Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUntitled 411f ♦ STATE OF pi Ittr;r_a: Z©UZ: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE NOD1V1S1on of Waters, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4032 772-7910 FILE No. • December 5, 1994 p E © EEo9I Mr. Don Theison DEC - 9 1994 Washington County Public Works \c 11660 Myeron Road North Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: Amended Permit #95-6031, Water Level Control Structure - Clarification, Prison Pond (82-310P) , City of Bayport, Washington County Dear Mr. Theison: On November 8, 1994 Metro Region Waters received an annotated plan from Jeff Davis at SEH which more accurately describes the outlet structure details. We are hereby amending Permit #95-6031 as enclosed. Only the "Authorized Work" has been amended; all other terms and conditions of Permit #95-6031 remain in full force and effect. • If you have any questions, please call Area Hydrologist Molly Shodeen at (612) 772-7910. Sincerely, n Linc Stine, Administrator Permits and Land Use Section JLS/MCS/cds c: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ralph Augustin Washington Soil and Water Conservation District Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization eity of Oak Park Heights City of Bayport, Ken Hartung Short Elliott Hendrickson, Jeff Davis Conservation Officer Wayne Eller DNR Fisheries, Bruce Gilbertson DNR Wildlife, Tim Wallace Central Waters, Ron Anderson Prison Pond (82-310P) file AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • AMENDED NMV�� "'PROTECTED WATERS • Permit Number n " INNESOTA PERMIT 95-6031 Department of � Natural Drammen of } +( Mem (This Amended Permit Supersedes the Original and All Previous Versions of This Permit) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,Chapter 103G,and on the basis of statements and information contained in the permit application,letters,maps,and plans submitted by the applicant and other supporting data,all of which are made a part hereof by reference,PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to the applicant to perform the work as authorized below: Protected Water County Prison Pond (82-310P) Washington Name of Permittee Telephone Number(include Area Code) Washington County Public Works, Attn: Don Theison (612) 439-6058 •• ess(No. &Street, RFD, Box No. City, State,Zip Code) 11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 uthorized Work: Replace the water level control structure at the outlet of Prison Pond; said structure to have a and a 1.8" wide x 1'3" high gated or ce w a ', in accordance with plans received August 4, 1994 an , pera ion an main enance plan received October 10, 1994. Purpose of Permit Expiration Date of Permit Water level maintenance - November 30, 1995 Property Described as: SW 1/4, Section 3, T29—R2OW I ess of Property,(f Knows: N o rr-a1 Ul)n it r Le V e Indicated In General Provision No. 11: 100 Ye e LE V, 7 ql1P A- This permit is granted subject to the following GENERAL and SPECIAL PROVISIONS: GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The permittee is not released from any mles,regulations,requirements,or standards of any applicable federal,state,or local agencies;including,but not limited to,the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Board of Water and Soil Resources,MN Pollution Control Agency,watershed districts,water management organizations, county,city and township zoning. This permit does not release the permittee of any permit requirements of the St.Paul District,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Army Corps of Engineers Centre, 190 Fifth Street East,St.Paul,MN 55101-1638. 2. This permit is not assignable by the permittee except with the written consent of the Commissioner of Natural Resources. 3. The permittee shall notify the Area Hydrologist at least five days in advance of the commencement of the work authorized hereunder and notify him/her of its completion within five days. The Notice of Permit issued by the Commissioner shall be kept securely posted in a conspicuous place at the site of operations. 4. • The permittee shall make no changes,without written permission previously obtained front the Commissioner of Natural Resources,in the dimensions,capacity, or location of any items of work authorized hereunder. 5. The permittee shall grant access to the site at all reasonable times during and after construction to authorized representatives of the Commissioner of Natural Resources for inspection of the work authorized hereunder. 6. This Permit may be terminated by the Commissioner of Natural Resources at any time deemed necessary for the conservation of water resources of the state,or in the interest of public health and welfare,or for violation of any of the provisions of this permit,unless otherwise provided in the Special Provisions. 7. Construction work authorized under this permit shall be completed on or before date specified above. The permittee may request an extension of time to complete the project,stating the reason thereof,upon written request to the Commissioner of Natural Resources. 8. In all cases where the permittee by perf • the work authorized by this permit shall involve the ing,using,or damaging of any property rights or interests • of any other person or persons,or of blicly owned lands or improvements thereon or inte rein, the permittee,before proceeding,shall obtain•the written consent of all persons,agencies, uthorities concerned,and shall acquire all property,ri nd interests needed for the work. 9. This permit is permissive only. No liability shall be imposed by the State of Minnesota or any of its officers,agents or employees,officially or personally,on account of the granting hereof or on account of any damage to any person or property resulting from any act or omission of the permittee or any of its agents, employees,or contractors. This permit shall not be construed as estopping or limiting any legal claims or right of action of any person other than the state against the permittee,its agents,employees,or contractors,for any damage or injury resulting from any such act or omission,or as estopping or limiting any legal claim or right of action of the state against the permittee,its agents,employees,or contractors for violation of or failure to comply with the permit or applicable provisions of law. 10. Any extension of the surface of public waters resulting from work authorized by this permit shall become protected waters and left open and unobstructed for use by the public. 11. No material excavated by authority of this permit nor material from any other source,except as specified herein,shall be placed on any portion of the bed of said waters which lies below(as indicated above.) 12. Where the work authorized by this permit involves the draining,filling or burning of wetlands not subject to DNR jurisdiction,the permittee shall not initiate any work under this permit until the permittee bas obtained official approval from the responsible governmental unit as required by the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1. Erosion control measures shall be adequately designed for the site characteristics. They may include staked haybales, diversion channels, sediment ponds, or sediment fences. They shall be installed in accordance with "Protectina Water Quality in Urban Areas - Best Management Practices for Minnesota" MPCA, October 1989, prior to commencement and maintained throughout the project. All exposed soil shall be stabilized as soon as possible and no later than 72 hours after the completion of the project. Topsoil should be used to re-dress disturbed soil areas and indigenous plant species should be used to revegetate disturbed :Mew"' '01X- t,11(Pne 1010-10109P'ACIIMIONIMMIIMIONSO 2. Upon completion of the authorized work, the permittee shall submit representative photographs and any as-built surveys, as appropriate, of the project area to DNR Metro Region Waters (1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106) . 3. Structures shall be maintained in good condition. Any additions or reconstruction (rebuilding at a cost exceeding 50% of replacement cost) of the structures must be authorized by amendment to this permit. 4. The operation plan shall be forwarded to the Regional Hydrologist when finalized and prior to the first drawdown. 5. Pond drawdown for wildlife management purposes does not require a separate permit but must be authorized by the Regional Hydrologist. 6. Temporary dewatering for construction, in tarp of 10,000 gallons per day .or one ' llion gallons per year, is authorized by this '1met: a. A plan for the dewatering shall be submitted to the Regional Hydrologist for written prior approval. b. All necessary ercci-- -rd sedimentation control measures shall be taken to prevent transportation of sediment. c: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ralph Augustin Washington Soil and Water Conservation District Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization City of Oak Park Heights City of Bayport, Ken Hartung Short Elliott Hendrickson, Jeff Davis Conservation Officer Wayne Eller DNR Fisheries, Bruce Gilbertson DNR Wildlife, Tim Wallace Central Waters, Ron Anderson Prison Pond (82-310P) file Authorized Signature Mk Date Administrator Permits and / 2 9 / John Linc Stine Land Use Section CITY OF BAYPORT 294 No. 3rd Street BAYPORT, MINNESOTA 55003 Council Meets the First Monday of Each Month-7:00 P.M. 612/439-2530 October 25, 1994 FAX 439-7188 LaVonne Wilson, Clerk/Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 - 57th Street No. Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Dear Lavonne: On August 16, 1994, I sent you a letter outlining actions the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization had taken related to construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. In that letter I indicated at the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization meeting of Wednesday, June 29, 1994, the Perro Creek Sub-watershed communities of Oak Park Heights, Baytown Township, Bayport and Stillwater agreed to go forward with the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The decision to go forward with construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure was based on Perro Creek Watershed Stuay completed by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson. SEH presented the Perro Creek Sub-watershed study at the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization of April 25, 1994. The Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization authorized the following actions related to the Prison Pond Outlet structure construction at its meeting on Wednesday, June 29, 1994: 1 . The Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization designated the City of Bayport as the governmental unit to act on behalf of the Perro Creek Sub-watershed government units of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Baytown Township and Bayport to accept the DNR Grant to cover upto half of the cost associated with engineering and construction for the Prison Pond Outlet structure. NOTE: On July 18, 1994, the City of Bayport and the DNR fully executed a Department of Natural Resources Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Agreement. The Agreement states that, "the State shall pay to the City, 50% of the total project cost or $42,559.00 which is less for the work. The State's share cannot exceed the City's share of the project costs to be assumed by the City and the City's of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater and Baytown Township" . S 2 . Designating the City of Bayport as the governmental unit acting on behalf of the Perro Creek Watershed communities of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Baytown Township and Bayport to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with Washington County for the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. NOTE: On August 1, 1994, the City Council of the City of Bayport adopted a resolution approving Washington County/City of Bayport Joint Powers and Construction and Reimbursement Agreement for the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. 3. Approved the cost allocation for Perro Creek Sub- watershed communities of Baytown Township, Bayport, Oak Park Heights and Stiliwater's contribution for construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The cost allocation breaks down as follows: Local % of Contribution Amount of Government with DNR Grant Contribution Bayport 26 .65% $ 6,622.50 Baytown Township 18 .93% 4,738.50 Oak Park Heights 50. 13% 12,532.50 Stillwater x_29 1,072.50 Total Contribution $25,000.00 4. The Perro Creek Sub-watershed Organization communities of Bayport, Baytown Township, Stillwater and Oak Park Heights agree that, should the amount of construction and engineering costs for the Prison Pond Outlet structure exceed $25,000.00, the Sub-watershed communities willpay the additional expenses based on the percentages indicated in Paragraph 3. The City Council of the City of Bayport has taken formal action to: 1 . Accept the DNR Grant to cover upto half the cost associated with engineering and construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. 2 . Entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with Washington County for the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. Before we can proceed with construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure, it is necessary for the Sub-watershed communities of Stillwater, Bayport, Baytown Township and Oak Park Heights to formalize two agreements. Those Agreements are: 1. Joint Powers Agreement for Prison Pond Outlet structure specifying the cost participation allocation. I have - - • • enclosed a copy of the Joint Powers Agreement for Prison Pond Outlet structure for your review. 2 . Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The DNR requires the Sub- watershed communities to have Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The Guidelines specify the City of Bayport will operate and maintain the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The Guidelines also state the Sub-watershed communities will share the cost of maintenance and inspection of the Prison Pond Outlet structure based on the same percentages used for determining contributions for the Prison Pond Outlet structure construction. Those percentages are: A. Stillwater 4.29% B. Oak Park Heights 50. 13% C. Baytown Township 18.93% D. Bayport 26.65% I have enclosed a Revised Final Draft copy of the Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for your review. Following your review of the enclosed documents and provided your attorney finds them in order, we would appreciate your City Council adopting a resolution for the following: 1. Approving the Joint Powers Agreement for the Prison Pond Outlet structure cost allocation. 2. Approving the Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for Prison Pond Outlet structure at CSAH 21. We would appreciate action by your local government on these two items at your earliest possible convenience. Should you have any questions about the content of this letter or the enclosed Agreements, please fee free to contact me at 439-2530. Sin a yours, /4/ enneth . Hartu City Administra •r Enc. I " , J JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PRISON POND OUTLET STRUCTURE THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Cities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights, and Stillwater, and Baytown Township pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 471.59. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota, all of which have lands which drain storm water into the Prison. Pond (DNR Protected Water 31OP) , and all of which have power to construct, reconstruct, extend and maintain storm drainage facilities; and, WHEREAS, the condition of the existing outlet structure of the Prison Pond and previous flooding dictate the need for the re-construction of an outlet structure, and the construction of a reinforced concrete pipe under C.S.A.H. 21 (the "public improvement project") ; and, WHEREAS, Washington County and the City of Bayport have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to jointly let a contract for the construction of the public improvement project, which Agreement - provides that Washington County will pay no construction costs of the Prison Pond outlet structure, and the County will pay all construction costs of the reinforced concrete pipe to be constructed under C.S.A.H. 21 and all roadway improvements associated therewith, and that the County will pay all design and construction engineering costs of the Prison Pond outlet structure and the reinforced concrete pipe under C.S.A.H. 21; and, • • WHEREAS, the City of Bayport has entered into an Agreement with the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for a Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant; and, WHEREAS, the governmental units which are parties to this Agreement mutually desire to contribute to the costs of the construction of the Prison Pond outlet in excess of the amount of ' the grant from the DNR, which costs are estimated to be Twenty- Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) ; and, NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the above-named governmental units as follows: 1. Cost Participation. The governmental units hereby agree to contribute to the costs of the construction of the Prison Pond outlet based upon an estimate of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) as follows: Bayport 26.65% $ 6,662.50 Baytown Township 18.93% $ 4,732.50 Oak Park Heights 50.13% $12,532.50 • City of Stillwater 4.29% $ 1,072.50 In the event the actual costs of the construction of the Prison Pond outlet over and above the grant received from the State of Minnesota are greater or less than the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) , then the contributions from the individual governmental units shall be adjusted proportionately based upon the above set forth percentages. The governmental units hereby agree to contribute to the cost of the development of a Prison Pond Outlet Structure Operation Manual as per the percentage stipulated above. 2 . Payment By Individual Governmental Units. It is contemplated that all of the construction work for the construction 2 • • of the Prison Pond outlet is to be done on a unit price basis. The individual governmental units hereby agree to pay the sums set forth in Paragraph 1 on or before May 1, 1995. Upon completion and acceptance of the construction project, a final bill for the costs of the project will be prepared, and the individual governmental units will be billed or reimbursed by the City of Bayport for the amounts due pursuant to this Agreement. Any additional sums due by the individual governmental units shall be paid within sixty (60) days after the receipt of the bill by the City of Bayport. 3. Termination. This Joint Powers Agreement shall terminate upon the final acceptance of the construction of the Prison Pond outlet improvement project, and the final payment by the individual governmental units to the City of, Bayport of the individual governmental units' proportionate agreed upon share of the costs of said project. 4. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by the written mutual consent of all of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement- to be executed by their respective duly authorized representatives. Dated: CITY OF BAYPORT By Its Mayor By Its Administrator 3 . • Dated: CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS By Its Mayor By Its Administrator Dated: CITY OF STILLWATER By Its Mayor By Its Coordinator Dated: BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP By Its Chairman By Its Clerk 4 • • 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE,200 SEH CENTER,ST.PAUL,MN 55110 612 490-2000 800 325-2055 ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION Operation and Maintenance Guidelines Prison Pond Outlet Structure at CSAH 21 Bayport, Minnesota Date: October 11, 1994 Revised Final Draft Purpose * This structure provides for variability in the operation of the pond outlet structure . The small gate opening has been sized to simulate the discharge of the old orifice opening. A drought on the pond can be simulated by removing the stop logs and partially opening the center gate. Removal of the stop logs and partially opening of the center gate also allows the City of Bayport to draw down the water elevation in the fall of the year. This draw down maximizes the storage volume available in the pond and will hopefully minimize icing/flooding problems in the City. See Operation section. * County Road 21 is to be raised in 1995 to provide additional storage and reduce the potential for overtopping of the road during high intensity precipitation events as well as during winter operations. * This structure is located on Washington County right-of-way. Therefore, it is necessary to contact the county whenever the operation characteristics of the structure are modified such as removing the stop logs and adjusting gates. Coordination * City of Bayport Contacts - City Administrator - Ken Hartung Telephone 439-2530 Public Works Supervisor -John Burkhart Telephone 439-2530 * Washington County Contacts - Highway Superintendent- Roger Coomer Telephone 430-4326 Asst. Highway Superintendent - Nick Young Telephone 430-4327 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. MINNEAPOLIS,MN ST CLOUD,MN CHIPPEWA FALLS,WI MADISON,WI • • * Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Contacts - Fish and Wildlife at Carlos Avery -Tim Wallace Telephone 296-5200 Division of Waters, Metro - Molly Shodeen Telephone 772-7910 * Minnesota Correctional Facility - Stillwater (MCF) Contacts - Physical Plant Director -Joe Miller Telephone 779-2812 Chief Engineer -Jerry Davis Telephone 779-2730 * Washington Soil and Water Conservation District/Middle St. Croix WMO Representative Contact - District Resource Conservationist - Tim Fredbo Telephone 439-6361 Operation * Leakage from the stop log bay will occur. * Only the City of Bayport will have keys to operate the gates and remove stop logs. Stop logs are to be kept at the City of Bayport maintenance garage when not inplace at the outlet structure. * Prior to lowering the pond the MDNR will contact the Bayport City Administrator a minimum of 7 days in advance of the stop log removal. Rate of discharge is restricted to the downstream channel capacity. Based on the present rating curve for the railroad embankment (Fourth Ave. South) a discharge rate of 50 cubic feet per second will cause flooding of the pool at Third Ave. South. * The center gate may be used in the fully open, fully closed or partial open position. * If the gate openings become restricted or plugged for any reason the structure is designed to allow flow to enter over the top of the side walls. The overflow elevation is set at 749.0 about 2' below the roadway embankment overtopping elevation. * Winter operation - Both small gate and stop log bay should be open. - Regulate flow with center gate. - Gate heater conduits have been included to allow for future installation of heat trace elements and controls if operational problems occur. - Sand bagging of culverts across CSAH 21 at station 29+00 may be required during winter operations. • • - If gate heaters are installed by the MSCWMO cost to install and operate the gate heaters is to be shared by MSCWMO subwatershed as shown in the Maintenance section. * Fall pond drawdown - Start after August 1. Contact MDNR Office at Carlos Avery a minimum of 7 days prior to removal of the stop logs. - Contact MCF and Washington County a minimum of 7 days prior to removal of the stop logs. - Install stop logs in the structure at such time that the City of Bayport determines that the flow from the Prison Pond will cause a build up of ice in the creek channel. Timing for installation of the stop logs is left to the discretion of the City of Bayport. Confirm with MDNR Office at Carlos Avery that the stop logs have been reinstalled. - Contact MCF and Washington County Highway Superintendent to confirm that stop logs have been reinstalled. Maintenance and Inspection * All maintenance and inspection shall be performed and documented by the City of Bayport. RECORDS OF ALL MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL PARTIES LISTED IN THE COORDINATION SECTION AND TO THE MSCWMO SUBWATERSHED. * Cost sharing for required maintenance and inspection shall be shared the by MSCWMO subwatershed on the following basis: Stillwater 4.29% Oak Park Heights 50.13% Baytown Twnshp. 18.93% Bayport 26.65% * Maintenance on center gate - Drape poly over stop logs to reduce leakage - Close small gate - Length of time available to work on center gate is dependent on the rate of inflow to the Prison Pond. * Ladder to used for access * An annual inspection of the outlet structure should be made during the spring of the year after the elevation of the water in the pond has subsided. This should allow adequate time to make minor repairs on the structure and remove floating bogs prior to freeze up of the • pond. Multiple copies of an inspection log form have been provided in this document to assist in record keeping. TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS TO DOCUMENT CONDITION OF THE OUTLET ON AT LEAST AN ANNUAL BASIS. A COPY OF THE ANNUAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST SHOULD BE SENT TO ALL PARTIES LISTED IN THE COORDINATION SECTION AS WELL AS THE MSCWMO SUBWATERSHED. * Inspection of the outlet structure should be made after any heavy or intense rainfall event. Use a copy of the inspection checklist located at the back of this document to record data including rainfall amounts. Rainfall data can be obtained from the Stillwater Wastewater Treatment Plant. * Use the prison pond outlet inspection checklist to document conditions within the watershed after changes in the gate/stop log openings have been made. * Take photographs to document structure and watershed conditions when appropriate. Drought Simulation * Occasionally the MDNR may want to draw pond down during the summer months to reestablish vegetation. * MDNR to contact Bayport City Administrator, Washington County and the MCF a minimum of 7 days in advance of summer drawdown. * Small gate and stop log bay completely open at this time. Flow throttled by center gate. Emergency Operations * Every attempt will be made to contact members of the various parties on the coordination list after appropriate actions have been taken to protect residents and property downstream of the structure. * Take photographs to document emergency conditions if at all possible. Shop Drawings/ Perro Creek Study * A copy of the shop drawings and the Perro Creek Minor Watershed Study are located at back of 0 & M Guidelines for the City of Bayport. Amendments/ Information Updates * No amendments may be made to these operating guidelines without the written approval of all the parties listed in the coordination section of these guidelines. * Information on the past inspection checklist forms should be reviewed prior to amending the operational characteristics of the outlet structure. . , PRISON POND OUTLET INS•TION CHECKLIST Date• WEATHER CONDITIONS INSPECTORS TIME A.M. P.M. Action cd Q�L w CONDITION SUMMARY 44 U Q CHECK/CIRCLE OBSERVATIONS CONDITION NOTED �a headwater ft.below top of structure gage reading Hw tailwater ft.above inv.of 42"dia.pipe aW 3, highwater mark downstream bridge ft.above channel inv. remove debris operation maintenance C7 stop logs gate heaters concrete condition w seepage/piping grating erosion debris • • handrail location vegetation/cover 3Z d obstruction 8 flooding a amount of rainfall at inches Stillwater WWTP rainfall occurred A.M./P.M. and A.M./P.M. between GENERAL COMMENTS SKETCHES&FIELD MEASUREMENTS • P. of • CITY OF BAYPORT 294 No. 3rd Street BAYPORT, MINNESOTA 55003 Council Meets the First Monday of Each Month -7:00 P.M. 612/439-2530 October 25, 1994 FAX 439-7188 LaVonne Wilson, Clerk/Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 - 57th Street No. Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Dear Lavonne: On August 16, 1994, I sent you a letter outlining actions the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization had taken related to construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. In that letter I indicated at the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization meeting of Wednesday, June 29, 1994, the Perro Creek Sub-watershed communities of Oak Park Heights, Baytown Township, Bayport and Stillwater agreed to go forward with the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The decision to go forward with construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure-was based on ,Perro Creek Watershed Study completed by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson. SEH presented the Perro Creek Sub-watershed study at the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization of April 25, 1994. The Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization authorized the following actions related to the Prison Pond Outlet structure construction at its meeting on Wednesday, June 29, 1994 : 1. The Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization designated the City of Bayport as the governmental unit to act on behalf of the Perro Creek Sub-watershed government units of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Baytown Township and Bayport to accept the DNR Grant to cover upto half of the cost associated with engineering and construction for the Prison Pond Outlet structure. NOTE: On July 18, 1994, the City of Bayport and the DNR fully executed a Department of Natural Resources Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Agreement. The Agreement states that, "the State shall pay to the City, 50% of the total project cost or $42,559.00 which is less for the work. The State's share cannot exceed the City's share of the project costs to be assumed by the City and the City's of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater and Baytown Township" . • 411 2 . Designating the City of Bayport as the governmental unit acting on behalf of the Perro Creek Watershed communities of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Baytown Township and Bayport to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with Washington County for the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. NOTE: On August 1, 1994, the City Council of the City of Bayport adopted a resolution approving Washington County/City of Bayport Joint Powers and Construction and Reimbursement Agreement for the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. 3. Approved the cost allocation for Perro Creek Sub- watershed communities of Baytown Township, Bayport, Oak Park Heights and Stiliwater's contribution for construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The cost allocation breaks down as follows: Local % of Contribution Amount of Government with DNR Grant Contribution Bayport 26.65% $ 6,622 .50 Baytown Township 18 .93% 4,738.50 Oak Park Heights 50. 13% 12,532.50 Stillwater 4 .29% 1,072.50 Total Contribution $25,000.00 4. The Perro Creek Sub-watershed Organization communities of Bayport, Baytown Township, Stillwater and Oak Park Heights agree that, should the amount of construction and engineering costs for the Prison Pond Outlet structure exceed $25, 000. 00, the Sub-watershed communities willpay the additional expenses based on the percentages indicated in Paragraph 3. The City Council of the City of Bayport has taken formal action to: 1. Accept the DNR Grant to cover upto half the cost associated with engineering and construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. 2. Entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with Washington County for the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. Before we can proceed with construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure, it is necessary for the Sub-watershed communities of Stillwater, Bayport, Baytown Township and Oak Park Heights to formalize two agreements. Those Agreements are: 1. Joint Powers Agreement for Prison Pond Outlet structure specifying the cost participation allocation. I have enclosed a copy of the Joint Powers Agreement for Prison Pond Outlet structure for your review. 2. Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The DNR requires the Sub- watershed communities to have Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The Guidelines specify the City of Bayport will operate and maintain the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The Guidelines also state the Sub-watershed communities will share the cost of maintenance and inspection of the Prison Pond Outlet structure based on the same percentages used for determining contributions for the Prison Pond Outlet structure construction. Those percentages are: A. Stillwater 4.29% B. Oak Park Heights 50. 13% C. Baytown Township 18.93% D. Bayport 26.65% I have enclosed a Revised Final Draft copy of the Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for your review. Following your review of the enclosed documents and provided your attorney finds them in order, we would appreciate your City Council adopting a resolution for the following: 1. Approving the Joint Powers Agreement for the Prison Pond Outlet structure cost allocation. 2. Approving the Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for Prison Pond Outlet structure at CSAH 21. We would appreciate action by your local government on these two items at your earliest possible convenience. Should you have any questions about the content of this letter or the enclosed Agreements, please fee free to contact me at 439-2530. Sin yours,Z/4/gp enneth . City Administra • Enc. . T • JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PRISON POND OUTLET STRUCTURE THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Cities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights, and Stillwater, and Baytown Township pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 471.59. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota, all of which have lands which drain storm water into the Prison. Pond (DNR Protected Water 31OP) , and all of which have power to construct, reconstruct, extend and maintain storm drainage facilities; and, WHEREAS, the condition of the existing outlet structure of the Prison Pond and previous flooding dictate the need for the re-construction of an outlet structure, and the construction of a reinforced concrete pipe under C.S.A.H. 21 (the "public improvement project") ; and, WHEREAS, Washington County and the City of Bayport have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to jointly let a contract for the construction of the public improvement project, which Agreement - - provides that Washington County will pay no construction costs of the Prison Pond outlet structure, and the County will pay all construction costs of the reinforced concrete pipe to be constructed under C.S.A.H. 21 and all roadway improvements associated therewith, and that the County will pay all design and construction engineering costs of the Prison Pond outlet structure and the reinforced concrete pipe under C.S.A.H. 21; and, • • WHEREAS, the City of Bayport has entered into an Agreement with the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for a Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant; and, WHEREAS, the governmental units which are parties to this Agreement mutually desire to contribute to the costs of the construction of the Prison Pond outlet in excess of the amount of ' the grant from the DNR, which costs are estimated to be Twenty- Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) ; and, NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the above-named governmental units as follows: 1. Cost Participation. The governmental units hereby agree to contribute to the costs of the construction of the Prison Pond outlet based upon an estimate of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) as follows: Bayport 26.65% $ 6,662.50 Baytown Township 18.93% $ 4,732.50 Oak Park Heights 50.13% $12,532.50 City of Stillwater 4.29% $ 1,072.50 In the event the actual costs of the construction of the Prison Pond outlet over and above the grant received from the State of Minnesota are greater or less than the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) , then the contributions from the individual governmental units shall be adjusted proportionately based upon the above set forth percentages. The governmental units hereby agree to contribute to the cost of the development of a Prison Pond Outlet Structure Operation Manual as per the percentage stipulated above. 2. Payment By Individual Governmental Units. It is contemplated that all of the construction work for the construction 2 • of the Prison Pond outlet is to be done on a unit price basis. The individual governmental units hereby agree to pay the sums set forth in Paragraph 1 on or before May 1, 1995. Upon completion and acceptance of the construction project, a final bill for the costs of the project will be prepared, and the individual governmental units will be billed or reimbursed by the City of Bayport for the amounts due pursuant to this Agreement. Any additional sums due by the individual governmental units shall be paid within sixty (60) days after the receipt of the bill by the City of Bayport. 3. Termination. This Joint Powers Agreement shall terminate upon the final acceptance of the construction of the Prison Pond outlet improvement project, and the final payment by the individual governmental units to the City of Bayport of the individual governmental units' proportionate agreed upon share of the costs of said project. 4. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by the written mutual consent of all of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement- to be executed by their respective duly authorized representatives. Dated: CITY OF BAYPORT By Its Mayor By Its Administrator 3 Dated: CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS By Its Mayor By Its Administrator Dated: CITY OF STILLWATER By Its Mayor By Its Coordinator Dated: BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP By Its Chairman By Its Clerk 4 • • AlIs a 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE,200 SEH CENTER,ST PAUL,MN 55110 612 490-2000 800 325-2055 ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION Operation and Maintenance Guidelines Prison Pond Outlet Structure at CSAH 21 Bayport, Minnesota Date: October 11, 1994 Revised Final Draft Purpose * This structure provides for variability in the operation of the pond outlet structure . The small gate opening has been sized to simulate the discharge of the old orifice opening. A drought on the pond can be simulated by removing the stop logs and partially opening the center gate. Removal of the stop logs and partially opening of the center gate also allows the City of Bayport to draw down the water elevation in the fall of the year. This draw down maximizes the storage volume available in the pond and will hopefully minimize icing/flooding problems in the City. See Operation section. * County Road 21 is to be raised in 1995 to provide additional storage and reduce the potential for overtopping of the road during high intensity precipitation events as well as during winter operations. * This structure is located on Washington County right-of-way. Therefore, it is necessary to contact the county whenever the operation characteristics of the structure are modified such as removing the stop logs and adjusting gates. Coordination * City of Bayport Contacts - City Administrator - Ken Hartung Telephone 439-2530 Public Works Supervisor -John Burkhart Telephone 439-2530 * Washington County Contacts - Highway Superintendent - Roger Coomer Telephone 430-4326 Asst. Highway Superintendent -Nick Young Telephone 430-4327 SHORT ELLIOTT MADISON Al HENDRICKSON INC. MINNEAPOLIS,MN ST.CLOUD,MN CHIPPEWA FALLS.WI • • * Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Contacts - Fish and Wildlife at Carlos Avery - Tim Wallace Telephone 296-5200 Division of Waters, Metro -Molly Shodeen Telephone 772-7910 * Minnesota Correctional Facility - Stillwater (MCF) Contacts - Physical Plant Director -Joe Miller Telephone 779-2812 Chief Engineer -Jerry Davis Telephone 779-2730 * Washington Soil and Water Conservation District/Middle St. Croix WMO Representative Contact - District Resource Conservationist - Tim Fredbo Telephone 439-6361 Operation * Leakage from the stop log bay will occur. * Only the City of Bayport will have keys to operate the gates and remove stop logs. Stop logs are to be kept at the City of Bayport maintenance garage when not inplace at the outlet structure. * Prior to lowering the pond the MDNR will contact the Bayport City Administrator a minimum of 7 days in advance of the stop log removal. Rate of discharge is restricted to the downstream channel capacity. Based on the present rating curve for the railroad embankment (Fourth Ave. South) a discharge rate of 50 cubic feet per second will cause flooding of the pool at Third Ave. South. * The center gate may be used in the fully open, fully closed or partial open position. * If the gate openings become restricted or plugged for any reason the structure is designed to allow flow to enter over the top of the side walls. The overflow elevation is set at 749.0 about 2' below the roadway embankment overtopping elevation. * Winter operation - Both small gate and stop log bay should be open. - Regulate flow with center gate. - Gate heater conduits have been included to allow for future installation of heat trace elements and controls if operational problems occur. - Sand bagging of culverts across CSAH 21 at station 29+00 may be required during winter operations. • • - If gate heaters are installed by the MSCWMO cost to install and operate the gate heaters is to be shared by MSCWMO subwatershed as shown in the Maintenance section. * Fall pond drawdown - Start after August 1. Contact MDNR Office at Carlos Avery a minimum of 7 days prior to removal of the stop logs. - Contact MCF and Washington County a minimum of 7 days prior to removal of the stop logs. - Install stop logs in the structure at such time that the City of Bayport determines that the flow from the Prison Pond will cause a build up of ice in the creek channel. Timing for installation of the stop logs is left to the discretion of the City of Bayport. Confirm with MDNR Office at Carlos Avery that the stop logs have been reinstalled. - Contact MCF and Washington County Highway Superintendent to confirm that stop logs have been reinstalled. Maintenance and Inspection * All maintenance and inspection shall be performed and documented by the City of Bayport. RECORDS OF ALL MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL PARTIES LISTED IN THE COORDINATION SECTION AND TO THE MSCWMO SUBWATERSHED. * _Cost sharing for required maintenance and inspection shall be shared the by MSCWMO subwatershed on the following basis: Stillwater 4.29% Oak Park Heights 50.13% Baytown Twnshp. 18.93% Bayport 26.65% * Maintenance on center gate - Drape poly over stop logs to reduce leakage - Close small gate - Length of time available to work on center gate is dependent on the rate of inflow to the Prison Pond. * -Ladder to used for access * An annual inspection of the outlet structure should be made during the spring of the year after the elevation of the water in the pond has subsided. This should allow adequate time to make minor repairs on the structure and remove floating bogs prior to freeze up of the • • pond. Multiple copies of an inspection log form have been provided in this document to assist in record keeping. TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS TO DOCUMENT CONDITION OF THE OUTLET ON AT LEAST AN ANNUAL BASIS. A COPY OF THE ANNUAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST SHOULD BE SENT TO ALL PARTIES LISTED IN THE COORDINATION SECTION AS WELL AS THE MSCWMO SUBWATERSHED. * Inspection of the outlet structure should be made after any heavy or intense rainfall event. Use a copy of the inspection checklist located at the back of this document to record data including rainfall amounts. Rainfall data can be obtained from the Stillwater Wastewater Treatment Plant. * Use the prison pond outlet inspection checklist to document conditions within the watershed after changes in the gate/stop log openings have been made. * Take photographs to document structure and watershed conditions when appropriate. Drought Simulation * Occasionally the MDNR may want to draw pond down during the summer months to reestablish vegetation. * MDNR to contact Bayport City Administrator, Washington County and the MCF a minimum of 7 days in advance of summer drawdown. * Small gate and stop log bay completely open at this time. Flow throttled by center gate. Emergency Operations * Every attempt will be made to contact members of the various parties on the coordination list after appropriate actions have been taken to protect residents and property downstream of the structure. • * Take photographs to document emergency conditions if at all possible. Shop Drawings/ Perro Creek Study * A copy of the shop drawings and the Perro Creek Minor Watershed Study are located at back of 0 & M Guidelines for the City of Bayport. Amendments/ Information Updates * No amendments may be made to these operating guidelines without the written approval of all the parties listed in the coordination section of these guidelines. * Information on the past inspection checklist forms should be reviewed prior to amending the operational characteristics of the outlet structure. PRISON POND OUTLET INSWTION CHECKLIST Dates WEATHER CONDITIONS INSPECTORS TIME A.M. P.M. Action aw a i-tu CONDITION SUMMARY uN a a c- u a CHECK/CIRCLE `� CONDITION NOTED OBSERVATIONS headwater ft.below top of structure gage reading tailwater ft.above inv.of 4r dia.pipe 3,W� highwater mark downstream bridge ft.above channel inv. remove debris operation maintenance U stop logs gate heaters concrete condition m seepage/piping grating erosion debris • handrail location vegetation/cover Zz d obstruction S� flooding amount of rainfall at Stillwater WWTP inches 2H g •c1 rainfall occurred between A.M./P.M. and A.M./P.M. GENERAL COMMENTS SKETCHES&FIELD MEASUREMENTS P. of • CITY OF BAYPORT di 294 No. 3rd Street BAYPORT, MINNESOTA 55003 Council Meets the First Monday of Each Month -7:00 P.M. October 25, 1994 FAX 49 FAAX 439--718718 8 LaVonne Wilson, Clerk/Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 - 57th Street No. Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Dear Lavonne: On August 16, 1994, I sent you a letter outlining actions the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization had taken related to construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. In that letter I indicated at the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization meeting of Wednesday, June 29, 1994, the Perro Creek Sub-watershed communities of Oak Park Heights, Baytown Township, Bayport and Stillwater agreed to go forward with the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The decision to go forward with construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure was based on Perro Creek Watershed Study completed by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson. SEH presented the Perro Creek Sub-watershed study at. the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization of April 25, 1994 . The Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization authorized the following actions related to the Prison Pond Outlet structure construction at its meeting on Wednesday, June 29, 1994 : 1. The Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization designated the City of Bayport as the governmental unit to act on behalf of the Perro Creek Sub-watershed government units of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Baytown Township and Bayport to accept the DNR Grant to cover upto half of the cost associated with engineering and construction for the Prison Pond Outlet structure. NOTE: On July 18, 1994, the City of Bayport and the DNR fully executed a Department of Natural Resources Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Agreement. The Agreement states that, "the State shall pay to the City, 50% of the total project cost or $42,559.00 which is less for the work. The State's share cannot exceed the City's share of the project costs to be assumed by the City and the City's of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater and Baytown Township" . • • 2. Designating the City of Bayport as the governmental unit acting on behalf of the Perro Creek Watershed communities of Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Baytown Township and Bayport to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with Washington County for the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. NOTE: On August 1, 1994, the City Council of the City of Bayport adopted a resolution approving Washington County/City of Bayport Joint Powers and Construction and Reimbursement Agreement for the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. 3. Approved the cost allocation for Perro Creek Sub- watershed communities of Baytown Township, Bayport, Oak Park Heights and Stillwater's contribution for construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The cost allocation breaks down as follows: Local % of Contribution Amount of Government with DNR Grant Contribution Bayport 26.65% $ 6,622 .50 Baytown Township 18.93% 4,738.50 Oak Park Heights 50. 13% 12,532 .50 Stillwater 4 .29% 1,072.50 Total Contribution $25,000.00 4. The Perro Creek Sub-watershed Organization communities of Bayport, Baytown Township, Stillwater and Oak Park Heights agree that, should the amount of construction and engineering costs for the Prison Pond Outlet structure exceed $25,000. 00, the Sub-watershed communities will, pay the additional expenses based on the percentages indicated in Paragraph 3. The City Council of the City of Bayport has taken formal action to: 1 . Accept the DNR Grant to cover upto half the cost associated with engineering and construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. 2 . Entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with Washington County for the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. Before we can proceed with construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure, it is necessary for the Sub-watershed communities of Stillwater, Bayport, Baytown Township and Oak Park Heights to formalize two agreements. Those Agreements are: 1. Joint Powers Agreement for Prison Pond Outlet structure specifying the cost participation allocation. I have • • enclosed a copy of the Joint Powers Agreement for Prison Pond Outlet structure for your review. 2 . Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The DNR requires the Sub- watershed communities to have Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The Guidelines specify the City of Bayport will operate and maintain the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The Guidelines also state the Sub-watershed communities will share the cost of maintenance and inspection of the Prison Pond Outlet structure based on the same percentages used for determining contributions for the Prison Pond Outlet structure construction. Those percentages are: A. Stillwater 4.29% B. Oak Park Heights 50. 13% C. Baytown Township 18.93% D. Bayport 26.65% I have enclosed a Revised Final Draft copy of the Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for your review. Following your review of the enclosed documents and provided your attorney finds them in order, we would appreciate your City Council adopting a resolution for the following: 1. Approving the Joint Powers Agreement for the Prison Pond Outlet structure cost allocation. 2. Approving the Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for Prison Pond Outlet structure at CSAH 21. We would appreciate action by your local government on these two items at your earliest possible convenience. Should you have any questions about the content of this letter or the enclosed Agreements, please fee free to contact me at 439-2530. Sin /e yours, ' enneth . artu City Administra • Enc. • • JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT PRISON POND OUTLET STRUCTURE THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Cities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights, and Stillwater, and Baytown Township pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 471.59. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State of Minnesota, all of which have lands which drain storm water into the Prison. Pond (DNR Protected Water 310P) , and all of which have power to construct, reconstruct, extend and maintain storm drainage facilities; and, WHEREAS, the condition of the existing outlet structure of the Prison Pond and previous flooding dictate the need for the re-construction of an outlet structure, and the construction of a reinforced concrete pipe under C.S.A.H. 21 (the "public improvement project") ; and, WHEREAS, Washington County and the City of Bayport have entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to jointly let a contract for the construction of the public improvement project, which Agreement - - provides that Washington County will pay no construction costs of the Prison Pond outlet structure, and the County will pay all construction costs of the reinforced concrete pipe to be constructed under C.S.A.H. 21 and all roadway improvements associated therewith, and that the County will pay all design and construction engineering costs of the Prison Pond outlet structure and the reinforced concrete pipe under C.S.A.H. 21; and, • • WHEREAS, the City of Bayport has entered into an Agreement with the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for a Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant; and, WHEREAS, the governmental units which are parties to this Agreement mutually desire to contribute to the costs of the construction of the Prison Pond outlet in excess of the amount of ' the grant from the DNR, which costs are estimated to be Twenty- Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) ; and, NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the above-named governmental units as follows: 1. Cost Participation. The governmental units hereby agree to contribute to the costs of the construction of the Prison Pond outlet based upon an estimate of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) as follows: Bayport 26.65% $ 6,662.50 Baytown Township 18.93% $ 4,732.50 Oak Park Heights 50.13% $12,532.50 • City of Stillwater 4.29% $ 1,072.50 In the event the actual costs of the construction of the Prison Pond outlet over and above the grant received from the State of Minnesota are greater or less than the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) , then the contributions from the individual governmental units shall be adjusted proportionately based upon the above set forth percentages. The governmental units hereby agree to contribute to the cost of the development of a Prison Pond Outlet Structure Operation Manual as per the percentage stipulated above. 2 . Payment By Individual Governmental Units. It is contemplated that all of the construction work for the construction 2 • S of the Prison Pond outlet is to be done on a unit price basis. The individual governmental units hereby agree to pay the sums set forth in Paragraph 1 on or before May 1, 1995. Upon completion and acceptance of the construction project, a final bill for the costs of the project will be prepared, and the individual governmental units will be billed or reimbursed by the City of Bayport for the amounts due pursuant to this Agreement. Any additional sums due by the individual governmental units shall be paid within sixty (60) days after the receipt of the bill by the City of Bayport. 3. Termination. This Joint Powers Agreement shall terminate upon the final acceptance of the construction of the Prison Pond outlet improvement project, and the final payment by the individual governmental units to the City of Bayport of the individual governmental units' proportionate agreed upon share of the costs of said project. 4. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by the written mutual consent of all of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement- to be executed by their respective duly authorized representatives. Dated: CITY OF BAYPORT By Its Mayor By Its Administrator 3 • • Dated: CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS By Its Mayor By Its Administrator Dated: CITY OF STILLWATER By Its Mayor By Its Coordinator Dated: BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP By Its Chairman By Its Clerk 4 S i ,59,1 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE,200 SEH CENTER ST.PAUL,MN 55110 612 490-2000 800 325-2055 ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION Operation and Maintenance Guidelines Prison Pond Outlet Structure at CSAH 21 Bayport, Minnesota Date: October 11, 1994 Revised Final Draft Purpose * This structure provides for variability in the operation of the pond outlet structure . The small gate opening has been sized to simulate the discharge of the old orifice opening. A drought on the pond can be simulated by removing the stop logs and partially opening the center gate. Removal of the stop logs and partially opening of the center gate also allows the City of Bayport to draw down the water elevation in the fall of the year. This draw down maximizes the storage volume available in the pond and will hopefully minimize icing/flooding problems in the City. See Operation section. * County Road 21 is to be raised in 1995 to provide additional storage and reduce the potential for overtopping of the road during high intensity precipitation events as well as during winter operations. * This structure is located on Washington County right-of-way. Therefore, it is necessary to contact the county whenever the operation characteristics of the structure are modified such as removing the stop logs and adjusting gates. Coordination * City of Bayport Contacts - City Administrator - Ken Hartung Telephone 439-2530 Public Works Supervisor -John Burkhart Telephone 439-2530 * Washington County Contacts - Highway Superintendent - Roger Coomer Telephone 430-4326 Asst. Highway Superintendent - Nick Young Telephone 430-4327 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. MINNEAPOLIS,MN ST.CLOUD,MN CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI MADISON,WI ! • * Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Contacts - Fish and Wildlife at Carlos Avery -Tim Wallace Telephone 296-5200 Division of Waters, Metro -Molly Shodeen Telephone 772-7910 * Minnesota Correctional Facility - Stillwater (MCF) Contacts - Physical Plant Director -Joe Miller Telephone 779-2812 Chief Engineer -Jerry Davis Telephone 779-2730 * Washington Soil and Water Conservation District/Middle St. Croix WMO Representative Contact - District Resource Conservationist - Tim Fredbo Telephone 439-6361 Operation * Leakage from the stop log bay will occur. * Only the City of Bayport will have keys to operate the gates and remove stop logs. Stop logs are to be kept at the City of Bayport maintenance garage when not inplace at the outlet structure. * Prior to lowering the pond the MDNR will contact the Bayport City Administrator a minimum of 7 days in advance of the stop log removal. Rate of discharge is restricted to the downstream channel capacity. Based on the present rating curve for the railroad embankment (Fourth Ave. South) a discharge rate of 50 cubic feet per second will cause flooding of the pool at Third Ave. South. * The center gate may be used in the fully open, fully closed or partial open position. * If the gate openings become restricted or plugged for any reason the structure is designed to allow flow to enter over the top of the side walls. The overflow elevation is set at 749.0 about 2' below the roadway embankment overtopping elevation. * Winter operation - Both small gate and stop log bay should be open. - Regulate flow with center gate. - Gate heater conduits have been included to allow for future installation of heat trace elements and controls if operational problems occur. - Sand bagging of culverts across CSAH 21 at station 29+00 may be required during winter operations. • • - If gate heaters are installed by the MSCWMO cost to install and operate the gate heaters is to be shared by MSCWMO subwatershed as shown in the Maintenance section. * Fall pond drawdown - Start after August 1. Contact MDNR Office at Carlos Avery a minimum of 7 days prior to removal of the stop logs. - Contact MCF and Washington County a minimum of 7 days prior to removal of the stop logs. - Install stop logs in the structure at such time that the City of Bayport determines that the flow from the Prison Pond will cause a build up of ice in the creek channel. Timing for installation of the stop logs is left to the discretion of the City of Bayport. Confirm with MDNR Office at Carlos Avery that the stop logs have been reinstalled. - Contact MCF and Washington County Highway Superintendent to confirm that stop logs have been reinstalled. Maintenance and Inspection * All maintenance and inspection shall be performed and documented by the City of Bayport. RECORDS OF ALL MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL PARTIES LISTED IN THE COORDINATION SECTION AND TO THE MSCWMO SUBWATERSHED. * Cost sharing for required maintenance and inspection shall be shared the by MSCWMO subwatershed on the following basis: Stillwater 4.29% Oak Park Heights 50.13% Baytown Twnshp. 18.93% Bayport 26.65% * Maintenance on center gate - Drape poly over stop logs to reduce leakage - Close small gate - Length of time available to work on center gate is dependent on the rate of inflow to the Prison Pond. * Ladder to used for access * An annual inspection of the outlet structure should be made during the spring of the year after the elevation of the water in the pond has subsided. This should allow adequate time to make minor repairs on the structure and remove floating bogs prior to freeze up of the 411 111 pond. Multiple copies of an inspection log form have been provided in this document to assist in record keeping. TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS TO DOCUMENT CONDITION OF THE OUTLET ON AT LEAST AN ANNUAL BASIS. A COPY OF THE ANNUAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST SHOULD BE SENT TO ALL PAR ILES LISTED IN THE COORDINATION SECTION AS WELL AS THE MSCWMO SUBWATERSHED. * Inspection of the outlet structure should be made after any heavy or intense rainfall event. Use a copy of the inspection checklist located at the back of this document to record data including rainfall amounts. Rainfall data can be obtained from the Stillwater Wastewater Treatment Plant. * Use the prison pond outlet inspection checklist to document conditions within the watershed after changes in the gate/stop log openings have been made. * Take photographs to document structure and watershed conditions when appropriate. Drought Simulation * Occasionally the MDNR may want to draw pond down during the summer months to reestablish vegetation. * MDNR to contact Bayport City Administrator, Washington County and the MCF a minimum of 7 days in advance of summer drawdown. * Small gate and stop log bay completely open at this time. Flow throttled by center gate. Emergency Operations * Every attempt will be made to contact members of the various parties on the coordination list after appropriate actions have been taken to protect residents and property downstream of the structure. * Take photographs to document emergency conditions if at all possible. Shop Drawings/ Perro Creek Study * A copy of the shop drawings and the Perro Creek Minor Watershed Study are located at back of 0 & M Guidelines for the City of Bayport. Amendments/ Information Updates * No amendments may be made to these operating guidelines without the written approval of all the parties listed in the coordination section of these guidelines. * Information on the past inspection checklist forms should be reviewed prior to amending the operational characteristics of the outlet structure. • PRISON POND OUTLET INSTION CHECKLIST Date • WEATHER CONDITIONS INSPECTORS TIME A.M. P.M. Action 0 w w CONDITION SUMMARYcla u � a u uX a CHECK/CIRCLE ¢ Z CONDITION NOTED OBSERVATIONS headwater ft.below top of structure gage reading H tailwater ft.above inv.of 42"dia.pipe • 3 highwater mark downstream bridge ft.above channel inv. remove debris operation maintenance U stop logs gate heaters • concrete condition seepage/piping grating erosion debris • handrail location vegetation/cover obstruction 8U flooding amount of rainfall at Stillwater WWTP inches 0 rainfall occurred A.M./P.M. and A.M./P.M. between GENERAL COMMENTS SKETCHES&FIELD MEASUREMENTS P. of 140PAv Donald C.Wisniewski, PP. WASHINGTON COUNTY Director Public Works/County Engineer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT John P.Perkovich, Deputy Director A. s F PARKS• HIGHWAYS •FACILITIES Operations Division 11660 MYERON ROAD NORTH •STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082-9573 Donald J.Theisen, P.E.,Deputy Director Tun..-re Chir-;--/ 612-430-4300 Facsimile Machine 612-430-4350 Technical &Administrative Division '1Sin.ygp6tj James D.Hanson, P.E. Transportation Engineer Edward Kepler, Facilities Operations Manager August 30, 1994 Lavonne Wilson, Administrator Oak Park Heights City Hall 14168 57th Street N. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 SUBJECT: Reconstruction of CSAH 21 (SAP 82-621-18 & -19) Dear Ms. Wilson: This letter is to give the City information on Washington County's proposed construction project on CSAH 21, located in the cities of Oak Park Heights and Bayport, and Baytown Township. Originally, the project was divided into two stages. The first stage, construction of the outlet structure and the pipe across CSAH 21 (SAP 82-621-19), was scheduled for construction in the fall of 1994. The second stage, the roadway construction (SAP 82-621-18), was scheduled for construction in the spring of 1995. Because of problems in obtaining materials, the construction of the outlet structure and pipe at the Prison Pond and Perro Creek will not be done this fall. The gates to close the structure will not be available from the manufacturer until winter, which makes construction operations more difficult and increases the cost. The goal in staging the project, flood mitigation in the City of Bayport for the winter, cannot be accomplished without the gates, so the projects will now be combined and construction work for both done in 1995. However, he County will work with the local agencies to mitigate flooding potential this winter. We would like to keep the City of Oak Park Heights informed on the project since they are contributing to the cost of the structure. Washington County is in the process of entering into an agreement for the outlet structure construction with the City of Bayport,the governmental unit acting on behalf of the Perro Creek Subwatershed group of Bayport, Baytown, Oak Park Heights, and Stillwater. Plans for the outlet structure and the roadway reconstruction will be sent to the local agencies after completion. If you have any questions please contact me at 430-4316. Sincerely, Christine Thornton Design Coordinator cc: Wally Abrahamson, County Commissioner Ken Hartung, Bayport Administrator Paved on Recycled Paper EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION �� • 110 f fi � 04; MIDDLE ST CROIX RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24. 1994 Members Present John MoPhiira«r, W.LAKELAND TOWNSHIP Barbara Cobb ST. MARY'S POINT Anders Hanson BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP Beverly Oohs i tz BAYPOPT Diane O'Bryan STILLWATER TOWNSHIP Ann Pung-Terwedo STILLWATER Ken Hartung BAYPORT ADMINISTRATOR Tim Frebo SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DIST. Wendy Griffin H II II The meeting was called to order at 7: 11PM by Chair , Ann Terwedo. MOTION WAS MADE by Hanson and SECONDED by Schultz to approve the minutes of the June 29, 1994 meeting. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION WAS MADE by Schultz and SECONDED by O'Bryan to approve the Agenda. MOTION CARRIED. TREASURER'S REPORT Schultz presented a written Treasurer's report with a balance of $7297.82. It was MOVED by Hanson and SECONDED by O'Bryan to accept the treasurer's report . MOTION CARRIED. MOTION WAS MADE by O'Bryan and SECONDED by Cobb to pay the following bills: MOTION CARRIED. The Courier $ 2,50 Check #562 Tautges, Redpath $ 300 .00 Check #563 AUDIT The Audit for the year 1993 was completed by the firm, Tautges, Redpath & Co. and distributed. The 1994 Audit should be pursued on a more timely basis and the Sub-Watershed funds should be kept in a seperate check book. The audit company reminded us that we should designate an official depository by motion. The official depositories for 1995 will be done at the October meeting. PERRO CREEK REPORT Since the gate structure needs 6/8 weeks to create, making the insertion timed to possible December snow and ice, the Perro Creek outlet project will not go ahead this fall . Both the road and outlet construction will wait until spring. ** Hartung will talk to the DNR about drawing down the pond to the bottom NOW to supply extra storage space this winter . Hartung will also double check with Joe Gibson about the grant time limit - he believes it is available through 1995. lj • IIM OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE MANUAL - FERRO CREEK Jeff Davis of SEH, not the DNR, is working on the 0 & M manual . It will be considered part of construction costs and the grant will cover half of those costs. INSURANCE COVERAGE Discussion centered on the two widely different insurance quotes, the need for the $600 ,000 liability coverage , the need for Excess Liability coverage , and the need for Open Meeting Law Insurance. ** Cobb will contact both companies again for further explanation . LAKE MONITORING Discussion followed on the need to use Met Council 's lab services for the continuing water monitoring of Lake McKusik: . The SWCD is doing the actual sampling. According the Fredbo, Lake McKusik is the worst lake in the county in sample consistency . The sample season is over in October and the data will be available in December . Fredbo stated that at least a two year period of testing is needed to establish base line data. MOTION was made by Schultz and SECONDED by Cobb to continue the water sampling and data gathering of Lake McKusik through the SWCD and the Met Council at the 1995 cost of $860 .00 . MOTION CARRIED. 1995 BUDGET MOTION was made by Hanson and SECONDED by O'Bryan to establish the 1995 Administrative Budget at $10 ,000 total to be billed according to the Joint Powers formula. MOTION CARRIED. Estimated break down as follows: Insurance $3000 .00 • Monitoring 860 .00 SWCD 3000 .00 Audit 600 .00 Publication 20 .00 Bank charges 40 .00 Postage ,supplies 180 .00 Administration 2300 .00 ( inc. possibly hiring admin . help) $10 ,000 .00 ** Schultz will look into hiring Paul Tatting on a per meeting basis for paid help in handling the Secretary/Treasurer duties. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT UPDATE ** Fredbo will use the Forest Lake Joint Powers update that the - SWCD wrote to rewrite The Middle St . Croix River WMO JPA in accordance with the new standards. Discussion followed on the need to also redo the per municipality formula for shared payments. NEW BUSINESS Discussion followed on the Valley View Estates permit . Apparently Oak Park Heights engineers (Anderlik) designed the storm sewer system that is already in place that eventually drains to the Prison Pond. Fredbo stated that the WMO does have the authority to demand that such drainage will not effect downstream areas. MOTION was made by Cobb and SECONDED by Schultz that the Valley View Estates developers follow the WMO plan and prove that the storm sewer drainage to the Prison Pond will NOT have a detrimental on downstream property . MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: MOTION Hansen , SECONDED Schultz . MOTION CARRIED: 8:40PM /BC NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1994 7:00PM BAYPORT CITY HALL ri [ECFECIWE 1.1\\ AUG 1 9 1994 CITY OF BAYPORT 294 No. 3rd Street BAYPORT, MINNESOTA 55003 Council Meets the First Monday of Each Month-7:00 P.M. 612/439-2530 FAX 439-7188 August 16, 1994 LaVonne Wilson, Administrator/Treasurer City of Oak Park Heights P.O. Box 2007 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-2007 Dear LaVonne: At the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization meeting of Wednesday, June 29, 1994, the Perro Creek Sub- Watershed communities of Oak Park Heights, Baytown, Bayport and Stillwater agreed to go forward with construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The Sub-Watershed organization decided to go forward with reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure based on the Perro Creek Watershed Study conducted by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson presented the Perro Creek Sub-Watershed Study to the Middle St. Croix Watershed Organization on April 25, 1994. The Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization during its meeting on Wednesday, June 29, 1994, took the following actions related to the Prison Pond Outlet structure construction: 1 . Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization adopted a motion designating the City of Bayport as the governmental unit to act on the behalf of the Perro Creek Sub-Watershed Group of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Baytown and Bayport to accept the DNR Grant to cover up half of the cost associated with engineering and construction for the Prison Pond Outlet structure. 2. Designated the City of Bayport as the governmental unit acting on behalf of the Perro Creek Sub-Watershed communities of Oak Park Heights, Baytown, Bayport and Stillwater to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with Washington County for construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. • • Perro Creek Sub-Watershed communities of Baytown, Bayport, Oak Park Heights and Stillwater's contribution for construction of the Prison Pond Outlet. The cost allocation breaks down as follows: Local Percentage of Amount Government Contribution with DNR Grant Bayport 26.65% $ 6,622 .50 Baytown Township 18.93% 4,738.50 Oak Park Heights 50. 13% 12,532 .50 Stillwater 4.29% 1,072.50 Total Contribution $25,000.00 4. The Watershed Management Organization also indicated that the Perro Creek Sub-Watershed communities of Bayport, Baytown, Stillwater and Oak Park Heights agree that should the amount of construction and engineering costs exceed $25, 000.00, the Sub-Watershed communities will pay the additional expenses based on the percentages indicated in Paragraph 3. At the regular City of Bayport Council meeting of August 1, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-79, Approving a Joint Powers Agreement Between Washington County and the City of Bayport for Construction and Reimbursement Agreement for the County State Aid Highway No. 21 and Prison Pond Outlet structure. At the same meeting, Don Theisen from the Washington County Public Works Department presented the following schedule for construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure: 1. Plans and Specifications - August, 1994 2. Open Bids/Award Contract - September, 1994 3. Begin construction - October, 1994 4. Project completion - November, 1994 Based on the Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Bayport and Washington County, the County would be responsible for all engineering and construction associated with the Prison Pond Outlet Structure. The estimated engineering and construction cost for replacing the Prison Pond Outlet structure is $70, 000.00 . Washington County has agreed to contribute $20,000.00 for engineering and construction costs. With the County's contribution, the Joint Powers Agreement specifies the City of Bayport is responsible for approximately $50,000.00 of cost. However, the City has received a Grant from the DNR to fund up to 50% of engineering and construction costs associated with the Prison Pond project. This leaves approximately $25,000.00 to be funded by the Sub-Watershed communities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights, Baytown and Stillwater. To insure that the Sub-Watershed communities of Bayport, Oak , III 110 To insure that the Sub-Watershed communities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights, Baytown and Stillwater are clear on their financial commitments with this project, I am recommending the four local governments approve a Joint Powers Agreement setting forth the conditions for funding the Perro Prison Outlet structure. I have instructed City Attorney, Jim Lammers, to draft an initial Joint Powers Agreement which I will be forwarding to you in the near future for your local government approval. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions regar-•ing the contents of this letter, please contact me at 439-2 30. Sin - r= y yours. , f ,,-;#7117 40,-,0w1k/ eth H. Hartun i-y Administrate -- EE@Eln7ED • \c AUG 1 9 1994 CITY OF BAYPORT 294 No. 3rd Street BAYPORT, MINNESOTA 55003 Council Meets the First Monday of Each Month-7:00 P.M. 612/439-2530 FAX 439-7188 August 16, 1994 LaVonne Wilson, Administrator/Treasurer City of Oak Park Heights P.O. Box 2007 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-2007 Dear LaVonne: At the Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization meeting of Wednesday, June 29, 1994, the Perro Creek Sub- Watershed communities of Oak Park Heights, Baytown, Bayport and Stillwater agreed to go forward with construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. The Sub-Watershed organization decided to go forward with reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure based on the Perro Creek Watershed Study conducted by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson. Short-Elliott-Hendrickson presented the Perro Creek Sub-Watershed Study to the Middle St. Croix Watershed Organization on April 25, 1994. The Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization during its meeting on Wednesday, June 29, 1994, took the following actions related to the Prison Pond Outlet structure construction: 1. Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization adopted a motion designating the City of Bayport as the governmental unit to act on the behalf of the Perro Creek Sub-Watershed Group of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Baytown and Bayport to accept the DNR Grant to cover up half of the cost associated with engineering and construction for the Prison Pond Outlet structure. 2. Designated the City of Bayport as the governmental unit acting on behalf of the Perro Creek Sub-Watershed communities of Oak Park Heights, Baytown, Bayport and Stillwater to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with Washington County for construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure. Perro Creek Sub-Watershed communities of Baytown, Bayport, Oak Park Heights and Stillwater's contribution for construction of the Prison Pond Outlet. The cost allocation breaks down as follows: Local Percentage of Amount Government Contribution with DNR Grant -Bayport 26.65% $ 6,622.50 Baytown Township 18.93% 4,738.50 Oak Park Heights 50. 13% 12,532 .50 Stillwater 4.29% 1,072 .50 Total Contribution $25,000.00 4 . The Watershed Management Organization also indicated that the Perro Creek Sub-Watershed communities of Bayport, Baytown, Stillwater and Oak Park Heights agree that should the amount of construction and engineering costs exceed $25,000.00, the Sub-Watershed communities will pay the additional expenses based on the percentages indicated in Paragraph 3. At the regular City of Bayport Council meeting of August 1, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-79, Approving a Joint Powers Agreement Between Washington County and the City of Bayport for Construction and Reimbursement Agreement for the County State Aid Highway No. 21 and Prison Pond Outlet structure. At the same meeting, Don Theisen from the Washington County Public Works Department presented the following schedule for construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure: 1. Plans and Specifications - August, 1994 2. Open Bids/Award Contract - September, 1994 3. Begin construction - October, 1994 4. Project completion - November, 1994 Based on the Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Bayport and Washington County, the County would be responsible for all engineering and construction associated with the Prison Pond Outlet Structure. The estimated engineering and construction cost for replacing the Prison Pond Outlet structure is $70,000.00. Washington County has agreed to contribute $20,000.00 for engineering and construction costs. With the County's contribution, the Joint Powers Agreement specifies the City of Bayport is responsible for approximately $50,000.00 of cost. However, the City has received a Grant from the DNR to fund up to 50% of engineering and construction costs associated with the Prison Pond project. This leaves approximately $25,000.00 to be funded by the Sub-Watershed communities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights, Baytown and Stillwater. To insure that the Sub-Watershed communities of Bayport, Oak • • To insure that the Sub-Watershed communities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights, Baytown and Stillwater are clear on their financial commitments with this project, I am recommending the four local governments approve a Joint Powers Agreement setting forth the conditions for funding the Perro Prison Outlet structure. I have instructed City Attorney, Jim Lammers, to draft an initial Joint Powers Agreement which I will be forwarding to you in the near future for your local government approval. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions regar-.ing the contents of this letter, please contact me at 439-2 30. Sin - r= y yours. , 17 l;"15rF'/ en- eth H. Hartun Ci'y Administrato • • mi0Otk' SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR OUTLET STRUCTURE Total Estimated Engineering and Construction Costs for replacing the Outlet Structure $70,000 Washington County's Contribution for Engineering and Construction Costs $20,000 DNR Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant $25,000 Perro Creek Subwatershed Contribution $25,000 • PERRO CREEK SUBWATERSHED COSTS Percentage with Local Government DNR Grant Amount Bayport 26.65% $6,622.50 Baytown 18.93% $4,738.50 Oak Park Heights 50.13% $12,532.50 Stillwater 4.29% $1,072.50 JP'' c • • it COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 21 PROJECT UPDATE PREPARED FOR PRESENTATION TO: CITY OF BAYPORT ON AUGUST 1 , 1994 BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP ON AUGUST 1 , 1994 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ON AUGUST 8, 1994 BY WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS • • • PROJECT DESIGN o OUTLET STRUCTURE - HOW STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS - , LOCATION o ROADWAY - LOCATION ■ FROM 600 FEET SOUTH OF CSAH 14 (5TH AVENUE) ■ TO CSAH 28 (56TH STREET) - TYPICAL SECTION • WEST SIDE-URBAN (CURB & GUTTER) ■ EAST SIDE-50% RURAL/50% URBAN - 10 TON DESIGN o CITY PLAN APPROVAL NEEDED t • • • SCHEDULE o OUTLET STRUCTURE Plans and Specifications August, 1994 Open Bids/Award Contract September, 1994 Begin Construction October, 1994 Project Completion November, 1994. o ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION Plans and Specifications December, 1994 Open Bids/Award Contract March, 1995 Begin Construction April, 1995 Project Completion October, 1995 • • • FUNDING o OUTLET STRUCTURE - WASHINGTON COUNTY AGREEMENT - DNR GRANT o ROADWAY • ATTACHMENTS o OUTLET STRUCTURE PLAN SHEET o TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION o CSAH 21 PLAN SHEETS o CSAH 21 PROFILE SHEETS • DISPLAYS o AERIAL PHOTO o PLAN AND PROFILE SHEETS • 4 W // f ., / cc 1 •,......:", ,...",,- W _ ,S // ,/,‘, 0 ' _-. i��-/� CC CC o lik Z t / • I— CO • i � Imil f /'/7-----—J 1 / W i ' / i" J J / , � ` , /�, I ! �/7 / // / , / • 1.16 0 .1 . -. ; ,- / I / 7 C3 r ,-i►, r-,, 0 // / ',,L— ,d, •':: ":1,.‘,',„ ''''':, /,,7,-/, l' t ' if 1 / / ' /7 ) / :`•I i `` l1 /Z'i' \ O / IX I ' 0 ,A / / -:-_-•:::-::',',.' • 2t/ t• --/ - 4-iitiit . v* \ ' ' 4" (.Fill ili il 1 . 1 / / : - 1 ::,,,r, ,r‘ iiifo ' • . , 1 , , 1 , ../ ,„,,,i_,__ _____,_,: 44110, to l'..\ ' ; f Oi s t I , . ` 4 , , k� z , ` ' ! •/ \ \\\,,\ , \ iii\ \..\\,.\ ‘..\ \.,\ , •• ' ,,_../ \ \ -- .s. \\ \ \ 0 \ 1 + ,� • •\ , , / cx . • • \\ l �' ) \ '\ \ \t , \, o \`\\, \ a \‘\‘ \ . / ' , � �11 ` \, •RGV BY:WASHINGTON CNN' ; 7-26-84 ; 15.37 ; GG:"' G3., PURL G WORKS 2 REINFORCED SLIDE GATE CONCRETE STRUCTURE --\\ i- SLIDE GATE L i i; 1 i1 , A Ei ; I . ............. ... .........a 1 FLOW \--1 PRISON POND _r _ -- 3'W STOPLOG 8' 1 4' OPENING PLAN GRATING & HANDRAIL NOT SHOWN --C.S.A.H: 21 SLIDE GATE TOPE IIx 4..WI H 6'W X 3' H / SLIDE GATE \ W/LIFT MECHANISM ---1 cr/ Z. EL. 750.0 i H I 11 EL. . 49.0.e II �j STOPLOG SLOTS M 7 EL. 744.10, 42 RCP EL. 742.5 ,-4I 4X4 ALUMIMUM I F...1LOW ; i � STOPLOGS ill I 0,, EL. 742.5 ...... ...emmi t- r k a 6b ` . A I . a a REINFORCED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE EASE SEEPAGE CONC. SEEPAGE SECTION A-A CUTOFF COLLAR-2 REQ'D. DRAWING NOT TO SCAL OUTFALL STRUCTURE DETAILS FILE NO. • ,w WETLAND IMPACT ANAYSIS AND WASHC94C MITIGATION DESIGN gMirm rsepu"e"' FIGURE # 2 DATE 7/28/9' I E &W1 DJ_04C 1 ro 1 F ,,).111/) TO 6 • n4 i 5 4 § I a 0 x 8 t--, /Ili ft, 0 N d o a d c fiu E i i ig T---- Ili 1:44 0 I a 1 Cg h ® �� 0 a, MI Nib .• 0 eg 1 0 t g ° G f , i o 0 P vf------:: MVD Pm utm 1. 04 NI N c O ds 4 0 OA rt ' cvcv. r47)CO DOS InM�l0—InlnM ♦ • \ . x I I a: �dotr1--/u� i �a n. a� Illb... 3'S .01 \ p�Q ` _ O e in Ji if, ��� i N • 'di I N 4o r / • I I Ii I IN ccatiu _ FM � 1.1 COG'. W N coZ I.3'S .0Z W X��• N '3'S .6i COO w N OQ } --J OS• Z H �I . I5 I 3 • 0 O•.. --0 69• _a o /� . • N N ��S SL• � . ! i •ii,) r.-in;ts 1 •• • Ocr'co • • ' I Off-N-Na)NO I • NN—In—N—N J SL• N N / / N N N N M .-»Gctr►- cSI:.W a. atLa 4, v X SN „ � • . ll ' 1 S� � �S Mai , .4-Orr''''40 0' '''.- � '" • • • ai •r:• • Ni �o. �p� �_ NN� a1--NSM01O i y 0 ' QOtr1-•.JCJH i O. tL d /6 /'J^ v, //1 /a o COG'., O G 4 Is Oa <9.1 a //f/. v) OA / , z cc J 0 i 0) O. /i .. c, f0 4i) /// Sao W O. 7f ,/ * zzz caw .. ..m r. .......4 I 1 i 1, . 1 1. O -fib 1 1 N 9...... a�! o o0 , 1 , 1 Sn� 91 i \ © � �� W • o s 0 \ _ • vo Off+• , ,1 Q O °°. ` \. Z P\ 3~ y10Z`• • \ 0 • \\ 1 . Una ' \ \ a. 0 Ob ...\\ I) v ilLe 11 \ \ \ 0 00� in J \ \ Z O �j 5 S \ \ ,NO) b. CC. \ itu ODO ..... �� OM Oe.a •� \\ 0 OO• M� 0 / .iG N sf M °\''' 0 1 - \ \ oo• . • a an:• \ S�°ge•�� .. .N )...., e0 ° ° 1 1._J :n. 6 G.10 .81__1 • I M in— A NMMtitiotoin "rrV 0 a1 9; , • • • MO(0 • • C8• 4 r•-vaDOCO0)VI0) 0 qy . Mst9—M—NMM 0 N U r ■ r r N II .4 40Cri-J(41.- / I a. a.a: 'J^ J3 •/ / i * 1. i i o o / c �p e 0G. j, 4 O �1 �-/ O9 4% b M� 921 Tt.CCV, g, , a0 co ..*. ,.: $ -\-, v*- / . N N O O O O O . \ / • 8 •d%% 1� O aC F•J CiM- 4 % , =. • \ A , • �4 it ir O * r'. W il ,► j� 7 V ttN9 end I Q • • N s. co a I . W W I (n . \ fii z 5, ...,8,1.- • 1 • �J n21 11/44' / / / / .3•S .0 / c� OS•S I • b oz 3s •sf I f- � aO 00. I ' ill / � �'v S'-1x .91 y L O W N S rl 4 f . �p 3.S Sf I /In i f; ' f 3S ?CI; OS. .3•S S � .% .3.S .Of -; 3 rii i v s�1H9f3H Navel )4Y0 .O A110 P� • O—4u, 'i la•dAv9 d0 A110 ^m 00• ' r o)P 3 S 'Si _ 41ve ! •• , / niQ Q2rl . 4 ' • O .1 ie .0£,'' M .' ZS• / ' . w gQ 14/ , ..y O 3 _,. _ /, 1 in O..Ya I'g. s•13 91'� pp 90• 1' h 00. 01�: ijt �•�^N(DNNOh1(hp I,•IA d•• VCPO O(.p►7h I It—It--Mtftr SZ• - I '3'S .Sf i fr--;1 00• I a as � I • J nn I I r� 8VZSL >`1..lAd 00. . ........ 0 6 -11' :. ir•, at I NZ 1 1 I 2 II— t'ic ' m p i 1 — t.l'N ..,i. . ral . _._, W • d i • 1 W , it i • k ! 00 tial. Oc• ........,...............i CO 1 • : , : : LIJ s T— • I i• I • i ...II i . . I 1 . is. 1 I . ---, -I.-•-...--- 0 LU • H . r I • . i 0: •4 . I if . .; I LI- 1111 CC I Ho • • .D / i 4 i I (a j - r• " . F . iLi i 41 g i 6" 4 16N3S4.1 •ii •ta 'xis'930 lAd ocsi 011'i C.L. M. 4.1.4, •i 17-* (DA- i , • . %II 'V *dS tit4 00 pi cc 1 - 8 IQ Og• --! //.7 • —- ..-- er/ i . • . - i S . 48 Vi'd5'8a8- . - 9b si., cc. / . ! - i : • • • . . i • ' 4 - .L1 '9e4g'928 - • I .00'684. Og. 949L ' 00. . . . z0 • n. co g 1,r)* . . . 1 Cp . • z I— U) w . . . • • • 4 • 1-1.941 dS ON NC t • ' oil S ;• < 1 0 0 10 •• • • In issii IP.- ...i! •. • •.I CI) i • i • . • Cli gli: : .11 VO'cIS . /, • - CL/. 19. tat 03 le e, 4' i''' • LaT. ! .11 'D'C'cIS'98 00&Li. 171.• ai g 4 / / .14 .o.ctfos ON3 o 'IV VCCITO3E1 . 41 '.L1 '94:t ON3. P A • °STEIL 61- i LI.cel. - • - cr ! 00.- :•' ' . bo. s,e. oc• —i • 1 re. P.• II- h. t4 X . 1 i .., • 5 0 Ili ' 0 0 0 0 0 O N- N- O , , r 0 . Vi a • 1 ' 1 . L len _ i • I i. ' O U- 60'1084 >a)i : Ad SZ• ai IOD . ±Q .c Y : 1 •.. 'it . • Q 30 ZN :{ . : ti ".i• cco • . . if'L9L...._ +--•_a • ©©i . r d ' Z I'b9L OS.« • �ZC 09. . 1 �SL � ra .s:a.ds. W oO GL OS- 1R...E • NN itl ',;b'dS'938: err b'9b1 cz'ft[ too• •---■ N� 2 4 !Ad 4L• Cr tx . ....tu.� `l8 t d`:dS N3 . . . �$ 1 . I __.;._.. .......11 •• 9' bC L I • • • 1• • 1 . 1 ,la '9-d& a l3 02- . i 1 . i . . - 1 '6'0'd5 Lc*OSL I N• OS• 19"girl Z1• . .. .. ._ . . ..__. .._ . ..... .. ... . . . ...... i.Z'fcl 7. .. :.1N I : : i : . . Q . .,, a_ 0 • . 0 .111 -J Li ! i V Z N 0- 1 i Ilim . ! , 1 -., ..CI. -' cr I WU • u)w . I la 3e ; ; I _ . i 1 . X o u.4 _ ._ i..........._.._._....._____.... U) . z u)_.1 • i iii 4 -? i _ ........ I ... ---.-, i I 1 - I.- 0 • - 1 . . • . MC . 1 9 i i 0Z-LSi.1 1 I IM 00 •;:- - --7-,1,- , • f Gt>'4C1.. • Ot. ',1.1 9 '419 Ot4 w * I OT cZ DP:. v • I to < . . . 1...............`.1,..;.0...Zig._..._, tz_ 00 Wi. POP• . . . c:a • 8 1 icto • , 0 . Y. i I+ • ---1 tLECL• >In -1 CO4 G17.8CL _ • 0. --. A4 OC• 00 0 : 1 I • • cir 1 2 . a. 1 ........C.3...:D447236........ $g4 00. • . • LL991., og. ... ............._Q. a z 3 . 1 . , , . , 0 ,.,5 I- I En • 57: • • . x • - . 1 i GE'6LL ./ og. - I . - . 1 • I i ..............t.: g g tcP- g g t I 1 I Otrelli • t / ill I ° m RESOLUTION #94-07-24 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRIBUTION TO EMERGENCY REPAIRS EXPERIENCED ALONG COUNTY ROAD 21 IN THE PERRO CREEK DRAINAGE AREA BY THE CITY OF BAYPORT WHEREAS, in the spring of 1994, the County of Washington and the City of Bayport were required to make emergency repairs to County Road 21 and implement emergency measures as it affected certain drainage systems within the Perro Creek System, including the Prison Pond Outlet; and, WHEREAS, Washington County has indicated that they will be reconstructing County Road 21 in the fall of 1994 and along with that construction of the road, it is feasible and appropriate that the present Prison Pond Outlet structure be replaced; and, WHEREAS, the cost of construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure is estimated amount of $70, 000.00; and, WHEREAS, the County of Washington has indicated that they will pay for the cost of culvert under County Road 21 along with all engineering costs associated with the Prison Pond Outlet structure and County Road 21 culvert; and, WHEREAS, the same leaves a balance of $50,000. 00 to be financed by the communities of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport and Baytown Township; and, WHEREAS, there have been several meetings between representatives of the various communities that deal with issues as it affects contribution to such project; and, WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights does not commit to any long term improvements or proposals for projects dealing with the issues involved in the Perro Creek Drainage Systems, but does recognize that its community is benefited by the reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure; and, WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights does not commit to any methodology for determination of future improvements, but is willing to contribute up to the sum of $12,532.50 towards this particular project without establishing any commitment to future project or precedent as to method of contribution to future projects if determined to be desirable by communities affected. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights, that the City shall contribute up to the sum of $12,532.50 to the City of Bayport upon certification from their engineering department that the Prison Pond Outlet structure has been reconstructed pursuant to the plans and specifications previously approved by Washington County and the City of Bayport affecting such project. That this contribution is made specifically for the reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet and that the City's determination of benefit, level of contribution or need to participate within this project, shall have no bearing on future decisions of the Council as it affects future proposed projects within this area of the watershed. Passed by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this 11th day of July, 1994. Barbara O'Neal ay Attest: Gonne Wilson, City Clerk bb/fid/ 4 1n:45 LLKBEHU LHW F-1k11 -> UF'H NU.bi.S HOU • • pjsP IR( ( RESOLUTION CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS �WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA1(1(79 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRIBUTION TO EMERGENCY REPAIRS EXPERIENCED ALONG COUNTY ROAD 21 IN THE PERRO CREEK DRAINAGE ARBA BY THE CITY OP BAYPORT WHEREAS, in the spring of 1994, the County of Washington and the City of Bayport were required to make emergency repairs to County Road 21 and implement emergency measures as it affected certain drainage systems within the Perro Creek System, including the Prison Pond Outlet; and, WHEREAS, Washington County has indicated that they will be reconstructing County Road 21 in the fall of 1994 and along with that construction of the road, it is feasible and appropriate that the present Prison Pond Outlet structure be replaced; and, WHEREAS, the cost of construction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure is estimated amount of $70,000.00; and, WHEREAS, the County of Washington has indicated that they will pay for the cost of culvert under County Road 21 along with all engineering costs associated with the Prison Pond Outlet structure and County Road 21 culvert; and, WHEREAS, the same leaves a balance of $50,000.00 to be financed by the communities of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport and Baytown Township; and, WHEREAS, there have been several meetings between representatives of the various communities that deal with issues as it affects contribution to such project; and, WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights does not commit to any long term improvements or proposals for projects dealing with the issues involved in the Perro Creek Drainage Systems, but does recognize that its community is benefited by the reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet structure; and, WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights does not commit to any methodology for determination of future improvements, but is willing to contribute the sum of $24, 280.00 towards this particular project without establishing any commitment to future project or precedent as to method of contribution to future projects if determined to be desirable by communities affected. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the • 111 City of Oak Park Heights, that the City shall contribute the sura of $24,280.00 to the City of Bayport upon certification from their engineering department that the Prison Pond Outlet structure has been reconstructed pursuant to the plans and specifications previously approved by Washington County and the City of Bayport affecting such project. That this contribution is made specifically for the reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet and that the City's determination of benefit, level of contribution or need to participate within this project, shall have no bearing on future decisions of the Council as it affects future proposed projects within this area of the watershed. Passed by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights this 27th day of June, 1994. Barbara O'Neal, Mayor Attest: LaVonne Wilson, City Clerk • • Enclosure 22 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO PROTECT AND MANAGE THE MIDDLE ST CROIX RIVER WATERSHED THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of the date of execution, by and between the units of Government within the Middle St.Croix River Watershed Management Organization each party realizes that the success or failure of the Middle St. Croix River Water Management Organization created by this agreement is dependent upon.the desire of each member community to cooperate in the exercise of Joint Power to solve a common problem. Each party to this agreement pledges its cooperation to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act (Minn. Stat. 103B.201 to 103B.255). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the municipalities and townships located within the Middle St. Croix River Watershed have authority pursuant to Minn. Stat. 471.59 to jointly and/or cooperatively by agreement, exercise any powers common to the contracting parties; and, WHEREAS, the parties are desirous of jointly, and cooperatively developing a Surface Water Management Plan for the Watershed and instituting programs to conserve soil and water resources through implementation of practices that preserve and use natural storage areas, control excessive volumes and rates of run-off, effectively reduce or prevent erosion and sedimentation. promote groundwater recharge, improve water quality and prevent,flooding in order to protect and manage the natural and artificial water conveying systems of the Middle St. Croix River Watershed. NOW, THEREFORE. the parties to this agreement do mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE I General Purpose 1.1 It is the general purpose of the parties to this Agreement to establish an organization to jointly and cooperatively develop a Surface Water Management Plan and program to preserve and use natural or created water storage and retention system in order to: • r 1) Protect, preserve and use natural service and groundwater storage and retention systems; 2) Minimize public capital expenditures to correct flooding and water quality problems; 3) Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality; 4) To establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management; 5) Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems; 6) Promote groundwater recharge: 7) Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and, 8) Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and groundwater. 1.2 The boundaries of the Middle St. Croix River Water Management Organization (hereinafter referred to as MSCWMO) are set forth in Exhibit I attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein and shall be hereinafter referred to as the "Area". In general, the plan may include projects which accomplish the following: a) Preserve and use natural or created water storage and retention systems in order to reduce to the greatest practical extent the public capital expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of run-off; b) Protect and improve existing water quality in lakes and streams through proper land use and appropriate conservation practices; C) Prevent flooding and erosion by implementing flood plain management and erosion control 7 • • systems; d) Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities by reducing pollutant loads to lakes, streams, and wetlands; e) Undertake needed programs to promote groundwater recharge and protection; f) Provide a mechanism for the review of local land and water management plans; g) Provide a forum for resolution of future intergovernmental disputes relating to the management and protection of the Middle St. Croix River Watershed; h) Provide cooperation on a united basis on behalf of all units of government within the area and with all other levels of government to facilitate natural resource protection and water management in the area. i) Provide means for review of development projects to ensure compliance with MSCWMO Water Plan requirements. ARTICLE II Definitions 2.1 For the purposes of this agreement. the terms shall have the meanings as defined in this Article. a) "Commission"The organization created by this agreement, the full name of which is the Middle St. Croix River Water Management Commission (MSCWMO). It shall be a public agency of its members. b) "Board" The Board of Commissioners of the Commission consisting of one Commissioner from each of the governmental units which is a party to this agreement and which shall be the governing body of the Commission. c) "Council" Means the governmental body of a governmental unit which is a member of this commission. 3 • • d) "Governmental Unit" Means that City. Township. County, School District or other political subdivision cited in Minn. Stat. 471.59, Subd. 5. e) "Commissioner" Is any person appointed to the Commission by each council or in the Commissioner's absence, the alternate. f) "Middle St. Croix River Valley Watershed" Unless otherwise stated, means that area described and set forth within the map depicted in Exhibit I attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. ARTICLE III Board of Commissioners 3.1 The governing body of the Commission shall be its board. Each council shall be entitled to appoint one Commissioner on the Board and one Alternate who may sit when the Commissioner is not in attendance and said Commissioner or Alternate shall be called a Commissioner. 3.2 Each Commissioner and Alternate shall be appointed for a three (3) year term and shall serve at the pleasure of the council appointing such Commissioner:and such Commissioner or Alternate may be removed by the council at any time for just cause in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103B.227, Subd. 3; and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410.0040. 3.3 Vacancies. A vacancy on the Commission shall be filled by the council whose membership position on the Commission is vacant. The vacant position shall be filled in accordance with the requirements as set forth within Minn. Stat. §103B.227 (1995). 3.4 Compensation and Expenses. The Commission member shall not be entitled to compensation or reimbursement for expenses incurred in attending meetings. except to the extent the Council might determine to compensate or reimburse the expenses of the member it appoints in which case the obligation to make such payment shall be that of the individual council and not of the Commission. 3.5 Officers, The Commission shall elect from its membership a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer and further officers as may be necessary to reasonably carry out the purposes of 4 • • this agreement. All such officers shall hold office for a term of 2 years or until their successors have been duly elected by the members of the Commission. Any such officer may only serve, while a member of the Commission. Vacancies in office shall be filled by the membership of the Commission by election for the remainder of the unexpired term of such office. Duties of Officers 1. Chair- Presides over meetings. assists with preparation of agenda. maintains and presents annual calendar of specific responsibilities. 2. Vice Chair - In the absence of the Chair,fulfills all duties of the Chair. 3. Secretary- Meeting minutes, prepare agendas. maintain membership list. 4. Treasurer- Maintains checkbook financial reports at meetings, prepares budgets and billing statements, assists with yearly financial audit. 3.6 Quorum, A majority of the Board shall Constitute a quorum: in the absence of a quorum. a scheduled meeting shall be cancelled. 3.7 Meetings. The regular meeting date of the Commission shall be established by resolution of the Commission and may be changed from time to time. Special meetings shall be held at the call of the Chair or by any member giving not less than forty-eight (48) hours written notice of the time, place and purpose of such meeting delivered or mailed to the residence of each Commission member or to the City Clerk for each member City and/or Township. All meetings of the Commission are subject to Minn. Stat. 471.705 (The Minnesota Open Meeting Law), and be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. Meeting dates, times, and locations will be posted in each governmental units official meeting place. 3.8 Commission Office. The office of the Commission shall be at: City Hall of Bayport, 294 North Third Street, Bayport, MN 55003. All notices to the Commission shall be delivered or served at said office. The designated office of the Commission may be changed from time to time upon an affirmative vote from a majority of its members at a regularly held meeting or special meeting called for that purpose. 5 • • 3.9 Alternate Members,One alternate member to the Commission shall be appointed by each party to this agreement. Alternate members.may attend any meeting of the Commission and in the absence of the appointed Commissioner have the right to vote on the behalf of the City or Township which the alternate represents. If a Commission member is also an officer of the Commission, the alternate shall not be entitled to serve in the place of such officer when he is absent. 3.10 Voting, Any action taken by the Board shall be by majority vote unless otherwise stated herein or required by law. Amendments to the annual operating budgets require a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Commission. Actions taken by the Commission to order projects or to assess members for improvements shall require a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Commission: all other matters will carry by a simple majority. ARTICLE IV Commission Powers and Duties 4.1 Commission. The Commission shall have the powers and duties set forth within this article. 4.2 Rules and Regulations. The Commission may prescribe and promulgate such rules from time to time as it deems necessary to carry out its duties and the purpose of this agreement. 4.3 Surface Water Management Plan. As required by law, the Commission shall prepare a Surface Water Management Plan to be completed by the date specified by law. The plan to be adopted by the Commission shall: a) Describe the existing physical environment. land use development within the Watershed area. and development proposed in existing local and metropolitan comprehensive plans; b) Present information on hydrological systems and their components and existing and potential problems related thereto; c) State objectives and policies including management principals, alternatives and modifications, 6 • • water quality, and protection of natural characteristics; d) Set forth a management plan, including the hydrologics and water quality conditions that will be sought and significant opportunities for improvement; e) Describe conflicts, if any, between the Watershed Plan and existing plans of local government; f) Set forth an implementation program consistent with the management plan which includes capital improvement programs and standards and schedules for meeting the comprehensive plans and official controls of local governmentunits in the Watershed to bring about conformance with the Watershed Plan; and, g) Set out a procedure for amending the plan. The Watershed Management Plan shall be subject to local government review as required by the Act. 4.4 Local Water Management Plan. After consideration,but before adoption by it's governing body, each member shall submit it's Local Water Management Plan to the Commission for review of it's consistency with the Watershed management Plan of the Middle St. Croix Watershed. Each member may also adopt, by resolution, the Middle St. Croix Watershed Plan, as it's own local plan. The Board shall approve or disapprove each Local Water Plan or parts thereof. The Board shall have sixty (60) days to complete it's review. If the Board fails to complete it's review within the prescribed time period, unless an extension is agreed to by the party submitting the plan, the proposed plan shall be deemed approved. 4.5 Information and Data, The Commission may acquire and record such information and data within the Middle St. Croix Valley Watershed area as it deems necessary to accomplish its purpose as set forth herein. Such information or data as collected, shall be fully available for all members of the Commission and the public. 4.6 Claims. As provided within Minn. Stat. §103B.211 subd. 1. the Commission may enter 7 i i upon land within or without the Watershed to make surveys and/or investigations to accomplish the purposes of the Commission. The Commission shall be liable for actual damages resulting from entry but every person who claims damages shall serve the Chairman or Secretary of the Board of Commissioners with a Notice of Claim as required by Minn, Stat. 466.05. 4.7 Contracts, The Commission may make such contracts and enter into such agreements as necessary to fulfill its obligations under this agreement. Such contract or agreements shall be in accordance with the Municipal Contracting Law as set forth within Minn. Stat. §471.345 et seq. 4.8 Employment and Professional Services. The Commission may obtain such professional services and/or contract for services and may also utilize existing staff of the parties to the extent that the member parties consent thereto. They may also employ such other persons as it deems necessary. If staff services of a party are utilized, such services shall not reduce the financial commitment of the parties to the operating fund of the Commission unless the Commission so authorizes the same by a majority vote of the Commission members in such cases as where the utilization of staff services are to be substantial. 4.9 The Commission may appoint citizen and technical advisory and sub-committees as it deems necessary. 4.10 The Commission may also establish and provide for a newsletter in the manner prescribed within Minn. Stat. §103B.227 subd. 4. 4.11 The Commission shall be authorized to fund projects by use of an ad valorem tax authorized under Minn. Stat. §103B.241 in addition to the cost of preparing plans to implement same. MSCWMO and its local government units may accumulate the proceeds of levies as an alternative to issuing bonds to finance improvements. 4.12 Pursuant to the authority of Minn. Stat. §1038.211.this Water Management Organization shall 8 • • have the authority of a watershed district under Section 103D.91 I to adopt a budget, and to decide the total amount necessary to be raised from ad valorem tax levies to meet the budget and further the authority of watershed districts under Section 103D.915 to certify its budget with the auditor of Washington County, and the authority of a watershed district under Section 103D.90I to file approved assessment statements with each affected county and finally have the other powers necessary to exercise the authority under clauses 1 - 3 of Minn. Stat. §103B.211 subd. I including the power to enter into contracts for the performance of functions with government units or persons. ARTICLE V Annual Budget/Administrative Funding 5.1 Method of Operation. The Commission may collect and receive money and services subject to the provisions of this agreement from the parties and from any other sources approved by the Commission and it may incur expenses and make expenditures and disbursements necessary and incidental to the effectuation of the purposes of this agreement. Funds may be expended by the Commission in accordance with procedures established herein. Orders, checks and drafts shall be signed by the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson and the Treasurer. Other legal instruments shall be executed on behalf of the Commission by the Chairperson and the Secretary. 5.2 On or before August 1 of each year, the Commission shall prepare an annual work program relating to implementation of the Water Management Plan and other watershed issues. 5.3 Operating Funds, On or before August 1 of each year. the Commission shall prepare an operating budget for the following year for the purpose of providing funds to operate the Commission's business. . 5.4 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article of IV of this agreement, the annual administrative expenses shall be budgeted and borne by each voting member in the following manner: • . a) 40 percent shall be borne based upon the total acreage of each community based as a percentage of the acreage of the entire Watershed; b) To determine the tax capacity portion of each community in the watershed to use in the formula described here, the total tax capacity of the particular community is multiplied by the percentage of the acreage that particular community has within the watershed. Twenty percent shall be borne by each party based upon the tax capacity of it's area of the watershed as a percentage of the tax capacity of the entire Watershed; c) To determine the population portion of each community in the watershed to use in the formula described here. the total population of the particular community is multiplied by the percentage of the acreage that community has within the watershed. Forty percent shall be borne by each party based upon population of its area of the watershed as a percentage of the total population of the entire Watershed area. The budget shall be adopted by the Commission upon three-fourth (3/4) majority approval of all voting representatives at the Commission. After approval, the Secretary shall certify the adopted budget to each governmental unit on or before September I of each year, together with a statement showing the amounts due from each period. Each Governmental unit shall pay over to the Commission the amount owing, in two (2) equal installments, the first on or before January 1, and the second on or before July 1, in accordance with the tax year for which the amount due is being paid. 5.5 Annual Accounts. By May 1 of each year, the Commission shall make and file a full and complete financial report, an activity report and an audit report to each council and to the State Board of Water and Soil Resources, in accordance with Minnesota Rules. Chapter 8410.0150. ARTICLE VI Works of Improvement 6.1 Initiation of Improvement Projects. Works of improvement for the protection and management of the Watershed including but not limited to improvements to the property, land acquisition, easements, or rights-of-way may be initiated by recommendation of the Commission or petition to the Commission by the governing body of a party or parties. In either case, the Commission shall conduct a study to determine first, whether or not such proposed improvements are consistent with the water management l0 • • plan adopted by the Commission and will result in a benefit to the area in part or in whole, and second, whether or not the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should be best made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement. Finally, the Commission shall determine the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Upon concluding such determination, the Commission may make a recommendation of the improvement to each governing body of the units of government which the Commission determines will be directly benefited thereby. The recommendation of the Commission shall include a description of the proposed improvement together with its estimated costs and all engineering or staff reports related thereto. In the event the original proposal for the improvement was submitted by all the units of government that are specifically and directly benefited by the proposed improvement, such a recommendation from the Commission to the local unit of government shall not be required. Upon the submission of such a recommendation, if required above, to the governmental unit, each such governmental unit to whom the Commissioners submitted the recommendation shall respond in writing within ninety(90)days of the date of receipt of the recommendation. In the event the local governmental unit does not respond within ninety (90) days of the date of receipt the recommendation of the Commission,the local governmental unit shall be deemed to have consented to the improvement. In the event any governmental unit directly benefited by any proposed improvement timely objects to same, such proposed improvement may only be ordered by the Commission after conducting a public hearing on the improvement and then only on an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the commissioners. Such public hearings shall be noticed and conducted in the manner established and set forth in Minnesota Statutes 129.031. 6.2 Local Improvements. When works of improvement are initiated by the governing body of a party or parties,said party or parties shall submit a petition to the Commission setting forth the description of the proposed work and the improvement, the benefits to be realized by said improvements, its total /1 • estimated cost and a statement of its feasibility. The Commission shall review and make recommendations on the proposed improvement and the compliance with the Commission's Management Plan in accordance with the provisions of this agreement all to be submitted back to the local unit of government within ninety (90) days of the date of receipt of the original proposal. In the event the Commission does not respond to the local unit of government within ninety (90) days of the date of receipt of the proposal for improvement,the Commission shall be deemed to have consented to such proposal for improvement unless an extension of time has been granted by the local unit of government. In reviewing the proposal of the local governmental unit for improvement projects, the Commission shall determine whether or not the same is consistent with the Watershed Management Plan adopted by the Commission. In the event the Commission determines the proposed improvements by the local unit of government to be inconsistent with the Watershed Management Plan as adopted by the Commission, the Commission shall so notify the local unit of government in the time prescribed above and in such case the local unit of government shall not proceed with the proposed improvement. 6.3. Tax District. Each governmental unit may establish a watershed management tax district for the portion of its corporate boundaries which lie within the Watershed for the purposes of paying the cost of the planning required to develop a Surface Water Management Plan, or implement capital improvement projects. The tax district shall be established pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.245. Neither the provisions of this agreement or the establishment of a tax district shall prevent the governmental units from electing to finance capital improvements by other means, such as establishing a storm water utility. 6.4 Assessment Appeals As to all works of improvements initiated by or improved by the Commission,each party shall have the right to appeal from the assessments levied by the Commission as to each member and as to all such assessment procedures and the right of review thereof, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 429.061,429.071 and 429.081 are hereby adopted and incorporated as part hereof. 12 • 110 ARTICLE VII Miscellaneous Provisions 7.1 Insurance. The Commission may contract for or purchase such insurance as the Commission deems reasonable. 7.2 The Commission shall not have the power to levy a special assessment on any privately or publicly owned land. The Commission shall have the power to require any member to contribute to costs allocated or assessed according to the other provisions of this agreement. 7.3 The Commission shall not have the power to issue certificates. bonds or warrants. 7.4 The Commission shall not have the power of eminent domain and shall not own any interest in real property. (All interests in land shall be held in the name of the corporate member wherein said lands are located). ARTICLE VIII Duration 8.1 Each member agrees to be bound by the terms of this agreement until such time as it is dissolved. 8.2 This agreement may be terminated by dissolution pursuant to the procedures set forth below or by the unanimous consent of the parties of this agreement. 8.3 Dissolution. Any governmental unit may petition the board to dissolve the agreement. Upon thirty (30) days notice in writing of each governmental unit, the board shall hold a hearing and upon a favorable vote by three- fourths(3/4) of all the eligible votes of the then existing board of representatives. the board may by resolution. recommend that the Commission be dissolved. Said resolution shall be submitted to each governmental unit and if ratified by three-fourths (3/4) of the governmental units within sixty(60) days, said board shall dissolve the Commission allowing a reasonable time to complete work and progress and to dispose of personal property owned by the Commission, if any. Upon dissolution of 13 • • the Commission, all property of the Commission shall be sold and the proceeds thereof together with monies on hand shall be distributed to the governmental units of the Commission. Such distribution of the Commission assets shall be made in proportion to total contribution of the Commission required by the last annual budget. ARTICLE IX Effective Date This agreement shall be in full force and effect upon the filing of the certified copy of the Resolution approving said agreement by each governmental unit. ARTICLE X Amendment The Commission and/or the Councils of the parties may recommend changes and amendments to this agreement. Such recommendation shall be forwarded in writing, to all of the Councils of the parties. Amendments shall be adopted by three-fourths (3/4) vote of the governing bodies of the parties within ninety (90) days of the referral. However, any amendment which changes the method of approval for improvements or the financing of the Commission must be unanimously approved. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the date of complete execution of the parties. CITY OF AFTON SEAL Dated: By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 1./ • • CITY OF ST. MARY'S POINT SEAL Dated: By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF LAKE ST. CROIX BEACH SEAL Dated: By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF LAKELAND SHORES SEAL Dated: By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF LAKELAND SEAL Dated: By: Mayor 15 • • ATTEST: City Clerk TOWN OF WEST LAKELAND SEAL Dated: By: Chairperson ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF BAYPORT SEAL Dated: By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk TOWN OF BAYTOWN SEAL Dated: By: Chairperson ATTEST: City Clerk 16 • • CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS SEAL Dated: By: Mayor ATTEST: Administrator CITY OF STILLWATER SEAL Dated: By: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk TOWN OF STILLWATER SEAL Dated: By: Chairperson ATTEST: City Clerk 17 da • `6 Q1 ?. .`1 - , a ti. � n tel' Z � da 4 A • Oec''- N(Q41' es W Cimj P 0 lei m r .01 ,' N ;., . 'Ti'''. \\ o 0\ ,1 ' ttl oL 0 • o tsN tx, cg •1 zis. zI W P N 1`) 1 N I.\' i Z o. cpl tr‘ v\ ti) afti g3). t , o o a c) / .___ - ._..... -viw, (;S) w N 0 yl N 70`~1 w -� o ), to N) o• eN +-.c) ,V1 N Y1 F,a ,- 0 •l y tg H ~. = H M X td W 0 CA W Oy O P23 H tt1 0 0 PO 1-3 r4 K K x Ex N ° 0 X 0 CI p CA H P4 C 1 '4 H H SIS P 0 G p H � vs t4 b 'JO cl H H x.0 N N N co b CA Z Z O H 1C1p O N O O a sta. R UI P w g� • y N v CO H o Co UI v dP dP dP dP 0 II II II II o if: ilk UI F+ F+ N ilk p p 0 o 14 w N N . . o O► w .P to 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 N CD 0 0 0 O UItA to alb W eh CO w • • • • 0 usv 01 v 0 H dP dP dP dP Z II u II II X ilk 4* 4fe N H N ifs F-1 N 1P N . . to w N CO 1.4 la CO Ul O to 0 U1 es N - — H \ �� .--.7-0—.iR ifs ifs N N w . ifs N N 0 U1 UI O Z `.. `.. CI til b 1 t , • AI z . z 0 rn 70 X N r Ox g 00 Oy 0 H 70d 0 DI E H 1.1 Di H O 0 0 o b r X x n i A t:" n n 0 li CHs! 1 .,I H N H 0 O O 0 H A H 0 X M 0 O Ca 1a V Ca 1Ha 0 5 0 H Ul ONt IOA W r . int o 034 oo IOo . H dP dP dP do Or II II H II C N {/s in N N N N J to 01 co f+ to to 0 0 O 0 10 N 10 0 0 0 O O O to w to 0 0 0 0 N N iP W IP O W . . . S O 01 U1 •1 01 d 01 N dP do dP dP X H II H H s N if! 4/f N IR to 01 N • • • • o +1 F+ 1r 10 o 01 01 IP N O to co 0 co N. Ni 0 Pga IT -co. a) tq W NI to La to co 0o to n v v LI 1, 401 w 8 V88 80 Hi C�� 1 MITTIIT w�WTTTTTT$1771TTTPP PPPPV7Q PPPPPQPPPQ" { 2 I1I11aa 1aa1I1111 11111 �Ii1 �NN (��NIpp�±l nmVrn+N+�� p,�aovrnNAfJN- � �� N VS��fJN�S� �L7�pNNY�[T+A(J �1 41N = g 1 W� oN � 8 � 0nPsP+ 'OOsVgs$POR38tCVwrP A $ SRWN$ROnSOP SmWS8VV888888gVfm �RNePq + O cmT O gt mem ! CI RG G� 8 RPg ® ;Ai j i IP x R a � ; 9 -$E N A8 pi Br' zz o 0 o c i 1 i h N 088 4E 8 5 Egg s ��WW�W��$�W��W9WW. . 1WW.m°°P1�7P PPPP �p$$QPPPPPPPPP7 W m ^m V'♦O�}pVITTT 11(��Iy�(1� 5(6 OVW�1W�N��N [pQi{�7!�� 7T58 NIN?....+11 I I nm2;:a 7 ' 0 5c' 5 S T V�GSANt Sgm VO1 N iii9ii3 Itegwi Nu0a8-4ag.A41N N+ 6 8 e g 4 1a4 IN 9 cagnTalini:igillgh niiirat',1“0,1iri:i +n±:u +W nV m1.. Y W8 dgi Ai 1 +N + m6 1 9 I o rpcili,. � 4 rp ti A , 0 � v. pop n -3- m9 5 fp 18 ognI momspos m . WmV 4 ii 28828s �nW� -.. ,QQ��.4.13 44PP �p� PPPPPpPPP 1 i0 P W.WWWWWWWWO���O1W WtA �W1 1 -{•�'O'O'1 1 1 1♦1 1 1 11��.O7t�I T,1It,1II.°1 1—4.1 1 1�V I7p i�7 ll,i 1 ?!!?i+N+��'+'pnODV�01A41N+ n A3 1�Z 1 ? N AggtgAtgt3R4RtIR?,W8hR81.N jO1+AfJ f! AWN = 6 D ® fJ CD 0 oo f+n o+ v+ NQ �f+� N oP�+ to IT OOSr)ri� i�SaeamisRtr,�s � kiii k 2:b3893+iakia&Ncs�MNe�9 A • 14419// 410 MIDDLE ST CROIX RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 29, 1994 Members Present : Emerson Gates LAKE ST. CROIX BEACH Barbara Cobb ST. MARY'S POINT Barbara O'Neal OAK PARK HEIGHTS Anders Hanson BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP Gerald Burton LAKELAND Beverly Schultz BAYPORT Diane O'Bryan STILLWATER TOWNSHIP Ann Pung-Terwedo STILLWATER Paul Tatting BAYPORT Ken Hartung BAYPORT ADMINISTRATOR Jeff Davis SHORT, ELLIOT, HENDRICKSON The meeting was called to order at 7: 15PM by Chair , Ann Terwedo. MOTION WAS MADE by O'Neal and SECONDED by Schultz to approve the minutes of the April 27, 1994 meeting with two corrections: the spelling of Oak Park Heights and the aprroval of the February 23. 1994. minutes not those of Dec. 1993. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION WAS MADE by Schultz and SECONDED by Gates to approve the Agenda. MOTION CARRIED. TREASURER'S REPORT Schultz presented a written Treasurer's report with a balance of $6868.58. It was MOVED by Hanson and SECONDED by O'Neal to accept the treasurer's report . MOTION CARRIED. MOTION WAS MADE by O'Bryan and SECONDED by O'Neal to pay the following bills: MOTION CARRIED. The Courier $ 2.50 Check #559 SEH $13,688.34 Check #560 Barb Cobb/Sec. $ 31 . 10 Check #561 AUDIT The Audit for the year 1993 is being worked on by the firm, Tautges, Redpath & Co. and should be completed by August , 1994. PERRO CREEK REPORT Jeff Davis, SEH, presented three models for determining the payment portions for each sub-watershed member with regard to the Perro Creek Pond outlet . All are based on the estimated total of $70 ,000 with Wash .County picking up $20 ,000 and the remaining $50 ,000 formulated for payment by the four municipalities. The costs are further differentiated by that with the DNR grant applied and that not . • • The three models were based on: a) total acreage b) total volume/effecting total land c) total volume except for certain Baytown acres that wouldn't effect Perro Creek unless the 100 yr .rainfall event & 25 yr . rainfall event occured within the same week . MOTION WAS MADE by Schultz and SECONDED by Hanson to accept the formula based on Model 3. MOTION CARRIED. Therefore, the contributing percentages per municipality are: Stillwater 4.29% Oak Park H. 50 . 13% Baytown 18.93% Bayport 26.65% MOTION WAS MADE by Schultz AND SECONDED by Gates to allow Bayport to be the LEAD CITY ( I .e. dollar conduit for construction & engineering costs) in any grant agreement with the DNR regarding Perro Creek projects. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION WAS MADE by O'Neal and SECONDED by Gates to make Bayport the subwatershed delegate to the County as the "responsible LGU" regarding Perro Creek projects. MOTION CARRIED Discussion involved the need to probably seek an agreement Resolution between the city and the subwatershed. MOTION WAS MADE by Schultz and SECONDED by O'Neal to agree to the Model 3 formula percentages for any payment of increased costs to the estimated total cost . MOTION CARRIED. PERRO CREEK STUDY USAGE Davis mentioned requests from the Dept . of Transportation (DOT) to use the information out of the Perro Creek study for HWY 36 improvement plans. Pipie sizing may change due to our study infor . DOT will NOT be directing water from 36 to the river , but will be looking for drainage areas. DOT did supply SEH with some information for the Perro Creek study . The DOT already has the written portion of the study but needs the background data which demands SEH participation. Davis asked if the WMO will pay for his (SEH) time (9 $90 perhour) in "pulling" Information and/or attending DOT meetings. MOTION WAS MADE by Schultz and SECONDED by Hanson to accept payment by the subwatershed to a maximum of $700 .00 for SEH (Jeff) to access study information and/or attend DOT meetings. MOTION CARRIED BY SUBWATERSGED MEMBERS ONLY. **** Davis suggests that the WMO construct some sort of permitting system with dollar charges for use of the study by developers, etc. ~' 411 III 11 - Z : S 4 _ _ M ► i ► M41 e — - Z S The DNR, MNDOT, the Prison and the subwatershed all need to be involved parties to the Perro Creek maintenance plans. Davis reported that the Operations & Maintenance (0 & M) manual will most likely be a requirement of the DNR permit for the Perro Creek project . Cobb asked the cost of such a manual . Davis said the cost could run into the thousands of dollars, but that it will be considered "part of the construction work" . MOTION WAS MADE by Schultz and SECONDED by O'Neal to request that the DNR do a first draft of the 0 & M manual and deliver such to the subwatershed. MOTION CARRED BY SUBWATERSHED MEMBERS ONLY. **** O'Neal stated that a special meeting of the subwatershed will have to be held to review the 0 & M manual . INSURANCE COVERAGE MOTION WAS MADE by Hanson and SECONDED by Schultz to TABLE the insurance coverage question until the August meeting. MOTION CARRIED. MET COUNCIL DIRECTIVE MOTION WAS MADE by Hanson and SECONDED by O'Neal to table the Met council 's letter requesting targeting watershed loads in the metro area. MOTION CARRIED ADJOURNED: MOTION Hansen , seconded Gates. MOTION CARRIED: 8:25PM /BC \ I k NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1994 7:00PM BAYPORT CITY HALL **Subwatershed members - Please read the enclosed minutes carefully to make sure the MOTIONS are correct . They will be a basis for continuing operations within the subwatershed! • ►0190 E • WASHINGTON COUNTY Donald C.wsniewski, P.E. 4.1 e nlY C, Director Public Works/County Engineer ‘Nk 3 `— y', PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT John P.Perkovich, Deputy Director PARKS• HIGHWAYS • FACILITIES Operations Division 11660 MYERON ROAD NORTH • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082-9573 •�� Donald J.Theisen, P,E.,Deputy Director +obj •Moss v� 612-430-4300 Facsimile Machine 612-430-4350 Technical &Administrative Division James D.Hanson. P.E. Transportation Engineer Edward Kepler, June 21, 1994 Facilities Operations Manager / Patricia L. St. Claire, Town Clerk 711/41 Baytown Township 14949 30th St. N. °J Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: County State Aid Highway 21 (CSAH 21), Perro Creek Improvements Dear Ms. St. Claire: • We received your letter dated June 9, 1994, requesting us "to consider raising the CSAH 21 roadbed 60 to 72 inches from the existing elevation by the Prison Pond instead of the proposed 36 inch increase planned in conjunction with future road improvements". We reviewed this request and offer the following comments. The planned road elevation was selected after the recent Perro Creek Drainage Study was come - a • - - - -- - - - - -i. a5. - - storm . LI • e • • - I e o ►rr .•, i • • e e • C... ,r.... y: • • b Decd wild=be`750.._ .' - - �. •�,,..,, - , E ivides 1.2 feet of freeboard for 4 100. Yeac Road design requires balancing the design alternatives against impacts and benefits. We did review the impacts of raising the road another 3 feet. The impacts are significant, both financial and environmental, and we do not feel provide enough benefit to justify raising the grade. These impacts include: - removal of approximately 12 mature trees - additional wetland encroachment which will require mitigation - would add 10,000 cubic yards of material that would need to be hauled to the site for fill (approximately 1,200 feet of road) - steeper roadslopes would be needed that would require guardrail along the road - the pipes crossing the road and storm sewer catch basins would need to be extended - driveway entrances would become much more steep - additional easements would be needed from property owners There will be a culvert that crosses the road south of Perro Creek at elevation 745.7. The road will not really act as a dike since water could back up to the south along the east ditch through this culvert. This would need to be addressed if the road grade was raised. • Printed an Receded Paper EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Page 2 • • St. Claire June 21, 1994 We believe our current design provides a proper degree of safety while balancing impacts to the surrounding area. We do not feel that raising the road grade higher provides cts tangible benefits that offset the associated impacts. I do share your concern that the public investment made on this road serve the communit well for many years. We welcome your continued involvement in this project. y Sincerely, Donald C. Wisniewski Director of Public Works/County Engineer DCW/DT/slj •cc: Wally Abrahamson, County Commissioner Mayor Bev Schultz, Bayport Mayor Barb O'Neal, Oak Park Heights Mayor Charles Hooley, Stillwater Chairman William Nelson, Baytown Township Supervisor Anders Hansen, Baytown Township • kneel on n.eYwu P.a, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (11(°Di"U„ • Li ; JUN - 7 1994 CITY OF BAYPORT 294 No. 3rd Street BAYPORT, MINNESOTA 55003 Council Meets the First Monday of Each Month-7:00 P.M. 612/439-2530 FAX 439-7188 June 6, 1994 LaVonne Wilson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 No. 57th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear LaVonne: Please find enclosed two sheets of information indicating a cost alloction between the communities of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Baytown Township and the City of Bayport for the construction of the Prison Pond Outlet. The County has indicated they will be reconstructing County Road No. 21 in the Fall of 1994. Along with the construction of the road, the four communities cited above indicated a desire to replace the present Prison Pond Outlet structure. The estimated cost of Prison Pond Outlet structure is $70,000.00. The County has indicated they will pick up the cost of the culvert under County Road No. 21 along with all engineering costs associated with the Prison Pond Outlet structure and County Road 21 culvert. This leaves a balance of $50,000.00 to be paid for by the Sub- Watershed Communities of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Baytown Township and the City of Bayport. In the enclosed sheet labeled "A", the right hand section shows the percentage of each community's contribution based on land area. The right hand graph shows the contribution of water to Perro Creek based on the classification of land use. The original cost allocation was calculated based on acreage each community has in the Perro Creek Watershed District. The $50,000.00 cost is allocated using that percentage on Sheet "B" under the category "Old" . At a Sub-Watershed group meeting at Oak Park Heights on May 26, 1994, Baytown Township indicated they would like to see a cost allocation based on Land Use rather than the Acreage of each of the Sub-Watershed communities. The cost allocation based on Land Use is indicated on Sheet "B" under the category "New" . • • Please present this information to your elected officials for their review. If your elected officials have concerns with the cost allocation, please contact me immediately. Sinc- = yours, , -41111141‘ ,44 /7.Y44(r."," ieAth H. Hartudministr 004.11r. Enc. V S- •� A8 X88 8a dog m 1 H 2m. km. mx;� Jkr-> vvvvwwivovvmomwmvimwwmmmmmmvv 53c0m 000 000 zm- �S < = VC�........,s Nk-s4/N,2ON1vss-T2.-8G;Valsa JN+OfOmV-'h WN- T {J 4G7 m iD O m y- O a (51 • �S (ta�NN II�� (�a� ((pp{t��mmt� yypm�yy t�{t��1�taI {tai(t�a(ta� NN (,�Np m, V NN mmN m(N, V NNq+OmONmN NmtaTNm. V V V aAs•�ta001 ,etl1m00N bL V A O m N A .ti t a zita VtvJ�O'mtassatnestaatt issasa-aNtO'asta�iv%miuxvsast2tus AP -� 20.• AV yy > m> N ZA 7t a aa� m iss Si-4 O inR A v (atata112 p tat,� Om p m H;•NONmN Ofi 4t- y x t ttetsaB 4VRNYQ518't1t:ik 07 8 i1. • P (+�8� dap _p (a _ ms m My pN/.�N(m�pmm�Nn3",ww7,40y$4ww OO N m ppt�,+tavuv V my z z • OO • O O • a i i - "8 A88. A84 A41 g ; iP EP> mmmmmm-imm.,2 $ m 88 RmERmm mmmmmJ-W- V-11-0-m1mmPmamm24 t �' Q40Q44pQ44P4QQRii ?iii z3a E ci2 vOma .ann0 ( - Etsga=0 , p+NOmmm- =6.7.—m ( rsNpM . 1Nm O a 08 O Np +r r21 p 0 0000pNp0NVNgmm N�Otppp+poVr00O0+NNPq!oNV040 mNmtmma+AAUO(+�tmmn t0a�4p+O0pp+00+pvp O(E(,a�O�Ntaa uOt�u+t�yNy pqp:4a111t�OV a+aON r • . u V(TN mtm NtNP V a W.sN Aa O4f av UA mO1t ats V 4/282anust NOmtan to V V C Ag A Tp V f a ; V mN m- mmj9 • i 8 N_ E ; Id pp �p __ m qt 0 N YtOVOm+r Om+O+NmiOmfa.. �� i A4• m A 0pq (� E8 F OOV y0 pN ON0 Nv O mm pNp O pr pb mVm q0r •pN•mO N m +CF'+ y O N . V a O W Y A N V a O V O O.t O m k . a A _ ..._ ._ m 1 ca 6 illt til y Ul H 114 H H 0 0 ro tzE 0 0 r) H 0 0til 0 H0 x 1.3 1 N K X O 0 0 H H O X A b Ut 0 0 H CA z b z H 0 H PO '4 0 Z 0 0 H . . . .M O C0O In CO v H dP dP dP dP 0 11 II it 11 O i/3 4/3 4/3. VT -cn. tit H H N -CO to N v O N W N - 0 0 0 O 0 0 IN) CO to inO 0 0 N N iP W IP CO W O 01 tIt .t 01 .t 01 I-4 dP dP dP dP z II II II II 0 4/3. 40 4/3. H F+ 10 i) N N iP H . . . . Ut W N CD W W CO to 0 vi 0 N 0 H • 411 41) '23 H I-1 N 011 0 .4 Ut UI ..t I 0 .pto O n i ti -_// p SZ(.,- .z _ le - • .��/rte *1* 5--%ok rim 2 Y M/erds ? 7 410 • Date: 05/24/93 System: ALL City: ALL Stru: System : Test Point Location : Map: ALL Page: 1 Period: 05 :Div:Sys.:City :Lead:Item:Cont:Per.:Len. :Pr: Location Last reading . :& Map: :Yr: & Remarks . L R13 +A 14 D R 05 0 0 FINGERHUT WAREHO 909 04/29/93 CJG E5 USE #25 SMALL M ETER) L R13 +A 13 D R 05 0 0 1123 31 AVE N-11 1593 04/29/93 CJG G4 32 & 3205 9TH ST N ARE TL'S ALSO L R13 +A 11 D R 05 0 0 40 22 AVE N-33 2 839 04/29/93 CJG H7 3 AVE N IS ALSO A TL L R13 +C 1A D Y 05 0 0 RECTIFIER ON POL 1000 04/29/93 CJG C7 E NW INTERSECTIO READ IN MILLIAMP N OF 11 AVE N & 3 ST N L R13 +C 2V D Y 05 0 0 RECTIFIER ON POL 6 04/29/93 CJG C7 E NW OF INTERSEC VOLT READING TION OF 11 AVE N & 3 ST N L R13 +C 81 K W 05 0 0 RECTIFIER ON POL 1045 04/29/93 CJG C7 E NW OF INTERSEC READ STRUCTURE TION OF 11 AVE N C=1-F=4 12/13/91 & 3 ST N L R13 +C 92 D R 05 0 0 219 5 AVE N-MONT 1026 04/29/93 CJG D7 HLY SURVEY POINT L R13 +C 1 D R 05 0 90 1515 8TH AVE N 947 04/29/93 CJG J2 L R13 +E 1W D S 05 0 89 TBS AT BASE OF 1041 04/29/93 CJG K5W VALVE #6289 (ABO W=NNG VE GROUND PIPE) DO NOT BOND L R13 +E 2E D S 05 0 89 TBS AT BASE OF 1449 04/29/93 CJG K5W VALVE #6289 (ABO E=NSP VE GROUND PIPE) DO NOT BOND L R14 1A 1A K Y 05 0 0 EAST ST CLOUD RE 800 04/22/93 CJG M15E CTIFIER ON CO RD MILLIAMP READING # 1 • 0 • . :s_ Minnesota 443Lafayette Road t : 5t.Paul,Minnesota 55155 V•' _ Department of Labor and Industry (612)296 6107 Telecommunication Device for the Deaf(612)297-4198 FAX(612)297-1329 OAK PARK E. (� E= -. j`C HEIGHTS CITY • ' ' `' 14168 57TH STN BOX 2007 . • STILL WATER MN 55082 \ci .iii.-..... 9 ;_� '" _ {1.°)' L/ ATTENTION: County -Engineer OFFICIAL NOTICE: May 16, 1994 City Engineer City Clerk City Administrator/Manager City Zoning Official • Subject: REOUEST FOR REPORTS OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS TO DETERMINE PREVAILING WAGES _ The Department of Labor and Industry, Labor Standards Division will be conducting a survey of wages paid to construction workers employed on commercial and highway/heavy construction projects in your area in order to determine prevailing wage rates. To assist us in this task, we request that you furnish the names and addresses of contractors who have performed commercial and highway/heayy construction projects during the past twelve months. • Failure to respond may preclude some local contractors from being included • in the survey of wages paid in your area. - - Please complete the form on the reverse and return within 10 days to the Minnesota Department of Labor and - Industry, Labor Standards Division, 443 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4306. If you have questions concerning the information requested,please call the Labor Standards Division at(612)296- 6452. - Respectfully, . - Deig.• ...4 4444-°LI 44"-- . Division of for Standards Prevailing age Section An Equal Opportunity Employer III • LIST THE NAMES AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF ALL CONTRACTORS PERFORMING COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION WORK IN YOUR CITY OR COUNTY DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS. CONTRACTORS WILL NOT BE USED WITHOUT COMPLETE ADDRESSES. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE CONTRACTOR NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP Northdale Construction Co. 14450 Northdale Blvd ;. .- Tower Asphalt ua P.O. Box 15 001 Lakeland MN Inland Utility Construction 15 60 Jackson Ave . N.E. 55 046 St. Michael MN 55376 Arcon Construction Co. Inc. 903 E. Forest Ave . Mora MN 5 5 fL5 1 Richard Knutson 125 85 Rhode Island Ave . S. Savage MN 55 378 Hoeft Builders 618 S. Barstow St. Eau Claire WI 5 4702 Watson Centers Inc. 3033 Excelsior Blvd. , Suite 420 Mpls . MN 55 416 Gavic Construction Corp . 512 2nd St . Hudson WI 54016 Schreiber Mullaney Const. 1124 Larpenteur Ave . St. Paul MN 55113 Bruette Roofing 9270 Otchipwe Ave . N. Stillwater MN p 55082 John Low & Assoc. 300 Industrial Blvd. N.E. Mpls . MN 55 413 Watson Forsberg Co. 1433 Utica Ave . S. Mpls . MN 55416 Novak Construction 8740 Jeffie ve: .N. Stillwater MN y .A 55082 TCM Construction 3801 Portland Ave . Mills . MN 55407 Nat' l Construction Svc. 13611 N. Forestview Ln. Dayton MN 55327 SIGNATURE OF INDIVIDUAL SUBMITTING INFORMATION: 9/.. de,e4., Judy Holst Deputy. Clerk/Finance Director NAME POSITION 5-2 3-9 4 DATE NOTE: If you have questions concerning those to be included on the above list,please call the Labor Standards Division at (612) 296-6452. ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY • • LIST THE NAMES AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF ALL CONTRACTORS PERFORMING COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION WORK IN YOUR CITY OR COUNTY DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS. CONTRACTORS WILL NOT BE USED WITHOUT COMPLETE ADDRESSES. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE CONTRACTOR NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIPModern Bin Equipment 520 W. Cty Rd. D St. Paul MN 55 112 W. St. Paul MN 55118 Parkos Construction 1010 S. Robert Advanced Construction Svc. 977 Perr. Hwy. Y• Pittsburg PA 15237 • SIGNATURE OF INDIVIDUAL SUBMITTING INFORMATION: //G�- Judy Hols.t Deputy Clerk F ' NAME / mance Director 5-23-94 POSITION DATE NOTE:If you have questions concerning those to be included on the above list,please call the Labor.Stan at(612) 296-6452. dards Division ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY i M�QQIL �.__ _ 71" it COUNTY SOIL AND WATER E .,,,,-f::::_:, - ; CONSERVATION DISTRICT i 103 Fire Monument Road P.O. Box 276 -, `` :11 i� _ v i `/ Hinckley, Minnesota 55037 �12.:1Telephone(612)384-7431 MINNESOTA ' i SOIL AND 1d1,r69 4 6 a6NSERVATION DISTRICTS TO: City Administrators/Clerks in the Major Watersheds of the Snake River, Kettle River, Upper St . Croix River, St . Croix River ( Stillwater ) and the Nemadji River FROM: Richard Noyes , Wetlands Administrator for Pine County SUBJECT: Notification of Wetland Replacement-Plans The Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991 regulates the draining and filling of most wetlands ., When draining and filling activities cannot 'be avoided; replacement of the impacted wetland area becomes necessary. Landowners are responsible for submitting wetland replacement plans to the Local Government Unit (LGU) in the county where the wetland impact will occur. As the LGU for Pine County, I am required by law to notify and/or forward these wetland replacement plans on to all the cities in the major watershed where the wetland impact will occur. You will then have 30 days from the date of this notification to respond back to me with your comments and concerns pertaining to these individual replacement plans . Some of these plans become quite lengthy and may not be of particular interest to your city. To minimize the cost of administration of this program and avoid sending you a bunch of plans you may not be interested in, I am asking for your help. Please respond back to me, letting me know if you want copies of all wetland replacement plans in your major watershed, if you want an abbreviated form of the replacement plans or if you will pick up the projects you may be interested in through the EQB Monitor and then notify me if you want copies of the replacement plans . The EQB Monitor lists all the wetland replacement plans and the LGU decisions on these replacement plans . If you are not getting the EQB Monitor you can be put on the mailing list by calling 1-800-627-3529 . Please let me know in writing by June 15, 1994, what your decision is regarding these wetland replacement plans . Since ly, chard W. Noyes is Wetlands Administrator, Pine County • AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • • J ,,IXV iY/ Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization April 27, 1994 Treasurers Report 2/23/94 Balance $10139.40 Disbursements 2/28 Service Charge $ 8, 88 3/2 Metro Council 860.00 3/2 SEH 13044.46 3/31 Service Charge 6. 24 $ 13919,58 $-3780. 18 Deposits 2/28 Interest $ 12.31 3/2 P.C.S. OakPark 6526.76 3/10 P.C.S. Still. Bayport 2289.77 3/18 P.C.S. Baytown 1794.38 3/31 Interest 11 .42 4/8 P.C.S. Bayport 4302.35 4/15 P.C.S. Baytown 3934.77 4/19 P.C.S. OakPark 8968.34 4/22 P.C.S. Still. 718.75 $ 28558. 85 $24778 .67 April 2-7, /591 P.C.S. Perro Creek Study I have received three bills to have paid this meeting. The Courier $2 .50; SEH $17924.21 ; an City of Bayport $14. 18. #SSS 4 S—b # 5-%- Respectfully Submitted, Beverly H Schultz Treasurer MSCWMO to/734,.- #PSSg P,,Q. w(44 k so ,c. 5 wmK4-41, 2otic"�� X. k ,�� w/114f * o � . ' ) / A / , A, v) -- '''' bp 1°' A i i\ .----: -- ) ..f5P ' 4 v? /0/A PTY OF BAYPORT 294 No. 3rd Street BAYPORT, MINNESOTA 55003 Council Meets the First Monday of Each Month-7:00 P.M. 612/439-2530 FAX 439-7188 t.;( • 1,6 //' April 7, 1994 Barb O'Neal City of Oak Park Heights 14168 No. 57th Street P.O. Box 2007 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Dear .Barb Mayor Beverly Schultz asked me to forward to you -a copy of all the Cityof :.Bayport'-s c-expenses associated :with construction of the Prison 'Pond berm. I have .attachedadetailed spread sheet indicating dates and the specific work completed on those dates. My understanding is that you wanted a copy of our expenses to make a determination on whether Oak Park Heights will be able to cover some of these expenses. Of course, the City of Bayport would be very appreciative of any assistance from the City of Oak Park Heights. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If . I can be of further assitance, please feel free to call me at 439-2530. Since y - • _..0,1, ,:/-0,05!, gr( - ttatun. Ci ',4' nistrator 0 _ . - j-1]r V a -a a a 4 a 0 ip S. Y L or 0 C w V Y Y 0 w 4- L .L- . • 10 i >Q N St 1L. L. LW la 40 C 40 3 ` S. C,.. O -+ gYa+ O4 O. L. ali 0 88 O CY 8 Y Cp a a a s s c 1... V r C it it 0 V r r O 1. Y C1 3 7, y Q� 7 3 a -5 3r 3.-4 .3 I2 *; . x• IA tA 8 8 ti d ! AS M ✓ ILI J N 14 14 cm 01 01 A ` e. N N M as I- 0 _ 0: c; M < if. % vs H r N H W N 0 9 aG '4 • ZI 0 a rJ y y1.0 r 1n In IA yt • IA Y1 N IA p M r 03 R 0. in MM1Nr • Mr I� �fe- r. ate I- M a. 00 0 8 W NN $ CN • W M M N N N 40 w s a N N x IIA a a0 41 a0 N N r N V; N a pp O O 4n In IA CO N S IIA S N O UN S IA IA N N .O In - N0I's tiie-•• 0 'J S S Y 4, l0i .PP.TaaPaaaaTaaaaaaco. a � r 4. a VSN .0 '0I. a0 I 110 � 0 � sinOUa ` MSO- 0 - CU At HNNNNNNO� NM 4O MNMMM NNNN I MM 4c 0 r 0 7 a O L r r r . 7,,,, A iD • c, F V Perro Creek Minor Watershed Study for The Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization SEH No: A-MSCWM9401.00 April 1994 ( °that I hereby certify this rep.'t w". pre•ared by me or under my direct supe ion and . a,/a d y Registered Professional Engineer unde the la ., :tateArmesota. Date: April 1994 Reg. No. ` - 16997 I"Reviewed by: e-f1c tic 1 Date: 4.-26-- 4 o^f Dom/ Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110 (612) 490-2000 • • Table of Contents Page Na Conclusions 1 Recommendations 3 Introduction 4 Purpose and Authorization 4 Method of Analysis 5 Background Information 5 Hydrologic Cycle 6 Existing Conditions 7 Urban Watershed Analysis 7 Rainfall 7 Runoff 8 Time Parameters 8 Model Development 9 Model Discussion 10 Model 1 10 Model 2 10 Model 3 11 Model 4 11 Model 5 11 Models 6 and 7 12 Water Surface Profile Model 13 Perro Creek Minor Watershed Management Possibilities 14 Example 14 Example 14 Example 15 Maintenance Plan 16 Improvements 17 Reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet 17 Outlet Through Railroad Embankment i8 Improvement Costs 19 Reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet 19 Outlet Through Railroad Embankment 19 Cost Allocation 19 Funding 21 Advantages 21 Disadvantages 22 • • April 1994 Perro Creek Minor Watershed Study. for The Middle St, Croix River Watershed Management Organization Conclusions From the results of our study and investigations,we have concluded that: 1. Flooding has previously occurred on Perro Creek. 2. Cost of improvements along Perro Creek based on the 1988 study were enormous. 3. The 1994 existing conditions model (Model 2) shows an overall reduction of flow when compared to the 1988 existing conditions model. 4. Water will pond at various points along Perro Creek based on the 1994 models. 5. The 1994 existing conditions model (Model 2) predicts a peak water surface at or just below the floor elevations of adjacent houses. This is also substantiated by the water surface profile model. 6. Raising County Road 21 and diverting runoff north of Highway 36 to the St. Croix River will have some impact on Perro Creek discharge rates. 7. Two subwatershed areas modeled do not contribute flow/discharge into the Perro Creek system. 8. Study models can be used to assist in the future management of the Perro Creek minor watershed. 9. Maintenance of Perro Creek is a key element in management of the watershed. 10. ,..:The.City of Bayport Wended:a" 7' _. „. e PrisofrPond discharge and build-up of ice in Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 1 • • 11. Concerns have been raised about the structural integrity of the existing Prison Pond outlet. 124", •,- .id-1994.uxtty intends to start reconstruction of County*Road t m 13. A new outlet is required at the Prison Pond to meet all of the operational needs of the affected parties. 14. Discharge capacity through the railroad embankment is grossly inadequate. 15. Additional capacity must be provided to keep the water surface north of the railroad embankment about two feet below critical building elevations. 16. $urinary cost for design and construction of the new Prison Pond t~'s$70,000. 17. Preliminary cost for design and construction of the new.. et through the railroad embankment is $125,000 to $185,000. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 2 III Ill Recommendations In considering the foregoing conclusions, it is recommended that: 1. The MSCWMO develop an operation and maintenance manual for Perro Creek. 2. Hydrologic and hydraulic models developed as part of this study be used to assist in the management of the Perro Creek minor watershed. 3. County Road 21 be raised to a minimum elevation of 750.0 to add storage capacity to the Prison Pond. 4. The MSCWMO review the need for flood easements at the Prison Pond and along Perro Creek. 5. Construction of the Prison Pond outlet be completed as part of County Road 21 reconstruction. 6. The MSCWMO consider initiating a detailed study for increasing the discharge capacity through the railroad embankment. 7. If the MSCWMO decides to pursue improvements propaititherein, they apply for flood hazard reduction matching grants. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 3 Introduction Purpose and Authorization Flooding along Perro Creek in the City of Bayport is identified as one of the Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization's (MSCWMO) main concerns. That concern led to the establishment of a plan to solve the flooding problems. Part of that plan included a preliminary hydrologic study to access the magnitude of the problem which was completed in 1988. Culvert capacities along the creek were determined to be inadequate based on the 1988 study data, resulting in recommendations to replace many of the culverts along Perro Creek. The preliminary model also indicated that flooding of buildings adjacent to Perro Creek was likely in three locations. The cost to make improvements to solve the flooding problem based on the 1988 study, though not specifically quantified, were enormous. In light of that fact, SEH recommended that a more detailed study be performed to improve the watershed model and hopefully reduce the scope and cost of the required improvements. The Perro Creek Watershed is shown on Figure 1 in the Appendix. In 1992 representatives from Washington County met with members of the MSCWMO to discuss the County's plan for reconstruction of County Road 21 from County Road 14 on the south to County Road 28 on the north. This section of roadway encompasses the outlet for the prison pond which is the headwater for Perro Creek. SEH prepared a scoping document in mid-1992 to assist the MSCWMO in determining which project options should be addressed in a detailed study. Scope of work for the study was finalized in early 1993. In late 1993 the MSCWMO directed SEH to proceed with this study in order to address flooding along Perro Creek. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 4 • • Method of Analysis The following information was utilized during preparation of this report: Background Information A. MSCWMO Water Resource Inventory dated 1986 by Washington Soil and Water Conservation District. B. U.S. Geological Survey, Stillwater Quadrangle, Revised 1993. C. Topographic Mapping by Mark Hurd for the Middle St.Croix WMO, based on April, 1993 aerial photos. D. Record and Preliminary Construction Drawings. 1. City of Stillwater 2. City of Oak Park Heights 3. City of Bayport 4. Washington County 5. Minnesota Department of Transportation 6. Minnesota Correctional Facility E. IIIPHIrerTer • , Bayport,MN.,by SEH,dated F. Soil Survey of Washington and Ramsey Counties in Minnesota, dated April 1980. G. Technical Paper 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, Soil Conservation Service,U.S.Department of Agriculture dated May 1961. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 5 • • Hydrologic Cycle Precipitation, evaporation, transportation, infiltration, runoff streamflow, and storage are all part of the complex hydrologic system(see Figure 2 in the Appendix). The hydrologic system for the Perro Creek Minor Watershed includes ponds,ditches,storm sewers and culverts. Evaluation of system requires consideration of hydrology,hydraulics,climatology and surficial geology. Climatology and surficial geology are not addressed in this document. Information on the climatological data used in this study can be found in Technical Paper No. 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Information on the surficial geology used in the study can be found in the Water Resources Inventory section of the MSCWMO Surface Water Management Plan. elmatemmosio Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 6 • Existing Conditions • The Perro Creek Minor Watershed consists of about 1,671 acres of rural and urban land use. Figure 1 in the Appendix provides in general detail information on land use within the Watershed. Photo Nos. 1 through 18 in the Appendix depict conditions along Perro Creek. Urban Watershed Analysis An urban watershed is one in which surfaces that were rural in nature become developed and these impervious surfaces cover a considerable area. Impervious surfaces include roads,sidewalks,parking lots and roof tops. Natural flow paths in the watershed may be replaced or supplemented by paved gutters, storm sewers, or other elements of artificial drainage. The objective when dealing with urban hydrology is to provide flood control at all locations within the drainage system. The analytical problems that must be solved to address these objectives are the prediction of runoff peaks, volumes and discharge versus time curves (hydrographs) anywhere in the drainage system. Urbanization increases runoff due to reduced infiltration and decreased travel time. Runoff is determined primarily by the amount of precipitation and by infiltration characteristics related to soil type, soil moisture, antecedent rainfall, vegetative cover, impervious surfaces, and storage. Travel time is determined primarily by slope,length of flow path, depth of flow, and roughness of flow surfaces. Peak discharges are based on the relationship of these parameters and on the total drainage area of the watershed, the size of the development, the effect of ponds and wetlands, and the time distribution of rainfall during a given storm event. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) methods were used to analyze both the urban and rural characteristics of this hydrologic system. The analysis is comprised of four major components: rainfall,runoff, time parameters, and peak discharge, hydrographs, and storage effects. Rainfall Several rainfall parameters are considered in using the SCS design methodology. The duration (how long it rains), rainfall depths (how much it rains), time distribution (how the total rainfall depth is determined over the duration of the rainfall event),and recurrence interval (how probable it is that the rainfall event will recur in a given year) are important factors. One rainfall event was analyzed as part of this study. This event was 24 hours in duration with a total rainfall depth of 5.9 inches. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 7 • • The design storm (DS) was used to determine the rates of discharge, runoff volume, and water surface elevations. An SCS Type I storm is used with the DS. The 5.9 inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period is referred to as a "100-year event". The term"100-year"is often called the return period or recurrence interval of a storm event. The return period is related to the probability of a given event being equal or exceeded. The probability that the "100- year event" will be exceeded in a given year is 0.01 or 1%. A 5-year and 10-year event was simulated on the watershed to determine the peak water surface elevation in the Prison Pond (0-22) during more frequent events as requested by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Conventional wisdom holds that if a 100-year event occurs in one year, then it cannot occur for another 100 years. This belief is false because it implies that rainfall occurs deterministically rather than randomly. Because rainfall occurs randomly,there is a finite probability that the 100- year event could occur in two consecutive years. Thus, the excedence probability concept is the best way to express rainfall events. Runoff To estimate runoff from rainfall,SCS uses the Runoff Curve Number(CN) method. Determination of the CN depends on the watershed's soil and cover conditions, which the model represents as hydrologic soil group, cover type, treatment, and hydrologic condition. The cover condition, or type of land use, is typically expressed by a percentage of impervious or hard surface area (roof tops, parking lots, etc.). The CN (or runoff coefficient) is directly related to runoff. The greater the impervious area, the higher the CN and the more rainfall that will drain off of a property rather than soaking into the soil. Time Parameters The initial time parameters used in SCS methodology are the time of concentration (Ta) and travel time (Ti). T,is the time it takes for runoff to travel to a point of interest (usually time outlet or waterbody of a given watershed) from the hydraulically most distant point. Tt is the time it takes for runoff to travel in a given flow segment. T, is the sum of Tt values for various consecutive flow segments. • Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 8 • 111 Model Development The Hydrocad version of the TR-20 computer program determines peak rates and volume of runoff based on given rainfall data in the form of a hydrograph. The runoff is routed through the drainage system which includes ditches, storm sewers, and storage basins. The storage basins have specific elevation/storage/discharge relationships. These relationships are used for determining the resulting flood elevations. The program compares the rate of water entering a basin to the rate of the water leaving the basin. Excess volume is detained or temporarily stored until the rate of discharge is equal to or greater than the rate of inflow. The program determines the resulting high water elevations based on the elevation/storage relationship. Computer simulation of the hydrology for the Perro Creek minor watershed have been prepared to address the MSCWMO's concerns. Six new versions of the watershed model were developed to simulate varying conditions including the following: 1. Existing Conditions, 1988 Model 2. Existing Conditions, 1994 Model 3. Raise County Road 21 4. Divert Runoff North of T.H. 36 5. Determine Non-Contributing Sub-watersheds 6. 5-year Event, Prison Pond Peak Water Surface 7. 10-year Event, Prison Pond Peak Water Surface Models 1 through 5 are based on a 100-year, 24-hour DS with AMC=2 (normal soil moisture conditions). Models 6 and 7 are also based on a 24- hour event with AMC=2. All of the models are based on a normal pool elevation for the St. Croix River at 676.0 (1929 Datum) and a pool elevation of 744.6 for the Prison Pond. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 9 • • Model Discussion Model 1 Model 1 was simulated as part of the 1988 Preliminary Study. Review of the results from that simulation shows that the existing culvert capacity through the railroad embankment is grossly inadequate. The high water elevation just north of the railroad embankment was predicted at 693.6. This water elevation would cause flooding in at least five adjacent houses. There were also other areas long the creek where a potential of flooding existing based on this model. Discharge rates along Perro Creek are summarized on Figure 3 in the Appendix. Model 2 Authorization for the Detailed Study by the MSCWMO specifically included updating the existing conditions model for the watershed. Development of this model included the methodology described in the Method of Analysis section of this report. Key information for determination of the watershed's characteristics was generated from the topographic mapping developed for this study, which more accurately defined the contributing areas. Once definition of the model was complete, the watershed was subjected to a 100-year design storm rainfall of 5.9 inches. Peak discharge (flow) along the creek is shown on Figure 4. Comparison between Model 1 (1988) and Model 2 (1994) shows an overall reduction of discharge except for Point"A". Most notable are the reductions at Point"D" and "E" which are 84 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 90 cfs respectively. The reduction of flow when comparing Model 1 to Model 2 is 35%and 28%at Points "D" and "E" respectively. This reduction of flow can be attributed to the greater level of detail provided by the watershed mapping. Model 2 indicates water will pond at various locations along the creek in a 100-year design storm. This information was compared to the 1972 district court injunction against the City of Bayport. Some of the same properties flooded in the 1960's will be inundated in a 100-year design storm. However,the worst flooding will occur in the east half of Block 91. This fact left us in a quandary since none of the property owners in the east half of Block 91 joined in the 1972 dated lawsuit. Research by the Bayport city staff provided an answer to our dilemma. Houses located in the east half of Block 91 were not constructed until after the flooding has occurred. The areas flooded and included in the injunction dated January 22, 1972 are shown on Figure 5 in the Appendix. If a 100-year design storm occurs over the Perro Creek Subwatershed, flooding of four or five houses just north of the railroad embankment will likely Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 10 III • occur under existing conditions. A portion of this information is shown on Figure 5. Model 2 predicted a water surface of 691.0 north of the railroad embankment. Ground surface at the houses in this area ranges from 690.8 to 692.8. Water surface elevations along the creek are addressed in the Water Surface Profile Model section of this report. Model 3 Model 3 was developed to determine the impact of raising County Road 21. Peak discharge at Points "A", "B" and "C" on Figure 6 are lower than those of the existing conditions, Model 2. However, peak discharge at Points "D" and "E" are similar to those shown in Model 2. This indicates that the downstream subwatershed area is controlling the peak versus the upstream subwatershed. The peak water surface elevation in the Prison Pond for Model 3 is 0.6 feet higher than for Model 2. Model 4 Model 4 was developed to determine the future impacts of diverting runoff generated north of Highway 36 out of the Perro Creek Subwatershed. Representatives from Mn/DOT indicated it may be possible to complete the diversion with reconstruction of Highway 36 to accommodate the river bridge. This model also includes a raised roadway profile on County Road 21 from Model 3. Peak discharge at Points "A", "B" and "C" on Figure 7 are reduced somewhat. However,peak discharge at Points "D" and "E" is similar to that shown in Models 2 and 3. Model 5 Model 5 was developed to determine which subwatershed areas do not contribute/discharge into the Perro Creek drainage system. Three areas were identified as possible non-contributors from the results of Model 2. Those three areas are identified on Figure 8 as OBT-15, BTBP-28, and OBT-12/OBT-13/BTO-14. Based on the results of Model 2, a starting water surface was established for the pond in each of the three areas. The entire subwatershed was then subjected to a 100-year design storm. Area OBT-15/OBT-13/BTO-14 did contribute/discharge into the drainage system tributary to the Prison Pond. The large storage capacity provided in the Prison Pond dampens the affect of discharge from OBT-12/ OBT- 13/BTO-14 such that they have little impact on the peak water surface or discharge. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 11 • • Models 6 and 7 Models 6 and 7 were developed to address fluctuation of the water surface in the Prison Pond during more frequent rainfall events as requested by the MDNR. Fluctuation during the 5 and 10 year events are 2.4 feet and 3.0 feet respectively. A representative from the MDNR indicate they have no problem with this fluctuation. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 12 • • Water Surface Profile Model Hydraulic analysis along Perro Creek from Fifth Avenue North to the railroad embankment was performed using Boss version of HEC-2. The HEC-2 water-surface profile computation computer model was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Use of this model made it possible to develop a water surface profile (depth) along the majority of Perro Creek. Cross-sectional information for the creek was developed from the contour mapping and 1988 survey data. Hydrology for use in the HEC-2 model was developed as part of this study. Discharge data generated in the hydrology model(s) at various locations along the creek was used to produce a continuous water surface based on the channel geometry. Two water surface profiles are provided on Figure 11 in the Appendix. They represent flow conditions. 1. Existing conditions, Model 2 (1994). 2. Raise County Road 21 with new outlet at railroad embankment, Model 3. The existing conditions water surface profile shows that a number of streets as well as the railroad embankment is overtopped. A water surface elevation above the railroad embankment will likely cause flooding of adjacent structures. This condition also raises the water surface profile upstream. Construction of a new outlet through the railroad embankment and raising of County Road 12 will have positive impacts. Construction of the new outlet through the railroad embankment lowers the water surface and reduces the threat of flooding. Flow characteristics through the structure shown on Figure 10 in the Appendix were used to develop the lower water surface profile. Raising the roadway surface on County Road 21 lowers the water surface profile in between Points A and C shown on Figure 6 in the Appendix. The areas where flooding may occur are shown on Figure 5 in the Appendix. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 13 • S Perro Creek Minor Watershed Management Possibilities Development of the hydrologic and hydraulic models provides a greater opportunity for effective management within the Perro Creek Subwatershed. This particular watershed includes parts of four governmental jurisdictions, namely Baytown Township and the cities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. Prior to development of the MSCWMO Joint Powers Agreement, a forum did not exist where all the members of the Watershed met to discuss intercommunity surface water flow issues. Development of the MSCWMO and its WMO plan were the first major steps in effective management of the entire watershed, including that of Perro Creek. The purpose of the MSCWMO Plan is to provide a local mechanism to reduce capital expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff, prevent flooding and erosion, promote groundwater recharge and secure other benefits associated with proper management of surface water. The models developed as part of this study allow assessment of the concerns identified in the MSCWMO's Watershed Management Plan. These concerns may stem from intercommunity as well as intracommunity flow issues. Here are a few examples: Example The cities of Oak park Heights and Stillwater decide to divert surface water runoff generated north of Highway 36 directly to the river. Impact on the discharge at the Prison Pond can be found by comparing Model 2 and Model 4. Example An industry is interested in locating in Baytown Township. Approximately 100 acres of agricultural land would be converted to buildings and parking lot. How would this land use change affect the water surface elevation and discharge from the Prison Pond? Modification of the model(s) would be made to simulate the revised land use. The watershed would then be subjected to the design storm to determine the extent of the impacts. If significant impacts occur,recommendations could be made for modifications to the onsite detention. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 14 • • Example Two property owners within the City of Bayport would like to add 5 feet of fill in their adjacent lots. However, the proposed fill area is used for storage of water during a design storm. Should the filling be allowed,and if so, what are the impacts? The hydrologic and/or hydraulic model would be revised to represent the proposed changes and analyzed to determine the extent of the impacts. It is possible the filling could be allowed with modifications to one or more downstream structures. These are only a few examples of how the study models can provide part of the "Management" in Watershed Management Organization. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 15 • Maintenance Plan Development of a coordinated maintenance plan along Perro Creek is key to its successful management. All of the existing and proposed structures along Perro Creek were analyzed for full flow capacity. The build-up of sediment and debris in these structures can significantly reduce their discharge capacity. A reduction in the discharge capacity results in higher water elevations which could mean localized flooding. In order to reduce the flooding potential a regular coordinated maintenance routine should be established. We suggest that as a minimum the following parties be involved, as follows: 1. Washington County A. County Road 21 B. County Road 14 2. Minnesota Correctional Facility A. Area between County Road 21 and County Road 14 3. City of Bayport 4. Chicago and North Western Railroad A. Culvert/outlet through the railroad embankment 5. Minnesota DNR A. Operation of Prison Pond outlet 6. Mn/DOT A. Box culvert at Highway 95 Maintenance/operation of Perro Creek during the winter months has been a challenge for the City of Bayport. Minor flow/leakage at the Prison Pond outlet causes a build-up of ice downstream. The 4' x 8'box culvert at Fourth St. N./Highway 95 was almost completely full of ice in January of 1994. Had this box culvert become plugged, a number of structures may have been threatened with flooding,including a school. In early 1994 the City of Bayport expended approximately$15,000 to control the Prison Pond discharge and resulting build-up of ice. Development of a solution to the ice problem was not in the scope of this study. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 16 • Improvements Two major improvements required along Perro Creek have been identified. They are specifically reconstruction of the Prison Pond outlet and increasing the discharge capacity at the railroad embankment. The following text addresses each of the proposed improvements. Reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet The existing outlet for the Prison Pond is located just west of County Road 21 and shown on Photo No. 1 in the Appendix. Structural components consist of one-half a 6 foot diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) on end fitted with a metal plate. Flow from the pond enters the structure through a rectangular orifice in the plate measuring 1.7 feet wide and 1.2 feet high. Movement of the slide gate attached to the metal plate allows the orifice to be closed. However, the seal is not water tight and leakage does occur. A short row of sheet pile extend north and south from the existing structure to provide stability and a seepage cutoff. Flow entering the outlet structure is directed east across County Road 21 by a 42 inch diameter CMP. A number of concerns have been expressed about the condition of the existing structure. During the 1993/1994 winter leakage through the outlet structure worsened the ice build-up downstream. Once the flow of water through the structure was stopped water could be heard moving under or around the structure. This raises art additional concern that the structure is slowly being undermined. The elevation top of the existing structure is 748.0. County Road 21 will be raised to a minimum elevation of 750. Therefore,the existing structure does not maximize the storage capacity in the Prison Pond for winter operation. A preliminary layout of the proposed Prison Pond outlet is provided on Figure 9. This structure provides a discharge capacity similar to that of the existing outlet. It also provides a 3-foot wide set of stoplogs to allow for drawdown of the Prison Pond. This drawdown feature would be used to simulate a drought as requested by the MDNR. However,stoplogs are known to leak. For this reason we have also included a slide gate to seal off the flow through this structure for winter operations. The grating covered opening on top of the structure is sized to handle the entire design flow discharge should the remainder of the structure become inoperable due to debris such as trees or ice. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 17 • 1110 Outlet Through Railroad Embankment Discharge capacity through the railroad embankment is grossly inadequate. The water surface elevation just north of the railroad embankment during a design storm is predicted to be about 691. A water surface elevation of this magnitude will flood a number of houses. Photos No. 14 and 15 show the existing 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe through the embankment. The pipe has a discharge capacity of 119 cfs with an upstream water surface of 691. Additional capacity must be provided to keep the high water surface north of the railroad embankment about 2 feet below the critical building elevation. Two 48-inch diameter RCP and one 60-inch diameter RCP would provide a capacity of 207 cfs at elevation 688.2. This means two additional pipes need to be installed through the embankment. Appropriate modifications to the channel would also be required. Even with this improvement, two swimming pools would be flooded. Storm water ponding easements would likely be required. Proper operation of this system is dependent on developing a maintenance routine to keep debris from reducing the discharge capacity. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 18 • • Improvement Costs Improvement costs provided in this section should not be used for budgeting purposes. They are included only to provide a general • magnitude of the cost involved. Reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet A preliminary layout for the Prison Pond outlet is shown on Figure 9. SEH is presently working with Washington County to develop a detailed structure design. Based on our present information,the estimated cost for construction of the new outlet and removal of the existing outlet is $70,000. Figure 9 has been submitted to the MDNR for comment. Outlet Through Railroad Embankment A preliminary layout for the outlet through the railroad embankment is shown on Figure 10 in the Appendix. It will be necessary to work within the Canadian Pacific (CP) and Chicago and North Western (CNW) Railroad rights-of-way to construct this outlet. Preliminary contact has been made with the railroads to determine what construction methods would be acceptable. The CNN indicated they may have to use their own forces to construct the outlet due to a union agreement. However,if their crews are busy they would allow the MSCWMO's contractor to build the project. The possibility of open cutting the embankment versus jacking the pipes through the embankment was also discussed. Open cutting the embankment may be possible if this work is scheduled for the weekend. Prior to initiating this work, an agreement between the MSCWMO and railroad(s) would be required. b'a "vue sent data we estimate the cost of ween $125,000 � Fri+to��tnge and $185,000. Prior to initiating cb •n we record a detailed study of the outlet area be performed . s study wattld define specifically what improvements would be required. Cost for the diversion of runoff north of Highway 36 is not addressed in this report. Cost Allocation Cost allocation between the minor watershed members for the scoping study and minor watershed study has been based on community acreage. The following chart summarizes the contributing community acreage on a percentage basis. Breakdown of the costs for the improvements have not been included at this time. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 19 • • SUBWATERSHED SUMMARY SUBWATERSHED TOTAL STILLWATER OAK PARK HGHTS. BAYTOWN BAYPORT ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE ST-1 12.98 12.98 1.48 SO-2 28.15 26.67 0-3 34.44 34.44 0-4 14.14 14.14 0-5 17.44 17.44 S0-6 4399 10.78 33.213.2 0-7 40.600 22.05 0-8 22.05 0-9 7627 72.05 32.547 0-10 32.54 36.12 0-11 36.12 32.02 3.59 OBT-12 35.61 31.70 1.5 081-13 33.11 3.57 163.41 810-14 167.2753.70 70 BT-15 59.32 .2 NO DISCHARGE 3025 :7 `k• r -.4..,;' OBT-151 ','"', 0-16 50.94 50.94 0-17 53.69 53.69 0-18 51.18 51.18 0-19 44.31 44.31 091-20 85.81 46.33 39.48 0-21 44.34 44.34 0-22 45.97 45.97 BP-23 7.75 7.75 BP-24 37.591 37.59 BP-241 17.18 17.18 BT-25 21.39 21.39 BT-26 9.529.529.10 BT-27 9.10 BTBP-28 52-89s•'?,‘/.04,.._: .,-,:';It•1140.: NO 289NO DISCHARGE BPBT-29 86.30 4.04 82.26 8T-30 53.97 . 53.97 81-31 98.64 98.E BPBT-32 12.00 1.20 10.80 2.65 2.65 BP-33 BP-34 8.34 12.87g,3 4 4 BP-341 12.87 2.87 BP-35 30.32 6.87 BP-351 &8726.45 BP-36 26.45 1. 5 BP-37 11.16 16 BP-38 2.6026 2.85,0 BP-39 2.85 2.19 BP-40 7.19 22.30 BP-41 22.30 35.75 BP-42 35.75 75 BP-43 12.47 12.9.62 BP-44 9.62 9.62 BP-45 8.34 2.73 BP-46 2.73 2.731 BP-47 2.20 SUBWATERSHED I TOTAL 1671.56 I ACREAGE I TOTAL4 titer - 07 1�4 COMMUNITY ACREAGE - CONTRIBUTING 712.34 425.35 400.3 COMMUNITY 1588.42 50.43 ACREAGE CONTRIBUTING .� 25.20% 4� 26.78' PERCENTAGE BY COMMUNITY Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 20 • • Funding There are a number of means available to the MSCWMO for funding of improvements along Perro Creek. The following is a brief explanation of those means. 1. Taxing District Development of a subwatershed taxing district is addressed in the • implementation program for Perro Creek. Minnesota Statute Section '\ 103B.245 and 103B.251 allow for development of the special tax district and capital improvements by watershed management organizations. 2. Surface Water Management Utility (SWMV) Each community could consider the establishment of SWMV. This funding source could take up to a year to develop. At about $12/homeowner per year, with higher contributions from business and commercial properties,the utility could finance a revenue bond. There are some advantages and disadvantages that deserve consideration. Advantages 1. Properties causing or contributing to the need for runoff management pay into the utility. 2. The change is directly proportioned to runoff generated by specific class properties. 3. A self-financing system is not in competition with general services funds. 4. Existing and new developments both pay. 5. The system is flexible. 6. The utility provides a continuous source of revenue. 7. It provides a specific dedicated fund for surface water management. 8. The administrative structure for collecting fees is usually in place. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 21 • Disadvantages 1. Some initial costs are encountered in developing the rate formula and philosophy. 2. The utility may require an expanded administrative structure including establishment of a billing system if none currently exists. There are at least 20 communities in the metro area using storm water utilities to fund improvements. 3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) A. Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance Program B. Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Bond Program These monies are available on a 50 percent state/50 percent local basis provided the state legislature appropriates funds for the program. A representative from the MDNR indicated that little or no money would be available in 1994. The MDNR did indicate that the MSCWMO should update the costs associated with the related projects and apply for 1995 grant monies. 4. General Taxes With the high level of competition for the general tax dollar it may be difficult to rely on this funding source. 5. Washington County A representative from Washington County suggested that discussions regarding cost sharing on the Prison Pond outlet occur prior to development of detailed plans and specifications. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 22 • 0 Perro Creek Minor Watershed Study for The Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization SEH No: A-MSCWM9401.00 April 1994 I hereby certify that this rep. t w". pre•ared by me or under my direct supe ion and . . a`(a d i y Registered Professional Engineer unde the la :/ tate Annesota. Date: April 1994 Reg. No. 1A497 Reviewed by: y •tintcJ GCS `� Date: —2f-,`- 4 Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110 ) (612) 490-2000 01 p,Yy31 "'' • • Table of Contents PNa Conclusions ., 1 Recommendations 3 Introduction 4 Purpose and Authorization 4 Method of Analysis • 5 Background Information 5 Hydrologic Cycle 6 Existing Conditions 7 Urban Watershed Analysis 7 Rainfall 7 Runoff 8 Time Parameters 8 Model Development 9 Model Discussion 10 Model 1 10 Model 2 10 Model 3 11 Model 4 11 Model 5 11 Models 6 and 7 12 Water Surface Profile Model 13 Perro Creek Minor Watershed Management Possibilities 14 Example 14 Example 14 Example 15 Maintenance Plan 16 Improvements 17 Reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet 17 Outlet Through Railroad Embankment 18 Improvement Costs 19 Reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet 19 Outlet Through Railroad Embankment 19 Cost Allocation 19 Funding 21 Advantages . 21 Disadvantages 22 • • April 1994 Perro Creek Minor Watershed Study. Y .for The Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Conclusions From the results of our study and investigations, we have concluded that: 1. Flooding has previously occurred on Perro Creek. 2. Cost of improvements along Perro Creek based on the 1988 study were enormous. 3. The 1994 existing conditions model (Model 2) shows an overall reduction of flow when compared to the 1988 existing conditions model. 4. Water will pond at various points along Perro Creek based on the 1994 models. 5. The 1994 existing conditions model surface at or just below the floor elevationsdof adjacent houel 2) predicts a ses.es waterak This is also substantiated by the water surface profile model. 6. Raising County Road 21 and diverting runoff north of Highway 36 to the St. Croix River will have some impact on Perro Creek discharge rates. 7. Two subwatershed areas modeled do not contribute flow/dischar e into the Perro Creek system. g • 8. Study models can be used to assist in the future management of the Perro Creek minor watershed. • 9. Maintenance of Perro Creek is a key element in management of the watershed. 10. The City of Bayport expended approximately $15,000 to control the Prison Pond discharge and build-up of ice in early 1994. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 1 • • 11. Concerns have been raised about the structural integrity of the existing Prison Pond outlet. 12. Washington County intends to start reconstruction of County Road 21 in mid-1994. 13. A new outlet is required at the Prison Pond to meet all of the operational needs of the affected parties. 14. Discharge capacity through the railroad embankment is grossly ': inadequate. 15. Additional capacity must be provided to keep the water surface north of the railroad embankment about two feet below critical building elevations. 16. Preliminary cost for design and construction of the new Prison Pond outlet is $70,000. 17. Preliminary cost for design and construction of the new outlet through the railroad embankment is $125,000 to $185,000. • Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 2 • • Recommendations In considering the foregoing conclusions, it is recommended that: 1. The MSCWMO develop an operation and maintenance manual for Perro Creek. 2. Hydrologic and hydraulic models developed as part of this study be used to assist in the management of the Perro Creek minor watershed. 3. County Road 21 be raised to a minimum elevation of 750.0 to add storage capacity to the Prison Pond. 4. The MSCWMO review the need for flood easements at the Prison Pond and along Perro Creek. 5. Construction of the Prison Pond outlet be completed as part of County Road 21 reconstruction. 6. The MSCWMO consider initiating a detailed study for increasing the discharge capacity through the railroad embankment. • 7. If the MSCWMO decides to pursue improvements proposed herein, they apply for flood hazard reduction matching grants. • vliddle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 3 • S Introduction Purpose and Authorization Flooding along Perro Creek in the City of Bayport is identified as one of the Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization's (MSCWMO) main concerns. That concern led to the establishment of a plan to solve the flooding problems. Part of that plan included a preliminary hydrologic study to access the magnitude of the problem which was completed in 1988. Culvert capacities along the creek were determined to be inadequate based on the 1988 study data, resulting in recommendations to replace many of the culverts along Perro Creek. The preliminary model also indicated that flooding of buildings adjacent to Perro Creek was likely in three locations. The cost to make improvements to solve the flooding problem based on the 1988 study, though not specifically quantified, were enormous. In light of that fact, SEH recommended that a more detailed study be performed to improve the watershed model and hopefully reduce the scope and cost of the required improvements. The Perro Creek Watershed is shown on Figure 1 in the Appendix. In 1992 representatives from Washington County met with members of the MSCWMO to discuss the County's plan for reconstruction of County Road 21 from County Road 14 on the south to County Road 28 on the north. This section of roadway encompasses the outlet for the prison pond which is the headwater for Perro Creek. SEH prepared a scoping document in mid-1992 to assist the MSCWMO in determining which project options should be addressed in a detailed study. Scope of work for the study was finalized in early 1993. In late 1993 the MSCWMO directed SEH to proceed with this study in order to address flooding along Perro Creek. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 4 • • Method of Analysis • The following information was utilized during preparation of this report: Background Information A. MSCWMO Water Resource Inventory dated 1986 by Washington Soil and Water Conservation District. B. U.S. Geological Survey, Stillwater Quadrangle, Revised 1993. C. Topographic Mapping by Mark Hurd for the Middle St.Croix WMO, based on April, 1993 aerial photos. D. Record and Preliminary Construction Drawings. 1. City of Stillwater 2. City of Oak Park Heights 3. City of Bayport 4. Washington County 5. Minnesota Department of Transportation 6. Minnesota Correctional Facility E. Perro Creek Study, Bayport,MN., by SEH, dated November 8, 1988. F. Soil Survey of Washington and Ramsey Counties in Minnesota, dated April 1980. G. Technical Paper 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, Soil Conservation Service,U.S.Department of Agriculture dated May 1961. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 5 • • Hydrologic Cycle Precipitation, evaporation, transportation, infiltration, runoff streamflow, and storage are all part of the complex hydrologic system(see Figure 2 in the Appendix). The hydrologic system for the Perro Creek Minor Watershed includes ponds,ditches,storm sewers and culverts. Evaluation of system requires consideration of hydrology,hydraulics,climatology and surficial geology. Climatology and surficial geology are not addressed in this document. Information on the climatological data used in this study can be found in Technical Paper No. 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, Soil Conservation Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture. Information on the surficial geology used in the study can be found in the Water Resources Inventory section of the MSCWMO Surface Water Management Plan. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 6 • • Existing Conditions The Perro Creek Minor Watershed consists of about 1,671 acres of rural and urban land use. Figure 1 in the Appendix provides in general detail information on land use within the Watershed. Photo Nos. 1 through 18 in the Appendix depict conditions along Perro Creek. Urban Watershed Analysis An urban watershed is one in which surfaces that were rural in nature become developed and these impervious surfaces cover a considerable area. Impervious surfaces include roads, sidewalks, parking lots and roof tops. Natural flow paths in the watershed may be replaced or supplemented by paved gutters, storm sewers, or other elements of artificial drainage. The objective when dealing with urban hydrology is to provide flood control at all locations within the drainage system. The analytical problems that must be solved to address these objectives are the prediction of runoff peaks, volumes and discharge versus time curves (hydrographs) anywhere in the drainage system. Urbanization increases runoff due to reduced infiltration and decreased travel time. Runoff is determined primarily by the amount of precipitation and by infiltration characteristics related to soil type, soil moisture, antecedent rainfall, vegetative cover, impervious surfaces, and storage. Travel time is determined primarily by slope,length of flow path, depth of flow, and roughness of flow surfaces. Peak discharges are based on the relationship of these parameters and on the total drainage area of the watershed, the size of the development, the effect of ponds and wetlands, and the time distribution of rainfall during a given storm event. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) methods were used to analyze both the urban and rural characteristics of this hydrologic system. The analysis is comprised of four major components: rainfall, runoff, time parameters, and peak discharge, hydrographs, and storage effects. Rainfall Several rainfall parameters are considered in using the SCS design methodology. The duration (how long it rains), rainfall depths (how much it rains), time distribution (how the total rainfall depth is determined over the duration of the rainfall event),and recurrence interval (how probable it is that the rainfall event will recur in a given year) are important factors. One rainfall event was analyzed as part of this study. This event was 24 hours in duration with a total rainfall depth of 5.9 • inches. riddle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 7 • • The design storm (DS) was used to determine the rates of discharge, runoff volume, and water surface elevations. An SCS Type I storm is used with the DS. The 5.9 inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period is referred to as a "100-year event". The term"100-year" is often called the return period or recurrence interval of a storm event. The return period is related to the probability of a given event being equal or exceeded. The probability that the "100- year event" will be exceeded in a given year is 0.01 or 1%. A 5-year and 10-year event was simulated on the watershed to determine the peak water surface elevation in the Prison Pond (0-22) during more frequent events as requested by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Conventional wisdom holds that if a 100-year event occurs in one year, then it cannot occur for another 100 years. This belief is false because it implies that rainfall occurs deterministically rather than randomly. Because rainfall occurs randomly, there is a finite probability that the 100- year event could occur in two consecutive years. Thus, the excedence probability concept is the best way to express rainfall events. Runoff To estimate runoff from rainfall,SCS uses the Runoff Curve Number(CN) method. Determination of the CN depends on the watershed's soil and cover conditions, which the model represents as hydrologic soil group, cover type, treatment, and hydrologic condition. The cover condition, or type of land use, is typically expressed by a percentage of impervious or hard surface area (roof tops, parking lots, etc.). The CN (or runoff coefficient) is directly related to runoff. The greater the impervious area, the higher the CN and the more rainfall that will drain off of a property rather than soaking into the soil. Time Parameters The initial time parameters used in SCS methodology are the time of concentration (Ta) and travel time (Ti). T,is the time it takes for runoff to travel to a point of interest (usually time outlet or waterbody of a given watershed) from the hydraulically most distant point. Tt is the time it takes for runoff to travel in a given flow segment. T, is the sum of T, values for various consecutive flow segments. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 8 • • • Model Development The Hydrocad version of the TR-20 computer program determines peak rates and volume of runoff based on given rainfall data in the form of a hydrograph. The runoff is routed through the drainage system which includes ditches, storm sewers, and storage basins. The storage basins have specific elevation/storage/discharge relationships. These relationships are used for determining the resulting flood elevations. The program compares the rate of water entering a basin to the rate of the water leaving the basin. Excess volume is detained or temporarily stored until the rate of discharge is equal to or greater than the rate of inflow. The program determines the resulting high water elevations based on the elevation/storage relationship. Computer simulation of the hydrology for the Perro Creek minor watershed have been prepared to address the MSCWMO's concerns. Six new versions of the watershed model were developed to simulate varying conditions including the following: 1. Existing Conditions, 1988 Model 2. Existing Conditions, 1994 Model 3. Raise County Road 21 4. Divert Runoff North of T.H. 36 5. Determine Non-Contributing Sub-watersheds 6. 5-year Event, Prison Pond Peak Water Surface 7. 10-year Event, Prison Pond Peak Water Surface Models 1 through 5 are based on a 100-year, 24-hour DS with AMC=2 (normal soil moisture conditions). Models 6 and 7 are also based on a 24- hour event with AMC=2. All of the models are based on a normal pool elevation for the St. Croix River at 676.0 (1929 Datum) and a pool elevation of 744.6 for the Prison Pond. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 9 • I • Model Discussion Model 1 Model 1 was simulated as part of the 1988 Preliminary Study. Review of the results from that simulation shows that the existing culvert capacity through the railroad embankment is grossly inadequate. The high water elevation just north of the railroad embankment was predicted at 693.6. This water elevation would cause flooding in at least five adjacent houses. There were also other areas long the creek where a potential of flooding existing based on this model. Discharge rates along Perro Creek are summarized on Figure 3 in the Appendix. Model 2 Authorization for the Detailed Study by the MSCWMO specifically included updating the existing conditions model for the watershed. Development of this model included the methodology described in the Method of Analysis section of this report. Key information for determination of the watershed's characteristics was generated from the topographic mapping developed for this study, which more accurately defined the contributing areas. Once definition of the model was complete, the watershed was subjected to a 100-year design storm rainfall of 5.9 inches. Peak discharge (flow) along the creek is shown on Figure 4. Comparison between Model 1 (1988) and Model 2 (1994) shows an overall reduction of discharge except for Point "A". Most notable are the reductions at Point "D" and "E"which are 84 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 90 cfs respectively. The reduction of flow when comparing Model 1 to Model 2 is 35%and 28% at Points "D" and "E" respectively. This reduction of flow can be attributed to the greater level of detail provided by the watershed mapping. Model 2 indicates water will pond at various locations along the creek in a 100-year design storm. This information was compared to the 1972 district court injunction against the City of Bayport. Some of the same properties flooded in the 1960's will be inundated in a 100-year design storm. However,the worst flooding will occur in the east half of Block 91. This fact left us in a quandary since none of the property owners in the east half of Block 91 joined in the 1972 dated lawsuit. Research by the Bayport city staff provided an answer to our dilemma. Houses located in the east half of Block 91 were not constructed until after the flooding has occurred. The areas flooded and included in the injunction dated January 22, 1972 are shown on Figure 5 in the Appendix. If a 100-year design storm occurs over the Perro Creek Subwatershed, flooding of four or five houses just north of the railroad embankment will likely Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 10 • . ^ occur under existing conditions. A portion of this information is shown on Figure 5. Model 2 predicted a water surface of 691.0 north of the railroad embankment. Ground surface at the houses in this area ranges from 690.8 to 692.8. Water surface elevations along the creek are addressed in the Water Surface Profile Model section of this report. Model 3 Model 3 was developed to determine the impact of raising County Road 21. Peak discharge at Points "A", "B" and "C" on Figure 6 are lower than those of the existing conditions, Model 2. However, peak discharge at Points "D" and "E" are similar to those shown in Model 2. This indicates that the downstream subwatershed area is controlling the peak versus the upstream subwatershed. The peak water surface elevation in the Prison Pond for Model 3 is 0.6 feet higher than for Model 2. Model 4 Model 4 was developed to determine the future impacts of diverting runoff generated north of Highway 36 out of the Perro Creek Subwatershed. Representatives from Mn/DOT indicated it may be • possible to complete the diversion with reconstruction of Highway 36 to accommodate the river bridge. This model also includes a raised roadway profile on County Road 21 from Model 3. Peak discharge at Points "A", "B" and "C" on Figure 7 are reduced somewhat. However,peak discharge at Points "D" and "E" is similar to that shown in Models 2 and 3. Model 5 Model 5 was developed to determine which subwatershed areas do not contribute/discharge into the Perro Creek drainage system. Three areas were identified as possible non-contributors from the results of Model 2. Those three areas are identified on Figure 8 as OBT-15, BTBP-28, and OBT-12/OBT-13/BTO-14. Based on the results of Model 2, a starting water surface was established for the pond in each of the three areas. The entire subwatershed was then subjected to a 100-year design storm. Area OBT-15/OBT-13/BTO-14 did contribute/discharge into the drainage system tributary to the Prison Pond. The large storage capacity provided in the Prison Pond dampens the affect of discharge from OBT-12/ OBT- 13/BTO-14 such that they have little impact on the peak water surface or discharge. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 11 • • Models 6 and 7 Models 6 and 7 were developed to address fluctuation of the water surface in the Prison Pond during more frequent rainfall events as requested by the MDNR. - Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 12 1.1 • • Water Surface Profile Model Hydraulic analysis along Perro Creek from Fifth Avenue North to the railroad embankment was performed using Boss version of HEC-2. The HEC-2 water-surface profile computation computer model was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Use of this model made it possible to develop a water surface profile (depth) along the majority of Perro Creek. Cross-sectional information for the creek was developed from the contour mapping and 1988 survey data. Hydrology for use in the HEC-2 model was developed as part of this study. Discharge data generated in the hydrology model(s) at various locations along the creek was used to produce a continuous water surface based on the channel geometry. Two water surface profiles are provided on Figure 11 in the Appendix. They represent flow conditions. 1. Existing conditions, Model 2 (1994). 2. Raise County Road 21 with new outlet at railroad embankment, Model 3. The existing conditions water surface profile shows that a number of streets as well as the railroad embankment is overtopped. A water surface elevation above the railroad embankment will likely cause flooding of adjacent structures. This condition also raises the water surface profile upstream. Construction of a new outlet through the railroad embankment and raising of County Road 12 will have positive impacts. Construction of the new outlet through the railroad embankment lowers the water surface and reduces the threat of flooding. Flow characteristics through the structure shown on Figure 10 in the Appendix were used to develop the lower water surface profile. Raising the roadway surface on County Road 21 lowers the water surface profile in between Points A and C shown on Figure 6 in the Appendix. • The areas where flooding may occur are shown on Figure 5 in the Appendix. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 13 • . L Perro Creek Minor Watershed Management Possibilities Development of the hydrologic and hydraulic models provides a greater opportunity for effective management within the Perro Creek Subwatershed. This particular watershed includes parts of four governmental jurisdictions, namely Baytown Township and the cities of Bayport, Oak Park Heights and Stillwater. Prior to development of the MSCWMO Joint Powers Agreement, a forum did not exist where all the members of the Watershed met to discuss intercommunity surface water flow issues. Development of the MSCWMO and its WMO plan were the first major steps in effective management of the entire watershed, including that of Perro Creek. The purpose of the MSCWMO Plan is to provide a local mechanism to reduce capital expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff, prevent flooding and erosion, promote groundwater recharge and secure other benefits associated with proper management of surface water. The models developed as part of this study allow assessment of the concerns identified in the MSCWMO's Watershed Management Plan. These concerns may stem from intercommunity as well as intracommunity flow issues. Here are a few examples: Example The cities of Oak park Heights and Stillwater decide to divert surface water runoff generated north of Highway 36 directly to the river. Impact on the discharge at the Prison Pond can be found by comparing Model 2 and Model 4. Example An industry is interested in locating in Baytown Township. Approximately 100 acres of agricultural land would be converted to buildings and parking lot. How would this land use change affect the water surface elevation and discharge from the Prison Pond? Modification of the model(s) would be made to simulate the revised land use. The watershed would then be subjected to the design storm to determine the extent of the impacts. If significant impacts occur,recommendations could be made for modifications to the onsite detention. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 14 • • Example Two property owners within the City of Bayport would like to add 5 feet of fill in their adjacent lots. However, the proposed fill area is used for storage of water during a design storm. Should the filling be allowed,and if so, what are the impacts? The hydrologic and/or hydraulic model would be revised to represent the proposed changes and analyzed to determine the extent of the impacts. It is possible the filling could be allowed with modifications to one or more downstream structures. These are only a few examples of how the study models can provide part • of the "Management" in Watershed Management Organization. • fiddle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 15 • • Maintenance Plan Development of a coordinated maintenance plan along Perro Creek is key to its successful management. All of the existing and proposed structures along Perro Creek were analyzed for full flow capacity. The build-up of sediment and debris in these structures can significantly reduce their discharge capacity. A reduction in the discharge capacity results in higher water elevations which could mean localized flooding. In order to reduce the flooding potential a regular coordinated maintenance routine should be established. We suggest that as a minimum the following parties be . involved, as follows: 1. Washington County A. County Road 21 B. County Road 14 2. Minnesota Correctional Facility A. Area between County Road 21 and County Road 14 3. City of Bayport 4. Chicago and North Western Railroad A. Culvert/outlet through the railroad embankment • 5. Minnesota DNR A. Operation of Prison Pond outlet 6. Mn/DOT A. Box culvert at Highway 95 Maintenance/operation of Perro Creek during the winter months has been a challenge for the City of Bayport. Minor flow/leakage at the Prison Pond outlet causes a build-up of ice downstream. The 4' x 8'box culvert at Fourth St. N./Highway 95 was almost completely full of ice in January of 1994. Had this box culvert become plugged, a number of structures may have been threatened with flooding,.including a school. In early 1994 the City of Bayport expended approximately$15,000 to control the Prison Pond discharge and resulting build-up of ice. Development of a solution to the ice problem was not in the scope of this study. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 16 Improvements • Two major improvements required along Perro Creek have been identified. They are specifically reconstruction of the Prison Pond outlet . . and increasing the discharge capacity at the railroad embankment. The following text addresses each of the proposed improvements. Reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet The existing outlet for the Prison Pond is located just west of County Road 21 and shown on Photo No. 1 in the Appendix. Structural components consist of one-half a 6 foot diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) on end fitted with a metal plate. Flow from the pond enters the structure through a rectangular orifice in the plate measuring 1.7 feet wide and 1.2 feet high. Movement of the slide gate attached to the metal plate allows the orifice to be closed. However, the seal is not water tight and leakage does occur. A short row of sheet pile extend north and south from the existing structure to provide stability and a seepage cutoff. Flow entering the outlet structure is directed east across County Road 21 by a 42 inch diameter CMP. A number of concerns have been expressed about the condition of the existing structure. During the 1993/1994 winter leakage through the outlet structure worsened the ice build-up downstream. Once the flow of water through the structure was stopped water could be heard moving under or around the structure. This raises an additional concern that the structure is slowly being undermined. The elevation top of the existing structure is 748.0. County Road 21 will be raised to a minimum elevation of 750. Therefore,the existing structure does not maximize the storage capacity in the Prison Pond for winter operation. A preliminary layout of the proposed Prison Pond outlet is provided on Figure 9. This structure provides a discharge capacity similar to that of the existing outlet. It also provides a 3-foot wide set of stoplogs to allow for drawdown of the Prison Pond. This drawdown feature would be used to simulate a drought as requested by the MDNR. However, stoplogs are known to leak. For this reason we have also included a slide gate to seal off the flow through this structure for winter operations. The grating covered opening on top of the structure is sized to handle the entire design flow discharge should the remainder of the structure become inoperable due to debris such as trees or ice. -fiddle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 17 • s Outlet Through Railroad Embankment Discharge capacity through the railroad embankment is grossly inadequate. The water surface elevation just north of the railroad embankment during a design storm is predicted to be about 691. A water surface elevation of this magnitude will flood a number of houses. Photos No. 14 and 15 show the existing 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe through the embankment. The pipe has a discharge capacity of 119 cfs with an upstream water surface of 691. Additional capacity must be provided to keep the high water surface north of the railroad embankment about 2 feet below the critical building elevation. Two 48-inch diameter RCP and one 60-inch diameter RCP would provide a capacity of 207 cfs at elevation 688.2. This means two additional pipes need to be installed through the embankment. Appropriate modifications to the channel would also be required. Even with this improvement, two swimming pools would be flooded. Storm water ponding easements would likely be required. Proper operation of this system is dependent on developing a maintenance routine to keep debris from reducing the discharge capacity. • Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 18 • • Improvement Costs Improvement costs provided in this section should not be used for budgeting purposes. They are included only to provide a general • magnitude of the cost involved. Reconstruction of the Prison Pond Outlet A preliminary layout for the Prison Pond outlet is shown on Figure 9. SEH is presently working with Washington County to develop a detailed structure design. Based on our present information,the estimated cost for construction of the new outlet and removal of the existing outlet is $70,000. Figure 9 has been submitted to the MDNR for comment. Outlet Through Railroad Embankment A preliminary layout for the outlet through the railroad embankment is shown on Figure 10 in the Appendix. It will be necessary to work within the Canadian Pacific (CP) and Chicago and North Western (CNW) Railroad rights-of-way to construct this outlet. Preliminary contact has been made with the railroads to determine what construction methods would be acceptable. The CNN indicated they may have to use their own forces to construct the outlet due to a union agreement. However,if their crews are busy they would allow the MSCWMO's contractor to build the project. The possibility of open cutting the embankment versus jacking • the pipes through the embankment was also discussed. Open cutting the embankment may be possible if this work is scheduled for the weekend. Prior to initiating this work, an agreement between the MSCWMO and • railroad(s) would be required. Based on our present data we estimate the cost of this project to range between $125,000 and $185,000. Prior to initiating construction we recommend a detailed study of the outlet area be performed. This study would define specifically what improvements would be required. Cost for the diversion of runoff north of Highway 36 is not addressed in this report. Cost Allocation Cost allocation between the minor watershed members for the scoping study and minor watershed study has been based on community acreage. The following chart summarizes the contributing community acreage on a percentage basis. Breakdown of the costs for the improvements have not been included at this time. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 19 • _ *WATERSHED SUMMARY SUBWATERSHED TOTALSTILLWATER OAK PARK HGHTS. BAYTOWN BAYPORT ACREAGE I ACREAGE - ACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE ST-1 12.98' 1298 SO-2 28.15 26.67 1.48 0-3 34.44 34.44 O-4 14.14' 14.14 0-5 17.44 17.44 S0-6 43.99; 10.78 33.21 0-7 40.60 40.60 0-8 22.05 22.05 0-9 76.27 76.27 0-10 3254 32.54 0-11 36.12 36.12 OBT-12 35.61 3202 3.59 OBT-13 33.11 • 31.70 1.41 BTO-14 167.27 3.57 163.70 BT-15 59.32 59.32 OBT-151 3025 • :•;�:.>•> ••• . ?ISM >`.": .9 NO DISCHARGE 0-16 50.94] 50.94 0-17 53.69 53.69 0-18 51.18 51.18 0-19 44.31' 44.31 OBT-20 85.81 • 46.33 39.48 0-21 44.34 44.34 0-22 45.97 45.97 BP-23 7.75 7.75 BP-24 37.59 37.59 • . BP-241 17.18! 17.18 BT-25 21.39 21.39 BT-26 9.52 9.52 BT-27 9.10 9.10 BTBP-28 52.89 _;-x'-'... ....2=`'.t'.�.�S..i NO DISCHARGE BPBT-29 86.30 4.04 8226 BT-30 53.97 I 53.97 BT-31 98.64 98.64 BPBT-32 12.00 1.20 10.80 BP-33 265, 2.65 BP-34 8.34 8.34 BP-341 12.871 12.87 BP-35 30.32; 30.32 BP-351 687 6.87 BP-36 26.45 26.45 BP-37 11.16 11.16 BP-38 2.60 2.60 BP-39 2.85 2.85 BP-40 7.19 7.19 BP-41 22.30 - 22.30 BP-42 35.75 35.75 BP-43 1247 12.47 BP-44 9.62 9.62 BP-45 8.34 8.34 BP-46 2.73 273 BP-47 2.20 220 SUBWATERSHED TOTAL 1671.56 , I ACREAGE • TOTAL STILLWATER OAK PARK HGHTS. BAYTOWN BAYPORT COMMUNITY 50.43 728.1 467.07 425.96 ACREAGE • CONTRIBUTING COMMUNITY 1588.42 50.43 712.34 425.35 400.3 - ACREAGE CONTRIBUTING PERCENTAGE 3.17% 44.85% 26.78% 25.20% BY COMMUNITY Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 20 1110 Funding There are a number of means available to the MSCWMO for funding of improvement along Perro Creek. The following is a brief explanation of those means. 1• Taxing District Development of a subwatershed taxing district is addressed in the implementation program for Perro Creek. Minnesota Statute Section 103B.245 and 103B.251 allow for development of the special tax district and capital improvements by watershed management organizations. • 2. Surface Water Management Utility (SWMV) Each community could consider the establishment of SWMV. funding source could take up to a year to develop. This bout $12/homeowner per year, with higher contributions from business and commercial properties, the utility could finance a revenue bond. There are some advantages and disadvantages that deserve consideration. Advantages • 1. Properties causing or contributing to the need for runoff management pay into the utility. 2. The change is directly proportioned to runoff generated by specific class properties. 3. A self-financing system is not in competition withgeneral services funds. g 4. Existing and new developments both pay. 5. The system is flexible. 6. The utility provides a continuous source of revenue. 7. It provides a specific dedicated fund for surface water management. 8. The administrative structure for collecting fees is usuallyin place. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 21 • • Disadvantages 1. Some initial costs are encountered in developing the rate formula and philosophy. 2. The utility may require an expanded administrative structure including establishment of a billing system if none currently exists. There are at least 20 communities in the metro area using storm water utilities to fund improvements. 3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) A. Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance Program B. Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Bond Program These monies are available on a 50 percent state/50 percent local basis provided the state legislature appropriates funds for the program. A representative from the MDNR indicated that little or no money would be available in 1994. The MDNR did indicate that the MSCWMO should update the costs associated with the related projects and apply for 1995 grant monies. 4. General Taxes With the high level of competition for the general tax dollar it may be difficult to rely on this funding source. 5. Washington County A representative from Washington County suggested that discussions • regarding cost sharing on the Prison Pond outlet occur prior to development of detailed plans and specifications. Middle St. Croix River Watershed Management Organization Page 22 , Apt( , 10.--11" c_L-9 ,arsai 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE,200 SEH CENTER,ST PAUL,MN 55110 612 490-2000 800 325-2055 ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION Meeting Notes Re: Perro Creek Study SEH No. A-MSCWM9401.00 Bayport, Minnesota Middle St. Croix WMO Date of Meeting: March 25, 1994 From: Jeff Davis Time of Meeting: 9:00 a.m. Project Manager Date: March 28, 1994 The following is a brief summary of the items discussed at the above referenced meeting: I. Attendance - Sign roster II. Introductions III. Discussion A. Photos were presented showing the prison pond outlet (dated March 1994) and embankment fill placed on County Road 21 (dated January 1994). B. Bypass pumping to control the water level in the prison pond was addressed by Ken Hartung, Administrator for the City of Bayport. 1. Water from the prison pond had been flowing over County Road 21 for about 24 hours prior to placing the embankment fill. 2. Flow of water in Perro Creek was such that ice was forming and plugging the culverts downstream. 3. Peak water elevation in the prison pond reached 747.9 . This elevation is about 0.4 feet above the low point in the road. 4. The prison staff located an old cistern on site that is connected to the prison pond. Bayport installed a temporary pump in the cistern and pumped 1,000 gpm out of the pond into a nearby storm sewer for about • 7 days. The storm sewer directed the discharge away from Perro Creek. 5. The City of Bayport also had Miller Excavating remove ice from the creek to accommodate additional flow. SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. MINNEAPOLIS,MN ST.CLOUD,MN CHIPPEWA FALLS,WI MADISON,WI • • 4 Meeting Notes March 25, 1994 Page 2 C. Data was presented for Pond 0-22(prison pond)based on the updated hydrology model by SEH (see attachment). D. The Minnesota DNR does not have a problem with the bounce in Pond 0-22 for the 5 and 10 year events. However,they would like to lower the runout elevation to that of the previous structure (dated early 1900's). E. SEH will develop one additional hydrologic model to simulate adjustment of the _ runout elevation. F. Hydraulically, the existing structure is adequate. There are some concerns that the existing outlet is no longer structurally competent. The new outlet structure shall include a low flow gate to allow simulation of a drought in the watershed and be constructed of concrete. G. Washington County will design and construct the prison pond outlet. Cost for design and construction of the outlet will be shared by the parties involved. H. The Minnesota DNR indicated that a drawdown for the prison pond to accommodate construction of the new outlet will likely be allowed. However,the drawdown may only occur after August 1, 1994 and outlet must be operational prior to December 1, 1994. A permit will be required prior to starting construction. I. SEH will submit eight copies of the report to Tim Fredbo on April 18, 1994 and present information in the report to the Middle St. Croix WMO on April 27, 1994. If there are any corrections required, please contact me at 490-2025. Attachments c: Ann Terwedo, Cfty of Stillwater • O'Neal,City_of Oak Park Heights Ken Hartung, City of Bayport Jo Heikes, MnDOT Ron Dahlquist, Washington County Tim Fredbo, Washington SWCD Don Theisen, Washington County ' | | | | | i | ' .| | | | | i | | | | / | | | | | ' . / / ' | IlLoomommimmimminijimmmion,----- - | \ ' / K | --- . | \ \ ! • • 91— ., am 1 • 1 I , NE : , i EN 1 : . ___ 0 g i. 6E . Snt-iasi4 i 6 ZORN 4--;3 Pi -- it &o ' . 1 ___ Ern all . la . . . . ______ : .13 4. 1, 4 0 1111 I a. a iri . iri II 1 lam _____L_ ir,4 & a ' . b. V i i a 3g 1., ,• • __.! .111111-Lt. .: MI111111111111111 -n EINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMIMPUSE 14.sumeameod -0.- liongionmino. maim= am i iiiiiimiimi • Rom . , 1 1 i Iiiia. . : I 1 um , . . , ___ _ OA : \.,1 1 - . ! , 1 k ____411111111111 _ . fc n i c 1 i\--) ii 1 , , 1 0 '.____ 41 3 2 -- 6 .:01 � ! /4°1/ / ---T- . . . Ma.......p. a . - --�---�'-T� 1 1 -'--- ClAE | LBY: --ix CHIPPEil/AFAus,wi ---�--- !\ i ! SHEETS "~� or / / i |. | DATE | _ -- sHEET OF . _ ' , ' | ~ INORWATERSHED STUDY i' "!pAi( PERRO CR S • MIDDLE ST.C OIX RIVER WMO SEH FILE NO.MSCWM9401 SUBWATERSHEDSUMMARY SUBWATERSHED TOTAL I STILLWATER OAK PARK HGHTS. BAYTOWN BAYPORT ACREAGE 1 ACREAGEACREAGE ACREAGE ACREAGE ST-1 12.98 12.98 SO-2 28.15 26.67 1.48 0-3 34.44 34.44 0-4 14.14 14.14 0-5 17.44 17.44 SO-6 43.99 10.78 33.21 0-7 40.60 40.60 0-8 22.05 22.05 0-9 76.27 76.27 0-10 32.54 32.54 0-11 36.12 36.12 OBT-12 35.61 32.02 3.59 _ 081-13 33.11 31.70 1.41 BTO-14 167.27 3.57 163.70 BT-15 59.32 59.32 OBT-151 30.25 15.76 14.49 0-16 50.94 50.94 0-17 53.69 53.69 0-18 51.18 51.18 0-19 44.31 44.31 OBT-20 85.81 46.33 39.48 0-21 44.34 44.34 0-22 45.97 45.97 BP-23 7.75 7.75 BP-24 37.59 37.59 BP-241 17.18 17.18 BT-25 21.39 21.39 8T-26 9.52 9.52 BT-27 9.10 9.10 BT BP-28 52.89 27.23 25.66 BPBT-29 86.30 4.04 82.26 8T-30 53.97 53.97 _ BT-31 98.64 98.64 BPBT-32 12.00 1.20 10.80 BP-33 2.65 2.65 BP-34 8.34 8.34 BP-341 12.87 12.87 BP-35 30.32 30.32 BP-351 6.87 6.87 BP-36 26.45 26.45 BP-37 11.16 11.16 - BP-38 2.60 _:. 2.60 BP-39 2.85 2.85 BP-40 7.19 7.19 BP-41 22.30 22.30 BP-42 35.75 35.75 BP-43 12.47 12.47 BP-44 9.62 9.62 BP-45 8.34 8.34 BP-46 2.73 2.73 BP-47 2.20 2.20 SUBWATERSHED TOTAL 1671.56 ACREAGE STILLWATER OAK PARK HGHTS. BAYTOWN BAYPORT COMMUNITY 50.43 728.1 467.07 425.96 ACREAGE • • MIDDLE ST CROIX RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1994 Members Present : John McPherson WEST LAKELAND TOWNSHIP Emerson Gates LAKE ST. CROIX BEACH Barbara Cobb ST. MARY'S POINT Dean Kern Sr . OAK PARK HEIGHTS Alternate Anders Hanson BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP Diane Wirth LAKELAND Alternate Beverly Schultz BAYPORT Janet Giuliani LAKELAND SHORES Diane O'Bryan STILLWATER TOWNSHIP Wendy Griffin SOIL. & WATER CONSERVATION Ken Hartung BAYPORT ADMINISTRATOR Paul Tatting BAYPORT Dave Mall AUDIT COMPANY The meeting was called to order at 7:00PM by acting Chair , Barbara Cobb. MOTION WAS MADE by Schultz and SECONDED by Gates to approve the minutes of the Dec. 16, 1993 meeting. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION WAS MADE by Schultz and SECONDED by Gates to approve the Agenda with the addition of "Bill Payment" under the Treasurer's Report . MOTION CARRIED. TREASURER'S REPORT Schultz presented a written Treasurer's report with a balance of $10 , 139.40 (which includes two sub-watershed payments totaling $2,433.54) . It was MOVED by Gates and SECONDED by Giuliani to accept the treasurer's report . MOTION CARRIED. MOTION WAS MADE by Schultz and SECONDED by Kern to pay the following bills: SEH $13,446. Check # 5 ' (This PerrorCreek Study charge will be paid as soon as all monies are " in" from the 4 units of the sub-watershed) Met . Council $ 860 .00 Check # SIGNATORY DESIGNATION Newspaper Courier, Stillwater-MOTION, Gates-SEC, O'Brien Bank First Bank, Bayport MOTION, McPherson-SEC, Kern Tech.Advisors Wash.Cty SWCD MOTION, Schultz-SEC, Giuliani AUDIT Mr. Dave Mall of the firm, Tautges, Redpath & Co. , reported on the completed audit . He requested adding check #'s of bills paid to the minute reports. He is going to contact the Board of Water & Soil Resources regarding the requirement of annual audits for less active WMOs hoping the requirement is not statutorial and that the rule can thus be considered for amendment . He will report back to the WMO treasurer. *** Please see attached correspondence. • r@EEFWE FEB 2 4 1994 February 22, 1994 Dear ga%-/ is The Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization received the second and third billing from Short Elliot and Hendrickson for the Perro Creek Study. This is a sub-watershed responsibility and the responsibile cities and township have budgeted for the study. Consider this a bill and please reimburse the organization for this amount now. Amount due your town: Send to: MSCWMO *6 5CZ6 , 76 %Beverly H Schultz 294 No. 3rd St. Bayport, MN 55003 Thank you, ;V)< ZILe- r Beverly I� Schultz Treasurer MSCWMO PCREEKST.XLS FUND, OF PERRO CREEK STUD• • • ,o -e4V1 , e(41:1)P ' 1-; - TOTAL CONTRACTED S.E.H. SERVICES S.E.H. SERVICES TOTAL COST OF STUDY THRU 12-4-93 12-5-94 thru 2-11-94 THRU 2-11-94 BAYTOWN $12,000 $1,069.18 $1,794.38 $2,863.56 BAYPORT $13,121 $1,169.06 $1,962.00 $3,131.06 OAK PARK HEIGHTS $27,351 -42,436.93 -- S4,089.83 -- STILLWATER $2,192 $195.30 $327.77 $523.08 $54,664 $4,870.48 $8,173.98 $13,044.46 5 C I-} S E rr S F-4 Ci ) A--Q-7---k-ea. 2 Gam . ��-� 411 • INVOICE —=''S a I 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE 200 SEH CENTER,ST PAUL,MN 55110 612 490-2000 800 325-2055 ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION January 20, 1994 Invoice No. 21025 Project No. AMSCWM9401.00 MIDDLE ST CROIX WMO. ATTN: ANN TERWEDO,CHAIRPERSON 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER MN 55082 For: PERRO CREEK STUDY GROUND CONTROL FOR MAPPING Professional Services for the period ending January 1, 1994 Professional Personnel Hours Amount PROJECT MANAGER 3.5 265.70 SENIOR TECHNICIAN 11 .0 .. 663.41 SURVEY .CREW CHIEF 76.5 3, 333.97 • SURVEY ASSISTANT 72.5 2,168.40 OFFICE ASSISTANT 0.5 15.72 Totals • 164.0 6,447 .20 Total Labor 6,447 .20 Reimbursable Expenses EMPLOYEE MILEAGE 393.60 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 75.00 COMPUTER RENTAL 90.47 Total Reimbursables 559 .07 559 .07 Subtotal $ 7,006.27 Billing Summary Current Prior Pds To-date Total Billings 7,006.27 4,870.48 11,876.75 Limit 54,664.00 Total this Invoice $ 7,006.27 CC: TIM FREDBO SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. MINNEAPOLIS,MN ST CLOUD,MN CHIPPEWA FALLS,WI MADISON.WI • INVOICE Azsai3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE;200 SEH CENTER.ST PAUL,MN 55110 612 494000 800 325-2055 ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION February 11, 1994 Invoice No. 21380 Project No. AMSCWM9401.00 MIDDLE ST CROIX WMO • ATTN: ANN TERWEDO,CHAIRPERSON 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 0 For: PERRO CREEK STUDY - MAPPING AND COLLECTING BACKGROUND INFO FOR STUDY Professional Services for the period ending January 29, 1994 Professional Personnel Hours Amount PROJECT MANAGER 13.5 1,024.80 WORD PROCESSOR 1.0 36.07 Totals • 14.5 _ 1,060.87 Total Labor 1,060.87 Reimbursable Expenses EMPLOYEE MILEAGE • 18.30 EMPL TRAV/OTHER PROJ EXP 2.00 REPRODUCTIONS 4.79 OTHER REIMBURSABLE EXP 74.25 WORD PROCESSING 7 .50 Total Reimbursabres • •106.84 106.84 Subtotal $ 1,167.71 Billing Summary Current Prior Pds To-date Total Billings 1,167.71 11,876.75 13,044.46 Limit 54,664.00 i Total this Invoice $ 1,167.71 CC: TIM FREDBO SNORT ELUorrMADISON.Nn HENDRICKSON INC. M/NNEAPOUS,MN sr CLOUO.MN CHIPPEWA FALLS.WI