA7ED TO EAGAN PROJECT 905R. A STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMEN7 PROJECT WHEREAS, Minn. Stat §471 59 authorizes iocal governmental uni#s to jointly or coaperatively exercise any power Common to ihe contracting parties; and WHEREAS,the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization is a watershed management body consisting of aakota and Scott Counties(VRWJPQ)governed by the Ve million River Watershed Joini P wers Soard VRWJPBj and is charyed wi[h carrying out the duties set forth in Minn Stat. §§1G36 211 to 1038.255 and as othenroise provided by la:v; and WHEREAS,the C ty of Rosemounf (CITY)is a govemmental and pol tical subdivision of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the CITY s loca.ed vithin ihe Vermillion Rive Watershed and is part of the Qakota Counlylllermilfion River Watershed Management Tax District estabiished by akota County Ordinance 127; and WNEREAS, on December 20,2005,the Dakota County Board of C mmissioners adopted the Lebanon Hills Regional Park Storm Water Management Plan (Plan), which recommends twenty-hvo(22) improvement projects to resoive stormwater drainage issues: and WHEREAS,the City of Eagan is undertaking Public Improvement Project 905R(the Project)tivh ch is a storm drainage in provement project that would imp ement seven of the Plan's improvements; and WHEREAS, the ClTY, the City of Eagan, the Gity of Apple Valley,and the County of Dakota are contributing various amounts toward the cost of the Project;and WHEREAS, the CiTY has requested that the VRWJPO financially participate in the CITY'S costs associated with Lhe Project; and WHEREAS, assuming that che CITY receives gr8nt manies from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources through Fluod Nazard Mitiga ian Grant A4B983 funds, the eshmated cost of the CITY's por6on of the Praject is 55.829.Q0;and WNEREAS, portions of ihe Vermillion River Watershed, including portions located in tfie CiTY as depicted in Exhibit f, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this eference,drain north into the lebanon Hills Regional Park,the Gun Club lake Watershed, and the City of Eagan; and WHEREAS, the area of!he CITY depicted in Exh bit 1 is primarily rural residential and is nat currently guided for de elopment;and WHEREAS, because the area of the CITY depicted In Exhibil 1 is not guided for development, the CIIY is unabie to fund its portion of the Project through the colSection of trunk area fees from lhis properiy unlil(urther de elopment occurs, and WHEREAS, the VR4VJP0 adopted its Walershed P an on fUovember 3, 2045,and said 4Vatershed Plan contains a Cost Sharir=g Policy rhat pro+:ides guidance to the VRWJJPB regarciing the cost sharing between the VRWJPO and p ten;ial pa lnars fc r varo ls wa;ershed managen ent elf rts affechng the Verrn lllon R ver Watershed;and WHEREAS, the Cost Sharing Policy sets forth pnarities for improvements affecUng the Vermillion R+ver 4Vatershed and one of the priorities is the reductian of floodrng m areas vith known flooding problems;and VvNEREAS, the COSt Sha icig PofiCy of the Wate shed Plan provides, ihat by agreement of a majority o(its members, it e'JRWJP6 i7ay checse to participate in the cost o! ro ecis or activities not cornprehended in the Cost Sharing Policy: and WHEREAS, at the time of the adopiion of the Wa:ershed Pian, the Project was not cc>mprehended; and WHEREAS,the Lebanon HRis Region2f Park and public roads have a history of flooding problems and the Lebanon Hills Reg onal Park has sutfered shoreline and erosion damage due to h gh water and hat said issues v iil be s gn;ficantly miligaied by the consiruction of the Projecl;and WHEREAS,the construction af the ProJecl wiH be of benefil to 1he Vermillion River Watershed as wel! as laca{ commur ities,and NCtW,THEREFORE, in considerat on of the mutual promises and benefits that the VRL'VJPO and Ihe CITY shail derive from lhis yree lient,the VRVVJPO, through the VRWJPB, and the CITY hereby enter into tf-,s Agreement for the purposes stated t erein. ARTICLE 1 PURPOSE The purpose of ihis Agreement s#o der"ir e the respons b lities and obligations of the VRWJPO and the CITY tor cost sharing the GITY's por#ion cf Eagan Pubfic Improvement Project 905R (the Project), vhich consists of siorm dfainage improvemer.is th2i will mplernent seven of the improvertients recommended in the Lebanon N IIs P.egianal Park Storm Waler Management Plan. ARTiCIE 2 PARTIES The parties to this Agreement are the Vermitlion Rivar Wafershed Joint Pnwers Organization{VRUVJPO)acting through its loint Powers Baard (VR'VJPB}and the Cify of Rosemount, hR nnesota(CITY). ARTICLE 3 TERM 3.1 EFFECTiVE DATES. This Agreement shall be etfFCt;ve the daie o#the signatures of the parties to ihis Agreein nt and shall remain in eifect until c mpletion by the part,es of their respeci ve obligatinns under this Agreemsnt,unless earlier terminated by law or according to the provisions of lhis A reement. 3.2 COND1TiONS. 3.2.1 The parties to tfiis Agreement understand that if a separate joint powers agreement is not entered inta and exer_Lded by the ClTY, Dakota Cc unt, 9 nnesota,Appte Val}ey, Minr esota, and Eagan, A4innesota, relatec: !o the construction of the Proje t,th s Ayreemeni has no force and effcct and the pariies are not baund by the ter ns of this Agreement_ 3.2.2 The Minnesola Department of Natural Resources (DNR)has confrmed that the Project costs are eligible for Flood Hazard Mitigalion Grant A48983 funds m the amount of$50,000.00. 3.2.3 The part es to th s Agreement understand that if the Project is not consiructed,for whatever reason, ihis Agreement has no force and efiect and the parties are not bound by the lerms of this Agreement. ARTIC.E 4 COOPERATlQN The VRWJPO and the CITY ayree to cooperate and use lheir reasonab e efforts to ensure prompt mplernentation oi the v2riuus provisions o(tf is Agreement and to, in good #aith, underlake resolu#ion of any dispute in an eywtabte and limely inanner. 7 ARTICLE 5 PARTIES' RESPONSlBI ITIES 5.1 INITIAL FEJNDING OF PROJECT. The CITY shall initially fund Ihe costs associated with the Project 5.2 COST SNARE 8Y THE VRWJPO TO THE CITY. The VR'NJPO shall cost share the C17Y's portion of the Project costs n an amouni not ro exceed 544_829.OQ. Thz cost share amo nt shail be repaic3 over ten {10) years n isn (10)equal annual insta lments of arincipal. In erest shall be paid with each prircipal pa;i ent at the rate uf`our ercent{4%)per year on the unpasd principal balance. The firsl nsta(ln enl of principal and inierest shall be paid on the anniversary date of the pa rment by ihe CITY of its share of Project osis, and the foitow+ng insta8mer ts shall P paid on the anniversary date of the first payment. There 5halt be no penalty assessed for any prepayment bp the VRVJJPO of the cflst share oblic ation. 5.3 PAYBACK OF COS7 SHARE BY THE CITY TO THE VRWJPO. The CITY vril!repay the pnncipal amaunt of the CITY's share of Pro ect costs, adjusted as fofiows, n accordance w th the limitations n this section. The CITY will collect slorm seti,•er charyes `rom landowners upon development ai ihe [ime of subdi,sion of properties within the tivatershed depicied in Exhibit 1. Upon rece pt of such st rm sewer char es by the ClTY from Developers, the CITY will repay the VRUVJPO at an amount per acre at subd,vided land deierrnined by dividirg ihe amount of the CITY'S purit n of Prolect cests y#he total number of acres n the watershed depicted in Exhibit 1 f.4727 acres)_ This amount will be adjusied over time by lh?cha ge in ihe Bureau oi La or Stafistics Consumer Price Index, al! urban consumers, all tlnited States, mdexed from two months pnor to the month of the CITY's initiai payment of Project costs io Ihe inor th occurring tvro months belore !he payment to the VR'JJJPO. The C17Y's obliga:ion to pay shall cease after t fty(50)years from the date of this Agreement as to any lands ihat have not received final subd vis on approval by that!ate. 5.4 WATERSHEQ BOl1NDARY/WITHDRAWAL RESTRICTIONS. 5.4.1 During the term ef this Agreement, ihe CITY shail not undertake any official actions lo petition, ask for, or support a petition or request io change the boundary of or fa withdrativ from the Vermillion River l/ti'atershed andror the Dakota County,'Verm llian R+.er Walershed Pv1anagement Ta.r District If dunng the term ot this Agreement, tne CITY undertakes any of the afarement oned actions, this greement shall terminate and the CITY shall immediately reimburse to the VR:NJPO any and aU cost share amounts, including mterest, paid by the VRVJJPO to the CITY under lhe ierms of this Agreemenl. 5.4.2 If during the term of this Agreement another party or parties not affiliated witti the CITY peticions to change lhe boundary of the Vermillion River 4^latErshed so as b ramo•e the property I}ng w thin the C17Y from the rrr illion River Watershed or aetitions to w tndraw the properiy I}ing wit!-hin the CtTY from the Vermillion River 4`Vatershed and a petition is ranted. this A reement stiall terminate and the Cf7Y shatt irnrnediaiely reimburse to the VRWJPO any and all cost share amoursts, includ ng interest,pa d by the VF2V`JJPO to the CITY unde the terms of this Agreement. ARTICLE 6 GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.9 INDEMNIFiCATION. Each party to Ihis Agreernent shall be liable for the acts of its o cers,employees or agents and the results theraof tq the ex(ent authorized by!aw and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other arty, its officers, employees or agents. The provisio s of the h.9un cipal Tort Claims Act, Minn. Slat. Ch. 466 and other applicahle laws gavern I ab lity of the VRV'JJPO and the GITY. 6.Z AUDITS. Pursuant to Minn 5tat §16C.Q5, subd. 5 any books, records, doctiments and atcouniing procedures and raciices of any party t4 this A.grFcment are sub ec;to eKaminalion by the other pany,the legislative auditor or the state auditar as appropriate. Eacl, p rty agrees to mainta n their records for a period of s x years from the date of performance of a11 servic:es under tl is Agreement, 6.3 RESPONSIBILITY FOR C STS. The parties shall be responsible for their own attomeys' tees and other costs associata i w th I e {;eparation and nec oUation in draft FZg this Agreement as well s any subsequent dispule arising out of or re4atiny tp ih s Ayreement. 3 S.4 TERMINATION. Urless earlier tetminated by written, mutual agreement o(the parlies or by operatian of sections 5.4.1 or 5.4.2 of Ihis r",greement, this Agrevment shall ierminate upon the completion of ap responsibilit es of the pari+es as set forth in Ar[icle 5 of ttiis Agreernent. In the event any enablmg statu e, ruie,or ordinance is repealed or changed so as o make lhe tenns o(this P.yreement r any of its Exh bi s unreasonab[e, t is the intent of the parties to hring such matter(s)back to their respective governin Boards For consideration. ARTICLE 7 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA7IVES ANQ LIAISONS 7.1 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATiVES. The fallowing named persons are desigriated the Authorized Representat es of ths parties for purposes of this Agreement. Shese persons have author ty to bind the party they represent and lo consent to mc dificat ons and subcontracts, excepE ihat ti e authonzed represen ative shall have only tha authonty spec f caliy or generalty granted by their respective yoveming b4ards. Notice required to be provided a rsuant to h4s Agreement shall be providen to the{o!lowing named persans and addresses unless othenvise stated "+n this A reement,or in a rnodificaGon f this Agreement TG TFiE VRWJPB: Joseph A. Harris or successor, Chair Vermll on R ver Watershed Joint Powers Organization 14955 Galaxie P,ve. App(e Valley, •iN 55t24 Telephonc: {952j 89t-703 TO THE GITY: VVilliam Droste or successor, Mayor Rosemount City i-iall 2875 145 St.V`J. Rosernount, MN 55Q68 Telephone: {65}»23-4411 In addition, notificztion to the 'JR+/JPB regarding lecmination of this Agreement by the other party shall be p vvided to the Ofiice of 1t e Dakoia Caunty Attorney. 1560 Highway 55, Hastings, 1vlinnesoia 55033. 7.2 IAIS NS. To assist the parties in the day-tv-day pertormance of this Agreement and to ensure compfiance and prov+e ongoing consullatir n. a liaison shall be designated by the VRVVJPB and Ihe GITY TI•e VRWJBP and the CITY sh;U keep each:l•hrr cont nually informeci,u v,riting,of any change n the des nated liaison_ At the time of execution of this Ag:eement, the fcllowing persans are the designated liaisons: VRVJJPB Liaison:Lynn Thompson, Deputy Oirector Physical Developmerlt Division Te ephone: (952) B9t-7UU7 CITY Liaison: Jamie Verbrugge, City Administralor Tele hone (fi51)322-2006 ARTIC E 8 MODIFICATIONS Any alter2ti s, variat+ons, modificatiqns, or waivers of ihe provisions of this Agreement shafl oniy be val d when they have been reduced to 4vriting, approved by the parties respective Boards, and signed by the Autharized Representatives of the VF;'JPB and tl r CITY ARTICLE 9 SEVERABiL1T1( The prov sions of this AgreemenT shall be deemed sc:t-erable If any part of this Agreement s ren ered void, invaiid, nr unenforceabie, such rentfering shall not afiect the alidily and enioiceabifily of the remamder of this Agreement unless the part nr parts thal are void. malid or otnercvise unenforceable shall substanUally impazr ttie value of the entire Ag eement w:th respe t t eiih r parry. 4 i 1N WIT IESS NIWEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date(s)inditated below. CiTY OF ROS IOUNT J APPROVED AS TO FORh9: 1 g)I Y "' 1 t 4Villiam Dre;te, PY ayor Rosernount Gity Attorney Dale Dale of Sign ture q By t'"j -_ jr- __r Amy Donzeisr, Clsrk t Date of Signature' i ^[ __ VERMILI.ION R1VER WATER5HED JOiN7 POWERS BOARD APPROVED AS TCl F RM: B 0 ff .00 1 Jo ph A. Harris,Chair A sistant Gounh Atto ney at date of Signature: /o.z S o 7_ _ VRW Res. No 07-67 G ntr r.t i R025 K: K-O7-137 5 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX C– WATER RESOURCE RELATED FEASIBILITY REPORTS C.1: Shannon Pond Outlet/Lift Station C.2: Wachter Pond Drainage Study C.3: Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements C.4: Downtown Redevelopment Storm Water Management Plan WACHTER LAKE 1990 2119 2187 2164 SHANNON POND 2019 2104 2189 2246 2443 614 2097 2162 2274 1864 1918 2302LIFT STATION GRAVITY STORM SEWER LIFT STATION FORCE MAIN GRAVITY STORM SEWER FUTURE FORCE MAIN FUTURE LIFT STATION EXISTING GRAVITY STORM SEWER (NOT INLUDED IN COST ESTIMATE) (NOT INLUDED IN COST ESTIMATE) FM FM FMFM EXISTING GRAVITY STORM SEWER FM FMFM FM FMFM FMLIFT STATION GRAVITY STORM SEWER GRAVITY STORM SEWER FORCE MAIN GRAVITY STORM SEWER FORCE MAIN GRAVITY STORM SEWER GRAVITY STORM SEWER FM FM FM FM FMFMFM FM GRAVITY STORM SEWER Figure Number 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 www.wsbeng.com Minneapolis, MN 55416 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION WSB 763-541-4800 - Fax 763-541-1700 WSB Project No.01556-98 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA June 19, 2007 STORM SEWER, FORCE MAIN, AND LIFT STATION SHANNON POND OUTLET 2 LEGEND: OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTIONS 1 - 3 FORCE MAIN GRAVITY STORM SEWER FM LIFT STATION WACHTER LAKE 1990 2119 2187 2164 SHANNON POND 2019 2104 2189 2246 2443 614 2097 2162 2274 1864 1918 2302LIFT STATION GRAVITY STORM SEWER LIFT STATION FORCE MAIN FM FM FM FM EXISTING GRAVITY STORM SEWER FM FMFM FM FMFM FMLIFT STATION GRAVITY STORM SEWER GRAVITY STORM SEWER FORCE MAIN GRAVITY STORM SEWER GRAVITY STORM SEWER GRAVITY STORM SEWER FM FM FM FM FM FMFM FM Figure Number 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 www.wsbeng.com Minneapolis, MN 55416 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION WSB 763-541-4800 - Fax 763-541-1700 WSB Project No.01556-98 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA June 19, 2007 STORM SEWER, FORCE MAIN, AND LIFT STATION SHANNON POND OUTLET 3 LEGEND: OPTIONS 4 - 6 OPTION 4 OPTION 5 FORCE MAIN GRAVITY STORM SEWER FM LIFT STATION OPTION 6 WACHTER LAKE 1990 2119 2187 2164 SHANNON POND 2019 2104 2189 2246 2443 614 2097 2162 2274 1864 1918 2302LIFT STATION FM FM FM FM EXISTING GRAVITY STORM SEWER FM FMLIFT STATION GRAVITY STORM SEWER FORCE MAIN GRAVITY STORM SEWER GRAVITY STORM SEWER FM FM FM FM GRAVITY STORM SEWER Figure Number 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 www.wsbeng.com Minneapolis, MN 55416 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION WSB 763-541-4800 - Fax 763-541-1700 WSB Project No.01556-98 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA June 19, 2007 STORM SEWER, FORCE MAIN, AND LIFT STATION SHANNON POND OUTLET 4 LEGEND: OPTION 7 & OPTION 8 FORCE MAIN GRAVITY STORM SEWER FM LIFT STATION OPTION 7 OPTION 8 LIFT STATION CONNECT TO EXISTING MCES OUTFALL WACHTER LAKE 1990 2119 2187 2164 SHANNON POND 2019 2104 2189 2246 2443 614 2097 2162 2274 1864 1918 2302 FORCE MAIN GRAVITY STORM SEWER EMPIRE TOWNSHIP WASTEWATER MCES SANITARY SEWER TREATEMENT OUTFALL Figure Number 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 www.wsbeng.com Minneapolis, MN 55416 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION WSB 763-541-4800 - Fax 763-541-1700 WSB Project No.01556-98 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA June 19, 2007 STORM SEWER, FORCE MAIN, AND LIFT STATION SHANNON POND OUTLET 5 LEGEND: FORCE MAIN Option 9 GRAVITY STORM SEWER FORCE MAIN SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS: OPTION 9 FM LIFT STATION UNNUMBERED ZONE A FLOODPLAIN SHANNON POND 614 2274 2302 FORCE MAIN FM FM FM FM FM FM FMFMFMOUTLET INTO VERMILLION RIVER TRIBUTARY CROSSING Figure Number 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 www.wsbeng.com Minneapolis, MN 55416 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION WSB 763-541-4800 - Fax 763-541-1700 WSB Project No.01556-98 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA June 19, 2007 STORM SEWER, FORCE MAIN, AND LIFT STATION SHANNON POND OUTLET 6 LEGEND: FORCE MAIN GRAVITY STORM SEWER OPTION 10 OPTION 10 LIFT STATION FM OUTLET INTO SHANNON POND 614 GRAVEL PIT GRAVITY STORM SEWER Figure Number 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 www.wsbeng.com Minneapolis, MN 55416 INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION WSB 763-541-4800 - Fax 763-541-1700 WSB Project No.01556-98 ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA June 19, 2007 STORM SEWER, FORCE MAIN, AND LIFT STATION SHANNON POND OUTLET 7 LEGEND: Option 11 GRAVITY STORM SEWER OPTION 11 Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 FEASIBILITY REPORT KEEGAN LAKE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA CITY PROJECT NO. ENG 0132 February 17, 2009 Updated February 3, 2017 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 763-541-4800 763-541-1700 (Fax) Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Bill Alms, PE Date: February 3, 2016 Lic. No. 54301 Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Authorization .................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Data Available ................................................................................................................................... 2 3. GENERAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................ 4 3.2 Project Zoning ................................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 Project Need ..................................................................................................................................... 4 4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Streets ............................................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Sanitary Sewer .................................................................................................................................. 7 4.3 Storm Sewer ...................................................................................................................................... 7 4.4 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................... 9 4.5 Alternative Outlet Option ................................................................................................................. 9 4.6 Existing Utilities ............................................................................................................................... 10 4.7 Permits/Approvals .......................................................................................................................... 11 4.8 Right-of-Way/Easements ................................................................................................................ 11 5. FINANCING ............................................................................................................................................. 12 5.1 Opinion of Cost ............................................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Funding ........................................................................................................................................... 12 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................................ 13 7. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................... 14 Appendix A Figure 1 – Location Map Figure 2 – Proposed Improvements Figure 4 - KL-1521 Alternate Outlet Appendix B Opinion of Probable Cost Appendix C Figure 3 – Proposed Easement Requirements Easement Tabulation Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements project, City Project No. ENG 0132, includes the installation of a series of storm sewer outlets to several landlocked stormwater basins upstream of Keegan Lake. Installation of these outlets will provide flood protection to adjacent properties and will complete an improvement identified as a goal in the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). The sanitary sewer on 132nd Court is also proposed to be extended north past the proposed storm sewer for future connection. The total estimated project cost is $476,400 which includes a 10% contingency and 30% indirect costs. This entire amount is proposed to be funded by the Storm Sewer Utility Fund. It is proposed that construction begin in June 2017 and it is anticipated to be completed, including all restoration items, by the fall of 2017. This project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint, and should be constructed as proposed herein. Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 2 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 AUTHORIZATION On December 18, 2006, the Utility Commission authorized the preparation of an engineering feasibility report for the Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements. This project has been designated as City Project Number ENG 0132. On October 21, 2016, an update to the feasibility report was approved. These updates included modeling the stormwater basins using Atlas 14 rainfall data to determine new high water levels and storm sewer sizing and adding an alternative outlet option for basin KL-1521 into the Bonaire storm sewer system. The opinion of costs was also updated to reflect 2017 costs. A project location map is shown on Figure 1 of Appendix A. 2.2 SCOPE The Utility Commission authorized WSB & Associates, Inc. to complete a feasibility report for the installation of a series of storm sewer outlets to provide emergency overflows for several landlocked stormwater basins upstream of Keegan Lake. This feasibility study identifies key stormwater elevations, proposes the most viable drainage improvements, and presents cost estimates detailing the proposed work and easement requirements. 2.3 DATA AVAILABLE Information and materials used in the preparation of this report include the following: City of Rosemount Record Plans City of Rosemount Topography Maps Field Survey by WSB & Associates, Inc. Field Observations of the Area Private Utility Maps Private Utility Field Markings Surveyed by WSB & Associates, Inc. Rosemount Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Rosemount Wetland Management Plan Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 3 Aerial Photo of Project Location Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 4 3. GENERAL BACKGROUND 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project includes several existing ponds located in the northwestern portion of the City which are bound by Bonaire Path to the south, Trunk Highway 3 (TH 3) to the west, 130th Street to the north and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad to the east. The ponds proposed for improvement within these limits include the following as identified in the SWMP: · Pond 1431 (Keegan Lake): Located northwest of the intersection of Bonaire Path and the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad. · Pond 1483: Located approximately 700 feet north of the west intersection of Bonaire Path and 132nd Court. · Pond 1405: Located northeast of the intersection of 130th Street and Bolivia Path. · Pond 1355: Located northwest of the intersection of 130th Street and Bolivia Path. · Pond 2472: Located southwest of the intersection of 130th Street and Bolivia Path. · Pond 1465: Located approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of 130th Street and TH 3. · Pond 1521: Located northeast of the intersection of Bonaire Path and TH 3. · Pond 1435: Located approximately 100 feet west of the intersection of 130th Street and TH 3. 3.2 PROJECT ZONING The area east of TH 3 is zoned TR – Transitional Residential and the area west of TH 3 is zoned RR – Rural Residential. 3.3 PROJECT NEED According to Rosemount’s SWMP, seven upstream ponds within the Keegan Lake Drainage District are proposed to outlet downstream to Keegan Lake. The plan proposes connecting these landlocked basins to Keegan Lake to provide flood protection for the adjacent properties and to maintain defined shorelines. This improvement establishes pond elevations for the 24-hour, 100 year event to protect against high water during large rain events while maximizing stormwater storage. These ponds have been identified on Figure 2 of Appendix A with the pond ID number assigned to them by Rosemount’s SWMP. Currently, the seven ponds directly upstream of Keegan Lake receive approximately 138 acres of total drainage from their surrounding watersheds. According to the SWMP, the outlet rates that to be maintained for the 24- hour, 100 year storm event are 1.8 cfs from Pond 1521, 4.46 cfs from Pond 1355, 4.50 cfs from Pond 1405, and 4.82 cfs from Pond 1483. These volumes of water are far too high for infiltration, evaporation, or additional storage given the land constraints and volume of required storage. In the past, flooding has occurred during larger rain events at the property east of Pond 1521. Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 5 To date, ponds 1435, 1521, 1465, 2472, and 1483 have not been delineated and therefore the normal water elevation has not been established. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has marked the ordinary high water (OHW) level of Pond 1355 at 941.73 and Pond 1405 at 942.41. The DNR has established the OHW for Keegan Lake to be at 942.2. The Keegan Lake outlet is permitted 1.5’ below the OHW at 940.7 which meets the draw down limit set by the DNR. With a constructed outlet for each of the ponds, the Rosemount’s SWMP proposes the approximate normal water level elevation and high water level for each of the ponds as shown below. · Pond 1435 – NWL: 944.00 HWL: 944.97 · Pond 1521 – NWL: 954.00 HWL: 954.65 · Pond 1465 – NWL: 943.50 HWL: 944.35 · Pond 2472 – NWL: 942.70 HWL: 944.34 · Pond 1355 – NWL: 942.70 HWL: 944.27 · Pond 1405 – NWL: 942.50 HWL: 944.10 · Pond 1483 – NWL: 941.50 HWL: 943.18 · Keegan Lake – NWL: 940.70 HWL: 942.18 Pond 1355 (Facing West) Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 6 4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 4.1 STREETS The proposed street improvements include removal and replacement of the roadway impacted by the installation of storm sewer and sanitary sewer. This includes the storm sewer crossing at 130th Street, the sanitary sewer connection at the manhole in 132nd Court, and driveway replacement for the Zorn property and properties along TH 3. Typical roadway replacement includes excavation to accommodate the following sections: 130th Street & 132nd Court · 4 inches bituminous pavement · 8 inches class V aggregate base · 24 inches select granular Driveway replacement · 8 inches class V aggregate base or · 3 inches bituminous pavement · 6 inches class V aggregate base All residents will have access to their properties during construction; however, some inconvenience is anticipated when storm sewer or sanitary sewer is installed across a roadway or driveway. Driveway south of Pond 1465 (Facing Northeast) Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 7 4.2 SANITARY SEWER The proposed sanitary sewer improvements consist of installing an 18-inch sanitary sewer line north from a manhole in 132nd Court through the Zorn property for future connection. The sanitary sewer is proposed to be installed 10 feet north of the storm sewer crossing between Pond 1483 and Keegan Lake to avoid future crossing conflicts between the two lines. The existing stub north to the Zorn property will need to be removed. Proposed sanitary sewer improvements are shown on Figure 2 of Appendix A. 4.3 STORM SEWER Given the need for flood prevention, a series of four downstream outlets have been proposed at Ponds 1521, 1355, 1405 and 1483 along with a weir located at the outlet to Pond 1435. These improvements, in conjunction with the existing overland swales and storm sewer drainage connections, provide flood protection for 24-hour, 100 year storm event. The pond high water levels have been updated from the original feasibility report using Atlas 14 rainfall data. Proposed storm sewer improvements are shown on Figure 2 of Appendix A and are also listed below with their corresponding design elevations. · Pond 1435 to Pond 1465 o Installation of a weir at existing outlet Weir elevation = 944.00 Weir to be located west of an existing small utility access · Pond 1521 to Pond 1465 o Installation of an outlet control structure and storm sewer between ponds Outlet elevation = 952.30 15-inch reinforced concrete (RC) pipe to the outlet structure 15-inch RC pipe and 2 - 48-inch manholes from the outlet structure to Pond 1465 Apron, riprap and geotextile fabric at Pond 1465 Utility coordination or relocation will be required along TH 3 · Pond 1465 to Pond 2472 o No improvements are proposed o A permanent easement is proposed for future maintenance of an existing swale at the elevation of 943.00 Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 8 · Pond 1355 to Pond 1405 o Removal of existing storm sewer and installation of 18-inch RC pipe storm sewer Outlet elevation = 942.50 Apron, riprap and geotextile fabric at Pond 1405 · Pond 1405 to Pond 1483 o Installation of an outlet control structure and storm sewer between ponds Outlet elevation = 942.50 18-inch RC pipe storm sewer from outlet structure to Pond 1483 Apron, riprap and geotextile fabric north of Pond 1483 A riprap swale with a 5-foot bottom between apron and Pond 1483 · Pond 1483 – Keegan Lake o Installation outlet control structure and storm sewer between ponds Outlet elevation = 941.50 30-inch RC pipe storm sewer from the outlet structure to Keegan Lake Apron, riprap and geotextile fabric at Keegan Lake A summary of the proposed NWL and HWL are listed below. TABLE 1: POND SUMMARY Pond ID NWL HWL (TP-40) HWL (Atlas 14) Ex Low Building Opening (ft) KL-1435 944.00 944.97 945.34 954.0 KL-1521 952.30 953.29 953.73 1 955.3 KL-1465 942.50 944.32 944.95 948.75 KL-2472 942.50 944.30 944.95 950.0 KL-1355 942.50 944.30 944.94 947.75 KL-1405 942.50 944.06 944.57 950.0 KL-1483 941.50 942.62 943.05 953.5 Keegan Lake- 1431 940.70 942.16 942.78 946.0 1 NWL would need to be set at 951.6’ to provide 2 ft of freeboard. Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 9 Pond 1405 (Facing East) 4.4 WATER QUALITY Water quality of Keegan Lake was mentioned as a concern. Each basin is designed to meet NURP requirements for water quality treatment. Research has shown that basins designed to meet these requirements remove up to 90% TSS and 60% total phosphorus (TP). By connecting the upstream ponds to Keegan Lake, there should be minimal impact on the existing loading. 4.5 ALTERNATIVE OUTLET OPTION An alternative outlet option for basin KL-1521 was discussed to help alleviate high water levels during large rain events. This option proposes connecting an outlet from the basin to the storm sewer system along Bonaire Path to the south. This storm sewer system ultimately discharges to basin KL-1687. · Pond 1521 to Pond 1687 o Installation of an outlet control structure and storm sewer between ponds Outlet elevation = 953.55 15-inch reinforced concrete (RC) pipe to the outlet structure 5134 along Bonaire Path Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 10 The existing Bonaire Path storm sewer system, as designed in 2006, currently has capacity to handle the new flow from Pond 1521. No pipe or structure downstream to final discharge at Pond 1687 will be affected with the additional flow. The adjacent home located near Pond 1521 has a low floor elevation of 955.3, as measured in the Keegan Lake survey. The City Engineering Guidelines require at least 3 feet of freeboard between the 100-year HWL and the minimum building opening. Required freeboard can be lowered to 2 feet with City Engineer’s approval. The Pond 1521 proposed outlet would connect into the Bonaire Path storm sewer system at structure 5134. The invert elevation of this structure based on the record as-built drawings is 952.08’. To achieve a minimum pipe slope of 0.4% for the storm sewer and connect into this structure, the minimum pipe outlet from Pond 1521 would need to be 953.55. This would raise the 100-year HWL of Pond 1521 to an elevation of 954.69, which does not meet the freeboard requirements of the City for the existing structure. The 100-year HWL elevation of Pond 1521 with an outlet at 952.30 is 953.73. 4.6 EXISTING UTILITIES According to the Gopher State One Call, private utilities in the area include: · City of Rosemount · Dakota Electric · Fiber to the Home · Frontier Communications · Independent School District #196 · Koch Pipelines · Minnesota Energy Resources Corporation · Northern Natural Gas · Xcel Energy - Gas · Xcel Energy – Electric · Charter Communications · Unknown – Regulated by SMP · Magellan Midstream Partners Private utilities that are not within their own easement are responsible for the costs to hold or relocate utilities serving local residents; however, utilities within their own easement or private property may require the project to incur additional cost for coordination and relocation. Private utilities within Mn/DOT right-of-way are there by permit with Mn/DOT and will be held or relocated at the cost of the City. No private utility relocation costs have been included with this project. Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 11 4.7 PERMITS/APPROVALS The anticipated permits and approvals that will be required for this project and the respective regulatory agencies are listed below: · Minnesota Department of Transportation ....................................................... Work within the Right-of-Way · DNR Permit ..................................................................... Work within Pond 1355, Pond 1405, & Keegan Lake · Dewatering Permit .................................................................................................................. Minnesota DNR · Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ............................................... National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Stormwater Permit For Construction Activity (MN R100001) · Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ........................................................................................ Sanitary Sewer 4.8 RIGHT-OF-WAY/EASEMENTS It is recommended that a combination of permanent and temporary utility easements as well as permits within the existing right-of-way be secured along the entire length of the improvements. The intent of the project is to secure the required easements through easement dedication by each of the required property owners in exchange for the City funding the drainage improvements. However, due to the local topography, some of the required easements are located on properties that may not directly benefit from the improvements. Easements not secured through dedication may be purchased if they are deemed critical to the completion of the project and would otherwise prohibit additional upstream improvements. This issue will need to be addressed prior to final design to prevent unnecessary design work. If land acquisition is used, a variation of land value is expected based on current market value as well as easement location within a specific parcel. Attached in Appendix C is a table showing the approximate easement value based on a percentage of the current lot value and could be starting point of negotiation between the City and property owner. These values have been included with the cost of the project but an appraisal will be necessary to determine the exact value of each property and required easement. Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 12 5. FINANCING 5.1 OPINION OF COST Detailed opinions of cost can be found in Appendix B of this report. The opinion of probable cost incorporates estimated 2017 construction costs and includes a 10% contingency and 30% for all related indirect costs (legal, administrative, engineering, and financing). Table 2 below provides a summary of the opinion of cost for the Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements: Table 2 - Summary of Cost Total Schedule A - Surface Improvements $101,600 Schedule B - Sanitary Sewer Improvements $22,600 Schedule C - Storm Sewer Improvements $296,400 Easements $55,800 Total $476,400 An easement tabulation table showing the proposed easements and approximate costs has been included in Appendix C of this report. The costs have been calculated based on a percentage of the current lot value; however, an appraisal will be necessary to determine the exact value of each property and required easement. 5.2 FUNDING Financing for the Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements project is proposed to be fully funded through the Storm Sewer Utility Fund as shown below on Table 3. Table 3 - Proposed Funding Total Storm Sewer Utility Fund $476,400 Total $476,400 Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 13 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE The proposed project schedule for the Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements is as follows: (To be Updated) Public Informational Meeting ................................................................................................... November 13, 2007 City Council Receives Feasibility Report ..................................................................................... February 17, 2009 City Council Orders Improvements .................................................................................................. March 3, 2009 City Council Receives Plans and Specifications and Authorizes Advertisement for Bidding ....................................................................................... April 21, 2009 Open Bids ........................................................................................................................................... May 12, 2009 City Council Awards Contract ............................................................................................................. May 19, 2009 Preconstruction Meeting .................................................................................................................... May 26, 2009 Begin Construction .................................................................................................................................. June 2009 Substantial Completion ............................................................................................................................. Fall 2009 Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 Page 14 7. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION This feasibility report consists of providing several emergency outlets to the landlocked stormwater basins upstream of Keegan Lake. Outlet installation will provide flood prevention to adjacent properties and maintain more defined shorelines for the ponds. Improvements include the installation of storm sewer and a weir at set elevations to provide an emergency overflow for the landlocked stormwater basins. Installation of these outlets will provide flood protection to adjacent properties while maximizing stormwater storage and will complete an improvement identified as a goal in the SWMP. An alternative outlet option was analyzed for Basin 1521. This outlet would connect into the storm sewer system along Bonaire Path to the south, rather than outlet to Basin 1465 to the north. The alternate outlet for Basin 1521 would result in approximately 1’ less freeboard than the proposed SWMP plan routing resulting in inadequate flood protection for adjacent structure. A sanitary sewer stub is proposed to be extended north of 132nd Court to avoid future conflicts with the storm sewer. Roadway repairs on 130th Street and 132nd Court as well as driveway repairs throughout the project are proposed to accommodate the installation of storm sewer and sanitary sewer. The total estimated cost of the Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements project is $476,400. The opinion of probable cost can be found in Appendix B. This project is feasible because there are no engineering factors to prevent the project from being completed. It is also necessary and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint to maintain emergency outlet to each pond to provide flood protection for the adjacent properties. It is our recommendation that the Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements be implemented as outlined in this report. Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 APPENDIX A Figure 1 – Location Map Figure 2 – Proposed Improvements Figure 4 - KL-1521 Alternate Outlet Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 APPENDIX B Opinion of Probable Cost Feasibility Report Keegan Lake Drainage Improvements Update 2017 City Project No. ENG 0132 City of Rosemount, MN WSB Project No. 2235-31 APPENDIX C Figure 3 – Proposed Easement Requirements Easement Tabulation K:\01668-37\Admin\Docs\MEMO - 021308 - ab.doc Memorandum To: Kim Lindquist, City of Rosemount Andy Brotzler, City of Rosemount From: Todd Hubmer, P.E., WSB & Associates Andrea Moffatt, WSB & Associates Date: February 13, 2008 Re: Downtown Redevelopment Storm Water Management Plan Technical Memorandum WSB Project No. 1668-37 As part of the Stonebridge redevelopment project located east of Trunk Highway 3 between 146th Street and Lower 147th Street, as shown on the attached figure, storm water management measures will need to be incorporated with the project. With this redevelopment project, the City has the opportunity to implement some innovative and highly effective solutions for storm water management in a developed area. These storm water improvements are planned to occur both on-site within the redevelopment area and downstream at a regional pond system. Outlined below please find a more detailed plan to address storm water management for this area. On-Site Storm Water Management (Small Storm Management) The storm water management within the redevelopment site is anticipated to use some Low Impact Development (LID) strategies. Impervious surface will be reduced by incorporating green space and landscaping as much as possible. While water from roof drains will be directed downstream via the storm sewer, runoff from other hard surfaces such as the parking lots and sidewalks will be directed to rain gardens, swales, or other depressed landscaped areas. The parking lots would be designed with either no or partial curb and gutter to allow storm water to flow into the rain gardens and swales. These features are anticipated to provide rate control and treatment for the 1- to 2- year storm events for on-site runoff. Off-Site Regional Storm Water Management (Large Storm Management) For larger storm events, additional treatment will be provided downstream at a regional pond system. Currently, storm water from the area is directed by the storm sewer along Burma Avenue to the north to Erickson Pond in the park. Erickson Pond is a Preserve wetland in the City’s Wetland Management Plan and also is highly visible within the public park area. Storm water from the redevelopment area will continue to be directed to Erickson Park; however, a new regional active storm water management treatment system will be constructed immediately upstream of Erickson Pond. This system would encompass the following two components: February 13, 2008 Page 2 K:\01668-37\Admin\Docs\MEMO - 021308 - ab.doc ● Course sediment removal system: A large, vortex-based grit chamber would be installed near the end of the storm sewer pipe, upstream of Erickson Pond. This system uses gravity and storm water flow to remove the coarse sediment in the storm water. This system is anticipated to removes 40-80% of the sediment and 10-30% of the phosphorus, depending on the storm event. ● Chemical treatment system: Once the sediment is removed, water will be directed via Erickson Pond to an underground chemical treatment system. Water from Erickson Pond will be pumped into the underground treatment system. Through the use of alum as a flocculent, the phosphorus will be removed and the clean water returned to the basin. This system will cycle water and be designed to avoid short-circuiting of the water. This is effective enough to remove phosphorus to detection limits and provide significantly better treatment than traditional ponding BMP’s. The regional treatment system will be designed not only to treat the water from the specific redevelopment area, it will be designed to treat the water from the entire 83 acre downtown subwatershed. The larger downtown area land cover consists of fully developed residential and business areas. Storm water in this area runs off the hard surfaces and enters the storm sewer system without any treatment. All of this water for the larger 83 acre watershed is directed to Erickson Pond. This plan will not only provide treatment for the Stonebridge redevelopment project, but will also treat the larger 83 acre area of the existing developed downtown area; improving existing conditions and accommodating additional future redevelopment within the downtown area. If you have questions, please feel free to call us at (763)541-4800. c. Pete Willenbring, WSB & Associates CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX D – CITY-WIDE HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC MODEL REPORT 2:05 PM 5/4/2015 K:\01668-12\WR\EXCEL\REV-APP-CSMP-2007.XLS 2007 - ROSEMOUNT SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE POND ID BASIN NAME WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN CLASSIFICATION (1) WETLAND MANAGEMEN T PLAN ID DRAINAGE AREA Acre FULLY DEVELOPED SCS CURVE NUMBER EST. NWL/ TYPICAL/ PUMP OFF WATER ELEV. EST. MANAGEMENT WATER ELEV. (PUMP ON) ESTIMATED 100 YEAR 24 HOUR HIGH WATER ELEV. (1) (3) STORM WATER STORAGE 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR HWL (AC-FT) STORM WATER STORAGE AVAIL. FROM PUMP ON ELEVATION (AC-FT) 24 HOUR 100 YEAR RUNOFF VOLUME (AC-FT) OUTLET ELEVATION OUTLET DESCRIPTION (2) 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR EVENT PEAK DISCHARGE RATE (CFS) TEMPORARY PUMPING DISCHARGE RATE (CFS) EXISTING LOW BUILDING ELEVATION (3) MINIMUM BUILDING ELEVATION APPROX. EXISTING OVERFLOW ELEV. (3) DOWNSTREAM POND OVERFLOW ELEV. (3) POND DOWNSTREAM ID COMMENTS Birger Pond District BP-6 Manage2 434 24.6 73 919.4 -924.15 2.519 -6.332 919.4 24" RCP - E 29.3 -932 928 934 N/A Out of City Limit of City contour data BP-13 6.8 71 908 -908.68 0.979 -1.643 908 12" RCP - E 1.19 -928 912 920 N/A Out of City Limit of City contour data BP-49 20.8 70 952 -954.48 2.29 -4.862 952 15" RCP - E 8.04 -962 (955 shed)958 955 938 540 BP-70 1.6 61 953 -954.06 0.011 -0.269 953 12" RCP - E 4.63 -957 959 960 960 545 Evermoor Development BP-75 Manage2 454 23.3 71 942 -944.67 3.612 -5.628 942 12" RCP - P 2.67 -950 (946 shed)948 945 LS 77 BP-155 Copper Pond Manage2 443 28.4 72 944.5 -947.88 3.111 -7.084 944.5 Lift Station-E 10 -946 (954 shed)951 960 960 545 BP-514 Birger Pond Preserve 380 83.7 76 892 -899.23 198.223 -23.576 892 Lift Station-E 3.9 --908.5 N/A --Edge of contour data BP-525 Preserve 395 22.7 72 952.4 -956.35 2.248 -5.662 952.4 21" RCP - E 17.16 --960 956 918 1565 BP-540 Preserve 564 75.3 72 930.5 -934.5 21.975 -18.782 930.5 18" RCP - E 13.3 -934 938.5 938 --Recommend survey of Low Building BP-545 Manage2 563 12.7 76 950 -951.8 2.372 -3.577 950 15" RCP - E 4.32 -952 955.5 960 --Recommend survey of Low Building BP-564 Manage3 428 28.2 73 958 -961.13 5.679 -7.261 958 12" RCP - E 1.6 --967.5 964 -- BP-585 Preserve 442 22.0 73 940 -942.31 3.074 -5.662 940 18" RCP - E 9.02 -946 946 946 -- BP-1255 Manage2 168 22.3 70 989 -990.36 3.309 -5.213 989 24" RCP - P 3.36 -1000 994 994 --Rerouted LH 1255 to BP Watershed BP-1310 Manage2 239 27.3 71 944 -947.11 3.901 -6.595 944 12" RCP - P 4.16 -960 (956 shed)951 962 -- BP-1341 Unamed Preserve 238 95.1 71 925 -930.43 25.286 -22.973 925 24" RCP - E 0.59 -936 (944 shed)937.5 934 936 1386 Proposed Outlet Control Structure- Operational Plan for 10-Day Event BP-1361 15.6 72 NA -NA NA -3.891 NA OVERLAND NA -952 942 937 938 1381 Equalize w/ 1381 BP-1366 Preserve 275 9.6 70 NA -NA NA -2.244 NA OVERLAND NA -952 942 937 938 1381 Equalize w/ 1381 BP-1374 Manage2 295 25.6 71 911 -918.16 9.703 -6.184 911 OCS-P 6.55 -924 920 918 950 1408 Equalize w/ 1408 BP-1381 Manage2 273 14.8 71 935 -938.43 12.875 -3.575 935 12" RCP - P 9.11 -958 941.5 936 LS 1408 Add Berm & Pipe to Limit Discharge BP-1386 Unamed Preserve 279 33.7 73 907 -909.7 9.294 -8.674 907 12" RCP - P 3.07 -954 944 938 918 1374 BP-1395 Manage2 263 8.3 72 NA -NA NA -2.07 NA OVERLAND NA -956 956 953 938 1381 BP-1408 Marcotte Pond Manage2 293 21.3 74 906 -910.67 12.03 -5.653 906 Lift Station-E 15 -916 916 950 --Marcotte Pond BP-1474 Manage2 337 11.7 75 946 -948.56 1.092 -3.2 946 24" RCP - P 18.88 -954 952 954 944 1506 BP-1481 Preserve 316 21.9 70 949 -952.87 4.229 -5.112 949 24" RCP - P 25.63 -Under Const.956 952 950 1527 BP-1482 Manage2 323 47.4 71 950 -955.15 6.184 -11.46 950 30" RCP - P 27.04 -952 947 948 942 1431 BP-1499 Preserve 351 17.5 74 NA -NA NA -4.645 NA -NA -912 912 940 930 2111 BP-1502 Preserve 362 12.5 72 NA -NA NA -3.118 NA -NA -912 912 940 930 2111 BP-1506 Preserve 335 17.0 75 935.8 -940.94 5.663 -4.647 935.8 24" RCP - P 2.14 -Under Const.943.5 944 920 1408 Evermoor Development BP-1527 Preserve 345 7.1 79 944 -947.42 6.258 -2.177 944 24" RCP - P 23.55 -Under Const.955.5 950 --Evermoor Development BP-1537 Manage2 367 22.8 76 935.7 -937.61 5.058 -6.422 935.7 12" RCP - E 3.26 -938 940.6 954 954 1474 Minimal Freeboard BP-1565 Preserve 389 22.9 74 909.2 -914.13 3.138 -6.078 909.2 24" RCP - E 28.48 -918 918.5 918 -- BP-1570 Manage2 565 8.9 65 952 -952.91 0.843 -1.744 952 12" RCP - P 2.42 -954 956 956 944 1506 BP-2423 16.1 74 940 -942.36 1.884 -4.262 940 18" RCP - P 10.78 -Under Const.948.5 948 --Evermoor Development BP-2424 Preserve 325 7.4 74 943 -946.93 6.729 -1.964 943 15" RCP - P 7 -Under Const.950 948 920 1408 Evermoor Development-Control Structure-10-Day Event Operational Plan BP-2425 29.2 66 950 -953.31 2.456 -5.932 950 24" RCP - P 22.99 -Under Const.956.5 955 -- BP-2426 1.0 74 950.7 -953.33 2.216 -0.263 950.7 12:" RCP - P 30 -Under Const.956.3 955 -- BP-2506 6.8 71 908 -908.68 0.979 -1.643 908 12" RCP - E 1.19 -Under Const.-930 930 514 BP-2526 16.9 76 NA -NA NA -4.76 NA -NA ------ BP-2600 Preserve 322 3.6 75 932 -934.02 0.546 -0.99 932 OCS-E 6.55 -937.5 937.5 936 936 2600 BP-2602 Manage2 321 14.9 71 932.5 -934.95 1.965 -3.597 932.5 15" RCP - E 5.73 -937.5 937.5 936 950 1408 Coates District CP-2217 193.5 72 894.0 -906.0 43.1 -48.3 894.0 12" RCP - P 5.0 ------No contours-Outside City Limits CP-2316 165.0 72 886.0 -896.4 48.0 -41.2 886.0 Lift Station 3.0 ------ No contours-Outside CIty Limits- Regional Pond East Rich Valley District ERV-1707 Preserve 438 597.0 80 820 -827.28 223.882 -188.117 820 OCS-P 576.64 -832 832 842 838 1869 ERV-1708 Manage2 679 615.1 76 820 -830.67 176.938 -173.259 820 36" RCP - P 88.68 -852 835 832 838 2422 ERV-1781 94.1 84 830 -834.53 22.589 -32.908 830 24" RCP - P 14.05 -844 838 844 838 1869 ERV-1814 Manage2 602 74.3 70 830 -833.4 7.301 -17.369 830 36" RCP - P 43.31 -848 853.5 842 842 1707 ERV-1869 584.9 82 824 -832.43 134.263 -194.335 824 48" RCP - P 86.38 -842 838 838 836 1952 CSAH 42 Regional Basin ERV-1941 203.5 80 840 -850.12 42.945 -64.124 840 36" RCP - P 57.03 -860 853.5 850 838 1869 Create Additional Stormwater Storage ERV-1952 241.3 80 825 -832.32 67.044 -76.035 825 48" RCP - P 55.5 -838 834 836 834 2422 Regional Basin ERV-1978 131.7 81 892 -902.49 23.572 -42.624 892 24" RCP - P 30.18 --905.6 902 850 1941 ERV-2133 Undetermined 492 59.0 72 906 -910.39 12.163 -14.717 906 12" RCP - P 2.71 -912 913.3 914 850 1941 ERV-2134 289.1 72 831 -838.87 65.983 -72.112 831 36" RCP - P 40.1 -842 842 836 834 2422 ERV-2161 Undetermined 693 99.2 72 896 -900.39 27.111 -24.744 896 15" RCP - P 2.9 -912 909 898 850 1914 ERV-2179 Undetermined 502 184.8 72 904 -907.1 46.461 -46.096 904 12" RCP - P 2.65 -914 910 912 914 2195 ERV-2191 112.3 72 894 -900.12 14.925 -28.012 894 27" RCP - P 31.52 -900 904 898 836 2134 ERV-2195 Undetermined 691 23.8 72 902 -905.13 4.889 -5.937 902 15" RCP - P 3.87 -912 912 914 898 2161 ERV-2235 60.5 72 870 -875.73 7.261 -15.091 870 12" RCP - P 23.29 --881 880 934 2422 Create Additional Stormwater Storage ERV-2259 83.9 72 906 -910.2 15.146 -20.928 906 15" RCP - P 6.86 --913.5 908 898 2161 ERV-2267 47.2 72 902 -906.69 10.535 -11.773 902 12" RCP - P 1.39 -908 910 910 914 2327 ERV-2286 140.3 72 882 -889.73 26.342 -34.996 882 21" RCP - P 12.48 -902 894 888 878 2341 ERV-2327 61.0 72 900 -904.56 15.549 -15.216 900 15" RCP - P 4.71 -914 911 914 888 2286 ERV-2341 59.1 72 876 -879.77 18.758 -14.742 876 24" RCP - P 11.32 -900 885 880 -Out of City ERV-2422 469.7 73 826 -831.67 235.72 -120.893 826 72" RCP - P 31.93 -834 837 836 -Out of City Regional Basin-Construct Berm on East to Create Stormwater Storage Note: (2) E=Existing, P=Proposed, RCP=Reinforce Concrete Pipe (3) The low building, high water, and overflow elevations shown above are approximate based on the City topographic mapping. These elevations should be field verified for accuracy when devleopment takes place in the area. 1) The storm water model assumes that the pond elevation is equal to the NWL at the beginning of the event. The HWL is affected by the accuracy of the data such as drainage area, storage capacity, outlet description and condition, and runoff factors have not been field calibrated. 2:05 PM 5/4/2015 K:\01668-12\WR\EXCEL\REV-APP-CSMP-2007.XLS 2007 - ROSEMOUNT SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE POND ID BASIN NAME WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN CLASSIFICATION (1) WETLAND MANAGEMEN T PLAN ID DRAINAGE AREA Acre FULLY DEVELOPED SCS CURVE NUMBER EST. NWL/ TYPICAL/ PUMP OFF WATER ELEV. EST. MANAGEMENT WATER ELEV. (PUMP ON) ESTIMATED 100 YEAR 24 HOUR HIGH WATER ELEV. (1) (3) STORM WATER STORAGE 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR HWL (AC-FT) STORM WATER STORAGE AVAIL. FROM PUMP ON ELEVATION (AC-FT) 24 HOUR 100 YEAR RUNOFF VOLUME (AC-FT) OUTLET ELEVATION OUTLET DESCRIPTION (2) 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR EVENT PEAK DISCHARGE RATE (CFS) TEMPORARY PUMPING DISCHARGE RATE (CFS) EXISTING LOW BUILDING ELEVATION (3) MINIMUM BUILDING ELEVATION APPROX. EXISTING OVERFLOW ELEV. (3) DOWNSTREAM POND OVERFLOW ELEV. (3) POND DOWNSTREAM ID COMMENTS Erickson Pond District EP-578 Erickson Pond Preserve 620 166.2 71 923 -933.73 76.619 -40.148 923 Lift Station - P 5 -940 945 942 932 1770 EP-756 14.5 79 968 -969.95 2.543 -4.446 968 12" RCP - P 4.56 -974 974 974 932 1770 Discharges to Biscayne Ave. Storm sewer EP-786 8.9 75 966.4 -968.25 1.152 -2.434 966.4 15" RCP - P 5.68 --971.5 976 932 1770 EP-1662 Manage3 419 23.2 75 956 -959.58 3.601 -6.354 956 15" RCP - P 5.42 --954.6 952 942 1752 Evermoor Development EP-1711 Manage2 571 17.0 63 953 -955.21 1.87 -3.083 953 18" RCP - E 9.97 -960 958.7 958 942 1752 EP-1714 4.2 85 972 -973.75 0.601 -1.516 972 15" RCP - E 6.26 -977 977 976 942 1752 EP-1752 Schwarz Pond Preserve 431 208.2 67 924.5 -929.34 57.434 -43.896 924.5 Lift Station - E 6.8 -930.2 933.5 942 -- Rosemount High School - No Freeboard- 10 Day Event EP-1753 Manage2 427 79.8 79 942 -948.1 15.862 -24.476 942 OCS-E 32.27 -954 954 948 948 1755 EP-1754 23.6 71 956 -958.95 4.227 -5.694 956 12" RCP - P 1.55 --962 970 942 1752 EP-1755 6.9 72 936 -940.91 2.5 -1.721 936 OCS-E 26.27 -946 946 944 942 1752 EP-1770 Manage2 581 42.7 74 928 -934.48 7.306 -11.333 928 12" RCP - E 5.42 -942 943 932 942 578 EP-1821 Manage2 452 34.0 64 926 -930.04 5.843 -6.413 926 Temp. Pump 2.61 2 938 937 936 940 1833 Temp. Pumping -Management Plan- Equalize w/#1833 EP-1833 Manage2 570 29.6 62 928 -931.68 3.275 -5.157 928 12" RCP - P 2.58 -942 937 940 926 1752 Management Plan w/Basin #1821- Equalize w/#1821 EP-1990 Manage2 487 76.1 82 922 -939.56 92.05 -25.285 922 12" RCP - P 9.78 --947 948 946 2030 Buisness Park Basin-Assumes Basin has Infiltrated to Bottom Elevation for available live pool EP-2019 Manage3 575 135.2 75 944 -949.5 19.866 -36.978 944 36" RCP - P 36.72 --952.5 952 950 2097 EP-2030 99.0 77 936 -945.11 6.717 -28.702 936 24" RCP - E 145.98 -944 949 946 946 2442 EP-2031 41.0 80 936 -942.96 13.901 -12.919 936 24" RCP - E 22.29 -944 949 946 950 2164 EP-2097 Manage3 591 260.1 73 940 -944.48 47.03 -66.945 940 27" RCP - P 35.09 --947.5 950 948 2104 EP-2119 Manage3 491 3.4 81 936 -938.02 0.316 -1.1 936 12" RCP - E 8.93 -952 947 946 952 2162 EP-2162 Manage2 495 32.3 75 916 -930.01 24.612 -8.834 916 Lift Station - P 30 -952 947 946 950 2097 Proposed U of Minn. Infiltration Basin EP-2164 Manage3 594 23.0 84 930 -933.96 5.401 -8.043 930 12" RCP - P 3.41 -942 947 948 950 2274 EP-2165 121.0 81 NA -NA NA -39.161 NA -NA -955 955 950 954 2302 EP-2187 Manage3 493 10.0 84 936 -938.04 1.034 -3.497 936 12" RCP - P 24.82 -942 947 954 948 2164 EP-2274 Manage3 504 165.7 84 932 -938.88 37.521 -57.95 932 36" RCP - P 51.59 -948 949 950 -Out of City Discharge to basin from Shannon Pond and Wachter Lake requires Operational Plan EP-2302 Manage2 512 128.7 80 914 -934.8 144.537 -40.554 914 33" RCP - P 18.45 -952 951 950 -Out of City Proposed U of Minn. Infiltration Basin EP-2442 Manage3 579 61.1 85 942 -952.46 15.677 -21.897 942 15" RCP - P 13.38 -960 952 946 946 2030 EP-2444 18.9 81 946 -951.65 10.714 -6.108 946 OCS-E 11.91 -955 955 953 942 2274 EP-2445 1.6 85 946 -951.64 3.028 -0.575 946 OVERLAND 0.77 --955 952 952 2444 JJT Business Park EP-2446 5.9 92 951.95 -954.91 0.32 -2.501 951.95 OVERLAND 125.76 --955 952 952 2444 JJT Business Park EP-2449 9.2 90 953.1 -955.89 0.339 -3.727 953.1 OVERLAND 91.59 --955 952 952 2444 JJT Business Park EP-2451 8.9 91 954.5 -956.57 0.274 -3.682 954.5 OVERLAND 45.85 -955 955 952 952 2444 JJT Business Park EP-2474 65.0 78 946 -953.59 15.762 -19.386 946 12" RCP - P 12.17 -960 959 958 946 2442 EP-2475 Manage3 577 4.8 75 946 -948.98 1.322 -1.322 946 OCS-P Hawkins Pond District HP-77 Hawkins Pond Manage1 462 92.5 71 916.5 -926.5 56.6 -22.3 916.5 Lift Station-E 2.7 -932 932 950 LIFT STATION 950 HP-589 Manage2 468 43.1 75 925.6 -929.4 2.949 -11.788 925.6 36" RCP - E 92.02 -932 932.4 928 950 77 HP-596 Preserve 463 55.1 74 932.0 -936.0 8.6 -14.6 932.0 18" RCP - E 10.0 -934 939 944 928 589 HP-1935 49.0 71 950 -957.13 4.802 -11.837 950 27" RCP - P 26.44 -958 960.5 958 Out of City HP-1950 11.4 72 952.5 -955.8 1.2 -2.8 952.5 12"RCP - E 8.8 -958 959 958 928 589 Note: (2) E=Existing, P=Proposed, RCP=Reinforce Concrete Pipe (3) The low building, high water, and overflow elevations shown above are approximate based on the City topographic mapping. These elevations should be field verified for accuracy when devleopment takes place in the area. 1) The storm water model assumes that the pond elevation is equal to the NWL at the beginning of the event. The HWL is affected by the accuracy of the data such as drainage area, storage capacity, outlet description and condition, and runoff factors have not been field calibrated. 2:05 PM 5/4/2015 K:\01668-12\WR\EXCEL\REV-APP-CSMP-2007.XLS 2007 - ROSEMOUNT SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE POND ID BASIN NAME WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN CLASSIFICATION (1) WETLAND MANAGEMEN T PLAN ID DRAINAGE AREA Acre FULLY DEVELOPED SCS CURVE NUMBER EST. NWL/ TYPICAL/ PUMP OFF WATER ELEV. EST. MANAGEMENT WATER ELEV. (PUMP ON) ESTIMATED 100 YEAR 24 HOUR HIGH WATER ELEV. (1) (3) STORM WATER STORAGE 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR HWL (AC-FT) STORM WATER STORAGE AVAIL. FROM PUMP ON ELEVATION (AC-FT) 24 HOUR 100 YEAR RUNOFF VOLUME (AC-FT) OUTLET ELEVATION OUTLET DESCRIPTION (2) 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR EVENT PEAK DISCHARGE RATE (CFS) TEMPORARY PUMPING DISCHARGE RATE (CFS) EXISTING LOW BUILDING ELEVATION (3) MINIMUM BUILDING ELEVATION APPROX. EXISTING OVERFLOW ELEV. (3) DOWNSTREAM POND OVERFLOW ELEV. (3) POND DOWNSTREAM ID COMMENTS Keegan Lake District KL-1334 Preserve 258 47.1 72 962.0 -964.3 6.6 -11.7 962.0 18" RCP - P 10.5 -970 969 968 942 1467 KL-1355 Unamed Preserve 284 42.8 73 942.7 -944.27 8.354 -11.016 942.7 24" RCP - P 4.46 -948 948 942 952 1465 KL-1405 Unamed Manage1 288 26.2 73 942.5 -944.1 6.9 -6.7 942.5 24" RCP - P 4.5 -950 948 946 942 1355 KL-1409 Manage2 290 16.0 73 954 -955.64 2.322 -4.118 954 12" RCP - P 3.67 -960 959 958 944 1451 KL-1423 Preserve 283 16.8 71 946.0 -948.2 2.7 -4.1 946.0 12" RCP - P 1.8 -952 952 950 944 1433 KL-1431 Keegan Lake Preserve 310 91.1 78 940.7 -942.18 49.83 -27.17 940.7 30" RCP - P 9.23 -946 946 942 942 1467 Outlet Control Sturcture KL-1433 Preserve 309 34.1 72 944.0 -946.4 8.8 -8.5 944.0 12" RCP - P 1.4 -946 950.5 944 944 1486 KL-1435 Manage1 296 33.9 76 944 -944.97 7.403 -9.549 944 24" RCP - P 2.43 -954 949 952 952 1465 KL-1451 Manage1 307 20.8 72 941.0 -943.3 6.7 -5.2 941.0 12" RCP - P 1.9 --947 944 942 1467 KL-1465 Preserve 314 8.9 74 943.5 -944.35 1.572 -2.362 943.5 5' BCW 6.49 -948 948 952 948 1482 KL-1467 Keegan Lake-East Preserve 320 49.2 74 940.7 -942.5 15.6 -13.1 940.7 24" RCP - P 9.2 -952 946 942 942 1431 KL-1483 Manage2 324 8.9 71 941.5 -943.18 1.702 -2.162 941.5 30" RCP - P 4.82 -952 952 948 944 1431 KL-1486 143.9 70 926.0 -932.6 30.9 -33.6 926.0 12" RCP - P 4.0 -936 938 944 944 1433 Evermoor Development KL-1508 29.9 59 928 -931.32 3.62 -4.575 928 12" RCP -P 0.98 -962 938 956 944 1486 Evermoor Development KL-1521 Manage2 339 8.3 75 954.3 -955.1 1.8 -2.3 954.3 10' BCW 1.8 -956 958 956 952 1435 KL-1533 Mare Pond-South Preserve 400 20.4 75 951 -951.87 11.742 -5.568 951 15" RCP - P 2.3 -976 958 956 964 1530 KL-1534 Mare Pond-North Preserve 379 24.6 75 950.3 -951.9 8.0 -6.7 950.3 2-28" RCP-A-E 9.0 -964 958 964 964 1533 KL-1536 9.5 78 952 -954.13 0.559 -2.82 952 OCS-E 32.42 --958 958 964 1533 KL-1539 28.8 83 952.5 -956.2 2.6 -9.8 952.5 OCS-E 120.5 -958 958 957 957 1540 KL-1540 Manage2 356 0.9 90 951.5 -955.21 3.995 -0.372 951.5 18" RCP - E 13.13 -960.8 960.8 957 958 1546 Broackway Golf Course North Basin KL-1544 Preserve 361 13.4 72 964.0 -966.2 1.9 -3.3 964.0 12" RCP - P 2.9 -976 970 972 956 1533 KL-1546 3.2 65 948 -952.94 5.224 -0.627 948 OCS-E 4.75 -959.3 959.3 958 942 1431 KL-1548 11.2 75 952.0 -955.4 3.1 -3.1 952.0 OCS-P -960 960 956 942 1431 KL-1552 Manage2 394 24.8 71 932 -939.33 10.703 -5.991 932 12" RCP - P -956 940 962 944 1486 KL-1560 6.2 75 955.5 -958.4 5.6 -1.7 955.5 OCS-E 2.7 --965 964 946 1534 KL-1561 5.3 75 963 -964.99 0.691 -1.45 963 OCS-E 2.7 -975 975 970 964 1560 KL-1562 Manage2 382 5.2 79 956.0 -958.4 0.6 -1.6 956.0 OCS-E 13.7 --965 958 964 1560 KL-1563 Manage2 369 16.6 72 959 -959.61 1.361 -4.129 959 OVERLAND 19.21 --965 960 964 1560 KL-1567 Manage2 381 24.2 76 946.0 -949.9 1.4 -6.8 946.0 OCS-E 68.1 --950 948 946 2471 KL-1568 Manage2 384 10.7 75 952 -955.46 2.312 -2.926 952 15" RCP - P 21.1 -970 959 956 946 2471 KL-1569 8.9 77 954.8 -957.9 0.7 -2.6 954.8 OCS-E 24.7 --959 958 956 1568 KL-1571 5.5 83 967 -970.85 0.85 -1.858 967 OCS-E 7.75 -973 973 970 956 1568 KL-1575 19.7 75 946.8 -949.8 3.5 -5.4 946.8 OCS-P 3.7 -960 953 950 942 2471 KL-1589 Manage2 425 83.1 81 928 -940.68 27.378 -26.882 928 Lift Station - P 34.85 -952 947 952 946 1622 Trailer Park Basin KL-1591 45.8 85 NA -NA NA -16.4 NA -NA -957 957 949 952 1589 Harmony Development KL-1622 Manage3 417 6.0 75 940 -941.01 1.115 -1.629 940 6" Orifice-12" RCP - P 0.82 --949 946 952 1687 Brockway Golf Course East Basin KL-1671 22.6 74 945.0 -948.6 9.3 -6.0 945.0 12" RCP - P 1.9 --958 956 932 1795 Biscayne Point 4th Add. & St Josephs Church Basin KL-1672 8.7 71 954 -957.24 0.642 -2.109 954 12" - RCP-E 15.76 -952 952 951 934 1716 Biscayne Point Development KL-1673 20.8 61 960.0 -961.8 2.4 -3.5 960.0 OCS-E 1.2 -960 960 956 956 1671 St. Josephs Church KL-1674 8.7 71 954 -957.24 0.642 -2.109 954 18" RCP-E 15.76 -963 963 960 956 1671 Biscayne Point Development KL-1680 Manage2 408 26.1 63 958.0 -960.2 3.5 -4.7 958.0 12" RCP - P 1.3 -956 964.5 962 944 1552 Harmony Development - west basin KL-1687 Manage3 415 58.8 75 929.5 -940.03 21.06 -16.087 929.5 30" RCP - P 26.52 --942 952 946 1622 Connemara Trail Basin KL-1716 187.1 74 916.0 -923.8 55.7 -49.7 916.0 OCS-E 30.5 -929.5 932 934 932 1795 Proposed Outlet Control Stucture for Infiltration Basin KL-1718 30.3 79 944 -948.9 4.786 -9.291 944 OCS-E 11.54 -955.3 955.3 951.3 951.3 1716 Meadows of Bloomfield KL-1795 Preserve 448 178.2 74 914.0 -919.0 54.7 -47.3 914.0 30" RCP - P 28.5 --925 932 922 1864 KL-1796 26.8 70 926 -930.13 2.423 -6.274 926 OCS-E 26.75 -935.2 935.2 934.2 922 1864 KL-1797 2.7 61 934.0 -934.6 0.2 -0.5 934.0 12" RCP - P 1.1 -944.1 944.6 943.1 944 1864 KL-1864 23.8 69 908 -913.89 33.304 -5.369 908 OCS-P 64.63 -922 922 922 944 1918 Bloomfield Pond KL-1865 44.7 75 906.0 -913.9 9.7 -12.2 906.0 OCS-E 64.2 -922 922 911.5 944 1864 KL-1918 Manage2 469 156.1 74 908 -915.06 67.084 -41.43 908 48" RCP - P 51.83 --920 922 934 1994 Equalize w/ Basin #1864 KL-2471 Preserve 359 51.2 74 940.7 -946.3 20.2 -13.6 940.7 18" RCP - P 10.4 -952 946 946 942 1431 Equalize w/Keegan Lake KL-2472 3.4 80 942.7 -944.34 2.977 -1.071 942.7 18" RCP - P 10.25 -950 948 940 942 1355 Note: (2) E=Existing, P=Proposed, RCP=Reinforce Concrete Pipe (3) The low building, high water, and overflow elevations shown above are approximate based on the City topographic mapping. These elevations should be field verified for accuracy when devleopment takes place in the area. 1) The storm water model assumes that the pond elevation is equal to the NWL at the beginning of the event. The HWL is affected by the accuracy of the data such as drainage area, storage capacity, outlet description and condition, and runoff factors have not been field calibrated. 2:05 PM 5/4/2015 K:\01668-12\WR\EXCEL\REV-APP-CSMP-2007.XLS 2007 - ROSEMOUNT SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE POND ID BASIN NAME WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN CLASSIFICATION (1) WETLAND MANAGEMEN T PLAN ID DRAINAGE AREA Acre FULLY DEVELOPED SCS CURVE NUMBER EST. NWL/ TYPICAL/ PUMP OFF WATER ELEV. EST. MANAGEMENT WATER ELEV. (PUMP ON) ESTIMATED 100 YEAR 24 HOUR HIGH WATER ELEV. (1) (3) STORM WATER STORAGE 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR HWL (AC-FT) STORM WATER STORAGE AVAIL. FROM PUMP ON ELEVATION (AC-FT) 24 HOUR 100 YEAR RUNOFF VOLUME (AC-FT) OUTLET ELEVATION OUTLET DESCRIPTION (2) 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR EVENT PEAK DISCHARGE RATE (CFS) TEMPORARY PUMPING DISCHARGE RATE (CFS) EXISTING LOW BUILDING ELEVATION (3) MINIMUM BUILDING ELEVATION APPROX. EXISTING OVERFLOW ELEV. (3) DOWNSTREAM POND OVERFLOW ELEV. (3) POND DOWNSTREAM ID COMMENTS Koch District K-1000 87.0 88 857 870 862.61 38.991 50 33.532 -Temp. Pump - P 0.48 3 890 885 882 -- Temp. Pumping to Basin # K-P1505- South East Gravel Pit K-1001 285.0 88 942 955.5 109.865 -109.865 -21" RCP - P ------ K-1002 155.0 88 842 855.73 59.751 -59.751 -12" RCP - P ------ K-1004 104.0 88 858 874 872.71 58.205 40 40.091 -Temp. Pump - P 3 890 885 882 -- Temp. Pumping to Basin # K-P1505- South East Gravel Pit K-1005 47.0 88 910 -915.37 8.539 -18.118 -OCS - P 31.62 -859 862 860 860 1270 Control structure to Basin #1270-Off Peak discharge-Proposed storage K-1006 19.5 88 884 -885.51 4.672 -7.498 884 OCS - P 6.95 --863 858 860 1270 Control structure to Basin #1270-Off Peak discharge K-1007 Undetermined 38 73.0 88 862 875 870.32 28.141 88 28.141 862 Temp. Pump - P 3 -880 880 --North West Gravil Pit-28' bounce K-1147 91.3 84 854 -857.59 22.005 -31.928 854 12" RCP - P 13.69 -862 863 862 860 1270 K-1270 98.9 84 854 -858 28.353 -34.569 854 12" RCP - P 5.98 --861 860 858 1458 K-1446 57.7 84 882 -884.97 14.284 -20.178 882 18" RCP - P 7.72 -902 888 884 880 1505 K-1458 50.1 84 856 -860.08 14.135 -17.52 856 12" RCP - P 3.26 --863 858 858 1339 K-1476 84.7 84 872 -881.02 21.145 -29.62 872 L.S. 60 gpm 111.28 -888 883 880 880 1505 K-1505 88.6 84 871.5 -881.06 40.477 -30.984 871.5 24" RCP - P 6.07 -Under Const.937 934 --Evermoor Development K-1566 23.4 84 878 -881.67 4.949 -8.183 878 12" RCP - P 5.6 -- Lebanon Hills District LH-1003 Manage2 12 18.0 71 964.0 -965.7 4.3 -4.3 964.0 12" RCP - P ------ LH-1008 Preserve 17 7.4 78 928 -930.29 9.447 -2.207 928 12" RCP - P 2.83 -940 935 932 -Out of City Limit of City contour data LH-1009 Preserve 21 18.2 77 928.0 -929.7 7.0 -5.3 928.0 OCS - P 2.0 -936 935 934 -Out of City Peak Discharge rate limited to 3.1 cfs per JPA. LH-1010 Manage2 18 8.6 73 924 -925.55 1.142 -2.213 924 12" RCP - P 3.1 -940 930 928 -Out of City Limit of City contour data LH-1012 Cherrier Lake Preserve 20 34.6 78 927.0 -928.2 10.1 -10.3 927.0 OCS - P 4.7 -940 934 932 -Out of City Peak Dischage is limited to 7.2cfs per JPA LH-1014 Preserve 22 7.2 79 936 -937.3 3.342 -2.208 936 12" RCP - P 2.79 -950 943 940 -Out of City Limit of City contour data LH-1099 Preserve 33 22.6 79 937.0 -938.2 8.3 -6.9 937.0 12" RCP - P 3.1 -948 943 940 940 1014 LH-1100 Manage2 24 9.4 75 941 -942.12 2.25 -2.571 941 5' BCW 0.56 -944 946 944 940 1099 LH-1104 Preserve 28 11.0 78 932.0 -932.5 2.0 -3.3 932.0 10' BCW 9.8 -930 936 934 -Out of City Limit of City contour data LH-1131 Wilde Lake Preserve 85 96.2 76 928 -929.74 27.118 -27.097 928 10' Channel - P 1.99 -940 936 931 932 1012 LH-1136 Manage3 49 6.3 74 NA -NA NA -1.7 NA OVERLAND NA -970 973 968 942 1137 LH-1137 Manage2 54 16.0 71 940 -942.25 1.835 -3.865 940 10' BCW 8.29 -948 946 944 932 1004 Control Structure to manage NWL LH-1144 Preserve 70 27.1 68 978.0 983 979.6 8.2 24 5.9 978.0 12" RCP - P 3 998 990 998 -Out of City 2 stage outlet -requires management plan LH-1150 Manage2 43 114.8 75 NA -NA NA -31.4 NA 42" RCP-P NA -960 960 958 -Out of City LH-1162 Kirschner Marsh Manage1 61 58.6 81 948.0 -949.0 19.4 -19.0 948.0 15" RCP - P 3.7 -952 953 948 940 1099 LH-1167 Manage2 109 30.6 72 972 978 974.92 7.633 16 7.633 972 15" RCP - P 2 986 986 986 944 1137 Control Structure to manage NWL LH-1177 Manage2 112 9.2 75 952.0 958 953.6 2.5 6 2.5 952.0 12" RCP - P 3 960 963 962 938 1222 Control Structure to manage NWL LH-1179 Preserve 46 55.4 75 930 -931.2 12.47 -15.152 930 5' BCW 3.29 -942 935 932 932 1008 LH-1194 Manage2 118 12.5 63 985.0 -985.5 0.8 -2.3 985.0 10' BCW 2.6 cfs 9.8 -996 990 985 998 1144 LH-1205 Manage2 138 10.1 72 945 -946.97 2.721 -2.519 945 8' BCW 2.6 cfs 6.69 -958 951 948 938 1222 LH-1213 Manage1 173 27.9 73 918.0 930 926.8 27.4 40 7.2 918.0 Temp. Pump 2 938 935 944 932 1131 Temp. pump-mangement plan required- Proposed discharge to Marcotte Pond BP-1408 LH-1221 Manage2 120 20.7 72 954 -955.61 2.662 -5.163 954 8' BCW 2.6 cfs 9.88 -960 960 956 948 1205 2 stage outlet structure LH-1222 Manage2 183 15.9 71 934.0 -938.6 4.1 -3.8 934.0 8' BCW 2.6 cfs 6.3 --942 938 944 1264 LH-1237 Manage1 159 19.5 76 937 -938.06 3.938 -5.493 937 12" RCP - P 2.12 -956 945 944 932 1131 LH-1254 Preserve 182 17.0 71 950.0 -953.1 2.2 -4.1 950.0 24" RCP - P 4.3 -954 957 968 952 1162 LH-1264 Manage2 192 15.3 71 930 -933.94 2.13 -3.696 930 18" RCP - P 8.96 -940 941 944 -BP - P1341 Limit of City contour data LH-1279 Roadbed Pond Manage1 204 41.2 72 937.0 -941.0 10.3 -10.3 937.0 12" RCP - P -956 947 946 944 1237 LH-1297 Manage2 199 7.9 72 NA -NA NA -1.971 NA 30" RCP - P NA -974 949 948 946 1337 LH-1326 Manage2 202 19.0 71 944.0 -947.4 2.9 -4.6 944.0 18' BCW 2.6 cfs 3.6 -954 51 948 946 1337 LH-1333 Unamed Preserve 224 27.5 77 946 -947.15 7.973 -7.973 946 12' BCW 2.6 cfs -956 952 950 948 1279 Outlet Control Structure LH-1337 11.4 70 936.0 -939.3 0.5 -2.7 936.0 24" RCP - P 22.9 -938 944 946 944 1264 Verify Low Building Elevation LH-1351 Manage2 200 21.5 71 932 -935.8 2.984 -5.194 932 12" RCP - P 3.81 -940 939 944 -BP - P1341 Limit of City contour data LH-1389 Preserve 260 15.0 76 948.0 -949.1 4.2 -4.2 948.0 30' BCW -960 956 954 948 1383 Outlet Control Structure Mississippi River District MR-1364 35.8 84 888.0 -898.4 9.8 -12.5 888.0 15" RCP - P 16.0 -906 902 890 -Mississippi River Create stormwater storage in Ravine MR-1378 26.8 84 910 -913.31 4.608 -9.372 910 24" RCP - P 15.54 -916 917 918 890 1364 MR-1469 25.5 84 904.0 -908.3 5.4 -8.9 904.0 12" RCP - P 5.8 -914 912 910 -Mississippi River MR-1491 24.0 84 844 -853.12 4.782 -8.393 844 12" RCP - P 4.68 -890 86 870 -Mississippi River MR-1517 218.3 84 786.0 -799.0 47.7 -76.3 786.0 96" RCP - P 723.0 -810 807 804 -Mississippi River Trunkline to Mississippi River MR-1526 54.2 84 886 -891.9 12.933 -18.954 886 15" RCP - P 6.85 -900 899 898 848 1614 MR-1551 39.3 84 838.0 -844.3 9.9 -13.7 838.0 12" RCP - P 4.0 -890 850 852 804 1517 MR-1614 77.6 84 844 -850.4 18.367 -27.137 844 21" RCP - P 17.2 -880 854 848 842 1707 MR-1638 70.9 84 850.0 -856.4 15.7 -24.8 850.0 18" RCP - P 12.2 -892 861 860 848 1614 Regional Basin - Treatment Plant Site MR-1677 19.5 84 886 -889.31 4.43 -6.819 886 12" RCP - P 3.49 -894 896 894 804 1517 MR-1677 19.5 84 886.0 -889.3 4.4 -6.8 886.0 12" RCP - P 3.5 -894 896 894 804 1517 MR-1683 82.7 84 848 -860.75 4.716 -28.921 848 48" RCP - P 198.34 --864 850 812 2398 Proposed stormwater storage MR-1713 30.8 84 832.0 -837.5 4.9 -10.8 832.0 21" RCP - P 17.4 --840.5 840 842 1707 MR-1717 25.3 84 890 -893.84 6.205 -8.848 890 12" RCP - P 3.14 -902 897 892 804 1517 MR-1720 70.0 84 808.0 -814.6 31.8 -24.5 808.0 30" RCP - P 48.7 -822 820 818 -Mississippi River MR-1799 Manage3 684 25.5 84 888 -893.36 6.084 -8.918 888 12" RCP - P 2.96 -902 897 890 850 1683 MR-1825 35.4 84 882.0 -889.2 8.7 -12.4 882.0 12" RCP - P 3.5 -896 895 894 818 1720 MR-2398 23.6 83 810 -815.55 10.123 -8.046 810 66" RCP - P 156.58 -822 819 812 -Mississippi River MR-2402 62.4 77 802.0 -805.9 13.8 -18.1 802.0 12" RCP - P 4.4 --812 810 -Mississippi River Proposed stormwater storage Note: (2) E=Existing, P=Proposed, RCP=Reinforce Concrete Pipe (3) The low building, high water, and overflow elevations shown above are approximate based on the City topographic mapping. These elevations should be field verified for accuracy when devleopment takes place in the area. 1) The storm water model assumes that the pond elevation is equal to the NWL at the beginning of the event. The HWL is affected by the accuracy of the data such as drainage area, storage capacity, outlet description and condition, and runoff factors have not been field calibrated. 2:05 PM 5/4/2015 K:\01668-12\WR\EXCEL\REV-APP-CSMP-2007.XLS 2007 - ROSEMOUNT SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE POND ID BASIN NAME WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN CLASSIFICATION (1) WETLAND MANAGEMEN T PLAN ID DRAINAGE AREA Acre FULLY DEVELOPED SCS CURVE NUMBER EST. NWL/ TYPICAL/ PUMP OFF WATER ELEV. EST. MANAGEMENT WATER ELEV. (PUMP ON) ESTIMATED 100 YEAR 24 HOUR HIGH WATER ELEV. (1) (3) STORM WATER STORAGE 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR HWL (AC-FT) STORM WATER STORAGE AVAIL. FROM PUMP ON ELEVATION (AC-FT) 24 HOUR 100 YEAR RUNOFF VOLUME (AC-FT) OUTLET ELEVATION OUTLET DESCRIPTION (2) 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR EVENT PEAK DISCHARGE RATE (CFS) TEMPORARY PUMPING DISCHARGE RATE (CFS) EXISTING LOW BUILDING ELEVATION (3) MINIMUM BUILDING ELEVATION APPROX. EXISTING OVERFLOW ELEV. (3) DOWNSTREAM POND OVERFLOW ELEV. (3) POND DOWNSTREAM ID COMMENTS Shannon Ponds District SP-609 Valley Oak Pond Preserve 618 97.7 70 921.6 -927.59 13.263 -22.839 921.6 15" RCP - E 16.48 -928 931 932 938 6091 SP-614 Shannon Pond Manage1 576 143.0 71 914 -920.22 33.719 -34.543 914 Lift Station - P 21 -926 928 --Out of City Limit of City contour data SP-2111 Wennsman Pond Manage2 595 88.1 72 944.5 -946.66 17.346 -21.975 944.5 21" RCP - E 10.98 -952 952 --Out of City Flow enters from outside City Limits SP-2270 12.5 84 926 -930.01 2.79 -4.371 926 12" RCP - P 2.76 --938 936 944 2450 SP-2447 Geronime Pond Undetermined 623 48.5 73 923 -927.56 13.51 -12.475 923 12" RCP - P 3.32 -946 938 -Out of City Limit of City contour data SP-2448 Manage2 616 19.9 72 919 -923.85 13.041 -4.964 919 18" RCP - E 10.05 -948 938 -Out of City Limit of City contour data SP-2450 Manage2 619 17.6 68 926 -929.33 2.363 -3.844 926 15" RCP - P 4.92 -946 944 938 2447 SP-6091 Manage2 617 18.2 72 921 -923.95 4.14 -4.54 921 30" RCP - E 19.63 -928 936 938 2448 U OF M East District UME-1835 339.2 78 852 -865.35 103.817 -79.62 852 33" RCP - P 57.38 -880 869 862 840 1814 Regional basin UME-1880 Preserve 461 28.3 87 904 -905.63 7.773 -10.653 904 12" RCP - P 3.56 -928 911 910 862 1835 UME-1896 153.1 77 925 -931.33 18.187 -44.387 925 36" RCP - P 79.22 -936 936 934 934 1926 2 stage outlet - Rerouted to WRV 1787 UME-1905 Manage2 471 51.9 72 927 -931.22 10.21 -12.946 927 15" RCP - P 4.05 -938 936 934 914 2040 UME-1926 22.9 77 926 -927.95 5.527 -6.639 926 15" RCP - P 2.36 -936 932 934 926 2047 UME-1968 125.2 65 904 -910.6 15.616 -24.532 904 30" RCP - P 41.35 --915 914 862 1835 UME-2040 143.4 80 910 -916.61 39.712 -45.186 910 33" RCP - P 32.89 -920 920 914 914 1968 Create Stormwater storage UME-2047 121.8 76 918 -923.61 19.262 -34.308 918 33" RCP - P 30.13 -926 927 926 914 2040 UME-2080 180.9 72 910 -917.94 51.511 -45.123 910 21" RCP - P 16.52 --925 920 862 1835 UME-2247 139.1 84 914 -923.7 40.714 -48.644 914 18" RCP - P 8.59 -922 927 924 NA 2285 UME-2285 146.2 83 898 -914.26 46.107 -49.847 898 Lift Station 16 -922 918 916 -- UME-2328 175.1 84 920 -927.51 51.997 -61.234 920 18" RCP - P 9.59 --931 928 916 2285 Create Stormwater storage U of M West District UMW-1737 7.5 72 938 -938.63 1.124 -1.883 938 12" RCP - P 1.39 -950 945.5 942 932 1783 Reroute to WRV watershed UMW-1783 157.7 73 914 -923.6 39.844 -40.589 914 27" RCP - P 2 -940 928 932 932 1816 UMW-1816 71.8 73 913 -916.34 9.725 -18.48 913 24" RCP - P 23.14 -936 926 932 930 1970 Create stormwater storage-Discharge to future trunkline UMW-1970 108.5 73 922 -928.61 14.776 -27.926 922 30" RCP - P 36.64 -938 932 930 910 2013 Reroute to WRV watershed UMW-1981 54.5 63 936 -939.86 8.156 -9.885 936 12" RCP - P 1.74 --944 940 910 2013 UMW-1994 58.2 72 912 -919.93 9.757 -14.517 912 15" RCP - P 5.44 -942 923 924 934 2027 UMW-2013 Manage2 675 297.7 73 884 -898.24 212.626 -76.623 884 Lift Station 16 -932 910 910 -- UMW-2027 Manage2 651 22.8 68 910 -916.89 5.11 -4.98 910 18" RCP - P 5.78 -942 920 924 910 1994 UMW-2063 39.2 69 914 -918.73 5.692 -8.861 914 12" RCP - P 4.05 -938 922 930 924 2082 UMW-2067 31.1 71 916 -920.92 4.978 -7.513 916 12" RCP - P 3.04 --924 934 -- UMW-2082 Manage2 490 48.6 76 904 -912.53 17.517 -13.689 904 24"RCP - P 21.91 -938 919 924 916 2112 UMW-2104 70.4 72 944 -949.17 13.929 -17.56 944 12" RCP - P 3.61 -948 952 948 940 2192 Create stromwater storage UMW-2112 Manage2 657 94.4 84 886 -899.33 63.831 -33.012 886 33" RCP - P 28.76 -934 910 916 910 2013 UMW-2189 75.3 72 940 -944.4 16.622 -18.782 940 12" RCP - P 4.85 -948 949 946 910 2192 UMW-2192 66.7 72 926 -931.08 11.455 -16.637 926 21" RCP - P 13.91 -944 935 940 916 2112 UMW-2234 91.6 84 910 -918.9 19.013 -32.033 910 30" RCP - P 45.82 -928 923 926 930 2284 UMW-2246 104.1 72 944 -949.88 23.495 -25.966 944 12" RCP - P 2.41 -948 954 950 846 2189 Create stromwater storage UMW-2261 97.4 83 930 -934.82 21.345 -33.208 930 21" RCP - P 17.74 -934 938 936 926 2234 UMW-2284 123.4 84 926 -932.18 31.652 -43.154 926 21" RCP - P 16.88 -930 (928 shed)935 930 926 2234 UMW-2296 54.6 84 910.5 -924.84 20.349 -19.094 910.5 21" RCP - P 18.96 -928 929 928 926 2234 UMW-2342 186.5 72 933 -939.8 42.958 -46.52 933 15" RCP - P 3.82 -930 945 936 930 2284 Create stromwater storage Wachter Pond District WA-111 Manage2 569 18.9 81 954.5 -959.38 3.481 -6.117 954.5 12" RCP - E 5.5 -962 62.5 960 958 240 WA-235 16.2 71 950 -954.74 1.068 -3.913 950 21" RCP - P 17.79 -956 958 958 956 7941 WA-240 4.7 72 949.5 -951.53 0.447 -1.172 949.5 12" RCP - E 4.68 -952 954.5 958 956 7941 WA-243 6.2 72 949.6 -952.14 0.584 -1.546 949.6 12" RCP - E 5.4 -952 955.5 958 956 7941 WA-247 3.8 72 949 -950.19 0.4 -0.948 949 12" RCP - E 3.15 -952 953.2 956 958 243 WA-479 48.8 79 948 -953.12 8.025 -14.964 948 18" RCP - E 17.8 -954 956.1 958 958 2120 Rerouted to Basin EP-2442 WA-600 O'Leary's Pond Manage2 621 110.2 73 929.7 -935.04 24.342 -28.364 929.7 27" RCP - E 27.02 -936 940 934 948 2439 WA-788 Manage3 596 12.6 72 947.7 -952.08 1.213 -3.143 947.7 15" RCP - E 9.09 -958 958 958 934 600 WA-1969 35.5 71 956 -957.88 6.391 -8.575 956 12" RCP - P 3.88 -956 961 960 956 247 WA-2042 29.8 71 954 -957.22 3.882 -7.199 954 18" RCP - P 8.19 -956 960.2 960 956 247 WA-2439 45.2 75 930 -937.88 9.421 -12.362 930 15" RCP - E 11.97 -936 941 948 940 2443 WA-2443 Wachter Lake Manage1 498 360.5 76 906 -926.65 179.067 -101.539 906 Lift Station 2 -932 940 944 950 2274 Operational plan requried for 10-Day event-Temp. pump to 14 cfs discharge rate. Note: (2) E=Existing, P=Proposed, RCP=Reinforce Concrete Pipe (3) The low building, high water, and overflow elevations shown above are approximate based on the City topographic mapping. These elevations should be field verified for accuracy when devleopment takes place in the area. 1) The storm water model assumes that the pond elevation is equal to the NWL at the beginning of the event. The HWL is affected by the accuracy of the data such as drainage area, storage capacity, outlet description and condition, and runoff factors have not been field calibrated. 2:05 PM 5/4/2015 K:\01668-12\WR\EXCEL\REV-APP-CSMP-2007.XLS 2007 - ROSEMOUNT SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE POND ID BASIN NAME WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN CLASSIFICATION (1) WETLAND MANAGEMEN T PLAN ID DRAINAGE AREA Acre FULLY DEVELOPED SCS CURVE NUMBER EST. NWL/ TYPICAL/ PUMP OFF WATER ELEV. EST. MANAGEMENT WATER ELEV. (PUMP ON) ESTIMATED 100 YEAR 24 HOUR HIGH WATER ELEV. (1) (3) STORM WATER STORAGE 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR HWL (AC-FT) STORM WATER STORAGE AVAIL. FROM PUMP ON ELEVATION (AC-FT) 24 HOUR 100 YEAR RUNOFF VOLUME (AC-FT) OUTLET ELEVATION OUTLET DESCRIPTION (2) 100 YEAR - 24 HOUR EVENT PEAK DISCHARGE RATE (CFS) TEMPORARY PUMPING DISCHARGE RATE (CFS) EXISTING LOW BUILDING ELEVATION (3) MINIMUM BUILDING ELEVATION APPROX. EXISTING OVERFLOW ELEV. (3) DOWNSTREAM POND OVERFLOW ELEV. (3) POND DOWNSTREAM ID COMMENTS West Rich Valley District WRV-1050 46.7 84 840 -847.21 11.961 -16.331 840 12" RCP - P 5.07 -858 952.5 952 -- WRV-1101 Manage2 658 70.1 64 932 -941.79 9.114 -13.222 932 12" RCP - P 4.18 -958 948 956 902 1202 Inflow from north of City Limits WRV-1202 124.2 83 888 -899.84 34.244 -42.346 888 18" RCP - P 11.77 --903 902 862 1147 WRV-1243 81.1 84 884 -889.29 32.892 -28.361 884 15" RCP - P 9.75 --894 886 854 1339 Raise overflow elevation to create stormwater storage WRV-1339 207.9 84 836 -852.7 282.927 -72.704 836 48" RCP - P 16.26 -860 855 854 858 1459 Assumes basin infiltrates to NWL WRV-1349 Manage2 646 102.4 65 892 910 901.31 20.065 30 20.065 892 Temp. Pump - P 2 -918 930 926 1396 Temporary pump to manage basin NWL WRV-1396 59.6 83 912 -918.79 15.898 -20.32 912 18" RCP - P 20.92 -938 928 926 946 1424 Proposed 2-stage outlet WRV-1432 Manage3 647 199.8 65 920 -925.01 27.688 -39.149 920 24" RCP - P 11.71 -946 931 936 930 1349 WRV-1442 177.5 84 848 -857.79 50.758 -62.073 848 30" RCP - P 40.28 -936 862 864 854 1339 Proposed 2-stage outlet WRV-1535 156.9 65 904 -910.26 25.929 -30.744 904 12" RCP - P 4.83 -924 919 918 886 2393 WRV-1599 Manage3 674 173.3 84 854 -865.85 32.397 -60.605 854 24" RCP - P 136.72 -884 870 872 862 2391 Create stormwater storage volume WRV-1618 38.0 74 940 -945.62 16.327 -10.085 940 12" RCP - P 4.2 --949 948 930 1710 WRV-1620 50.9 72 946 -952.76 7.07 -12.697 946 18" RCP - P 10.52 --956 952 932 1783 WRV-1651 194.0 84 844 -850.85 38.159 -67.843 844 36" RCP - P 67.8 -852 855 960 942 1814 WRV-1710 Undetermined 437 132.2 81 924 -928.31 38.232 -42.786 924 15" RCP - P 8.52 --932 930 924 1739 WRV-1739 Undetermined 439 28.2 82 912 -919.35 19.012 -9.37 912 15" RCP - P 6.31 --926 924 900 1787 WRV-1787 173.4 80 898 -902.25 15.166 -54.639 898 72" RCP - P 366.78 --909.5 900 886 2389 Proposed interim regional basin-Drop inlet to future trunkline WRV-2389 Preserve 445 137.4 83 878 -880.49 5.637 -46.846 878 72" RCP - P 398.99 -882 887.5 886 862 2391 Drop inlet to future trunkline WRV-2391 241.4 84 850 -852.3 183.933 -84.42 850 36" RCP - P 30.01 -866 964 862 960 1651 Proposed 2-stage outlet WRV-2393 162.2 82 876 -883.88 28.398 -53.892 876 33" RCP - P 58.34 -892 888 886 872 1599 WRV-2470 98.1 84 898 -905.81 29.107 -34.306 898 12" RCP - P 4.51 --910 900 872 1599 Construct berm-create stormwater storage White Lake District WL-1026 Manage1 31 26.0 73 965 -966.48 8.488 -6.692 965 12" RCP - P 1.86 -966 (shed?)969 968 -Out of City Limit of City contour data WL-1030 Preserve 14 21.6 76 945 -946.96 7.481 -6.084 945 15" RCP - P 3.86 -960 950 948 950 1032 WL-1032 Preserve 23 12.5 74 941 -943.2 2.759 -3.318 941 12" RCP - P 4.34 --947 950 910 1197 WL-1033 Preserve 29 10.3 79 937 -937.71 2.087 -3.158 937 8' BCW-P 2.03 --941 938 948 1139 WL-1035 Manage2 53 18.1 74 916 -919.33 2.762 -4.804 916 12" RCP - P 3.73 -930 923 930 948 1139 WL-1041 Preserve 63 18.2 59 941 -942.76 1.212 -2.789 941 12" RCP - P 3.67 -970 946 954 920 1220 WL-1124 Manage2 71 19.8 73 922 -926.1 2.855 -5.096 922 12" RCP - P 3.85 -936 (928 shed)934 932 918 1165 WL-1139 Manage2 75 13.5 73 924 -926.36 1.663 -3.475 924 15" RCP - P 6.69 -932 930 928 910 1197 WL-1146 Preserve 96 15.1 75 910 -913.59 7.264 -4.13 910 12" RCP - P 4.94 -918 919 918 910 1197 Equalize w/ Basin #1280 WL-1149 Manage1 86 30.8 74 968 -969.25 5.856 -8.175 968 12" RCP - P 2.73 -986 974 972 968 1026 WL-1165 Preserve 132 26.4 74 904 -906.95 6.836 -7.007 904 12" RCP - P 3.36 -918 918 -924 1280 Combined storage w/ Basin #1280- Equalize for 10 Day event WL-1182 Manage3 560 19.2 70 964 -966.43 2.138 -4.488 964 15" RCP - P 6.66 -978 970 972 948 1030 WL-1197 School Section Lake Preserve 124 108.8 74 904 -910.09 58.342 -28.876 904 15" RCP - P 6 -922 919 910 924 1280 Equalize w/ Basin #1280 WL-1201 Manage2 129 9.8 72 913 -919.56 4.723 -2.444 913 12" RCP - P 2.39 -932 921 922 920 1220 WL-1209 White Lake Preserve 152 84.5 74 965.4 -966.84 18.658 -22.427 965.4 12" RCP - P 4.07 -988 971 970 966 1232 Rerouted to Basin # 1318 WL-1220 Manage2 119 146.7 64 912 -917.71 27.233 -27.67 912 12" RCP - P 4.47 -918 (914 shed)923 920 924 1250 Verify existing building elevation WL-1232 Manage2 165 8.1 71 958 -959.32 0.993 -1.957 958 12" RCP - P 2.72 -968 963 966 910 1197 WL-1250 Preserve 180 57.4 68 907 -912.14 22.244 -12.536 907 6" orifice15" RCP-P 3.51 -922 916 924 924 1403 Reroute to Basin LH-1080 WL-1280 Preserve 191 135.9 73 902 -906.45 34.978 -34.978 902 Lift Station 1.71 --918 924 922 1201 Equalize w/ Basin #1165,1197,1140,WRV 1250 WL-1305 Preserve 220 29.7 73 926 -929.11 3.066 -7.644 926 24" RCP - P 21.98 --933 932 924 1280 WL-1318 39.8 76 965.4 -966.63 10.918 -11.211 965.4 24" RCP - P 4.63 -970 971 974 966 1390 Rerouted to Basin #1390 WL-1369 Preserve 278 34.3 74 937 -938.68 6.436 -9.103 937 18" RCP - P 8.2 -938 942 940 946 1424 WL-1390 Manage2 265 6.9 72 957 -958.23 0.889 -1.721 957 12" RCP - P 4.93 -960 962 966 940 1369 WL-1403 McMenomy Pond Preserve 302 148.7 73 918 -920.94 42.38 -38.273 918 21" RCP - P 5.91 --926 924 922 1201 Proposed 2-stage outlet-12 ' orifice WL-1424 Unamed Preserve 287 82.0 78 934 -936.86 57.842 -24.456 934 15" RCP - P 1.53 -936 946 946 924 1403 WL-1500 Preserve 330 13.5 73 960 -961.33 1.932 -3.475 960 12" RCP - P 3.45 --965 964 946 1424 WL-1518 Unamed Preserve 340 11.9 73 946 -947.65 2.642 -3.063 946 12" RCP - P 5.99 -962 953 956 946 1424 WL-1530 Unamed Manage2 349 17.0 75 948 -948.95 2.997 -4.65 948 12" RCP - P 2.49 -962 956 954 964 1518 WL-1545 Manage2 348 13.9 74 948 -949.68 2.094 -3.689 948 12" RCP - P 3.28 -968 954 956 964 1518 Note: (2) E=Existing, P=Proposed, RCP=Reinforce Concrete Pipe (3) The low building, high water, and overflow elevations shown above are approximate based on the City topographic mapping. These elevations should be field verified for accuracy when devleopment takes place in the area. 1) The storm water model assumes that the pond elevation is equal to the NWL at the beginning of the event. The HWL is affected by the accuracy of the data such as drainage area, storage capacity, outlet description and condition, and runoff factors have not been field calibrated. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX E – CITY ENGINEERING GUIDELINES Building a legacy – your legacy. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K:\02235-080\Admin\Docs\MEMO_Atlas 14_051916.docx Technical Memorandum To: City of Rosemount Engineering Guidelines Distribution Recipients From: Bill Alms, WSB & Associates Date: May 19, 2016 Re: Use of Atlas 14 Precipitation data within the City of Rosemount, MN Implementation This technical memorandum is a supplement to the City of Rosemount Engineer Guidelines dated February 2008. This memorandum is effective immediately for all developers, builders, and engineers creating final plans and specifications within the City of Rosemount. Guidelines Use Atlas 14 Precipitation Frequency Estimates when using rainfall-runoff models to compute hydrology for the design of hydraulic infrastructure. The Atlas 14 data is obtained from NOAA’s Precipitation Frequency Data Server (PFDS): http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/ Rational Method Use the precipitation intensities from Atlas 14 for the project location to develop a project Intensity- Duration-Frequency (IDF) curve, or use the Atlas 14 regionalized IDF values developed by MnDOT with the Rational Method to calculate flow. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/bridge/hydraulics/atlas14/atlas14regions/atlas14regions.html NRCS Method Use the rainfall distribution derived from Atlas 14 data or use the NRCS MSE 3 rainfall distribution with the NRCS rainfall/runoff hydrology method. Do not use the NRCS Type II rainfall distribution. Use the Atlas 14 depth for the project location or the Minnesota NRCS Atlas 14 county average depth when the 24 hour precipitation depth is used. Use the standard NRCS dimensionless unit hydrograph with the peak rate factor of 484. Further guidance on the NRCS methodology is available from the Minnesota NRCS Office at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/mn/technical/?cid=nrcs142p2_023722 Questions Any questions regarding the technical provisions of this Technical Memorandum can be address to the following: • Bill Alms, City of Rosemount Water Resources Consultant at walms@wsbeng.com or 763-231-4845. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 City of Rosemount Engineering Guidelines February 2008 City of Rosemount Public Works / Engineering Department 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Phone: (651) 322-2022 Fax: (651) 322-2694 Copyright © The City of Rosemount Public Works / Engineering Department 2008 Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - i FORWARD The following Engineering Guidelines have been prepared to assist developers, builders and engineers performing land development improvements and infrastructure installation within the City of Rosemount. This manual serves as a reference for engineering guidelines that must be incorporated into the design, plan and specification preparation, construction, and/or connection to public infrastructure facilities within the City of Rosemount. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PROLOGUE.............................................................................................................................................................................iii DESIGN STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................................................1 I. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL...................................................................................................2 II. STORM SEWER..............................................................................................................................................................6 III. WATERMAIN ...............................................................................................................................................................13 IV. SANITARY SEWER .....................................................................................................................................................16 V. STREET CONSTRUCTION...........................................................................................................................................19 CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES.........................................................................................................................................21 I. SURVEY REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................................................................................22 II. CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES .............................................................................................................................24 PLAN STANDARDS...............................................................................................................................................................28 I. PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT/UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PROCESS................................................................29 II. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTALS....................................................................................................................................29 III. DEVELOPMENT/UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SUMITTAL SUMMARY ............................................................30 IV. PLAN STANDARDS .................................................................................................................................................31 MAPPING STANDARDS.......................................................................................................................................................36 I. ELECTRONIC DRAWING FILES............................................................................................................................37 II. LAYER REQUIREMENTS........................................................................................................................................37 III. GIS UTILITY UPDATES...........................................................................................................................................38 Appendix A:.........................................................................................................................................................................40 Appendix B: .........................................................................................................................................................................41 Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - iii PROLOGUE This information has been prepared to assist developers, builders, and engineers in the development of final plans and specifications in the City of Rosemount. It is not intended to be, nor should it be used as a specification for any improvement, but rather a guideline to be used in the preparation of such documents. Design and construction work shall conform to the most recent editions of the following: • Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Construction • City Engineers Association of Minnesota Standard Utilities Specifications • Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (Best Management Practices for Minnesota) • Recommended Standards for Water Works (Ten States’ Standards) • Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (Ten States’ Standards) • National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) • Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways • Mn/DOT Road Design Manual or as modified herein and the most recent City of Rosemount Standard Detail Plates, general specifications and comprehensive plans. All designs must incorporate the requirements identified in the City's Comprehensive Plans in effect at the time of the infrastructure design and installation. A copy of City of Rosemount General Specifications with Standard Detail Plates, and the comprehensive plans are on file for review at the City Hall or may be purchased in accordance with the most recent fee schedule. Prior to beginning construction, all regulatory agency permits and approvals shall be obtained including the following, but not limited to: • Army Corp of Engineers • City of Rosemount • Dakota County • Metropolitan Council (Environmental Services) • Minnesota Department of Health • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Minnesota Department of Transportation • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 1 DESIGN STANDARDS Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 2 I. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The grading plans and erosion control systems shall conform to the most recent editions of Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (Best Management Practices for Minnesota), National Urban Runoff Program (NURP), City of Rosemount Surface Water Management Plan (or as modified herein) and the City's most recent Specification Book and comprehensive plans. These comprehensive plans contain information that the design professional must incorporate in the design of a public infrastructure within the City. The following are specific requirements related to the development of grading/erosion control plans for the proposed subdivision and adjacent land within 200' unless noted otherwise: 1. General: a. Grading/erosion control plans designed and signed by a civil engineer or a land surveyor registered in the State of Minnesota. b. Show all drainage and utility easements. c. Show lowest floor and lowest opening elevations. d. Show existing and proposed building and driveway footprints. For driveway footprints display proposed driveway grade and maximum proposed driveway grade. e. Show lot corner elevations and bench marks utilized. f. Show or define access routes for maintenance purposes to all inlets, outlets, manholes and lift stations at ponding areas. g. Show existing underground and overhead utilities. h. Show location and indication of demolition or relocation of existing structures. i. Show existing and abandoned drain fields, alternate drain fields and wells. j. Show proposed drain fields, alternate drain fields and wells. k. Show removal of all trees and brush below the controlled water level that will be impacted from existing and newly created ponding areas. The developer is responsible for the removal of all significant vegetation (trees, stumps, brush, debris, etc.) from any and all areas which would be inundated by the designated controlled water elevation (NWL), and the removal of dead vegetation to the HWL of the pond. 2. Ponds and Wetlands: a. Show the Surface Water Management Plan pond number, NWL, HWL and storage volume for ponds. b. Show 10-year and 100-year design drainage boundaries. Show acreage of each drainage Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 3 area/watershed. c. Show wetland boundaries as professionally delineated according to the 1987 Corp of Engineers “Wetland Delineation Manual.” Per the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), a wetland delineation report shall be submitted to the City as the Local Government Unit (LGU) for review and concurrence. d. Show the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan wetland number, management category, NWL and HWL for wetlands. e. A protective buffer strip of natural vegetation shall surround all wetlands. The buffer strip width depends on the wetland management category as defined in the City’s Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. f. Wetland impacts must be permitted by the Local Government Unit before construction commences in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. g. If applicable, show DNR OHWL elevation and DNR pond number and U.S. Fish & Wildlife classification. h. Additional information can be found in the Water Quality subsection of the Storm Sewer section of this document. 3. Emergency Overflow Routes: a. All Emergency Overflow Routes and cross-lot drainage need to be encompassed by a drainage/utility easement. b. Overland emergency overflow routes shall be provided for all basins in addition to the normal pipe outlet. c. Show emergency overflow routes from all low points and show high point elevation along emergency overflow routes and the directional flow arrows. Show emergency overflow route typical section with bottom width and side slopes. d. If a pipe is installed to provide for an emergency overflow, label it as the emergency overflow. e. Additional information can be found in Water Quantity and Water Quality subsections of the Storm Sewer section of this document. 4. Retaining walls: a. Are not allowed in easements or rights-of-way. b. Shall be shown on grading plans where applicable to display final grading accurately. c. Show top and bottom of wall elevations at beginning and end of wall, at point of maximum height, and at points along the length of wall to adequately describe the retaining wall. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 4 d. Retaining walls exceeding 4’ in height shall require a plan prepared by a licensed engineer submitted for review and approval by the Building Official prior to permit issuance. 5. Erosion control: a. At a minimum, observe standards established in the following reports: "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" (Best Management Practices for Minnesota), "National Urban Runoff Program" (NURP) and the "Surface Water Management Plan" for the City of Rosemount or as modified herein. b. A separate erosion control plan is required that will accompany the grading plan. The plan shall be compliant with all City and NPDES standards. The erosion control plan will also show all proposed erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) including silt fences, inlet protection, construction entrances, temporary sediment basins and any other methods as required. c. In all new developments, sod shall be installed in the boulevard adjacent to the curb and gutter. Other appropriate sedimentation measures in the boulevards may considered be for installation in lieu of sod but will require approval of the City Engineer. 6. Grading: a. Show limits of clearing and grading. b. Existing contours shall be at 1' or 2' intervals to a mean sea level datum (dashed lines). The contours shall extend beyond the proposed plat boundaries 200' or more to completely show the limits of a drainage basin(s) not fully contained within the proposed plat. c. Proposed contours shall be at 1' or 2' intervals to a mean sea level datum (solid lines). d. Maximum slopes of 4:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) and minimum slopes of 2% are allowed. Maximum slopes of 3:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) are allowed below the 10:1 maintenance bench for NURP ponds. e. Show or define access routes for maintenance purposes to all manholes, lift stations, inlets, and/or outlets at ponding areas that are outside of public right of way. Access routes shall be paved with an 8% maximum grade, 2% cross slope, a minimum width of 10' and a turnaround where applicable. Access easements shall be dedicated at the time of final platting if necessary. 7. Submittals: a. Provide detailed hydrologic/hydraulic calculations verifying location and capacity adequacy of all overland drainage routes that assure all freeboard requirements are met as defined in the City of Rosemount “Surface Water Management Plan” and in the Storm Sewer section of this document. b. Upon the completion of the construction of a designated ponding area the developer and/or engineer is required to submit an As-Built Grading Plan of the ponding area. The record drawing must certify the pond construction and that the pond meets all design parameters as set forth in the proposed site plan and the City of Rosemount "Surface Water Management Plan" or as modified herein. See the Plan Standards section of this document for further submittal and Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 5 formatting requirements. c. Upon completion of grading, the developer is required to provide the City with an Individual Lot Final Grade record as-built drawing certifying grades, structure pad and lowest floor elevation of structures existing or proposed. See the Plan Standards section of this document for further submittal and formatting requirements. 8. Specifications: a. See the current City of Rosemount General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for further construction requirements and for additional information. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 6 II. STORM SEWER Drainage facilities shall conform to the most recent editions of City Engineers Association of Minnesota Standard Utilities Specifications, Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (Best Management Practices for Minnesota), National Urban Runoff Program (NURP), City of Rosemount Surface Water Management Plan (or as modified herein) and the City's most recent Specification Book and comprehensive plans. These comprehensive plans contain information that the design professional must incorporate in the design of a public infrastructure within the City. The following are specific requirements related to the construction of storm sewer facilities: 1. General Storm Sewer Design: a. All lateral storm sewer facilities on streets shall be designed to accommodate a 10-year rainfall event and all trunk storm sewer facilities shall be designed to handle a 100-year rainfall event as determined by the City Engineer. Low points on streets shall be designed with an acceptable emergency overflow with proper transfer capacity. b. Minimum lateral pipe size shall be 15" diameter, unless approved by the City Engineer. c. Long radius bends may be used for greater than 24" pipe diameter if necessary and approved by the City Engineer, in vertical or horizontal alignment. d. Refer to the current version of the Standard Manhole for Storm Drain Detail in the City’s General Specification for the types of castings to be used on the storm sewer structures. e. Inlets are generally required every 300' on streets or a combination of streets and swales (250' on collector and arterial streets). The inlets shall be located to prevent runoff from flowing through intersections. Inlets should be located such that 3 cfs is the maximum flow at the inlet for the 10- year design storm event and does not exceed the applicable spread design for the road. f. Catch basins in the street should be in line with adjoining property lines. Catch basins in the street cannot be placed in front of driveways unless approved by the City Engineer. g. Catch basins shall be located on the tangent section of the curb at a point 2.5' from the intersection radius endpoint as shown on the current version of the Street Radius for Concrete Curb and Gutter Detail in the City’s General Specifications. Mid-radius catch basins will not be allowed. Also, catch basins shall be designed to collect drainage on the upstream side of the intersection. h. Catch basins in unpaved areas are not allowed unless approved by the City Engineer. i. Any connections to existing manholes or catch basins shall be core drilled or the opening cut out with a concrete saw. No jack hammering or breaking the structure with a sledge hammer or mallet is permitted. Also, all connections to an existing system will require a manhole for access. j. Drain tile connections to catch basins or manholes must be approved by the City Engineer. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 7 k. Junction manholes should be designed to limit the hydraulic head increase by matching flow lines and by providing good angles of connection, typically greater than 90°. l. The maximum spacing between manholes is 500' for sewer lines 18" to 30" in diameter. Maximum spacing on large diameter sewer lines shall be approved by the City Engineer. m. To the greatest extent possible, manholes shall be placed in paved surfaces or other readily accessible areas. n. Storm sewer inlets, outlets and manholes in unpaved areas shall be marked per the current version of the Structure Marker Sign Detail in the City’s General Specifications. o. Pond inlet flared end sections shall be installed with ½ the pipe diameter below the NWL elevation unless directed otherwise by the City Engineer. p. Use a minimum Class III riprap gradation according to the current version of Riprap Details in the City’s General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates. Filter material as approved by the City Engineer shall be used with riprap installations. When installed at an pipe outlet on a slope, the length of riprap installation shall be the full length of the slope to the bottom of the pond. q. Steel sheet pile and concrete grouted riprap shall be installed at all pipe outlets 21” in diameter or larger per the current version of the FES Sheet Piling and Grouted Riprap At Outlets details in the City’s General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates. r. Alternative methods of slope erosion protection, such as articulated open-cell blocks, may be required to control erosion of granular soils in areas of high velocity flows. This requirement shall be site specific and at the discretion of the City Engineer. s. Aprons or flared end sections shall be placed at all locations where the storm sewer outlets into a ponding area. All aprons or flared end sections shall be tied to the last three (3) pipe joints. The City standard for aprons or flared end sections is the latest revision of Mn/DOT Standard Plate for Concrete Apron for Reinforced Concrete Pipe. The use of safety aprons and safety grates shall be used based on roadway clear zone requirements. t. Show or define access routes for maintenance purposes to all manholes, lift stations, inlets, and/or outlets at ponding areas that are outside of public right-of-way and that meet the specific requirements related to the development of grading plans found elsewhere in this document. Access easements shall be dedicated at the time of final platting if necessary. u. All newly constructed and reconstructed buildings will route drain leaders to pervious areas wherein the runoff can be allowed to infiltrate. The flow rate of water exiting the leaders shall be controlled so no erosion occurs in the pervious areas. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 8 2. Water Quantity a. For newly developing areas, no discharge or infiltration can be assumed for purposes of establishing the 100-year, 24-hour storm event high water elevation. For events with longer duration, a maximum peak stormwater discharge rate will be limited to 0.05 cfs/acre. b. In the event that the City will not be providing a regional system, storage of the runoff from the 100 year, 24 hour storm event is required on-site. c. The City prefers to provide rate control through the use of regional storm water retention systems versus site-by-site retention systems if regional systems are available. d. Drainage calculations must be submitted to demonstrate adequate rate control, storage, and infiltration are provided as per the requirements of the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. e. New storm sewer system laterals shall be designed to accommodate discharge rates from a 10- year storm event. f. Storm events or runoff events shall be defined as outlined below: The 2-year storm event is defined as 2.8” of rainfall in 24 hours. The 10-year storm event is defined 4.2" of rainfall over 24 hours. The 100-year storm event is defined as 6.0” of rainfall over 24 hours. The 10-day snowmelt is defined as 7.1” of runoff. g. Development will be required to provide 1/12 of an acre-foot/acre/day of infiltration for the entire site’s acreage. Pretreatment of stormwater is required prior to discharge to an infiltration basin. Options available for infiltration design are included in the Surface Water Management Plan. h. Infiltration rates of soils for design purposes are as follows: Hydrologic soil group A : 0.30 in/hour Hydrologic soil group B : 0.15 in/hour Hydrologic soil group C : 0.07 in/hour Hydrologic soil group D : 0.03 in/hour Different infiltration rates will be considered (up to a maximum of 3.0 in/hour) by the City Engineer on a site-by-site basis based on percolation tests or other pertinent information conducted by a professional soil scientist or Professional Engineer. i. The City prohibits activities within the 100 year floodplain unless compensatory floodplain mitigation is provided at a 1:1 ratio by volume and it is demonstrated that the 100 year flood plain will not be impacted. In addition, no filling within the designated floodway of a drainage channel shall be allowed. Suitable calculations must be submitted and approved demonstrating that filling in the flood fringe will not impact the 100 year flood profile. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 9 j. The City shall restrict or prohibit uses within the floodplain that are dangerous to health, safety, or property in times of flood or which cause increase in flood elevations or velocities. k. The City requires that for any new or redevelopment, at least 3 feet of freeboard between the anticipated high water elevation and the minimum building opening be maintained. If this 3 foot freeboard requirement is considered a hardship, standard could be lowered to 2 feet if approved by the City Engineer and the following can be demonstrated: i. That within the 2 foot freeboard area, stormwater storage is available which is equal to or exceeds 50% of the stormwater storage currently available in the basin below the 100-year high water elevation. ii. That a 25% obstruction of the basin outlet over a 24-hour period would not result in more than 1 foot of additional bounce in the basin. iii. An adequate overflow route from the basin is available that will provide assurance that 1 foot of freeboard will be maintained for the proposed low building opening. l. The City requires that minimum basement floor elevations be set to an elevation that meets the following criteria: i. The basement floor elevation will be 4 feet above the currently observed groundwater elevations in the area (FHA policy). ii. The basement floor elevation will be 2 feet above the elevation of any known historic high groundwater elevations for the area. Information on historic high groundwater elevations can be derived from any reasonable sources including piezometer data, soil boring data, percolation testing, etc. iii. The basement floor elevation will be 1 foot above the 100-year high water elevation for the area unless it can be demonstrated that this standard creates a hardship. If a hardship is demonstrated, this requirement could be waived if a registered geotechnical engineer documents that the basement floor will be one foot above the highest anticipated groundwater elevation that could result from high surface water elevations raising the groundwater in the area during a 100-year critical duration rainfall event. The impact of high surface water elevations on groundwater elevations in the vicinity of the structure can take into consideration the site’s distance from the floodplain area, the soils, the normal water elevation of surface depressions in the areas, the static groundwater table and historic water elevations in the area. 3. Water Quality a. In the design and construction of new, or modifications to the existing storm water conveyance systems, pretreatment of storm water runoff to Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) recommendations must be provided prior to discharge to wetlands and water bodies classified as Preserve and Manage I as outlined in the City’s Wetland Management Plan and infiltration basins. The NURP design guidelines for the City are as follows: Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 10 i. A permanent pool (“dead storage”) volume below the principal spillway (normal outlet), which shall be greater than or equal to the runoff from a 2.5 inch storm over the entire contributing drainage area assuming full development. ii. A permanent pool average depth (basin volume/basin area), which shall be >4 feet, with a maximum depth of <10 feet. iii. An emergency overflow (emergency outlet) adequate to control the one percent frequency/critical duration rainfall event. iv. Basin side slopes above the normal water level should be no steeper than 4:1, and preferably flatter. A basin shelf with a minimum width of 10 feet and one foot deep below the normal water level is recommended to enhance wildlife habitat, reduce potential safety hazards, and improve access for long-term maintenance. v. To prevent short-circuiting, the distance between major inlets and the normal outlet shall be maximized. vi. A flood pool (“live storage”) volume above the principal spillway shall be adequate so that the peak discharge rates from 99%, 10%, and 1% chance critical duration storms are no greater than pre-development basin watershed conditions. Additional discharge restrictions may be required as outlined in the Stormwater Management Plan. vii. Retardance of peak discharges for the more frequent storms can be achieved through a principal spillway design, which may include a perforated vertical riser, small orifice retention outlet, or compound weir. Additional discharge restrictions may be required as outlined in the Stormwater Management Plan. viii. A protective buffer strip of vegetation surrounding the permanent pool at a minimum width of 15 feet. b. Sediment and nutrient pretreatment shall be provided to the extent necessary as outlined in the City’s Wetland Management Plan. c. New developments will be required to provide mitigative measures if the development results in an increase in the phosphorus concentration of downstream water bodies that are classified as Preserve or Manage I as outlined in the City’s Wetland Management Plan. Appropriate documentation must be submitted to the City that indicates the pre- and post development phosphorus concentrations of Preserve or Management I water bodies. d. Two foot sump catch basin inlets are required for all new or redevelopment within a street. A 3 foot sump catch basin or manhole is required within the street just prior to discharge to a wetland, lake, or stream. e. Development plans must be in conformance with the shoreland management ordinance. f. The City will require skimmers in the construction of new pond outlets, and add skimmers to the existing system whenever feasible and practical. Skimmer design shall provide for skimmers that extend a minimum of 6 inches below the water surface and minimize the velocities of water Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 11 passing under the skimmer to less than 0.5 feet per second for 1-year rainfall events. The skimmer design shall be consistent with the current City detail. 4. Wetlands a. Prior to issuance of any city grading or building permits, all development and redevelopment activities must comply with the Wetland Conservation Act and Wetland Management Plan. A copy of the Wetland Conservation Act Rules and the Wetland Management Plan can be obtained at City Hall. b. For new development, buffers around wetlands as outlined in the Wetland Management Plan will be required. These buffers include: Preserve Wetlands: 75 Ft. Manage I Wetlands: 50 Ft. Manage II Wetlands: 30 Ft. Utilize Wetland: 15 Ft. in non-agricultural areas only. Developers shall be responsible for the installation of monuments marking the outer edge of the buffer. 5. Erosion Control a. The City will require erosion and sediment control on all construction sites to be in conformance with City ordinance and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management Practices. 6. Easements a. If a developer's proposal involves directing some or all runoff off -site, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain from adjacent property owners any necessary easements or other property interests concerning flowage of water. b. Easements are required for all landlocked ponding areas to the greater of the basins 100 year – 10 day run-off HWL elevation or back to back 100 year – 24 hour HWL elevation. Easements are required for all outletted basins, swales, ditches, and overflow routes to the basin's 100 year storm HWL elevation. Easements are required over the ultimate overflow route from land locked basins and future trunk storm sewer convergence routes. c. If the storm sewer is to be less than 10' deep within private property, the easement shall be a minimum of 20' wide. If the storm sewer is 10' deep or greater, then the easement shall be twice as wide as the depth. 7. Submittals a. Calculations and drainage area maps showing 10 year and 100 year flood boundaries shall be submitted with the plans and specifications verifying the adequacy of the number of catch basins, pipe capacities and pond sizes. b. A storm water pollution control plan is required for any project that requires a building permit, subdivision approval, or grading permit per the City’s Surface Water Management ordinance. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 12 c. Upon completion of the storm sewer utility work, the developer is required to provide the City with a Utility Record Drawing. See the Plan Standards section of this document for further submittal and formatting requirements. 8. Specifications: a. See the current City of Rosemount General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for further construction requirements and for additional information. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 13 III. WATERMAIN The design and construction of watermain and water services shall conform to the most recent editions of, "City Engineers Association of Minnesota Standard Utilities Specifications,” "AWWA Standards,” "Recommended Standards for Water Works" (Ten State's Standards) or as modified herein and the City's most recent Standard Detail Plates, general specifications and comprehensive plans. These comprehensive plans contain information that the design professional must incorporate in the design of a public infrastructure within the City. The following are specific requirements related to the design of watermain and water services: 1. General a. All pipes and services shall be designed for a minimum of 7½' of cover to top of pipe and maximum of 10' of cover. There shall be a minimum 18" vertical clearance when crossing sanitary or storm sewer lines or services. b. Connections to active mains shall be wet taps. c. All valves shall be gate valves. d. Air relief valves, when required, shall have a valve prior to and after an air relief mechanism to allow replacement without shutting down main. 2. Watermain a. The watermain horizontal alignment shall follow the sanitary sewer alignment where practical with a minimum of 10' of separation. b. Minimum watermain diameters shall be 8" for residential property. c. Minimum watermain diameters shall be 12" for multi-family, commercial, industrial, business park, public or waste management property. d. Material shall be ductile iron pipe, Class 52, for 6" through 12" watermain. Material for large diameter watermain (over 12") shall be ductile iron and the class of pipe determined on an individual basis. e. All connections to existing watermains shall be valved. Locate valves within the street surface where possible. Locate the valve as close as possible to the tee or cross so that the valve can be rodded back to the tee or cross. A minimum of two valves is required at a 3-legged intersection. A minimum of three valves is required at a cross or 4-legged intersection. f. All utilities that cross the watermain shall cross at a 90° angle if possible with the minimum requirement of a 45° angle for the crossing. g. Dead-end lines shall be minimized by looping of all mains wherever practical. Where dead-end mains occur a hydrant shall be installed at or near the end of the main for flushing purposes. All temporary and permanent dead-ends shall be secured with a gate valve. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 14 h. All gate valves that are not within paved areas shall be marked per the current version of the Structure Marker Sign Detail in the City’s General Specifications. i. If the watermain is to be installed within private property, the easement shall be a minimum of 20' wide with the watermain centered in the easement. j. Watermains shall not be located within any defined or designated ponding easement. 3. Hydrants a. All hydrant spacing will be reviewed by Fire Marshal, but the typical maximum spacing permitted between hydrants in multi-family, commercial, industrial, business park, public, or waste management areas are 300' and the typical maximum spacing permitted between hydrants in residential areas is 500'. b. Gate valves are required on all hydrant leads. c. Hydrants or water services are not allowed on the inactive side of gate valves for temporary stubs. d. Hydrants shall be placed per current version of Typical Hydrant Installation in the City’s General Specifications. e. Locate hydrants at all intersections, if practical. Hydrants not located at an intersection shall be aligned with an adjoining property line. 4. Water Services a. Single family residences shall have a minimum 1" diameter Type K copper water service. b. Water service lines greater than 1" in diameter shall be approved by the City’s Building Official based on the Minnesota State Plumbing Code. c. Services shall be constructed beyond the ROW line to within 1’ of the drainage and utility easement, where topography permits. This will allow the electric, telephone, gas and cable TV companies to install their lines outside of the right-of-way where conditions permit, see the current version of the Typical Water Service Detail in the City’s General Specifications. d. Water services constructed to lots that already have electric, telephone, gas and cable TV service shall be constructed only to the right-of-way line. e. The end of all water services shall be plugged and curb stop marked with a 6' T-iron posts painted blue placed vertically and protruding 4' out of the ground. Only one continuous piece will be allowed from main to curb box or valve. f. Water services may be placed in the same trench as the sewer services provided that an 18" vertical clearance and a 36" horizontal clearance are maintained, see the current version of the Typical Water Service Detail in the City’s General Specifications. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 15 g. All curb stop standpipes constructed in paved areas require the installation of a meter box and cover. h. Curb boxes shall be Minneapolis Pattern with stationary rods. i. A minimum of 7.5' of cover is required on all water services. j. Water laterals and/or services shall not be located within any defined or designated ponding easement. 5. Submittals: a. Upon completion of the water utility work, the developer is required to provide the City with a Utility Record Drawing. See the Plan Standards section of this document for further submittal and formatting requirements. 6. Specifications: a. See the current City of Rosemount General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for further watermain construction requirements and for additional information. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 16 IV. SANITARY SEWER The design and construction of sanitary sewer and sewer services shall conform to the most recent editions of, "City Engineers Association of Minnesota Standard Utilities Specifications,” "Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (Ten State's Standards),” or as modified herein and the City's most recent Standard Detail Plates, general specifications and comprehensive plans. These comprehensive plans contain information that the design professional must incorporate in the design of a public infrastructure within the City. The following are specific requirements related to the design of sanitary sewer and sewer services: 1. General a. Show or define access routes for maintenance purposes to all manholes and lift stations that are outside of public right of way. Access routes shall have an 8% maximum grade, 2% cross slope, a minimum width of 10' and a turnaround where applicable. If necessary, access easements shall be dedicated at the time of final platting to provide this access. b. Any connections to existing manholes shall be core drilled or the opening cut out with a concrete saw. No jack hammering or breaking the structure with a mall is permitted. c. No inside drops allowed in manholes. d. Changing of material pipe type is not allowed between manholes except for drop manholes. 2. Sanitary Sewer a. Sanitary sewer alignment shall follow the centerline of the street unless approved by City Engineer. b. The maximum spacing between manholes for sewer mains is 400'. c. All manholes shall be at centerline/centerline at intersections. d. All manholes shall be located in public right-of-way unless approved by the City Engineer. e. All manholes that are not within a paved area shall be marked per the current version of the Structure Marker Sign Detail in the City General Specifications. f. Manholes are required on the terminus end of all stubs if the line will be active. g. The following pipe types and class are identified in general with respect to depths with soil type verification and design criteria required to substantiate size and type of 8” to 10” pipe used. DEPTH TYPE & CLASS 8' to 18' PVC, SDR 35 18' to 26' PVC, SDR 26 > 26' As approved by City Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 17 h. Along a deep trunk sanitary sewer (greater than 20' deep), the City may require the Developer to construct a parallel, shallower sanitary sewer that the services would connect to. The shallow sanitary sewer would eliminate the need for deep risers that connect to the trunk sanitary sewer. i. If sanitary sewer is to be installed less than 10' deep within private property, the easement shall be a minimum of 20' wide. If the sanitary sewer is 10' deep or greater, then the easement shall be twice as wide as the depth. j. The trunk sanitary sewer system shall be designed to promote a laminar flow through the sewer system. Junction manholes should be designed to limit the hydraulic head increase by matching flow lines and by providing good angles of connection, typically greater than 90°. Angles of connection less than 90° are not allowed. k. Any manhole located within a designated or defined ponding & drainage easement shall be made of watertight materials. 3. Sewer Services a. Single family residences shall have a minimum 4" diameter PVC (SDR 26) sanitary sewer service. b. Sanitary service lines greater than a 4" diameter shall be approved by the Building Official based on the Minnesota State Plumbing Code. c. When D.I.P. is used for the main sewer line, sanitary sewer services shall be constructed with 4" or 6" D.I.P., Class 52, from the main line sewer to the 45° bend. d. Services shall be constructed beyond the ROW line to within 1’ of the drainage and utility easement, where topography permits. This will allow the electric, telephone, gas and cable TV companies to install their lines outside of the right-of-way where conditions permit. e. Sewer and water services constructed to lots that already have electric, telephone, gas and cable TV service shall be constructed only to the right-of-way line. f. The end of all sanitary service stubs shall be plugged and marked with a 6’ T-iron fence post, painted green placed vertically and protruding 4' out of the ground. g. Cleanouts are required at 100' intervals including the riser on sanitary sewer services. All sanitary sewer cleanouts constructed in paved areas require the installation of a meter box and cover. h. Water services may be placed in the same trench as the sewer services provided that an 18" vertical clearance and a 36" horizontal clearance are maintained, see the current version of the Typical Water Service Detail in the City’s General Specifications. i. Sewer services shall not be connected to a manhole unless the structure served is multi-family, commercial, industrial, business park, public, or waste management in use and the connection is Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 18 approved by the City Engineer. j. The minimum depth of the sanitary sewer service at the right-of-way or easement line shall be 10' unless documented by a proposed house or building elevation that justified a deeper service. 4. Submittals a. Upon completion of the sanitary utility work, the developer is required to provide the City with a Record Utility Drawing. See the Plan Standards section of this document for further submittal and formatting requirements. 5. Specifications a. See the current City of Rosemount General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for further sanitary sewer construction requirements and for additional information. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 19 V. STREET CONSTRUCTION Streets shall conform to the most recent editions of "Mn/DOT Standard Specification for Construction,” "Mn/DOT Road Design Manual,” "Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways” or as modified herein and the City's most recent Standard Detail Plates, general specifications and comprehensive plans. These comprehensive plans contain information that the design professional must incorporate in the design of a public infrastructure within the City. The following are specific requirements related to the design of street construction: 1. General a. On a street with concrete curb & gutter, street width shall be measured from the face of curb to the face of curb. b. Maximum length of a cul-de-sac street shall be 700'. The cul-de-sac shall have a 60' radius to the right-of-way line and a 45' radius to the face of curb. c. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles. d. Barricades in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and as approved by the City Engineer shall be placed on all dead end streets. e. No street grade shall be less than 1%. At intersections, the street grade shall not exceed 2.0% for the first 100' approaching said intersection. The 100' is measured from the curb line of the intersected street. f. In cul-de-sacs, the gutter grade shall not be less than 0.5%. A minimum 0.5' crown or minimum 2% cross slope grade, whichever is greater, is required for a cul-de-sac cross section. g. Concrete valley gutters will be constructed where cross-section slopes are less than 1% and/or as directed by the City Engineer. h. Soil boring information shall be submitted to the City. i. All clay material will be removed within the street section. j. The material used for the aggregate base shall be as specified in the current City of Rosemount General Specifications and Standards. k. Cul-de-sacs are required on all "dead-end" public streets. Temporary "dead-end" situations associated with phased development do not require concrete curb and gutter along the radius of the cul-de-sac. Temporary "dead-end" situations associated with providing access for future extension to and through adjacent undeveloped property requires concrete curb and gutter installation. l. New residential subdivisions will require modified 'S' design curb and gutter as shown on the current Concrete Curb and Gutter Detail in the City’s General Specifications. B6-18 curb and Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 20 gutter is required on all collector streets and at all intersection radii. m. A 25' minimum intersection radius shall be used on residential streets. A 50' minimum intersection radius shall be used on non-residential streets. n. A pedestrian curb ramp is required when sidewalk or trail way intersect with curbs. The ramp shall be constructed according to the current Pedestrian Curb Ramp Detail in the City’s General Specifications. o. The design and construction of sidewalks and trail ways shall be in accordance with current ADA Standards and the current edition of the “Mn/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual.” p. Traffic signs and devices shall be installed under City contract and per "Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,” Mn/DOT, and City of Rosemount Standard Detail Plates. 2. Submittals a. Upon completion of the street construction, the developer is required to provide the City with a Record Utility Drawing. See the Plan Standards section of this document for further submittal and formatting requirements. 3. Specifications a. See the current City of Rosemount General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for further street construction requirements and for additional information. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 21 CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 22 I. SURVEY REQUIREMENTS The following is a summary of construction staking requirements for improvement projects in the City of Rosemount: 1. Separate cut sheets for: a. Sanitary i. Offset distance ii. Benchmark iii. Stationing at 0+00, 0+50, 1+00, and 50 feet thereafter to next manhole iv. Hub elevations v. Pipe/manhole inverts vi. Cuts to invert of pipe vii. Manhole builds viii. Percent grade on each run ix. Wye locations from downstream manhole b. Watermain i. Offset distance ii. Benchmark iii. Stationing at 50-foot intervals iv. Hub elevations v. Top of pipe elevations vi. Fitting and valve stationing vii. Hydrants staked to break off viii. Cuts and fills as appropriate c. Storm sewer i. Offset distance ii. Benchmark iii. Stationing at 0+00, 0+50, 1+00, and 50 feet thereafter to next manhole iv. Hub elevations at each station v. Pipe/manhole inverts at each structure vi. Manhole/catch basin builds vii. % grade on each run viii. Offsets to back of curb, cuts to invert d. Services i. Offset distance ii. Benchmark iii. Hub elevations iv. Sanitary invert v. Cut to invert vi. Elevation to top of curb stop box vii. Cuts/fills to box top or cuts to curb stop Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 23 e. Curb i. Offset distance ii. Benchmark iii. Hub Elevations iv. Top of curb v. Type of curb vi. Cuts/fills to top of curb vii. Begin, middle and ending radius points 2. As-builts The survey crew will establish X, Y, and Z coordinates on all structures that can be accessed above ground (curb stops, gate valves, manholes, and catch basins) and below ground (all horizontal deflections on sanitary sewer services and all conduit crossings noting intended user) through the use of the GPS system. 3. Utility survey codes The City shall be provided with an electronic file copy of the as-built coordinates for each of the following utility locations that are within the public right-of-way and the drainage and utility easement. The points in this file shall use the following description codes: # Description 101 Curb Stop 102 Fire Hydrant 103 Junction Box 106 Water Meter Vault 109 Water Valve 110 Waterline ARV (Air Relief) MH 111 Waterline Bend 112 Waterline Corp 114 Waterline Cross 115 Waterline Curb Box 116 Waterline Hydrant Valve 117 Waterline Plug 120 Waterline Sleeve 121 Waterline Tee 122 Waterline Wet Tap 202 Pump 204 Sanitary Sewer Cleanout 206 Sanitary Sewer FM ARV MH 208 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Invert 209 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim 210 Sanitary Sewer Plug 211 Sanitary Sewer Service Bend 212 Sanitary Sewer Service Tee 213 Sanitary Sewer Service Wye 301 Arch Pipe - Flared End 302 Arch Pipe - Invert 306 Corrugated Metal Pipe (Invert) 307 Corrugated Metal Pipe (Top) 308 Environmental Manhole 313 Reinforced Concrete Pipe Invert 314 Reinforced Concrete Pipe Top 317 Storm Drop Inlet Top/Grade Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 24 319 Storm Sewer Beehive 320 Storm Sewer Bend 321 Storm Sewer Box Culvert Invert 322 Storm Sewer Boxed Culvert Rim 323 Storm Sewer CB INV 324 Storm Sewer CB Rim 325 Storm Sewer Flared End Section 327 Storm Sewer Manhole Invert 328 Storm Sewer Manhole Rim 351 Drain Tile Bend 352 Drain Tile Clean out 353 Drain Tile Invert 355 Drain Tile Plug 356 Drain Tile Wye 401 Conduit II. CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES The following is a summary of requirements and procedures for construction observers that are assigned improvement projects in the City of Rosemount: 1. Shop drawings Contractor shall submit six (6) drawings. i. Return two (2) to the contractor ii. One (1) copy to the City file iii. One (1) copy to the observer iv. One (1) copy for Engineer file (WSB) v. One (1) copy to the Project Manager 2. Field communication a. Submit weekly construction reports to City Engineer by Friday. Include list/summary of resident contacts in these reports. b. Side deals with contractor and developer need to be documented as solely between two parties. If through City contract, receive written/signed verification of agreement by both contractor and developer. c. Document all delays/extensions agreed to or process them in a Change Order. d. Only consider invoices for extra work if immediately submitted and documented by observer. Contractor and observer shall agree in field on hours if work is done by time and material. e. Weekly progress meeting minutes shall be submitted to the City Engineer at the end of each week. f. Document all private utility hits and immediately notify the City Engineer g. Field emergency: i. All City of Rosemount representatives will have all small utility emergency contact information available. Notify the following as necessary: Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 25 (1) 911 (2) City Hall – (651) 423-4411 (3) City Engineer – (612) 360-1291 (4) Engineering Department – (651) 322-2022 (5) Police: (a) Daytime – (651) 423-4491 (b) After hours (After 5pm) – (651) 675-5700 h. Road closure procedure: i. Fill out Rosemount’s Road Closure Notification Form (available on the City website or at City Hall). ii. Create a traffic control signage plan or detour plan if applicable. iii. Submit to Engineering Department for approval and distribution. i. Connections to existing mains shall be coordinated with the City Engineer. The City requires a minimum 48-hour notice if residents are to be without water. j. Activation of the watermain system shall be performed by City personnel only. The City requires a minimum 48-hour notice before the activation of the watermain system. 3. Data collection a. Collect and record location for sewer and water service laterals installed within public rights-of- way at all main line connections, and termination at public rights-of-way as necessary to develop geospatial data. b. Water service curb box elevations and sanitary sewer service invert evaluations. This information should be submitted within 14 days to the City, and the Project Engineer once utility work is completed on the project. c. See Appendix A for an example of a Utility Service Location Verification Form that contains all required data collection for record drawings and information to be submitted to the City. 4. As-builts a. All curb stop boxes and sanitary sewer service ends shall be tied with at least two ties using the following priority: i. The served structure with address, lot and block noted. ii. Neighboring structures with address, lot and block noted. iii. For existing houses or structures, the front corners of the house or building. iv. Fire hydrants or Gate Valves. v. Manholes, catch basins, if curb and gutter is in. vi. Other permanent structures (telephone, pedestals, transformers, bridges, etc.) vii. Power poles, trees, other semi-permanent items. viii. Stationing from a hydrant, manhole, or catch basin. These may be used with back-of-curb distance. ix. Adjacent services All ties should be less than 100'. b. All gate valves shall be tied with at least two ties using the following priority: i. Fire hydrants Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 26 ii. Manholes iii. Catch basins, if curb and gutter are in. iv. Buildings or other permanent items v. Telephone pedestals vi. Power poles, trees, other semi-permanent items vii. Stationing from a hydrant, manhole, or catch basin, if over 100'. viii. Back of curb only when used with stationing in g. above. ix. Curb stops. All ties should be less than 100'. 5. Testing procedures All testing shall be completed by the City’s contracted testing firm, City staff, or other City approved agency. Other tests may be required if State or Federal funds are being used on the project. Notify City staff within 48 hours of any scheduled testing. See current City Specifications for testing methods. a. Backfill materials in utility trenches are subject to density and testing requirements per City Specification. b. Watermain i. Hydrostatic (Pressure) ii. Electrical Conductivity iii. Bacterial (Bug) c. Sanitary sewer i. Air or Leakage ii. Deflection (Mandrel) – Performed thirty (30) days after installation iii. Televise (after jetting) – Within fifteen (15) days of manholes raised for base course paving d. Storm sewer i. Visual inspection ii. Lamping e. Street construction i. Topsoil per “Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Construction” ii. Gradations for select granular borrow and aggregate base iii. Density test for subgrade and aggregate base iv. Roll test for subgrade and/or aggregate base v. Bituminous per current “Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Construction” vi. Air, slump and compressive strength for concrete vii. Cores on wear course, base course if questionable f. Final quantity tabulations shall be submitted to the City for the following: i. Sanitary sewers by footage and size. ii. Watermain by footage and size. iii. Number of Hydrants, G.V., M.H., C.B., lift stations, etc. iv. Storm sewers by footage and size Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 27 v. Number and size of services - sewer vi. Number and size of services - water vii. Streets by lineal footage and square yards viii. Sidewalks by lineal footage and square yards ix. Trails by lineal footage and square yards 6. Inspections a. Preliminary i. All gate valves to be keyed by City staff prior to final lift. b. Final i. Performed after completion of all street construction, including final grading and restoration of boulevards, ponding areas and drainage swales by designated City staff. ii. Punch list of any required corrective work is given to designated City staff. iii. After completion of all punch list items is certified by contractor, corrective work is re- inspected by designated City staff. c. Warranty i. The contractor will be contacted by the City of Rosemount by mail to schedule a final walkthrough to create a warranty punch list. d. Lift station start-ups: i. Start-up shall be coordinated by the Project Manager. ii. Observer should ensure contractor has demonstrated all parts are in working order. iii. All lift station subcontractors must be in attendance before beginning start-up. iv. O & M’s shall be given to the City (include electronic copy). v. City Staff must be present. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 28 PLAN STANDARDS Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 29 I. PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT/UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PROCESS GRADING/EROSION CONTROL – After approval of the Preliminary Plat, a Grading/Erosion Control Plan must be submitted for City review. The Final Grading/Erosion Control Plan must be certified by a Licensed Professional Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. FINAL PLAT – After Dakota County approval of the final plat, the City must receive signed plat copies (see Final Plat Process for submittal requirements) before street and utility construction can begin or building permits are issued. CONSTRUCTION PLAN – After approval of the Grading/Erosion Control Plan, a Construction Plan and Specifications must be submitted for City review. Upon final City Engineer approval, provide a final plan set for City Engineer’s signature. CONSTRUCTION PLAN RECORD DRAWINGS – By January 15th of each year, a record drawing of the construction plan is to be submitted for review by City. GIS UTILITY UPDATE – By March 15th of each year, all utilities for the development/utility construction project will be mapped in a ESRI SDE database format. II. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTALS To complete the final plat process, the City requires all developers to submit copies of the County- approved plat that is being recorded. The following copies are needed for City records: 1. One plat set for City signatures on 22" x 34" Mylar sheet(s) with the following additional information included on the plat: a. City Copy - Not Official Copy and date (month & year) labeled at the top of each sheet b. Street names as assigned by the City 2. One plat set (do not include a separate signature sheet or lot survey) on 22" x 34" Mylar sheet(s) with the following additional information included on the plat: a. City Copy - Not Official Copy and date (month & year), address map labeled at the top of each sheet b. Street names, block numbers, and lot numbers, NO survey information c. Addresses as assigned by the City shown on each individual lot 3. One plat set (do not include a separate signature sheet or lot survey data) on 22" x 34" Mylar sheet(s) with the following additional information included on the plat: a. City Copy - Not Official Copy and date (month & year), area map labeled at the top of each sheet b. Street names, block numbers, and lot numbers, NO survey information c. Square footage of each lot, outlot, park, right-of-way, and easement for ponding purposes shown on each individual lot/easement or in tabular form d. Total acreage of the entire plat Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 30 e. Setback line and each lots front footage at setback 4. One plat set (do not include a separate signature sheet or lot survey data) on 11” x 17” Mylar sheet(s) with the following additional information included on the plat: a. City Copy - Not Official Copy and date (month & year), address map labeled at the top of each sheet b. Street names, block numbers, and lot numbers, NO survey information c. Addresses assigned by the City shown on each individual lot, NO survey information (Addresses must be a size that can be legible when it is faxed) 5. One plat set (do not include a separate signature sheet or lot survey data) on 11” x 17” Mylar sheet(s) with the following additional information included on the plat: a. Not Official Copy – City Copy and date (month & year), area map labeled at the top of each sheet(s) b. Street names, block numbers and lot numbers, with survey information c. Square footage of each lot, outlot, park, right-of-way, and easement for ponding purposes shown on each individual lot/easement or in tabular form d. Total acreage of the entire plat e. Setback line and each lots front footage at setback 6. Submit the electronic drawing files in AutoCAD or ArcMap compatible format projected in Dakota County Coordinate, NAD83 datum of each plat with street names, block and lot numbers, and addresses each on separate layers. Please be advised that the City will not release the final plat for recording until receipt of the above copies. III. DEVELOPMENT/UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SUMITTAL SUMMARY GRADING/EROSION CONTROL, CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND RECORD DRAWING REVIEW – The City’s Project Manager shall be provided with one full size (22” x 34”), one half size (11” x 17”), and one digital image (.pdf) plan set for review. FINAL GRADING/EROSION CONTROL AND CONSTRUCTION PLAN SUBMITTAL – Along with the electronic drawing files (see Mapping Standards for file requirements), the City’s Project Manager shall be provided with three full size (22” x 34”), three half size (11” x 17”), and one digital image (.pdf) set of the City Engineer approved plans. EASEMENT DRAWINGS – The City shall be provided with electronic drawing files of easement documents with signed easement agreement. These drawings should only show existing parcels, rights-of-way, and easements all on separate layers (see Layer Requirements). CONSTRUCTION PLAN RECORD DRAWINGS – These plans become the City's permanent record of its infrastructure system. Along with the electronic drawing files (see Mapping Standards for file requirements), the City’s Project Manager shall be provided with one Mylar (22” x 34”) and Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 31 one digital image (.pdf) set of the City approved drawings. GIS UTILITY FILES – The City’s GIS Coordinator shall be provided with an enterprise geodatabase that contains updated files for only the newly constructed utilities. See the GIS Utility Update section of this document for specific data and layer requirements. IV. PLAN STANDARDS The City has certain standards of a plan for infrastructure improvements which are to be owned and maintained by the City. These standards apply to grading plans, construction plans, and record plans. To standardize these plans, the guidelines listed below shall be followed. 1. GENERAL PLAN STANDARDS These standards apply to all plan sets submitted to the City. a. Organize plan sheets generally in the following order: i. A title sheet with an index and vicinity map ii. General Utility & Street Plan, details and survey alignment with curve data in tabular form iii. Traffic signs and devices plan sheets iv. Street lighting system plan sheets v. A sanitary sewer and watermain plan & profile sheets vi. Storm sewer and street plan & profile sheets vii. Street cross-sections sheets on state aid projects and as necessary viii. General Grading/Erosion Control Plan (Note: This can be part of the Construction Plan or a separate plan set. See Grading/Erosion Control Plan Standards). b. All sheets shall be 22" x 34", numbered consecutively and contain the City's project number. c. All street names shall be clearly labeled. d. Any revisions must be noted, initialed and signed on all effected sheets. e. A standard title block shall be placed on the bottom or right side of each sheet. f. All parcels shall be properly labeled with lot and block numbers and plat name, or the complete property identification number in unplatted areas. Developed parcels shall have their address shown on the plan. g. All plans shall have properly placed North arrows for each plan on the sheet. h. The direction North will be orientated either up or to the right on all plan sheets. 2. GRADING/EROSION CONTROL PLAN STANDARDS The following standards are specific to Grading/Erosion Control Plans. a. The title block will include the subdivision name, developer and engineer contact information. b. The full size scale shall be 1” = 50’ or 1” = 30’. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 32 Provide a grading/erosion control drawing plan certifying grades of structure pads, lot corners, front and rear building ground grades, driveway grades, lowest floor elevations of structures existing and proposed, and ponding areas. Additional items to be shown include lot number, block number, style of home (rambler, walk out, etc.) drainage arrows and garage side of building. c. Provide soil boring locations and information. d. Provide calculations and drainage area maps showing 10-year and 100-year flood boundaries verifying the adequacy of the number of catch basins, pipe capacities and pond sizes. e. Provide calculations verifying watermain sizing. f. Provide calculations verifying sanitary sewer sizing. g. Provide an R-value from an accepted laboratory and calculations verifying pavement thickness. h. Provide copies of permit applications or submit for signatures. i. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for sanitary sewer extension and NPDES for stormwater ii. Army Corp of Engineers iii. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources iv. Minnesota Department of Health v. Metropolitan Council, Environmental Services, letter (with copy of MPCA permit) vi. Minnesota Department of Transportation vii. Dakota County Transportation 3. CONSTRUCTION PLAN STANDARDS The following standards are specific to Construction Plans. a. Full size scale: Horizontal Scale: 1" = 30' or 1" = 50' Vertical Scale: 1" = 5' b. The following utilities shall be located in the approximate locations: i. Sanitary Sewer: On the centerline of street right-of-way. ii. Watermain: Ten feet north and east of the centerline and parallel to the sanitary sewer. iii. Storm Sewer: Ten feet south and west of the centerline. c. Index map shall be shown on each plan sheet in the upper right corner. d. All detail drawings shall be on separate sheets or included in the specification manual except as required on State Aid projects. e. The profile shall be directly below the plan with the stationing aligned as closely as practical. Stationing shall be shown on both the plan and profile views. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 33 f. All match-line breaks shall be clean with reference points and plan sheet numbers of continuation clearly marked. All plans which are broken by a match-line shall be on the same or consecutive sheets. g. Existing utilities shall be shown and labeled as existing for the subdivision and adjacent land in both the plan and profile views. Existing utilities shall be shown beyond plat boundaries for at least 200' and to the nearest existing valve or manhole required for construction. h. When drafting utility and/or street plans, use a solid line for new utilities and a dashed line for existing utilities. i. Locations of overhead and underground gas, electric, cable, telephone lines, pipelines, etc. and their respective easements shall be shown. j. Horizontal and vertical scales shall be shown on all plan sheets for utility and street plans. k. Existing and proposed street lighting shall be shown for the subdivision and at least 200' beyond the subdivision boundaries. l. Project numbers shall be shown in upper right hand corner of each plan sheet. m. The watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer shall be shown in the profile with the appropriate information such as size, material, length, and grade. n. All structures shall be shown in tabular form with top of casting (catch basins defined as gutter line), invert, and sump elevations under each structure in the profile view. o. Storm sewer plans should be on a separate sheet from sanitary sewer and water but on the same sheet as the street plans. p. Utility crossings shall be highlighted in the plan & profile views. q. Show flow direction arrows in the plan section of the plan and profile. r. Stationing of sanitary sewer wyes shall be shown with an "S" in front of the stationing. Stationing will either be from the street centerline or downstream manhole. s. All sanitary services shall be drawn on the plan to the constructed length with length noted. Indicate if jacked. t. If sanitary sewer wye only is constructed, it shall be noted as "Wye Only" after the sewer stationing. u. The approximate invert elevation at the end of all sanitary sewer service stubs (tails) shall be shown on the plans. If risers are placed, the height of each shall be shown on the plans and each shall be drawn on the profile. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 34 v. All manholes shall be numbered and stationed in both plan and profile. w. Stationing of water curb boxes shall be shown with a "W" in front of stationing. x. All water services shall be drawn to constructed length and length noted if other than to property line. Indicate if jacked. y. All water fittings should be labeled as to size and type such as bends, tees, plugs, etc. z. The size and type of all sanitary sewer and water services shall be noted on the plans. aa. On combination sewer and water projects, services may be placed in the same trench. This shall be noted on the plans and "S & W" shall be placed before the stationing. bb. Storm sewers shall be screened in the plan and profile on the sanitary sewer/watermain sheets. The watermain and sanitary sewer shall be screened in the plan and profile on the storm sewer/street sheets. cc. The utility construction plans and street construction plans shall show the centerline stationing. dd. The street construction plans shall include a grading plan or cross sections. A typical street section shall be included on the detail sheet. ee. Each street plan sheet shall show right-of-way width, street width (face of curb to face of curb), and a typical radius dimension at intersections. ff. Proposed horizontal alignment data shall be shown on the sanitary sewer/watermain and storm sewer/street plan sheets. gg. Existing and proposed vertical alignment data shall be shown on the storm sewer/street plan sheets. Turn off text on the watermain/sanitary sewer plan sheets. hh. The street construction plans shall show directional arrows for drainage. High points shall be labeled as such. ii. If the gutter line or ditch grades are different from the centerline, separate profiles need to be shown. jj. Show ponds, wetlands, lakes, streams or marshes. i. Show the City’s most recent Surface Water Management Plan pond number, NWL and HWL for ponds. ii. Show the NWL and HWL for ponds and wetlands. iii. Show professionally delineated wetland boundaries according to the “Minnesota Wetland Delineation Field Guide” or the 1987 Corp of Engineers “Wetland Delineation Manual”. iv. Show OHWL elevation and DNR pond number if applicable. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife classification if applicable. vi. Storage volume proposed. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 35 4. RECORD DRAWING PLAN STANDARDS The following standards are specific to Record Drawing Plans. a. Unnecessary construction information shall not be shown on the record plans. See Mapping Standards for electronic drawing file and specific layer requirements. b. Each sheet shall have the following information displayed on it (see record drawing AB# 2356 and AB# 2365 in Appendix B for Sanitary Sewer/Watermain and Street/Storm Sewer sample sheets): i. A key map will be placed in the upper right hand corner to show location of plan sheet in conjunction with the project, along with the City Project Number and the unique as-built number. ii. Pavement cross section including street width (face to face) on street and storm sewer sheets. iii. Record Drawing stamp with the following text “Information is furnished without warranty as to accuracy. Users should field verify locations and elevations”. iv. The project engineer, construction observer, and month/year the project was as-built shall be listed in a separate box. v. A minimum of two bench marks shall be placed on all sheets. Top of the hydrant is an acceptable bench mark, but Dakota County Monuments shall be shown. Bench marks shall be shown for all hydrants on a project. vi. The bottom of each as-built sheet show the following: (1) Contractors' name (2) City Project number (3) The text “Record Drawing” followed by year completed c. New and changed information on as-built plans shall be lettered in italics and in a separate layer in the CAD drawing. d. Top nut elevation shall be shown on each new hydrant. e. Per City Policy P-5 on Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety (MnOPS), the location information for the following data that is collected on a project is to be displayed on a separate record drawing plan sheet. i. This sheet should only have the utilities, conduit crossings, ROW, lot and block/address information, and MnOPS location information. ii. The MnOPS record drawing sheet number and unique as-built number shall have the letter “L” after the same number as the corresponding record drawing plan sheet. iii. See record drawing AB# 2356L in Appendix B for MnOPS sample sheet. Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 36 MAPPING STANDARDS Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 37 I. ELECTRONIC DRAWING FILES The actual data for the City Engineer approved construction plan and record drawing should be submitted to the City’s Project Manager in AutoCAD or ArcMap compatible format projected in Dakota County Coordinate, NAD83 datum. Include with the electronic AutoCAD files all pen tables used for plotting. All electronic submittals will include metatdata (description of files and explanation of data layers). II. LAYER REQUIREMENTS To standardize all electronic file submittals, the City has the following requirements: 1. File format (These items need to be correct before we will continue further review of the electronic files.) a. Information is in Dakota County Coordinate System b. Special Characters – Do not use special characters (i.e. $,_.-) while naming files or layers. Be sure to review layer names after binding and before submitting electronic files. c. All polygons and polylines must be snapped and closed. 2. For Grading Plans, Construction Plans and Record Drawings, the following data should be on separate layers in the electronic drawing file. The names for these layers shall unique and clearly labeled accompanied by metadata: a. General • Legend, bar scales, north arrows, headings and sheet numbers, match lines and text, sheet references, and general information • Removals, hatching, shading, etc. b. Existing • Underground utilities (gas, electric, telephone, cable TV) • Property lines • Right-of-way lines • Easements • Sanitary sewer and services • Sanitary sewer text • Water main and services • Water main text • Storm sewer • Storm sewer text • Draintile and draintile service stubs • Draintile text • Curb line or edge of pavement • Contours • Contour text • Curb • Edge bituminous • Tree • Topo • Retaining wall Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 38 • Sign • Pp/tb/tv box • Text for miscellaneous exiting items c. Proposed • Sanitary sewer • Sanitary sewer text • Sanitary sewer services • Sanitary sewer service text • Water main • Water main text • Water main services • Water main service text • Storm sewer • Storm sewer text • Draintile • Draintile text • Curb lines, walks, trails, etc. • Street construction text • Street centerline • Vertical alignment • Vertical alignment text for grading when applicable • Contours • Contour text • Easements (Each type of easement will be on a separate layer) d. Record drawing • Record drawing text • Street signs (Each type of sign will be on a separate layer) • Street lights • Sidewalk/Bike trail centerline, material, and width III. GIS UTILITY UPDATES The City of Rosemount maintains all utility data in a GIS. To develop a consistent, comprehensive procedure for the development of this GIS, the City has created the following guidelines. 1. Procedure a. Convert utility CAD drawing to SDE database for each project. Note: the same utility drawing must be used for each as-built sheet. b. Merge all developments together. c. Separate utilities into SDE feature classes. d. Export temporary geometry file for interim use at City office or create an ArcGIS Server link to the City server. e. Export CAD drawings into png image format using unique as-built number as file name. f. Link digital as-built to geometry file. g. Add attribute data to geometry file. h. Perform quality control on data i. Update City SDE database Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 39 2. Updated Layers a. Sanitary Sewer i. Lines (1) Sanitary sewer (2) Sanitary sewer service ii. Points (1) Sanitary sewer lift station (2) Sanitary sewer structures (3) Sanitary sewer service at D/U easement iii. Annotation (1) Sanitary sewer pipe diameter (2) Sanitary sewer pipe length (3) Sanitary sewer manhole ID b. Storm Sewer i. Lines (1) Storm sewer ii. Points (1) Storm sewer lift station (2) Storm sewer structures iii. Annotation (1) Storm sewer manhole ID c. Watermain i. Line (1) Watermain (2) Water service ii. Point (1) Water tower (2) Water well (3) Gate valve (4) Hydrant (5) Curb stop iii. Annotation (1) Watermain size d. Miscellaneous i. Lines (1) Street centerline (2) Sidewalk centerline (3) Easements (4) Right of Way ii. Points (1) Street signs (2) Street lights Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 40 Appendix A: Utility Service Location Verification Form 701 Xenia Avenue Utility Service Location Verification Form Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tele: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Date Completed: WSB Proj. No.: City Proj. No.: Client:City of Rosemount Field Representative: Contractor: Project Name: Wye Sta. Bend Sta. Bend Offset Bend Sta.Bend Offset Service Invert EL Lateral Length of Service Corp Sta. Lateral Length of Service 1 Existing Sanitary Sewer Service 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Existing Sanitary Sewer Service 3-A 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6-A 8 Certification: Contractor:Job Title (foreman, project manager, etc.) Subcontractor:Job Title (if utility work was performed by a subcontractor) (foreman, project manager, etc.) Construction Observer: Project Manager/Engineer: Street Block Lot Block 5-ASpecial Notes I certify that the information shown on this form in regards to utility service locations is accurate, and that the services were installed in accordance with the plan and cut sheets provided, and that any service locations not installed in accordance with the plans or cut sheets have been noted appropriately on this form, and that a survey crew has surveyed all horizontal bends prior to backfilling the utility trenches. COACHFORD AVENUESanitary Sewer Service Water Service Block 8-ACARRACH AVENUEIrrigationBlock 1 Engineering Guidelines February 2008 EG - 41 Appendix B: Sample Record Drawings CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX F – COMPREHENSIVE WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan ADOPTED 1998 AMENDED FEBRUARY 1999 AMENDED DECEMBER 2005 AMENDED DECEMBER 2007 AMENDED FEBRUARY 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NO. I. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1 II. Introduction and Purpose .....................................................................................................2 III. Definitions and References ..................................................................................................5 IV. Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................8 V. Wetland Regulations ............................................................................................................9 VI. Technical Elements ............................................................................................................14 VII. Functional Assessment.......................................................................................................16 VIII. Wetland Classification .......................................................................................................17 IX. Wetland Management Policies ..........................................................................................18 X. Wetland Replacement ........................................................................................................25 XI. Replacement Wetland Construction Certification and Wetland Monitoring .....................27 XII. New Wetlands ....................................................................................................................28 XIII. Other Programs ..................................................................................................................29 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Wetland Map and Assessment Results Appendix B – MnRAM Appendix C – City Council Resolution Appendix D – Appealed Wetland Management Classifications Appendix E – Buffer Performance Standards and Management Plan Page 1 February 2013 I. Executive Summary The Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (WMP or Plan) is an inventory/assessment of wetlands in Rosemount combined with a Plan and Ordinance designed to maximize the benefit that surface waters can provide to the community. The wetland map of the City and the wetland inventory and assessment completed for each wetland is contained in Appendix A. The inventory consists of detailed technical data on each wetland. Wetlands were assessed for quality and functionality based on the information gathered in the field. Functional scores are included with the wetland inventory. Each wetland has been mapped and included in the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS). The functional assessment information contained within this document consists of the previously performed field evaluations and assessments conducted by City staff in the development of the 1998 plan. Wetland assessments that have been conducted since the WMP development are also included in the update. Wetlands have been prioritized for management based on the assessed functional score. This information gives City staff the ability to make an informed decision on what water resources are important and should be protected from future urbanized growth and development. Wetlands with the highest value were assigned the most aggressive management and protection strategies. Past and present land development has influenced the administration of the WMP since the adoption of the plan in 1998. Since then, a number of issues have been brought to the attention of City staff that affect wetland mitigation and management. These issues have been handled administratively by City staff, motions by Rosemount City Council or through Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) discussions. The City became concerned with the ability to enforce such administration without a policy and procedure adopted as ordinance by City Council. In response, staff amended the 1998 WMP a number of times to address the outstanding and recurring issues associated with wetland impacts and management. In 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2012, changes to the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) were made by the State Legislature. Additionally, several wetlands have been reassessed with development proposals. The 2012 amendments to this WMP address the WCA rule changes as well as incorporate the updated wetland assessments, where applicable. New policies and provisions included in this 2012 update were discussed with the Task Force and City staff. Page 2 February 2013 II. Introduction and Purpose The City of Rosemount’s Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (WMP) was developed in 1998 to be conformance with Minnesota Rules 8420. The purpose of establishing the WMP was to develop policies related to the use and protection of wetlands within the City. Prior to 1998, wetland management and protection was primarily accomplished through site specific permitting actions of various regulatory agencies. The purpose of the WMP was to provide the City with the authority to rule on wetland impacts and implement regulations based on the needs of the community. The WMP was also designed to provide information to land developers and the public regarding the amount, characteristics, and value of local wetlands and surface water. This WMP exists for the purpose of optimizing the City’s surface water resources as provided under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The goals of this plan are to: • Determine the quantity and quality of the wetland resources in Rosemount • Map wetlands at a scale appropriate for local planning purposes • Maintain data for use by residents and developers • Focus limited resources in the most effective direction • Solve chronic wetland management problems • Identify key educational areas • Achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, functionality, and biological diversity of Rosemount’s existing wetlands • Increase the quantity, quality, functionality, and biological diversity of Rosemount’s wetlands by enhancing diminished or drained wetlands • Avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands • Replace wetland values where avoidance of activity is not feasible and prudent • Optimize management of City surface water and wetland by integrating all surface water related management plans and ordinances • To identify existing and potential problems or opportunities for protection, management, and development of water resources and related land resources in the county • To develop and implement a plan of action to promote sound management of water resources in the City Page 3 February 2013 • Provide performance standards for wetland replacement areas, including the associated upland buffer According to the Metropolitan Council, the City of Rosemount is expected to be one of the top ten growth cities in the metropolitan area between 1995 – 2020. Land development has put great pressure on the quality and benefits associated with the City’s surface water resources. The total wetland area in Rosemount covers about 1,832 acres, or about 8% of the City. About 1,174 of these acres are associated with the Mississippi River corridor. Most of the remaining 658 acres include about 400 other surface water bodies in Rosemount which are small to medium sized pothole wetlands lying within the City’s northwest corner. Here a swath of the Wisconsin Age, St. Croix Moraine has left behind a hilly terrain with many potholes and small enclosed watersheds. Large tracts of this area are yet to be developed, but are seen as prime locations for residential housing. Just north across Rosemount’s border within the City of Eagan is the Lebanon Hills Regional Park which takes advantage of this interesting terrain for education and recreation. Wetlands within the City were assessed in 1997 and 1998 as a part of the WMP plan development (see Appendix A). This field assessment focused on the undeveloped Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) identified in the 2020 Land Use Plan. These properties have a greater density of wetlands and surface waters than other areas of the City and are expected to experience significant development and have the highest potential for wetland impacts. The 1998 WMP and ordinance were in effect before much of the development projects in Rosemount, allowing the City to protect and preserve the natural water resources to the fullest extent feasible on the property being developed. Additional functional assessments have been performed since the development of the plan and subsequent updates. This 2012 amendment incorporates all assessments since 2007. The City has applied the WMP policies on all land development in the City of Rosemount since the adoption of the plan in 1998. The plan provides a clear outline of the City’s expectations concerning wetland management and protection. Buffer monuments have contributed to the public education portion of the WMP. Buffer areas themselves have increased in overall area and vegetation density. Wetland monitoring provides the City with technical data on mitigation sites. The data are reviewed to ensure that the appropriate wetland type and functionality is attained. The City’s 1998 Erosion Control policy has helped to prevent soil erosion and deposition impacts to wetlands adjacent to construction. Based on the implementation of this Plan since 1998 and subsequent amendments, it has been determined by the City that a number of policy clarifications were needed. The purpose of this plan amendment is to address the following issues: • Wetland buffer zones and related policies, including performance standards • Location of storm water best management practices (BMP) within buffers including clarification of the types of storm water BMP’s allowed in buffers • Wetland replacement regulations and procedures, including siting requirements that encourage replacement within the City limits Page 4 February 2013 • Address secondary impacts to wetlands that may be caused as a result of a land use change • Changes to the WCA as per updates in 2009, 2011, 2012 • Incorporate the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) as a replacement for the RoseWFA for wetland functions and values assessments • Establish clear administrative authority for WCA decisions • Specifically include the goal of the City to identify, evaluate, and pursue wetland replacement sites. The WMP provides greater flexibility and control over wetland management and protection to meet the specific needs and goals of the community. The plan was developed in recognition of the City of Rosemount’s 2020 Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. This document is written in recognition of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and shall serve as a supplement to this legislation. This wetland management plan has been developed to be in conformance with the Wetland Conservation Act. Any future changes in the WCA would supersede the requirements outlined in this plan. Page 5 February 2013 III. Definitions and References Applicant: Person or party proposing wetland impact or related activity. Best management practices: State-approved and practices published in the “Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas” associated with draining, filling, or replacing wetlands that are capable of preventing and minimizing degradation of surface water and groundwater. The “Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas” manual is written and produced by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Buffer zones: Non-wetland areas which extend a specified distance from the wetland edge. Buffer zones are undeveloped, un-manicured, and minimally maintained terrestrial areas of native or naturally occurring vegetation that experience little to no human impact. Buffer zones help to protect adverse impacts to the wetland. Restrictions apply to the activities within a wetland buffer zone once a buffer is established. The buffer starts at the delineated wetland edge. Buffer Averaging: Practice of allowing a variable width buffer around a wetland where the average buffer width is equal to the buffer width required for the wetland management category. Buffer averaging shall incorporate landscape connectivity where possible and ecologically feasible. Some examples include, but are not limited to, the following: a) averaging the buffer to be wider around the portion of the wetland where upstream development will occur; b) incorporating landscape features that may be prone to erosion to maintain a vegetated area and prevent sedimentation into the wetland; c) incorporating a higher quality habitat to protect the area from disturbance. City: The incorporated City of Rosemount. Complete Application: An application, as defined in MnRule 8420 that meets the requirements as per MnRule 8420.0255, Subp. 2 Determination of a Complete Application and contains sufficient and technically accurate information required to make a decision, as determined by the City. An application may be deemed incomplete if it contains information that does not support the conclusions on which the application is based and for which a decision has been requested. Creation: Construction of wetlands in an area that was not wetlands in the past. Excavation: The displacement or removal of the sediment or other materials by any method. Fill: As defined in MnRule 8420. Growing Season: As defined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region. Hydric soils: Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Hydrophytic vegetation: Macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil, or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. Page 6 February 2013 Impact: As defined in MnRule 8420. Indirect impact: An impact that is a result of an activity that occurs outside of the wetland boundary (MM Rule 8420) including, but not limited to, impacts associated with altering the hydrologic inputs to a wetland basin that results in converting the wetland to nonwetland or changing the wetland type. Indirect impacts are determined on a per-project basis and shall be evaluated by the City and in consultation with the Technical Evaluation Panel, at the discretion of the City. Landowner: A person or entity having the rights necessary to drain or fill a wetland, or to establish and maintain a replacement or banked wetland. Typically, the landowner is a fee title owner or a holder of an easement, license, lease, or rental agreement providing the necessary rights. The right must not be limited by a lien or other encumbrance that could override the obligations assumed with the replacement or banking of a wetland. Local government unit: The City of Rosemount. Project: A specific plan, contiguous activity, proposal, or design necessary to accomplish a goal as defined by the local government unit. As used in this chapter, a project may not be split into components or phases for the sole purpose of gaining additional exemptions. Public value of wetlands: The public benefit and use of wetlands as determined based upon a functional assessment method. Soil and water conservation district: A legal subdivision of state government under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 103C. Upland Buffer Credit: For the purposes of this Plan, Upland Buffer Credit shall incorporate the requirements and standards of MnRule 8420.0526, Subp. 2. Wetlands: A. Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this Plan wetlands must: (1) Have a predominance of hydric soils; (2) Be inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and (3) Under normal circumstances, support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation. B. The wetland size is the area within its boundary. The boundary must be determined according to the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (January 1987). The wetland type must be determined according to United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition). Wetland Replacement Credit: For the purposes of this Plan, Wetland Replacement Credit shall mean the Actions Eligible for Credit, as per MM Rule 8420.0526, Subp. 3-7. Page 7 February 2013 References • Eggers, Steve D. and Donald Reed, Wetland Plants and Plant Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin, US Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul MN, (1987). • Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Field Guide, (1997). • Minnesota Storm Water Advisory Group, Buffer Zones, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (September 1997). • Minnesota Storm Water Advisory Group, Storm-Water and Wetlands: Planning and Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Potential Impacts of Urban Storm-Water and Snow- Melt Runoff on Wetlands, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, (June 1997). • United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Wetlands of the United States, United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39, (1971). • United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland Delineation Manual, (1987). • U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. • Cowardin, et al., Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, (1979) • Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology for Evaluating Wetland Functions, Version 3.4 beta – November (2010). • National Wetland Inventory Maps United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 8 February 2013 IV. Acknowledgements The Rosemount WMP and subsequent updates were developed with input from two wetland committees and a Task Force. The members are shown below: 2012-2013 Task Force Kimberly Shoe-Corrigan, City Council Jeffery Weisensel, City Council Wade Miller, Planning Commission Ammar Husain, Planning Commission 2004-2005 Committee Kimberly Shoe-Corrigan, City Council Jeffery Weisensel, Former Planning Commission John Powell, Planning Commission Joan Schneider, Utility Commission Andrea Moffatt, WSB & Associates Inc. Chad Donnelly, Water Resource Engineer 1997-1998 Committee Kimberly Shoe-Corrigan, Planning Commission Jeffery Weisensel, Planning Commission Donald Berg, Utility Commission Kelly Sampo, Parks Committee Tim P. Brown, Water Resources Coordinator Brian Huser, Intern Bud Osmundson, Public Works Director Wayne Barstad, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Matt Moore, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Doug Norris, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Brian Watson, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Page 9 February 2013 V. Wetland Regulations The existing wetland regulatory framework in Minnesota involves a number of federal, state, and local agencies including the US Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency, and the Local Government Units. A brief discussion of the role of each wetland regulatory agency is included in this section. A. US Army Corps of Engineers The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials to wetlands and other water bodies through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act provided there is a connection to navigable waters. Any impact to navigable waters or wetlands that are connected to navigable waters, including filling, draining, or excavation, may require a permit from the COE. Wetland delineations are also subject to COE approval. Depending on the size and extent of the wetland impact, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency may be involved in providing water quality certification for the COE permit. For more information about the COE regulations, the area COE Project Manager can be contacted at (651) 290-5367 or information can be obtained from the St. Paul District COE website at www.mvp.usace.army.mil. B. Department of Natural Resources The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has jurisdiction over Public Waters and Wetlands as depicted on the DNR Public Waters and Wetland maps. The DNR has jurisdiction over Public Water and Wetlands below the Ordinary High Water (OHW) elevation or below the top-of-bank for streams. The OHW is determined by the DNR. Any impact to a Public Water or Wetland may require a permit from the DNR. The DNR Area Hydrologist can be contacted for more information at 651-259-5654 or information can be obtained from the DNR website at www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters. C. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) water quality standards applicable to wetland protection are contained in Minnesota Rules 7050. Water quality standards are applicable to all wetlands of the state and sequencing requirements of Minnesota Rule 7050.0186 apply to all wetland alterations that are permitted or certified by the MPCA as described below. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/SDS permit program is a delegated federal permit issued under the responsibilities and authorities contained in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7050.0186, sequencing requirements to avoid, minimize, and mitigate wetland impacts are required to be satisfied in the issuance of NPDES/SDS permits, including issuance of the general Construction Storm Water NPDES permits. If a project includes a physical wetland alteration caused by draining, filling, excavation, or inundation of the wetland and that impact is not addressed in either the US Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit, the Department of Natural Resources permit, or the Wetland Conservation Act permit, then mitigation compliance with Minnesota Rule 7050.0186 must be demonstrated. For the purposes of the MPCA NPDES permit, de minimis determinations by another permitting agency that address the project impacts are recognized by the MPCA. However, a non-jurisdictional determination by another permitting agency that does not address project impacts requires the project proposer to demonstrate that they meet the NPDES permit conditions and Minnesota Rule 7050.0186. Page 10 February 2013 In the past, 7050.0186 requirements were often applied during the issuance of Section 401 Water Quality Certification which is part of the issuance process of the COE 404 permit. The 401 Water Quality Certification program is an element of the Federal Clean Water Act and has been delegated to the MPCA. Under this program, the MPCA reviews all federal permits including Clean Water Act Section 404 permit applications for compliance with state water quality standards primarily contained in Minnesota Rule 7050. The MPCA can approve, deny, or waive 401 certification. If denied, the federal permit, usually the COE 404 permit, cannot be issued. As of the writing of this SWPMP, the MPCA does not implement the Section 401 program on a regular basis and nearly all certifications are being waived. This action does not eliminate, waive, or vary the applicant’s responsibility to comply with all water quality standards and requirements contained in Minnesota Rules 7050. In addition, this waiver action does not waive MPCA’s authority to take necessary actions, including enforcement actions, to ensure that the applicant and the project’s construction, installation, and operation comply with water quality standards and all other applicable MPCA statutes and rules regarding water quality. D. Local Government Unit (LGU) The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) is a state law enacted in 1991 and subsequently amended (Minnesota Laws CH 354, Minnesota Statute 103G.222-2373 and other scattered sections). The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) provides agency oversight for WCA through Minnesota Rule 8420. The WCA is administered by Local Government Units (LGU). BWSR’s role is to assist LGUs in the implementation of WCA and to be a member of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The WCA is administered by the LGUs. The City of Rosemount is the LGU for the WCA within the City’s political boundary. The City can issue or deny permits depending on whether or not the project is in conformance the WCA and the requirements of this plan. The intent of the WCA is to achieve a “No Net Loss” of wetlands in Minnesota. Therefore, the WCA prohibits filling, draining, and excavating of wetlands in some areas unless the activity is exempt or wetlands are replaced by restoration or creation of wetland of at least equal functions and values. E. Wetland Applications Wetland related applications shall be submitted to the City of Rosemount as per the requirements of this plan and MnRule 8420. Application forms can be found on BWSR’s web-site: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/index.html. 1. Wetland Boundary or Type Application For any site development activities within the City of Rosemount, the City requires the developer to submit a wetland delineation report that identifies the location and the extent of any wetlands present on the site. Wetland delineations must be performed in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual for Delineating Wetlands in conjunction with the Midwest Supplement or most recent, industry- accepted methodology. Delineations are to be performed by a wetland professional who has been trained in wetland delineations. Wetland delineations should be performed during the growing season, and will be considered incomplete if received Page 11 February 2013 at a time of year not conducive for proper review. Delineations are valid for five years, or as specified in a Notice of Decision issued by the LGU. Delineations will be subject to field verification by City staff, the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) and/or the US Army Corps of Engineers. It is recommended that City staff review wetland delineations prior to plan development and/or application submittal. 2. No Loss and Exemption Applications The WCA No Loss and Exemption standards are covered in MnRule 8420.0410- 0420, as amended, and are included by reference to this Plan. Applications for No Loss or Exemption determinations shall follow the procedures and requirements of MnRule 8420. Wetlands that are exempt per the WCA shall not be regulated by the policies within this Plan. 3. Sequencing Application Sequencing must be provided as a part of an application for wetlands categorized as Preserve, Manage 1, and Manage 2. Manage 3 wetlands are applicable for sequencing flexibility when impacts are proposed. An applicant who proposes to impact a wetland must adhere to the wetland Sequencing Standards outlined in MnRule 8420.0520. The applicant may submit a sequencing evaluation with the wetland replacement plan application or apply for a preliminary sequencing decision from the City, as per MnRule 8420.0325, as amended. The determination of a complete sequencing evaluation will be made by the City and/or TEP assigned to the project. 4. Replacement Plan Application When filling or draining any wetland, or excavating in the permanently or semi- permanently flooded areas of a type 3, 4, or 5 wetland, or excavation greater than 6 feet in any wetland is anticipated, a replacement plan application must be completed by the project proposer and submitted to the City. These applications are contained on BWSR’s web site at http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/index.html. If wetland impacts are unavoidable, a wetland replacement plan must accompany the application as outlined within this plan. An application fee may apply. Once sequencing has been completed in conformance with this plan and MnRule 8420 and it has been determined that wetland impacts are unavoidable, the lost functions and values of the wetland must be replaced. Replacement of lost functions and values must be in conformance with Section X: Wetland Replacement section of this plan. The wetland replacement standards of the WCA (MnRule 8420.0522, as amended) shall be incorporated by reference in this Plan, except where this Plan is more restrictive. Actions Eligible for Credit for wetland replacement as per MnRule 8420.0526, as amended, are included by reference in this Plan except where this Plan is more restrictive. Although the WCA allows for upland buffer to qualify for wetland replacement, the City, at its discretion, may require that the full replacement ratio be entirely in the form of wetland creation or restoration. The preservation of existing wetlands on the Page 12 February 2013 subject property is not an eligible credit for the mitigation requirements except as otherwise provided in Minnesota Rules 8420.0526 It is strongly encouraged that wetlands categorized as Manage 2 or Manage 3within this plan are utilized for wetland replacement when feasible. For example, the restoration or expansion of a Manage 2 or 3 wetland would be preferable, under this Plan, than the expansion of a Preserve or Manage 1 wetland. The goal of this recommendation is to increase the functions and values of the degraded wetlands within the City as part of projects that result in impacting wetlands. 5. Replacement for Public Transportation Projects Through the WCA, wetland impacts that occur due to road improvement projects that address safety issues and are not undertaken solely to accommodate additional traffic capacity by the City or County as the local road authority may be eligible to be replaced by BWSR through the Local Government Wetland Replacement Program. MnRule 8420.0544 is incorporated by reference in this Plan. Applications can be found at BWSR’s web-site: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/index.html. F. Wetland Application and Decision Procedures Application review and decision procedures by the LGU shall follow the requirements as per MnRule 8420.0255, as amended, and those procedures are included by reference. Once the comment period has ended, the City will make a decision on the application within 60 days of receiving a complete application in accordance with MnRules 8420.0230 Subp. 2. If the 60 day process cannot be accommodated due to the timing of the preliminary plat process, the applicant will be informed. Generally applications will be approved or denied during the preliminary plat process. Once a decision is made, the City will mail a Notice of Decision to all who received a summary or copy of the permit application. The City’s decision is then effective and the project can commence provided that replacement of the wetland impacts occurs before or concurrently with the wetland impact, all other permits from other agencies have been obtained, and that the conditions, if any, of the Notice of Decision are fully met. There is a 30 day appeal process in MnRule Chapter 8420. The applicant can begin work during this appeal window at its own risk. If the LGU’s decision is appealed, work on the project would be suspended until the appeal process is resolved. See Section H, below, for appeal procedures. G. Local Government Unit Decision Authority Summary As part of the 2012 amendment, a resolution delegating WCA administrative functions to LGU staff is incorporated in the Plan. The resolution can be found in Appendix C and is summarized as follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Rosemount places decision authority for exemption, no loss, and wetland boundary and type determinations with City Staff. 2. Decision authority for replacement plan applications that impact 10,000 square feet or greater of wetland and wetland banking determinations is placed with the City Council of the City of Rosemount. Decision authority for replacement plan applications that impact Page 13 February 2013 less than 10,000 square feet can be placed with City Staff, unless it is deemed necessary, by the City, to bring the application to the City Council for a decision. 3. City of Rosemount Staff may request that decisions for exemption, no loss, and wetland boundary and type determinations be made by the City Council. H. Appeals of Wetland Application Decisions and Enforcement Procedures Appeals of exemption, no-loss, wetland boundary, wetland type, sequencing, replacement plan, or banking plan decisions made by the City will follow the appeal process in accordance with MnRule 8420, as amended. Wetland Conservation Act Enforcement procedures shall be in conformance with MnRule 8420. Page 14 February 2013 VI. Technical Elements A. Wetland/Surface Water Inventory Wetlands were identified based on instructions in the “Minnesota Wetland Delineation Field Guide”. Included in field documentation is notation on: hydrology, size, vegetation and soils, several photographs, and Dakota County topographic half-section map locations. This field reconnaissance was carried out in 1997 and 1998 by the City’s Water Resources Engineer with assistance from interns trained and supervised by the former. The database was set up using the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) compiled in 1987 using aerial photography. The database was then modified with any changes found by field inspection during the spring, summer and fall of 1997 and spring of 1998. Wetlands found by field inspection that were not listed in the NWI have been added. Wetland determinations were arrived at using the three defining factors for a wetland, Hydrology, Vegetation, and Soils. Each of these parameters needs to be present before an area could be determines as “wetland” according to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual for Delineating Wetlands. B. Field Methods Various resources were utilized both in the office and in the field to determine possible wetland sites. Initially, 1991 topographic maps were used in conjunction with the NWI map to locate wetlands in the City. Next, 1991 aerial photographs were viewed to locate low and possible water holding areas. The last step in the office reconnaissance was to check the local soils map for hydric (wetland) soils. After these preparatory steps were taken, the field work was undertaken. All areas were covered on foot, and low areas or areas with one of the three wetland indicators (hydrology, soils, and vegetation) were tested. Areas that tested as wetlands were documented on field data sheets as well as sketched onto topographic maps for approximate representation of size. Photographs were taken of the wetland sites as well. Precise delineations of wetlands are left to be completed by property owners, as the need arises. C. Database Information Using the information collected during field work, wetlands were categorized using the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NWI classification systems. This information was then entered into the wetland database. The database shows Rosemount’s wetland number, size, FWS type, DNR number, and other relevant information (see Appendix A). This information is directly linked to the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) map which shows all of the wetlands in Rosemount that were identified in the inventory process. The inventory does not include all surface water features with the City of Rosemount. Wetland features of the GIS system are visual representations of the identified wetlands and do not represent the actual wetland delineation Page 15 February 2013 D. Geographic Information Systems Map Polygon coverage using the program Arcview was linked to the tabular data in the Microsoft Access Database with a common identifier. Polygons representing the shape of the wetlands were drawn using contour and parcel coverages as a backdrop. The overall process was used to create a digital map that can be accessed with ease to locate wetlands throughout the City of Rosemount. Maps can be generated and database information about the wetlands can be viewed. The GIS maps are updated seasonally to account for wetland impact activity and monitoring accomplished for that season. New and replacement wetlands will be incorporated in the GIS database and City map as they are established. The functionality and classification will be updated based on the monitoring information provided to the City. The GIS map will also be updated to reflect new information (i.e. wetland delineation decisions, revised management classifications, etc) on an as needed basis. For example, since the 2007 update, the City has received applications for wetland boundary decisions that have resulted, upon review and approval by the City, in several features identified in the WMP as wetland being determined to be nonwetland. These features have been removed from the Plan and as such, are not regulated by the policies herein. Page 16 February 2013 VII. Functional Assessment The functional value of each wetland was evaluated in 1997-1998 with respect to the following functional parameters: • Floral diversity and integrity • Water quality protection • Fish and wildlife habitat • Flood/storm water attenuation • Shoreline protection • Groundwater recharge and discharge • Aesthetic/recreation/education and science • Commercial uses Wetland functionality was assessed in 1997 according to a modified version of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) referred to as the Rosemount Wetland Functional Assessment (RoseWFA) worksheet . It was developed in 1997 in consultation with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Rosemount Wetland Committee, and City staff. The 2012 Plan Amendment replaces RoseWFA with them most current version of MnRAM. The MnRAM has become the state standard for wetland assessments. MnRAM (Appendix B) is a comprehensive assessment of both a wetland’s function and value and can be directly associated with WCA policies in implementing this Plan. Upon the submittal for approval of a proposed or planned plat or any other development of a site or property, the City will require that the applicant complete a re-assessment of the wetlands using the most current version of MnRAM. This is in addition to the wetland delineation report that is required to be submitted if the site is proposed to be developed. Field work must be completed during the growing season as defined in this Plan, which is generally May 1 – October 15, but may fall outside of this date range depending on climate conditions. Page 17 February 2013 VIII. Wetland Classification Wetlands are classified for management and protection based on the “Basic Wetland Protection” management strategy in MnRAM. This classification system is included in Appendix B and the most recent version can be found at http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/index.html. The management classifications and corresponding functional scores are as follows: Preserve (P): Wetlands that were placed into the Preserve category generally provided the highest functions for vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat. Manage 1 (M1): Wetlands that were placed into the Manage 1 category generally provided high functions for vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat with some functions for water quality protection and flood attenuation. Manage 2 (M2): Wetlands that were placed into the Manage 2 category generally provided some functions for vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat with high functions for water quality protection and flood attenuation. Manage 3 (M3): Wetlands that were placed into the Manage 3 category generally provided the functions for water quality protection and flood attenuation. Appeal of a Management Classification: In the event of a dispute concerning wetland management classification, the applicant or project proposer will be required to submit a Request for Appeal to the City’s Engineer. The Request for Appeal must include the wetland number, current classification, and reason(s) for the appeal. A functional assessment may be conducted by City staff or a City approved wetland specialist. A decision will be made based on a review of the information within 30 days during the growing season or 30 days after the growing season begins, if the Request for Appeal is submitted outside of the growing season. A notice of the City’s decision on the management classification appeal will be sent to the appealing party and the regulatory agencies. This notice will indicate either the revised management classification (if the City concurs with the appeal) or the existing management classification and the management and protection strategies assigned to the wetland by support of this document. Staff will make a decision within 60 days of receiving a complete request of appeal (or within the appropriate time period after the growing season begins if the application was submitted outside of the growing season) and notify the applicant of the decision. Appeals of the City Engineer’s decision can be made to the City Council. Approved appeal requests and subsequent management classification changes are in Appendix D. Page 18 February 2013 IX. Wetland Management Policies A. General Water Quality Practices For wetlands citywide, several tools can be applied with minimal expense. The City shall maintain its regularly scheduled program of street sweeping and storm drain sump cleaning. City streets are swept twice yearly and catch basin sumps are cleaned seasonally based on the schedule of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). These programs can have a significant impact on wetland water quality by removing sediments and chemicals from the storm water runoff that enters surface water bodies. The Engineering Department and Building Inspections currently maintain a general erosion control inspection and enforcement program. The goal of this program is to minimize transport of sediments eroded from construction sites to surface water bodies. This program is supported by language in the City’s Surface Water Management Ordinance as well as the Uniform Building Code for the State of Minnesota. This program is continually being reviewed and improved to minimize the impact to water quality of storm water runoff. In compliance with state requirements, the City has developed and implemented a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) which focuses on the preventative aspects of storm water pollution. The SWPPP is a combination of Best Management Practices (BMPs), ordinance, and public education tools used to prevent storm water pollution. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has required the City of Rosemount to submit a SWPPP for review and approval. The City is required to submit an annual report with results and summaries of the actions taken for the previous year. In order to organize and implement Rosemount’s Wetland and Surface Water Management Plan, an ordinance has been developed under Minnesota Statute Chapter 462. This ordinance is available on the City’s webpage. Efforts to educate residents regarding wetland ecosystems and best management practices are ongoing and will continue. Along with dissemination of surface water specific information, programs that will encourage direct action on the part of residents, such as the Citizens Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) will be discussed by City staff. The City will continue to promote and sponsor an “Adopt-A-Wetland” program. This will enlist volunteers to collect litter and trash that accumulates around and within City wetlands as well as addressing other needs as they develop. Other educational opportunities will be actively sought. B. Category Specific Management Strategies The inventory and functional assessment information was used to determine management categories for individual wetlands based on functional level. Wetlands that score highest are targeted for maximum protection and resource dedication. The wetland category management strategies were designed to optimize resource allocation. The goal of this plan is to devote resources in a manner that optimizes the overall functional value of wetlands to the community and the natural ecosystem. This plan does not “roll back” any Page 19 February 2013 protection for wetlands existing under state or federal law but rather specifies proactive management strategies scaled to the current functional levels of Rosemount wetlands. The management strategies call for increasing levels of protection for wetlands that score high in the functional assessment. In terms of actual management practices these different levels are implemented through buffer zones, storm water treatment, mitigation requirements, and public education. 1. Wetland Buffer Zones and Prioritization Wetland Buffer Zones are upland areas that contain natural areas of vegetation designated by a LGU to protect the ecological values and functions of the aquatic system. Buffer zone functions include: • Stabilizing soils and preventing erosion • Filtering suspended solids and nutrients • Supporting and protecting fish and wildlife habitat • Encouraging the production of unique vegetation • Stabilizing water temperature • Deterring human encroachment • Provide habitat connections for wildlife Dense native vegetation is the optimal condition for an effective wetland buffer zone. Once established, activities in buffer zones that are not associated with the approved buffer management plan that disturb the roots or influence the growth of the vegetation, such as grading, mowing, landscaping and planting, fertilizing, spraying (herbicides), and seeding or sodding are prohibited. Herbicides and controlled burns or other management practices used to control noxious weeds will be allowed only with permission from the City Engineer. The width of buffer considered appropriate to protect a wetland from degradation is related to the wetland functions being protected and the buffer functions being provided. Buffer widths for each management category are outlined below and described in Table IX-1. Additional buffer zone may be required above and beyond the prescribed width if determined necessary and feasible by the City Engineer. Preserve: 75 feet Manage1: 50 feet Manage 2: 30 feet Manage 3: 15 feet (non-agricultural areas) In addition to the buffers, the City requires a 30’ structure setback from the buffer to allow for usable yard space. Buffers will be contained within a conservation easement that includes both the wetland and the buffer. A sample of the City’s conservation easement can be obtained from the City. The conservation easements will be recorded with the final plat and must be indicated on subsequent land development plans. The extent of the conservation Page 20 February 2013 easement will be determined based on the prescribed buffer width for the wetland in question and/or the outer limits of an approved averaged wetland buffer. These easements provide the City with a legal right to the property and the ability to enforce the wetland buffer requirements as outlined in this document. The construction of bike paths or trails through designated wetland buffers will be determined administratively by City staff. The applicant must demonstrate that the placement of the trail does not result in a loss of total wetland buffer area for the wetland. The buffer area consumed by the placement of the bike path or trail must be compensated for by establishing additional buffer areas in equal or greater amount consumed by the bike path or trail. The buffer area on both sides of the bike path or trail must remain natural and must not be manicured or landscaped. All projects will need to take into account a buffer prioritization review. This prioritization review involves the following and is required to be included in a wetland application: a) Projects shall include the buffer and setback standards. However, no wetlands shall be filled or impacted in order to provide for the appropriate buffer. b) In cases where meeting the setback standard causes impact to the wetland or the buffer, flexibility on the wetland setback will be considered. c) In cases where meeting the buffer standard causes impact to the wetland, flexibility on the buffer will be considered. When flexibility in the buffer width is determined to be necessary by the City, the project proposer or applicant must consider the following: • The buffer width averaging will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • The buffer plan will take into account landscape connections and habitat corridors needs to be incorporated into the buffer plan. See definition of buffer averaging in Section III. • The buffer plan will include the percent of the buffer that will be impacted as compared to the size of the wetland. • A minimum 30’ buffer is encouraged on P and M1 wetlands. • A minimum 15’ buffer is encouraged on M2. • Averaged buffer acreage must be equal to or greater than the required buffer acreage An exception to the minimum buffer average will be considered for linear public road projects. Conservation easements are required over the buffer perimeter and will be recorded at the time of final plat. The City Engineer will review the proposal and either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request to utilize buffer averaging around the wetland. Page 21 February 2013 2. Buffer Establishment For areas where seeding or buffer establishment is needed either because the buffer has been disturbed (e.g. temporarily disturbed during grading of a development site), a buffer establishment and maintenance plan must be developed. This can include the current BWSR or Mn/DOT guidelines regarding planting of native species on wetland replacement sites. Revegetation with native plants is required around wetland buffers, when disturbed. If the wetland buffer is not disturbed as a result of development, construction, or other activity, the existing natural vegetation shall be considered acceptable. This exception does not apply to wetland buffers that receive replacement credit as part of an approved replacement plan. For projects that require buffer establishment, a Buffer Establishment and Management Plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City. Buffer monitoring will be required to be completed by the project proposer for a minimum of five years. The City can extend this monitoring requirement if the buffer is not meeting performance standards. The monitoring report shall include a summary of buffer management activities, a quantification of the plant species present, a picture of the buffer, and discussion of upcoming buffer management activities. The buffer will need to meet the City’s performance standards. Information about what needs to be included in this Buffer Establishment and Management Plan and the performance standards are in included in Appendix E. 3. Buffers around Replacement Wetlands Buffers will be required to be established around wetland replacement sites. If the wetland replacement is proposed to be an expansion of an existing wetland, the buffer width required for the existing wetland will be the required buffer width of the replacement area, or as required in MnRule 8420.0522, Subp. 6, whichever is greater. If the wetland replacement is a stand-alone site, the buffer width will be based on the required buffer width of the wetland being impacted, or as required in MnRule 8420.0522, Subp. 6, whichever is greater. 4. Storm Water Pre-Treatment Storm water can have a detrimental impact on wetlands. To alleviate the sediment and nutrient loading such input places on wetlands, this plan includes various levels of storm water pretreatment as follows: Preserve: Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required, consider diversion if possible Manage 1: Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required Manage 2: Sediment pretreatment required Manage 3: Pretreatment to NPDES standards (per Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules) is required if these standards apply to the project The above requirements are left somewhat open as to the particular method selected for each case. This will allow some flexibility, especially to incorporate new technologies and techniques. Storm water ponds will be required to be placed in easements. Final approval of treatment methods shall in all cases be left to the City Engineer. Page 22 February 2013 5. Storm Water Treatment Ponds within Wetland Buffer Zones Storm water treatment ponds within designated wetland buffer zones are becoming a common land development practice. Although the pond compromises wetland buffer area, the construction of a pond provides storm water treatment where suspended solids and other pollutants settle out prior to overflowing into a wetland. A well designed and placed treatment pond can be beneficial to the quality and integrity of the adjacent wetland. The basin also provides additional flood control for large rain events. The design and placement of storm water treatment ponds within wetland buffer zones must comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (CSWMP) and this document concerning storm water treatment. The design guidelines are available from the City. If the area of a wetland buffer zone includes a storm water treatment pond, the buffer zone must adhere to the following: • Wetland buffer must be provided between the pond and the wetland and around the perimeter of the entire system. Wetland buffer must be a minimum 15 feet between the NWL of the pond and wetland edge. • Only one treatment pond in the wetland buffer zone is allowed. • Buffer area must be equal to the total buffer area required for the wetland based on the classification prescribed in Table IX-1. The storm water pond, as measured from the Normal Water Level (NWL), will not count towards the buffer area. Infiltration basins (and similar stormwater best management practices) can be placed within the wetland buffer at the discretion and upon approval of the City Engineer. The surface area of the infiltration basin can be included, at the discretion and upon approval by the City Engineer, as part of the required buffer area since its function and structure is similar to that of the buffer. In these cases, the infiltration basin should have at least 75% cover of vegetation. Wetlands created as part of water quality treatment systems, are eligible for replacement credit as per MnRule 8420.0526, Subp 7.C, as amended. 6. Wetland Buffer Monuments For all new and redeveloped land subsequent to passage of this Plan, the developer shall be responsible for the installation of monuments which mark the outer edge of the wetland buffer zones. Buffer monuments must be indicated on the grading plan and shall generally be placed at the intersections of lot lines and the buffer boundary. All markers and their placement shall be per city specification or approved by the City Engineer. A monument template is available at the City. 7. Buffers in Previously Developed Areas In areas developed prior to the establishment of the WMP, no buffers were required. Previously developed areas are defined as areas where final plats have been approved prior to the adoption of this Plan in 1998. In these areas, the implementation of buffers Page 23 February 2013 will be encouraged rather than required. Education efforts of these residents and businesses will be used to encourage buffers in these areas for both wetlands and storm water ponds. It is believed that most Rosemount residents will respond when the benefits are understood and toward that end this plan recommends an intensive educational effort. Page 24 February 2013 IX-I. Wetland Management and Protection Requirements Management Class Management Strategy Wetland Buffer Standards Storm Water Management Minimum Mitigation Standard Preserve Maintain wetland and existing functions, values and wildlife habitat. Apply strict avoidance standards. 75 feet 30’ minimum if buffer averaging is encouraged Monuments required Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required; consider diversion if possible 3:1 replacement ratio with a minimum 2 acres of Wetland Replacement Credit and maximum 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit for every acre impacted. Manage 1 Maintain wetland without degrading existing functions, values and wildlife habitat. Sequencing is required 50 feet 30’ minimum if buffer averaging is encouraged Monuments required Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required 2:1 replacement ratio with a minimum of 1 acre of Wetland Replacement Credit and a maximum of 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit for every acre impacted. Additional mitigation may be required by the WCA in MR 8420. Manage 2 Maintain wetland functionality Allow limited sequencing flexibility 30 feet 15’ minimum if buffer averaging is encouraged Monuments required Sediment pretreatment required 2:1 replacement ratio with a minimum of 1 acre of Wetland Replacement Credit and maximum of 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit for every acre impacted. Additional mitigation may be required by the WCA in MR 8420. Manage 3 Allow maximum sequencing flexibility 15 feet for non-agricultural areas only Monuments not required Pretreatment to NPDES standards (per Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules) is required if these standards apply to the project 2:1 replacement ratio with a minimum of 1 acre of Wetland Replacement Credit and maximum of 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit for every acre impacted. Additional mitigation may be required by the WCA in MR 8420. Page 25 February 2013 X. Wetland Replacement Subject to an approved sequencing evaluation, the applicant shall provide a wetland replacement plan to account for the proposed wetland impacts. Impacts due to development or other construction activity are regulated under the WCA. In terms of impact mitigation, the WCA serves as a baseline for evaluation of impacts and associated wetland replacement plans. This Plan specifies guidelines for City Staff and Commission/Council review and recommendations for individual wetlands to insure resources allocation is optimized. The guidelines are as follows: Preserve: Wetlands under this category shall receive the maximum amount of protection under this plan. Impacts will be allowed only under extreme hardship. Replacement is required at a 3:1 ratio. For project specific replacement a minimum of 2 acres of Wetland Replacement Credit and a maximum of 1 acre of Upland Buffer Credit shall replace every acre impacted. Manage 1: Mitigation of wetlands in this category will be at a minimum 2:1 ratio. For project specific replacement, a minimum of 1acre of Wetland Replacement Credit and a maximum of 1acre of Upland Buffer Credit shall replace every acre impacted. Additional mitigation may be required MnRule 8420. Manage 2: Mitigation of wetlands in this category will be at a minimum 2:1 ratio. For project specific replacement, a minimum of 1acre of Wetland Replacement Credit and a maximum of 1acre of Upland Buffer Credit shall replace every acre impacted. Additional mitigation may be required by MnRule 8420. Manage 3: Mitigation of wetlands in this category will be at a minimum 2:1 ratio. For project specific replacement, a minimum of 1acre of Wetland Replacement Credit and a maximum of 1acre of Upland Buffer Credit shall replace every acre impacted. WCA Sequencing flexibility is applicable for these wetlands. Additional mitigation may be required by MnRule 8420. The City has a goal of no net loss of wetland within its political boundary, therefore replacement for wetland impacts must be sited within the City limits, unless otherwise authorized by the City. The wetland replacement application must contain a narrative that evaluates the wetland replacement siting prioritization through the siting sequence to the point of the chosen wetland replacement plan. The wetland replacement siting priority is as follows: 1. Wetland replacement within the project site; 2. Wetland replacement within the same City subwatershed drainage area as the impacted wetland; 3. Wetland replacement within the City; 4. Wetland replacement through a BWSR approved wetland bank within the major watershed. The use of wetland banking must be approved by City Council and will only be considered if Items 1-3 are deemed unfeasible. Page 26 February 2013 Wetland replacement in the form of a withdrawal of available wetland credits from a State- approved wetland bank site, as per MnRule 8420.0522, as amended, shall be allowed at the discretion of the City of Rosemount. As of the date of this amendment, there are no wetland bank sites within the City of Rosemount. A goal of the City is to identify, evaluate, and pursue wetland bank sites within the City. As wetlands are assessed using the newly incorporated MnRAM, potential wetland restoration opportunities will be identified that could be utilized as wetland bank sites. In the event that project-specific wetland replacement fails, the applicant shall be responsible for proposing and developing an alternative plan that fulfills the requirements of the approved wetland replacement plan. The City may provide additional input or require alternative replacement strategies that ensure the requirements of the replacement plan (WCA) are met and that the alternative plans meet the intent of the WMP. These alternatives will be developed on a case-by-case basis and at the discretion of the City. Page 27 February 2013 XI. Replacement Wetland Construction Certification and Wetland Monitoring All replacement wetlands must be certified by the City of Rosemount, as per MnRule 8420.0800, prior to the start of the wetland monitoring period. Wetland monitoring is required by the applicant for replacement wetlands for a period of five years, or as required as per MnRule 8420, as amended. City staff coordinates the monitoring for all wetland replacement within the City of Rosemount. Monitoring includes actively managing the replacement site to ensure that vegetation is becoming established, erosion problem areas are stabilized, hydrology criteria are being met, and any other activities to ensure the wetland replacement goals are met. The monitoring requirements as per MnRule 8420.0810, as amended, are included by reference in this Plan. Performance standards for replacement wetlands will be evaluated on a per-project basis by the City based on the performance standards outlined in MR 8420.0528. Replacement Plan Applications must contain a vegetation establishment and management plan for all wetland replacement sites. The establishment and management plan must include performance standards for vegetation establishment that ensure the dominance of native wetland species appropriate for the landscape conditions of the replacement site. The City, at its discretion, may require performance standards that differ from the applicant’s plan if the City determines the applicant’s plan does not meet the intent of the WMP, the WCA, or may not adequately replace the lost functions and values of the wetland that is proposed to be impacted. For projects that require wetland buffer establishment, a buffer vegetation establishment and management plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City. The buffer will need to meet the City’s performance standards. Information about what needs to be included in this plan and the performance standards are in included in Appendix E. In accordance with MnRule 8420.0522, Subp. 9, a financial assurance, in an amount and from a source acceptable to the City of Rosemount, is required with the Subdivision or Development Agreement to ensure the proper establishment of the mitigation site(s). One fifth of the financial assurance shall be returned to the developer after City approval of each yearly monitoring report showing satisfactory vegetation establishment. The final retained amount of the assurance will be returned upon issuance of the Certificate of Compliance indicating successful replacement of wetland functions and values and fulfillment of any and all conditions of the approved wetland replacement plan. The applicant must request the final review of the replacement and demonstrate that the replacement site(s) are eligible for receipt of the Certification of Compliance. Page 28 February 2013 XII. New Wetlands “New wetlands” include wetlands deliberately created where none existed at the time this plan was adopted. This might include wetlands created as part of a wetland mitigation/creation project or as a result of blocked drainage patterns. Wet areas created by human activity (“incidental wetlands”) as specified in MnRules 8420.0105 not intended to produce wetland shall not become part of this plan. Because newly created wetlands take time to develop into functioning wetlands, the functional assessment, if done immediately, would not provide a reasonable indicator of the quality of the wetland as intended. Rather, a functional based categorization should be undertaken when the wetland has reached the fully developed functionality intended. Normally it could take 5-10 years for a created wetland to become established. A full functional assessment will be done 5 years after its creation and scores stored in the wetlands database. Upon review of the new wetland’s progress and score, the City Engineer will place it in the category appropriate to the score. The City Engineer may place a created wetland in any category that is appropriate before the functionality has reached the level required by this plan. Page 29 February 2013 XIII. Other Programs A. Wetland Health Evaluation Program The Dakota County Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP) is a joint research and educational project sponsored by the Dakota County Environmental Education Program, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Minnesota Pollution Agency, and the Cities of Dakota County. The goals of the program are to provide meaningful data on wetland health to local governments, foster public awareness of wetland value and health, and create positive partnerships between citizens and their local government in addressing natural resource issues. Rosemount has participated in the program since 1998 and has had much success in doing so. The project provides City Staff with technical data on monitored City wetlands and it offers a great opportunity for public involvement. WHEP has attracted national and local attention for its innovative and unique approach to addressing wetland health. When feasible and appropriate, wetland replacement sites may be chosen to be monitored by WHEP. The results of the monitoring program can be incorporated into the overall determination of whether the wetland replacement site successfully replaced the lost functions and values of an impacted wetland. The data and trends gathered from the WHEP program for a replacement site can be incorporated into the mitigation monitoring reports; however, the WHEP data cannot be used as a substitute for the mitigation monitoring reports as per MnRule 8420. B. Department of Natural Resources – Greenway Project The Northern Dakota County Greenway Project has identified quality natural areas, prioritized restoration efforts, and will empower landowners to create a viable suburban greenway corridor in northern Dakota County. Detailed natural resource inventories show multiple potential green corridors that can provide a natural, ecological connection between Lilydale Regional Park, Eagan's Lebanon Hills, Dodge Nature Center in Sunfish Lake and West Saint Paul, Marcott Lakes in Inver Grove Heights, and the Pine Bend Bluffs on the Mississippi River. These green corridors can provide tremendous wildlife habitat and create a green pathway across the county. A map of the greenway corridor can be found on Dakota County’s website. C. CAMP – Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program The Citizen-Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) is a Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services (MCES) managed program where citizen volunteers monitor the water quality of local surface waters. On a biweekly basis (April-October), City volunteer groups collect a surface water sample for laboratory analysis of total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and chlorophyll-a; obtains a Secchi transparency measurement; and provides some user perception information about the lake's physical and recreational condition. The main purpose of CAMP is to provide water resource personnel with water quality information that will not only help them properly manage these resources, but will also help document water quality impacts and trends. An added benefit of the program is the volunteers’ increased awareness of their lakes’ condition, Page 30 February 2013 which has fostered local efforts to protect lakes and promote support for lake management. At this time, the City of Rosemount does not participate in this program. In the future, the City Staff will review the costs and benefits of the program and determine if the City’s involvement in this program will be beneficial. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX G – STORMWATER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COUNTY OF DAKOTA STATE OF MINNESOTA STORMWATER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH ACCESS RIGHTS AND COVENANTS ( Insert Project Reference Numbers ) This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 20 , for the maintenance and repair of certain Stormwater Management Facilities is entered into between ________________________________________________________________________________ (hereinafter referred to as “OWNER”) and the City of Rosemount (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”) for the benefit of the CITY, the OWNER, the successors in interest to the CITY or the OWNER, and the public generally. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the undersigned is the owner of that certain real property lying and being in the _____ Land Lot/District, ______ identified as [Tax Map/Parcel Identification Number] _______________ and being more particularly described by deed as recorded in the land records of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, Deed Book ______ Page ____, hereinafter called the "Property". WHEREAS, the undersigned is proceeding to build on and develop the property; and has submitted the Site Plan/Subdivision Plan known as ______________________________________________, (Name of Plan/Development) hereinafter called the "Plan", which is expressly made a part hereof, as approved or to be approved by the City, provides for detention of stormwater within the confines of the property; and WHEREAS, the City and the undersigned, its successors and assigns, including any homeowners association, (hereinafter the “Landowner”) agree that the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, requires that on-site stormwater management facilities be constructed and maintained on the Property; and WHEREAS, the City requires that on-site stormwater management facilities as shown on the Plan (the “Facilities”) be constructed and adequately maintained by the Landowner. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the mutual covenants contained herein, and the following terms and conditions, the parties hereto agree as follows: (1) When a new drainage control facility is installed, the party having the facility installed shall obtain a copy of the as-built plans from the City of Rosemount Engineering Department. Responsible parties shall make records of the installation and of all maintenance and repair, and shall retain the records for at least ten years. These records shall be made available to the City of Rosemount’s City Engineer during Inspection of the facility and at other reasonable times upon request of the City Engineer. (2) The following operational maintenance activities shall be performed on all permitted systems on a regular basis or as needed: a) Removal of trash and debris, b) Inspection of inlets and outlets, c) Removal of sediments when the storage volume or conveyance capacity of the stormwater management system is below design levels d) Ensure systems designed for infiltration are drawing down within 48 hours, and e) Stabilization and restoration of eroded areas. (3) Specific operational maintenance activities are required, depending on the type of permitted system, in addition to the practices listed in subsection (2), above. a) Retention, swale and underdrain systems shall include provisions for: 1. Mowing and removal of grass clippings, and 2. Aeration, tilling, or replacement of topsoil as needed to restore the percolation capability of the system. If tilling or replacement of the topsoil is utilized, vegetation must be established on the disturbed surfaces. b) Exfiltration systems shall include provisions for removal of sediment and debris from pretreatment or sediment collection systems. c) Wet detention systems shall include provisions for operational maintenance of the littoral zone. Replanting shall be required if the percentage of vegetative cover falls below the permitted level. It is recommended that native vegetation be maintained in the littoral zone as part of the system's operation and maintenance plan. Undesirable species such as cattail and exotic plants should be controlled if they become a nuisance. d) Dry detention systems shall include provisions for mowing and removal of grass clippings. (4) If the system is not functioning as designed and permitted, operational maintenance must be performed immediately to restore the system. If operational maintenance measures are insufficient to enable the system to meet the design and performance standards of this chapter, the permittee must either replace the system or construct an alternative design. (5) In the event the Landowner fails to maintain the Facilities in good working condition acceptable to the City, the City may enter upon the Property and take such steps as are necessary to correct deficiencies identified in the inspection report and to charge the costs of such repairs to the Landowner. This provision shall not be construed to allow the City to erect any structure of permanent nature on the land of the Landowner outside of the easement for the stormwater management facilities. It is expressly understood and agreed that the City is under no obligation to routinely maintain or repair said facilities, and in no event shall this Agreement be construed to impose any such obligation on the City. The Landowner grants to the City, its authorized agents and employees, a non-exclusive, perpetual easement over, across, under and through the Property for such purposes. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto acting through their duly authorized agents have caused this Agreement to be signed, sealed and delivered: (Insert Company/Corporation/Partnership Name) [SEAL] _________________________________________________ By: (Type Name and Title) The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ____________, 20___, by _____________________________________ Unofficial Witness _____________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: ____________ CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ATTACHMENT 1: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR STORM WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES The following are the maintenance requirements for the proper operation of water quality treatment structures provided by the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (as amended) and the Minnesota BMP Manual (as amended)): Pond Maintenance Requirements 1. Annual inspection, maintenance reporting and certification by a professional engineer (Provided by Owner). Information must be submitted to the City annually. 2. Excavate pond to original design capacity when one half (1/2) of the wet volume of the pond is lost due to sediment deposition. 3. Remove floatable debris in and around the pond area including, but not limited to: oils, gases, debris and other pollutants. 4. Maintain landscape adjacent to the facility per original design, including but not limited to: maintenance of the buffer strip and other plant materials as per original plan design. 5. Maintenance of all erosion control measures including but not limited to: rip rap storm sewer outlets, catch basin inlets, etc. Environmental Manhole Maintenance Requirements 1. Annual inspection, maintenance reporting and certification by a professional engineer (Provided by Owner). Information must be submitted to the City annually. 2. Maintenance should be performed once the sediment or oil depth exceeds the established requirements recommended by the manufacturer. 3. Maintenance should occur immediately after a spill takes place. Appropriate regulatory agencies should also be notified in the event of a spill. 4. Disposal of materials shall be in accordance with local, state and federal requirements as applicable. Rain Garden Maintenance Requirements 1. Inlet and Overflow Spillway – Remove any sediment build-up or blockage and correct any erosion. 2. Vegetation a. Maintain at least 80% surface area coverage of plants approved per plan. b. Removal of invasive plants and undesirable woody vegetation. c. Removal of dried, dead and diseased vegetation. d. Re-mulch void or disturbed/exposed areas. 3. Annual inspection and maintenance efforts must be documented and submitted to the City. Filtration Basin Maintenance Requirements 1. Sweep sediment from parking lot 4 times per year 2. Ongoing and as needed: a. Prune and weed to maintain appearance b. Remove trash and debris c. Maintain at least 80% surface area coverage of plants approved per plan. d. Removal of invasive plants and undesirable woody vegetation. e. Removal of dried, dead and diseased vegetation. f. Re-mulch void or disturbed/exposed areas. 3. Semi-annually: a. Remove sediment from inflow points (off-line systems) b. Inspect aggregate filter system and clean as needed c. Shrubs should be inspected to evaluate health. Remove dead and diseased vegetation. 4. Annually: a. Inspect and remove any sediment and debris build-up in pre-treatment areas b. Inspect inflow points and bioretention surface for buildup of road sand associated with spring melt period. Remove and replant as necessary. 5. 2 to 3 years: a. Test pH of planting soils. If pH is below 5.2, add limestone. If pH is 7.0 to 8.0, add iron sulfate plus sulfur. 6. Annual inspection and maintenance efforts must be documented and submitted to the City. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX H – SHORELINE STABILIZATION PRACTICES CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX I – INFILTRATION DESIGN OPTIONS CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX J – NPDES SWPPP PERMIT www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 1 of 17 MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization for the NPDES/SDS General Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit MNR040000 reissued with an effective date of August 1, 2013 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Document Doc Type: Permit Application Instructions: This application is for authorization to discharge stormwater associated with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit Program. No fee is required with the submittal of this application. Please refer to “Example” for detailed instructions found on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) MS4 website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ms4. Submittal: This MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization form must be submitted electronically via e-mail to the MPCA at ms4permitprogram.pca@state.mn.us from the person that is duly authorized to certify this form. All questions with an asterisk (*) are required fields. All applications will be returned if required fields are not completed. Questions: Contact Claudia Hochstein at 651-757-2881 or claudia.hochstein@state.mn.us, Dan Miller at 651-757-2246 or daniel.miller@state.mn.us, or call toll-free at 800-657-3864. General Contact Information (*Required fields) MS4 Owner (with ownership or operational responsibility, or control of the MS4) *MS4 permittee name: City of Rosemount *County: Dakota (city, county, municipality, government agency or other entity) *Mailing address: 2875 - 145th St. W *City: Rosemount *State: MN *Zip code: 55068-4997 *Phone (including area code): 651-322-2022 *E-mail: andy.brotzler@ci.rosemount.mn.us MS4 General contact (with Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program [SWPPP] implementation responsibility) *Last name: Brotzler *First name: Andrew (department head, MS4 coordinator, consultant, etc.) *Title: City Engineer *Mailing address: 2875 - 145th St. W *City: Rosemount *State: MN *Zip code: 55068-4997 *Phone (including area code): 651-322-2022 *E-mail: andy.brotzler@ci.rosemount.mn.us Preparer information (complete if SWPPP application is prepared by a party other than MS4 General contact) Last name: Alms First name: Bill (department head, MS4 coordinator, consultant, etc.) Title: WSB & Associates Mailing address: 701 Xenia Ave South Suite 300 City: Minneapolis State: MN Zip code: 55416 Phone (including area code): (763) 231-4845 E-mail: walms@wsbeng.com Verification 1. I seek to continue discharging stormwater associated with a small MS4 after the effective date of this Permit, and shall submit this MS4 SWPPP Application for Reauthorization form, in accordance with the schedule in Appendix A, Table 1, with the SWPPP document completed in accordance with the Permit (Part II.D.). Yes 2. I have read and understand the NPDES/SDS MS4 General Permit and certify that we intend to comply with all requirements of the Permit. Yes www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 2 of 17 Certification (All fields are required) Yes - I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. I certify that based on my inquiry of the person, or persons, who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of civil and criminal penalties. This certification is required by Minn. Stat. §§ 7001.0070 and 7001.0540. The authorized person with overall, MS4 legal responsibility must certify the application (principal executive officer or a ranking elected official). By typing my name in the following box, I certify the above statements to be true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, and that this information can be used for the purpose of processing my application. Name: Andy Brotzler (This document has been electronically signed) Title: Director of Public Works/City Engineer Date (mm/dd/yyyy): 12/04/13 Mailing address: 2875 145th Street West City: Rosemount State: MN Zip code: 55068 Phone (including area code): (651) 322 - 2022 E-mail: andy.brotzler@ci.rosemount.mn.us Note: The application will not be processed without certification. www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 3 of 17 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Document I. Partnerships: (Part II.D.1) A. List the regulated small MS4(s) with which you have established a partnership in order to satisfy one or more requirements of this Permit. Indicate which Minimum Control Measure (MCM) requirements or other program components that each partnership helps to accomplish (List all that apply). Check the box below if you currently have no established partnerships with other regulated MS4s. If you have more than five partnerships, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. No partnerships with regulated small MS4s Name and description of partnership MCM/Other permit requirements involved Dakota County; Partner with Dakota County (SWCD) for providing educational opportunities/materials. MCM 1 B. If you have additional information that you would like to communicate about your partnerships with other regulated small MS4(s), provide it in the space below, or include an attachment to the SWPPP Document, with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_Partnerships. II. Description of Regulatory Mechanisms: (Part II.D.2) Illicit discharges A. Do you have a regulatory mechanism(s) that effectively prohibits non-stormwater discharges into your small MS4, except those non-stormwater discharges authorized under the Permit (Part III.D.3.b.)? Yes No 1. If yes: a. Check which type of regulatory mechanism(s) your organization has (check all that apply): Ordinance Contract language Policy/Standards Permits Rules Other, explain: b. Provide either a direct link to the mechanism selected above or attach it as an electronic document to this form; or if your regulatory mechanism is either an Ordinance or a Rule, you may provide a citation: Citation: City Code: Title 10 -> Chapter 2 -> Sec. 10-2-6.Discharge Prohibitions Direct link: http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=452&section_id=534716 Check here if attaching an electronic copy of your regulatory mechanism, with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_IDDEreg. 2. If no: Describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, this permit requirement is met: www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 4 of 17 Construction site stormwater runoff control A. Do you have a regulatory mechanism(s) that establishes requirements for erosion and sediment controls and waste controls? Yes No 1. If yes: a. Check which type of regulatory mechanism(s) your organization has (check all that apply): Ordinance Contract language Policy/Standards Permits Rules Other, explain: b. Provide either a direct link to the mechanism selected above or attach it as an electronic document to this form; or if your regulatory mechanism is either an Ordinance or a Rule, you may provide a citation: Citation: City Code: Title 10 -> Chapter 1 -> Sec. 10-1-12. Erosion and Sediment Control City Code: Title 10 -> Chapter 2 -> Sec. 10-2-8. Industrial or Construction Activity Discharges City of Rosemount Engineering Guidelines City of Rostmount General Specifications GR-15, GR-16 & SP-23 Direct link: http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=452&section_id=168860 http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=452&section_id=534718 http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/72 http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/636 Check here if attaching an electronic copy of your regulatory mechanism, with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_CSWreg. B. Is your regulatory mechanism at least as stringent as the MPCA general permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (as of the effective date of the MS4 Permit)? Yes No If you answered yes to the above question, proceed to C. If you answered no to either of the above permit requirements listed in A. or B., describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: The City's construction site stormwater runoff control requlatory mechnaism will be updated to be at least as strigent as the MPCA CSW permit. This effort will completed within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended. C. Answer yes or no to indicate whether your regulatory mechanism(s) requires owners and operators of construction activity to develop site plans that incorporate the following erosion and sediment controls and waste controls as described in the Permit (Part III.D.4.a.(1)-(8)), and as listed below: 1. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion. Yes No 2. BMPs to minimize the discharge of sediment and other pollutants. Yes No 3. BMPs for dewatering activities. Yes No 4. Site inspections and records of rainfall events Yes No 5. BMP maintenance Yes No 6. Management of solid and hazardous wastes on each project site. Yes No 7. Final stabilization upon the completion of construction activity, including the use of perennial vegetative cover on all exposed soils or other equivalent means. Yes No 8. Criteria for the use of temporary sediment basins. Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 5 of 17 Post-construction stormwater management A. Do you have a regulatory mechanism(s) to address post-construction stormwater management activities? Yes No 1. If yes: a. Check which type of regulatory mechanism(s) your organization has (check all that apply): Ordinance Contract language Policy/Standards Permits Rules Other, explain: b. Provide either a direct link to the mechanism selected above or attach it as an electronic document to this form; or if your regulatory mechanism is either an Ordinance or a Rule, you may provide a citation: Citation: City Code: Title 10 -> Chapter 1 -> 10-1: Surface Water Management City of Rosemount Engineering Guidelines Direct link: http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=452&chapter_id=19762 http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/72 Check here if attaching an electronic copy of your regulatory mechanism, with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_PostCSWreg. B. Answer yes or no below to indicate whether you have a regulatory mechanism(s) in place that meets the following requirements as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a.): 1. Site plan review: Requirements those owners and/or operators of construction activity submit site plans with post-construction stormwater management BMPs to the permittee for review and approval, prior to start of construction activity. Yes No 2. Conditions for post construction stormwater management: Requires the use of any combination of BMPs, with highest preference given to Green Infrastructure techniques and practices (e.g., infiltration, evapotranspiration, reuse/harvesting, conservation design, urban forestry, green roofs, etc.), necessary to meet the following conditions on the site of a construction activity to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP): a. For new development projects – no net increase from pre-project conditions (on an annual average basis) of: 1) Stormwater discharge volume, unless precluded by the stormwater management limitations in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(3)(a)). 2) Stormwater discharges of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). 3) Stormwater discharges of Total Phosphorus (TP). Yes No b. For redevelopment projects – a net reduction from pre-project conditions (on an annual average basis) of: 1) Stormwater discharge volume, unless precluded by the stormwater management limitations in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(3)(a)). 2) Stormwater discharges of TSS. 3) Stormwater discharges of TP. Yes No 3. Stormwater management limitations and exceptions: a. Limitations 1) Prohibit the use of infiltration techniques to achieve the conditions for post-construction stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)) when the infiltration structural stormwater BMP will receive discharges from, or be constructed in areas: a) Where industrial facilities are not authorized to infiltrate industrial stormwater under an NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Permit issued by the MPCA. b) Where vehicle fueling and maintenance occur. c) With less than three (3) feet of separation distance from the bottom of the infiltration system to the elevation of the seasonally saturated soils or the top of bedrock. d) Where high levels of contaminants in soil or groundwater will be mobilized by the infiltrating stormwater. Yes No 2) Restrict the use of infiltration techniques to achieve the conditions for post-construction Yes No www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 6 of 17 stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)), without higher engineering review, sufficient to provide a functioning treatment system and prevent adverse impacts to groundwater, when the infiltration device will be constructed in areas: a) With predominately Hydrologic Soil Group D (clay) soils. b) Within 1,000 feet up-gradient, or 100 feet down-gradient of active karst features. c) Within a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) as defined in Minn. R. 4720.5100, subp. 13. d) Where soil infiltration rates are more than 8.3 inches per hour. 3) For linear projects where the lack of right-of-way precludes the installation of volume control practices that meet the conditions for post-construction stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)), the permittee’s regulatory mechanism(s) may allow exceptions as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(3)(b)). The permittee’s regulatory mechanism(s) shall ensure that a reasonable attempt be made to obtain right-of-way during the project planning process. Yes No 4. Mitigation provisions: The permittee’s regulatory mechanism(s) shall ensure that any stormwater discharges of TSS and/or TP not addressed on the site of the original construction activity are addressed through mitigation and, at a minimum, shall ensure the following requirements are met: a. Mitigation project areas are selected in the following order of preference: 1) Locations that yield benefits to the same receiving water that receives runoff from the original construction activity. 2) Locations within the same Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (DNR) catchment area as the original construction activity. 3) Locations in the next adjacent DNR catchment area up-stream 4) Locations anywhere within the permittee’s jurisdiction. Yes No b. Mitigation projects must involve the creation of new structural stormwater BMPs or the retrofit of existing structural stormwater BMPs, or the use of a properly designed regional structural stormwater BMP. Yes No c. Routine maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs already required by this permit cannot be used to meet mitigation requirements of this part. Yes No d. Mitigation projects shall be completed within 24 months after the start of the original construction activity. e. The permittee shall determine, and document, who will be responsible for long-term maintenance on all mitigation projects of this part. f. If the permittee receives payment from the owner and/or operator of a construction activity for mitigation purposes in lieu of the owner or operator of that construction activity meeting the conditions for post-construction stormwater management in Part III.D.5.a(2), the permittee shall apply any such payment received to a public stormwater project, and all projects must be in compliance with Part III.D.5.a(4)(a)-(e). Yes No Yes No Yes No 5. Long-term maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs: The permittee’s regulatory mechanism(s) shall provide for the establishment of legal mechanisms between the permittee and owners or operators responsible for the long-term maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs not owned or operated by the permittee, that have been implemented to meet the conditions for post-construction stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)). This only includes structural stormwater BMPs constructed after the effective date of this permit and that are directly connected to the permittee’s MS4, and that are in the permittee’s jurisdiction. The legal mechanism shall include provisions that, at a minimum: a. Allow the permittee to conduct inspections of structural stormwater BMPs not owned or operated by the permittee, perform necessary maintenance, and assess costs for those structural stormwater BMPs when the permittee determines that the owner and/or operator of that structural stormwater BMP has not conducted maintenance. Yes No b. Include conditions that are designed to preserve the permittee’s right to ensure maintenance responsibility, for structural stormwater BMPs not owned or operated by the permittee, when those responsibilities are legally transferred to another party. Yes No c. Include conditions that are designed to protect/preserve structural stormwater BMPs and site features that are implemented to comply with the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)). If site configurations or structural stormwater BMPs change, causing decreased structural stormwater BMP effectiveness, new or improved structural stormwater BMPs must be implemented to ensure the conditions for post-construction stormwater management in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(2)) continue to be met. Yes No www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 7 of 17 If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within twelve (12) months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: B.3.a.1: The City will amend the ordinance and/or City Design Standards to include prohibiting the use of infiltration techniques for post-construction stormwater management as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(3)(a).1). The ordinance will be amended on the same schedule as the items in B.2.a and B.2.b. B.3.a.2: The City will amend the ordinance and/or City Design Standards to include restricting the use of infiltration techniques for post-construction stormwater management as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(3)(a).2). This will occur on the same schedule as the items above. B.3.a.3: The City will amend the ordinance and/or City Design Standards to include the exceptions for linear projects as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(3)(b)). This will occur on the same schedule as the items above. B.4.a.: The City will amend the ordinance and/or City Design Standards to include order of preference for selecting mitigation project areas as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(4)(a)). This will occur on the same schedule as the items above. B.4.b.: The City will amend the ordinance and/or City Design Standards to include requirements for the creation of mitigation projects as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(4)(b)). This will occur on the same schedule as the items above. B.4.c.: The City will amend the ordinance and/or City Design Standards to include the restriction from using routine maintenance of structural BMPs to meet the requirements for mitigation projects as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(4)(c)). This will occur on the same schedule as the items above. B.4.d.: The City will amend the ordinance and/or City Design Standards to include the requirement to complete mitigation projects within 24 months after the start of the original construction activity as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(4)(d)). This will occur on the same schedule as the items above. B.4.e.: The City will amend the ordinance and/or City Design Standards to include the requirement to determine, and document, who will be responsible for long-term maintenance on all mitigation projects as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(4)(e)). This will occur on the same schedule as the items above. B.4.f.: The City will amend the ordinance and/or City Design Standards to mandate that money received from an owner/operator of construction activity, in lieu of meeting the conditions for post-construction stormwater management, shall be used for a public stormwater project as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(4)(f)). This will occur on the same schedule as the items above. B.5.a.: The City will amend the ordinance and/or City Design Standards to include the requirement to allow the permittee to conduct inspections, perform maintenance, and assess maintenance cost of structural stormwater BMPs not owned or operated by the permittee as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(5)(a)). This will occur on the same schedule as the items above. B.5.b.: The City will amend the ordinance and/or City Design Standards to include conditions that require maintenance responsibility for structural stormwater BMPs through transfer of ownership as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(5)(b)). This will occur on the same schedule as the items above. B.5.c.: The City will amend the ordinance and/or City Design Standards to include conditions to address BMP modification in the future as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.a(5)(c)). This will occur on the same schedule as the items above. III. Enforcement Response Procedures (ERPs): (Part II.D.3) A. Do you have existing ERPs that satisfy the requirements of the Permit (Part III.B.)? Yes No 1. If yes, attach them to this form as an electronic document, with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_ERPs. 2. If no, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, with twelve (12) months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: B. Describe your ERPs: http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=&section_id=534723 The current ERPs are included in the following City Codes: Title 10 -> Chapter 2 -> Section 10-2-13 thru 10-2-20 Enforcement, Appeal of Notice of Violation, Enforcement Measure After Appeal, Cost of Abatement of the Violation, Legal Action, Compensatory Action, Nuisance, and Criminal Prosecution for Stormwater System Chapter violations. Section 10-1-14; Penalty for Surface Water Management Chapter violations. The City Code includes the following enforcement mechanisms: www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 8 of 17 - Notice of Violation - Public Nuisance - Misdemeanors - Stop work orders IV. Storm Sewer System Map and Inventory: (Part II.D.4.) A. Describe how you manage your storm sewer system map and inventory: New developments are required to provide electronic as-build data in accordance with the GIS Information Requirements located in the City Design Standard. The City GIS specialist updates and maintains all of the City's GIS Information. B. Answer yes or no to indicate whether your storm sewer system map addresses the following requirements from the Permit (Part III.C.1.a-d), as listed below: 1. The permittee’s entire small MS4 as a goal, but at a minimum, all pipes 12 inches or greater in diameter, including stormwater flow direction in those pipes. Yes No 2. Outfalls, including a unique identification (ID) number assigned by the permittee, and an associated geographic coordinate. Yes No 3. Structural stormwater BMPs that are part of the permittee’s small MS4. Yes No 4. All receiving waters. Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: C. Answer yes or no to indicate whether you have completed the requirements of 2009 Minnesota Session Law, Ch. 172. Sec. 28: with the following inventories, according to the specifications of the Permit (Part III.C.2.a.-b.), including: 1. All ponds within the permittee’s jurisdiction that are constructed and operated for purposes of water quality treatment, stormwater detention, and flood control, and that are used for the collection of stormwater via constructed conveyances. Yes No 2. All wetlands and lakes, within the permittee’s jurisdiction, that collect stormwater via constructed conveyances. Yes No D. Answer yes or no to indicate whether you have completed the following information for each feature inventoried. 1. A unique identification (ID) number assigned by the permittee. 2. A geographic coordinate. 3. Type of feature (e.g., pond, wetland, or lake). This may be determined by using best professional judgment. Yes No Yes No Yes No If you have answered yes to all above requirements, and you have already submitted the Pond Inventory Form to the MPCA, then you do not need to resubmit the inventory form below. If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: E. Answer yes or no to indicate if you are attaching your pond, wetland and lake inventory to the MPCA on the form provided on the MPCA website at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ms4 , according to the specifications of Permit (Part III.C.2.b.(1)-(3)). Attach with the following file naming convention: MS4NameHere_inventory. Yes No If you answered no, the inventory form must be submitted to the MPCA MS4 Permit Program within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended. V. Minimum Control Measures (MCMs) (Part II.D.5) A. MCM1: Public education and outreach 1. The Permit requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees revise their education and outreach program that focuses on illicit discharge recognition and reporting, as well as other specifically www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 9 of 17 selected stormwater-related issue(s) of high priority to the permittee during this permit term. Describe your current educational program, including any high-priority topics included: The public education program has been developed to distribute educational materials to the community or conduct equivalent outreach activities. The BMPs identified will focus on the impact of storm water discharges on streams, rivers, and wetlands, and the steps that the public can take to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff. 2. List the categories of BMPs that address your public education and outreach program, including the distribution of educational materials and a program implementation plan. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Education Activity Implementation Plan The City will provide stormwater education and outreach programs for residents within the City. The City will complete and outline of the education program and implementation schedule for the upcoming permit year by June 30th. City Web Page The City updates their web page by providing information on high priority storm water pollution prevention topics and effects of illicit discharge to City residents and business owners. The goal will be to add new material as it becomes available and record the number of website hits annually. City Newsletter City staff will develop then distribute stormwater related articles in the City newsletter. This goal will be met by distributing a minimum of two storm water related articles in the City newsletter each year. Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP): The City will continue to implement the WHEP contingent upon available City funding. Coordination of Education Program The City will collaborate and coordinate the development and implementation of the City’s educational activities schedule with the Dakota SWCD and VRWMO. BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes 3. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: City Engineer / Public Works Coordinator B. MCM2: Public participation and involvement 1. The Permit (Part III.D.2.a.) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees shall revise their current program, as necessary, and continue to implement a public participation/involvement program to solicit public input on the SWPPP. Describe your current program: Under this minimum control measure, the City provides measures to receive public input and opinion on the adequacy of the SWPPP. This input can be received from public meetings, oral testimony, and written correspondence. 2. List the categories of BMPs that address your public participation/involvement program, including solicitation and documentation of public input on the SWPPP. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the EPA’s Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Comply with Public Notice Requirements Provide public notice of meeting to provide input on the SWPPP in accordance with City public hearing notification requirements. www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 10 of 17 Annual Meeting Hold annual public meeting combined with City Council Meeting or other public participation/involvement event to solicit public input on the SWPPP. Consider Public Input The City will conduct a public meeting and host a web page on the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program. City staff will respond to all public comments and statements received from the public meeting, and document any proposed changes to the SWPPP for final approval by City Engineer (if applicable). The goal of this BMP will be met by documenting all written and oral input into the record of decision and submitted in conjunction with the annual report to the MPCA. BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes Online Availability of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Document Provide an electronic document of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program document online, to allow anytime, easier access to these documents. 3. Do you have a process for receiving and documenting citizen input? Yes No If you answered no to the above permit requirement, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, this permit requirement is met: 4. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: City Engineer / Public Works Coordinator C. MCM 3: Illicit discharge detection and elimination 1. The Permit (Part III.D.3.) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees revise their current program as necessary, and continue to implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges into the small MS4. Describe your current program: The City has an ordinance that prohibits illicit discharges and connections. City Staff and public works employees are trained to look for any signs of an illicit discharge while on the job. ERPs (linked) guide what actions the City can take after an illicit discharge has been identified. 2. Does your Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program meet the following requirements, as found in the Permit (Part III.D.3.c.-g.)? a. Incorporation of illicit discharge detection into all inspection and maintenance activities conducted under the Permit (Part III.D.6.e.-f.)Where feasible, illicit discharge inspections shall be conducted during dry-weather conditions (e.g., periods of 72 or more hours of no precipitation). Yes No b. Detecting and tracking the source of illicit discharges using visual inspections. The permittee may also include use of mobile cameras, collecting and analyzing water samples, and/or other detailed procedures that may be effective investigative tools. Yes No c. Training of all field staff, in accordance with the requirements of the Permit (Part III.D.6.g.(2)), in illicit discharge recognition (including conditions which could cause illicit discharges), and reporting illicit discharges for further investigation. Yes No d. Identification of priority areas likely to have illicit discharges, including at a minimum, evaluating land use associated with business/industrial activities, areas where illicit discharges have been identified in the past, and areas with storage of large quantities of significant materials that could result in an illicit discharge. Yes No e. Procedures for the timely response to known, suspected, and reported illicit discharges. Yes No f. Procedures for investigating, locating, and eliminating the source of illicit discharges. Yes No g. Procedures for responding to spills, including emergency response procedures to prevent spills from entering the small MS4. The procedures shall also include the immediate notification of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Duty Officer, if the source of the illicit discharge is a spill or leak as defined in Minn. Stat. § 115.061. Yes No h. When the source of the illicit discharge is found, the permittee shall use the ERPs required by the Permit (Part III.B.) to eliminate the illicit discharge and require any needed corrective action(s). Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: C.2.b.The City will incorporate procedures into the IDDE program for detecting and tracking the source of illicit discharges www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 11 of 17 using visual inspections as described in the permit (Part III.D.3.d). Procedures will be in place within 12 months following the date permit coverage is extended.. C.2.d.The City will incorporate procedures into the IDDE program for prioritization of areas likely to have illicit discharges as described in the permit (Part III.D.3.f). Procedures will be in place within 12 months following the date permit coverage is extended. 3. List the categories of BMPs that address your illicit discharge, detection and elimination program. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the EPA’s Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Storm Sewer System Mapping The goal of this BMP will be met by annually updating changes to the City’s storm sewer system map. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) and Enforcement Ordinance The City will review and update (as necessary) the City’s ordinance to prohibit illicit and non-stormwater discharges into the City’s storm sewer and surface/ground waters. The goal of this BMP will be met by reviewing existing city ordinances and implementing updates related to illicit/non-stormwater discharges (if necessary). Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Program The City will develop and implement a program to detect and reduce non-stormwater discharges, including illegal dumping. Procedures for detection may consist of visual inspections for non-stormwater discharges on City owned land and private property (as requested). Inspection frequency may be conducted concurrent with the outfall inspections and implementation schedule of the public works activities. The City will notify the MPCA state duty officer of any hazardous material spills or discharges (within 24 hours of receipt, if applicable, per NPDES Phase II requirements). BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes IDDE Program Updates Develop written procedures for illicit discharge inspections, investigations, and response actions. Develop a process to document information as described in the Permit (Part III.3.h) within 12 months following the date permit coverage is extended. Illicit Discharge Inspections In Year 1, the City will map out areas that are identified as high-priority outfalls and around high-risk establishments (fast food restaurants, dumpster, car washes, mechanics, and oil changes.) in years 2-5, the City will those integrate those sites into its annual inspection MS4 activities. Illicit Discharge Investigation As needed, City staff or a consultant will be used to televise a section of the sewer system, collect grab samples or perform other effective testing procedures to find illicit connection identified in the system. 4. Do you have procedures for record-keeping within your Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program as specified within the Permit (Part III.D.3.h.)? Yes No If you answered no, indicate how you will develop procedures for record-keeping of your Illicit Discharge, Detection and Elimination Program, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended: 5. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: Public Works Supervisor D. MCM 4: Construction site stormwater runoff control 1. The Permit (Part III.D.4) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees shall www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 12 of 17 revise their current program, as necessary, and continue to implement and enforce a construction site stormwater runoff control program. Describe your current program: The City requires review of construction site erosion and sediment control (ESC) plans before projects begin, and work with contractors to ensure appropriate and correct use of erosion and sediment control BMPs on sites. The enginering and building inspectionis department are primarly responsible for checking compliance with construction site ESC plans. 2. Does your program address the following BMPs for construction stormwater erosion and sediment control as required in the Permit (Part III.D.4.b.): a. Have you established written procedures for site plan reviews that you conduct prior to the start of construction activity? Yes No b. Does the site plan review procedure include notification to owners and operators proposing construction activity that they need to apply for and obtain coverage under the MPCA’s general permit to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity No. MN R100001? Yes No c. Does your program include written procedures for receipt and consideration of reports of noncompliance or other stormwater related information on construction activity submitted by the public to the permittee? Yes No d. Have you included written procedures for the following aspects of site inspections to determine compliance with your regulatory mechanism(s): 1) Does your program include procedures for identifying priority sites for inspection? Yes No 2) Does your program identify a frequency at which you will conduct construction site inspections? Yes No 3) Does your program identify the names of individual(s) or position titles of those responsible for conducting construction site inspections? Yes No 4) Does your program include a checklist or other written means to document construction site inspections when determining compliance? Yes No e. Does your program document and retain construction project name, location, total acreage to be disturbed, and owner/operator information? Yes No f. Does your program document stormwater-related comments and/or supporting information used to determine project approval or denial? Yes No g. Does your program retain construction site inspection checklists or other written materials used to document site inspections? Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met. D.2.d., City will develop written procedures for conducting site ESC inspections as described in the Permit (Part III.D.4.d). Procedures will be in place within 12 months following the date permit coverage is extended. 3. List the categories of BMPs that address your construction site stormwater runoff control program. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the EPA’s Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Ordinance The City will annually review and update (as necessary) the City’s erosion control ordinance. The Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance was approved in November 2007. Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Inspections City staff will continue to implement and enforce the construction site inspection program for erosion control on construction sites one acre or larger. The goal of this BMP is to document the number of site inspections conducted annually. Waste Controls for Construction Site Operators The goal will be met by enforcing the NPDES Phase II permit requirements through the City’s construction site inspection program. Construction Site Plan Review The City will require every applicant for a building permit, subdivision approval, or grading permit that disturbs one acre or more to submit a project specific stormwater management plan (if applicable). This goal will be met by only issuing City permits to applicants that have submitted project specific stormwater www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 13 of 17 management plans (if applicable). Establishment of Procedures for the Receipt and Consideration of Reports of Stormwater Noncompliance The City will establish a phone line and web page links for the public to report potential construction site erosion control and waste disposal infractions. The goal of this BMP will achieved by completing the timeline/implementation. Establishment of Procedures for Site Inspections and Enforcement The City will inspect construction sites for conformance to NPDES construction permit standards and applicable City standards. This goal will be met by enforcing the City’s erosion control and waste disposal standards. BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes Permit Update Update the City Grading, Building, and ROW permits and Construction Site Stormwater Runoff ordinance to meet the new permit requirements within 12 months following the date permit coverage is extended. Prioritize Inspections The City will develop a process to determine the frequency for inspecting high priority inspection sites (e.g., near sensitive receiving waters, projects larger than 5 acres). Permit Application System Develop written procedures to improve tracking and archiving all plan review and inspection documents within 12 months following the date permit coverage is extended. 4. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: City Engineer E. MCM 5: Post-construction stormwater management 1. The Permit (Part III.D.5.) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees shall revise their current program, as necessary, and continue to implement and enforce a post-construction stormwater management program. Describe your current program: The City has a surface water management ordinace to address storm water runoff from new development and redevelopment projects that disturb equal to or greater than one acre. This program insures that controls are in place that would prevent or minimize water quality impacts from development activities. 2. Have you established written procedures for site plan reviews that you will conduct prior to the start of construction activity? Yes No 3. Answer yes or no to indicate whether you have the following listed procedures for documentation of post-construction stormwater management according to the specifications of Permit (Part III.D.5.c.): a. Any supporting documentation that you use to determine compliance with the Permit (Part III.D.5.a), including the project name, location, owner and operator of the construction activity, any checklists used for conducting site plan reviews, and any calculations used to determine compliance? Yes No b. All supporting documentation associated with mitigation projects that you authorize? Yes No c. Payments received and used in accordance with Permit (Part III.D.5.a.(4)(f))? Yes No d. All legal mechanisms drafted in accordance with the Permit (Part III.D.5.a.(5)), including date(s) of the agreement(s) and names of all responsible parties involved? Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements, describe the steps that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met. E.3., The City will develop written procedures for documention of post-construciton stomwater management mitigation as described in the Permit (Part III.D.5.c.). Procedures will be in place within 12 months following the date permit coverage is extended. 4. List the categories of BMPs that address your post-construction stormwater management program. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. Refer to the EPA’s Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 14 of 17 Site Plan Review Program The City will review and revise (if necessary, during the plan review process) permanent BMP designs and criteria for post- construction stormwater management associated with new development and redevelopment projects of one acre or more. The City will also actively look for non-structural opportunities where prudent and feasible. The goal of this BMP will be met if the City conducts plan reviews on new development and redevelopment projects of one acre or more. Surface Water Management Ordinance Completed ordinance defining standards, review procedures and enforcement response procedures for erosion and sediment control at construction sites, and post construction runoff from new development and redevelopment in 2007. Stormwater Management Plan Completed SWMP in 2007 and ensured goals and policies were consistent with the NPDES General and Construction Permits. BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes Update ordinance to meet new permit requirements Complete Ordinance updates for post construction runoff from new development and redevelopment Within 12 months of extension of permit coverage. Document Pertinent Project Information Maintain all related documents pertaining to each new or redevelopment project in more user-friendly filing system for better records management. Implement within 12 months. 5. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: City Engineer F. MCM 6: Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations 1. The Permit (Part III.D.6.) requires that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, existing permittees shall revise their current program, as necessary, and continue to implement an operations and maintenance program that prevents or reduces the discharge of pollutants from the permittee owned/operated facilities and operations to the small MS4. Describe your current program: The City currently inspects its structural pollution control devices on an annual basis and inspects all of its outfalls, sediment basins and ponds every 5 years. The City inspects stockpiles, storage and material handling areas at the maintenance yard for potential discharges and maintenance of BMPs. The City is evaluating the use of road salt for winter road maintenance activities to reduce chlorides entering surface waters. The City sweeps streets once in the fall after leaf drop. Maintenance staff is trained annually on various topics related to pollution prevention during maintenance activities. 2. Do you have a facilities inventory as outlined in the Permit (Part III.D.6.a.)? Yes No 3. If you answered no to the above permit requirement in question 2, describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, this permit requirement is met: F.3., The City will complete a facilities inventory as described in the Permit (Part III.D.6.a.). Inventory will be completed within 12 months following the date permit coverage is extended. 4. List the categories of BMPs that address your pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations program. Use the first table for categories of BMPs that you have established and the second table for categories of BMPs that you plan to implement over the course of the permit term. Include the measurable goals with appropriate timeframes that each BMP category will be implemented and completed. In addition, provide interim milestones and the frequency of action in which the permittee will implement and/or maintain the BMPs. For an explanation of measurable goals, refer to the EPA’s Measurable Goals Guidance for Phase II Small MS4s (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf). If you have more than five categories, hit the tab key after the last line to generate a new row. Established BMP categories Measurable goals and timeframes Street Sweeping The City will continue recording the frequency and miles of streets that are swept, per sweeping occurrence. The goal of this BMP will be met if the City conducts two street sweeping occurrences per year. www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 15 of 17 Strom Sewer Inspection Program Conduct one inspection of all City-owned ponds and outfalls prior to expiration date of this permit. Annual inspection of 100% of structural pollution control devices (Sumps, Water Quality Manholes, etc.). Inspection of All Exposed Stockpile, Storage and Material Handling Areas City staff will quarterly locate and inspect all exposed stockpiles and storage/material handling areas on City owned properties. All existing onsite BMP’s will be inspected for conformance to NPDES Phase II permit requirements. Any identified erosion control issues will be corrected and documented per NPDES Phase II standards. Structural Stormwater BMP Maintenance Program Based on storm sewer inspection findings determine if repair, replacement, or maintenance measures are necessary to ensure structures proper function and treatment effectiveness. Document annually number or structures repaired or scheduled for maintenance. Recording, Reporting, and Retention of All Inspections and Responses to the Inspections The City will retain all records of inspection, maintenance, and corrective actions of the City’s stormwater system. The goal of this BMP will be met if the City retains these records for a period of three years past the expiration of this permit. Evaluation of Inspection Frequency Evaluate inspection records and determine if inspection frequency needs to increase or decrease. Landscaping and Lawn Care Practices Review The City will continue to annually review its landscaping and lawn care practices and adjust its current methods if necessary. Road Salt Application Review The City will record the annual activities of the salt distribution program and adjust current practices as necessary. Evaluation of Proposed Storm Water Infiltration Projects for Impacts within Source Water Protection Areas 1. The City will use the Minnesota Department of Health’s document “Evaluating Proposed Storm Water Infiltration Projects in Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas” (Draft-July 19, 2006) and other pertinent information as guidance in evaluating all infiltration projects within or adjacent to vulnerable DWSMA’s. 2. The City will prohibit the construction of the infiltration area or incorporate specific BMPs to reduce pollutants from infiltrating within vulnerable DWSMA’s. 3. The City will annually record the evaluation, denial, and implemented BMP’s, of all proposed infiltration projects within and/or adjacent to vulnerable DWSMA’s. BMP categories to be implemented Measurable goals and timeframes Park and Open Space Training Program Training focused on fertilizer application, pesticide/herbicide application, and mowing discharge. Fleet and Building Maintenance Training Program Training focused on automotive maintenance program (automotive inspections and washing), spill cleanup training, hazardous materials training, building leak prevention and inspection training. Stormwater Systems Maintenance Training Program Training focused on parking lot and street cleaning, storm drain systems cleaning, road salt materials management. Spill Prevention & Control Plans for Municipal Facilities Ensure that plans describing spill prevention and control procedures are consistent among all departments. Conduct annual spill prevention and response training sessions to all municipal employees. Distribute education materials to each municipal facility by the end of year 2. Facility Inventory Develop facilities inventory to include potential pollutants as each site. Create a map of all identified facilities. Pond Assessment Procedures & Schedule In year 1, develop procedures for determining TSS and TP treatment effectiveness of city owned ponds use for treatment of stormwater. Implement schedule in year 2-5. 5. Does discharge from your MS4 affect a Source Water Protection Area (Permit Part III.D.6.c.)? Yes No www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 16 of 17 a. If no, continue to 6. b. If yes, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) is in the process of mapping the following items. Maps are available at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/swp/maps/index.htm. Is a map including the following items available for your MS4: 1) Wells and source waters for drinking water supply management areas identified as vulnerable under Minn. R. 4720.5205, 4720.5210, and 4720.5330? Yes No 2) Source water protection areas for surface intakes identified in the source water assessments conducted by or for the Minnesota Department of Health under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, U.S.C. §§ 300j – 13? Yes No c. Have you developed and implemented BMPs to protect any of the above drinking water sources? Yes No 6. Have you developed procedures and a schedule for the purpose of determining the TSS and TP treatment effectiveness of all permittee owned/operated ponds constructed and used for the collection and treatment of stormwater, according to the Permit (Part III.D.6.d.)? Yes No 7. Do you have inspection procedures that meet the requirements of the Permit (Part III.D.6.e.(1)- (3)) for structural stormwater BMPs, ponds and outfalls, and stockpile, storage and material handling areas? Yes No 8. Have you developed and implemented a stormwater management training program commensurate with each employee’s job duties that: a. Addresses the importance of protecting water quality? Yes No b. Covers the requirements of the permit relevant to the duties of the employee? Yes No c. Includes a schedule that establishes initial training for new and/or seasonal employees and recurring training intervals for existing employees to address changes in procedures, practices, techniques, or requirements? Yes No 9. Do you keep documentation of inspections, maintenance, and training as required by the Permit (Part III.D.6.h.(1)-(5))? Yes No If you answered no to any of the above permit requirements listed in Questions 5 – 9, then describe the tasks and corresponding schedules that will be taken to assure that, within 12 months of the date permit coverage is extended, these permit requirements are met: F.6. The City will develop a procedure for assessing ponds to determine TSS and TP effectiveness as described in the Permit (Part III.D.6.d) This study will develop procedures for determining TSS and TP treatment effectiveness of city- owned ponds used for treatment of stormwater. A schedule will be implemented in years 2 thru 5. F.7., The City will develop written procedures for inspection of structural stormwater BMPs, ponds and outfalls, and stockpile, storage and material handling areas as described in the Permit (Part III.D.6.f.). Procedures will be in place within 12 months following the date permit coverage is extended. F.8., The City will develop and implement a stormwater management training program commensurate with each employees job duties as described in the Permit (Part III.D.6.g.). Procedures will be in place within 12 months following the date permit coverage is extended. F.9., The City will developwitten procedures to document inspections, mainenance, and training as described in the Permit (Part III.D.6.h.). Procedures will be in place within 12 months following the date permit coverage is extended. 10. Provide the name or the position title of the individual(s) who is responsible for implementing and/or coordinating this MCM: City Engineer / Public Works Supervisor VI. Compliance Schedule for an Approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) with an Applicable Waste Load Allocation (WLA) (Part II.D.6.) A. Do you have an approved TMDL with a Waste Load Allocation (WLA) prior to the effective date of the Permit? Yes No 1. If no, continue to section VII. 2. If yes, fill out and attach the MS4 Permit TMDL Attachment Spreadsheet with the following naming convention: MS4NameHere_TMDL. This form is found on the MPCA MS4 website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ms4. www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm4-49a • 5/31/13 Page 17 of 17 VII. Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment Systems (Part II.D.7.) A. Do you own and/or operate any Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment Systems which are regulated by this Permit (Part III.F.)? Yes No 1. If no, this section requires no further information. 2. If yes , you own and/or operate an Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment System within your small MS4, then you must submit the Alum or Ferric Chloride Phosphorus Treatment Systems Form supplement to this document, with the following naming convention: MS4NameHere_TreatmentSystem. This form is found on the MPCA MS4 website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ms4. VIII. Add any Additional Comments to Describe Your Program wq-strm4-49c • 8/16/13 • www.pca.state.mn.us • Available in alternative formats • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 Page 1 of 4 Compliance Schedule PART II.D.6.f.-g. Is your MS4 currently meeting its WLA for any approved TMDLs?Go to:Go to:Go to: NO (Complete Table 1, Strategies for continued BMP implementation beyond the term of this permit, and Table 2 below)Table 1 Strategies…Table 2 YES (Provide the following information below) Table 1 If YES, indicate the WLAs (may be grouped by TMDL Project) you believe are reasonably being met. For each WLA, list the implemented BMPs and provide a narrative strategy for the long-term continuation of meeting each WLA. PART II.D.6.g.(1)-(2) Fill in the following table with your Interim Milestones, BMP IDs, and Implementation Dates. Replace "TMDL Project Name & Pollutant" Columns with each TMDL Project Name and the corresponding pollutant. Then put an "X" in the boxes for the TMDL that corresponds with each BMP. PART II.D.6.f.(1)-(2) - Long and Farquar Lakes Nutrient TMDL - 0.005 lbs TSS/day Phosphorus (89 acres) No reduction (0% reduction) in loading from MS4s was called for in this TMDL. Therefore, the City will continue to maintain the existing BMPs to ensure they remain sufficient to address any loading generated from the system. - Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL - 0.3 to 8.62 T-org./month for 9 MS4 Communities (area not identified) No reduction in loading specfically for the City was identified in this TMDL. Additionally, the assumed contributing area of the City is predominantly agricultural fields that drain to landlocked depressions. The City’s development policy would prevent any increase in loading should this area development in the future. - Lower Vermillion River Watershed Turbidity TMDL - 57.3 lbs/day TSS (2112 acres) No reduction (0% reduction) in loading from MS4s was called for in this TMDL. Additionally, the identified contributing area of the City is predominantly agricultural fields that drain to landlocked depressions. The City’s development policy would prevent any increase in loading should this area development in the future. NOTE: It is recommended to assign each Interim Milestone (BMP) a BMP ID. You will be required to report on the status of each Interim Milestone and include a BMP ID for all structural BMPs as part of the MS4 Annual Report (see Part III.E.), so including those ID numbers at the time of application may be useful in tracking implementation efforts. If a pond that will be included in the pond inventory (Part III.C.2.) is to be applied toward a WLA, use the same ID for both the pond inventory and TMDL tracking. Non-structural BMPs are not required to have an ID, but it may be useful to assign it an ID for internal MS4 recordkeeping. MPCA recommends the Implementation Dates align with the submittal of MS4 Annual Reports. Dates selected may not reflect the actual date a BMP is implemented, but shall indicate a BMP will be implemented on that date or before for that reporting year. wq-strm4-49c • 8/16/13 • www.pca.state.mn.us • Available in alternative formats • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 Page 2 of 4 Interim Milestone (Best Management Practice)BMP ID Implementation Date TMDL Project Name & Pollutant1 TMDL Project Name & Pollutant2 TMDL Project Name & Pollutant3 TMDL Project Name & Pollutant4 TMDL Project Name & Pollutant5 wq-strm4-49c • 8/16/13 • www.pca.state.mn.us • Available in alternative formats • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 Page 3 of 4 Strategies for continued BMP implementation beyond the term of this permit. PART II.D.6.f.(3) Table 2 Target dates the applicable WLA(s) will be achieved. PART II.D.6.f.(4) TMDL Project Target Date to Achieve WLA wq-strm4-49c • 8/16/13 • www.pca.state.mn.us • Available in alternative formats • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 Page 4 of 4 TMDL Wasteload Allocation Excel Spreadsheet PART II.D.6.a.-e. Copy and paste from the Master List MS4 TMDL Spreadsheet for your MS4 to the space below. Permittee name Preferred ID TMDL project name*Waterbody ID Type of WLA*Numeric WLA*Unit* Percent reduction Flow condition*Waterbody name Pollutant of concern*Date approved Rosemount City MS400117 Long and Farquar Lakes Nutrient TMDL 19-0023-00 Individual 0.005 lbs/day N/A Farquar Lake Phosphorus 4/8/2009 Rosemount City MS400117 Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL 07040001-507 Categorical 5.99 10^12 organisms/month High Vermillion River; Below trout stream portion to South Br. Vermillion River Fecal Coliform 4/5/2006 Rosemount City MS400117 Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL 07040001-507 Categorical 1.57 10^12 organisms/month Moist Vermillion River; Below trout stream portion to South Br. Vermillion River Fecal Coliform 4/5/2006 Rosemount City MS400117 Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL 07040001-507 Categorical 0.36 10^12 organisms/month Mid-Range Vermillion River; Below trout stream portion to South Br. Vermillion River Fecal Coliform 4/5/2006 Rosemount City MS400117 Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL 07040001-507 Categorical ** 10^12 organisms/month Dry Vermillion River; Below trout stream portion to South Br. Vermillion River Fecal Coliform 4/5/2006 Rosemount City MS400117 Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL 07040001-507 Categorical ** 10^12 organisms/month Low Vermillion River; Below trout stream portion to South Br. Vermillion River Fecal Coliform 4/5/2006 Rosemount City MS400117 Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL 07040001-506 Categorical 8.62 10^12 organisms/month High Vermillion River; South Br. Vermillion River to the Hastings Dam Fecal Coliform 4/5/2006 Rosemount City MS400117 Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL 07040001-506 Categorical 3.09 10^12 organisms/month Moist Vermillion River; South Br. Vermillion River to the Hastings Dam Fecal Coliform 4/5/2006 Rosemount City MS400117 Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL 07040001-506 Categorical 1.57 10^12 organisms/month Mid-Range Vermillion River; South Br. Vermillion River to the Hastings Dam Fecal Coliform 4/5/2006 Rosemount City MS400117 Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL 07040001-506 Categorical 0.30 10^12 organisms/month Dry Vermillion River; South Br. Vermillion River to the Hastings Dam Fecal Coliform 4/5/2006 Rosemount City MS400117 Lower Mississippi River Basin Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDL 07040001-506 Categorical ** 10^12 organisms/month Low Vermillion River; South Br. Vermillion River to the Hastings Dam Fecal Coliform 4/5/2006 Rosemount City MS400117 Lower Vermillion River Watershed Turbidity TMDL 07040001-504 Individual 26 kg/day Vermillion River/Vermillion Slough, Hasting dam to Mississippi River TSS 9/29/2009 Attach this completed form with your SWPPP Document at the time of submittal. At a minimum, provide all of the information "*" items (TMDL Project Name, Type of WLA, Numeric WLA, Unit, Flow Condition, and Pollutant of Concern). CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX K – DNR WATER APPROPRIATIONS PERMITS DNR Water Appropriations PermitsAccessed from DNR July 2018Permit NumberPermit Total (MGY)* Permitee Legal Description WatershedResource Name AquiferWell NumberWell Depth Use2016 Pumping (MGY)2015 Pumping (MGY)2014 Pumping (MGY)2013 Pumping (MGY)2012 Pumping (MGY)2011 Pumping (MGY)2010 Pumping (MGY)_1976-6069 1183 City of Rosemount T115N-R19W-S32 MS River - Lake Pepin CJDN Jordan 706804 475 Public Water Supply 103.7 102.7 95.8 144.8 164.0 96.9 92.11976-6069 1183 City of Rosemount T115N-R19W-S21 MS River - Lake Pepin CJDN Jordan 722623 485 Public Water Supply 152.0 143.4 111.5 138.9 142.6 173.0 186.21976-6069 1183 City of Rosemount T115N-R19W-S21 MS River - Lake Pepin CJDN Jordan 753663 485 Public Water Supply 113.6 141.7 142.4 149.8 146.8 149.3 221.51976-6069 1183 City of Rosemount T115N-R19W-S29 MS River - Lake Pepin CJDN Jordan 112212 490 Public Water Supply 130.9 110.8 135.1 154.4 182.9 125.2 166.21976-6069 1183 City of Rosemount T115N-R19W-S31 MS River - Lake Pepin CJDN Jordan 509060 498 Public Water Supply 151.9 112.7 137.9 160.1 123.6 106.1 0.31976-6069 1183 City of Rosemount T115N-R19W-S31 MS River - Lake Pepin CJDN Jordan 554248 481 Public Water Supply 147.7 126.2 145.9 66.8 164.0 161.8 112.61976-6069 1183 City of Rosemount T115N-R19W-S27 MS River - Lake Pepin CJDN Jordan 457167 400 Public Water Supply 63.1 38.7 23.4 36.0 22.6 22.5 17.41976-6069 1183 City of Rosemount T115N-R19W-S27 MS River - Lake Pepin CJDN Jordan 474335 400 Public Water Supply 57.2 36.8 23.2 29.9 26.7 20.8 29.3*Permit Total is the total amount of water that can be pumped from all eight municipal wells combined (as noted in Permit 1976-6069) CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX L – VRWJPO 2016 STANDARDS Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 1 Standards for the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization Forward The following document presents the Standards for the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO). Table of Contents Section 1: Policy Statement Section 2: Relationship with Municipalities and Counties Section 3: Definitions Section 4: Floodplain Alteration Standards 4.1 Policy 4.2 Regulation 4.3 Criteria Section 5: Wetland Alteration Standards 5.1 Policy 5.2 Regulation 5.3 Criteria Section 6: Buffer Standards 6.1 Policy 6.2 Regulation 6.3 Criteria 6.4 Exceptions Section 7: Erosion and Sediment Control Standards 7.1 Policy 7.2 Regulation 7.3 Criteria 7.4 Exceptions Section 8: Stormwater Management Standards 8.1 Policy 8.2 Regulation 8.3 Criteria 8.4 Maintenance 8.5 Easements 8.6 Covenants 8.7 Waivers 8.8 Trading 8.9 Exceptions Section 9: Drainage Alteration Standards 9.1 Policy 9.2 Regulation 9.3 Criteria 9.4 Exceptions Section 10: Agricultural Standards 2 VRWJPO Standards This page is intentionally left blank. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 3 SECTION 1: POLICY STATEMENT The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) is a watershed management organization as defined in the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act (Minn. Statutes Chapter 103B). This Act provides the VRWJPO with the power to accomplish its statutory purpose – to protect, preserve and manage surface and groundwater systems within the Vermillion River Watershed (Watershed). The VRWJPO has adopted a Watershed Plan pursuant to the Act and Minn. Rules Chapter 8410. The Watershed Plan provides the management goals, objectives, and actions that the VRWJPO will use to protect, improve, preserve, and manage water resources in the Watershed, and the need and reasonableness for standards, rules, and ordinances to enforce the objectives of the plan. The following Standards implement the plan’s goals, objectives, and actions. Many of the issues identified in the Plan are interrelated. The most notable interrelationship is the hydrology of the Vermillion River (River) and the potential for change associated with various land uses and their management, especially those anticipated with urban development and agriculture. The challenge is in accurately assessing the causes of the effects to the hydrology of the River and related water quality factors. In the future, additional development is expected in the watershed, both the transition from agricultural to urban/ suburban uses and additional drainage and irrigation of agricultural lands, while wastewater discharges from the Empire and Elko/New Market wastewater treatment plants have been diverted from the river. These changes have the potential to further impact flows, water quality, and sensitive resources including wetlands and groundwater. Water quality is an important amenity in the Watershed – both in terms of surface water and groundwater. Stormwater can carry a variety of pollutants, which can affect downstream areas as well as groundwater through infiltration. Water bodies assessed in terms of water quality and found to be impaired will appear on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 303(d) list of impaired waters. For each of these impairments, a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study is required. TMDLs are a process by which the sources of the pollutant are studied and allowable loads are calculated and allocated to each source so that the waterbody will meet its intended use without impairment. Additional pollutants in runoff from land use change and land management cannot only affect the TMDLs and the ability to address existing impairments, but could create or expand other water quality threats such as temperature effects on aquatic life, particularly trout, which is an important local issue. The 1999 Vermillion River Assessment found numerous streambank and channel stability problems, and that the stream types along the Main Stem are very sensitive to disturbance, providing high sediment supplies and having a very high potential for streambank erosion. Subsequent assessments have also documented streambank erosion on the Main Stem, primarily in reaches downstream of Farmington, where changes in land use and land management throughout the watershed have resulted in increased flow volume, intensity, and duration, combined with poor quality riparian vegetation, leading to bank instability. There are also economic implications due to increased volumes and flow of stormwater. In addition to flooding, unstable stream channels over time have the ability to depress land values, damage property, endanger high value structures and render prime building locations unbuildable, directly impacting the health, safety and welfare of the Watershed. Accelerated streambank erosion can also increase the rate and severity of stream channel migration and resulting property loss. In addition, unstable channels undermine 4 VRWJPO Standards bridges, clog culverts, and can otherwise damage infrastructure, requiring costly repairs and ensuring legal issues for both public agencies and private individuals. A number of sensitive habitats and communities exist in the watershed including designated trout stream areas, natural communities, rare species, and wetlands. Trout and their habitats may be threatened by development without appropriate stormwater management or appropriate land management on agricultural lands. Other sensitive resources, such as natural communities, rare species, and wetlands have been largely depleted or have been substantially altered throughout the Watershed. This has increased the value of remaining natural communities and resources. Wetlands can be impacted directly by development and land disturbing activities; and indirectly by hydrologic and water quality changes associated with development and other land disturbing activities. Wetlands provide a variety of functions and values, which are important to the overall character and function of the Watershed. Cities and residents throughout the Watershed derive their drinking water from groundwater. High nitrates have been documented in groundwater and wells in the eastern portions of the Watershed near the City of Hastings. The nitrates have largely been linked to agricultural activities. Future activities without better management or adequate controls may further impact groundwater quality. These Standards address the issues identified in the VRWJPO Watershed Plan and protect the public health, safety, welfare and natural resources of the VRWJPO by regulating the improvement or alteration of land and waters within the Watershed to reduce the severity and frequency of high water, to preserve floodplain and wetland storage capacity, to improve the chemical and physical quality of surface waters, to reduce sedimentation, to preserve the hydraulic and navigational capacities of waterbodies, to preserve and protect channels and drainageways, to promote and preserve natural infiltration areas, protect groundwater, and to preserve natural shoreline features. In addition to protecting natural resources, these Standards are intended to minimize future public expenditures and liability on issues caused by the improvement or alteration of land and waters. The following Standards each begin with a subsection on Policy. The policies listed in these subsections are either paraphrased or copied from the goals, objectives, or actions of the approved VRWJPO Watershed Plan. These policies provide the rationale for the Standards as well as other activities and programs of the VRWJPO. The articulated policies support why the Standards are written the way they are, but it is not the intent of the VRWJPO to accomplish these policies solely through regulatory Standards. SECTION 2: RELATIONSHIP WITH MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES The VRWJPO recognizes that the control and determination of appropriate land use is the responsibility of the Local Governmental Units (LGUs; i.e., municipalities and counties). In March 2007, the VRWJPO adopted Rules consistent with these Standards in the event it acquires the authority of a watershed district under Minn. Stat. § 103B.211, Subd. 1(a)(3) . Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 5 LGUs are responsible for adopting Local Water Plans (LWPs) that implement the VRWJPO Watershed Plan. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 103B.235, the LGUs must complete Local Plans within a time period specified in the Watershed Plan. The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Board must approve local water plans. The standards in the local plans must meet or exceed the VRWJPO’s Standards, and local controls must implement the Standards. After approval of the Local Plans the LGUs have 120 days to begin implementing the plans and 180 days to amend their official controls which implement the Watershed Standards. The VRWJPO may conduct selected project reviews in order to evaluate the implementation of LGU official controls. The Cities are the LGUs within their corporate limits. The Townships are the planning and zoning authority in the unincorporated areas in Dakota County, while Dakota County maintains permitting authority for Shorelands, Floodplain, and Individual Sewage Treatment Systems in unincorporated areas; both the County and Townships are considered LGUs for unincorporated areas in Dakota County. Dakota County will have permitting authority over Floodplain, Individual Sewage Treatment Systems, and general Shoreland regulations in Shoreland areas. In Scott County, the County is the planning and zoning authority in addition to maintaining permitting authority over Shorelands and Floodplain and Individual Sewage Treatment Systems in unincorporated areas. Thus, in the Scott County portions of the Watershed, cities are the LGUs in incorporated areas and Scott County is the LGU in unincorporated areas. The VRWJPO envisions two categories of permitting responsibility following adoption of the VRWJPO rules: ≈ Category 1 – VRWJPO assumes responsibility for all permitting. ≈ Category 2 – LGUs assume responsibility for all permitting. Following VRWJPO rule adoption, the VRWJPO will evaluate local government official controls to determine if they match the VRWJPO Standards. If a local government’s official controls are found to be insufficient (i.e., do not meet the VRWJPO Standards), the VRWJPO will implement a permitting program in that community (Category 1). If an LGU incorporates the VRWJPO Standards into its official controls, and demonstrates compliance with the VRWJPO Standards, that LGU will be responsible for permitting (Category 2). The VRWJPO will require LGUs responsible for permitting to submit some proposed land alteration plans to the VRWJPO for review and comment each year through a VRWJPO evaluation program. Land alteration plans with the following conditions are particularly important to the VRWJPO for review: ≈ Diversions ≈ Intercommunity flows (upon request from adjoining communities) ≈ Project site size of 40 acres or more ≈ Projects that are adjacent to or appear to impact watercourses or unique natural resources All land alteration plans that require an amendment to, or a variance from, the adopted local water plan must be submitted to the VRWJPO for review and approval, or denial, as prescribed by Minn. Stat. § 103B.211. 6 VRWJPO Standards The VRWJPO can enforce its permits and Rules as allowed by Minn. Stat. § Chs. 103B and 103D (Category 1). The VRWJPO may also evaluate local government permitting programs. If these evaluations show non-compliance with the VRWJPO’s Standards and/or the local government’s official controls, the VRWJPO will implement a permitting program in that community. The VRWJPO may establish special subtaxing districts to collect funds to cover its cost to implement the permitting program in communities where the VRWJPO has permitting authority. As an alternative to setting up special subtaxing districts, the VRWJPO will consider collecting permit fees to offset the costs of implementing a permitting program. The following presents the VRWJPO’s interpretation of how the goals, objectives, and actions in the Watershed Plan should be translated into Standards. LGUs may adopt more restrictive standards. In addition, the VRWJPO recognizes that LGUs have different authorities and different ways of implementing programs that will necessitate variation in language and approaches from those presented in the following Standards. However, ordinances and official controls implementing the VRWJPO Standards must ultimately show compliance. SECTION 3: DEFINITIONS Unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. Unless specifically defined herein, terms used in these Standards shall have the same definition as provided in Minn. Stat. § Chs. 103B and 103D and Minn. R. Ch. 8410 as may be amended, and if not defined there, shall have common usage meaning. For purposes of these Standards, the words “must” and “shall” are mandatory and the word “may” is permissive. 3.1 Agricultural Activity – The use of land for growing and/or production and wholesale distribution of field crops, livestock, and livestock products for the production of income or own use, including but not limited to the following: A. Field crops, including but not limited to, barley, beans, corn, hay, oats, potatoes, rye, sorghum, and sunflowers B. Livestock, including but not limited to, dairy and beef cattle, goats, sheep, hogs, horses, poultry, game birds and other animals, including deer, rabbits and mink C. Livestock products, including but not limited to, milk, butter cheese, eggs, meat, fur, and honey D. Trees, shrubs, bushes, and plants for wholesale distribution E. Sod farming F. Orchards 3.2 Agricultural Preserve – A land area created and restricted according to Minn. Stat. § 473H.05 to remain in agricultural use. 3.3 Alteration or Alter – When used in conjunction with public waters or wetlands, any activity that will change or diminish the course, current or cross-section of public waters, public waters wetlands, or wetlands. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 7 3.4 Bankfull Channel Width – The channel width of a stream, creek, or river at bankfull stage. 3.5 Bankfull Stage – The water level in a stream channel, creek, or river where the flow just begins to leave the main channel and enter the connected floodplain. 3.6 Base Flood Elevation – The elevation of surface water resulting from a flood that has a one percent chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year. 3.7 Best Management Practices or BMPs – Techniques proven to be effective in controlling runoff, erosion and sedimentation, including those documented in the Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (BWSR, 1988); Protecting Water Q uality in Urban Areas (MPCA, 2000); the Minnesota Small Sites BMPs Manual (Metropolitan Council, 2001); The Minnesota Stormwater Manual (MPCA 2005); and, other sources as approved by the VRWJPO: as such documents may be amended, revised or supplemented. 3.8 BWSR – The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. 3.9 Buffer – An area of natural, minimally maintained, vegetated ground cover abutting or surrounding a watercourse, public waters wetland, or wetland. 3.10 Compensatory Storage – Excavated volume of material below the floodplain elevation required to offset floodplain fill. 3.11 Dakota SWCD – The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District. 3.12 Dead Storage – The volume of space located below the overflow point of a basin, pond or landlocked basin. 3.13 Drain or Drainage – Any method for removing or diverting water from water bodies, including excavation of an open ditch, installation of subsurface drainage tile, filling, diking or pumping. 3.14 Erosion – The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of wind, flowing water, ice movement or land disturbing activities. 3.15 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan – A plan of BMPs or equivalent measures designed to control runoff and erosion and to retain or control sediment on land during the period of land-disturbing activities with standards. 3.16 Excavation – The artificial removal of soil or other earth material. 3.17 Fill – The deposit of soil or other earth materials by artificial means. 3.18 Filtration – A process by which stormwater runoff is captured, temporarily stored, and routed through a filter, vegetated strip, or buffer to improve water quality and slow down stormwater runoff. 8 VRWJPO Standards 3.19 Floodplain – The area adjacent to a water body that is inundated during a 100-year flood. 3.20 Floodplain Storage – The volume of space available for flood waters within the floodplain. 3.21 Fragmentation – The breaking up of an organism's habitat into discontinuous chunks. 3.22 Grassed Waterway – A natural or constructed channel that is shaped or graded to required dimensions and established in suitable vegetation for the stable conveyance of runoff. (Minnesota NRCS Conservation Practice Standard Code 412, November 2006) 3.23 Green Acres – Real property or real estate that qualifies as agricultural property having agricultural use under the Minnesota Agricultural Property Tax Law, Minn. Stat. § 273.111. 3.24 Infiltration – A stormwater retention method for the purpose of reducing the volume of stormwater runoff by transmitting water into the ground through the earth’s surface. 3.25 Impervious Surface – A constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than prior to development. Examples include rooftops, sidewalks, patios, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, and concrete, asphalt, or gravel roads. 3.26 Infrastructure – The system of public works for a county, state, or LGU, including, but not limited to, structures, roads, bridges, culverts, sidewalks, stormwater management facilities, conveyance systems and pipes, pump stations, sanitary sewers and interceptors, hydraulic structures, permanent erosion control and stream bank protection measures, water lines, gas lines, electrical lines and associated facilities, and phone lines and supporting facilities. 3.27 Land Disturbing Activity – Any activity on property that results in a change or alteration in the existing ground cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, development, redevelopment, demolition, construction, reconstruction, clearing, grading, filling, stockpiling, excavation, and borrow pits. The use of land for new and continuing agricultural activities and routine vegetation management activities shall not constitute a land disturbing activity under these Standards. 3.28 Landlocked Basin – A basin that is one acre or more in size and does not have a natural outlet at or below the existing 100 -year flood elevation as determined by the 100-year, 10-day snowmelt runoff event. 3.29 Local Governmental Unit or LGU – All cities, counties, and townships lying in whole or part within the Vermillion River Watershed. 3.30 Lot – A parcel of land designated by metes and bounds, registered land survey, or other accepted means and separated from other par cels or portions by said description for the purpose of sale, lease, or separation thereof, as designated by Scott or Dakota County. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 9 331 Lot of Record – Any lot that legally existed prior to March 22, 2007, as designated by Scott or Dakota County. 3.32 Meander – A sinuous bend of a river, stream, or creek. 3.33 Meander Belt – The area between lines drawn tangential to the extreme limits of fully developed meanders. 3.34 Minimum Impact Alignment – The alignment for a proposed road, street, utility, path or access that creates the smallest area of impact to a buffer, watercourse, or floodplain. For activities that cross a buffer, watercourse, or floodplain the minimum impact alignment is o ne that crosses perpendicular, or near perpendicular, to the longitudinal orientation of the buffer, watercourse, or floodplain as reasonable to serve the intended purpose of the improvement. 3.35 MPCA – The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 3.36 Native Vegetation – Plant species that are indigenous to Minnesota, or that expand their range into Minnesota without being intentionally or unintentionally introduced by human activity, and are classified as native in the Minnesota Plant Database (Minnesota DNR, 2002). 3.37 Natural Retention or Detention – Retention or detention storage of rainwater and runoff that occurs due to the natural landscape and is not artificially constructed. 3.38 New Development - The construction of any public or private improvement project, infrastructure, structure, street or road that creates more than 1 acre of new or additional impervious surface or, the subdivision of land. 3.39 Noxious Weeds – Any plant listed as a prohibited, restricted or secondary weed under Minn. R. Ch. 1505. 3.40 NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 3.41 NRCS – United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 3.42 Ordinary High Water (OHW) Level – The boundary of water basins, watercourses, public waters, and public waters wetlands as set by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 3.43 Outlot – A parcel of land shown on a subdivision plat as an outlot, as designated by Scott or Dakota County, and designated alphanumerically, (for example – Outlot A.). Outlots are used to designate one of the following: Land that is part of the subdivision but is to be subdivided into lots and blocks at a later date; land that is to be used for a specific purpose as designated in a developer’s agreement or other agreement between the Local Governmental Unit and the developer; or for a public purpose that may have restricted uses such as a buffer. 10 VRWJPO Standards 3.44 Plat – The drawing or map of a subdivision prepared for filing of record pursuant to Minn. Stat. § Ch. 505. 3.45 Pre-development Condition – The land use on a site that existed in 2005. 3.46 Public Waters Wetland – Any public waters wetland as defined in Minn. Stat. § 103G.005, subd. 15a. 3.47 Redevelopment – The rebuilding, repair, or alteration of a structure, land surface, road or street, or facility that creates less than 1 acre of new impervious surface, and disturbs, replaces, or alters more than 1 acre of existing impervious surface. Note: for the purposes of these Standards, if an activity creates more than 1 acre of new or additional impervious surface, the activity is considered new development and exceptions in these Standards for redevelopment do not apply to the increased (new) impervious surface exceeding 1 acre. 3.48 Right-Of-Way – A strip of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a street, railroad, electric transmission line, oil or gas pipeline, water main, sanitary or storm sewer main, or another special use, and dedicated to public use by the recording of the plat on which such right-of- way is established. 3.49 Runoff – Rainfall, snowmelt or irrigation water flowing over the ground surface. 3.50 Rural Preserves – Class 2a or 2b property that had been assessed under Minnesota Stat. § 2006, section 273.111, or that is part of an agricultural homestead under Minnesota Stat. § 2006, section 273.13, subdivision 23, paragraph (a). 3.51 Scott SWCD – The Scott County Soil and Water Conservation District. 3.52 Sediment – Soil or other surficial material transported by surface water as a product of erosion. 3.53 Sedimentation – The process or action of depositing sediment. 3.54 Sinuous – The curving patterns of a river, stream, or creek. 3.55 Stewardship Plan – A conservation plan completed for agricultural land and activities accepted by the Dakota SWCD, the Scott SWCD, or the VRWJPO. 3.56 Stream Type – One of numerous stream types based on morphology defined by Rosgen D., Applied River Morphology, 1996. 3.57 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan or SWPPP – A plan for stormwater discharge that includes erosion prevention measures and sediment controls that, when implemented, will decrease soil erosion on a parcel of land and decrease off-site nonpoint pollution. 3.58 Structure – Anything manufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, including portable structures, earthen structures, water and storage systems, drainage facilities and parking lots. 3.59 Subdivision – The separation of an area, lot, or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, or lots. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 11 3.60 USDA – United States Department of Agriculture. 3.61 VRWJPO – Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization. 3.62 Watercourse – Intermittent and perennial streams identified on Map 1 attached to these Standards. 3.63 Wetland – Any wetland as defined in Minn. Stat. § 103G.005, subd. 19. 3.64 Wetland Conservation Act or WCA – The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended. SECTION 4: FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION STANDARDS 4.1 Policy It is the policy of the VRWJPO to: A. Protect the natural function of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-designated floodplain storage areas from encroachment. B. Maintain storage volumes in FEMA-designated floodplains. C. Require Local Plans to include a provision that restricts construction of new structures in FEMA-designated floodplains. D. Require Local Governments to adopt floodplain ordinances that are consistent with Dakota and Scott County water resources plans and ordinances. E. Require floodplain alterations result in “no net loss” of floodplain storage, including the preservation, restoration, and management of floodplain wetlands. F. Encourage local governments gain compensatory storage above direct replacement for new developments within the floodplain. 4.2 Regulation No person or political subdivision shall alter or fill land, or build a structure or infrastructure below the Base Flood Elevation of any watercourse, public waters, public waters wetland, or other wetland without first obtaining a permit from the appropriate LGU. 4.3 Criteria A. Floodplain alteration or filling shall not cause a net decrease in flood storage capacity below the projected 100-year critical flood elevation unless it is shown that the proposed alteration or filling, together with the alteration or filling of all other land on the affected reach of the 12 VRWJPO Standards waterbody to the same degree of encroachment as proposed by the applicant, will not cause high water or aggravate flooding on other land and will not unduly restrict flood flows. B. Where Base Flood Elevations have been established, all new structures shall be constructed with the low floor consistent with the minimum elevations as specified in State of Minn. R. Ch. 6120: Shoreland and Floodplain Management; Dakota County Ordinance No. 50: Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinance; or Scott County Zoning Ordinance 71: FP, Floodplain District; as applicable. C. Projects involving development, redevelopment, or the subdivision of land, shall establish flood storage, flowage, and drainage easements over areas below the Base Flood Elevationof any public water, public waters wetland, or wetland. D. Setbacks for floodplain alterations, fill, and new underground utilities; such as water, sanitary, storm sewers and interceptors, gas lines, phone lines, and pipelines; shall be established and used along watercourses. These setbacks shall be established as follows. The exception is for utilities that need to reach or cross the watercourse, provided the minimum impact alignment is used. 1. Where a watercourse has a sinuous flow pattern and a meander belt can be identified, the setback for new underground utilities shall be setback 15 feet from the outer edge of the meander belt. 2. Where a sinuous flow pattern and meander belt are not readily identifiable because of past channel alterations and/or the geomorphology of the channel, the setback established for new underground utilities shall provide for the potential for restoration and a sinuous flow pattern as follows. 3. Where there are existing encroachments that limit full restoration of the stream to the meander widths appropriate for the stream type, the setback shall be 15 feet from the reasonably achievable restoration width for the meander belt given the existing encroachments. 4. Where full restoration is possible, the setback shall be 15 feet from a meander belt width established along the stream reach that has a width 10 times the bankfull channel width. An assessment of the stream type may be completed, and meander belt widths established according to the stream type, in place of using the above 10x formula. Note: the 1999 Vermillion River Assessment Report, or amendments thereto, provide assessment of stream type for many reaches of the Vermillion River and is available at the Dakota SWCD or the Dakota County offices of the VRWJPO. 5. Where buffers are required, above ground encroachments, alterations, and fill shall be consistent with the prohibited and allowed uses and widths specified in the Buffer Standard. E. Projects that alter floodplain boundaries, such as bridge crossings and regional ponds that increase upstream high water levels are allowed provided that: 1. The applicant submits easements or other documentation in a form acceptable to the LGU or the VRWJPO demonstrating and recording the consent of the owner of any land affected by the increased high water levels; and, 2. The action is consistent with other portions of these Standards, and Local, State, and Federal Regulations; and, 3. The upstream impacts, riparian impacts, and habitat impacts of the proposed action are analyzed and no detrimental impacts result, or adverse impacts are mitigated. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 13 SECTION 5: WETLAND ALTERATION STANDARDS 5.1 Policy It is the policy of the VRWJPO to: A. Work to achieve no net loss of wetlands in the Watershed. B. Replace lost wetlands in the same subwatershed whenever possible. C. Provide equal or greater functions and values for lost wetlands at the replacement ratios dictated by the WCA. D. Avoid direct or indirect wetland disturbance in accordance with State and Federal requirements and approved local wetland management plans. E. Limit the use of high quality wetlands for stormwater management where other alternatives exist. F. Avoid fragmentation of natural areas and corridors when feasible and mitigate when unavoidable. 5.2 Regulation No person or political subdivision shall drain, fill, excavate, or otherwise alter a wetland or public waters wetland without first submitting a wetland application and obtaining the approval from the LGU with jurisdiction over the activity. 5.3 Criteria A. Any drainage, filling, excavation, or other alteration of a public waters wetland or wetland shall be conducted in compliance with Minn. Stat. § 103G.245, the WCA, Minn. R. Ch. 8420, Minn. R. Ch. 7050.0186, and regulations adopted hereunder. B. In order to preserve WCA exemption or no loss determination, projects involving excavation in Types 1, 2, 6, and 7 wetlands must demonstrate a beneficial purpose, such as habitat or water quality improvements, and minimize loss of wetland function as determined by the VRWJPO or LGU. C. A high quality (or equivalent value) public waters wetland or wetland, as determined using the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MNRAM 3.0 as amended) or other state accepted functional assessment method for vegetative diversity, may not be used for stormwater management and treatment unless the use will not adversely affect the function and public value of the wetland and other alternatives do not exist. D. Wetland replacement/mitigation siting must follow the priority order below: 1. Mitigation on-site 2. Mitigation within the same minor subwatershed as established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for the “1979 Watershed Mapping Project” pursuant to Minnesota Laws 1977, chapter 455, section 33, subdivision 7, paragraph (a). 3. Mitigation within the JPO boundary 4. Mitigation within Dakota or Scott County 14 VRWJPO Standards E. Transportation projects shall pursue wetland mitigation projects to the extent practical using the criteria above. However, this does not preclude the use of the BWSR Replacement Program. SECTION 6: BUFFER STANDARDS 6.1 Policy It is the policy of the VRWJPO to: A. Work to establish buffers, acting as filter strips, around every wetland and watercourse based on its management classification. B. Avoid fragmentation of natural areas and corridors when feasible and mitigate when unavoidable. C. Protect wetlands and watercourses from chemical, physical, biological, or hydrological changes so as to prevent significant adverse impacts. Based on program evaluation, water quality monitoring, and research, the VRWJPO may, in the future, modify standards to vary by subwatershed or require buffers on lands in addition to developing land in order to meet water quality management objectives. 6.2 Regulation For any lot created after March 22, 2007 or the adoption of local ordinances implementing the VRWJPO standards, a buffer shall be maintained around the perimeter of all wetlands, watercourses, and public waters wetlands. The buffer provisions shall not apply to any lot of record as of March 22, 2007 until such lot is subdivided. Buffer strip establishment shall apply to all lots of the proposed subdivision as a whole, regardless of whether or not the watercourse, wetland, or public waters wetland is on a specific lot within a proposed development. 6.3 Criteria A. Where acceptable natural vegetation exists in buffer areas, the retention of such vegetation in an undisturbed state is required unless approval to replace such vegetation is received. A buffer has acceptable vegetation if it: 1. Has a continuous, dense layer of non-invasive perennial grasses and forbs that has been uncultivated or unbroken for at least 5 consecutive years; or 2. Has an overstory of non-invasive trees and/or shrubs that has been uncultivated or unbroken for at least 5 consecutive years; or 3. Contains a mixture of the plant communities in 1 and 2 above that has been uncultivated or unbroken for at least 5 years. B. Buffers shall be staked and protected in the field prior to construction unless the vegetation and the condition of the buffer are considered inadequate. Existing conditions vegetation will be considered unacceptable if: Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 15 1. Physical condition of the buffer tends to channelize the flow of surface water. 2. Vegetative cover is less than 90%. C. Where buffer vegetation and conditions are unacceptable, or where approval has been obtained to replant, buffers shall be replanted and maintained according to the following Standards: 1. Buffers shall be planted with a native seed mix approved by the State of Minnesota, NRCS or the Dakota or Scott SWCD, with the exception of a one-time planting with an annual nurse or cover crop. Plantings of native forbs and grasses may be substituted for seeding. All substitutions must be approved by the LGU. Groupings/clusters of native trees and shrubs, of species and at densities appropriate to site conditions, can also be planted throughout the buffer area. 2. The seed mix and planting shall be broadcast/installed according to the State of Minnesota, NRCS or Dakota or Scott SWCD specifications. The selected seed mixes and plantings for permanent cover shall be appropriate for the soil site conditions and free of invasive species. 3. Buffer vegetation (both natural and created) shall be protected by erosion and sediment control measures during construction. 4. During the first five full growing seasons, except where the LGU has determined vegetation establishment is acceptable, the owner or applicant must replant buffer vegetation where the vegetative cover is less than 90%. The owner or applicant must assure reseeding/or replanting if the buffer changes at any time through human intervention or activities. D. Where a buffer is required, the LGU shall require the protection of the buffer under a conservation easement, acceptable to the LGU, or include the buffer in a dedicated outlot as part of platting and subdivision approval, except where the buffer is located in a public transportation right-of-way. Buffers shall also be monumented to clearly designate the boundaries of all new buffers within new residential subdivisions. A monument shall consist of a post and a buffer strip sign approved by the LGU. E. Alterations, including building, storage, paving, routine mowing, burning, plowing, introduction of noxious vegetation, cutting, dredging, filling, mining, dumping, grazing livestock, agricultural production, yard waste disposal, or fertilizer application are prohibited within any buffer. Periodic mowing or burning, or the use of fertilizers and pesticides for the purpose of managing and maintaining native vegetation is allowed with approval of the LGU. Noxious weeds may be removed and mechanical or spot herbicide treatments may be used to control noxious weeds, but aerial or broadcast spraying is not acceptable. Prohibited alterations would not include plantings that enhance the natural vegetation or selective clearing or pruning of trees or vegetation that are dead, diseased or pose similar hazards, or as otherwise clarified in Criteria F. F. The following activities shall be permitted within any buffer, and shall not constitute prohibited alterations: 1. The following activities are allowed within both the minimum and average buffer width areas: a. Use and maintenance of an unimproved access strip through the buffer, not more than 10 feet in width, for recreational access to the watercourse or wetland and the exercise of riparian rights. b. Structures that exist when the buffer is created. 16 VRWJPO Standards c. Placement, maintenance, repair, or replacement of public roads and utility and drainage systems that exist on creation of the buffer or are required to comply with any subdivision approval or building permit obtained from the LGU or county, so long as any adverse impacts of public road, utility, or drainage systems on the function of the buffer have been avoided or minimized to the extent practical. d. Clearing, grading, and seeding are allowed, if part of an approved Wetland Replacement Plan or approved Stream Restoration Plan. e. A multipurpose trail through an area protected by conservation easement or in a dedicated outlot, is allowed provided it is designed and constructed to minimize erosion and new impervious surfaces, and maintains an absolute minimum distance of at least fifteen feet as measured from the edge of the trail nearest the water resource to the wetland or public waters wetland edge, the bank of the watercourse, or the meander belt, and averages at least one-half the total VRWJPO identified buffer width. Where needed to cross the watercourse, the minimum impact alignment shall be used. The area between the trail and the water resource must be maintained in perennial vegetation in an undisturbed state excepting regular required maintenance of the buffer. Boardwalks and pedestrian bridges associated with a multipurpose trail must be approved by the LGU or the VRWJPO. f. The construction of underground utilities such as water, stormwater, and sanitary sewers and pipelines provided the minimum impact alignment is used, the area is stabilized in accordance with Criteria C above, and setbacks established in the Floodplain Alterations Standard Criteria D are met. 2. The following activities are allowed within those portions of the average buffer width that exceed the minimum buffer width: a. Stormwater management facilities, provided the land areas are stabilized in accordance with Criteria C above, and alterations prohibited in Criteria E above are upheld. b. The area of shallow vegetated infiltration and biofiltration facilities, and water quality ponds not to exceed 50 percent of the pond area, adjacent to wetlands and watercourses may be included in buffer averaging provided the facilities do not encroach into the minimum buffer width, and the land areas are stabilized in accordance with Criteria C above, and alterations prohibited in Criteria E above are upheld. G. A wetland functional assessment for vegetative diversity, using the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MNRAM 3.0 as amended) or other state accepted functional assessment method, will be completed with each wetland and public waters wetland, delineated for a project and buffers established according to the management classification in the following table. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 17 Buffer Requirement Exceptional Quality Wetland (Preserve) High Quality Wetland (Manage 1) Medium Quality Wetland (Manage 2) Low Quality Wetland (Manage 3) Average Buffer Width 50 feet 40 feet 30 feet 25 feet Minimum Buffer Width 30 feet 30 feet 25 feet 16.5 feet H. Buffers shall be established adjacent to watercourses as shown and classified on Map 1 attached to these Standards, and as described for the various classifications below: Classification Buffer Width Standard Conservation Corridor Lower Reach (Vermillion River downstream of Biscayne Avenue) – 150-foot average, 100- foot minimum measured from the edge of the meander belt of the river. Upper Reach (Vermillion River upstream of Biscayne Avenue and South Branch Vermillion River) – 150 foot average, 100-foot minimum measured from the edge of the meander belt of the river. Aquatic Corridor – Principal Connector Required buffer width 100-foot average, 65-foot minimum measured from the edge of the meander belt of the river. Aquatic Corridor – Principal Connector with Trout Stream Designation 100 foot, no averaging, as required by the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Storm Water Associated With Construction Activity Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Permit Program Permit MN R100001 (NPDES General Construction Permit) issued by the Minnesota Pollutant Control Agency, August 1, 2003. Aquatic Corridor – Tributary Connector 50-foot average, 35-foot minimum, plus 2 feet for every 1 percent of slope measured from the edge of the meander belt of the tributary. Water Quality Corridor 30-foot average, 20-foot minimum where there is a flow path for concentrated surface runoff measured from the center line of the flow path. 6.4 Exceptions A. The Buffer Standards do not apply to any wetland or public waters wetland with an applicable exemption listed under the WCA, and to those portions of wetlands that will be filled under approved wetland replacement plans per the WCA. 18 VRWJPO Standards B. LGU Comprehensive Wetland Management Plans which prescribe required buffer widths shall be compliant with standards set by the VRWJPO; applicable ordinances governing widths, restrictions, allowable uses, and monumentation must meet or exceed the requirements set by the VRWJPO. C. In areas where land use zoning provides for agricultural zoning with one building eligibility per every quarter of a quarter section (40 acres) of property, the buffer requirement will not be exercised until such time as the land use zoning is changed to an alternate use zoning or a higher density of residential building eligibilities. At that time, the buffer requirement will be fully implemented. For all properties seeking a permit where this exemption would apply, the permit will require that setbacks are met which allow the future implementation of the buffer requirement with no impact to permanent structural elements. This exemption does not include transfer of building eligibilities for purposes of clustering. D. The Buffer Standards do not apply to existing outlots that received preliminary plat approval in the two year period preceding March 22, 2007. Buffer standards in effect at the time of LGU approval of a development agreement shall remain in effect throughout the term of the agreement or for a ten year period from the date of approval, whichever is less. E. Where a stream meandering project has been completed, the buffer width shall be established by the LGU and shall be no less than the minimum. F. The Buffer Standards do not apply to lots created that are enrolled in Green Acres, Rural Preserves, Agricultural Preserves, or similar agricultural or rural preservation programs controlling or limiting the potential for future lot subdivision or development, as part of the subdivision process. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 19 20 VRWJPO Standards SECTION 7: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL STANDARDS 7.1 Policy It is the policy of the VRWJPO to: A. Minimize the movement of soil within the landscape of the watershed. B. Reduce or mitigate the mechanisms that are the cause of soil movement to the extent practicable. C. Capture soil that does move as close to its point of origination as possible. D. Reduce the delivery of sediment to natural water bodies due to land disturbing activities to the extent practicable. 7.2 Regulation No person or political subdivision shall commence a land disturbing activity or create new impervious surface, unless specifically exempted below, without first obtaining a permit from a LGU or the VRWJPO that incorporates and approves a SWPPP for the activity, development, or redevelopment. For sites disturbing less than one acre and not requiring stormwater facilities on site, an alternative consisting of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be used. The LGU shall adopt an ordinance or procedure requiring erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs for retaining sediment on site with building permits. 7.3 Criteria A. Erosion and sediment control measures shall be consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs), and shall be sufficient to retain sediment on site. B. All temporary erosion and sediment controls shall be installed on all down gradient perimeters before commencing the land disturbing activity, and left in place and maintained as needed until removed per LGU approval after the site had been stabilized. All permanent erosion control measures shall be installed and operational per the design and as required by the LGU. C. Erosion and sediment controls shall meet the standards for the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Storm Water Associated With Construction Activity Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Permit Program Permit MN R100001 (NPDES General Construction Permit) issued by the Minnesota Pollutant Control Agency, June 25, 2013, as amended, for projects disturbing more than 1 acre. D. Final stabilization of the site must be completed in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requirements. E. All on-site stormwater conveyance channels shall be designed and constructed to withstand the expected velocity of flow from a 10-year frequency storm without erosion. F. If the activity creates more than 1 acre of disturbed area, and the activity is taking place on a site where soils are currently disturbed (e.g., a tilled agricultural site that is being developed), areas that will not be graded as part of the development and areas that will not be stabilized according to the timeframes specified in the NPDES General Construction permit Part IV.B. 2, shall be seeded with a temporary or permanent cover before commencing the proposed land disturbing activity. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 21 7.4 Exceptions Land disturbances meeting the following criteria may be exempted if there is no direct threat to a water resource from the activity: 1. cover less than five thousand square feet in area, or 2. involve less than thirty cubic yards of soil, or 3. do not change existing contours or drainage. SECTION 8: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS 8.1 Policy It is the policy of the VRWJPO to: A. Manage stormwater to minimize erosion. B. Require land disturbing activities to address impacts on water resources, including cumulative impacts. C. Require development plans to consider impacts on local natural resources and corresponding receiving waters. D. Minimize impacts of runoff from land disturbing activities and preserve in-stream conditions supportive of a viable trout fishery by developing stormwater rate and volume control techniques. E. Develop standards that include requirements for controlling stormwater runoff by minimizing impervious surfaces, maximizing infiltration, requirements for cities and townships to control stormwater rates crossing municipal boundaries, and creating stormwater stor age that addresses not only peak flows for extreme events, but takes into account the cumulative effects of runoff volume, and will include stormwater rate control requirements. F. Mitigate and reduce impacts of past increases in stormwater discharge on downstream conveyance systems. G. Improve the condition of waterbodies in the watershed included on the MPCA impaired waters [303(d)] list so that these waterbodies can be removed from the list. H. Encourage the use of existing natural retention and detention areas for stormwater management to maintain or improve existing water quality. I. Minimize water quality impacts (including thermal impacts) from land disturbing activities. J. Ensure stormwater management systems are maintained by establishing Stormwater Management System Maintenance Standards for cities and townships within the watershed. 22 VRWJPO Standards 8.2 Regulation No person or political subdivision shall commence a land disturbing activity or create new impervious surfaces, unless specifically exempted below, without first obtaining a permit from a LGU or the VRWJPO that incorporates and approves a SWPPP for the activity, development, or redevelopment. 8.3 Criteria Stormwater management criteria are presented separately below for post construction water quality, runoff temperature control, peak runoff rate control, and runoff volume control. A. Post Construction Water Quality Criteria 1. Post construction stormwater runoff quality measures shall meet the standard for the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity under the NPDES General Construction Permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, June 25, 2013, as amended; except where more specific requirements are provided in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 below. 2. Infiltration/filtration options described under Runoff Volume Control Criteria are the preferred approach to satisfying the water quality treatment requirements of the NPDES General Construction Permit in areas that drain to the trout stream portions of the Vermillion River and its tributaries where such areas do not first drain to a waterbody with 10 or more acres of open water. 3. Ponds with permanent wet pools are allowed in areas tributary to the trout stream portions of the Vermillion River and its tributaries where such areas do not first drain to a waterbody with 10 or more acres of open water, if the applicant demonstrates: a. No net increase in the temperature of the discharge for the 2-year 24-hour event with the use of alternative technologies and has met the Volume Control requirements of these Standards; or b. That the wet pond is designed for zero discharge for the 2-year, 24-hour storm; or c. That the Volume Control requirements of these Standards are met and the following measures are used to the extent practical in order of decreasing preference: i. The wet pond is designed with a combination of measures such as shading, filtered bottom withdrawal, vegetated swale discharges, or constructed wetland treatment cells that will limit temperature increases. ii. Additional volume control measures and credits are used beyond that required to meet the Runoff Volume Standards as a means of limiting the frequency and duration of discharges from the pond. 4. The water quality control volumes necessary to meet the NPDES General Construction Permit that are satisfied using infiltration or filtration technologies (filtration only on Type C and D soils) can count toward the Volume Control requirements of these Standards. 5. Ponds with overflows or outlets located below the seasonally high water table are allowed only where it can be demonstrated that there is a reasonable need for such an outlet to control seepage damage to existing structures. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 23 6. Redevelopment (see definitions) projects are required to incorporate water quality BMPs to the maximum extent practicable. B. Runoff Temperature Control Criteria Post construction runoff criteria for controlling temperature increases relies on the establishment of buffers as specified in the Buffer Standard; the prioritization of temperature sensitive BMPs such as infiltration and filtration, and the designation of temperature sensitive wet pond design approaches in the Post Construction Water Criteria above; and the control of runoff volume increases with the Runoff Volume Control Criteria below. No additional specific temperature criteria are incorporated since these other areas of the Standards emphasize approaches sensitive to runoff temperature. However, since these other areas of the Standards allow flexibility, and in some cases waivers, permit applications involving the creation of one or more acres of new impervious surface in the trout stream portions of the Vermillion River and its tributaries where such areas do not first drain to a waterbody with 10 or more acres of open water: 1. Must include a narrative description of the temperature sensitive practices incorporated; and 2. The LGU or the VRWJPO may limit or deny waivers, or may require additional runoff temperature BMPs, if the LGU or the VRWJPO finds that the site design does not minimize the potential for runoff temperature increases. C. Peak Runoff Rate Control Criteria 1. A hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory will be used to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels. 2. Runoff rates for proposed activities, and development shall: a. Apply land cover conditions existing in 2005 as the baseline for existing conditions in runoff calculations. b. Not exceed existing runoff rates for the 1-year, 10-year, and 100-year critical duration storm events. c. Be implemented by LGUs such that peak runoff rate controls keep future peak flood flows for the Vermillion River 100-year, 4- day event from increasing above existing conditions peak flows. d. Numerical flow standards must be adopted at intercommunity boundaries as identified in the VRWJPO Hydrologic Model (2009 as amended) for the communities of Burnsville, Apple Valley, Rosemount, Lakeville, Farmington, Hastings, and Elko-New Market. Those communities must apply the VRWJPO Hydrologic Model values in the calibration of their own local hydrologic models. 3. Detention basins with permanent wet pools are allowed in areas tributary to the trout stream portions of the Vermillion River provided Post Construction Water Quality Criteria 3 above is met. D. Runoff Volume Control Criteria 1. Development that creates one or more acres of new impervious surface must incorporate volume control practices into the design sufficient to prevent an increase in the runoff volume for the 2-year 24-hour storm above 2005 conditions unless waived in accordance with Runoff Volume Control Criteria 6. Determination of the necessary control volume to achieve this Standard can be completed by the LGU on a regional basis and included in an approved Local Water Plan, or calculated on a site-by-site basis for each individual proposal. Runoff volume reducing practices in site design are the preferred method for meeting volume control 24 VRWJPO Standards requirements and shall be considered prior to the design of required infiltration or filtration facilities. Practices applying the Minnesota Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) are allowed. Applicants must identify specific practices and provide documentation of the application of the MIDS calculator in practice selection and site design. Stormwater volume reducing BMPs other than those identified by MIDS, and their associated credits, must be approved by the VRWJPO. Final crediting must be approved by the LGU or VRWJPO before application to final design of site stormwater volume control facility requirements. 2. The water quality control volumes necessary to meet the NPDES General Construction Permit that are satisfied using infiltration or filtration technologies (filtration only on Type C and D soils) can count toward the Volume Control requirements of these Standards. 3. When using infiltration for volume control, infiltration volumes and facility sizes shall be calculated using appropriate site information and applying design criteria from the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. 4. Constructed infiltration facilities, such as infiltration basins and trenches: a. Can only be used if there is pretreatment of stormwater runoff designed to protect the infiltration system from clogging with sediment and to protect groundwater quality; b. Cannot be used within 400 feet of a municipal or other community supply well or within 100 feet of a private well unless specifically allowed by an approved wellhead protection plan; c. Cannot be used for runoff from fueling and vehicle maintenance areas and industrial areas with exposed significant materials; d. Cannot be used on areas with less than 3 feet vertical separation from the bottom of the infiltration system and the seasonal high water table; and e. Cannot be used in Type C and D soils. 5. Infiltration areas must be fenced or otherwise protected from disturbance before the land disturbing activity starts. 6. Volume control amounts may be waived by the LGU or the VRWJPO for sites with predominately Type C and D soils, or where a shallow water table prevents construction of infiltration systems, provided the following are met in order of decreasing preference: a. BMPs and site design practices to minimize the creation of connected impervious surfaces are used to the maximum extent practicable. b. Underdrains are used to promote filtration instead of infiltration. 7. Vegetation used in conjunction with infiltration systems must be tolerant of urban pollutants, and the range of soil moisture conditions anticipated. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 25 8.4 Maintenance All stormwater management structures and facilities shall be maintained in perpetuity to assure that the structures and facilities function as originally designed. The responsibility for maintenance shall be assumed either by the city, township, or county with jurisdiction over the structures and facilities; or by the applicant, their successors, or assigns entering into a maintenance agreement with the LGU. 8.5 Easements The applicant shall establish, in a form acceptable to the LGU, temporary and perpetual easements, or dedicated outlots, for ponding, flowage, and drainage purposes over hydrologic features such as waterbodies and stormwater basins. The easements, or outlots, shall include the right of reasonable access for inspection, monitoring, maintenance, and enforcement purposes. 8.6 Covenants The LGU may require that the land be subjected to restrictive covenants, a conservation easement, or easement in form acceptable to the LGU, to prevent the future expansion of impervious surfaces and the loss of infiltration capacity. 8.7 Waivers The VRWJPO or applicable LGU may waive on-site runoff rate, water quality, and runoff volume criteria if an LGU has an approved local water plan that provides for off-site stormwater facilities capable of meeting the Standards. 8.8 Trading The VRWJPO allows off-site pollutant trading on a case-by-case basis. Any proposed trade must document conditions whereby the proposed off- site facility or practice provides a benefit that directly offsets any potential pollutant increase to the stream resulting from the proposed development. The responsibility for maintenance shall be addressed according to Section 8.4 of these standards. Any proposed off-site trade must be approved by the VRWJPO before implementation. 8.9 Exceptions No permit or SWPPP shall be required for the following land disturbing activities: A. Minor land disturbing activities such as home gardens, repairs and maintenance work. B. Construction, installation, and maintenance of individual sewage treatment systems other than those on steep slopes (e.g., 6 percent or greater), or on riparian lots within a Shoreland District. C. Construction, installation, and maintenance of public utility lines or individual service connections unless the activity disturbs more than 1 acre of impervious surface, in which case the Standards apply. 26 VRWJPO Standards D. Installation of any fence, sign, telephone or electric poles, or other kinds of posts or poles. E. Emergency activity necessary to protect life or prevent substantial harm to persons or property. F. Minor wetland impacts that have received a “certificate of exemption or no loss” determination by the LGU administering the Wetland Conservation Act, as amended. G. All maintenance, repair, resurfacing and reconditioning activities on impervious surfaces, which do not involve land-disturbing activities outside of the existing surfaces. H. Construction of any structure on an individual lot in a subdivision with an approved SWPPP, so long as any land disturbing and stormwater management activity complies with the approved plan. I. Land disturbance of less than five thousand square feet in area, involving less than thirty cubic yards of soil, or that do not change existing contours or drainage, may be exempted if there is no direct threat to a water resource from the activity. SECTION 9: DRAINAGE ALTERATION STANDARDS 9.1 Policy It is the policy of the VRWJPO to: A. Use existing natural retention and detention areas for stormwater management to maintain or improve existing water quality. B. Manage stormwater to minimize erosion. C. Allow outlets from landlocked basins, provided such outlets are consistent with State and Federal regulations, and the downstream impacts, riparian impacts, and habitat impacts of such outlets have been analyzed and no detrimental impacts result. D. Mitigate and reduce the impact of past increase in stormwater discharge on downstream conveyance systems. E. Address known flooding/erosion problems that cross jurisdictional boundaries and address other boundary issues and the diversion/alteration of watershed flows in local water plans. F. Address gully erosion problems in the watershed. G. Maximize upstream floodwater storage. 9.2 Regulation No person or political subdivision shall artificially drain surface water, or obstruct or divert the natural flow of runoff so as to affect a drainage system, or harm the public health, safety, or general welfare of the VRWJPO, without first obtaining a permit from the LGU or the VRWJPO. Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization | 27 9.3 Criteria A. Outlets from landlocked basins with a tributary drainage area of 100 acres or more will be allowed, provided such outlets are consistent with other portions of these Standards, State and Federal regulations, and the downstream impacts, riparian impacts, and habitat impacts of such outlets have been analyzed and no detrimental impacts result. The analysis and determination of detrimental impacts shall: 1. Use a hydrograph method based on sound hydrologic theory to analyze runoff for the design or analysis of flows and water levels; 2. Ensure a hydrologic regime consistent with the Peak Runoff Rate Control Criteria and the Runoff Volume Control Criteria of these Standards; 3. Ensure the outlet does not create adverse downstream flooding or water quality conditions, or materially affect stability of downstream watercourses; 4. Maintain dead storage within the basin to the extent possible while preventing damage to property adjacent to the basin; 5. Ensure that the low floors of new structures adjacent to the basin are set consistent with the Floodplain Alterations Standards; and 6. Ensure that proposed development tributary to the land-locked basin has incorporated runoff volume control practices to the extent practicable. B. Artificial drainage, flow obstruction, and diversions involving watercourses, public waters, public waters wetlands, wetlands with drainage areas of 640 acres or more, will be allowed provided such alterations or diversions are consistent with other portions of these Standards, State and Federal regulations, and the downstream impacts, riparian impacts, and habitat impacts of such alterations or diversions have been analyzed and no detrimental impacts result. Proposals for drainage alterations and diversions shall demonstrate that: 1. There is a reasonable necessity for such drainage alteration or diversion to improve or protect human health and safety, or to improve or protect aquatic resources; 2. Reasonable considerations have been made and actions taken to avoid unnecessary injury to upstream and downstream land and water resources; 3. The utility or benefit accruing to the land on which the drainage will be altered outweighs the harm resulting to the land receiving the burden; and 4. The drainage alteration or diversion is being accomplished by improving and aiding the normal and natural system of drainage according to its natural carrying capacity, or, in the absence of a practicable natural drain, a reasonable and feasible artificial drainage system that does not create adverse impacts is being implemented. C. Drainage alterations, diversions, and landlocked basin outlets shall be provided with stable channels and outfall. 9.4 Exceptions A. No permit shall be required where it is demonstrated that the proposed drainage alteration or diversion does not cause off-site erosion, sedimentation, flooding, or other damage. 28 VRWJPO Standards B. The LGU or the VRWJPO may waive the requirements regarding upstream and downstream flooding impacts if the applicant submits easements or other documentation in form acceptable to the LGU or the VRWJPO demonstrating and recording the consent of the owner of any land burdened by the proposed alteration. SECTION 10: AGRICULTURAL STANDARDS The VRWJPO approach to Agricultural Standards is voluntary at this time and is based on: A. Requiring a Stewardship Management Plan as part of being eligible to receive cost share for incentive practices sponsored by the VRWJPO; and B. Implementation of the Minnesota Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan of 2015 and the Pesticide Management Plan of 2005. The VRWJPO recognizes that the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is the lead state agency for most pesticide and fertilizer environmental and regulatory functions (Minn. Statute Ch. 18B and 18C). In accordance with the 1989 Groundwater Protection Act, the MDA has developed a strategy for addressing groundwater contamination from agricultural sources. This strategy focuses on promoting new or updated voluntary BMPs. A regulatory approach may be taken, if the implementation of voluntary BMPs is ineffective and BMPs are not widely adopted given a reasonable timeframe for implementation. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX M – MPCA LAKE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BY ECOREGION Ecoregion Resource Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Chlorophyll a (mg/L) Secchi Depth (m) North Central Hardwood Forests Deep Lakes £40 £14 £1.4 Shallow Lakes £60 £20 £1.0 Western Corn Belt Plains & Northern Glaciated Plains Deep Lakes £65 £22 £0.9 Shallow Lakes £90 £30 £0.7 MPCA's Water Quality Standards for Lakes CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX N – STORMWATER TRUNK FEE JUSTIFICATION REPORT STORMWATER TRUNSFEEJZTSTIFICATIONREPORT-2005 UPDATE FOR THE CITY OF ROSEMO UNT 1 March 2002 December 2004 i Pre ared B :P Y 1 WSB&Associates, Inc. 701—Xenia Ave So. Suite 300 Minneapolis,MN 55416 763) 541-4800 i 763) 541-1700(Fax) I i 1 1 I 1 WSB Project No.1005-33 City of RosemouHt Stor nwater Trunk Fee Justification Report B i CERTIFICATION I I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Peter R. Willenbring,P.E. Date: December 2004 Reg.No. 15998 WSB Project No. 1005-33 City ofRose nount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justification Report iSB 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE SHEET CERTIFICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION 2 II. PROCEDURES AND METHODS FOLLOWED 2 III. SERVICE AREA AND TRUNK FEE DISTRICTS 6 IV. MAIl T TRUNK AND LATERAL CONVEYANCE SYSTEM COSTS AND FEE CALCULATIONS 6 V. STORMWATER PONDING SYSTEM COSTS AND FEE CALCULATION 9 VI. POLICY ADMINISTR.ATION 10 VII. SITMMARY 11 APPENDIX A—FIGURES 1. Proposed Stormwater Trunk Conveyance System Improvements 2. Lateral Trunk Fee District 3. Main Trunk Fee District APPENDIX B—TABLES 1. Estimated Costs for the Main and Lateral Trunk Stormwater Conveyance System 2. Main and Lateral Trunk Fee Calculation 3. Stormwater Storage and Treatment Costs 4. Stormwater Storage and Treatment Fee Calculations 5. Summary of Stormwater Trunk Fees WSB Project No.100533 City of Rosemount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justific¢tion Report asB I. IntYoduction This report has been prepared for the City of Rosemount to provide documentation and support to the stormwater tnuik fee that the City intends to assess property owners developing land within the City. The fee outlined in this report is intended to be approximate and will be refined by Springstead Incorporated based on a further analysis of carrying costs and ca.sh flow considerations. This fee will assist in tfunding future stormwater trunk conveyance system improvements proposed by the City(Appendix A,Figure 1). For the purpose of calculating a stormwater tnuik fee, a stormwater trunk conveyance system is defined as a drainage system that accommodates stormwater runoff from parcels of land that are outside of the ownership of a given property owner. A regional ponding system is defined as a ponding system that provides stormwater storage and treatment for more than one parcel. Stormwater trunk fees are necessary in order for the City to provide assurances that: 1. An adequate drauiage system can be financed and constructed so that stormwater runoff from parcels within the City can be reasonably accommodated through downstream areas. 2. The City can acquire property for constructing the storm sewer system while new development takes place so that the plans of both the City and the developer can be coordinated. 3. Property owners within the City will be treated fairly. T'he implementation of this fee will allow new developments to pay for trunk infrastructure improvements that are needed to accommodate the new development. Failure to implement this fee would result in all taxpayers in the City paying for the cost of improvements that are for the most part only benefiting newly developing areas. The implementation of this program will also allow the City to compensate property owners for the additional cost associated with developing property that has stormwater runoff passing through it from upstream drainage areas. The following sections contain a description of the procedures and methods followed in developing the trunk conveyance and ponding system design, a breakdown of the capital costs associated with the construction of the system, and stormwater trunk fee calculations. II. Procedures and methods followed The capita.l costs associated with installation of a trunk conveyance and ponding system for the City can generally be broken out into the capital costs associated with securing the land, and the capital costs associated with furnishing and installing the stormwater storage,treatment, and conveyance systems within the City. WSB Project No.1005-33 City of Rosetnount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justification Report Page 2 As part of developing these costs, the City's engineering design standards associated with construction of trunk conveyance and ponding systems were used. Toward this end, please find outlined below the following specific design standards and considerations used in the development of the City's trunk conveyance and ponding fees. A. Main trunk and lateral trunk conveyance design The City will work toward constructing gravity outlets for most systems. In cases where it can be demonstrated through a cost benefit analysis that the costs for using a lift station will be less than that associated with a gravity 1 system, consideration for a lift station outlet from a given drainage area will be considered. r The storm sewer conveyance system will be designed to accommodate the rates outlined in the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. It will be the developer's responsibiliiy to convey stormwater runoff from a given site to the designated trunk conveyance and ponding system. The construction of these systems from the site to the tnuik conveyance and ponding system will accommodate a 10-year return frequency rainfall event. Overland overflows must also be available for these areas that are to be designed to meet the freeboard requirements in the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. The City will give consideration to utilizing open drainage ways instead of storm sewers in situations where such a system can be built at reduced cost provided it can be demonstrated that long-term maintenance of that facility will not warrant the use of a lower maintenance but more capita.l intensive piping system. B. Regional ponding, infiltration, and treatment design Stormwater storage will need to be provided for area.s in their fully developed condition for a critical duration rainfall event having a 1% chance of occurrence in any given year. In accordance with general direction developed through the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and the Directives of the Metropolitan Council, developers will be required to provide treatment for stormwater runoff by constructing treatment ponds with dead water storage volumes equal to the runoff volume from a 2.5" rainfall event. Basin geometrics including length to width ratios and average depth will also be designed m accordance with the direction provided by NURP and Metropolitan Council Directives. Stormwater retention and treatment ponds will be lined with an impermeable membrane or soils in areas where land use activities are believed to provide a WSB Project No.I005-33 City of Rose nount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justification Report Page 3 significant potential for groundwater contamination. In cases where basins are constructed as two-cell systems, the primary cell will be lined but it will not be necessary to line the secondary cell with an impermeable membrane. Infiltration will be incorporated into the design to the extent reasonable and practical so as to provide a rate 1/12 of an acre-foot per tributary acre per day. Side slopes associated with the construction of the retention and treatment basins must be maintained at 10:1 over the first 10 feet waterward, followed by a maximum of 4:1 slope in the interior of these basins. This requirement does not apply in areas where natural depressions aze going to be used to provide retention and treatment. The outlets from treatment basins will have a design configuration such that skimming of oil and floatables will be provided for low flow discharges. A two-stage design configuration for the pond shall also be utilized for these systems to improve retention and treatment functions of the basin. T'he City will attempt to delay construction of downstream retention and treatment facilities until such time as property in these areas is under development. In cases where an upstream system must be provided an outlet, the City will consider utilizing portable pumps to maintain normal water elevations in designated stormwater storage area.s. C. Methods associated with estimating revenue and cost The City anticipates using the stormwater trunk fee as a source of revenue to assist in funding necessary improvements to the City's storm drainage system. It is anticipated the storm water utility fees will generally be used for maintaining and replacing the system. It is anticipated that in order for the City to construct tnuik storm drainage systems, it may be necessary for the City to bond for system improvements in order to allow development to occur. Once development occurs, the trunk conveyance and ponding fees collected, as a part of this development will be utilized to reimburse the trunk fund and pay offthe bonds. It ha.s been assumed that no revenue will be generated from areas outside of the City's municipal boundaries that dra.in into the City unless a joint powers agreement has been drafted between the City and an adjoining governmental unit that addresses each community's responsibility relative to funding the construction of such systems. Project costs for land a.cquisition and improvements have been derived from an engineer's estimate of average costs based on a variety of land acquisition and construction scenarios. The typical scenario utilized herein assumes that WSB Project No.1005-33 City of Rosemount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justification Report Page 4 the City would attempt to construct most projects concurrently with land development activities. The prelimi.nary design and cost estimates for systems were developed using reasonable care. However, it will be necessary to periodically update the design assumptions and cost estimates contained herein. It is anticipated that this section of this report will be reviewed and updated annually or as necessary to reflect changes in construction costs or changes in the assumptions utilized for the trunk system design. Changes in construction costs will generally be tied to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. The stormwater trunk fee will consist of a main trunk fee, lateral trunk conveyance fee, and a stormwater ponding fee. The main trunk and the lateral trunk line stormwater conveyance fees will be based on the total cost I associated with the construction of the system divided by the acreage assessed. The stormwater ponding fee will be determined by calculating the cost to provide ponding and treatment for a 100-acre site divided by the net developable acreage within that site It is the intention of the City to apply the stormwater trunk and/or regional ponding fees to all properties that are developing, provided that these properties have not previously paid a trunk conveyance and/or ponding fee or storm sewer assessment that equals or exceeds the trunk and ponding fees in this report. In cases where a special benefit fee was applied to a given parcel as part of the stormwater utility fee, consideration will be given for a reduction in the stormwater trunk fee if it is deemed reasonable to do so. The cost associated with the trunk conveyance and ponding fees include administrative, legal, pernutting, and engineering costs for all trunk and ponding drainage improvements. Theses administrative, legal, permitting, and engineering costs were estimated at 35%of the consixuction costs. Cost calculations associated with the excavation of material to construct stormwater storage in the conveyance systems is based on the assumption that material excavated will be rernoved at$2.00 per yard. The City will require developers to provide at na cost easements or outlot dedications over parcels that will be utilized for stormwater storage,treatment, or conveyance system construction to accommodate runoff from their site. In addition, parks, floodplain, and wetland areas will also be required to be dedicated to the City at no cost. The above areas that are dedicated will be subtracted from the total acreage so that trunk conveyance and regional ponding fees are not assessed against these areas. WSB Project No.1005-33 City of Rosemount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justification Report Page S IIl. Service aYea and t unk fee districts The service area associated with the City's trunk conveyance and ponding system will include all areas within the City's municipal boundary. For the purposes of developing the trunk conveyance and ponding fees within this area, three districts were identified. These districts are shown on Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix A and include the following: Area 1 - Previously developed district: This district includes the area that has been developed or has already paid a stormwater hunk and/or ponding fee as of the adoption of this report. This acreage is not included in the txunk conveyance and ponding fee calculations as it is unlikely revenue will be generated from land in this district. Area 2 -Lateral trunk conveyance system distyzct: This district includes all of the developable area within the City that is not within Area 1 (Appendix A, Figure 2). Lateral trunk conveyance and ponding systems in this area are intended to convey, store, and treat stormwater prior to discharge into the main trunk conveyance line. This azea is anticipated to generate lateral trunk system and ponding fees. Area 3 -Main trunk system district: Area 3 contains all of the developable area within Area 2 with the exception of the University of Minnesota property and the Flint Hills Company property (Appendix A, gure 3). This area is anticipated to benefit from a main trunk canveyance system and is anticipated to develop in the future. The University of Minnesota property and the Flint Hills Company property have a very low probability of developing in the foreseeable future and therefore this acreage has been removed from the acreage that will generate revenue. This area is anticipated to generate a main trunk system fee. IY. Main trunk and late al conveyance system costs and fee calculations For purposes of dete ining the stormwater trunk conveyance fee, two separate fees were calculated. One fee was based on the construction of the main stormwater trunk conveyance system and the second fee was based on construction of the lateral stormwater trunk conveyance system and ponding. The main trunk line consists of one stormsewer outlet that begins at basin 1864 located north of CSAH 42 and east of the Bloomfield 4'addition and continues to the Mississippi River (Appendix A, Figure 3). All other stormwater improvements, including lift stations, are part of the lateral systems (Appendix A,Figure 2) and are included in the lateral trunk and improvement cost calculations. Outlined below is a narrative describing how the main trunk and lateral conveyance system fees were estimated. WSB Project No.I005-33 City of Rosemount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justification Report Page 6 A. Lateral trunk conveyance system fees The lateral conveyance system fee was determined by estimating the lateral trunk conveyance system capital costs and dividing it by the net developable acreage within the area. Outlined below is an additional breakdown of how these fees were computed: 1. Determine the net developable acreage within the lateral trunk conveyance dist rict The net developable acreage within the district was determined by subtracting areas that would not likely be developed (based on current information) from the total drainage area within the City. The areas that were identified as unlikely to develop include land that is covered by lakes, wetlands, proposed storm water ponds, parks, public land, or floodplain area.s. In addition, the City of Rosemount has been advised by the University of Minnesota and the Flint Hills Company which owns large parcels will not likely be developed in the foreseeable future. Along with the above mentioned azeas, any azeas, particularly on the west end of the City, have akeady been developed and have paid for storm water management fees through direct assessments or other means in such a manner that it is unlikely fees would be generated from these parcels in the future. Based on this analysis, it is determined the City has 22,600 acres of land within its municipal boundaries, 8,745 acres have been identified as unlikely or unsuitable for development. This analysis indicates that approximately 13,700 acres are available to be defined as net developable" acreage that could likely be assessed a lateral conveyance system fee at the time of this analysis. 2. Determination of lateral trunk conveyance system costs. A further breakdown of the capital costs associated with the construction of the lateral conveyance system within the City is shown in Appendiz B, Table 1. As can be observed on this table, the total capital costs associated with the lateral trunk conveyance system is estimated at 109,900,000. This cost reflects actual construction costs associated with the lateral trunk storm sewer system improvements, including the cost of pipe and lift stations, indirect costs for administrative, legal, permitting, and engineering, which is anticipated at 35% of the construction costs, and land acquisition costs based on acquiring a 40-foot easement over the pipe alignment with an average land cost of$60,000 per acre residential land use and$90,000 per acre commerciaUindustrial land use. WSB Project No.1005-33 • City of Rosemount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justification Report Page 7 3. Lateral trunk conveyance system fee calculation The fee associated with the lateral trunk conveyance system was calculated by taking the cost of $109,900,000 for the lateral trunk conveyance system divided by the 13,700 acres benefited. The lateral trunk conve ance fee: 0.1842 er s uare footYPq B. Determination of main trunk system fee The main trunk system fee was determined by estimating the main trunk conveyance system capital cost and dividing the cost by the net developable acreage within the district. Outlined below, please find additional discussion on the process followed in completing tlus deternzulation: 1. Determination of net developable acres within the main trunk conveyance and ponding district The net developable acreage within the main trunk district is determined by subtracting currently developed acreage and acreage having land use associated with lakes,wetlands,proposed storm water ponds,parks,public land, and floodplain areas from the total area. Based on the City's tota.l acreage being estimated at 22,600 acres, and the currently developed areas along with lakes, wetlands, proposed storm water ponds, etc. covering 15,100 acres, the estimated remaining net developable area within this district is estimated at 7,500 acres . 2. Determination of main trunk conveyance system costs. The capital costs associated with construction of the main conveyance system within the City is estimated at$29,000,000 as shown in Table 1 of Appendi c B. This cost reflects actual construction costs, indirect costs associated with administrative, legal,permitting, and engineering activities estimated at 35% of the construction costs), and the cost for acquiring ea.sements over proposed pipe alignment. These easement costs were based on securing a typical easement width of 100 feet across this conveyance system and having to pay average line costs of$60,000 per acre. 3. Ma n trunk conveyance system fee calculation The fee associated with the main trunk conveyance system was calculated by taking the cost of$29,000,000 for the lateral trunk conveyance system divided by the 7,500 acres benefited. The fee is not rounded to the nearest cent for administrative application in determining the per acre fee. The rnain trunk conveyance fee: 0.0888 per square foot WSB Project No. 1005-33 City ofRosemount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justification Report Page 8 i I Table 1 in Appendig B summarizes the capita.l costs associated with the development of the main trunk and lateral trunk conveyance systems. Lateral trunk and main trunk fees are outlined on Table 2 of Appendix B. V. Stormwater ponding system costs and fee calculation The costs associated with constructing trunk stormwater storage and treatment facilities aze not included in the main or lateral trunk conveyance costs. The trunk conveyance fee outlined in Section IV covers only the cost associated with trunk conveyance systern improvements. Separate costs are, however, mcluded herem for stormwater storage and treatment system construction. These costs are included to allow the City to design and construct regional stormwater storage, treatment, and infiltration ponds and assess developmg property for such regional unprovements when it is deemed reasonable to do so. Under these conditions, if the City advises the developer they must utilize regional ponding systems, they will not be required or allowed to provide on-site ponding. The stormwater trunk ponding fee was developed by considering the stormwater storage and treahnent needs for a 100-acre parcel with residential 1-3 lots/acre, residential>31ots/acre, and commerciaUindustrial land use. The following assumptions were made to determine the trunk ponding fee: The detention storage required is the volume determined to be necessary to reduce the 100-year, critical event peak discharge rate to the rates outlined in the City's Stormwater Management Plan. The land area required to provide ponding was based on an average live water storage depth of four feet. In cases where land acquisition is required through the purchase of property, the average land cost was estimated at $60,000/acre for residential and $90,000/acre for coxnmerciaUindustrial developments. Based on this assessment, to compensate the City for providing these trunk ponding facilities, the following fees will be assessed to developing property where trunk ponding facilities are available or will be constructed: Residential lots having densities of 1-31ots/acre: 0.0877/s , footq Residential lots with densities greater than 31ots/acre:0.1359/sq, foot CommerciaUIndustrial Land: 0.2070/sq, foot WSB Project No. I005-33 City of Rose nount Stor nwater Trunk Fee Justifccation Report Page 9 I A breakdown and summary of the costs used to determine the stormwater trunk ponding fee is shown on Table 3 of Appendix B. A summary of the fee calculations can be seen in Table 4 of Appendig B. Vl. Policy administ ation The trunk conveyance and ponding fee program will be administered by the City as outlined in the following procedure: 1. For Residential Development: a. The developer will submit plans and calculations to the City. b. The City will review the plans and calculations to determine if the design is reasonable, cost effective, and in conformance with the City's standards for drainage system design. Area calculations will also be reviewed to determine the area over which the stormwater trunk fee would apply. c. The City will include a condition of approval for the final plat requiring payment of the trunk stormwater fees prior to recording the plat. d. The City will calculate the stormwater trunk fee based on the land area information and hydrologic calculations submitted by the developer. This total amount due is then forwarded to the City Clerk. e. The City Clerk will collect payments made by the developer. In the case of properties that have akeady been developed but have not paid a stormwater trunk fee because they were platted prior to the effective date of the stormwater trunk fee ordinance, the appropriate fee will be collected at such time as any new building permit is issued in accordance with the following procedure: 2. For Industt ial and Commercial Development: a.The property owner shall submit a survey and area calculation for the site. b. The City will calculate the stormwater trunk fee based on the land area information submitted. c.The City will collect payments made by the property owner at the time of building permit issuance. The City will also reserve the right to annually update this report and/or fee amount, as well as any service area expansions, subject to City Council approval. WSB Project No. 1005-33 City ofRosemount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justification Report Page 1 D 1 VII. Sufnmary This justification report for stormwater trunk fees has been prepared for the City to provide documentation to support these fees that the City intends to assess property owners that are developing land within the City. These fees are necessary in order for the City to fund and construct storm drainage facilities that are needed to accommodate runoff from developing property in the City. The costs a.ssociated with constructing the drainage system in the City were based on developing a system that meets the City Engineering design standards associated with the construction of new stormwater retention and treatrnent facihhes, as well as conveyance systems. The City's Engineering design standazds utilized in estimating the future cost for the trunk conveyance and ponding system are outlined in Section II of this report. To allow for fair assessment of fees within the City, three trunk fee districts were defined in Section III of this report. The potential for future development of property within the City wa.s the basis for the determination of these areas. Based on this analysis, 13,700 acres were identified as potential net developable acreage assuming the University of Minnesota and Flint Hills Company Properties are fully developed and assessed for these improvements. If the University of Minnesota and Flint Hills Company Properties aze not developed in the foreseeable future as both property owners have clearly indicated to the City of Rosemount, the net developable acreage within this district would be reduced to 7,500 acres. Area 2 Net developable acreage 13,700' Includes University of Minnesota and Koch Refining Company properties Area 3 Net developable acreage 7,500 The capital costs associated with construction of the trunk conveyance and ponding systems in the City are outlined in Sections IV and V of this report. The anticipated capital costs associated with the construction of these systems are broken out into costs for land acquisition for both the retention and treatment facilities, as well a.s conveyance system facilities, and the construction costs for the retention and treatment facilities, as well as conveyance system facilities. A summary of main trunk and lateral conveyance and ponding costs is located in Table 1 of Appendiz B. Cost for main trunk line 29,000,000 Cost for lateral trunk system improvements 109,900,000 Cost for regional ponding and infiltration 52,100,000 Total cost of all improvements 191,000,000 WSB Project No.1005-33 City ofRosemount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justifccation RepoK Page Il Main trunk and lateral trunk conveyance system fees were calculated by dividing the cost of the tnank system improvements divided by the assessable acreage. These values are defined in Section IV of this report and summarized in Table 2 of Appendiz B. The lateral trunk conveyance fee: 0.1842/sq. foot The main trunk conveyance fee: 0.0888/sq. foot Stormwater ponding fees were deternuned in this report by calculating the cost to provide ponding and treatment on a 100-acre site divided by the net developable acreage within that site. Section V of this report contains the calculations associated with stormwater ponding system costs and fees. Summaries of costs and fees a.ssociated with the stormwater ponding system are located in Table 3 of Appendix B tand Table 4 of Appendix B respectively. Residentiallots having densities of 1-3 lots/acre: 0.0877/sq.foot Residential lots with densities greater than 31ots/acre: $0.1359/sq. foot CommerciaUIndustrial Land: 0.2070/sq, foot The total stormwater trunk fee for the City was determined by summing the main trunk and later trunk conveyance system fees with the stormwater ponding fees. Below is a summary of the total stormwater trunk fee organized by proposed land use. A breakdown of these values is included in Table 5 of Appendix B. Residential lots 1-31ots/acre: 0.3607/sq. foot Residential lots>31ots/acre: 0.4089/sq. foot CommerciaU Industrial: 0.4800/sq. foot WSB Project No. 1005-33 City ofRosemount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justification Report Page 12 APPENDIX A—FIGURES 1. Proposed Stormwater Trunk Conveyance System Improvements 2. Lateral Trunk Fee District 3. Main Trunk Fee District 1 WSB Project No.1005-33 City of Rosemount Stor nwater Trunk Fee Jc stification Report wasB I a s.. I I c+c.ua rro.l V a si.c_' raomI I R---Y n m m m- n-m m-m-m-n—}c-m-Rc-m- tm-_- m-__ m_=L-__- i ppT/i r '.. / -:.. e. i sx r R.u.. I I II i" o• I s. . 5 w 9 `3 ` 5• w 9. C i n s I m -..-.-;\`} CDe`- Es orEa`O2p em o , N sx`<., e '_' Iry m P n B<rd-`,. Q I a ct. y N O . 7B ' h S ti.M. 4 I EMS \ St r„ I I 1 h M E.I 4 n cr.'/. t. ( L SPrr a Latr II g y\ ta( 3+a q sw L, . 1 p ize= sr.w' ry 9. 71 z.jv 9 i C II9 a` T SH` m y 5r. \ x I qMIBE , cNo I @; m 130 m Si. ! a '}.J I w W 9 N O lr•\ / n i . PoY I v 5 0 y/ Y Si. • as Fp I OEFRv R:M / Q Kgan I I Go Ct j P J3r0 'S H ' an.. 32nC . B B . La4e q tl Cl0.__/ h W , w>a 44q3 4 s y i owQ C/ +., 7n,•/ .. R_ 6tO55PIFG Y I ISSin 5 4 i+i 4 i'lt . WW R yll5rn Si.oQ.l r TR. V a s... W JW a = r° '; ; ir,s w. a , s.. r - ______ 55 T< s r E a 1 , iIo g , y Frty 5p 1 y ri- aL i :. I/Coi[rt> i Y01 z u IJ5 Om E f.N iNq c1 . 77 w' -,I s-''1 } Il.Ouret a e 4y ! xuPuac T r at P" c' g/ ma s.... 5 s z / c t. azs m y wriw s, urw s.e.41 SS ri s.., " — W. s.s w a „e ;5.. -: .. F, . [Fa tEIm I lLLall I a UPPEF 1]ra OESC e6' ISg t(' I '"'" 1' `` i F u l] 1 ' u • A g I .. 5 l St. E a2 1 5-n St. F. L 1i ,. c oy ..6 :L l r s ' z,o.[n q u.. 3 t- <sr. a a 5 \ ..I uPPEN I iM Si.' x . i5 9 a. a.r I 1 ) %-'I SII'.q ue.n sr < 5. y, N` nl a ex ... s L s;, a a. c.A. s= ° 5° 5i' w s.. _ _ _ _ _ h q o„ z 5 20 9. u L— c or.., n. p c a u/ L. L 1 `" ^ 1 rp 2' S 9 1 . Si. e _.` 9:` a 0 'p' c ¢ y , IJNIV S1Tv`0 MINNESOTA` ROSEMOUNT s.a si.E RESEARC CENTER I y r s_ P ti$— oy is: s __c r yR sz. loia s_1 vk f oI ,„ --- I QW e j` sr. .i ss, .{L I `lL ss s, v3 rm. iss.n i I yt c'-e—_ I 1 1 I 52 i-v ' i U"`'`«,—. 1 p i 4 1 i_ „_ _ a z i. \I y cewo Sw w 5• sw. I COATE G IIIww z9 ' h m slx" I I II s"z' I ',"al'' o.K y ss.. h'S^ s. p a e. x h .mi Y,,' r n f5, N m r t s. s " r_ cWf• co., 1 ,. x v r .x n lQ16 1 i 6 5 IfiOih. . Sr i.. I O 2.—y v v—w_v so.n s.. c. I 9 iC w , I1 w isom . 5r. . 16 6 1 .i l Existing Storm Sewer Proposed Ponding Proposed Storm Sewer Proposed Main Trunk Line I E sting Forcemain Sanitary Sewer Proposed Forcemain Existing Liftstation O Pr posed Liftstation Drainage Arrows V c a15C Olson Memorial Highway WS3 P iect No,10 r331 9e!.Z J02 Suite 300 I SB Minneapolis.MN 55422 sy I i F„18 STOR 1'VATER TRiT_1K SYSTEI7 NIAP j Proposed Stormwater Trunk Figure I 3 ,«;o,,r. 63x,-+-oo Con eyance System Improvements Rosemount, ^vlinnesota i I r u,>„ a.,, t_ 3 c ,. - f w 1 iT t i"I , t 1 ( i y 5p f.• t t . r". g! e t , `^`'. t.#. 3 t x 3." R t f a . y, A. '. . s'. I j' v ar,,; • .. t I`' 4- u, 9`, y R. R. .. t, w r t s, v x-, r , . s%+ f i a o lr. x w g.., l . Ya s . .. , /. 5 . . r i, a r .. . . y ,. ,. . , r: a' L'' t ' . . J h A' y s..: z • t;. a i k ;, ' c .: .. t' , z R _ r l.. .,.,,,_ v_ r -.,.,._..- s a II ; m P r i', .. W+-. I i ` I. t , i' y t' r _ I . . 1 4 f" 2 i f_ x. r t , _ ir I i 1 r r I J i I rt r d. %- t 1.'- ., m.-... i Y . . 1 r r I se 1 7; i." 1 _ fi t, E f I r . f ._. , . . ; '. r J I r, __ . t : ; ti` ; - I r 1 1 E t J 4. 1 i+ r r t , a e- 1 r s•• rr,. w,,, s f i ... - y. 3Y'. _ c'`. a f s:. .,.. c t' f., v s i. i . i ri . f ,_ f ' . .. t '.., e j.+. ._...: ii._`._ - ._ 5. . t 4.... .- _ t T 1 ` r, ., a i t r t t'' t 1 . : ti f r i Y i r c i ___._.. j_.. 4 4 I _ I i j . j s, r.. I j.. ` r e .. I.:: ',. ' ' -. i n i . i. j '- l ' r'`-` rt( ' iR .. l y\ J t Y' i c l. ', - I c a j y 4l- V , r, i" i , J_.. A. t . l•.'=-•, y 1 ri,. i Y'. 1 L c L; t i E j f i. i L_ A r? r.,, y r i... t, z c'..°, f i r" I 1, w;, C..... r r y I r t f i 0. Y j ' _ r: F. - j t"" 4., z ti 1 i I T S tj-. F L.__ = 7':._ R 1 a s k t r r 1 ti 1 3 t r • 1 ,. l 1 i i'' i r_ J: r i l a---..«-: . y-; j i ; i 1 r,. i f r j .- _ i r ti` 1 ` i r 1 i 1 I I 4 1'. J . I 1 i I t: e j\ 7 J K° I '. f f ! \ y F r,-., Ij ar s f.._., , .,..,.,..<. z,-,-<>- ',,,,.:.*„ w...:,:_.._._..... u__.____.____:_ u- i.,;,?-__'_'" ..,.„..- ." r, ssn,,,,,,,,; r,-- y :... .,-,_., , i. _ yr .' i W7`. .- a i _ r .. i d e a i y+ t._.,.., .. y r C . r ti., 4, s+•• s Y rtr e x._, r.. t- e r v g a t t y a' K y.. Ti` r x*.,. a : 1' 1 b; e, - x, ., C , s. _ 7' R'. if' yy.,,,'-,. b-. z i i '. i 5- Rs ` r 3 i Jp, ... t. . L p., w .,...*: a. ' 3 ,., e LY4"^ .,.,.' a^: b City of Rosemount: Proposed Lateral Lines Lateral Trunk Fee District ( 13, 703 ac) Public and Churches ( 987 ac) 2005 Trunk Fee Calculation Report Developed ( 3, 883 ac) ROW ( 1, 576 ac) WSB Figure 2: Ponds and Wetlands ( 2, 393 ac) Feet o so ,, soo a, 000 a, soo &. 9. 5,;,, tc. r, rn. Lateral Trunk Fee District c a y. 4_ c 4 9 w r a. A . '*v,. i y i 1 1 J. y: t - r.-, ,s yb.. 'ray , .:. t: ', . 1 ," . ",a.... , s a.. l r `£ j, r.- i 4, s 4 c r r i - `v__ .c 7 t r , r't+ e t. ar .t;, ' 4`, o ,i. +. a i i t. r. a;;a'Z i . S.. # ;;a.. , 1 a . s i t y! r r t^.X' .,.yi. i ,.: IIl.. ..,. .. ..a y_ w w= d L- 4' .,, *' i ,, y ,-, r" 'w,,.^* t r i W__kH __._ , __----------- i__ ,, _ t y . 1 ; r Y wt J,..,;..-. fi` ajEt. , 1. jr'' . . t`' "'..:y y . .- . i y ., r, y:. f : .`,, "-„. ,.,. .;.-;r r.:.-' s .•-ai' '. J f ...: _. I" a-, • ,.._" -_.. ,.._.. . 1,, c f i i !`. F ' r r v .'. - ,, :,.. :.;--z.....,.. ..-__>. t,a wi-a-=',_, f i' S . I I ........ rj:. 7x , 1 :3I i i_. . .:4-" 4 4 F S\`: i.-t^, . I__. ' . ' . I,' ' i f , ..__' _. 1 j . i S l. 1Ii.. r i . i . , ..__. i a ' , ': 5, i.i i J- _.' 1 s. . e J v 4 x .. 4 T.,_..._ _ . a.....» s... n i,.., u 1 I 1 .',.. -.-.z.1 I ., i F i Ia s .. ..A u.,., z--"-_' ''..L, t q}k I m' . , 1 u_ _ t;_a,. a .. i rc g,, c ' l; „i-'°%i i „ Trs 33 tft r . 1. r ia <= i -. i Y.+ I Nt"-''ft ... 1 i .R .. :: t i 1 3„- i• t u.:. ta d v k L ,.. MfrlM t:. t.2' ` ', ,..: -..i 1..';":3 _ . .. __ ..... -,_.. _ s.. :.'_.' _ A 1 A i I-.. a -',.. .:. ,., j: 4 1'. r5' r.,. v..., Y 4'' ii`'s a,.. t . ,. .. 1b r. ... o , „ ,.: ` ffi,° Ls._«..:, ..,.k.-.a n:7., d t4!R IF rn"' r . J "' .:• h i,t y ... ., t 1i" iyn t, ' s . a- i'. r . s,:-,..'.1 t i. sIi.a I y , 4 s?=... s.. i4tr...m,. . cm-- t1 ' 1 y : , x , F. .._, ,:, .,, a ..,. e,; f t-. ; t t xitrT, E i f a-, .: < ; c . h, t . P J 1`. I w'r« I k... . _. ....m y, ... x... . x ...,. ... tr- x/. T .f A s v. .:. . a, . , S#. Fyt' ..j' . 'L st*.ri. i'6-! . . a. ..':, ..,,- EQ77P i1 s c{ A q i t s 1 i r, 1 r i ii _T7 1 r r-a( e et. i .; k '. .. I 1.. s» n,. I Y I I ' ' i 1 4 W ar, t 1, zx . f. , i yk i YA. . ., :.. i ' 1 , j y9 , I -`' i,F' . . 7iI4-_.- n`''' h : c. r i . r-"'`"°'^ r i „px.:p..v` I; a. i i r E,. ` 1 ""!. IN1i',*;" d +;s , t ;, v 3.;_. .-_. n y.;== i 7 . . : , ._._.. t t.t i L a.I . ,...:. . . . 1 q.. I M ..' ._z , , i w.._..,_ .:..-. - :n'':. ' s ' i*'A. c„s Il g;.',.-: . , 3'a.8'{- 'Y -.,r{ ' i.miz. t m.' """ t th s E , c i _ i r'' i t . i ' , -:1 r`. ic..si. ... I i y' 1t1 Iv....Y. i„ t i f _. i 4',. t , 3I i Y` i k k:;.. kV . ,: J '.» ..._ . i _.. ,. y;: . y;.;, Efi.. _.. ':xx ZJ s` v i '., k ir , y ',a,*„I:, s..,.: ,. 4 i i i i ._. :: . ,., r J i , : p y,,..._.., . . t ' t >x, t ,. I , o-% _ .SAi ..i l. _ l. . . . - ...a.:;' :'... .,, :_: w , k '` Rw"3>. j. 1 Y+R s 3. 1 ... . i- r 'o. :vz ,:. F R ^ , y . w..5.:.i.:.p f,. . i. l Tr '..'' F.. g y,, y 3 , Y i. p i og:, l i§.._ i:. .'• _. I f ..ia y. I l t .i'^+!F',!I R`,.... t,:. bk: sf. iSz,.... k9[ ,/ " ,., ,. I..:i: n x`' -- r k . ,: t f .., Y i'f. ri:;;1 i+ a„ i, c i s_ t x I i n,.. :..'..Yi ... . - 6 . . i S Y,i A yaI w,, ' * Is f r. a' , , 3- r.. e 4. i i t..t h r t ..I . Y:.. .. m , . j ;, i :, t, Y' "R, i . t r , f t a t , i i f r .v.-w._.: 1: i..... yn r,. i ' i 4 I J 4.i1%,n w-,';,W.W.._._.._ ... S%F!m 4e-.-..Hr fY,` 3i= , ,,, „r,.,---'__.._..,_._.._._...._._,-,r:.,..«s-,.,, a r-,-s;r-,-sr--...__ was+.. N . L q,. .... ` v^, ^ . . 5:... a L' ,..', • ..' ".'.1 a"` P .3 r 4 n .,. r N` rr.M •.; b.r i 1 t+ _ »,.;. i Y a t y ,: t s'"'1 P r a ..' "'."' g.. h., ., . r 3 ny;. r M . a . y 3 r. F.y i7} M1YY8'. . e'. -:.: w. k:. . Yr= •z; x.s E f - !;`„ r{= y n. r. A""' s `. t. p ..» s, i.rt ,' t . i:.. a..=. : Cit of Rosemount:Proposed Trunk Line Main Trunk Fee District (7,467 ac) University of Minnesota (2,911 ac) - ROW (1,576 ac) w 2005 Trunk Fee Caleulation Report Developed (3,883 ac) Ponds and Wetlands (2,393 ac) A/[+ vi Figure 3:Flint Hilis (3,325 ac) Public and Churches (987 ac)Feet 0 750 1,500 3,000 4,500 &.A.rsociuteti,b c.Main Trunk Fee District APPENDIX B—TABLES 1. Estimated Costs for the Main and Lateral Trunk Stormwater Conveyance System 2. Main and Lateral Trunk Fee Calculation 3. Stormwater Storage and Treatment Costs 4. Stormwater Storage and Treatment Fee Calculations S5. Summary of Stormwater Trunk Fees WSB Project No.1005-33 City of Rosemount Stormwater Trunk Fee Justification Report SB COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF ROSEMOUNT,MN t Updated December 2,2004 Table 1-Estimated Costs for the Main and Lateral Trunk Storntwater Conveyance System Main Trunk Line Cost Lateral Trunk Line Cost Lateral Trunlc Cost 75,786,374 Lift Station Cost 1,761,750 Main Trunk Total 19,540,957 Lateral Trunk Total 77,548,124 Indirect Costs(35%) 6,839,335 Indirect Costs(35%) 27,141,843 Subtota.l 26,380,292 Subtotal 104,689,967 100'Easements($140/LF) 2,600,000 40'Easements($60/LF) 5,200,000 Total* 29,000,000 Total* I09,900,000 Rounded to the nearest hundred thousand F:\Wpwin\1005-33\PIan Appendix B Tbls.xls Table 1 COMPREHENSIVE STORN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF ROSEMOUNT,MN Table 2-Main and Lateral Trunk Fee Calculations Lateral Trunk District Main Trunk District Total Capital Cost 109,900,000 29,000,000 Net Developable Acres* 13,700 7,500 Trunk Fee Per Acre 8,021.90 3,866.67 Trunk Fee perfl Z 0.1842 0.0888 Rounded to the nearest hundred 1 1 1 F:\Wpwin\1005-33 PIanWppendix B Tbis.xis\Table 2 COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF ROSEMOUNT,MN Table 3-Stormwater Storage and Treatment Costs Commercial/Industria[* >Than 3 Lots/Acre Residential' 1 to 3 Lots/Acre Residential' Units Quantity Price Cost Quantity Price Cost Quantity Price Cost Excavation CY 82,764 2 $165,528 69,202 2 $138,404 42,127 2 84,254 Restora,tion Total LS 1 1,518 1,518 1 1,489 1,489 1 1,407 1,407 Outlet Structure LS 1 $12,000 12,000 1 $12,000 12,000 1 $12,000 12,000 Subtotal 179,046 151,893 97,661 Indirect Costs(35%) LS 1 $62,666 62,666 1 $53,163 53,163 1 $34,181 34,181 Subtotal 241,712 205,056 131,842 Land Ac uisition AC 6.7 $90,000 $599,677 5.9 $60,000 $352,003 3.9 $60,000 $235,066 Total**84I,400 557,100 366,900 Calculations based an a 100 acre site with CommerciaUlndusrricrl,greater than 3 lots/acre residential,or 1 to 3 lots/acre residential land use F:\Wpwin\1005-33\PIaMAppendix B Tbls.xls\Table 3 COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF ROSEMOUNT,MN Table 4-Stormwater Storage and Ponding Fee Calculations CommerciaU Than 3 Lots/ 1 to 3 Lots/ Industrial* Acre Residential* Acre Resddential * Total Ponding Cost 841,400 557,100 366,900 Net Developable Acres 933 94.1 96.1 Ponding Fee Per Acre 9,018.22 5,920.30 3,817.90 Ponding Fee perft Z 0.2070 O.I3S9 0.0877 Calculations bcrsed on a 100 acre site with Commercial/Industrial,greater than 31ots/acre residendal,or 1 to 3 lots/acre residential land vse 1 F:\Wpwin\1005-33\PIanlAppendix B Tbis.xls\Table 4 1 COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF ROSEMOUNT,MN Table S-Summary of Stormwater Trunk Fees Trunk Fee Main Trunk Ponding Fee Total Fee Per Total Fee Per Future Land Use ft Z) Fee(/fl Z) ft Z) fl 2) Acre 1 to 3 Lots/Acre Residential 0.1842 0.0888 0.0877 0.3607 15,712 Greater than 3 Lots/Acre 0.1842 0.0888 0.1359 0.4089 17,812 CommerciaUIndustrial 0.1842 0.0888 0.2070 0.4800 20,909 t W:\01005-33 2005_Fees Appendix B Tbls.xls CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX O – CITY SKIMMER DETAIL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF ROSEMOUNT PROJECT NO. 011824-000 Figure K:\011824-000\Cad\Exhibits\Basin-HWL.dgn Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan Stormwater Retention/Infiltration Basin Design ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA WSB Project No. 1668-12 Date: June 4, 2007 SIDEWALK (2) 0.05 CFS/ACRE DISCHARGE RATE FOR THE 100-YR, 24-HOUR EVENT STORMWATER RETENTION/INFILTRATION BASIN DESIGN WOODED AREA BASIN INLET NURP TREATMENT VOLUME (1) (1) VOLUME OF RUNOFF FROM 2.5" RAINFALL EVENT EVENT VOLUME (6") 100-YEAR, 24-HOUR RAINFALL 24-HOUR EVENT HWL LOWEST STRUCTURE & 100-YEAR, 3 FT FREEBOARD BETWEEN OVERLAND OVERFLOW OVERFLOW STRUCTURE NORMAL OR MANAGEMENT ELEVATION ENTIRE SITE'S ACREAGE INFILTRATION FOR THE ACRE-FOOT/ACRE/DAY OF OF AN12 1PROVIDE REQUIRED SEPARATE BASIN CELL TO USE SIDE OF BASIN OR SEE ADDITIONAL DESIGN GUIDANCE GATED BASIN OUTLET (2) CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX P – TEMPORARY DEWATERING FIGURE Figure W:\rosemount\CAD\pond-monitoring-11x17_2014.dgn Rosemount, Minnesota WSB Project No.Date: WSB & Associates, Inc. Minneapolis, MN 55416 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 763-541-4800 - Fax 763-541-1700 www.wsbeng.com INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING CONSTRUCTION ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA POND MONITORING/ WATER SURFACE MANAGEMENT ELEVATION MAP 0 22501125 1005-55 August, 2014 2471 1662 POND SCHWARZ POND ERICKSON POND HAWKINS POND WENSMANN POND BIRGER POND SHANNON POND COOPER POND MARCOTTE LAKE KEEGAN POND MARE LAKE WACHTER FM FM STATION LIFT STATION LIFT STATION LIFT STATION LIFT STATION LIFT STATION LIFT STATION LIFT STATION LIFT STATION LIFT STATION LIFT STRUCTURE CONTROL STRUCTURE CONTROL STRUCTURE CONTROL ST. 42 145th 135th Union Pacific RailroadDANVILLE AVE.UPPER ST. CORNELL TR.CLARETS T . CANADAAVE.CARROU SELWAYST. ST. ST. ST. 0 CT. 3 ELL DANVI CT. 135 CT.S.TR.ST.CAMEOAVE.CAMBRIAN AVE.CAMERO LA.CAMFIELDCIR.ST.CHRMEOCHIANTIAVE.LOWER ST. ST.BURMAAVE.BURNLEY AVE.UPPER 143 ST.CANTATA AVE.AVE.ST.BISCAYNEAVE.33 33 DELFT AVE.LARAAVE.DAMASK42 42 AVE.3 33 3DODDWAY W.BRAZILW. W. 150th ST. 159th 158th CT. W. LOWER149th W. W.DAVYCT.DAPHNELA.WAY CT.DARLING PATH CT. W.DIAMONDPATH152nd ST. CT. 151st ST. W.DANBURY AVE.CRANDALLAVE.PATH PATH CIR.PATH136th ST. 135th 150th 148th ST. UPPER 147th 148th ST. 143rd 144th 132nd th 142nd ST. 149th 147th 146th rd 147thCIR.NELLCT.N.UMBIACOL CT.ADPPLE CIR.CT.UPPER 1 5 6 COVINGTONAVE. ST. S T. DANBURY TR. COPPERCT. DARTMOUTH DELTADALLASAVE.DANE CHATON PKWY.AVE.DAHOMEYDAMA S KAVE.CT.D A N V ILL EDAAVE .155th COLUMCORNELL TR.COLUMBARYCT.AVE.Trailer Court 149th ST.CANADACRESCENTCORMORANT WAY W.APDARJ154th CT. W. ST.W. 153rd th ST.COLORADO141st CT. W. WAY COBBLERAVE.CROCAVE. COBBLER 155 thST. 152nd PATHNGILRAD LAKE- VILLE UPP ER 149 U PP ER CRESTVIEWAVE.W. ST. t h147 UPPER 146th AVE.AVE.W.156th ST.W.IRCCLEAVE.th146 ST.AVE.DANLLEDETA PL.LDALLASCT.DA RNELCT.AVE.DANBURY147th ST. W.US DER BY C R.ANVILLEVE.EELINGVI5.4.6.DANBURYCT.137th105 105 108108104 104 104 104 AVE.106106106102 102 107107112 112103 103 103 UPPER 145th ST.W. 148th UPPER ST. CURR ANT DELTA CT.TH7.8.PATHDEARBORN W. W.RLSnd231131st ST. W. DEC EM BERTR .CT.DEWBERRYST. EVER LEIGH C IR.CT.DAYBREAKE.VADARJEEL ING 3. DODD BLVD.AVE.CIMARRONAVE.COBALT LA.AV E. COB ALTCOBALTDR.107I 157th ST. AVE. ARAMENNCO DARWINWAYYADTONA CIMARRONAVE.CT.1.ST.th149DAL 2.AVE.144t h ST.DANDER CT.SHANNONCT.PKWY.CORCT.S.CARDI NAL CT.CIR.CICERONE PATH10.9.WAYLERCHRYSCAAL PATH CASCADE PATH WAYNOMA RDIN AL ST.W.CICERONECT. 158th ST. CRYST CINNDELFT AVE.AVE.145th DAVENPORT ST.143rd DACT.WSONDAW SON PL.DEKALBDAVENPORTAVE.144th ST.FTONORCW. CIC ERONE PATHST. 11.12.13. 152th ST. W.14.14.CT.DELMARDENVERCT.BEECH ST. W.BANYAN LA.BE L LECT. PL. 1 6 . BELFAST C T.ST. W. BELFAST 17.CIR.ST. 151stCLARETAVE.AVE.AVE.COLUMBIACLAR ET CIR.BIACRESCIR.TONECIMMARONAYW154th 155th AVE.CHASEWOODCT.PATH W.18. 157 th 119 11811810810846 46 CT. W. 137th WAYST .W. DAFFODIL DAISYCT.DELLWOODCT.CT. D AHLIA D ALPATH DANUBELA.DANNERPATHEVERMOORDANUBECT.DERRYGLENN CT.PKWY .DANUBE L A. C R USH EEN CT.CRCREGGS CRANFORDCIR. CIR. DERRYMOOR CT.W.CT. BELMONT BIRCH 151st CT. AVE.TR. W.120120121121 158th DAKOTA DR.LA.t hPATHCRYSTALCT.ST.W .CRYST ALCROCUSCT.AVE.W. ST.156th DANVILLE160th DAKOTASHANNONST. 33 33 DIAMONDPATHCANADA CIR. BL CT.CT. OOMF BENTL EYWAYLA. OLUGHCROSS WAYCROSSRIDGE AVE.CROSSMOORPATHCROSSGLENNTON DELLWOODD ELLW WOODAYDANUBECIR.O OKHAVE NCT.C R OL L YP AT HCROLLYCT.PKWY.EVERMOORE R R YA VE.CRANB CHILIAVE.CHILIAVE.ST. W. IELD CT.BAYBERRY TR.AURROAAVE.CIR. AAVLON PATH AA AAZL EA WY20 . 19. CORMACK CIR.AVE.COUCHTOWN CRO MPTONAVE.CROSSCROFTROBERTLA.CLOVER133rd CT. DRUM LCIFFE SHANNONPATHDRUMCLIFFEDRUMCL IFFE CT. WAY CIR.EFFDRUMCLI 15.113ProgressiveRailInc.Union Pacific R.R.BLOOMFIELD CT. 142nd CT.nd142 WOODATCIR.CT. A TWATER WAYTR.AVE.140th 138th CT.WOOD136th ST. NTBELMOBIRMINGHAM CT.TR.TR.CARRACH AVE.COUCHTOWNAVE.CLAIREDOWNS PATH CLAIRE DOWNS WAY BISCAYNEAVE.138th ST. 139th ST. ST. 138 th UPPER AV.BUNRATTYBURGUNDY140thAV.BROUGHSHANEBRIANBORUST. ST.AV.AV.138thAV.EMENBUNDORANAV.136th CROMPTONAV.CR O MWELLTHAP CRUMFIELDT R.BRLOW ER CI R. BITTE AY ET RS WBI TTERCT.SWEETEET BISCAYN EWAYBLOOMFIELD PKWY.150th ST.W. WBITTERSWE CT. BRENNER 148th BOSTONBOISECIR.CIR.TS.BUSINESSTHAP153rd ST. CHILI CT.CHIPPENDALECHERRY Kegan Lake COACHFORD137th ST.CORCORANST .21. 22.23.AVE.AVE.CORCHMANBIRDSONG PATHCT.BIRNAM-BWOOD ST. CHIR ST.W. W. ST.W. BELVID ERE TR. AUT OO DAVE.AUTUMNWOODCT.AUTUMN139 CT.CONNEMA RAth ST. ATRIU M AVE.UMN W BURN A U W WOO O OD DNAUTUMTU MN AA ANTI A VE.140th ST. V PA HT AUA ZALEA AVE.VE.A TWO ODCROSSCLIFFEPL.CT.CROMWELL24. BOYSENBERRY CT. CT.RRYBEBLUEBLANC AAV E. CONNEMARA BROCKWAY130th ST.W. TAWATER PAT HATWATER CT.ATHENA WAY ATHENACT.PATH AT WO OD AT WOODTR. AUTUMN AVE. N YERALB C T .BLANCAAVE.BLANCACT.ST. 38 BRONZECT.BROONZEPKWY.133rd ST.AVE.135th ST.BRASSPKWY.BONAI RE P ATH25.PATH AVE.COUCHTOWNCT.COACHFORD COUCHFORDAVE.CARR A C H WAYCARRACHFORD AVE. CT.CO ACH WAY 923 935 948.8 908 955 910 932 941.2 924 920 ELEVATION MANAGEMENT WATER SURFACE DISCHARGE UNTIL THE MANAGEMENT WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IN BASIN 1864 IS REACHED. TEMP. PUMP TO BASIN 1795 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE RAILROAD IN THE BLOOMFIELD DEV. INSPECT BASIN 1795 AND 1864 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IN THE BLOOMFIELD DEVELOPMENT. IN THE EVERMOOR DEVELOPMENT. IF LIFT STATION HAS FAILED CLOSE THE CONTROL STRUCTURE ON POND 1662 LOCATED DETERMINE IF UPSTREAM SYSTEM IS CONTRIBUTING TO WATER SURFACE ELEVATION INCREASE. REPAIR AS NECESSARY. INSPECT LIFT STATION INLET FOR OBSTRUCTION, MALFUNCTION, OR POWER FAILURE. OPERATIONAL. DETERMINE AVAILABLE STORM WATER STORAGE AND VERIFY THAT LIFT STATION IS INSPECT DOWNSTREAM WATER SURFACE ELEVATION AT POND 1408 (MARCOTTE POND) TO AS NECESSARY. DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM FOR OBSTRUCTION AND DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM FOR OBSTRUCTION. REPAIR VERIFY THAT OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE IS NOT CLOSED OR OBSTRUCTED. INSPECT RECORD PUMPING RATE AND OPERATING TIME FOR MnDNR PERMIT RECORDS STORM WATER STORAGE. ACTIVATE LIFT STATION IF STORM WATER STORAGE IS AVAILABLE. INSPECT DOWNSTREAM WATER SURFACE ELEVATION AT POND 1687 TO DETERMINE AVAILABLE REPAIR AS NECESSARY. INSPECT LIFT STATION INLET FOR OBSTRUCTION, MALFUNCTION, OR POWER FAILURE. OPERATION. REACHED. MONITOR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION AT POND 1687 DURING LIFT STATION TURN POND 1589 LIFT STATION ON IN THE TRAILER PARK ONCE NWL ELEVATION HAS BEEN STATION OPERATION. TURN LIFT STATION OFF IF POND REACHS 935 HAS BEEN REACHED. MONITOR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION AT POND 1687 DURING LIFT TURN POND 1486 LIFT STATION ON IN THE EVERMOOR DEVELOPMENT ONCE NWL ELEVATION WATER SURFACE HAS REACHED ELEVATION 937 TEMPORARY PUMP IF WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IS NOT RECEDING AFTER FIVE DAYS OR RECORD WATER SURFACE FOR POND 1589 TO DETERMINE AVAILABLE STORM WATER STORAGE. TURN POND 1589 LIFT STATION OFF IN THE TRAILER PARK IF SYSTEM IS OPERATING. SURFACE MANAGEMENT ELEVATION. OPERATING. RECORD WATER SURFACE FOR POND 1486 TO DETERMINE IF POND HAS REACHED TURN POND 1486 LIFT STATION OFF IN THE EVERMOOR DEVELOPMENT IF SYSTEM IS CLOSE OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE FROM KEEGAN LAKE ONCE 935 ELEVATION IS REACHED. INCREASE(KEEGAN LAKE, POND 1486-EVERMOOR, POND 1589-TRAILER PARK) DETERMINE IF UPSTREAM SYSTEM IS CONTRIBUTING TO WATER SURFACE ELEVATION MONITOR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION ONCE 935 ELEVATION IS REACHED NOT CONSTRUCTED TO POND 1716) ELEVATION OR POND1687 REACHES 935 ELEVATION.(ASSUMES DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM IS OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE AT POND 1671 UNTIL WATER SURFACE RETURNS TO 946 IS AVAILABLE. IF STORM WATER STORAGE IS AVAILABLE BELOW ELEVATION 935 OPEN RECORD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION OF POND 1687 TO DETERMINE IF STORM WATER STORAGE DETERMINE IF UPSTREAM SYSTEM IS CONTRIBUTING TO WATER SURFACE ELEVATION INCREASE MONITOR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION ONCE 946 ELEVATION IS REACHED RECORD PUMPING RATE AND OPERATING TIME FOR MnDNR PERMIT RECORDS INFILTRATION TO NWL HAS OCCURRED. OCCURING. OPEN CONTROL STRUCTURE ONCE TEMPORARY PUMP IS INSTALLED OR CLOSE UPSTREAM CONTROL STRUCTURE AT POND 1795 IF DISCHARGE TO POND 1864 IS WATER SURFACE HAS REACHED ELEVATION 916 TEMPORARY PUMP IF WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IS NOT RECEDING AFTER FIVE DAYS OR TO RECEDE TO NWL RECORD WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS TO EVALUATE INFILTRATION RATE AND DAYS REQUIRED DETERMINE IF UPSTREAM SYSTEM IS CONTRIBUTING TO WATER SURFACE ELEVATION INCREASE MONITOR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION DAILY ONCE 908 ELEVATION IS REACHED RECORD PUMPING RATE AND OPERATING TIME FOR MnDNR PERMIT RECORDS RECEDING AFTER FIVE DAYS OR WATER SURFACE HAS REACHED ELEVATION 957 TEMPORARY PUMP TO CSAH 42 STORM SEWER IF WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IS NOT TO RECEDE TO NWL RECORD WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS TO EVALUATE INFILTRATION RATE AND DAYS REQUIRED DETERMINE IF UPSTREAM SYSTEM IS CONTRIBUTING TO WATER SURFACE ELEVATION INCREASE MONITOR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION DAILY ONCE 955 ELEVATION IS REACHED RECORD PUMPING RATE AND OPERATING TIME FOR MnDNR PERMIT RECORDS WATER SURFACE HAS REACHED ELEVATION 916 TEMPORARY PUMP IF WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IS NOT RECEDING AFTER FIVE DAYS OR TO RECEDE TO NWL RECORD WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS TO EVALUATE INFILTRATION RATE AND DAYS REQUIRED DETERMINE IF UPSTREAM SYSTEM IS CONTRIBUTING TO WATER SURFACE ELEVATION INCREASE MONITOR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION DAILY ONCE 910 ELEVATION IS REACHED RECORD PUMPING RATE AND OPERATING TIME FOR MnDNR PERMIT RECORDS WATER SURFACE HAS REACHED ELEVATION 940 TEMPORARY PUMP IF WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IS NOT RECEDING AFTER FIVE DAYS OR TO RECEDE TO NWL RECORD WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS TO EVALUATE INFILTRATION RATE AND DAYS REQUIRED DETERMINE IF UPSTREAM SYSTEM IS CONTRIBUTING TO WATER SURFACE ELEVATION INCREASE MONITOR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION DAILY ONCE 932 ELEVATION IS REACHED RECORD PUMPING RATE AND OPERATING TIME FOR MnDNR PERMIT RECORDS OF WATER SURFACE ELEVATION RECORD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION. NOTIFY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OR CITY ENGINEER PUMPING TO INFILTRATE ONCE POND 1687 REACHES 935 ELEVATION MONITOR POND 1687 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION DURING KEEGAN LAKE DRAWDOWN-SUSPEND INSTALL TEMPORARY PUMP TO DISCHARGE TO POND 1687 IS INCREASING AND TEMPORARY PUMPING IS REQUIRED MONITOR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION DAILY TO DETERMINE IF WATER SURFACE ELEVATION INCREASING TO THE SCADA SYSTEM WARNING ELEVATION OF 948 MONITOR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION TO DETERMINE IF WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IS SYSTEM IS OPERATIONAL INSPECT BIRGER AND SHANNON POND FORCEMAIN DISCHARGE. VERIFY THAT THE SCADA INSPECT OUTLET STRUCTURE AND STORM SEWER FOR OBSTRUCTION IS INCREASING AND TEMPORARY PUMPING IS REQUIRED MONITOR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION DAILY TO DETERMINE IF WATER SURFACE ELEVATION DUE TO OBSTRUCTION OF OUTLET OR MALFUNCTION INSPECT WENSMANN POND OUTLET TO VERIFY THAT SCADA SYSTEM HAS NOT BEEN ACTIVATED MALFUNCTION DETERMINE IF POWER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION IS OCCURRING-RESTORE POWER-REPAIR INSPECT LIFT STATION TO INSURE PUMP IS OPERATING PER SYSTEM CONTROLS (SCADA) RECORD PUMPING RATE AND OPERATING TIME FOR MnDNR PERMIT RECORDS TURNOFF PUMP WHEN ELEVATION REACHES 918 INSTALL TEMPORARY PUMP TO DISCHARGE TO BIRGER POND TO RESTORE NWL OF WATER SURFACE ELEVATION RECORD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION. NOTIFY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR OR CITY ENGINEER ELEVATION REACTIVATE SYSTEM IF WENSMANN AND SHANNON POND ARE BELOW CRITICAL/SCADA SYSTEM EXAMINE LIFT STATION INLET FOR OBSTRUCTION PUMPS EXAMINE LIFT STATION SCADA SYSTEM FOR POWER FAILURE/MALFUNCTION OR SHUT DOWN OF IF LIFT STATION HAS FAILED CLOSE DISCHARGE FROM POND 1341(DANBURY POND) IF LIFT STATION HAS FAILED CLOSE CONTROL STRUCTURE AT POND 2424 (EVERMOOR DEV.) CHECK IF BIRGER POND LIFT STATION IS FUNCTIONAL CHECK OUTLET FOR OBSTRUCTIONS & LIFT STATION MALFUNCTION RESTORE SYSTEM WHEN ELEVATION REACHES 913 TURN ON TEMPORARY PUMP AT SHANNON POND TURN OFF PUMPS AT BIRGER AND HAWKINS POND OPERATIONAL ACTION (KL-1716) MINEA POND (EP-1752) SCHWARZ POND EVERMOOR DEV. POND BP-2424 IS CONSTRUCTED" SYSTEM TO POND 1687 "ASSUMES DOWNSTREAM EVERMOOR DEV. POND KL-1486 IS NOT CONSTRUCTED" SYSTEM TO POND 1716 "ASSUMES DOWNSTREAM CONNEMARA TRAIL POND POND KL-1687 BISCAYNE POINT DEV. POND KL-1671 BLOOMFIELD DEVELOPMENT POND KL-1864 (WA-2042 & WA-1969) TWIN PUDDLES POND (WA-2443) WACHTER LAKE (EP-1990) POND 1990-BUIS. PARK (KL-1433) KEEGAN LAKE (SP-2111) WENSMANN POND (HP-77) HAWKINS POND POND 1679 (BP-514) BIRGER POND (BP-1408) MARCOTTE POND (SP-614) SHANNON POND BASIN IDENTIFICATION BASIN 1795 IN THE BLOOMFIELD DEVELOPMENT. TEMPORARY PUMP SOUTH ACROSS RAILROAD TO AND AGREEMENT IS SECURED. TEMPORARY PUMP TO THE MCES TRUNKLINE IF AVAILABLE SOUTH OF CSAH 42 ON THE U OF M PROPERTY AGREEMENT REQURIED TEMPORARY PUMP TO UNIV. OF MINN. BASIN 1918 LOCATED TO POND 600 IN THE WACHTER LAKE WATERSHED TEMPORARY PUMP TO SHANNON PARKWAY STORM SEWER AGREEMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED TEMPORARY PUMP TO BASIN 2302 AT UNIV. OF MINN. AT THE AAA AUTO SALVAGE PROPERTY TEMPORARY PUMP TO BASIN 2274 ACROSS TH3 WITH U OF M WILL BE REQUIRED TO UNIV. OF MINN. BASIN 2162-AGREEMENT FROM BASIN 2187 ACROSS BISCAYNE AVE PROPERTY BASIN 2162. INSTALL GRAVITY OUTLET TEMPORARY PUMP TO UNIV. OF MINN. REVISION ONCE PERMANENT OUTLET COMPLETED. OUTLET TO BE INSTALLED IN 2003. PLAN WILL REQUIRE TEMPORARY PUMP TO BASIN 2274. PROPOSED PUMPING OPTIONS SCADA SYSTEM SCADA SYSTEM SCADA SYSTEM SCADA SYSTEM 924.5 941.9 926 944.5 916.5 893.5-893.0 906.5 ELEVATION & PUMP OFF OUTLET PUMP OFF - 893.0 LAG PUMP ON - 894.0 LEAD PUMP ON - 893.5 BIRGER POND FLOAT SETTING (2014) 925.5 930.2 947 935.3 941.2 950 916.2 957.2 936.3 943.6 943 948 928.4 926.3 906.6 911.8 924.5 ELEVATION WATER HIGH 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 1431 1486514 1752 77 1990 1671 1716 2111 614 2443 2042 1969 1864 1408 2424 1687 2162 2187 2274 2302 1918 LEGEND 1864 POND WITH OUTLET MONITORING DEVICE DEVICE LOCATED AT THE HIGH WATER ELEVATION. WITH TWO MONITORING DEVICES HAVE THE SECOND ELEVATION IS IDENTIFIED WITH A REFLECTOR. BASIN ELEVATION. SINGLE MONITORING DEVICE HIGH WATER BE LOCATED AT THE OUTLET ELEVATION OR MANAGEMENT NOTE: BASIN WITH A SINGLE MONITORING DEVICE SHALL 910-MANAGE 910-OUTLET or Permanent Lift Station Outlet) (Does not have storm sewer LANDLOCKED POND OR THE LIFT STATION PUMP ON ELEVATION. ELEVATION OF THE GRAVITY OUTLET INVERT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN BASIN IDENTIFICATION PER CITY of Public Works or City Engineer.) City of Rosemount Director is exceeded immediately notify surrounding the basin. If the elevation rainfall and not flood structures accommodate a 100 year critical duration enough storm water storage to elevation in this box in order to provide (must be maintained below the designated Water Surface Management Elevation 911.8 - HWL 906.5 - OUTLET 906.6 - HWL 893.5-OUTLET 926.3 - HWL 924.0-MANAGE 928.4 - HWL 916.5-OUTLET 957.2 - HWL 955.0-MANAGE 948.0 - HWL 944.5-OUTLET 924.5 - HWL 920-MANAGE 943.6 - HWL 932.0-MANAGE 936.3 - HWL 910-MANAGE 935.3 - HWL 926.0 - OUTLET 947 - HWL 941.9 - OUTLET 930.2 - HWL 924.5 - OUTLET 943.0 - HWL 941.2 - MANAGE 946.3 - HWL 944.0 - MANAGE 941.2-HWL 935.0-MANAGE 950.0 - HWL 948.8-OUTLET 925.5 - HWL 923-MANAGE 916.0 - HWL 908.0-MANAGE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES APPENDIX Q – CITY ORDINANCES Chapter 1 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT 10-1-1: STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION: This chapter is adopted pursuant to Minnesota statutes, section 462.351 (1990). (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17- 2015) 10-1-2: FINDINGS: The city hereby finds that uncontrolled and inadequately planned use of wetlands, woodlands, natural habitat areas, areas subject to soil erosion and areas containing restrictive soils adversely affects the public health, safety and general welfare by impacting water quality and contributing to other environmental problems, creating nuisances, impairing other beneficial uses of environmental resources and hindering the ability of the city to provide adequate water, sewage, flood control, and other community services. In addition, extraordinary public expenditures may be required for the protection of persons and property in such areas and in areas which may be affected by unplanned land usage. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015) 10-1-3: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to promote, preserve and enhance the natural resources within the city and protect them from adverse effects occasioned by poorly sited development or incompatible activities: by regulating land disturbing or development activities that would have an adverse and potentially irreversible impact on water quality and unique and fragile environmentally sensitive land; by minimizing conflicts and encouraging compatibility between land disturbing and development activities and water quality and environmentally sensitive lands; and by requiring detailed review standards and procedures for land disturbing or development activities proposed for such areas, thereby achieving a balance between urban growth and development and protection of water quality and natural areas. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015) 10-1-4: DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivatives shall have the meanings stated below. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense, words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the singular number include the plural number. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directive. APPLICANT: Any person who wishes to obtain a building permit, zoning or subdivision approval. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The most effective and practicable means of erosion prevention and sediment control, and water quality management practices that are the most effective and practicable means to control, prevent, and minimize degradation of surface water, including avoidance of impacts, construction phasing, minimizing the length of time soil areas are exposed, prohibitions, pollution prevention through good housekeeping, and other management practices published by state or designated area wide planning agencies. BUILDING INSPECTOR: A person who has received training and is given authority by the city of Rosemount to inspect and maintain erosion and sediment control practices. CITY: The city of Rosemount. CITY ENGINEER: The professional engineer designated by the city as city engineer or a representative thereof. CLEARING: Any activity that removes the vegetative surface cover. CONSERVATION EASEMENT: Legal land preservation agreement between a landowner and a municipality or a qualified land protection organization. The easement confers the transfer of usage rights from one party to another. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: A disturbance to the land that results in a change in the topography, existing soil cover (both vegetative and nonvegetative), or the existing soil topography that may result in accelerated stormwater runoff, leading to soil erosion and movement of sediment into surface waters or drainage systems. Examples of construction activity may include clearing, grading, filling and excavating. Construction activity includes the disturbance of less than one acre of total land area that is a part of a larger common plan of development or sale if the larger common plan will ultimately disturb one acre or more. CONTROL MEASURE: A practice or combination of practices to control erosion, sediment transport and attendant pollution. CONTROL PLAN: A plan indicating the specific measures and sequencing to be used to control grading, sediment and erosion on a development site during and after construction. DETENTION FACILITY: A permanent natural or manmade structure, including wetlands, for the temporary storage of runoff which contains a permanent pool of water. DEVELOPER: Any person, group, firm, corporation, sole proprietorship, partnership, state agency, or political subdivision thereof engaged in a land disturbance activity. DEVELOPMENT: Any land disturbance activity that changes the site's runoff characteristics in conjunction with residential, commercial, industrial or institutional construction or alteration. DEWATERING: The removal of water for construction activity. It can be a discharge of appropriated surface or ground water to dry and/or solidify a construction site. It may require Minnesota department of natural resources permits to be appropriated and if contaminated may require other MPCA permits to be discharged. DRAINAGEWAY: Any channel that conveys surface runoff throughout the site. EROSION: Any process that wears away the surface of the land by the action of water. EROSION CONTROL: Refers to methods employed to prevent erosion. Examples include soil stabilization practices, horizontal slope grading, temporary or permanent cover, and construction phasing. EROSION PREVENTION: Any measures employed to prevent erosion. Examples include, but are not limited to: soil stabilization practices, limited grading, mulch, temporary or permanent cover, and construction phasing. EXPOSED SOIL AREAS: All areas of the construction site where the vegetation (trees, shrubs, brush, grasses, etc.) or impervious surface has been removed, thus rendering the soil more prone to erosion. This includes topsoil stockpile areas, borrow areas and disposal areas within the construction site. FINAL GRADE: Excavation or fill of material to final smooth condition. Final grade completed as part of individual site development. FINAL STABILIZATION: A. All soil disturbing activities at the site have been completed and a uniform (e.g., evenly distributed, without large bare areas) perennial vegetative cover with a density of seventy percent (70%) of the native background vegetative cover for the area has been established on all unpaved areas and areas not covered by permanent structures, or equivalent permanent stabilization measures (such as the use of riprap, gabions, or geotextiles) have been employed; B. For individual lots in residential construction by either: 1) the homebuilder completing final stabilization as specified above, or 2) the homebuilder establishing temporary stabilization including perimeter controls for an individual lot prior to occupation of the home by the homeowner and informing the homeowner of the need for, and benefits of, final stabilization (Homeowners typically have an incentive to put in the landscaping functionally equivalent to final stabilization as quick as possible to keep mud out of their homes and off sidewalks and driveways.); or C. For construction projects on land used for agricultural purposes (e.g., pipelines across crop or range land) final stabilization may be accomplished by returning the disturbed land to its preconstruction agricultural use. Areas disturbed that were not previously used for agricultural activities, such as buffer strips immediately adjacent to surface waters and drainage systems, and areas which are not being returned to their preconstruction agricultural use must meet the final stabilization criteria in subsection A or B of this definition. FLOOD FRINGE: The portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway. FLOODPLAIN: The areas adjoining a watercourse or water basin that have been or may be covered by a regional flood. FLOODWAY: The channel of the watercourse, the bed of water basins, and those portions of the adjoining floodplains that are reasonably required to carry and discharge floodwater and provide water storage during a regional flood. GRADING: Excavation or fill of material, including the resulting conditions thereof. GRADING, EROSION AND SEDIMENT PLANS: A set of plans prepared by or under the direction of a licensed professional engineer. Plans are required to meet the specifications as detailed in the city of Rosemount "Plan Requirements And Design Guidelines". HYDRIC SOILS: Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION: Macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: A constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than prior to development. Examples include rooftops, sidewalks, patios, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, and concrete, asphalt, or gravel roads. LAND DISTURBING OR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES: Any change of the land surface including removing vegetative cover, excavating, filling, grading, and the construction of any structure. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES): The program for issuing, modifying, revoking, reissuing, terminating, monitoring, and enforcing permits under the clean water act (sections 301, 318, 402, and 405) and United States code of federal regulations title 33, sections 1317, 1328, 1342, and 1345. PERIMETER CONTROL: A barrier that prevents sediment from leaving a site by filtering sediment laden runoff or diverting it to a sediment trap or basin. PERMANENT COVER: Final site stabilization. Examples include grass, gravel, asphalt, and concrete. See also the definition of Final Stabilization. PERMIT: A permit issued by the municipality for the construction or alteration of ground. PERSON: Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, franchisee, association or governmental entity. PHASING: Clearing a parcel of land in distinct phases, with the stabilization of each phase completed before the clearing of the next. PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES: Manual detailing city specifications for all plan requirements. PUBLIC WATERS: Waters of the state as defined in Minnesota statutes, section 103G.005, subdivision 15. ROUGH GRADE: Excavation or fill of material to a condition suitable for general maintenance. SEDIMENT: The product of an erosion process; solid material both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being transported, or has been moved by water, wind, or ice, and has come to rest on the earth's surface either above or below water level. SEDIMENT CONTROL: Measures and methods employed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. Sediment control practices include silt fences, sediment traps, earth dikes, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface drains, pipe slope drains, storm drain inlet protection, and temporary or permanent sedimentation basins. SEDIMENTATION: The process or action of depositing sediment. SITE: A parcel of land or a contiguous combination thereof, where grading work is performed as a single unified operation. SITE DEVELOPMENT: Improvements and structures for the control of erosion, runoff, and grading. SOIL: The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the immediate surface of the earth. For the purposes of this chapter temporary stockpiles of clean sand, gravel, aggregate, concrete or bituminous materials (which have less stringent protection) are not considered "soil" stockpiles. STABILIZED: The exposed ground surface has been covered by appropriate materials such as mulch, staked sod, riprap, wood fiber blanket, or other material that prevents erosion from occurring. Grass seeding is not stabilization. STANDARD PLATES: General drawings having or showing similar characteristics or qualities that are representative of a construction practice or activity. START OF CONSTRUCTION: The first land disturbing activity associated with a development, including land preparation such as clearing, grading, and filling; installation of streets and walkways; excavation for basements, footings, piers, or foundations; erection of temporary forms; and installation of accessory buildings such as garages. STORMWATER: Defined under Minnesota rules 7077.0105, subp. 41(b), and includes precipitation runoff, stormwater runoff, snowmelt runoff, and any other surface runoff and drainage. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: A plan for stormwater discharge that includes erosion prevention measures and sediment controls that, when implemented, will decrease soil erosion on a parcel of land and decrease off site nonpoint pollution. STRUCTURE: Anything manufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, including portable structures, earthen structures, roads, parking lots, and paved storage areas. SURFACE WATER OR WATERS: All streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, wetlands, reservoirs, springs, rivers, drainage systems, waterways, watercourses, and irrigation systems whether natural or artificial, public or private. TEMPORARY EROSION PROTECTION: Methods employed to prevent erosion. Examples of temporary cover include straw, wood fiber blanket, wood chips, and erosion netting. WATERCOURSE: Any body of water, including, but not limited to, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and bodies of water delineated by Rosemount. WATERWAY: A channel that directs surface runoff to a watercourse or to the public storm drain. WETLAND OR WETLANDS: Defined in Minnesota rules 7050.0130, subp. F and includes those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Constructed wetlands designed for wastewater treatment are not waters of the state. Wetlands must have the following attributes: A. A predominance of hydric soils; B. Inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in a saturated soil condition; and C. Under normal circumstances support a prevalence of such vegetation. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17- 2015; amd. Ord. 2015-05, 7-7-2015) 10-1-5: SCOPE AND EFFECT: A. Applicability: 1. Every applicant for a subdivision approval or a permit to allow land disturbing activities must submit a stormwater management plan to the city engineer. No subdivision approval, or grading permit to allow land disturbing activities, shall be issued until approval of the stormwater management plan or a waiver of the approval requirement has been obtained in strict conformance with the provisions of this chapter. 2. Every applicant for a subdivision approval or a grading permit to allow wetland disturbing activities must submit a wetland assessment report to the city engineer. No subdivision approval, or grading permit to allow wetland disturbing activities shall be issued until approval of the wetland replacement plan application or a certificate of exemption has been obtained in strict conformance with the provisions of this chapter and the Minnesota wetland conservation act. This chapter applies to all land, public or private, located within the city. 3. Every applicant for a building permit, subdivision approval, or a grading permit to allow land disturbing activities must adhere to erosion control measure standards and specifications in strict conformance with the provisions of this chapter and the specifications and be consistent with national pollution discharge elimination permit (NPDES general construction permit) or as approved by the city engineer or designated representative. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015) B. Exemptions: The provisions of this chapter do not apply to: 1. Any part of subdivision if a plat for the subdivision has been approved by the city council on or before the effective date hereof; 2. Any land disturbing activity for which plans have been approved by the Vermillion River Watershed Management Organization within six (6) months prior to the effective date hereof; 3. Installation of fence, sign, telephone, and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; 4. Excavations and/or land moving activities involving less than thirty eight (38) cubic meters (50 cubic yards) of soil; 5. Emergency work to protect life, limb, or property. C. Waiver: The city council may waive any requirement of this chapter upon making a finding that compliance with the requirement will involve an unnecessary hardship and the waiver of such requirement will not adversely affect the standards and requirements set forth in this chapter. The city council may require as a condition of the waiver such dedication or construction, or agreement to dedicate or construct, as may be necessary to adequately meet said standards and requirements. (Ord. 2015-05, 7-7-2015) 10-1-6: INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE: The following are incorporated into this chapter by reference: A. The Rosemount comprehensive wetland management plan. B. The Rosemount surface water management plan. C. The Rosemount stormwater utility policy. D. The Minnesota wetland conservation act. E. The national pollutant discharge elimination system permit, MN R100001 (NPDES general construction permit) issued by the Minnesota pollution control agency, August 1, 2013, as amended. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015) 10-1-7: DEVELOPMENT SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVAL PROCEDURES: A. Application: A written application for stormwater management plan approval, along with the proposed stormwater management plan and grading plan, shall be filed with the city engineer and shall include a statement indicating the grounds upon which the approval is requested, that the proposed use is permitted by right or as an exception in the underlying zoning district, and adequate evidence showing that the proposed use will conform to the standards set forth in this chapter. Prior to applying for approval of a stormwater management plan, an applicant may have the stormwater management and grading plans reviewed by the appropriate departments of the city. Five (5) sets of clearly legible blue or black lined copies of all drawings on bond paper are required. Required information shall be submitted to the city engineer and shall be accompanied by a receipt from the finance department evidencing the payment of all required fees for processing and approval as set forth in section 10-1-9 of this chapter, and security when required by subsection 10-1-8D of this chapter in the amount to be calculated in accordance with that subsection. Stormwater management and grading plan drawings shall be prepared to a scale appropriate to the site of the project and suitable for the review to be performed. At a minimum the scale shall be one to six hundred (1:600) (1 inch = 50 feet). Drawing sheets shall be twenty two by thirty four inches (22 x 34"). B. Stormwater Management Plan: At a minimum, the stormwater management plan shall contain the following: 1. Existing Site Map: A map of existing site conditions showing the site and immediately adjacent areas within two hundred feet (200'), and including: a. The names, addresses, telephone numbers, and fax numbers of the applicant, owner, developer, surveyor, engineer and contact person. b. The section, township and range, north point oriented either up or to the right, date and scale of drawing and number of sheets. c. Plat names and block, lot and outlot boundaries for adjacent platted property and full property identification numbers for adjacent unplatted property. d. Location of the tract by an insert map at a scale sufficient to clearly identify the location of the property and giving such information as the names and numbers of adjoining roads, railroads, utilities, subdivisions, towns and districts or other landmarks. e. Location and indication of demolition, relocation, or abandonment of existing structures, driveways, septic systems, alternate septic systems and wells. f. Existing underground and overhead utilities, easements and rights of way. g. Existing topography with a contour interval appropriate to the topography of the land but in no case having a contour interval greater than two feet (2'). h. Existing topographic contours extending beyond the site two hundred feet (200') or enough to completely show the limits of drainage basins not fully contained within the proposed plat limits. i. A delineation of all streams, rivers, ponds, public waters and wetlands located on and immediately adjacent to the site, including depth of water, a statement of general water quality and any classification given to the water body or wetland by the Minnesota department of natural resources (include MNDNR number and ordinary high water level), the Minnesota pollution control agency, the U.S. fish and wildlife service, and/or the United States army corps of engineers. j. The city's most recent stormwater management plan district number along with normal and high water levels for ponds. k. Location and dimensions of existing stormwater drainage systems and natural drainage patterns on and immediately adjacent to the site delineating in which direction and at what rate stormwater is conveyed from the site, identifying the receiving stream, river, public water, or wetland, and setting forth those areas of the unaltered site where stormwater collects. l. A description of the soils of the site, including a map indicating soil types of areas to be disturbed as well as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable. m. Vegetative cover such as brush, grass and trees, including tree diameters, and clearly delineating any vegetation proposed for removal. n. The 10-year and 100-year floodplains, flood fringes and floodways. 2. Site Grading Plan: Drawings shall be prepared to a scale appropriate to the site of the project and suitable for the review to be performed. At a minimum the scale shall be one to six hundred (1:600) (1 inch = 50 feet). Drawing sheets shall be twenty two by thirty four inches (22 x 34"). A site grading plan shall include: a. The section, township and range, north point oriented either up or to the right, date, revision number, scale of drawing and number of sheets. b. Signature and Minnesota license number of the professional land surveyor or professional engineer under whose supervision the plan was prepared. c. Proposed septic systems, alternative septic systems and wells. d. Locations and dimensions of all proposed land disturbing activities and any phasing of those activities. e. Locations and dimensions of all temporary soil or dirt stockpiles. f. Existing topography with a contour interval appropriate to the topography of the land but in no case having a contour interval greater than two feet (2'). g. Existing topographic contours extending beyond the site two hundred feet (200') or enough to completely show the limits of drainage basins not fully contained within the proposed plat limits. h. Finished grading shown at contours at the same interval as provided above or as required to clearly indicate the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and remaining features. i. All lot corner elevations and bench marks utilized. j. The proposed footprint and intended use of any structures or driveways to be constructed on the site. k. A delineation of all streams, rivers, ponds, public waters and wetlands located on and immediately adjacent to the site, including depth of water, a statement of general water quality and any classification given to the water body or wetland by the Minnesota department of natural resources (include MNDNR number and ordinary high water level), the Minnesota pollution control agency, the U.S. fish and wildlife service, and/or the United States army corps of engineers. l. The city's most recent stormwater management plan district number along with pond storage volume and normal and high water levels for ponds. m. Emergency overflow routes from all low points, elevation of high point along overflow route and directional flow arrows. n. A drainage plan of the developed site delineating 10-year and 100-year design drainage area/watershed and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations verifying location and capacity of all overland drainage routes. o. Access routes for maintenance to all inlets, outlets, manholes, and lift stations at ponding areas proposed. p. A clear delineation and tabulation of all areas which shall be paved or surfaced, including a description of the surfacing material to be used. q. A landscape plan, drawn to an appropriate scale, including dimensions and distances and the location, type, size and description of all proposed landscape materials which will be added to the site as part of the development. r. Any other information pertinent to the particular project which in the opinion of the applicant or the city engineer is necessary for the review of the project. s. Within thirty (30) days after completion of site development as per the approved grading plan, and prior to the approval of individual building permits, the developer shall provide the city with an as built grading plan. 3. Erosion And Sediment Control Plans: At a minimum, a separate erosion control plan is required that will accompany the grading plan. No land shall be disturbed until the plan is approved by the city engineer and conforms to the standards set forth herein. All plans shall be consistent with national pollutant discharge elimination permit (NPDES construction general permit) requirements, and the filing or approval requirements of relevant watershed districts, watershed management organizations, ditch authorities, soil and water conservation districts, or other regulatory bodies. a. The erosion and sediment control plan shall include the following: (1) A project description of the nature and purpose of the land disturbing activity and the amount of grading involved. (2) All existing site conditions, including existing soils, topography, vegetation (including size and type cover), natural resources and drainage. (3) All critical erosion areas for areas on the site that have potential for serious erosion problems. (4) A description of how the site will be stabilized after construction is completed, including specifications. (5) A schedule of regular inspections and repair of erosion and sediment control structures. (6) A project schedule describing the projected time line for completion of all site activities and the sequence of construction of the development site, including stripping and clearing; rough grading; construction of utilities, infrastructure, and buildings; and final grading and landscaping. Sequencing shall identify the expected date on which clearing will begin, phasing of clearing or grading, the estimated duration of exposure of cleared areas, areas of clearing, installation of temporary erosion and sediment control measures, and establishment of permanent vegetation. (7) All erosion and sediment control measures necessary to meet the objectives of this local regulation and state and federal regulations throughout all phases of construction and after completion of development of the site. Depending upon the complexity of the project, the drafting of intermediate plans may be required at the close of each season. All of the following requirements shall be adhered to during the construction of the site: (A) Stabilize all soils and soil stockpiles within the shortest feasible period of time, and according to the time lines established in the NDPES construction general permit. (B) Prevent sediment damage to adjacent properties and other designated areas. (C) Develop land in increments of workable sizes so that adequate erosion and sediment controls can be provided as construction progresses. (D) Coordinate erosion and sediment control measures with the different stages of construction. Install appropriate control measures prior to development when necessary to control erosion. (E) Engineer the construction of steep slopes. (F) Use of temporary sediment basins is encouraged when construction projects will impact steep slopes or when highly erodible soils are present. Temporary sediment basins must be designed according to NPDES construction general permit requirements. (G) Protect storm sewers and paved roads from the entrance of sediment. (H) Manage solid and hazardous wastes on site and properly dispose of wastes. (I) When working in or crossing water bodies, take precautions to contain sediment. (J) Ensure that a trained person will regularly inspect the construction site, according to the time lines established in the NPDES construction general permit. (K) Maintain all temporary or permanent erosion and sediment control practices, according to the time lines established in the NPDES construction general permit. (L) Establish permanent vegetation upon completion of the construction activity. (M) Dispose of temporary erosion and sediment control measures following final stabilization. (N) Seeding mixtures and rates, types of sod, method of seedbed preparation, expected seeding dates, type and rate of lime and fertilizer application, and kind and quantity of mulching for both temporary and permanent vegetative control measures. Required specifications are detailed in the city of Rosemount general specifications and "Plan Requirements And Design Guidelines" manual. (O) Use methods of dewatering to reduce the discharge of turbid or sediment laden waters and prevent nuisance conditions. (P) Use methods to manage solid and hazardous wastes, and limit the exposure of stormwater to any products, materials, and wastes and to prevent the contamination of stormwater. 4. Stormwater Management For Permanent Facilities: Stormwater control facilities included as part of the final design for a permanent development shall be addressed in section 10-1-13 of this chapter. Postconstruction stormwater management BMPs must be submitted to the city for review and approval before construction activity may begin. 5. Waiver: Any or all of the above plan requirements in this subsection B may be waived by the city engineer. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015) 10-1-8: PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE: A. Process: Stormwater management plans meeting the requirements of section 10-1-7 of this chapter shall be submitted to the city engineer for review in accordance with the standards of section 10-1- 9 of this chapter. B. Duration: Approval of a plan submitted under the provisions of this chapter shall expire one year after the date of approval unless construction has commenced in accordance with the plan. However, if prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant makes a written request to the city engineer for an extension of time to commence construction setting forth the reasons for the requested extension, the city engineer may grant one extension of not greater than one single year. Receipt of any request for an extension shall be acknowledged by the city engineer within fifteen (15) days. The city engineer shall make a decision on the extension within thirty (30) days of receipt. Any plan may be revised in the same manner as originally approved. C. Conditions: A stormwater management plan may be approved subject to compliance with conditions reasonable and necessary to ensure that the requirements contained in this chapter are met. Such conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed development, require the construction of structures, drainage facilities, storage basins and other facilities, require replacement of vegetation, establish required monitoring procedures, require turf is established in specified areas, require erosion control measures have been removed and their removal area inspected, and landscaping is completed, stage the work over time, require alteration of the site design to ensure buffering, and require the conveyance to the city or other public entity of certain lands or interests therein. D. Security: Prior to approval of any stormwater management plan, the applicant shall submit an agreement to construct such required physical improvements, to dedicate property or easements, or to comply with such conditions as may have been agreed to. Such agreement shall be accompanied by irrevocable, automatically renewing letter of credit, performance bond or other improvement security in the amount specified by the current city ordinance for fee schedule. The security shall cover all costs of engineering and inspection, site improvements, street sweeping, repairs to erosion control measures, and maintenance of improvements for such period as specified by the city. Such security shall be provided prior to the release of the grading permit. The security shall be released after final stabilization is complete, erosion control measures have been removed and their removal area inspected. The agreement shall guarantee completion and compliance with conditions within a specific time, which time may be extended in accordance with subsection B of this section. The adequacy, conditions and acceptability of any agreement and security shall be determined by the city council or any official of the city as may be designated by resolution of the city council. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015) 10-1-9: APPROVAL STANDARDS: No stormwater management plan which fails to meet the standards contained in this section shall be approved by the city engineer. A. Surface Water Management Plan: See the most recent version of the city's surface water management plan. All stormwater management plans shall be consistent with it. B. Site Erosion And Sediment Control: Erosion control measures specified in grading plans must meet all requirements of section 10-1-12 of this chapter. C. Wetlands: Plans must meet all requirements for wetlands contained in section 10-1-11 of this chapter. D. Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan: See the most recent version of the city's comprehensive wetland management plan. All stormwater management plans shall be consistent with it. E. Stormwater Management Criteria For Permanent Facilities: Plans must meet all requirements for permanent facilities contained in section 10-1-13 of this chapter. See the most recent version of the city's surface water management plan. All stormwater management plans shall be consistent with it. F. Design Standards: See the most recent version of the city's surface water management plan. All stormwater management plans shall be consistent with it. G. Steep Slopes: No land disturbing or development activities shall be allowed on slopes of twenty five percent (25%) or more. H. Retaining Walls: Retaining walls shall not be allowed in any city drainage, ponding or utility easement. I. Catch Basins: Newly installed and rehabilitated catch basins shall be provided with a sump area for the collection of coarse grained material as specified by the city engineer. Such basins shall be cleaned when they are half filled with material or as resources allow. J. Drain Leaders: All newly constructed and reconstructed buildings will route drain leaders to pervious areas wherein the runoff can be allowed to infiltrate. The flow rate of water exiting the leaders shall be controlled so no erosion occurs in the pervious areas. K. Structures: See the most recent version of the city's surface water management plan. All stormwater management plans shall be consistent with it. L. Inspection And Maintenance: All stormwater management facilities shall be designed to minimize the need of maintenance, to provide access for maintenance purposes and to be structurally sound. All stormwater management facilities shall have a plan of operation and maintenance that assures continued effective removal of pollutants carried in stormwater runoff. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any necessary easements or other property interests to allow access to the stormwater management facilities for inspection and maintenance purposes. The city may require a developer to enter into a contract providing for access to perform maintenance and inspection to public or private stormwater management facilities. M. Models/Methodologies/Computations: Hydrologic models and design methodologies used for the determination of runoff and analysis of stormwater management structures shall be approved by the city engineer. Plans, specification and computations for stormwater management facilities submitted for review shall be sealed and signed by a registered professional engineer. All computations shall appear on the plans submitted for review, unless otherwise approved by the city engineer. N. Watershed Management Plans/Groundwater Management Plans: Stormwater management plans shall be consistent with adopted watershed management plans and groundwater management plans prepared in accordance with Minnesota statutes, sections 103B.231 and 103B.255, respectively, and as approved by the Minnesota board of water and soil resources in accordance with state law. O. Easements: 1. If a stormwater management plan involves direction of some or all runoff off of the site, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain from adjacent property owners any necessary easements or other property interests concerning flowage of water. 2. Easements are required for all ponding areas to the basin's 100-year storm high water level elevation. 3. Easements are required for all outlet swales and ditches, and for overland overflow routes located downstream of basins located on site. 4. If the storm sewer is to be installed less than ten feet (10') deep within private property, the easement shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide. If the storm sewer is ten feet (10') or greater, the easement shall be twice as wide as the depth. 5. Easements necessary for maintenance vehicle access are required for all of the above where not directly available on a public road. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015) 10-1-10: SURFACE WATER RELATED FEES: A. Stormwater Utility: 1. Utility Established: The city does hereby establish the Rosemount stormwater utility for the purpose of managing city owned stormwater facilities, the collection of stormwater connection charges, utility user fees and expenditures necessary to own and operate this utility as expressly allowed under Minnesota statutes, sections 412.321 through 412.391. 2. Operation And Administration: The operation and administration of the Rosemount stormwater utility will be the responsibility of the utilities commission as established in title 2, chapter 4 of this code. 3. Rules And Regulations: Establishment of operational standards, user fees and other rules and regulations established for the purpose of operating this utility are established in the "stormwater utility policy" adopted herein by reference and may be amended by city council resolution as is deemed necessary by the council. 4. Effect, User Fees: The Rosemount stormwater utility will be established on April 1, 1992, with the first user fees collected in July 1992. B. Processing And Approval Fee: All applications for stormwater management plan approval shall be accompanied by a processing and approval fee determined by the city council. An applicant may also be required to pay a stormwater trunk area charge and/or stormwater connection charge in order to fund the development and maintenance of community stormwater management facilities designed to serve multiple land disturbing and development activities undertaken by one or more persons, including the applicant. (Ord. 2015-05, 7-7-2015) 10-1-11: WETLANDS: A. Assessment Report Required: Every applicant for a subdivision approval or a grading permit to allow wetland disturbing activities must submit a wetland assessment report to the city engineer. No subdivision approval, or grading permit to allow wetland disturbing activities shall be issued until approval of the wetland replacement plan application or a certificate of exemption has been obtained in strict conformance with the provisions of this chapter and the Minnesota wetland conservation act. This section applies to all land, public or private, located within the city. B. Consistency With Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan: Utilization and development impacts to wetlands shall be consistent with the city's comprehensive wetland management plan. C. Impacts To Wetland: 1. Concentrated runoff discharge into wetlands shall be consistent with the stormwater management guidelines within the Rosemount comprehensive wetland management plan. 2. A protective buffer strip of natural vegetation of width prescribed by the Rosemount comprehensive wetland management plan shall surround all wetlands. 3. Wetlands must not be drained or filled, wholly or partially, unless replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value. Replacement must be guided by the following principles in descending order of priority: a. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the wetland; b. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation; c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland environment; d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity; and e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing approved substitute wetland resources or environments. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015; amd. Ord. 2015-05, 7-7-2015) 10-1-12: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL: A. Design Criteria: At minimum erosion control practices, sediment control practices, and waterway crossings shall meet the design criteria set forth below and shall be consistent with city of Rosemount general specifications and "Plan Requirements And Design Guidelines" manual. 1. Cut and fill slopes shall be no greater than four to one (4:1), except as approved by the city engineer. 2. Clearing, except that necessary to establish sediment control devices, shall not begin until all sediment control devices have been installed and have been stabilized. 3. Phasing may be required on all sites based on site specifics, with the size of each phase to be established at plan review and as approved by the city engineer/city of Rosemount. 4. Proposed erosion control measures may be approved by the city engineer as part of a grading plan review toward grading or building permit approval. Erosion control may be specified by the city engineer as part of a site survey for individual building permits. Erosion control may also be specified by the city engineer as needed and deemed appropriate during the construction and postconstruction periods separate from the process described below. B. Specifications: At a minimum, applicants shall meet the specifications set forth below and observe the standards established in NPDES construction general permit requirements and the city's surface water management plan. 1. Soil Stabilization: Soil stabilization shall be completed in a time period as specified by the NPDES construction general permit and the city's general specifications and standards. The city of Rosemount may require the site to be reseeded or a nonvegetative option employed. 2. Seeding: Seeding shall be in accordance with seeding specifications. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. 3. Special Techniques: Special techniques that meet the design criteria outlined in "Plan Requirements And Design Guidelines" shall be in place on steep slopes or in drainageways and shall be used to ensure stabilization. Special techniques may include: temporary sediment basins, slope draining and terracing. 4. Soil Stockpiles: Soil stockpiles which shall be inactive for a period of seven (7) or more days must be stabilized or covered at the end of each workday. Stockpiles shall include perimeter sediment controls and must not be placed in natural buffers or surface waters, including stormwater conveyances. 5. Ninety Percent Coverage: The entire site must be stabilized at a ninety percent (90%) coverage, using a heavy mulch layer or another method that does not require germination to control erosion, at the close of the construction season. 6. Site Development Sediment Controls: Site development sediment controls practices shall include those identified in the city's general specifications including, but not limited to: a. Settling basins, sediment traps, or tanks. b. Protection for adjacent properties by the use of a vegetated buffer strip in combination with perimeter controls. c. Perimeter control including machine sliced silt fence or other city approved BMP, which shall be in place before, during and after grading of the site. Fencing shall be removed only after seventy percent (70%) stabilization. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015; amd. Ord. 2015-05, 7-7-2015) d. Designated as a concrete washout area. (Ord. 2015-05, 7-7-2015) e. Designated as a temporary construction staging area. 7. Temporary Sediment Basins: For sites that have more than ten (10) acres of disturbed soil that drains to a common location (or 5 or more acres for special or impaired waters), one or more temporary sediment basins shall be constructed. Use of temporary basins is encouraged when construction projects will impact steep slopes or when highly erodible soils are present. The basin shall provide treatment to the runoff before it leaves the construction site or enters surface waters. The temporary sediment basins must be designed and constructed as follows: a. Provide live storage for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin. All basins shall provide at least one thousand eight hundred (1,800) cubic feet of live storage from each acre drained or more. b. For basins where the calculation in subsection B7a of this section has not been performed, a temporary sediment basin providing three thousand six hundred (3,600) cubic feet of live storage from each acre drained to the basin shall be provided for the entire drainage area of the temporary basin. c. The outlet structure must be designed to withdraw water from the surface in order to minimize the discharge of pollutants. d. The basin outlet shall be designed to prevent short circuiting and the discharge of floating debris. e. Ensure the basin can be completely drawn down to conduct maintenance activities. f. Include energy dissipation on the outlet of the basin and a stabilized emergency overflow to prevent failure of pond integrity. g. Be located outside of surface waters or any buffer zone, and be designed to avoid draining water from wetlands unless appropriate approval from the U.S. army corps of engineers and the Minnesota department of natural resources is obtained. h. If installation of a temporary sediment basin is not feasible, equivalent sediment controls such as smaller sediment basins, and/or sediment traps, silt fences, vegetative buffer strips, or any appropriate combination of measures are required for all down slope boundaries of the construction area and for side slope boundaries where appropriate. Determination of feasibility shall be documented in the erosion and sediment control plan. 8. Individual Construction Site Sediment Controls: Individual construction site sediment controls shall be installed as specified in the city's "Plan Requirements And Design Guidelines" and shall include: a. Rock construction entrance (driveway); b. Perimeter controls including silt fence in place before, during and after grading of the site. Fencing shall be removed only after proper turf establishment. 9. Waterway And Watercourse Protection: Waterway and watercourse protection requirements shall include stabilization of the watercourse channel before, during and after any in-channel work consistent with the city's general specifications. a. A temporary stream crossing must be installed and approved by the local government unit and regulating agency if a wet watercourse will be crossed regularly during construction. b. The watercourse channel shall be stabilized before, during, and within twenty four (24) hours after any in-channel work. c. No in-water work shall be allowed in public waters during the MNDNR'S work exclusion dates. d. Prior to placement of any equipment into any waters, all equipment must be free of aquatic plants and nonnative animals. All on site stormwater conveyance channels shall be designed according to the criteria outlined in this document. Stabilization adequate to prevent erosion located at the outlets of all pipes and paved channels is required. 10. Site Dewatering: Site dewatering shall be conducted pursuant to the city's general specifications document. Water pumped from the site shall be treated by temporary sediment basins, grit chambers, sand filters, or other controls as appropriate to ensure adequate treatment is obtained and that nuisance conditions will not result from the discharge. Discharges from the site shall not be released in a manner that causes erosion, scour, sedimentation or flooding of the site, receiving channels or wetlands. 11. Waste And Material Disposal: All waste and unused building materials (including garbage, debris, cleaning wastes, wastewater, toxic materials or hazardous materials) shall be properly disposed of off site and not allowed to be carried by runoff into a receiving channel or storm sewer system. a. Solid Waste: All unused building materials and waste (including, but not limited to: collected sediment, asphalt and concrete millings, floating debris, paper, plastic, fabric, etc.) must be disposed of accordingly and shall comply with disposal requirements set forth by the MPCA. b. Hazardous/Toxic Waste: Paint, gasoline, oil and any hazardous materials must be properly stored, including secondary containment, to prevent spills, leaks or other discharges. Access to the storage areas must be restricted to prevent vandalism. Storage and disposal of hazardous or toxic substance must be in compliance with the requirements set forth by the MPCA. c. Liquid Waste: All other nonstormwater discharges (including, but not limited to, concrete truck washout, vehicle washing or maintenance spills) produced during the construction activity shall not be discharged to any surface waters. d. External Washing Of Equipment And Vehicles: All external washing activities shall be limited to a designated area of the site. All runoff must be contained and wastes from external washing activities must be disposed of properly. No engine degreasing shall be allowed on the site. e. Wastes Generated By Concrete And Other Washout Operations: All liquid and solid wastes generated by any concrete or other washout operations must be contained in a leakproof facility or impermeable liner. Concrete waste must not come into contact with the ground. Concrete waste must be disposed of properly and in compliance with applicable MPCA regulations. 12. Drain Inlet Protection: All storm drain inlets shall be protected during construction until control measures are in place with a straw bale, silt fence or equivalent barrier meeting accepted design criteria, MPCA standards and specifications. 13. Energy Dissipation: Pipe outlets must have temporary or permanent energy dissipation within twenty four (24) hours of connection to a surface water. 14. Tracking: Vehicle tracking BMPs (including, but not limited to: rock pads, mud mats, slash mulch, concrete or steel wash racks, or similar systems) must be installed to minimize track out of sediment from the construction site. If vehicle tracking BMPs are not actively preventing sediment from being tracked into the street, the applicant must utilize street sweeping to contain sediment. 15. Final Stabilization: Final stabilization is not complete until the following criteria are met: a. All land disturbing activities must be finished and all soils shall be stabilized by a uniform perennial vegetative cover with a density of seventy percent (70%) or greater of its expected final growth density over the entire pervious surface area, or other equivalent means necessary to prevent soil failure under erosive conditions. b. The permanent stormwater management system is constructed, meets all of the required design parameters and is operating as designed. c. All temporary synthetic and structural erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs (such as silt fence) have been removed. BMPs designed to decompose on site may be left in place. d. For residential construction only, individual lots are considered finally stabilized if the structure(s) are finished and temporary erosion protection and down gradient perimeter control has been completed and the residence has been sold to the homeowner. e. For construction projects on agricultural land the disturbed land has been returned to its preconstruction agricultural use. C. Inspection: 1. Notification: The city engineer, chief building official or designated agent shall make inspections as hereinafter required and either shall approve that portion of the work completed or shall notify the permittee wherein the work fails to comply with the erosion and sediment control plan as approved. 2. Procedure: To obtain inspections, the permittee shall notify the city of Rosemount at least two (2) working days before the following: a. Start of construction. b. Installation of sediment and erosion measures. c. Completion of site clearing. d. Completion of rough grading. e. Completion of final grading. f. Close of the construction season. g. Completion of final landscaping. h. Removal of erosion control measures. i. Final project compliance and acceptance closeout. 3. Permittee Inspection: The applicant shall be responsible at all times for the maintenance and proper operation of all erosion prevention and sediment control practices. a. Inspections: The permittee or his/her agent shall ensure that a trained person will regularly inspect the construction site at least once every seven (7) days until final stabilization, and within twenty four (24) hours of a rainfall event of one-half inch (1/2") or greater in a twenty four (24) hour period. b. Recordkeeping: All inspection and maintenance activities conducted on the site during construction must be recorded in writing and retained with the erosion and sediment control plan. Records of each inspection and maintenance activity shall include the following: (1) Date and time of inspection; (2) Name(s) of persons conducting the inspection; (3) Findings of inspections, including recommendations for corrective actions; (4) Corrective actions taken, including the dates, times and the name of the party completing the corrective action; (5) Date and the amount of rainfall events that are greater than one-half inch (1/2") in a twenty four (24) hour period; and (6) Documentation of any changes made to the erosion and sediment control plan. D. Site And BMP Maintenance: 1. Responsibilities: Prior to any construction in the plat, the developer shall provide the city engineer with a schedule for erosion and sediment control inspection and maintenance, including schedules for street cleaning, and street sweeping. All site and BMP maintenance activities must comply with the requirements of the NPDES construction general permit. The applicant shall investigate and comply with the following BMP maintenance requirements: a. Silt Fence: All silt fences must be repaired, replaced or supplemented when they become nonfunctional or the sediment reaches one-half (1/2) of the height of the fence. Repairs shall be made by the end of the next business day after discovery or as soon as field conditions allow access. b. Temporary Sediment Basins: Temporary sedimentation basins must be drained and the sediment must be removed when the depth of the sediment collected in the basin reaches one-half (1/2) the storage volume. Drainage and removal must be completed within seventy two (72) hours of discovery or as soon as field conditions allow access. c. Surface Waters And Conveyance Systems: Surface water, including drainage ditches and conveyance systems, must be inspected for visible signs of sediment being deposited by erosion. The applicant must remove all sediment deposited in surface waters, including drainageways, catch basins, and other drainage systems and must restabilize the areas of exposed soil as a result of sediment removal. The removal and stabilization must take place within seven (7) days of discovery unless legal, regulatory or physical access constraints prevent remediation. In the event of an access constraint, the applicant shall use all reasonable efforts to obtain access. If access is precluded, removal and stabilization must take place within seven (7) calendar days of obtaining access. The applicant is responsible for contacting all local, regional, state and federal authorities and obtaining any required permits prior to conducting any work. d. Streets And Paved Surfaces: Where vehicle traffic leaves any part of the site, the exit locations must be inspected for visible signs of off site sediment tracking onto paved surfaces. Tracked sediment must be removed from all off site paved surfaces as soon as possible or within twenty four (24) hours of discovery. e. General Maintenance: The applicant shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of temporary and permanent water quality management BMPs, as well as erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs for the duration of the construction work on the site. The applicant remains responsible until another party has assumed control over all areas of the site that have not established final stabilization and a notice of termination (NOT) has been submitted to the Minnesota pollution control agency. f. Off Site Deposition: If sediment escapes the construction site, off site accumulations of sediment must be removed in a manner and at a frequency sufficient to minimize off site impacts. g. Infiltration Areas: All infiltration areas must be inspected to ensure that no sediment from ongoing construction activities is reaching the infiltration area and these areas are protected from compaction caused by construction equipment driving across the infiltration area. 2. Lapse: If the site development permittee repeatedly fails to meet or maintain sediment and erosion control measures per the approved grading, sediment and erosion control plan, the city may, in its discretion, perform the work or contract to have the work completed and drawn down on the escrow deposit, letter of credit or bond to pay any costs. a. The city will attempt to notify the developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the city to do so will not affect the developer's and city's rights or obligations hereunder. b. If the developer does not reimburse the city for any cost the city incurred beyond that covered by the deposit, for such work within ten (10) days from the date notice of the amount owed to the city is mailed, the city may draw on the security to reimburse city for such costs. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015; amd. Ord. 2015-05, 7-7-2015) 10-1-13: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR PERMANENT FACILITIES: A. Specifications: All postconstruction stormwater management plans must be submitted to the city engineer prior to the start of construction activity. At a minimum, applicants shall meet the specifications set forth below and observe the standards established in NPDES construction general permit requirements, the city's surface water management plan, and the city's "Plan Requirements And Design Guidelines". B. Design Criteria: 1. Volume Control: Volume control measures are required on projects to meet the water quality criteria of the city's surface water management plan and the standard for the general permit authorization to discharge stormwater associated with construction activity under the NPDES construction general permit. 2. Rate Control: a. For newly developing areas, no discharge or infiltration can be assumed for purposes of establishing the 100-year, 24-hour storm event high water elevation. For events with longer duration, a maximum peak stormwater discharge rate will be limited to 0.05 cfs per acre. Redeveloping areas will be required to meet these standards to the maximum reasonable extent practical. b. In the event that the city will not be providing a regional system, storage of the runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event is required on site. c. Landlocked depressions that presently do not have a defined outlet and do not typically overflow may be allowed a positive overflow to prevent damage to adjacent properties. Any overflows from landlocked depressions will comply with the city's rate control, runoff volume control, and low floor requirements including storing runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event for new development and restricting discharge to 0.05 cfs per acre for longer duration storm events. d. New storm sewer systems shall be designed to accommodate discharge rates from a 10-year storm event. 3. Flood Control: The city requires that for any new or redevelopment, at least three feet (3') of freeboard between the anticipated critical 100-year high water elevation and the minimum building opening be maintained. Any deviation from the three feet (3') freeboard requirement is subject to the following conditions and may be approved by the city engineer if the following can be demonstrated: a. That within the two foot (2') freeboard area, stormwater storage is available which is equal to or exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the stormwater storage currently available in the basin below the 100-year high water elevation. b. That a twenty five percent (25%) obstruction of the basin outlet over a twenty four (24) hour period would not result in more than one foot (1') of additional bounce in the basin. c. An adequate overflow route from the basin is available that will provide assurance that one foot (1') of freeboard will be maintained for the proposed low building opening. 4. Design Criteria Of Permanent Facilities: All permanent stormwater facilities must meet the design criteria as provided in the city's surface water management plan. C. Limitations And Restrictions: 1. Stormwater control facilities shall not receive discharges from or be constructed in areas where: a. Industrial facilities are not authorized to infiltrate industrial stormwater under an NPDES industrial stormwater permit issued by the MPCA. b. Vehicle fueling or maintenance activities occur. c. There is less than three feet (3') of separation between the bottom of the infiltration system to the elevation of the seasonally saturated soils or the top of bedrock. d. There are known groundwater contaminants or groundwater will be mobilized by the construction of infiltration BMPs. 2. For areas where infiltration is prohibited the applicant shall consider alternative volume reduction BMPs and the water quality volume must be treated by a wet sedimentation basin, filtration system, regional ponding or similar method prior to the release of stormwater to surface water. 3. For linear projects with lack of right of way, easements or other permissions from property owners to install treatments systems that are capable of treating the total water quality volume on site, the project must maximize treatment through other methods or combination of methods before runoff is released to nearby surface waters. Alternative treatment options include: grassed swales, filtration systems, smaller ponds, or grit chambers. In all circumstances, a reasonable attempt must be made to obtain right of way during the project planning and all attempts of infeasibility must be recorded. 4. The city may restrict the use of infiltration features to meet postconstruction requirements for stormwater management, without higher engineering review, if the infiltration techniques will be constructed in the following areas where: a. Soils are predominately hydrologic soil group D (clay) soils. b. Within one thousand feet (1,000') up gradient, or one hundred feet (100') down gradient of active karst features. c. Drinking water supply management areas are present, as defined by Minnesota rules 4720.51000, subp. 13, unless precluded by a local unit of government with an MS4 permit. d. Soil infiltration rates are more than 8.3 inches per hour unless soils are amended to flow the infiltration rate below 8.3 inches per hour. D. Exceptions: The city may authorize lesser volume control for the following situations: 1. If the project meets one of the limitations outlined above; and 2. If the owner/operator implements to the maximum extent possible other volume reduction practices, besides infiltration, on the site but may not meet the requirements for postconstruction stormwater management. E. Mitigation Provisions: 1. Under certain circumstances some construction projects cannot meet the total suspended solids (TSS) and/or total phosphorus (TP) reduction requirements for new or redevelopment projects on the site of the original construction. When this occurs, the owner/operator will be required to identify alternative locations where TSS and TP treatment standards can be achieved. Mitigation project locations are chosen in the following order of preference: a. Locations that yield benefits to the same receiving water that receives runoff from the original construction activity. b. Locations within the same department of natural resource (DNR) catchment area as the original construction activity. c. Locations in the next adjacent DNR catchment area upstream. d. Locations anywhere within the city of Rosemount. 2. Mitigation projects shall also meet the following criteria: a. Mitigation projects shall involve the establishment of new structural stormwater BMPs or the retrofit of existing structural stormwater BMPs, or the use of a properly designed regional structural stormwater BMP. b. Previously required routine maintenance of structural stormwater BMPs cannot be considered mitigation. c. Mitigation projects must be finished within twenty four (24) months after the original construction activity begins. d. Monies received for mitigation purposes in lieu of meeting conditions for postconstruction stormwater management shall be applied to a public stormwater project and shall comply with this subsection. e. A maintenance agreement specifying the responsible party for long term maintenance shall be identified. F. Maintenance Agreement: The applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the city that documents all responsibilities for operation and maintenance of private long term stormwater treatment BMPs. Such responsibility shall be documented in a maintenance plan and executed through a maintenance agreement. All maintenance agreements must be approved by the city and recorded at the Dakota County recorder's office prior to final plan approval. At a minimum, the maintenance agreement shall describe the inspection and maintenance obligations: 1. The responsible party who is permanently responsible for maintenance of the structural and nonstructural measures. 2. Pass responsibilities for such maintenance to successors in title. 3. Allow the city and its representatives the right of entry for the purposes of inspecting all permanent stormwater management systems. 4. Allow the city the right to repair and maintain the facility, if necessary maintenance is not performed after proper and reasonable notice to the responsible party of the permanent stormwater management system. 5. Include a maintenance plan that contains, but is not limited to, the following: a. Identification of all structural permanent stormwater management systems. b. A schedule for regular inspections, monitoring, and maintenance for each practice. Monitoring shall verify whether the practice is functioning as designed and may include, but is not limited to, quality, temperature, and quantity of runoff. c. Identification of the responsible party for conducting the inspection, monitoring and maintenance for each practice. d. Include a schedule and format for reporting compliance with the maintenance agreement to the city. 6. The issuance of a permit constitutes a right of entry for the city, its contractors, and agents to enter upon the construction site. The applicant shall allow the city, its contractors, agents and any authorized representatives, upon presentation of credentials, to: a. Enter upon the permitted site for the purpose of obtaining information, examination of records, conducting investigations or surveys. b. Bring such equipment upon the permitted development as is necessary to conduct such surveys and investigations. c. Examine and copy any books, papers, records, or memoranda pertaining to activities or records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of the permit. d. Inspect the stormwater pollution control measures. e. Sample and monitor any items or activities pertaining to stormwater pollution control measures. f. Correct deficiencies in stormwater and erosion and sediment control measures. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015; amd. Ord. 2015-05, 7-7-2015) 10-1-14: LAWN FERTILIZER REGULATIONS: A. Use Of Impervious Surfaces: No person shall apply fertilizer to or deposit grass clippings, leaves, or other vegetative materials on impervious surfaces, or within stormwater drainage systems, natural drainageways, or within wetland buffer areas. B. Lawn Fertilizer Content: Except for the first growing season for newly established turf areas, no person shall apply liquid fertilizer which contains more than one-half percent (0.5%) by weight of phosphorus, or granular fertilizer which contains more than three percent (3%) by weight of phosphorus, unless the single application is less than or equal to one-tenth (0.1) pound of phosphorus per one thousand (1,000) square feet. Annual application amount shall not exceed one-half (0.5) pound of phosphorus per one thousand (1,000) square feet of lawn area. C. Buffer Zone: Fertilizer applications shall not be made adjacent to any water body or wetland to a distance which is the larger of 16.5 feet or any buffer width as specified for individual wetlands in the Rosemount comprehensive wetland management plan. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015; amd. Ord. 2015-05, 7-7-2015) 10-1-15: PENALTY: A. Notice Of Violation: When the city determines that an activity is not being carried out in accordance with the requirements of this chapter, it shall issue a written notice of violation to the owner of the property. The notice of violation shall contain: 1. The name and address of the owner or applicant; 2. The address when available or a description of the land upon which the violation is occurring; 3. A statement specifying the nature of the violation; 4. A description of the remedial measures necessary to bring the development activity into compliance with this chapter and a time schedule for the completion of such remedial action; 5. A statement of the penalty or penalties that shall or may be assessed against the person to whom the notice of violation is directed; and 6. A statement that the determination of violation may be appealed to the city by filing a written notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days of service of the notice of violation. Service may be accomplished by mail or by personal delivery of the notice. B. Stop Work Order/Revocation Of Site Development Permit: In the event that any person holding a site development permit pursuant to this chapter violates the terms of the permit or implements site development in such a manner as to materially adversely affect the health, welfare, environment, or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or development site so as to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, the city of Rosemount may suspend or revoke the site development permit through the issuance of a stop work order or the revocation of site development or building permit. No development, utility or street construction will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the development is in full compliance with the requirements of this subsection. C. Restoration Of Lands: Any violator may be required to restore land to its undisturbed condition. In the event that restoration is not undertaken within a reasonable time after notice, the city may take necessary corrective action, the cost of which may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, be specially assessed against the property and collected along with the ordinary taxes by the county. D. Violation And Penalties: 1. No person shall construct, enlarge, alter, repair, or maintain any grading, excavation, or fill, or cause the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any terms of this chapter. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to the penalty as described in title 1, chapter 4 of this code and each day during which any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is committed, continued, or permitted, shall constitute a separate offense. 2. Upon conviction of any such violation, such person, partnership, or corporation shall be punished by a fine as specified by the city ordinance for fee schedule for each offense. In addition to any other penalty authorized by this section, any person, partnership, or corporation convicted of violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be required to bear the expense of such restoration. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015; amd. Ord. 2015-05, 7-7-2015) 10-1-16: APPEALS: Any person aggrieved by an action relating to the enforcement of this chapter, including the disapproval of a properly filed application for approval, issuance of a written notice of violation, or an alleged failure to properly enforce this chapter in regard to a specific application, may appeal the action to the city. The following conditions apply to all appeals: A. The applicant shall submit the appeal in writing to the city clerk and include supporting documentation. The city must receive the written appeal within ten (10) days of the notice of violation. B. City staff shall make a decision on the appeal within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of a complete appeal application. C. The applicant may appeal the decision of city staff to the city council. This appeal must be filed with the city clerk within thirty (30) days of city staff's decision. Subject to any applicable state law, the decision of the city council is final. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17-2015; amd. Ord. 2015-05, 7-7-2015) 10-1-17: OTHER CONTROLS: In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this chapter and the provisions of any other city ordinance adopted by the city council, the more restrictive standard prevails. (Ord. 2015-01, 2-17- 2015; amd. Ord. 2015-05, 7-7-2015) 11-4-19: FP FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT: A. Purpose And Intent: The floodplain district is designed to provide floodplain management for the city of Rosemount in accordance with Minnesota statutes1. The intent of the floodplain district is to regulate the flood hazard areas for the purposes of reducing the risk of loss of life, loss of property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. B. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance: This section is adopted to comply with the rules and regulations of the national flood insurance program codified as 44 code of federal regulations parts 59-78, as amended, so as to maintain the community's eligibility in the national flood insurance program. C. Definitions: The following terms and associated definition apply specifically to the floodplain district: MANUFACTURED HOME: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, that is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include the term "recreational vehicle". RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicle that is built on a single chassis, is four hundred (400) square feet or less when measured at the largest projection, is designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck, and is designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. For the purposes of this section, the term recreational vehicle shall be synonymous with the term travel trailer/travel vehicle. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: Within any consecutive three hundred sixty five (365) day period, any reconstruction, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures that have incurred "substantial damage", regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: 1. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions. 2. Any alteration of a "historic structure", provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure". For the purpose of this section, "historic structure" shall be as defined in 44 code of federal regulations, part 59.1. D. General Provisions: 1. Establishment Of Zoning District: The floodplain areas within the jurisdiction of this title shall include the zone AE areas shown on the flood insurance rate map panels adopted in this subsection D1. The boundaries of this district shall be shown on the official zoning map. The official zoning map together with all materials attached thereto is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this title. The attached materials shall include the flood insurance study for Dakota County, Minnesota and incorporated areas, flood insurance rate map index number 27037 C IND 4A and flood insurance rate map panels therein numbered 27037 C 0119E, 27037 C 0138E, 27037 C 0208E, 27037 C 0209E, 27037 C 0228E, 27037 C 0229E, 27037 C 0233E and 27037 C 0253E all the documents being dated December 2, 2011, and prepared by the federal emergency management agency. The floodway and the flood fringe areas delineated on the flood insurance rate map panels comprise the area designated as the floodplain zoning district on the official zoning map. A copy of the official zoning map and all other maps referenced herein shall be on file in the office of the city clerk. 2. Rules For Interpretation Of Floodplain District Boundary: The boundary of the floodplain district established by this section shall be determined by scaling distances on the official zoning map. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundary of the district as shown on the official zoning map or there is a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions, the board of appeals and adjustment shall make the necessary interpretation. All decisions will be based on the ground elevations that existed on the site at the time the community adopted its initial floodplain ordinance or the date of the first national flood insurance program map that placed the site in the floodplain if earlier, elevations on the regional (100-year) flood profile and other available technical data. Persons contesting the location of the district boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the board of appeals and adjustments and to submit technical evidence. 3. Compliance: No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be constructed, located, extended, converted, or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this section and other applicable regulations that apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this title. Within the floodplain district, all uses not listed as permitted uses or conditional uses are prohibited. In addition, a caution is provided here that: a. Modifications, additions, structural alterations or repair after damage to existing nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses of structures or land are regulated by the general provisions of this section and specifically subsection D8 of this section; and b. As built elevations for elevated or floodproofed structures must be certified by ground surveys and floodproofing techniques must be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer or architect as specified in the general provisions of this section and specifically as stated in section 11-10-9 of this title. 4. Warning And Disclaimer Of Liability: This section does not imply that areas outside the floodplain district or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This section shall not create liability on the part of the city or any officer or employees for any flood damages that result from reliance on this section or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. 5. Severability: As with any provision herein, this section is subject to the severability clause in section 1-2-4 of this code. 6. Subdivision: No land may be subdivided that is unsuitable for the reasons of flooding, inadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots within the floodplain district may be able to contain a building site outside of the floodplain district at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. All subdivisions must have water and sewage treatment facilities that comply with the provisions of this section and have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet (2') below the regulatory flood protection elevation. For all subdivisions in the floodplain, the floodway and flood fringe district boundaries, the regulatory flood protection elevation and the required elevation of all access roads shall be clearly labeled on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents. 7. Annexation: The flood insurance rate map panels adopted by reference in this section may include floodplain areas that lie outside of the corporate boundaries of Rosemount at the time of adoption of this section. If any of these floodplain areas are annexed into Rosemount after the date of this section, the newly annexed floodplain lands shall be subject to the provisions of this section immediately upon the date of annexation into Rosemount. 8. Nonconforming Uses: No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way that increases its nonconformity. a. Any structural alteration to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that would result in increasing the flood damage potential of that structure or use shall be protected to the regulatory flood protection elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or floodproofing techniques (i.e., FP-1 through FP-4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the state building code, except as further restricted in subsection D8c of this section. b. If any nonconforming use or structure is substantially damaged, as defined in subsection C of this section, it may not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this title. The applicable provisions for establishing new uses or new structures in this section will apply. c. If a "substantial improvement" occurs, as defined in subsection C of this section, from any combination of a rehabilitation, reconstruction, alteration, or other improvement to the inside dimensions of an existing nonconforming building, then the existing nonconforming building must meet the requirements of this section for new structures. E. FP Floodplain District Regulations: 1. Uses Permitted By Right: The following uses are permitted within the floodplain district. These uses shall not obstruct flood flows or increase flood elevations. In addition, these uses shall not involve structures, fill, obstructions, excavations or storage of materials or equipment. Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, viticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. Industrial-commercial loading and parking areas. Private and public recreational uses such as golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting ranges, hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails. Manufactured homes and recreational vehicles are prohibited. Residential uses such as lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play areas. 2. Uses Permitted By Conditional Use Permit: The following uses shall be permitted upon issuance of a conditional use permit subject to the procedures and standards set forth in section 11-10-9 of this title. These uses shall not be permitted if they will cause any increase in the stage of the regional flood or increase the potential for flood damage in the reach or reaches affected. Extraction and storage of sand, gravel, and other materials. Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves, and water control structures. Placement of fill. Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines, and pipelines. Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or materials. Structures accessory to the uses listed in subsection E1 of this section and this subsection E2. 3. Additional Standards For Floodplain Conditional Uses: a. Standards For Fill: (1) Fill, dredge spoil and all other similar materials deposited or stored in the floodplain shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other acceptable method. (2) Dredge spoil sites and sand and gravel operations are not allowed unless a long term site development plan is submitted that includes an erosion/sedimentation prevention element to the plan. (3) As an alternative, and consistent with subsection E3a(2) of this section, dredge spoil disposal and sand and gravel operations may allow temporary, on site storage of fill or other materials which would have caused an increase to the stage of the 100-year or regional flood but only after the planning commission has received an appropriate plan that assures the removal of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood warning time available. b. Standards For Accessory Structures: (1) Structures shall not be designed for human habitation. (2) Structures, if permitted, shall be constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer the minimum obstruction to the flow of floodwaters: (A) Whenever possible, structures shall be constructed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the direction of flood flow, and (B) So far as practicable, structures shall be placed approximately on the same flood flow lines as those of adjoining structures. (C) Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or structurally dry floodproofed in accordance with the FP-1 or FP-2 floodproofing classifications in the state building code. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be floodproofed to the FP-3 or FP-4 floodproofing classification in the state building code provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does not exceed five hundred (500) square feet in size, and for a detached garage, the detached garage must be used solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage. All floodproofed accessory structures must meet the following additional standards, as appropriate: (i) The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure and shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls; (ii) Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be elevated to or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or properly floodproofed; and (iii) To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there must be a minimum of two (2) "automatic" openings in the outside walls of the structure having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. There must be openings on at least two (2) sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings must be no higher than one foot (1') above the lowest adjacent grade to the structure. Using human intervention to open a garage door prior to flooding will not satisfy the requirement for automatic openings. c. Standards For Storage Of Materials And Equipment: (1) The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. (2) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning and in accordance with a plan approved by the planning commission. (3) No garbage and waste disposal sites shall be issued for floodway areas and there shall be no further encroachment upon the floodway at existing sites. d. Standards For Flood Control: (1) Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota statutes, chapter 103G. Community wide structural works for flood control intended to remove areas from the regulatory floodplain are not allowed in the floodway. (2) A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway shall not cause an increase to the 100-year or regional flood and the technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream. e. Standards For Public Utilities, Railroads, Roads And Bridges: (1) Public Utilities: All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to be located in the floodplain shall be floodproofed in accordance with the state building code or elevated to above the regulatory flood protection elevation. (2) Public Transportation Facilities: Railroad tracks, roads, and bridges to be located within the floodplain shall comply with this title. Elevation to the regulatory flood protection elevation shall be provided where failure or interruption of these transportation facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety. (3) On Site Sewage Treatment And Water Supply Systems: Where public utilities are not provided: a) on site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems; and b) new or replacement on site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharges from the systems into floodwaters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in accordance with the state's current statewide standards for on site sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in compliance with this section. F. Administration And Enforcement: 1. Permit Required: All permits issued by the city in conformity with the provisions of this title shall be secured prior to the erection, addition, modification, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), or alteration of any building, structure, or portion thereof; prior to the use or change of use of a building, structure, or land; prior to the construction of a dam, fence, or on site septic system; prior to the change or extension of a nonconforming use; prior to the repair of a structure that has been damaged by flood, fire, tornado, or any other source; and prior to the placement of fill, excavation of materials, or the storage of materials or equipment within the floodplain. 2. Application For Permit: Application for a permit shall be made in duplicate to the planning department and shall include the following where applicable: a) plans in duplicate drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the lot; b) existing or proposed structures, fill, or storage of materials; and c) the location of the foregoing in relation to the stream channel. 3. State And Federal Permits: Prior to granting a local permit or processing an application for a conditional use permit or variance, the planning department shall determine that the applicant has obtained all necessary state and federal permits. 4. Certificate Of Zoning Compliance For A New, Altered, Or Nonconforming Use: It shall be unlawful to use, occupy, or permit the use or occupancy of any building or premises or part thereof hereafter created, erected, changed, converted, altered, or enlarged in its use or structure until a certificate of zoning compliance shall have been issued by the planning department stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this title. 5. Construction And Use To Be Provided On Applications, Plans, Permits, Variances, And Certificates Of Zoning Compliance: Permits, conditional use permits, or certificates of zoning compliance issued on the basis of approved plans and applications authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications, and no other use, arrangement, or construction. Any use, arrangement, or construction at variance with that authorized shall be deemed a violation of this title, and punishable as provided by section 11-10- 2 of this title. 6. Certification: The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a licensed professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this title. Floodproofing measures shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect. 7. Record Of First Floor Elevation: The planning department shall maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in the floodplain. The planning department shall also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures and alterations or additions to structures are floodproofed. 8. Notification Of Watercourse Alternations: The zoning administrator shall notify, in riverine situations, adjacent communities and the commissioner of the department of natural resources prior to the community authorizing any alteration or relocation of a watercourse. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in the beds of the public waters pursuant to Minnesota statutes, chapter 103G, this shall suffice as adequate notice to the commissioner of the department of natural resources. A copy of said notification shall also be submitted to the Chicago regional office of the federal emergency management agency (FEMA). 9. Notification To FEMA When Physical Changes Increase Or Decrease The 100-Year Flood Elevation: As soon as is practicable, but no later than six (6) months after the date such supporting information becomes available, the zoning administrator shall notify the Chicago regional office of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of said technical or scientific data. 10. Penalties For Violations: As with any provision of this section, this section is subject to the general penalties outlined in title 1, chapter 4 of this code. G. Variances: The variance provisions in section 11-12-2 of this title shall apply to this section, in addition to the following findings: 1. No variance shall provide for a lesser degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood protection for the particular area or permit standards lower than those required by state law. The following additional variance criteria of the federal emergency management agency must be satisfied: a. Variances may not be issued within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. b. Variances may only be issued by a community upon: (1) A showing of good and sufficient cause. (2) A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant. (3) A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. c. Variances may only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 2. Notice of any application for a variance shall be submitted to the commissioner of natural resources at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing on the variance. Such notice shall specify the time, place and subject matter of the hearing and shall be accompanied by such supporting information as is necessary to indicate the nature and effect of the proposed use. A copy of all decisions granting a variance under this section shall be forwarded to the commissioner of natural resources within ten (10) days of such action. H. Flood Insurance Notice And Recordkeeping: The Planning Department shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1. The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as twenty five dollars ($25.00) for one hundred dollars ($100.00) of insurance coverage; and 2. Such construction below the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program. I. Amendments To This Section: The floodplain designation on zoning maps shall not be removed from floodplain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the areas are filled to an elevation at or above the flood protection elevation and are contiguous to other lands lying outside the floodplain district. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner of Natural Resources if the Commissioner determines that, through other measures, lands are protected adequately for the intended uses. All amendments must be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption. Changes in the official zoning map must meet the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) technical conditions and criteria and must receive prior FEMA approval before adoption. The Commissioner of Natural Resources must be given ten (10) days' written notice of all hearings to consider an amendment to this section, and said notice shall include a draft of the ordinance amendment or technical study under consideration. All requests to change a special flood hazard area designation shall meet the criteria established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (Ord. B-217, 11-15-2011) 11-7-2: SHORELAND OVERLAY REGULATIONS: A. Purpose And Intent: It is the intent of these shoreland overlay regulations to impose restrictions in addition to those required by the underlying zoning for the protection of shoreland areas, the preservation and enhancement of the quality of surface waters and the wise utilization of water and related land resources. B. Shoreland Classification: 1. Recreational development waters: Keegan Lake (19-11). 2. General development waters: Mississippi River, U.S. lock and dam, pool #2 (19-5). 3. Natural environment waters: a. Unnamed T115, R19, section 16 (19-8). b. Unnamed T115, R19, section 16 and 21 (19-9). c. Unnamed T115, R19, section 17 (19-10). d. Unnamed T115, R19, section 21 (19-12). C. Shoreland Development Standards: Natural Development Waters Recreational Development Waters General Development Waters S U S U S U Lot area: Waterfront lots Other lots 20,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 2.5 acres 20,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 2.5 acres 20,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 2.5 acres Water frontage/lot width 110 ft. 150 ft. 110 ft. 150 ft. 110 ft. 150 ft. Building setback from OHWE 150 ft. 200 ft. 75 ft. 100 ft. 50 ft. 75 ft. Minimum building setback from streets and highways 50 feet for federal, state or county 20 feet for municipal or private Minimum building setback from top of bluff According to ordinance XVII.39 (Mississippi River corridor ordinance) Elevation of lowest floor above highest known water level 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. Maximum building height See sections 11-5-1 and 11-5-2 of this title. Maximum lot coverage with impervious surface Sewage system setback from OHWE n/a 150 ft. n/a 150 ft. n/a 150 ft. Sewage system elevation above highest ground water level, bedrock or impervious soils n/a 4 ft. n/a 4 ft. n/a 4 ft. Notes: OHWE=Ordinary high water elevation/mark S=Sewered area U=Unsewered area Whenever the underlying zoning is more restrictive, the requirements of the zoning district shall apply. D. Shoreland Alterations: 1. Natural Vegetation: The removal of natural vegetation shall be restricted to prevent erosion into public waters, to consume nutrients in the soil and to preserve shoreland aesthetics. Removal of natural vegetation in the shoreland overlay district shall be in accordance with the following criteria: a. Selective removal of natural vegetation shall be allowed, provided that sufficient vegetative cover remains to screen cars and structures when viewed from the water. b. Clear cutting of natural vegetation shall be prohibited except as necessary for placing public roads, utilities, structures and parking areas. c. Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as is feasible after any construction project is completed. 2. Grading And Filling: Grading and filling in shoreland areas or any alterations of the natural topography where the slope of the land is toward a public water or watercourse leading to public water must be authorized by the city in accordance with the following criteria: a. The smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for as short a time as feasible. b. Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is planted. c. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment are employed. d. Fill is stabilized to accepted engineering standards. 3. Alteration Of Beds Of Public Waters: a. Excavation on shorelands where the intended purpose is connection to a public water shall require approval from the city before construction is begun. Such approval may be obtained only after the commissioner has issued a permit for work in the bed of a public water. E. Planned Unit Development: To encourage more creative design and greater environmental sensitivity in the development of land, planned unit development (PUD) may be utilized in the shoreland overlay district. PUD within the shoreland overlay district is subject to both the requirements of these regulations and additional standards established by the state of Minnesota, department of natural resources (DNR). Where requirements differ DNR standards shall take precedence. F. Administration And Enforcement: 1. Permits Required: Before any construction, subdivision of land, installation of sewer and water facilities, grading and filling or removal of vegetation within any shoreland area is commenced, a permit shall be issued by the city. 2. Applications: Application shall be made by the owner on forms provided by the city. Said application shall be accompanied by plans drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions and elevations of the lot and all proposed structures and such other information as shall be required by the director of community development. 3. Variances: All requests for variances shall be referred to the board of appeals and adjustments. 4. Lots Of Record: Lots of record which do not meet the requirements of this section shall not be required to comply herewith. 5. Referral To DNR: a. Notices: Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments or conditional uses relating to shoreland management shall be received by the commissioner at least ten (10) days prior to such hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed plats must include copies of the plats. b. Final Decisions: A copy of approved amendments and plats, and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses with regard to the shoreland shall be received by the commissioner within ten (10) days of final action. (Ord. B, 9-19-1989) 11-10-9: FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT CONDITIONAL USES: A. Application: The commission shall hear and decide applications for conditional uses permissible under section 11-4-19, "FP Floodplain District", of this title. Applications shall be submitted to the planning department and forwarded to the commission for consideration. The applicant shall furnish the following information as deemed necessary by the community development department for determining the suitability of the particular site for the proposed use: 1. Plans in triplicate drawn to scale prepared by a registered engineer showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevation of the lot, existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, floodproofing measures, and the relationship of the above to the location of the stream channel and meeting all other requirements of section 11-10-3, site plan contents, of this chapter. 2. Specifications for building construction and materials, floodproofing, filling, dredging, grading, channel improvement, storage of materials, water supply, and sanitary facilities. The city engineer or designee shall evaluate the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities, the seriousness of flood damage to the use, the adequacy of the plans for protection, and other technical matters. Based upon the technical evaluation, the commission shall determine the specified flood hazard at the site and evaluate the suitability of the proposed use in relation to the flood hazard. B. Factors And Conditions: In reviewing conditional use applications, the commission shall consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this title and: 1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. 2. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others or they may block bridges, culverts, or other hydraulic structures. 3. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions. 4. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. 5. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. 6. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. 7. The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. 8. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. 9. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for the area. 10. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. 11. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the site. 12. Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this section. C. Public Hearings: Within sixty (60) days from the date of application for conditional use permit, the community development department shall submit the application to the commission. The commission shall set a time for public hearing and give the applicant at least ten (10) days' written notice thereof. Notice of the hearing shall be published at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing and notice shall be mailed to each property owner within one-fourth (1/4) mile of the affected property. D. Decisions: The commission shall render its written decision on a conditional use permit within thirty (30) days following the public hearing. In granting a conditional use permit the commission may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards which are in conformity with the purposes of this section. The conditional use permit must be title registered with the property in the office of the county recorder. E. Subject To Appeal: All decisions by the commission granting or denying a conditional use permit shall be final subject to appeal to the council as outlined in section 11-10-3 of this chapter. F. Notify Commissioner Of Natural Resources: A copy of the application for the proposed conditional uses shall be submitted to the commissioner of natural resources sufficiently in advance so that the commissioner will receive at least ten (10) days' notice of the hearing. A copy of all decisions granting conditional use permits shall be forwarded to the commissioner of natural resources within ten (10) days of such action. G. Conditions Imposed: The commission may attach such conditions to the granting of conditional use permits deemed necessary to fulfill the purposes of this section. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Modification of waste treatment and water supply facilities. 2. Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation. 3. Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. 4. Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. 5. Floodproofing measures, in accordance with the state building code and this title. The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing measures are consistent with the regulatory flood protection elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area. H. Violation Of Conditional Use Permit: Violations of conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the conditional use permit is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this section punishable under section 11-10-2 of this chapter. (Ord. B-25, 2-2-1993)