IP #824For the full report on
this improvement
project, refer to the
City Council agenda
packets and /or
Planning Commission
agenda packets.
PROJECT NO. 824
Surface Water management plan
Res. 07 -61 4/23/07 Resolution approving proposal from Bonestroo to update the city's 1996 surface water
management plan (improvement project no. 824)
Work Session 08/18/08 Review of draft plan
Res 08 -150 10/27/08 Adopted Local Water Management Plan
COUNCIL
Request for Action
Originating Department
Approved for Agenda
Agenda Section
City Manager
August 18, 2008
Work Session
Item No.
By: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
B Kirk McDonald, City Manager
11.2
r
Discussion regarding Local Water Management Plan
Requested Action
Staff requests that the Council discuss the draft update of the city's 1996 surface water management plan, the
comments received from the Met Council and the watersheds, and the suggested responses to those comments
Staff also requests that the Council bring the materials recently provided to them on this topic.
Background
At the March 19, 2007, work session, staff and the Council discussed a proposal from Bonestroo for updating
the city's 1996 surface water management plan. The discussions provided information for the Council about
the Metropolitan Council and watershed commissions' requirements. After discussions were completed, the
City Council supported Bonestroo's proposal and approved that proposal to update the city's 1996 surface
water management plan at the April 23, 2007, Council meeting.
Attachments
Please bring the Local Water Management Plan (Draft dated May, 2008) that was distributed to you last week.
Motion by Second by
// A
To: ° (�
I:RFA/Admin /Q -local swmplan
A u &, • vi 1
McDonald Kirk
From: emeadowlk @aol.com
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:47 PM
To: Leone Valerie; McDonald Kirk
Subject: Comments on New Hope's Local Watershed Mgmt Plan for August 18 City Council
Worksession
Attachments: Comments on New Hope Local Watershed Management Plan 97 -2003 doc.doc
Valerie and Kirk,
Attached are my comments on New Hope's Local Watershed Mgmt Plan for tonight's City Council
Worksession.
Thank you,
Diane Stauner
It's time to go back to school! Get the latest trends and gadgets that make the grade on AOL Shopping
s/1 8/2008
Comments on New Hope Local Watershed Management Plan
August 18, 2008 City Council Work Session
Diane Stauner, Shingle Creek Watershed Commissioner for New Hope
SECTION 2, PHYSICAL SETTING, 2.3 SOILS FIGURE 2.2 Hydrologic Soil Group Classification
Map, Page 7: The majority of the map is greenish yellow that is not defined in the
legends. If Group 8, it should be yellow as the legends indicate for Group B.
SECTION 2, PHYSICAL SETTING, 2.4 GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER Page 8: "The surficial
geology within the City includes primarily sandy till material in the northern one -third of
the City." Eliminate primarily sandy till material in the northern one -third of the City.
Replace with highly variable soil including heavy clay to sandy till. I have not seen
sandy soil in the northern part of New Hope; I have seen tight clay, Group D with slow
filtration. To broadly characterize the north as sandy soils is too general and could lead
to poor planning, since the soils are variable.
This is my understanding of the soils in northern New Hope from the book,
Minnesota's Natural Heritage by John R. Tester.
Deciduous forests formed the Udalf Alfisols in Hennepin County. "The
leaves of many deciduous trees, especially birch maple, and
basswood are rich in calcium and other bases. These bases are quickly
returned to the soil as the leaf litter decomposes. Downward
percolation is much slower because of reduced infiltration. As a result, the
upper layers of the soil become enriched rather than depleted. Forest soils
produced by this process belong to the order Alfisols, which name
reflects the accumulation of aluminum and iron. Alfisols are usually
formed in loam or clay and have a grey to brown color near the
surface. Alfisols have a thick layer of clay, iron, aluminum and humic
compounds leached down form the humus layer and the layer of leaching. "
Minnesota's Natural Heritage by John R. Tester.
New Hope has rolling hills. "Topography influences soil formation in large
part through its effect on water movement. For example, small particles
are carried down hillsides in runoff, leaving the larger sand and
gravel particles on the hilltops. The small particles form deep fine -
grained soils in valleys and depressions ". Minnesota's Natural Heritage
SECTION 7 GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal 7.2.1 WATER QUANTITY AND FLOOD CONTROL, Shingle Creek comments specified
the breakdown of peak discharge limits to Bass Creek and the Twin Lake system. Since
they are both impaired waters and have specific discharge limits, those should be
specified in this document for reference purposes and information that is available to
all. Bass Creek discharge limit is 280 cfs, Twin Lake is 670 cfs.
Goal 7.2.2 SURFACE WATER QUALITY, Policy 3.6, page 40 Include capture and reuse
(cisterns) for irrigation. Enumerate the types of structural treatments available. Lists of
choices help all those involved in city planning and decisions to be aware of and plan
treatment that is specific to the site when faced with new situations, developer plan
changes, or water problems in the area. This document is educational, and is a manual
of best practices for City -wide use, and should have a broad understanding level.
Goal 7.2.2, SURFACE WATER QUALITY, Policy 3.15 "Continue to address the proper
application of pesticides and fertilizers..." include herbicides; these educational
essentials should be listed under Goal 7.2.4, RECREATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT,
AND SHORELAND MANAGEMENT since improper use of these directly affects fish and
wildlife. For example, Rodeo and not Roundup should be used near water bodies.
Goal 7.2.4 RECREATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND SHORELAND MANAGEMENT
Policy 7.1 page 42 "Preserve protected waters and wetlands that provide habitat for
game fish spawning and wildlife to the extent feasible." Eliminate "game ".
Goal 7.2.4 RECREATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND SHORELAND MANAGEMENT
Policy 7.4 page 42 "Management practices shall promote and encourage the use of
streams and rivers as wildlife corridors ". (include lakes). Eliminate rivers. New Hope has
no rivers.
Memorandum
To: New Hope City Council, Watershed Commissioners, and Council Candidates
From: Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Date: August 7, 2008
Subject: Local Water Management Plan
Attached is the draft of the Local Water Management Plan. This item will be discussed at
the August 18 work session. I am providing it in advance to give you ample time for
review.
Also attached please find the following:
• Bassett Creek Watershed Review Comments
• Response letter to the Bassett Creek Watershed Review Comments
• Shingle Creek Watershed Review Comments
• Response letter to Shingle Creek Watershed Review Comments
• Met Council Comments to Shingle Creek Watershed
• Met Council Comments to Bassett Creek Watershed
I have invited representatives from Bonestroo to attend the August 18 work session to
explain the Local Water Management Plan and comments.
•� : =:
Barr Engineering Company
4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435 -4803
Phone: 952 - 832 -2600 • Fax: 952- 832 -2601 • www.barr.com An EEO Employer
Minneapolis, MN . Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO
Memorandum
To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC)
From: Karen Chandler, Tim P. Brown
Subject: Review of New Hope Local Water Management Plan
Date: July 10, 2008
We have reviewed the City of New Hope's updated Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) for
conformance with the BCWMC Watershed Management Plan (Plan)
Overall, the LWMP addresses many of the BCWMC's requirements. The City is to be commended for
developing a well - organized and forward - looking document that will provide the City with an effective
framework for managing the City's water resources and stormwater. Highlights of the LWMP include
detailed issue identification, and implementation planning.
Recommendation: The Commission forward these comments to the City of New Hope regarding the
BCWMC's review of the city's Local Water Management Plan, and the Commission consider approval of
the city's LWMP upon receipt of the city's responses to the issues outlined in this memorandum..
Metropolitan Council Comments
1. The Metropolitan Council recommends that the city consider requiring development and re-
development projects to treat the runoff from the entire site rather than from the new development
or redevelopment area only (L•WMP Policy 3.7),
2, The Metropolitan Council recommends that the city consider a one inch infiltration requirement
instead of the LWMP's yx inch standard (LWMP Policy 5.1)..
The BCWMC urges the city to consider these recommendations for the LWMP (the Metropolitan Council
comments are attached).
The remainder of this memorandum presents specific comments on the New Hope LWMP based on a
comparison of the LWMP with the BCWMC Plan requirements. The BCWMC requirements are shown in
regular font, followed by the comments in italicized font.
1) The BCWMC Plan requires cities to comply with the BCWMC's policy that all regulated
stormwater be treated to Level I standards throughout the watershed (Section 4.2.2.2, policy A).
This requirement is not stated or implemented in the New Hope LWiVIP, Appendix B of the LWIVIP
presents treatment standards but is footnoted to say that some water bodies may be treated at a
lesser standard than Level 1. The LWMP needs to include a policy, and Appendix B needs to be
revised to state that all regulated stormwater runoff within the BCWkIC must be treated to Level I
standards.
Ta: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
From; Karen Chandler, Tim Brown
Subject: Review of New Hope Local Water Management Plan
Date: July 10. 2008
Page: 2
2) The BCWIVIC Plan requires non - degradation (no increase in phosphorus load) for redevelopment
projects that result in increased impervious surface (Section 4 2.2.4, policy A)
The LVV&IP requires a 50 reduction in total phosphorus load with development (Policy 3.6) It
is unclear if this meets the BCWMC standard in general, and a clarifying statement needs to be
added.
3) The BCWMC Plan requires cities to forward development plans for BCWMC review (Section
5.2.2.2 Policy C, and Section 4 2.24, policy A)
The New Hope LWP11P does not appear to acknowledge the BCVVtbIC review requirement.
4) The BCWMC Plan requires cities to classify water bodies into one of four BCWMC management
categories (Level I -- IV) based on water quality goals and recreational uses of the water bodies
(Section 4.2.2.1, policy B).
Policy 3,11 of the New Hope LWNIP generally adopts WHO classifications, and Table 8.4
reiterates this, but the LWMP has no identification of individual water bodies with classifications
and goals assigned. A table needs to be added to the LWMP specifying these classifications and
goals for individual water bodies,
5) The BCWMC Plan requires cities to implement the water quality improvement options listed in
Table 12 -2 of the BCWMC Plan (Section 4..2.2.1, policy D)•
The New Hope LWMP presents project implementation items in Tables 61 and 6.2. However, it
is unclear if any of the projects identified in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 of LWAIP are the .same as the
BCWMC projects identified in Table 12 -2 oj'the BCWMC Plan, since there are no common
numbers or other correlation to the BCWPIC projects. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 need to be revised to
.show which of the projects are from the BCWMC Plan (and thus would receive BCWMC funding),
and specify correlation with the BCWMC individual projects..
6) The BCWMC Plan requires cities to identify the water bodies where water quality monitoring is
undertaken by the city and by others (Section 4.2.2.1, policy I).
The New Hope LVVMP presents no information regarding water quality monitoring data or
monitoring locations; this infonnation needs to be added to the LWMP.
7) The BCWMC Plan requires cities to incorporate the BCWMC's adopted 100 -year floodplain
elevations for the BCWMC's trunk system (Section 5.2,2..2, policy F). (In New Hope, the
BCWMC's trunk system includes the North Branch of Bassett Creek and Northwood Lake.)
The 100 year elevations, or reference to them, are not found in the LWNIP; this infonnation needs
to be incorporated into the LWMP.
8) The BCWMC Plan requires cities to describe existing and proposed city ordinances, permits, and
procedures addressing erosion and sediment control and preparation of erosion control plans
(Section 6.2.2, policy G), and to comply with the BCWMC Plan's goals and policies regarding
erosion and sediment control (Section 6.2.2, policy H).
P :1Mpls\23 MN127123270511WorkFllesWew Hope Plan Review 2008Wew Hope SWMP review memo 07_10 08_flnal.dao
To; Bassett Greek Watershed Management Commission
From: Karen Chandler, Tim Brown
subject: Review of New Hope Local Water Management Plan
Date: July 10, 2008
Page. 3
While Appendix B of the LVYAIP states that no action is deeded regarding the City's erosion
control regulations, no details are presented regarding the city's ordinance or program. This
information needs to be added to the LVVAIP.
9) The BCWMC Plan requires cities to acknowledge the city's responsibility for stream maintenance
and repairs that are primarily aesthetic improvements (Section 7 2.2, policy J).
The LWMP does not acknorvledg' that aesthetic repairs are the responsibility of the City.
Other Statutory Requirements for Local Watershed Management Plans
Along with the above specific requirements from the BCWMC Plan, local watershed management plans
are required to conform to Minnesota law (Minnesota Statutes 103B.235), Minnesota rules (Minnesota
Rules 8410.0160 and 8410.0170), and the BCWMC Plan. The rules (Minnesota Rules 8410 0160) require
(in part) that:
"Each local plan must include sections containing a table of contents; executive summary; land and
water resource. inventory; establishment of goals and policies; relation of goals and policies to local,
regional, state, and federal plans, goals, and programs; assessment of problems; corrective actions;
financial considerations; implementation priorities; amendment procedures; implementation program;
and an appendix. Each community should consider including its local plan as a chapterz.of its local
comprehensive plan."
These requirements are met by the LWMP.
In accordance with Minnesota rules (Minnesota Rules 8410.0100, Subp.. 6), the BCWMC requires that
local plans "...assess the need for periodic maintenance of public works, facilities and natural conveyance
systems and specify any new programs or revisions to existing programs needed to accomplish its goals
and objectives." The local plans must also assess, at a minimum, the following maintenance issues, also
taken from Minnesota rules (Minnesota Rules 8410.0100, Subp. 6):
a The need and frequency for street sweeping of public and private streets and parking lots.
• The need and frequency for inspecting stormwater outfalis, skimmers, sumps, and ponds.
a The adequacy of maintenance programs for stormwater facilities and water level control structures
owned by both the city and private parties.
• The need for other maintenance programs as considerea necessary
These requirements are met by the LWMP.
Besides the above maintenance issues, local water management plans will be required to assess the
following (taken from MN Rules 8410.0100, Subp.. 6):
• The need to establish local spill containment cleanup plans.
a The need for any other necessary management programs.
The LWMP does not appear to address the above t)vo items.
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051 \WorkFi1es \New Hope Plan Review 2008Wew Hope SWMP review memo 07_10_08_final.doc
To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
Prom: Karen Chandler, Tim Brown
Subject: Review of New Hope Local Water Managemeni Plan
Date: July 10, 2008
Page: 4
Table 1. Comparison of BCWMC Plan Requirements with the New Hope LWMP Elements.
BCWMC Local Plan RequirementlExpectation
LWMP Review
Classify water bodies into one of four BCWMC
Policy 3.11 of the LWMP generally adopts
management categories (Level I — IV) based on water
WMO classifications, and Table 8.4
quality goals and recreational uses of the water bodies
reiterates this, but the LWMP does not
(Section 4.2.2.1, policy B).
assign classifications and goals to
Individual water bodies.
Implement (with BCWMC) the water quality
Tables 6.1 and 6.2 in the LWMP present
improvement options listed in Table 12 -2 (Section
the project implementation items.
4.2..2.1, policy D).
However, it is unclear if any of the
projects identified in the tables are the
same as the BCWMC projects identified in
Table 12 -2 of the BCWMC Plan, since
there are no common numbers or other
correlation to the BCWMC projects.
List the impaired waters in BCWMC that affect the city,
Requirement met. However, the final 2008
acknowledge the need for a TMDL study at some point
impaired waters list includes a new listing
in the future, and identify the city's role in completing
for Bassett Creek for fecal coliform; Table
and /or implementing TMDL studies. In BCWMC, the
6.3 in the LWMP should be revised to
impaired waters are Bassett Creek, Medicine Lake,
reflect this new listing.
Northwood Lake, Parkers Lake, Sweeney Lake, and
Wirth Lake (Section 4.2.2.1, policy G) ,
Identify the water bodies where water quality monitoring
No monitoring data or locations are
is undertaken by the city and by others (Section 4.2.2.1,
presented in the LWMP.
policy 1).
Identify any proposed capital improvement projects
Tables 6.1 and 6.2 of the LWMP do not
beyond those listed in Table 12 -2 and Table 12 -3,
mention BCWMC involvement, funding, or
and/or the proposed movement of a water quality
coordination.
Improvement project from Table 12 -3 to Table 12 -2
(Section 4.2.2.1, policy J).
Comply with the BCWMC's requirement that all
This is not stated or implemented in the
regulated stormwater be treated to Level I standards
LWMP. The LWMP requires a 50%
throughout the watershed (Section 4.2.2.2, policy A),
reduction in total phosphorus load with
development (Policy 3.6). It is unclear if
this meets the BCWMC standard in
general, Also Appendix B Is footnoted to
say that some water bodies may be
treated at a lesser standard than Level I.
Comply with the BCWMC's requirement that there be no
This is not stated or Implemented in the
increase in phosphorus load (non- degradation) for
LWMP. The LWMP requires a 50%
redevelopment projects that result in increased
reduction in total phosphorus load with
impervious surface (Section 4.2.2.4, policy A).
development (Policy 3,6), It is unclear if
this meets the BCWMC standard in
general,
Include a buffer policy for land adjacent to water
Requirement met,
resources (including wetlands) (Section 4.2.2 3, policy
A; and Section 3.2.2, policy D).
P:Wpls\23 MN\27\2327051 \WorkF1les\New Hope Plan Review 2008 \New Hope SWMP review memo 07_10_08_flnal doc
To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
From: Karen Chandler, Tim Brown
Subject: Review of New Hope Local Water Management Plan
Date: -July 10. 2008
BCWMC Local Plan Requirement/Expectation
LWMP Review
Acknowledge control and responsibility for shoreland
Requirement met.
regulation (Section 422 3, policy G).
Comply with the BCWMC Plan's goals and policies
Appendix B does not acknowledge the
regarding water quality (contained in Section 4 0 of the
BCWMC review requirement and does not
BCWMC Plan) (Section 4.2.2.2 Policy A, Section
acknowledge the Level I stormwater
4.2.2.4, policies A & C).
treatment requirement.
Identify any proposed changes to the BCWMC flood
Requirement met.
control project system (Section 5.2.2.1, a number of
policies).
Acknowledge city's responsibility for maintaining its
The LWMP does not acknowledge that
stormwater management system, for cleaning the
aesthetic repairs are the responsibility of
BCWMC flood control project features, and for stream
the City.
maintenance and repairs that are primarily aesthetic
improvements (Section 5.2..2.11, policy F, Section 7.2.2,
policy J, and Section 12.4.1).
Incorporate the BCWMC's adopted 100 -year floodplain
The 100 -year elevations, or reference to
elevations for the BCWMC's trunk system (Section
them, are not found in the LWMP.
5.2.2.2, policy F).
Meet the BCWMC's requirement that the lowest floor of
Requirement met.
all permanent structures be at least 2 feet above the
established 100 -year floodplain elevation and
incorporate this requirement into city ordinances
(Section 5.2.2.2, policy J).
Comply with the BCWMC Plan's goals and policies
The LWMP does not acknowledge the that
regarding flooding and rate control (contained in Section
BCWMC reviews are required.
5.0 of the Plan) (Section 5.2.2.2, policies C & N).
Describe existing and proposed city ordinances,
While Appendix B states that no action is
permits, and procedures addressing erosion and
needed regarding the City's erosion
sediment control and preparation of erosion control
control regulations, no details are
plans (Section 6.2.2, policy G).
presented regarding the city's ordinance
or program.
Comply with the BCWMC Plan's goals and policies
regarding erosion and sediment control (contained in
Section 6.0 of the Plan) (Section 6.2.2, policy H)
Complete and update inventories of significant erosion
Requirement met..
and sedimentation areas along the Bassett Creek trunk
system and share this information with BCWMC. Only
those areas identified in such an inventory are eligible
for BCWMC funding (Section 7.2.2, policy F).
Comply with the BCWMC Plan's goals and policies
The LWMP does not acknowledge that
regarding stream restoration (contained in Section 7.0
aesthetic repairs are the responsibility of
of the Plan) (Section 7.2.2, policy N).
the City.
Acknowledge city or BCWMC responsibility as LGU for
Requirement met.
the Wetland Conservation Act (Section 82.2, policy F).
Comply with the BCWMC Plan's goals and policies
Requirement met.
regarding wetland management (contained in Section
18.0 of the Plan) (Section 8.2.2, policy l').
P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\23270511WorkRlesWew Hope Plan Review 2008\New Hope SWMP review memo 07- 10_08_final.doc
To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
From: Karen Chandler. Tim Brown
Subject: Review of New Hope Local Water Management Plan
Date: July 10. 2008
Pace: 6
BCWMC Local Plan Requirement/Expectation
LWMP Review
Describe status of wellhead protection planning, if
Requirement met.
applicable (Section 9.2.2, policy Q.
Each city is required to prepare a local plan. Describe
Requirement met.
city responsibilities set by the Plan policies, the BCWMC
joint powers agreement, or BCWMC board action, and
other responsibilities related to flood control, rate
control, stream restoration, wetlands management,
groundwater, etc (Section 12.1-2).
Identify local flooding problems, potential solutions, and
The LWMP does not mention BCWMC
if BCMWC participation is anticipated (Section 12.4.1).
involvement In, funding of, or
coordination with projects listed in Tables
6.1 or 6.2.
Meet the local plan requirements of the BCWMC Plan
Requirement met.
for local plans (Section 12.4.1, Requirements of Local
Watershed Management Plans).
P:WpIO23 MN\27\2327051 \WorkPilcs\New Hope Plan Review 2008Wew Hope SWMP review memo 07_10_O6_final doc
To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
From: Karen Chandler, Tim Brown
Subject: Review of New Hope Local Water Management Plan
Date: July 10, 2008
Page: 7
A -4 Metropolitan Council
A
Environmental Services
June 3, 2008
Mr-, Mike Welch, Chair
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Organization
c/o Barr Engineering
4700 West 77 Street
Minneapolis, MN 55345
RE: New I -lope Local Water Management Plan
Dear Mr. Welch:
The Metropolitan Council has completed its review of the above plan dated May 2008. The plan is generally
consistent with the CounciPs Water Resources 11bfiagenjentPolicyPlan. and fulfills the requirement fora local
water management plan
There are two policy areas that we would liko•to see reconsidered. First, Policy 3.7 indicates that if a
development increases the impervious area it would need to treat the runoff froln the.new linpervious area, Most
of the runoff from New [Mope goes into an iaspained water. Treating only the Increase In the Impervious area will
probably not improve the water quality enough to elim1now the impairment, and:the city will be faced with
additional runoff reductions eventually. Consegaently,.tho city should consider requiring the whole developed
area to be treated when there is an increase in impervious area, Second, Policy 5.1 appears to apply the Shingle
Creek standard of ireating the first half inch.ofrurioff, from impervious areas on site to the entire city. While
the Bassett Crack WMC does -not. have a:numerical standard for runoff volwne control the WM'C requires the use
of infiltratioa BMPs. Many other watershed drgahizations in the metro area.have recently adopted a one inch
standard for control of'volunte on site- it is recommended that the city consider.a one inch volume control city
wide,
Thank you for the opportunity to:comment on the clty's LWMP. If you have any questions regarding the
CoulfciPs expedtations, please contact Jack Frost, at 651 -602 -1078. After the city adopts its surface Water
management plan, a fnnl copy should be forwarded. to the Council for our records. along with the duws the
watershed management organizations approve the plan and when the city adopts the final plan.
Sincerely,
�i nY
William G. Moore
General Manager, Environmental Services Division
WGM;jf
cc: FeggyLeppik, Council Member District 6
Guy Johnson, City of New4lope
Keith Buttleman, Assistant General Manager, Environmental Quality Assurance
Brad Schleeter, BRA
Denise.Bngen, Metropolitan Council Sector Representative
www.metr aeouacll,org
390 Robert Street North • 3t. Paul, MW SStO1r1805 • 1651) 6D2 -1006 - Fax (651) 602-1477- TTY 1551) 291.0904
AR Bqual aAP^M'^NJ
P:1Mpls\23 MN\27123270511WorkFi1eslNew Hope Plan Review 2008Wew Hope SWMP review memo 07r10_08_final.doc
August 7, 2008
Karen Chandler
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
4700 West 77` Street
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Re: Response to Comments on New Hope Local Water Management Plan
Dear Ms. Chandler:
Thank you for taking the time to review and provide comments on New Hope's draft Local Water
Management Plan. This response letter will address comments provided in both the Commission's review
memorandum dated July 10, 2008. City responses to each of the Commission's comments (in /tal/C� in the
review memorandum are as follows:
1. Commission Comment. , The BCWMC Plan requires cities to comply with the BCWMC's policy that all
regulated stormwater be treated to Levell standards throughout the watershed
City Response: The footnote for the table in Appendix B stating "Requirements are less stringent for
lower level waterbodies" has been removed. Policy 3.17 has been added to the LWMP that states "All
regulated stormwater activities within the jurisdiction of the BCWMC will be treated to Level I
standards."
2. Commission Comment.• The BCWMC Plan requires non- degradation (no increase in phosphorus load)
for redevelopment projects that results in increased impervious surface.
City Response: Additional text in Policies 3.7 and 3.8 has been added to the LWMP that states, "For
site expansion (or redevelopment) projects located within the jurisdiction of the BCWMC that meet
BCWMC project review thresholds and increase the existing impervious coverage, the BCWMC requires
that there be no increase in the existing total phosphorus load from the site."
3. Commission Comment.• The BCWMC Plan requires cities to forward development plans for BCWMC
review.
City Response: Policy 13.9 states "Coordinate proposed development and redevelopment project
reviews with the local watershed management organizations."
4. Commission Comment.• The BCWMC Plan requires cities to classify water bodies into one of four
BCWMC management categories (Level I - -IV) based on water qualltygoa/s and recreational uses of the
water bodies
City Response: Per the recommendation by the Commission, a table has been added to the LWMP that
references the Commission's classifications and goals for individual waterbodies in New Hope within
the jurisdiction of the BCWMC.
5. Commission Comment.• The BCWMC Plan requires cities to implement the water quality improvement
options listed in Table 11 -1 of the BCWMC Plan.
City Response: The projects in Table 6.1 have already been completed by the City. Per the
recommendation by the Commission, Table 6.2 has been revised to reference specific BCWMC projects
from the BCWMC Plan and the BCWMC identification number for these projects.
6. Commission Comment.• The BCWMC Plan requires cities to identify water bodies where water quality
mon /taring is undertaken by the City and others.
City Response: Information regarding the availability of water quality monitoring locations and
monitoring data has been added to Section 2.6. Hyperlinks to access this data electronically have been
provided, where data is available.
7 Comm/ssion Comment.• The BCWMC Plan requires cities to incorporate the BCWMC' adopted 100 -
year f /oodp /a /n e/evat/ons for the BCWMC' trunk system.
City Response: Policy 2.10 has been added to adopt the official 100 -year floodplain elevations for the
BCWMC's trunk system, namely the North Branch of Bassett Creek and Northwood Lake.
8. Commission Comment. The BCWMC Plan requires cities to describe existing and proposed dty
ordinances, permits, and procedures addressing Bros /on andsediment control and preparation of
eros /on control plans, and to comply w/th the BCWMC Plan's goals and pol /c %s regard /ng eros /on and
sediment control.
City Response: Section 6.8 has been added to the LWMP to describe the City's existing erosion and
sediment control program, including the existing ordinances, permits, and procedures for addressing
erosion and sediment control and the preparation of erosion control plans. Deficiencies in the City's
current program for compliance with the BCWMC Plan's goals and policies regarding erosion and
sediment control are also noted in this section, with a corresponding implementation activity (in Section
8) identified as necessary.
9. Commission Comment. , The BCWMC P /an requires cities to acknow ledge the city's responsibility for
stream maintenance and repairs that are primarily aesthet /c improvements
City Response: Policy 12.4 has been added stating that the City will "Provide stream maintenance and
repairs in situations that are primarily aesthetic improvements."
10. Commission Comment Luca/ water management pldris will be required to assess the need to establ/sh
local spill containment cleanup plans
City Response: Policy 3.17 has been added to direct the City to assess the need to develop a specific
spill containment cleanup plan for the City.
11 Commission Comment Local water management plans will be required to assess the need for any
other necessary management programs
City Response: Policy 3.18 has been added to direct the City in accordance with the City's SWPPP, to
assess the need to develop other necessary management programs, as necessary.
Please contact me at 763 - 592 -6766 if you have any questions, We trust these responses will adequately
address the comments presented in the Commission memorandum dated July 10, 2008. Again, thank you
for your efforts in reviewing the City's Local Water Management Plan on behalf of the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission.
Sincerely,
Guy Johnson
Public Works Director
CC. Brad Schleeter, Bonestroo
Shine creek
Watershed Management Commission
3235 Fernbrook Lane N • Plymouth, MN 55447
Phone (763) 553 -1144 • Fax (763) 553 -9326
www.shinglecreek.org
July 25, 2008
Guy Johnson
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Brad Schleeter
Bonestroo & Associates
2335 W. Highway 36
St. Paul, MN 55113
Gentlemen:
The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission considered the Comprehensive Plan update submitted by
the City of New Hope on May 28, 2008. The Shingle Creek WMC has 60 days in which to review and approve the
plan, through July 27, 2008. The Plan was also submitted to the Metropolitan Council for its statutory 45 -day
review. The Commission is required to consider Met Council comments in its review of the Local Plan.
Metropolitan Council comments were received June 3, 2008, and related to runoff treatment and volume
management (see attached). The Commission's responses to those comments are shown below (in italics):
Policy 3.7 indicates that if a development increases the impervious area it would need to treat the runoff from
the new impervious area. Most of the runoff from the City goes into an impaired water. Treating only the
increase in the impervious area will probably not improve the water quality enough to eliminate the
impairment and the city will be faced with additional runoff reductions eventually. Consequently, the city
should consider requiring the whole developed area to be treated when there is an increase in impervious
area. This comment suggests that if "site expansion" or redevelopment creates new impervious surface, the
entire site should be retrofitted with treatment. The City proposes to limit the treatment to the runoff from
the new impervious surface or that part of the site that is disturbed. The Commission rules do not specifically
require that the entire site be retrofitted unless more than 50% of a site is being disturbed by the
redevelopment or expansion. Applicants are required to provide treatment, volume management, and rate
control for the new area and to bring the balance of the site up to standards if possible. Most of the
expansion or redevelopment project reviews that have come before the Commission recently have been cases
where the existing site already has some treatment and rate control that needs to be modified or expanded to
accommodate the site revisions. The City should be clear for Policies 3.7 and 3.8 that if more than 50% of
the site is involved and the site meets Commission project review thresholds, then Commission rules apply
to the entire site and not just the new impervious. Where less than 50% of the site is involved, then the
applicani must make a good faith effort to provide water quality treatment and volume management on the
existing development onsite.
Policy 5.1 appears to apply the Shingle Creek standard of treating the first one -half inch of runoff from the
impervious areas on site to the entire city. While the Bassett Creek WMC does not have a numerical standard
for runoff volume control, the WMC requires the use of infiltration BMPs.
Many other watershed organizations in the metro area have recently adopted a one -inch standard for control
of volume on site. It is recommended that the city consider a one -inch volume control citywide. This
comment encourages the city to adopt a one -inch volume management standard citywide. The TAC recently
reviewed the Commissions' rules and standards and considered increasing the volume management
requirement to one inch, but recommended no change to the current one -half inch. The city may choose to
implement a one -inch requirement.
Review comments were provided by Commission Staff in their memo dated July 3, 2008. At their July 10, 2008
meeting the Commission voted to request from the City of New Hope an extension of time to the Commission's
Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park • Crystal • Maple Grove • Minneapolis • New Hope • Osseo • Plymouth • Robbinsdale
Shine ..reek
City of New Hope
July 25, 2008
page 2
August 14, 2008 meeting, to allow the City to respond to the Commission's initial comments outlined below and
discussed more fully in the attached checklist. The checklist provides an overview of the required elements of the
LWMP update and an assessment of the adequacy of the plan in meeting each requirement.
In general, the draft LWMP provides a basic overview of the city's proposed goals and policies and some updates
from the city's 1996 plan. Aside from the items highlighted in bold in the checklist, the plan must be revised as
follows to meet Commission requirements:
The Plan includes a very limited Implementation Plan. A number of potential responses to problems are
identified, along with some actions of varying specificity. These actions include modifications of local controls,
operating programs, and capital projects. However, there are no cost estimates identified for these activities, no
schedule is set forth, and only a few projects are prioritized. No funding sources are identified, nor is there an
assessment of the adequacy of these funding sources to pay for the identified activities. An Implementation
Plan showing the estimated cost of each action, a schedule for implementation, and potential funding
sources is required by both the Second Generation Plan and state statute and the plan should be revised
to provide this information.
While the Bass Creek biotic impairment is noted in the text, there are no specific goals or policies related to the
maintenance or improvement of Bass Creek, its water quality or its biotic integrity, nor a statement such as
Policy 10.2 provides for Meadow Lake: a recognition that once the TMDL on Bass Creek is completed there
will be an implementation plan of improvement activities that may require the City to amend the Plan. The
Plan should be revised to include policies related to the management of Bass Creek. At a minimum the
plan should state that upon Commission approval of the Bass Creek TMDL Implementation Plan that the plan
will be updated to include those activities.
There is no discussion in the Plan as to whether the city currently meets and will continue to meet peak
discharge limits into Bass Creek and into the Twin Lake system. There is also no discussion as to whether the
key storage areas identified in the Second Generation Plan (and detailed in Table 2 of the LWNIP Update
Requirements memo) are protected or if there is any potential for change in that storage. This plan does adopt
by reference certain technical appendices from the 1996 Plan. If this information is contained in those
appendices and no change is anticipated through the life of this Plan, language should be added to the Plan
stating this explicitly.
At this time, the Shingle Creek Management Commission is requesting from the City of New Hope an extension of
time to August 14, 2008, to allow the City to respond to the Commissions' initial comments.
Please contact Diane Spector at Wenck Associates, 763.479.4280, or despector @wenck.com to discuss your
response to the Commission's comments. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Judie A. Anderson
Administrator
Cc: Diane Spector, Wenck Associates.
William G. Moore, Metropolitan Council
Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council
JAA:tim
Enclosures Z:1Shingle Creek lManagementPlanlLocalPlanslL - commenting on New Hope Plan.doc
Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park • Crystal • Maple Grove • Minneapolis • New Hope • Osseo • Plymouth • Robbinsdale
City of New Hope LWMP Update
Page 2
REQUIREMENT
COMMENTS
NEW HOPE RESPONSE
3. Must describe the existing and proposed
• The LWMP includes a storm sewer map that
hydrology and demonstrate that stormwater storage
shows size and locations of stormsewers, ponds,
volumes and management sector peak outflow rates
treatment devices, and outfall locations.
meet the requirements specified in the WMP. The
• The Second Gen Plan limits peak discharge into
updated LWMP must provide:
Bass Creek to 280 cfs; into Twin Lake to 670 cfs.
a. An updated storm sewer map that shows the
There is no discussion in the Plan regarding
size and locations of storm sewers, locations of
whether the City currently meets those limits,
all outfalls, ponds, and other storage or water
nor if current discharge rates are expected to
quality structures bosh public and private; and
change based on proposed 2020 or 2030 land use.
b. Shingle Creek: A description of how the
• There is no discussion regarding the potential
city will rr eet or not exceed the discharge rates
for change in any of the key watershed storage
in Table 1 and how key storage areas identified
areas identified in Table 2 of the LWMP Update
in Table 2 will be protected.
Requirements memo.
c. West Arfississippi: The Plan should identify
key storage areas and how they will be
protected.
4. Identify how the wetlands functions and value
An inventory and functions and values assessment
assessments required by the Plan will be
was completed in 1999. It will be reviewed to
undertaken.
determine if it is in compliance with watershed and
other requirements.
Include a policy describing how the member city
Includes a policy to work cooperatively with the
intends to protect threatened and endangered species
DNR.
and areas of significant natural communities
identified by t DNR w ithin their boundaries.
5. Assess existing or potential water resource
• The LWMP includes a review of water quantity
related problems and identify nonstructural,
and quality problems as identified locally, in
programmatic, and structural solutions. The
watershed commission and other agency resources
updated WMP must include:
studies, and in TMDLs.
a. An updated list of water quantity problems,
• Table 6.3 lists Impaired Waters in the city or to
including flooding and capacity insufficiencies;
which the city discharges. This table and various
b. An updated list of water quality problems,
places in the narrative discussing Impaired
including recognition of Impaired Waters within
Waters and TMDLs are inconsistent should be
the city;
updated to reflect the approval by the EPA of the
c. Identification of specific nonstructural,
Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL and the Twin and
programmatic, and structural solutions to
Ran Lakes Nutrient TMDL; and the
City of blew Hope LWMP Update
Page 3
COMMENTS
correct each problem; and
d. An assessment of the need and frequency
for sweeping streets and parking lots and for
maintaining outfalls, sumps, and ponds; the
local spill containment cleanup plan; End other
maintenance programs.
6. Summarize the estimated cost of
implementation and analyze the member city's
ability to finance the recommended actions. Must
include:
a. A budget and a CIP and an assessment of
various funding sources and their adequacy.
7. Set forth an implementation program including
a description of official controls, programs, policies,
and a capital improvement plan. The Plan must
include:
a. An implementation program, budget, and
CIP.
b. Reference to the city's erosion control
ordinance, or a plan for adopting such an
ordinance by May 2005.
c. Reference to the city's shoreland
management ordinance, or a statement detailing
how the City intends to comply with the DNR
requirements and timeline.
"underway" status of the Meadow Lake
Nutrient, Bass Creek Impaired Biota, and
Shingle Creek Impaired Biota and Dissolved
Oxygen TMDLs.
s Solutions to each problem are identified in
general. Some solutions are specific capital
projects, some are generalized capital projects
( "Provide habitat restoration... "), and other
solutions are local control modifications.
• The Implementation Plan identifies projects or
activities associated with TMDL implementation.
• The Commission does not have a copy of the
city's SWPPP.
The Implementation Plan does not set forth a
budget and CIP, although a few high - priority
projects are listed in Table 8.2. Local control
modifications have been identified but there is no
schedule set forth as to when they would occur.
There is also no analysis of how the City intends to
fund the cost of the actions in the Implementation
Plan. Costs of all implementation activities
should be estimated and implementation dates
should be identified and set forth as an
Implementation Plan.
• The LWMP includes an implementation
program that identifies official control revisions,
system improvements, and additional other
implementation items. Costs of implementation
activities and tentative implementation dates not
identified. There is also no analysis of how the
City intends to fund the cost of the actions in the
Implementation Plan
• The Implementation Plan does identify
implementation items for the Chloride TMDL and
the Twin and Ry an Lake TMDL. The City
acknowledges that on completion of other TMDLs
the City may be required to undertake additional
NEW HOPE RESPONSE
City of New Hope LWMP Update
Page 4
REQUIREMENT I COMMENTS I NEW HOPE RESPONSE
d. Reference to the city's ordinance or policy
requiring that public easements or other controls
are required to preserve wetlands,
drainageways, floodplains, and open
waterbodies used for stormwater storage.
e. A description of how the city's land use
regulations, programs, policies, practices and
strategies minimize impacts on water quality
and encourage infiltration.
f. A description of how the city's regulations,
programs, policies, practices and strategies
promote and encourage the use of streams and
rivers as wildlife corridors, including where
applicable the city's MNRAA and Critical Area
ordinances and policies.
OTHER ITEMS
management activities.
• There is minimal discussion in the plan
regarding land use regulations and how they
would be used to minimize future impacts to
water resources. The plan notes that the proposed
Stormwater Water Quality Management Cash
Dedication fee would not be imposed on
redevelopment that creates no new impervious
surface as an incentive to limit new runoff.
Policies 3.7 and 3.8 propose that for site expansion
or redevelopment projects, water quality rules apply
only to the runoff from new impervious surface or
site disturbance. The City should be clear on
Policies 3.7 and 3.8 that if more than 50% of the
site is involved and the site meets Commission
project review thresholds, then Commission
water quality, rate control, and volume
management rules apply to the entire site and
not just the new impervious. Where less than
50% of the site is involved, then the applicant
must meet Commission standards on the newly
developed areas and must make a good faith
effort to provide water quality treatment, rate
control, and volume management on the existing
development on site. _
Section 7.2.3 Policy 5.1. Note that the Commission
is in the process of revising the rules to convert the
inch of infiltration requirement into a broader
volume management, which can be provided by
infiltration or othe means of abstraction. Also note
City of New Hope LWMP Update
Page 5
RE UIREME
COMMENTS
NEW HOPE RESPONSE
that the Commission does not have exceptions
from the infiltration requirement for site
limitations based on snow removal or
maintenance issues.
There is no policy 5.3
Section 7.2.5 Policy 9.8. Note that for
development and redevelopment projects that
require Commission review, a buffer is required
adjacent to a protected water, wetland, or
stream, and there are specific management
requirements such as signing and monuments,
p lanting and maintenance standards.
Goal 14, which is about securing adequate funding
seems out of place under section 7.2.7, which is
about public participation and coordination with
other agencies.
Appendix B Comparison of Stormwater
Management Design Standards
Freeboard: The table states that there is no
freeboard standard identified, but the Shingle Creek
Standard is a minimum of one foot of free board
above the low floor elevation (Second Generation
Plan Policy 1.6), or the city's standard (Rule D (3)
(i)), whichever is more restrictive.
August 7, 2008
Judie Anderson, Administrator
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
3235 Fernbrook Lane N
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: Response to Comments on New Hope Local Water Management Plan
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Thank you for taking the time to review and provide comments on New Hope's draft Local Water
Management Plan. This response letter will address comments provided in both the Commission's review
cover letter dated July 25, 2008, and the Commission's review checklist attached to the review letter. City
responses to the Commission's review checklist are attached, with responses appearing in the 3' column of
the checklist. City responses to each of the Commission's comments (in italics in the review cover letter are
as follows:
1. Commission Comment The Citysbould be dear for Policies 3.7 and3 8 that if more than 50°o of the
site is involved and the site meets Commission project review thresholds, then Commission rules apply
to the entire site and not just the new impervious. Where less than 50% of the site is involved, then
the applicant must make a good faith effort to provide water quality treatment and volume
management on the existing development onsite.
City Response: Policies 3.7 and 3.8 have been revised to include the Commissions requirements for
projects meeting the Commissions criteria as outlined in the text above.
2. Commission Comment.• The Plan includes a very limited / mplementation Plan. A number of potential
responses to problems are identified, along with some actions of varying specificity These actions
include modifications of local controls, operating programs, and capital projects However, there are no
cost estimates identified for these activities, no schedule is set forth, and only a few projects are
prioritized. No funding sources are identified, nor is there an assessment of the adequacy of these
funding sources to pay for the identified activities An Implementation Plan showing the estimated cost
of each action, a schedule for implementation, and potential funding sources is required by both the
Second Generation Plan and state statute and the plan should be revised to provide this information.
City Response: The Implementation Section, in particular, Table 8.2 has been expanded to include
additional implementation activities identified elsewhere in Section 8, estimated costs for these
activities, and tentative dates for these implementation activities. Also, discussion regarding available
funding sources for the various implementation activities has been added as Section 8.5.
3. While the Bass Creek biotic impairment is noted in the text, there are no specific goals or policies
related to the maintenance or improvement of Bass Creek, its water quality or its biotic integrity, nor a
statement such as Policy 10.1 provides for Meadow Lake.- a recognition that once the TMDL on Bass
Creek is completed there will be an implementation plan of improvement activities that may require the
City to amend the Plan. The Plan should be revised to include policies related to the management of
Bass Creek. At a minimum the plan should state that upon Commission approval of the Bass Creek
TMDL Implementation Plan that the plan will be updated to include those activities
City Response: In accordance with the City's MS4 Permit, the City will address the approved TMDL
Waste Load Allocations and the implementation activities identified in the approved TMDL
Implementation Plan that affect the City within the context of the City's SWPPP, Policy 10.3 has been
added to direct the City to address all Waste Load Allocations from Approved TMDLs and coordinate
with outside agencies to address implementation items from TMDL Implementation Plans that affect
the City. Due to the number of future TMDLs potentially affecting the City, it is not the City's intention
to update the LWMP to include the TMDL implementation activities upon every TMDL Implementation
Plan approval. Rather the City will update their SWPPP to address the TMDL Waste Load Allocations
and implementation activities, as directed by the City's MS4 permit.
4. There is no discussion in the Plan as to whether the city currently meets and will continue to meet peak
discharge limits into Bass Creek and into the Twin Lake system. There is also no discussion as to
whether the key storage areas identified in the Second Generation Plan (and detailed in Table 1 of the
L WMP Update Requirements memo) are protected or if there is any potential for change in that
storage. This plan does adopt by reference certain technical appendices from the 1996 Plan. If this
information is contained in those appendices and no change is anticipated through the life of this Plan,
language should be added to the Plan stating this explicitly.
City Response: As stated in the Commission's Second Generation Plan, the maximum allowable 100 -
year peak discharge rate from New Hope of 950 ds is based on 2004 land use in New Hope. Since
2004, development and redevelopment activities in the City are required to comply with the City's
current standard to limit proposed discharge rates for the 2 -yr, 10 -yr, and 100 -yr storm events to no
greater than the existing rates (See Policy 1.1). The LWMP includes Policy 2.5 which states that the City
will, "preserve existing storage capacities of City and jurisdictional watershed flood control and trunk
facilities." Per this policy, the existing flood storage volume in areas identified by the City as trunk
facilities or by the jurisdictional watershed as key storage areas will be preserved. Based on these two
policies, the maximum allowable 100 -year peak discharge rate from New Hope of 950 ds identified by
the Commission will be maintained.
Please contact me at 763 - 592 -6766 if you have any questions. We trust these responses will adequately
address the comments presented in your letter dated July 25, 2008 and attached checklist, Again, thank
you for your efforts in reviewing the City's Local Water Management Plan on behalf of the Shingle Creek
Watershed Management Commission.
Sincerely,
Guy Johnson
Public Works Director
cc, Brad Schleeter, Bonestroo
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi WMC
Second Generation Local Watershed Plan Checklist
City:
New Hope
Date Received:
May 28, 2008
60 Day Period:
May 28 — July 27, 2008
Local Contact:
Guy Johnson
Consultant
Contact:
Brad Schleeter
Bonestroo 651- 604 -4801
REQUIREMENT
COMMENTS
NEW HOPE RESPONSE
Organization: Must include (or reference in existing
Plan organization contains this information with the
The Implementation Section, in particular,
plan as unchanged) sections containing a table of
exception of financial considerations. While the
Table 8.2 has been expanded to include
contents; purpose; water resource related
Plan contains an Implementation Plan, it does
additional implementation activities identified
agreements; executive summary; land and water
not provide the information required of an
elsewhere in Section 8, estimated costs for
resource inventory; establishment of goals and
Implementation Plan.
these activities, and tentative dates for these
policies; relation of goals and policies to Local,
implementation activities. Also, discussion
regional, state, and federal plans, goals, and
regarding available funding sources for the
programs; assessment of problems; corrective
various implementation activities has been
actions; financial considerations; implementation
added as Section 8.5.
priorities; amendment procedures; implementation
p rogram; and an appendix.
1. Must describe the existing and proposed
Figure 2.3 illustrates "Proposed Land Use." It is
Figure 2.3 is the 2030 Land Use Plan map
physical environment and land use. Should update
unclear whether this is the 2020 land use from the
from the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
any information that has changed, and at a
1996plan, an updated 2020 land use map, or a
To clarify, the title of Figure 2.3 will be
minimum must include:
2030 land use map form the current comprehensive
changed to "2030 Land Use".
a. An updated current land use map, and
plan.
b. An updated 2020 land use map.
2. Must identify how the goals and policies, and
. The LWMP should cross reference city goals
A comparison of City and Commission
rules and standards established in the WMP will be
and policies in Section 7 with Commission goals
goals and policies has been included in
implemented at the local level. The updated LWMP
and policies and describe how city policies will
Appendix D, highlighting the Commissions
must include:
complement or implement Commission
policies that specifically identify an action
a. A section discussing each of the statutory
strategies.
by the City.
Management Areas detailed in Section 6 —
. Table 8.4 generally describes how certain of the
Management Framework.
city policies will be implemented.
b. Specific goals, policies, and strategies —
including local controls - detailing how the city
will implement or be supportive of the goals,
policies and strategies in the WMP.
I
I: \34 \3406186 \Word \Reports \Final Report\Response to comments\Response to SCWMC checklist comments - draft 080708.doc
City of New Hope LWMP Update
Page 2
REQUIREMENT I
COMMENTS
NEW HOPE RESPONSE
3. Must describe the existing and proposed
. The LWMP includes a storm sewer map that
As stated in the Commission's Second
hydrology and demonstrate that stormwater storage
shows size and locations of stormsewers, ponds,
Generation Plan, the maximum allowable 100 -
volumes and management sector peak outflow rates
treatment devices, and outfall locations.
year peak discharge rate from New Hope of
meet the requirements specified in the WMP. The
. The Second Gen Plan limits peak discharge into
950 cfs is based on 2004 land use in New
updated LWMP must provide:
Bass Creek to 280 cfs; into Twin Lake to 670 cfs.
Hope. Since 2004, development and
a. An updated storm sewer map that shows the
There is no discussion in the Plan regarding
redevelopment activities in the City are
size and locations of storm sewers, locations of
whether the City currently meets those limits,
required to comply with the City's current
all outfalls, ponds, and other storage or water
nor if current discharge rates are expected to
standard to limit proposed discharge rates for
quality structures both public and private; and
change based on proposed 2020 or 2030 land use.
the 2 -yr, 10 -yr, and 100 -yr storm events to no
b. Shingle Creek: A description of how the
• There is no discussion regarding the potential
greater than the existing rates (See Policy 1.1).
city will meet or not exceed the discharge rates
for change in any of the key watershed storage
in Table 1 and how key storage areas identified
areas identified in Table 2 of the LWMP Update
The LWMP includes Policy 2.5 which states
in Table 2 will be protected.
c. West Mississippi: The Plan should identify
Requirements memo.
��
that the City will, preserve existing storage
key storage areas and how they will be
capacities of City and jurisdictional watershed
protected.
flood control and trunk facilities." Per this
policy, the existing flood storage volume in
areas identified by the City as trunk facilities or
by the jurisdictional watershed as key storage
areas will be preserved.
• Based on these two policies, the maximum
allowable 100 -year peak discharge rate from
New Hope of 950 cfs identified by the
Commission will be maintained.
4. Identify how the wetlands functions and value
An inventory and functions and values assessment
assessments required by the Plan will be
was completed in 1999. It will be reviewed to
undertaken.
determine if it is in compliance with watershed and
other requirements.
Include a policy describing how the member city
Includes a policy to work cooperatively with the
intends to protect threatened and endangered species
DNR.
and areas of significant natural communities
identified by the DNR within their boundaries.
5. Assess existing or potential water resource
• The LWMP includes a review of water quantity
related problems and identify nonstructural,
and quality problems as identified locally, in
programmatic, and structural solutions. The
watershed commission and other agency resources
City of New Hope LWMP Update
Page 3
REQUIREMENT I COMMENTS I NEW HOPE RESPONSE
updated WMP must include:
a. An updated list of water quantity problems,
including flooding and capacity insufficiencies;
b. An updated list of water quality problems,
including recognition of Impaired Waters within
the city;
c. Identification of specific nonstructural,
programmatic, and structural solutions to
correct each problem; and
d. An assessment of the need and frequency
for sweeping streets and parking lots and for
maintaining outfalls, sumps, and ponds; the
local spill containment cleanup plan; and other
maintenance programs.
6. Summariz,- the estimated cost of
implementation and analyze the member city's
ability to finance the recommended actions. Must
include:
a. A budget and a CIP and an assessment of
various funding sources and their adequacy.
7. Set forth an implementation program including
a description of official controls, programs, policies,
and a capital improvement plan. The Plan must
include:
a. An implementation program, budget, and
studies, and in TMDLs.
• Table 6.3 lists Impaired Waters in the city or to
which the city discharges. This table and various
places in the narrative discussing Impaired
Waters and TMDLs are inconsistent should be
updated to reflect the approval by the EPA of the
Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL and the Twin and
Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL; and the
"underway" status of the Meadow Lake
Nutrient, Bass Creek Impaired Biota, and
Shingle Creek Impaired Biota and Dissolved
Oxygen TMDLs.
• Solutions to each problem are identified in
general. Some solutions are specific capital
projects, some are generalized capital projects
( "Provide habitat restoration... "), and other
solutions are local control modifications.
• The Implementation Plan identifies projects or
activities associated with TMDL implementation.
• The Commission does not have a copy of the
city's SWPPP. _
The Implementation Plan does not set forth a
budget and CIP, although a few high - priority
projects are listed in Table 8.2. Local control
modifications have been identified but there is no
schedule set forth as to when they would occur.
There is also no analysis of how the City intends to
fund the cost of the actions in the Implementation
Plan. Costs of all implementation activities
should be estimated and implementation dates
should be identified and set forth as an
Implementation Plan. _
• The LWMP includes an implementation
program that identifies official control revisions,
system improvements, and additional other
implementation items. Costs of implementation
activities and tentative implementation dates not
Table 6.3 or locations that are inconsistent
with the 2008 Final TMDL list have been
updated to reflect this list.
The Implementation Section, in particular,
Table 8.2 has been expanded to include
additional implementation activities identified
elsewhere in Section 8, estimated costs for
these activities, and tentative dates for these
implementation activities. Also, discussion
regarding available funding sources for the
various implementation activities has been
added as Section 8.5.
• The Implementation Section, in particular,
Table 8.2 has been expanded to include
additional implementation activities identified
elsewhere in Section 8, estimated costs for
these activities, and tentative dates for these
City of New Hope LWMP Update
Page 4
COMMENTS
CIP.
b. Reference to the city's erosion control
ordinance, or a plan for adopting such an
ordinance by May 2005.
c. Reference to the city's shoreland
management ordinance, or a statement detailing
how the City intends to comply with the DNR
requirements and timeline.
d. Reference to the city's ordinance or policy
requiring that public easements or other controls
are required to preserve wetlands,
drainageways, floodplains, and open
waterbodies used for stormwater storage.
e. A description of how the city's land use
regulations, programs, policies, practices and
strategies minimize impacts on water quality
and encourage infiltration.
f. A description of how the city's regulations,
programs, policies, practices and strategies
promote and encourage the use of streams and
rivers as wildlife corridors, including where
applicable the city's MNRAA and Critical Area
ordinances and policies.
OTHER ITEMS
identified. There is also no analysis of how the
City intends to fund the cost of the actions in the
Implementation Plan
• The Implementation Plan does identify
implementation items for the Chloride TMDL and
the Twin and Ryan Lake TMDL. The City
acknowledges that on completion of other TMDLs
the City may be required to undertake additional
management activities.
• There is minimal discussion in the plan
regarding land use regulations and how they
would be used to minimize future impacts to
water resources. The plan notes that the proposed
Stormwater Water Quality Management Cash
Dedication fee would not be imposed on
redevelopment that creates no new impervious
surface as an incentive to limit new runoff.
Policies 3.7 and 3.8 propose that for site expansion
or redevelopment projects, water quality rules apply
only to the runoff from new impervious surface or
site disturbance. The City should be clear on
Policies 3.7 and 3.8 that if more than 50% of the
site is involved and the site meets Commission
project review thresholds, then Commission
water quality, rate control, and volume
management rules apply to the entire site and
not just the new impervious. Where less than
50% of the site is involved, then the applicant
must meet Commission standards on the newly
developed areas and must make a good faith
NEW HOPE RESPONSE
implementation activities.
• Discussion regarding available funding sources
for the various implementation activities has
been added as Section 8.5.
Discussion and reference to the City's adopted
Design Guidelines has been added to address
how land use regulations would be used to
minimize future impacts to water resources.
The City's Design Guidelines includes a section
related to site planning principles to:
• Minimize total impervious surface.
• Minimize direct connection between
impervious surfaces
• Plant more trees
Policies 3.7 and 3.8 have been revised to
include the Commissions requirements for
projects meeting the Commissions criteria as
outlined in the adjacent comment.
City of New Hope LWMP Update
Page 5
REQUIREMENT
COMMENTS
NEW HOPE RESPONSE
effort to provide water quality treatment, rate
control, and volume management on the existing
development on site.
Section 7.2.3 Policy 5.1. Note that the Commission
. Additional language has been added to this
is in the process of revising the rules to convert the
policy acknowledging a broader stormwater
'/2 inch of infiltration requirement into a broader
abstraction approach to volume management,
volume management, which can be provided by
infiltration or other means of abstraction. Also note
® References to "snow removal" and
that the Commission does not have exceptions
"maintenance issues" as exceptions to the
from the infiltration requirement for site
infiltration standard have been removed from
limitations based on snow removal or
this policy.
maintenance issues.
There is no policy 5.3
. Noted
Section 7.2.5 Policy 9.8. Note that for
. This policy was revised to include the
development and redevelopment projects that
Commissions requirement.
require Commission review, a buffer is required
adjacent to a protected water, wetland, or
stream, and there are specific management
requirements such as signing and monuments,
p lanting and maintenance standards.
Goal 14, which is about securing adequate funding
. Goal 14 is now included under a new section
seems out of place under section 7.2.7, which is
number 7.2.8, titled "Funding ".
about public participation and coordination with
other agencies.
Appendix B Comparison of Stormwater
. The table in Appendix B was revised to include
Management Design Standards
this standard.
Freeboard: The table states that there is no
freeboard standard identified, but the Shingle Creek
Standard is a minimum of one foot of free board
above the low floor elevation (Second Generation
Plan Policy 1.6), or the city's standard (Rule D (3)
(i)), whichever is more restrictive.
V A Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services
June 3, 2008
Ms. Judie Anderson, Administrator
Shingle Creek Watershed Managem®nt Commission
3235 Fernbrook Lane
Plymouth, MN 55447
RE: New Hope Local Water Management Flan
Dear Ms. Anderson:
The Metropolitan Council has completed its review of the above plan dated May 2008. The plan is consistent
with the Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan and fulfills the requirement for a local water
management plan.
There are two policy areas that we would like to see reconsidered. First,.Policy 3.7 indicates that if a
development increases the impervious area it would.need to treat the runoff from the new 'impervious area. Most
of the runoff from New Hope goes into an impaired water. Treating only the increase in the impervious area will
probably xiot improve the water quality enough to eliminate the impairment, and the city will be faced with
additional runolt reductions eventually. Consequently, the city should consider requiring tha whole developed
area to be treated when there is an increase in imperviou4 area Second, Policy 5.1 appears to apply the - Shingle
Creek standard of treating the first half inch of runoff from the impervious areas on sits to the entire city. While
the Bassett Creek WMC does not have a numerical standard for runt Cvolume control the WMC requires the use
of infiltration BMPs. Many other watershed organizations in the metro area have recently adopted a one inch
standard for control of volume on site. It is recommended that the city consider a one inch volume control city
wide.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the city's LWMP. If you have any questions regarding the
Council's expectations, please contact Jack Frost, at 651 -602 -1078. After the city adopts its surface waster
management plan, a final copy should be forwarded to the Council for our records along with the dates the
watershed management organizations approve the plan and when the city adopts the final plan.
S' Celelye 1
William G. Moore
General Manager, Environmental Services Division
WGM jf
cc: Peggy Leppik, Council Member District 6
Guy Johnson, City ofNew Hope
Keith Buttleman, Assistant General Manager, Environmental Quality Assurance
Brad Schleeter, BRA
Denise Engen, Metropolitan Council Sector Representative
www.mctrocouncil.org
390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101 -1805 • (651) 602 -1005 • Fax (651) 602 -1477 • 11Y (651) 291 -0904
AnEquod Opp�un�f an+P��
To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
From: Karen Chandler, Tim Brown
Subject: Review of Now Hope Local Water Management Plan
Hate: July 10, 2008
Page: 7
-4 Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services
June 3, 2008
Nir. Mike Welch, Chair
Bassett Creek Waiershed Management Organization
c/o Barr Engineering
4700 West 77 Street
Minneapolis, MN 55345
RE: New I•lope Local Water Management Plan
Dcar Mr. Welch:
Thu Metropolitan Council has completed its review of the above plan dated May 2008. The plan is generally
consistent with the Council's Water Resources Mtahagement P, olicy and fulfills the requirement for a local
water management plan
'There are two policy areas that we would like-to see First, Policy 3.7 indicates that if a
development increases the impervious area it would need to treat the runoff from the.new iatpervious urea- Most
of the runoff from New hope goes into an Wipaired water. Treating only the increase in the impervious area will
probably not improve the water quality enough to eliminate the impairment, and:4he city Will be faced with
additional runoff reductions eventually. Consequently,. the city should consider requiring the whole developed
area to be treated when there is an iitcreaso in impervious area, Second, Policy 5.1 appears to apply the Shingle
Creek standard of tr6i ing the first half inch ofrudoff, from the Impervious areas on site to the aitlicc city , While
the Bassett Creek WIAC does•not have a.numerigal standard for runoff volwne control the WMC. requires the use
of infiltration BMP9. Many other watershed organizations in the metro area.have recently adopted a one inch
standard for control of volume on site. It is recommended that the city consider.a one inch volume control city
wide.
Thank you for the opportupity to:commgnt on lite olty's.Lwml'. If you have any questions regarding the
Council's expectations, planse- contact lack Frost, at 651.602 -1078. After. Elie city adopts its surface Wafer
management plan, a final copy should be forwarded.to the Council for our recbrds. along with the dates the
watershed management orpnizafions approve the plan and when the city adapts the final plan.
Sincerely,
William G. Moore
General Manager, Environmental Services Division
WGng
cc: Peggy Leppik, Council Member District 6
Guy Johnson, City of New.
Keith Buttleman, Assistant General Manager, Environmental Quality Assurance
Brad Schlecter, BRA
Denise, Engen, Metropolitan Council Sector Representative
www metrocm=c1Larg
390 Robert stmat North • 5t: Paul, MN 55101 -L805 • 1651) 603 -1005 Fax (651) 602 -1477' • '1 (651) 291 -0904
An -1 OPPOMU,BY lAVkj1Vr
P : \Mpls\23 MN\27\2327DS1 \WorkFiles \New Hope Plan Review 2008Wew Hope SWMP review memo 07_10_08_final.doc
�
Local Water Management Plan
Agency Review Draft
City of New Hope
May, 2008
Project Number: 34 -06 -186
�, ' Bonestroo
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary ................................................................................................. ...............................
Section1 —
Purpose and Scope ................................................................................... ..............................1
1.1
Purpose .................................................................................................. ..............................1
City Services ........................................................................................ ...............................
1.2
Scope ..................................................................................................... ..............................1
Hennepin County ................................................................................. ...............................
Section2 —
Physical Setting ........................................................................................ ...............................
4
2.1
Location and History .............................................................................. ...............................
4
2.2
Topography and Drainage ...................................................................... ...............................
4
2.3
Soils ....................................................................................................... ..............................6
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) .............. .............................17
2.4
Geology and Groundwater ..................................................................... ...............................
8
2.5
Climate ................................................................................................. ...............................
8
2.6
Water Resources .................................................................................... ...............................
9
2.6.1
Creeks .................................................................................................... ..............................9
2.6.2
Lakes .................................................................................................... .............................10
3.9
2.6.3
Wetlands ............................................................................................... .............................10
3.10
2.7 Drainage Systems ................................................................................ ............................... 10
2.8 Existing Flood Insurance Studies .......................................................... ............................... 11
2.9 Planning and Development .................................................................... .............................11
2.9.1 Comprehensive Plan ............................................................................ ............................... 11
2.9.2 Land Use ............................................................................................. ............................... 12
Section3 —
Regulatory Setting ................................................................................... .............................14
3.1
City Services ........................................................................................ ...............................
14
3.2
Hennepin County ................................................................................. ...............................
14
3.3
Hennepin Conservation District (HCD) .................................................... .............................14
3.4
Watershed Management Organizations ................................................. .............................15
3.4.1
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission ( SCWMC) ............. ...............................
15
3.4.2
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) .............. .............................17
3.5
Metropolitan Council ........................................................................... ...............................
17
3.6
State Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) ................................. ...............................
17
3.7
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ( MPCA) ........................................ ...............................
17
3.8
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ( DNR) .............................. ...............................
18
3.9
Minnesota Department of Health ( MDH) .............................................. ...............................
18
3.10
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ( EQB) ..................................... ...............................
19
3.11
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) .............................. ...............................
19
3.12
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ......................................... .............................19
3.13
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) .................................................... .............................19
3.14
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ................................. ...............................
19
3.15
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) ................................... ...............................
19
3.16
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ............................................................. ...............................
19
3.17
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) ................................................. .......................I.......
19
ti� Bonestroo
Section 4 —
Related Studies, Plans and Reports ......................................................... ...............................
20
4.1
1996 New Hope Surface Water Management Plan ............................... ...............................
20
4.2
2004 SCWMC Second Generation Watershed Management Plan .......... ...............................
20
4.3
2004 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan ......................................... .............................21
8.4
4.4
2005 SCWMC Shingle Creek Corridor Study ......................................... ...............................
21
4.5
2007 Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) ..............................
21
4.6
2006 SCWMC Water Quality Plan ........................................................ ...............................
21
4.7
2006 Shingle Creek Chloride Total Maximum Daily Load ( TMDL) .......... ...............................
22
4.8
Bassett Creek Main Stem Watershed Management Plan ....................... ...............................
22
4.9
Bassett Creek Park Pond Watershed Management Plan ........................ ...............................
23
4.10
Northwood Lake Watershed and Lake Management Plan ..................... ...............................
23
Section 5 — Water Resources Related Agreements .................................................... ............................... 24
5.1 Shingle Creek WMC Joint Powers Agreement ....................................... ............................... 24
5.2 Bassett Creek WMC Joint Powers Agreement ....................................... ............................... 24
Section 6 — System Assessment ................................................... ...............................
6.1 Stormwater Management Issues Addressed by the City ..........................
6.2 Existing Stormwater Management Issues and Possible Corrective Actions
6.3 Wetland Inventory and Assessment ......................... ...............................
6.4 TMDLs .................................................................... ...............................
6.5 NPDES Permitting Process ....................................... ...............................
6.6 Comparison of Regulatory Standards ...................... ...............................
6.7 Stormwater Quality Management Dedication Requirements ....................
.......................... 25
.......................... 25
.......................... 28
32
32
35
35
35
Section 7 — Goals and Policies .................................................................................. ............................... 38
7.1 General ................................................................................................. .............................38
7.2 Surface water Management Goals and Policies .................................... ............................... 38
7.2.1 Water Quantity and Flood Control ........................................................ ............................... 38
7.2.2 Surface Water Quality .......................................................................... ............................... 39
7.2.3 Groundwater Quality and Runoff Volume Management ........................ ............................... 41
7.2.4 Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and Shoreland Management ....... ............................... 42
7.2.5 Wetland and Lake Management ............................................................ .............................42
7.2.6 Erosion and Sediment Control, Monotoring, and Maintenance ............. ............................... 43
7.2.7 Public Participation, Coordination, and Education ................................ ............................... 45
Section8 — Implementation ..................................................................................... ...............................
46
8.1
General ................................................................................................. .............................46
8.2
Recommended Actions for official Controls .......................................... ...............................
46
8.3
System Improvement Projects and Activities ......................................... ...............................
47
8.4
Additional Implementation Items ......................................................... ...............................
47
8.4.1
Other Possible Implementation Items ..................................................... .............................48
8.4.2
Wetland Inventory and Assessment ...................................................... ...............................
48
8.4.3
Shingle Creek TMDL .............................................................................. .............................48
8.4.4
Twin and Ryan Lakes TMDL ................................................................. ...............................
49
8.4.5
Other TMDL Studies of Impaired Waters ............................................... ...............................
50
8.4.6
City Policy Implementation Items ......................................................... ...............................
50
8.4.7
NPDES Implementation ........................................................................ ...............................
51
8.4.8
Operation and Maintenance ................................................................ ...............................
52
Bonestroo
Section9 —Administration ....................................................................................... ............................... 53
9.1 Review and Adoption Process .............................................................. ............................... 53
9.2 Plan Amendments and Future Updates ................................................ ............................... 53
List of Tables
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 8.3
Table 8.4
Table 8.5
List of Figures
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 3.1
Figure 6.1
Map 1
Appendix
New Hope Population ...................................................................... ..............................4
Soil Survey Data for New Hope ....................................................... ...............................
8
Average Monthly Precipitation, 1971 - 2000 ...................................... ..............................8
Average Monthly Snowfall, 1971 - 2000 ............................................ ..............................8
24 -hour Rainfall Depths and Frequency ........................................... ...............................
9
Impaired Waters in New Hope ....................................................... ...............................
9
Stormwater Management Issues Addressed by the City ................. ...............................
25
Current Stormwater Management Issues and Possible Corrective Actions ......................
28
Impaired Waters in New Hope or Adjacent Communities ............... ...............................
33
Surface Water Management Related Ordinances ........................... ...............................
46
High and Moderate Priority System Improvement Projects and Activities .......................
47
Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL Implementation Measures ................ ...............................
49
City Policy Implementation Items ................................................... ...............................
50
Surface Water System Maintenance Schedule ................................ ...............................
52
LocationMap ................................................................................ ............................... 5
Hydrologic Soil Group Classification Map ....................................... ............................... 7
2030 Land Use Map ....................................................................... .............................13
Watershed Management Organization Jurisdictional Boundaries ...... .............................16
Impaired Map .................................................................. ............................... 34
Surface Water System Map ............................................. ............................... Attachment
Appendix A Joint Powers Agreements for the SCWMC and BCWMC
Appendix B Stormwater Management Design Standards Comparison
Appendix C Water Quality Cash Dedication Methodology
. Bonestroo
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOC AL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Executive Summary
Background
This Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) will serve as a comprehensive planning document to guide the City of
New Hope in conserving, protecting, and managing its surface water resources. This plan has been created to meet
the requirements detailed in Minnesota Statutes 1038 and Minnesota Rules 8410, administered by the Minnesota
Board of Water and Soil Resources. This plan is also consistent with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan
Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan, and the two watershed management commissions having
jurisdiction within the City: Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) and Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC).
This LWMP is organized into sections that generally follow guidance provided by State statute, rules, and the
Metropolitan Council. These sections are described as follows:
• Section 1 identifies the purpose and scope of the LWMP
• Section 2 describes the physical setting; the history, natural resources and land uses within the City.
• Sections 3 through 5 describe the regulatory agencies having jurisdiction in New Hope, and past studies and
agreements related to surface water resources.
• Section 6 presents a collection of the stormwater management related assessments within the City, identifies
recently completed and future stormwater management projects as well as assessments completed by others
that affect the New Hope.
• Section 7 lists the goals and policies identified to address surface water management needs in the City.
• Section 8 summarizes implementation items from the stormwater management related assessment (Section 6)
and the goals and policies listed in Section 7.
• Section 9 outlines the continued administration of this plan.
Relation of Updated LWMP to 1996 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)
The preparation of this plan included a full review of the current surface water system in New Hope, relying heavily
on information from the 1996 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) and City staff input. The intent of this
LWMP update is bring New Hope into compliance with current stormwater management regulatory requirements
and this update will supersede the main text of the 1996 SWMP (Chapters 1 -9). However, the stormwater system
technical information presented in the 1996 SWMP Appendices A -D does not warrant an update and therefore these
appendices are incorporated by reference. The 1996 SWMP Appendices A -D will not be restated in this LWMP, but
rather the 1996 SWMP will stand as a reference document for technical background information regarding the
proposed system improvements. Once adopted, the LWMP Update will officially supersede Chapters 1 -9 of the 1996
SWMP and incorporate by reference the technical appendices A -D of the 1996 SWMP.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan 211 Bonestroo Page I
Current Regulatory Setting
The City has a strong interest in protecting and managing its valuable water and natural resources, recognizing the
relationships between resource protection, land use management, development, redevelopment and fiscal
responsibility. Sections 3 -5 of this Plan identify the context into which the New Hope LWMP is fashioned. These
sections summarize the various regulatory agencies applicable plans, studies, and agreements, influencing the City's
stormwater management program.
System Assessment
Section 6 includes an assessment of the City's current stormwater management system. The assessment identifies
management issues identified by the City, the two watersheds with jurisdiction within the City, and other state and
federal agencies and splits these issues into two categories:
1. Stormwater management issues addressed by the City.
2. Existing stormwater management issues and possible corrective actions.
Goals and Policies
Following the assessment of the City's current stormwater management system, Section 7 identifies the City's goals
and policies for stormwater management. The goals identified in this section represent broad stormwater
management categories aimed at addressing the purposes of stormwater management planning identified in
Minnesota State Statute 10313.201, as follows:
1. Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems;
2. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality
problems;
3. Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surf ace and groundwater
quality;
4. Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater
management;
5. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
6. Promote groundwater recharge;
7. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and
8. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground
water.
The specific policies under each goal will guide implementation of the Local Water Management Plan to achieve the
particular stormwater management goal and provide consistency between the City's policies and the two watersheds
with jurisdiction within the City. The goals and policies in Section 7 reflect those identified in the City's 1996 SWMP,
as well as additional goals and policies necessary for consistency with the goals and policies of State, Regional, and
local watershed authorities.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan .' i3onestroo Page it
stormwater Management Implementation
The Implementation Section (Section 8) of the LWMP describes the specific activities proposed by the City to address
the stormwater management issues presented in Section 6 and implement the policies identified in Section 7. Section
8 provides recommended actions related to the City's official stormwater management controls and a list of system
improvement projects and activities, as well as other implementation priorities.
Appendices
This LWMP will be incorporated into the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update and will be applicable until 2018,
at which time an updated LWMP will be required. Periodic amendments may be required to incorporate changes in
local practices. In particular, changes in the two applicable Watershed Management Plans may require revisions to
this plan.
The LWMP Appendices include the following:
• Appendix A includes the Joint Powers Agreements between the City and both the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.
Appendix B presents the stormwater management standards comparison between the City's current
stormwater management standards and those of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, as identified in their respective Watershed Management
Plans.
• Appendix C provides detailed guidance on how the water quality cash dedication amounts are to be
calculated.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan . �� Bonestroo Page Ili
CITY OF NEW HOPE - L OCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 1 — Purpose and Scope
1.1 PURPOSE
This Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) will serve as a comprehensive planning document to guide the City
of New Hope in conserving, protecting, and managing its surface water resources. This plan has been created to
meet the requirements detailed in Minnesota Statutes 103B and Minnesota Rules 8410, administered by the
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. This plan is also consistent with the goals and policies of the
Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan, and the two watershed management
commissions having jurisdiction within the City: Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC)
and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). This plan may be periodically amended to
remain current with local practices and policies.
Beyond the regulatory requirements this plan intends to satisfy, the LWMP will serve as an update to the main
text (Chapters 1 -9) of the 1996 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). It is not however, the intent of this
plan to update the stormwater system technical information presented in the 1996 SWMP Appendices A -D as
this information does not warrant an update. Therefore, the 1996 SWMP appendices are incorporated by
reference and will stand alone as a reference document for technical background information regarding the
proposed system improvements.
1.2 SCOPE
This LWMP serves multiple purposes including statutory and rule compliance. Minnesota statute 10313.235
defines content for local water management plans. According to the statute's text:
Each local plan, in the degree of detail required in the watershed plan, shall
(1) describe existing and proposed physical environment and land use;
(2) define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths of storm water runoff;
(3) identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance
standards established in the watershed plan;
(4) define water quality and water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance
standards established in the watershed plan;
(5) identify regulated areas; and
(6) set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as
appropriate, a capital improvement program.
Minnesota Rules 8410, written for the Board of Water and Soil Resources, provide more detail on local plan
content. Though the BWSR guidance applies specifically to watershed management organizations, this guidance
has historically been used to frame expectations for municipal plans. According to Minnesota Rules 8410.0160,
local plans must include sections containing:
1. Table of contents
2. Purpose
3. Water resource management related agreements
4. Executive summary
5. Land and water resource inventory
6. Establishment of goals and policies
7. Relation of goals and policies to local, regional, state, and federal plans, goals, and programs
8. Assessment of problems
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan 4f Bonestroo Page 1
9. Corrective actions
10. Financial considerations
11. Implementation priorities
12. Amendment procedures
13. Implementation program
14. Appendix
The reader will find that New Hope has structured its LWMP to provide the information required by 8410
without holding strictly to the outline contained in the rules. Through this document the City provides signposts
identifying where a statutory or rulemaking requirement might be addressed.
The LWMP must also satisfy Metropolitan Council requirements as contained in their 2030 Water Resources
Management Policy Plan. These requirements build on those of Rules 8410. Section 3, Regulatory Context,
presents the expanded requirements.
Beyond state level requirements and those of Metropolitan Council, this plan must conform to the underlying
Watershed Management Organization (WMO) plans. Very often WMOs outline specific content for local plans
that go beyond that required by statute and rule. For the WMOs with jurisdiction in New Hope, the following
local plan requirements pertain:
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC)
Paraphrased from the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions 2 " Generation
Watershed Management Plan (WMP):
1. Describe the existing and proposed physical environment and land use.
2. Describe the existing and proposed hydrology and demonstrate that stormwater storage volumes and
management sector peak outflow rates meet the requirements specified in the WMP.
3. Identify how the goals and policies, and rules and standards established in the WMP will be
implemented at the local level.
4. Identify how the wetlands functions and value assessments required by the SCWM WMC Plan will be
undertaken.
5. Include a policy describing how the member city intends to protect threatened and endangered species
and areas of significant natural communities identified by the DNR within their boundaries.
6. Assess existing or potential water resource related problems and identify nonstructural, programmatic,
and structural solutions, including those program elements detailed in Minnesota Rules 8410.0100,
Subp. 1 through 6.
7. Summarize the estimated cost of implementation and analyze the member city's ability to finance the
recommended actions.
8. Set forth an implementation program including a description of official controls, programs, policies, and
a capital improvement plan.
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC)
General standards for local water management plans from BCWMC Watershed Management Plan
1. Describe existing and proposed physical environment and land use.
2. Define drainage areas and the volume rates and paths of stormwater runoff.
3. Identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance standards
established in the BCWMC Plan.
4. Define water quantity and water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards
established in the BCWMC Plan.
5. Identify regulated areas.
City of New Hope May, 2005
Local Water Management Plan +fir" West= Page 2
6. Set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as appropriate, a
capital improvement program.
This plan is organized as follows:
Section 2: Describe the physical setting; the history, natural resources and land uses within the City.
Section 3: Summary of the regulatory agencies having jurisdiction in New Hope.
Section 4: Identify related stormwater management studies, plans and reports affecting New Hope.
Section 5: Present the water resources related agreements with the City.
Section 6: Present a collection of the stormwater management related assessments within the City, identifying
recent completed and future stormwater management projects as well as other regulatory
assessments to the addressed by the City.
Section 7: List the goals and policies identified to address surface water management needs in the City.
Section 8: Summarize current ordinances and implementation projects and activities planned to implement the
goals and policies listed in Section 7.
Section 9: Outline the continued administration of this plan.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Loral Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 3
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 2 — Physical Setting
2.1 LOCATION AND HISTORY
The City of New Hope is located in Hennepin County in the northwestern portion Twin Cities metropolitan area
about 12 miles northwest of downtown Minneapolis (see Figure 2.1). New Hope is a fully - developed community
comprised of approximately six square miles bordered by 62nd Avenue North to the north, Medicine Lake Road
to the south, Highway 169 to the west, and the City of Crystal to the east.
New Hope was a farming community in the early 1900s. The area was settled as part of the Crystal Lake
Township and became the home for many family farms. As housing developments spread west from
Minneapolis in the 1930s, the new residents of Crystal Lake Township began the movement to incorporate the
township. In 1936, the city of Crystal was incorporated. Forming a city was not supported by all residents in the
township. The rural residents in the western half of the township broke away from the city of Crystal and formed
their own township. The name the farmers selected for their new township was a reflection of the time: New
Hope.
Prompted by rapid development in the early 1950's, the township of New Hope incorporated into the Village of
New Hope in 1953. When the township was incorporated, it had 600 residents. The City grew rapidly and was
the home to over 2,500 people by 1958. This rapid population growth continued through the 1960s, and by
1971, there were 24,000 residents in New Hope. The population of the community has declined slightly since
1971. Population information for the City of New Hope is presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 - New Hope Population
Year
1960'
1p /
3,552
Households
- --
1970'
23,180
- --
1980'
23,087
8,795
1990'
21,853
8,507
2000'
20,873
8,665
2010
22,200
9,300
2020
23,000
9,800
2030
23,500
10,200
US Census Data
2 Metropolitan Council 2030 Regional Development Framework (Updated January 2007)
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE
New Hope is characterized by gently rolling topography common in northwest portion of the Twin Cities
Metropolitan area as a result of past glacial activity. Within this gently rolling topography a number of poorly
drained depressional areas of various sizes exist, supporting the City's wetlands and lakes. Hydraulic connectivity
of these depressional areas exists via natural overland drainageways or where these natural drainageways have
been blocked by development, via manmade conveyance methods. The natural drainage in New Hope splits
between the two watersheds: Shingle Creek to the north and Bassett Creek to the south.
The northwestern portion of the City generally drains northwesterly into Bass Creek, which cuts across the very
northwest corner of the City. Once leaving the City, Bass Creek continues to drain northeasterly and becomes a
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 4
10 0 10
Miles
August 2007
Surface Water
Management Plan
Figure 2.1
Location Ma
/C 7
tributary to Shingle Creek, which is ultimately tributary to the Mississippi River. The northwestern portion of the
City tributary to Bass Creek includes the highest percentage of wetlands in the City. These wetlands represent
the head waters of Bass Creek and most of them are DNR protected waters. In addition to the wetlands in this
portion of the City, Meadow Lake drains west directly into Bass Creek through a system of pipes.
The northeast portion of the City drains primarily via storm sewer into the City of Crystal, and these flows are
ultimately tributary to Twin Lakes. From the Twin Lakes system, flows discharge to Shingle Creek, then to the
Mississippi River. Both Shingle Creek and Twin Lakes are identified as Impaired Waters for various pollutants
and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study has either been completed or will be completed to determine
implementation items to address these impairments.
The majority of the southern portion of the City (Bassett Creek Watershed) drains directly into Bassett Creek via
the North Branch of Bassett Creek. On the west end of the City, Northwood Lake is a man -made lake tributary
to the North Branch of Bassett Creek and receives drainage primarily from Plymouth and a smaller portion of
New Hope. From Northwood Lake, the North Branch of Bassett Creek drains into the City of Crystal and is
tributary to the main channel of Bassett Creek, eventually discharging into the Mississippi River. The remaining
southwest corner of the City drains into Medicine Lake in Plymouth, prior to discharging to Bassett Creek.
2.3 SOILS
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) published the SoiiSurveyofHennepin County, Minnesota in
2004. The soil survey identifies the physical properties of the soils within the county and provides mapping to
identify the locations of the various soils types.
The primary benefit of the soil survey to this LWMP is the classification of various soil types into Hydrologic Soil
Groups (HSG), according to the soil's ability to infiltrate water during long- duration storms. The four hydrologic
soil groups are: Group A — high infiltration, Group B — moderate infiltration, Group C — slow infiltration, and
Group D — very slow infiltration. Figure 2.2 identifies the HSG classifications within the City.
Table 2.2 presents the soil survey data, relates these to HSG classifications, and provides percent of coverage
within the City. In highly urbanized landscapes like New Hope however, much of the existing soil material within
the City has been compacted, mixed, and possibly imported with urban development. Therefore, the variability
and unpredictability of these disturbed soils warrant that a HSG classification identified in the soil survey for any
give soil type be reviewed on a site specific basis to determine the physical infiltration characteristics of the soil.
As identified in Table 2.2, the soils in one -third of the City are not assigned a HSG classification. The soils in the
remaining two - thirds of the City do have HSG classifications; however, as mentioned above the site specific soil
infiltration characteristics should be verified on a site -by -site basis.
Long -time city residents and city staff indicate that the central and southern portions of the city generally
contain tighter soils, and thus have a lower infiltration capacity; whereas the northern portion of the City
generally includes more sandy soils, which have a higher infiltration capacity. It appears that infiltration BMPs
will generally be more likely to succeed in the northern portions of the City, while filtration BMPs with under -
drains may be more appropriate for use in the central and southern portions of the City.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 6
63RD A VE N
<ILYrV SARK
I
;
I J
I
. r i
21 ' 1 l
� sS t AKE RI
49TH AVE N FAIRVIEW AVE N
t
P.
k ; .s "-'
d AVEN
I, _
Surface Water
Management Plan
Figure 2.2
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Classification Map
L Municipal Boundaries
Soil Classification*
A
A/D
B
B/D
*Information from Soil Survey of
Hennepin County
Note: Unclassified areas are
either urban land or open water
per the Soil Survey.
2,500 0 2,500
Feet
August 2007
Sonestroo
i:\34\3406106\Cad\GIS\Figurcs\soils_map.mxd
Table 2.2 - Soil Survev Data for New Hooe
Hydrologic S.
(HSG)
A
.r.
Coverag
73.9
Coverage
of s
2%
Hubbard
. il Sefies Coverage
of t
2%
A/D
62.5
2%
Houghton
2%
B
2058.8
63%
Angus
1 %
Dundas
2%
Hamel
2%
Koronis
< 1%
Lester
51%
Nessel
< 1%
Udorthents
5%
B/D
0.84
< 1 %
Cordova
< 1%
Glencoe
< 1%
Hamel
< 1%
Urban Land'
1043.5
32%
32%
Water'
36.2
1%
1%
TOTAL
3275.8
100%
100%
'Area given no H)U classification in the 1UU4 foil purvey of Hennepin County, Minnesota
2.4 GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER
The surficial geology within the City includes primarily sandy till material in the northern one -third of the City
and loamy till material in the southern two - thirds of the City. This surficial material overlays St. Peter Sandstone.
For additional information, consult the GeologicAtla5: Hennepin County (Balaban, 1989).
New Hope provides water to its customers in cooperation with the cities of Crystal and Golden Valley through a
joint powers organization called the Joint Water Commission (JWC). The JWC has a long -term contract to
purchase treated water from the City of Minneapolis. The water is drawn from the Mississippi River, treated, and
pumped to reservoirs in Crystal and Golden Valley. From there, it is distributed to the cities of New Hope,
Crystal, and Golden Valley.'
2.5 CLIMATE
Climate data for New Hope (Station 215838) are published by the National Weather Service (NWS) station at
Chanhassen, MN. The NWS is a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Tables
2.3 and 2.4 provide a summary of precipitation and snowfall data for New Hope.
Table 2.3 - Average Monthly Precipitation, 1976 -2006
Precipitation(in) 1 1.05 1 0.85 1 2.15 1 2.88 1 3.94 14.84 14.60 14.17 13.44 12.35 12.01 1 1.15 1 33.41
Table 2.4 - Average Month
Snow(in) 0.6 8.0 10.1 11.0
Snowfall, 1976 -2006
Feb Mar Apr Annu,
7.3 9.7 2.5 49.0
'Excerpts from the City of New Hope website, www.ci.new - hope.mn.us
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 8
Rainfall frequency estimates are used as design tools in water resource projects. Rainfall frequencies are
summarized in Technical Paper No. 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of The United States, published by the U.S.
Weather Bureau in 1961. The U.S. Weather Bureau was combined with other agencies in 1970 to form the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Table 2.5 lists rainfall frequencies for New Hope.
Table 2.5 - 24 -Hour Rainfall
Recurrence interval (yTs)
1
Depths and Fre uen
&�4 Rainfall Dep
2.4
2
2.8
5
3.6
10
4.2
25
4.8
50
5.3
100
5.9
2.6 WATER RESOURCES
The City of New Hope has developed around a variety of surface water resources that are both aesthetically and
recreationally valuable to the community, including lakes, wetlands, and creeks. The Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) has regulatory jurisdiction over many of the City's waterbodies defined as Public
Waters of the State. All of the waterbodies identified by the Minnesota DNR as Public Waters are included in
Table 2.6 and identified on Map 1 of this report.
Table
Lakes
2.6 - Minnesota DNR Public Waters
Name
Meadow Lake
in New Hope'
DNR ID
27 -57P
LWMP i
SC -P1.1 B
Northwood Lake
27 -627P
BC -P2.5A
Wetlands
Victory Park Pond
27 -568W
SC -P7.3
Unnamed Wetland
27 -569W
SC -P6.8
Unnamed Wetland
27 -57OW
SC -P6.6A
Unnamed Wetland
27 -628W
SC- P5.5/5.6
Creeks
Bass Creek
-
SC -P4.4
Unnamed Tributary of Bassett Creek'
-
BC- P2.5A/3.15A
'Source: Minnesota DNR PWI Maps and Lists
'Identified in the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Plan as "North Branch of Bassett Creek"
2.6.1 CREEKS
The tributary area to Bass Creek includes the northwest portion of the City, however, the majority of this
tributary area drains through a series of large wetlands, storm sewer, and ditches into Plymouth prior to
discharging into Bass Creek. Only the very northwest corner of the City, including the discharge from Meadow
Lake, is directly tributary to Bass Creek as it drains through the far northwest corner of the City, crossing under
TH 169 and exiting the City of New Hope under 62 Avenue. Proceeding north out of the City, Bass Creek
becomes the headwaters of Shingle Creek, which discharges to the Mississippi River. Bass Creek is designated
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 9
by the MPCA as an Impaired Water for Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (1131), discussed in more detail in Section 6.6
of this plan.
Shingle Creek does not flow through New Hope, flowing north and east of City. However, Bass Creek is tributary
to Shingle Creek, along with the northeast section of the City, draining to Shingle Creek via stormsewer through
Twin Lakes, Shingle Creek is designated by the MPCA as an Impaired Water for Chloride and the
implementation plan for addressing this impairment impacts the City of New Hope's stormwater management
program, and is therefore mentioned in this section. Impaired Waters are discussed in more detail in Section 6.4
of this plan.
In the southern portion of the City, the North Branch of Bassett Creek discharges into New Hope from Plymouth
under TH 169 into Northwood Lake. The North Branch of Bassett Creek flows out of Northwood Lake and
proceeds east through Northwood Park into Crystal, prior to discharging into the main Bassett Creek channel.
2.6.2 LAKES
Meadow Lake, located in the north- central portion of the City, is a relatively small, shallow lake with a surface
area of approximately 11 acres. This lake is an identified DNR Public Water and is also included on the State
Impaired Waters list for excess nutrients (see Section 6.4 for more information). At this time, no TMDL has been
completed for Meadow Lake.
Northwood Lake is located southeast of the TH169- Rockford Road interchange. This lake has a relatively large
drainage area of approximately 862 acres, which includes roughly 780 acres from the City of Plymouth.
Northwood Lake has a surface area of approximately 15 acres. As discussed earlier, this lake is an identified
DNR Public Water and is also included on the State Impaired Waters list for excess nutrients (see Section 6.4 for
more information). At this time, no TR9DL has been completed for Northwood Lake. Bassett Creek WMC
completed the Northwood Lake Watershed and Management Plan for Northwood Lake in 1996, identifying
specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) to improve the water quality within the lake. The BMPs identified in
the BCWMC plan are included in Section 4 of New Hopes LWMP.
2.6.3 WETLANDS
In addition to the traditional stormwater management function of wetlands within the City as an important
means to provide flood storage and reduce runoff rates, the City of New Hope recognizes the water quality
treatment, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic benefit provided by wetlands. Wetland protection and restoration has
become an important City goal to ensure that the City's wetlands are preserved for future generations.
The protection and restoration of wetlands is integral to the City's proposed improvements which aim to provide
additional water quantity and quality treatment upstream of the City's wetlands.
The City of New Hope completed a Wetland Inventory and Management Plan in 1999, including a field
inventory of all wetlands identified in the City and an evaluation of the functions and values of each wetland. To
fully comply with Met Council requirements, this document must be expanded to incorporate the necessary
wetland management standards, including buffer standards. While outside of the scope of this LWMP, it is the
City's intent to revise this 1999 document to comply with Met Council requirements (see Section 6.3 for more
information).
2.7 DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
The majority of the City's stormwater infrastructure was constructed prior to the mid 1970's, and as was the
practice at that time, stormwater management relied heavily on large diameter trunk storm sewer to route
stormwater away from impervious areas quickly and discharge this stormwater directly into nearby wetlands,
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 10
lakes, and creeks. As a result, local stormwater basins providing both rate control (to reduce downstream local
flooding) and water quality treatment (to provide additional protection to downstream natural resources) are not
common in New Hope. Rather, the City's stormwater system discharges large portions of the City's residential
and commercial /industrial areas directly to nearby water resources. A schematic plan of the drainage system was
prepared for this study and is shown on Map 1 attached to this report.
One challenge for the City as a part of this LWMP will be to identify locations where the City's existing
stormwater system can be improved or new features added within existing development or redevelopment
projects. The benefit to the City as a result of these stormwater improvements could potentially include:
• Reduction in localized flooding
• Enhancement and restoration of existing natural resources
• Creation of new natural resources
• Improved water quality in the City's lakes, wetlands, creeks
2.8 EXISTING FLOOD INSURANCE STUDIES
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) updated the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for Hennepin County in 2004. The FIRM map shows all 100 -yr floodplain
boundaries for the county, and includes both the floodway and flood fringe for rivers, lakes, wetlands, and
streams where FEMA has completed detailed engineering studies. Flood elevations are also provided for areas
where detailed studies have been completed. FEMA FIRM maps are identified in New Hope for the following
waterbodies or locations:
• Bass Creek — Panel #27053C0184E
• Meadow Lake — Panel #27053C01 92E
Northwood Lake, North Branch of Bassett Creek, Hidden Valley Park pond — Panel #27053C0194E
• 62 " Avenue discharge to Crystal — Panel #27053CO203E
• Fred Sims Park, Memory Lane Pond (Crystal) — Panel #27053CO211 E
• 36` Avenue discharge to Crystal — Panel #27053CO213E
2.9 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
2.9.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
In response to local needs and State Statutes requirements, the City of New Hope has conducted a planning
process to update its Comprehensive Plan through the year 2030. The Comprehensive Plan is intended to define
the natural environment, land use, transportation, and infrastructure goals of the community as a means of
defining New Hope's future community growth and vision of development and/or redevelopment.
Beyond the desires and needs of the local community, the Metropolitan Council's 2030 Regional Development
Framework also establishes a regional context in which the City of New Hope must define its role and direct its
future. This Regional Development Framework mandates specific regional criteria that must be addressed in the
2030 Comprehensive Plan Update.
z Excerpts from the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 11
2.9.2 LAND USE
Since the 1976 Comprehensive Plan, New Hope has matured to a fully developed community. The City has
undertaken numerous planning efforts since 1976 that have addressed more specific planning topics or issues
such as 42nd Avenue Improvement Study/ 42nd Avenue /City Center Market Study; New Hope Vacant Land
Study Phase I and II, Winnetka Center Market Study, 1998 New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update, Bass Lake
Extension Redevelopment Area, 2002 Livable Communities Study, and 2003 City Center Task Force Study.
New Hope is a fully developed community lacking large undeveloped tracts of land which raises the need for in-
place expansion and redevelopment of land uses. The following map (Figure 2.3) graphically illustrates the
distribution and extent of a variety of land use types in New Hope.'
' Excerpts from the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 12
BROOKLYN PARK
i
F
C
R
0
PROPOSED
LAND USE
I Low Density Residential
Low Density / Medium Density Residentia
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Commercial Mixed Use
Industrial
Pubic & Semipublic
Parks & Recreation
Water
Outside City Limits
D 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
NONTNWIST ASSOC14Ta0 CONSULTANTS INC.
3ase Map: Bonestroo Rosene Andedink & Associates
August 2007
195
GOLDEN VALLEY
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 3 — Regulatory Setting
3.1 CITY SERVICES
The New Hope Department of Public Works manages the City's stormwater infrastructure and is responsible for
the monitoring and maintenance of storm sewers, ponding areas, water quality devices and outlet control
structures. The City Department of Public Works provides the design, operation, and maintenance necessary to
minimize local flooding and improve water quality in the City's stormwater system. Public Works also
coordinates with watershed management organizations and other outside agencies in water resource
management and conservation.
A search of the City's ordinances identified following sections as being related to surface water management
and protection:
Section 4 -25
Shoreland Permit Overlay District
Section 4 -26
Floodplain District
Section 4 -35
Administration — Site Plan Review
Section 5 -1
Purpose and General
Section 5 -3
Permits, Licenses, and Other Charges
Section 5 -7
Drainage
Section 6 -10
Dispersion of Percolating Waters
Section 8 -32
Lawn Fertilizer Application Control
Section 13 -5
Design Standards
Section 13 -7
Required Improvements
Section 14 -50
Sewer, Water, Drainage and Stormsewer Fees
Section 14 -70
Watershed Management Tax District
Appendix D
Floodplain and Wetland Systems District
The Zoning and Subdivision regulations are currently being revised in conjunction with development of the 2008
Comprehensive Plan. The revised regulations will incorporate the goals and policies identified in this Local Water
Management Plan.
3.2 HENNEPIN COUNTY
Hennepin County, originally part of Dakota County, was created in 1851. The County provides many services
within the City of New Hope, including health services and property and vital records.
Hennepin County was the first county to begin groundwater planning in 1988, with authority delegated to the
Hennepin Conservation District. The plan received state approval in March 1994. Although the county has not
formally adopted the plan, the county is proceeding with implementation of many aspects of the plan. In
addition, the County's Department of Environmental Services provides education, outreach, and funding io
individuals and organizations. These programs include the Hennepin County River Watch and the Wetland
Health Evaluation Program.
3.3 HENNEPIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT (HCD)
The Hennepin Conservation District (HCD) was founded in 1949 as a Special Purpose Unit of Government under
Section 103C of Minnesota Law. The original charter of HCD was "to provide a local organization through
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan BOnestro0 Page 14
which land owners and operators may obtain on- the -farm technical assistance with a focus on productive
agriculture. However, the role of HCD has evolved as the landscape of Hennepin County has changed.
Today, HCD is involved in a wide variety of land and water conservation issues including assisting landowners
with sustainable land use to working with municipalities to develop growth management strategies. The
programs and expertise of the HCD seek to strike the balance between natural resource conservation and
responsible economic development
The HCD Mission Statement is as follows: "Facilitate the conservation of water, soil, and related natural
resources through education, technical assistance, and implementation of sound land use practices, in the most
cost - effective manner, for the benefit of current and future generations."'
3.4 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
In 1982, the legislature approved the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, Chapter 103B of
Minnesota Statutes. This act requires all metro -area local governments to address surface water management
through participation in a watershed management organization (WMO). A WMO can be organized as a
watershed district, as a joint powers agreement (JPA) among municipalities, or as a function of county
government. There are 46 watershed management organizations within the metropolitan area. 5
The City of New Hope is divided into multiple drainage basins that flow to two separately managed watersheds.
Figure 3.1 shows the two watershed management organizations with jurisdiction in the City. The powers and
duties of these Minnesota statutory authorities include:
• Approval authority over local water management plans.
Ability to develop rules regarding management of the surface water system.
• Ability to determine a budget and raise revenue for the purpose of covering administrative and capital
improvement costs.
• Regulation of land use and development when one or more of the following apply:
• The City does not have an approved local plan in place.
• The City is in violation of their approved local plan.
• The City authorizes the watershed toward such regulation.
• Wetland Conservation Act administration when designated as the Local Government Unit (LGU) for a
City.
• Other powers and duties as given in statute and joint powers agreements.
3.4.1 SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ( SCWMC)
SCWMC was formed in 1984 and incorporates the northern portion of the City of New Hope, discharging to
Shingle Creek via Bass Creek or the Twin Lakes system. The jurisdictional boundary for the SCWMC within New
Hope includes approximately 2,125 acres and is identified on Figure 3.1.
4 Excerpts from the HCD website, www.hcd.hennepin.mn.us
5 Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources, web fact sheet, www.bwsr.state.mn.us /outreach /factsheets
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 15
ti � TP(�KILYN PAR +_ . Q
p pip
L_f� J I. p J Fp -B ASS O
I
i
i
r
4n 49TH AVE N —J FAIRVIEW AVE Nt'
i
i
A N i
VIA
42ND A VE N
i
p
l_— _— ._--- - - - - -� �
I
i'
i
-
a,.
A
Surface Water
Management Plan
Figure 3.1
Water Management
Organizations Map
L Municipal Boundaries
Water Management Organizations
BASSETT CREEK WMC
SHINGLE CREEK WMC
2,500 0 2,500
Feet
August 2007
Sonestr
I: \34\ 3406186 \Cad \GIS\F1gure \wmo_ map. mxd
3.4.2 BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ( BCWMC)
In 1984, the existing Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission (formed in 1968) revised its joint powers
agreement and created the BCWMC. The BCWMC incorporates the southern portion of the City of New Hope,
discharging to Bassett Creek via the North Branch of Bassett Creek or Medicine Lake. The jurisdictional
boundary for the BCWMC within New Hope includes approximately 1,267 acres and is identified on Figure 3.1.
3.5 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Established by the Minnesota Legislature in 1967, the Metropolitan Council is the regional planning
organization for the Twin Cities, seven - county area. The Council manages public transit, housing programs,
wastewater collection and treatment, regional parks and regional water resources. Council members are
appointed by the Minnesota Governor. 6
The Metropolitan Council reviews municipal comprehensive plans, including this Local Water Management Plan.
The Council adopted the Water Resources Management PolicyP/an in 2005, establishing the expectations to be
met in local plans. The Council's goals focus on water quality standards and pollution control, "to reduce the
effects of nonpoint source pollution on the region's wetlands, lakes, streams and rivers. "'
3.6 STATE BOARD Of WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES (BWSR)
The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) works through local government agencies to
implement Minnesota's water and soil conservation policies. The BWSR is the administrative agency for soil and
water conservation districts, watershed districts, watershed management organizations and county water
managers. The BWSR is responsible for implementation of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and
the Wetland Conservation Act. Staff members are located in eight field offices throughout the state. 8
First established in 1937 as the State Soil Conservation Committee, the agency became part of the University of
Minnesota in the 1950's, transferred to the Department of Natural Resources in 1971, then transferred to the
Department of Agriculture in 1982. In 1987 the State Legislature established the current Board of Water and
Soil Resources. The Board consists of 17 members, appointed by the governor to four -year terms. Multiple state
and local agencies are represented on the Board. In 1992, the BWSR adopted rules (8410), establishing the
required content for Local Water Management Plans. 9
The City is the Local Government Unit (LGU) for the Wetland Conservation Act. The City will continue to
administer Wetland Conservation Act permits.
3.7 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MPCA)
The MPCA is the state's lead environmental protection agency. Created by the State Legislature in 1967, the
MPCA is responsible for monitoring environmental quality and enforcing environmental regulations to protect
the land, air and water. The MPCA regulates New Hope's management of wastewater, stormwater and solid
waste. 10
The MPCA is the permitting authority in Minnesota for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
( NPDES), the federal program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency to address polluted
stormwater runoff. The MPCA included the City of New Hope on the list of cities that must obtain NPDES permit
'Metropolitan Council website, wvrYV.metrocouncii.org /about
Metropolitan Council, Water Resources Management Policy Plan, 2005, p. 27
'Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources, website www.bwsr .state.mn.us /aboutbwsr /whatbwsr
'Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources, website www.bwsr. state .mn.us /aboutbwsr /bwsrhistory
10 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Guide to MPCA Programs, 2007
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan' Bonestroo Page 17
coverage in 2007. New Hope's application for coverage has been developed concurrently with this Local Water
Management Plan. To obtain coverage, the City is required to develop a stormwater pollution prevention
program (SWPPP) to address six minimum control measures:
1. Public education
2. Public involvement
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination
4. Construction site runoff control
5. Post - construction runoff control
6. Pollution prevention in municipal operations
In addition to the NPDES program, the MPCA is required to publish a list of impaired waters; lakes and streams
in the state that are not meeting federal water quality standards. For each water body on the list, the MPCA is
required to conduct a study to determine the allowable Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for each pollutant
that exceeds the standards. The 2006 MPCA list of impaired waters identifies 2,250 TMDL reports needed for
1,297 lakes, rivers and streams in the state. Local governments will be required to incorporate completed TMDL
studies into their surface water management plans. Impaired waters in New Hope are summarized in Table 6.3
in Section 6.4 of this plan.
In response to these multiple regulatory activities, the MPCA published the Minnesota StormwaterManuai
(Version 1.1, 2006), providing stormwater management tools and guidance. The Manual presents a unified
statewide approach to stormwater practices.
Published by the MPCA, the Minnesota Stormwater Manual provides detailed guidance on stormwater
management practices in the region. In particular, low- impact development, better site design, and on -site
infiltration of runoff are recommended to offset the adverse impacts created by additional impervious surfaces.
These runoff volume reduction methods provide multiple benefits, including groundwater recharge, protection of
natural stream banks, reduced nutrient loads to lakes and wetlands, and reduced thermal impacts to aquatic
habitat. Applicable City standards will reference this document for additional design guidance for a variety of
stormwater management practices.
3.8 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR)
Originally created in 1931 as the Department of Conservation, the DNR has regulatory authority over the natural
resources of the state. DNR divisions specialize in waters, forestry, fish and wildlife, parks and recreation, land
and minerals, and related services. The Division of Waters administers programs in lake management, shoreland
management, dam safety, floodplain management, wild and scenic rivers, the Public Waters Inventory (PWI),
and permitting of development activity within public vvaters. A list of the PWI waterbodies identified in the City
of New Hope is included in Table 2.6.
3.9 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (MDH)
The MDH manages programs to protect the public health, incli lding implementation of the Safe Drinking Water
Act. The MDH has regulatory authority for monitoring water supply facilities such as water wells, surface water
intakes, water treatment, and water distribution systems. The MDH also is responsible for the development and
implementation of the wellhead protection program.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 18
3.10 MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD (EQB)
The EQB is comprised of five citizen members and the heads of ten state agencies that play an important role in
Minnesota's environment and development. The EQB develops policy, creates long -range plans and reviews
proposed projects that may significantly influence Minnesota's environment.
3.11 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MNDOT)
MnDOT is the state agency responsible for the planning, improvement, and maintenance of the state's highway
system. MnDOT approval is required for any construction activity within state right -of -ways. MnDOT also
administers funding for qualifying transportation projects completed in the City. Anticipated activities of MnDOT
are periodically published in their State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).
3.12 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
The EPA develops and enforces the regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress;
however the MPCA bears responsibility for implementing many of the resulting programs within Minnesota. The
NPDES program and the Impaired Waters List are both the result of the Clean Water Act, administered by the
EPA.
3.13 U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS ( USACE)
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including subsequent modifications, the EPA and the USACE
regulate the placement of fill into all wetlands of the U.S. In 1993, there was a modification of the definition of
"discharge of dredged material" to include incidental discharges associated with excavation. This modification
meant that any excavation done within a wetland required the applicant to go through Section 404 permitting
procedures. In 1998, however, this decision was modified so that excavation in wetlands is now regulated by
the USACE only when it is associated with a fill action.
3.14 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
FEMA manages federal disaster mitigation and relief programs, including the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). This program includes floodplain management and flood hazard mapping. FEMA updated the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for New Hope in 2004. Section 2.8 includes a list of waterbodies and locations
identified in the FIRM maps, along their map panel number.
3.15 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Formerly
named the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the NRCS provides technical advice and engineering design services
to local conservation districts across the nation. The Soil Survey of Hennepin County, Minnesota was published
by the NRCS in 2004. The NRCS also developed hydrologic calculation methods that are widely used in water
resources design.
3.16 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)
The USGS provides mapping and scientific study of the nation's landscape and natural resources. USGS maps
provide the basis for many local resource management efforts.
3.17 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ( USFWS)
The USFWS works to conserve and protect the nation's fish, wildlife, plants and habitat. The USFWS developed
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) beginning in 1974, to support federal, state and local wetland
management work.
city of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestmo Page 19
CITY OF NE W HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 4 — Related Studies, Plans and Reports
4.1 1996 NEW HOPE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City's 1996 Surface Water Management Plan serves as the basis for this LWMP. The 1996 SWMP identifies,
from a regional perspective, the stormwater quantity and quality improvements within the City to address local
and regional flooding issues, water quality improvement, infrastructure management, stormwater planning, etc.
for future development, redevelopment, and capital improvement projects within the City.
To meet current stormwater management regulatory requirements, the City must update this 1996 SWMP to be
in compliance with the various state, regional, and local agencies with jurisdiction in the City. The scope of this
LWMP includes updates to portions of the 1996 SWMP including:
• Discussions regarding the current regulatory setting in which the LWMP is being prepared
• Assessment of City's stormwater management system, identifying issues and possible corrective actions
• The City's stormwater management goals and policies
• Implementation of the City's stormwater management system
• Coordination between the LWMP and the Water Management Plans of the two WMO with jurisdiction
in New Hope.
The intent of this LWMP update is bring New Hope into compliance with current stormwater management
regulatory requirements and this update will supersede the main text of the 1996 SWMP (Chapters 1 -9).
However, the stormwater system technical information presented in the 1996 SWMP Appendices A -D does not
warrant an update and therefore these appendices are incorporated by reference. The 1996 SWMP Appendices
A -D will not be restated in this LWMP, but rather the 1996 SWMP will stand as a reference document for
technical background information regarding the proposed system improvements. Once adopted, the LWMP
Update will officially supersede Chapters 1 -9 of the 1996 SWMP and incorporate by reference the technical
appendices A -D of the 1996 SWMP.
4.2 2004 SCWMC SECOND GENERATION WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
The SCWMC Second Generation Watershed Management Plan was adopted in May 2004. In the first generation
plan, the Commission established standards in eight management areas, including runoff management,
floodplain management, shoreland management, water quality monitoring, erosion and sedimentation control,
stormwater treatment, wetlands management and groundwater protection. The thrust of the Second Generation
Plan is to establish water resources priorities for the next ten years, identify goals, and determine how best to
achieve those goals. "
Stormwater management implementation items identified in the SCWMC plan impacting New Hope are
included in the System Assessment section (Section 6) of this Plan. The stormwater management goals identified
in the SCWMC plan are incorporated into the Goals and Policies section (Section 7) of this Plan. The City's
" Excerpts from the 2004 SCWMC Second Generation Watershed Management Plan
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan BoneStroo Page 20
implementation plan for the stormwater management items impacting New Hope and goals identified in the
SCWMC plan is included in the Implementation section (Section 8) of this Plan.
4.3 2004 BCWMC WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
The BCWMC Watershed Management Plan was adopted in September 2004 and sets the vision and guidelines
for managing surface water within the boundaries of the BCWMC. The Watershed Management Plan
summarizes the location, history, goals, policies, and implementation tasks of the BCWMC. The BCWMC's
general goals fall under the categories of water quality, flood control, erosion and sediment control, stream
restoration, wetland management, groundwater, public ditches, and public involvement and information. 12
Stormwater management implementation items identified in the BCWMC plan impacting New Hope are
included in the System Assessment section (Section 6) of this Plan. The stormwater management goals identified
in the BCWMC plan are incorporated into the Goals and Policies section (Section 7) of this Plan. The City's
implementation plan for the stormwater management items impacting New Hope and goals identified in the
BCWMC plan is included in the Implementation section (Section 8) of this Plan.
4.4 2005 SCWMC SHINGLE CREEK CORRIDOR STUDY
Completed in August 2005, the intent of this plan is not to prescribe specific improvements, but to develop a set
of standards and principles to be used by riparian cities to manage the Shingle Creek corridor so as to further its
ecological restoration. Although not directly tributary to the Shingle Creek Corridor as identified by this study,
the City of New Hope is within the overall tributary area to Shingle Creek and thus will seek to incorporate the
ecological restoration goals (as they apply to an upstream tributary) into the LWMP.
4.5 2007 TWIN AND RYAN LAKES NUTRIENT TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL)
The Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL and Implementation Plan was approved by the US EPA in November
2007. TMDL study addresses a nutrient impairment in the Twin Lake chain of lakes. The goal of this TMDL is to
quantify the pollutant reductions needed to meet State water quality standards for nutrients in South Twin,
Middle Twin, North Twin and Ryan. The lake system discharges into Shingle Creek, which ultimately discharges
into the Mississippi River. Water quality in North and South Twin Lake is considered poor with frequent algal
blooms while Ryan and Middle Twin Lake have more moderately degraded water quality. North and South Twin
Lakes do not currently support recreational activities while Ryan and Middle Twin Lake partially support
recreational activities.
Wasteload and Load Allocations to meet State standards indicate that nutrient load reductions ranging from 0-
76 percent would be required to consistently meet standards under average precipitation conditions.
Improvements to wetland 639W, internal load management, and reduction of nonpoint sources of phosphorus
in the watershed by retrofitting BMPs would have the most impact on reducing phosphorus load and improving
water quality in the chain of lakes.
4.6 2006 SCWMC WATER QUALITY PLAN
The Shingle Creek (and West Mississippi) Watershed Management Commissions' Water Quality Plan (adopted in
September 2006) is intended to help achieve a Second Generation Management Plan goal of protecting and
" Excerpts from the 2004 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan
73 Excerpts from the 2005 SCWMC Shingle Creek Corridor Study
14 Information from the MPCA website: http: / /www.pca. state. mn. us / water /tmdI /project- twinryan.htmI
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 21
improving water quality. The SCWMC Water Quality Plan is intended to: 15
• Set forth the Commissions' water quality goals, standards, and methodologies in more detail than the
general goals and policies established in the Second Generation Management Plan.
• Provide philosophical guidance for completing water resource management plans and TMDLs; and
• Provide direction for the ongoing water quality monitoring programs that will be essential to determining
if the TMDLs and implementation program are effectively improving water quality.
4.7 2006 SHINGLE CREEK CHLORIDE TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL)
The Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL has been approved by the MPCA and an Implementation Plan has been
completed. The TMDL analysis determined that the majority of chloride in the Shingle Creek watershed is
derived from nonpoint sources including road deicing, commercial and industrial deicing, and fertilizer
application, with the primary source being road salt and salt substitutes applied to the dense network of local
roads and county and state highways in the watershed. The TMDL concluded that an overall 71 % reduction in
chloride load to Shingle Creek must be achieved to meet State chloride concentration standards. Aimed at
reducing chloride loads to Shingle Creek, the Implementation Plan for this TMDL includes tables identifying the
City's current activities and proposed BMPs or activities related to road deicing, grouped into the following
categories:
• Product Application Equipment and Decisions
• Product Stockpiles
• Operator Training
• Clean -up /Snow Stockpiling
• Ongoing Research into Salt Alternatives
4.8 BASSETT CREEK MAIN STEM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Bassett Creek Main Stem Watershed Management Plan (completed for the BCWMC in June 2000)
establishes priorities and provides guidelines for the cities of Plymouth, Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, New Hope,
Crystal, Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, and Minneapolis, the BCWMC, and citizens for meeting water quality goals
set for the Main Stem of Bassett Creek. The BCWMC goal for the Bassett Creek Main Stem is a management
classification of Level III, meaning its water quality should support fishing, aesthetic viewing, and wildlife
observation activities. As part of the Bassett Creek Main Stem Plan, in -pond improvement options and site -
specific structural best management practices for each drainage district were evaluated. However, none of the
recommended in -pond improvement options are identified in the City of New Hope.
The Bassett Creek Main Stem Plan also recommends that an inventory of stream channel erosion sites be
performed in two phases by member cities. Phase I is the acquisition of all existing sources of information
regarding known stream channel erosion. Phase II is a field inventory of problematic stream sites along the
entire length of the creek. Since the completion of the Bassett Creek Main Stem Plan, the City of New Hope has
completed the channel erosion inventory for Bassett Creek. 16
15 Excerpts from the SCWMC Water Quality Plan
76 Excerpts from the 2004 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan, Section 4.3.2.3
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 22
None of the in -pond or in- stream improvement options are identified in the City of New Hope, thus no further
specific action by the City is necessary at this time. However, the Bassett Creek Main Stem Plan echos the
general best management practices recommendations offered for the entire Bassett Creek watershed. These
general BMPs are identified in the System Assessment (Section 6) section of this document.
4.9 BASSETT CREEK PARK POND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Bassett Creek Park Pond Watershed Management Plan (completed for the BCWMC in 2000) establishes
priorities and provides guidelines for the cities of New Hope, Crystal, and Golden Valley, the BCWMC, and
citizens for meeting water quality goals set for Bassett Creek Park Pond. Until a water quality monitoring
program can be established to verify the existing water quality conditions and to monitor the impact of best
management practices on the water quality of the Bassett Creek Park Pond, structural BMPs will not be
implemented.
As discussed above, the City of New Hope has completed a channel erosion inventory for Bassett Creek within
the Bassett Creek Park Pond Watershed. The City did not identify any stream erosion or sedimentation sites
within New Hope. Therefore, no specific action by the City is necessary at this time. "
4.10 NORTHWOOD LAKE WATERSHED AND LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Northwood Lake Watershed and Lake Management Plan (completed for the BCWMC in1996) establishes
priorities and provides guidelines for the cities of New Hope and Plymouth, the BCWMC, and citizens for
meeting water quality goals set for Northwood Lake. The water quality in Northwood Lake, located in the city of
New Hope, has typically fallen below the BCWMC's water quality goals for a Level II management classification.
The results of this study indicate that it may not be possible to meet Level II goals in Northwood Lake. Since the
lake is classified by the DNR as a Class V wetland, it may be appropriate to change the management level of the
lake to Level 111. 18
As part of the Northwood Lake Plan's evaluation of water quality management alternatives, site - specific
structural best management practices, in -lake Improvements, and other BMPs were recommended. These
recommended structural best management practices are generally consistent with the water quality
improvements identified by the City's 1996 SWMP, and a portion of these improvements have already been
constructed by the City. Additional information regarding the water quality management improvement
recommendations identified in the Northwood Lake Watershed and Lake Management Plan is presented in the
System Assessment (Section 6) section of this document.
" Excerpts from the 2004 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan, Section 4.3.3.7
'a Excerpts from the 2004 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan, Section 4.3.3.8
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 23
CI TY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 5 — Water Resources Related Agreements
5.1 SHINGLE CREEK WMC JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
In 1984, the nine cities with land in the Shingle Creek watershed (Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal,
Maple Grove, Minneapolis, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth and Robbinsdale), entered into a Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) to form watershed management organizations charged with certain surface and groundwater
management functions. The joint powers type of organization was selected because the cities believed it
provided the best balance for the establishment of watershed -wide policies and strategies for meeting
watershed management requirements while at the same time retaining the most flexibility and local input at the
lowest cost. In 2006 the member cities adopted an amendment to the JPA that set an "assessment cap" for
general fund purposes. A copy of the amended JPA can be found in Appendix A.
5.2 BASSETT CREEK WMC JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
In 1969, the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission was formed by adoption of a Joint Powers Agreement
between the nine communities in the Bassett Creek Watershed, including New Hope. In accordance with
provisions of the 1982 Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the Bassett Creek Flood Control
Commission revised its Joint Powers Agreement and created the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission.
Its mission is to control flooding and to maintain and enhance the quality of the surface and ground water
resources in the watershed. A copy of the revised JPA can be found in Appendix A.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 24
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 6 — System Assessment
The following section will summarize the assessment of the City's current stormwater management system. The
assessment includes past, present, and future stormwater management issues identified by the City, the two
watersheds with jurisdiction within the City, and other state and federal agencies.
6.1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE CITY
The items presented in Table 6.1 were identified as water quantity or quality issues in the 1996 SWMP or within
the Watershed Management Plans of the two watersheds with jurisdiction within the City and have since been
addressed by the City.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 25
Table 6.1 — stormwater
Management Issues Addressed b the Q
Hstrict ID
StormwateT Issue
Issue Category
Completed
- Rerouted flows along the southern portion of the
Untreated stormwater runoff
lake to the end of the lake furthest from the outlet
2006
SC -A1
discharging to Meadow Lake
Water Quality to maximize inflow residence time
(SC -1
- Installed 4 hydrodynamic separators to remove
pollutants prior to discharging into Meadow Lake
2006
SC -A1
Degraded water quality within
Water Quality, - Excavated 0.6 acre -feet of sediment
2006
Meadow Lake (SC -P1.1)
Aesthetic
Insufficient water quality
- Redirected flows from the low point in Xylon
SC -A2
treatment in District SC -A2
Water Quality Avenue into the pond in Dorothy Mary Park (SC-
1999
tributary to Upper Twin Lake
P2.1) to achieve improved water quality.
- Provide 1.8 acre -feet of flood storage volume in
an Elm Grove Park dry pond ( SC -P3.9) to store
and attenuate peak flows adjacent to this
2006
intersection
Local flooding along 55th
- Redirected the overflow from Elm Grove Park
SC -A3
Avenue North and in the St.
Water Quantity around the west side of St. Raphael's Church,
2006
Raphael's Church parking lot
avoiding the flood location in the east parkin lot
(Crystal)
- Disconnected flows from the intersection of 55th
and Quebec Avenues from the 33 -inch pipe
running through the flood location in the St.
2006
Raphael's Church east parking lot and redirect this
trunk pipe to the west side of the Church
Insufficient water quality
treatment in the Village Golf
- Excavated additional wet volume in the Village
SC -A3
Course pond (SC -P3.2)
Water Quality Golf Course pond (SC -P3.2) to provide greater
1998
tributary to Upper Twin Lake
water quality treatment
Local flooding at the
- Constructed stormwater pond adjacent to 56th
SC -A3
intersection, of 56th and
Water Quantity and Wisconsin Avenues North — Hosterman Jr
2001
Wisconsin Avenues North
I High School (SC- P3.15)
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 25
C" 1
rn r�
a "e a �m ■t e' s
SC -A4
Channel erosion in subdistrict
Water Quality, - Additional rate control provided in constructed
1998
SC -A4.9
Erosion ponds SC -P4.3, SC -P4.9A and SC -P4.913
Insufficient water quality
- Cleaned deposited sediments out of channel
1997
SC -A4
treatment in District SC -A4
Water Quality adjacent to railroad tracks
- Water quality treatment provided in constructed
tributary to Upper Twin Lake
ponds SC -P4.9A and SC -P4.913
1998
Insufficient water quality
- Excavated 1.5 acre -feet of wet ponding volume
SC -A5
treatment in District SC -A5
Water Quality within the CCI pond (SC- P5.14) and redirected
1996
tributary to Memory Lake Pond
adjacent 33 -inch trunk storm sewer into this pond
and Upper Twin Lake
to provide water quality treatment
Excessive discharge rates out
Excavated 10.6 acre -feet of flood storage volume
SC -A5
of District SC -A5 discharging
Water Quantity in the CCI pond (SC- P5.14)
1996
to Crystal
Local flooding at the
- Rerouted storm sewer flows from 42n' and
SC -A5
intersection of 45" and Xylon
Water Quantity Winnetka Avenues away from the trunk system
1999
Avenues.
serving this intersection
- Excavated 1.4 acre -feet of wet ponding volume
Untreated stormwater runoff
in the Pet Hospital Pond (SC -P6.7) and 0.6 acre -
SC-A6
discharge into a DNR
Water Quality feet of wet ponding volume in the Collisys Site
2003
Protected Water (SC -P6.8)
Pond (SC- P6.19) to provide water quality
treatment prior to discharging to SC -P6.8
Untreated stormwater runoff
- Excavated 2.7 acre -feet of wet ponding volume
SC -A7
discharging into Victory Park
Water Quality as part of the Victory Park Pond Improvements
2005
Pond, a DNR Protected Water
project (SC -P7.7) at the inlets from Boone Avenue.
(SC -P7.3)
- Rerouted 24 -inch Boone Avenue storm sewer
Local flooding at the
flows from the south around this intersection to
2005
intersection of Boone Avenue
free pipe capacity at the intersection
SC -A7
and East Research Center
Water Quantity - Upsized the existing 36 -inch trunk pipe to a 54-
Road
inch trunk pipe in East Research Center Road at
2005
the point at which the rerouted flows from Boone
Avenue tie into this system
Local rear -yard flooding east
- Provided additional downstream pipe capacity
BC _ o.1
of Independence Circle
Water Quantity via 27" storm sewer in Independence Circle and
2004
36 storm sewer to the south
Local flooding location for
- Provided an additional 3.2 acre -feet of flood
BC -A2
properties adjacent to Hidden
Water Quantity storage within Hidden Valley Park pond (BC -P2.2)
2003
Valley Park pond (BC -P2.2)
Ravine erosion in subdistrict
- Provided upstream rate control in the St. Josephs
BC -A2.3, contributing
Water Quality, Church regional pond (BC -P2.3) to control
2003
BC -A2
excessive Total Suspended
discharge rates to this ravine
Erosion
2003
Solids load to Northwood Lake
_ Constructed a 36 -inch pipe low flow diversion
+„ +ti„ r +„ +hc ch an nel
parallel o he avi . n prote Shan„"
city of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 26
Oistrict ID
Stormwater
r r Action
Completed
- Excavated an additional 1.4 acre -feet of wet
Insufficient water quality
volume within a series of stormwater wetland cells
treatment of flows discharging
in Hidden Valley Park pond (BC -P2.2) to provide
BC -A2
to Hidden Valley Park pond
Water Quality water quality treatment for the residential area
2002
(BC-P2.2)
and grade school draining to this pond. In addition
to the wet volume provided for settling, additional
biological uptake provided by the wetland
plantings is expected.
- Provided a total of 5.8 acre -feet of flood storage
in the pond in Gethsemane Cemetery (BC -P2.6) to
Local flooding location for
reduce the peak discharge rates to Northwood
1999
BC -A2
properties adjacent to
Water Quantity Lake (BC- P2.5A)
- Upsized the existing outlet for pond Northwood
Northwood Lake (BC- P2.5A)
Lake (BC- P2.5A)to a 3'x7' box culvert
1997
- Upsized 36t Ave. N. pipe from 18" to 24"
between Fla Ave. N. and Ensign Ave. N.
2002
- Excavated 2.8 acre -feet of wet volume in pond
BC -P2.3 (St. Joseph's Church) to provide water
quality treatment prior to discharging to
2005
Northwood Lake (BC- P2.5A).
- Excavated 1.7 acre -feet of wet volume in the 2-
Untreated stormwater runoff
cell pond BC -P2.6 and rerouted flows from Boone
BC -A2
discharging to Northwood
Water Quality Avenue into pond to provide water quality
1999
Lake (BC- P2.5A)
treatment prior to discharging to Northwood Lake
- Excavated 1.0 acre -feet of wet volume within a
3 -cell pond BC -P2.5B to provide water quality
1999
treatment prior to discharging to Northwood Lake.
Rerouted flows from Ensign Ave into St. Joseph's
Church pond (BC- P2.3).
2003
- Re- aligned channel between Northwood Lake
(BC- P2.5A) and pond BC- P3.15Ato improve
1997
13C -A3
Channel erosion between
Northwood Lake (BC- P2.5A)
stabili
Water Quality, - Provided a variety of plantings along the re-
and pond BC- P3.15A
Erosion aligned channel to improve slope stability, provide
1997
a stream buffer, and improve wildlife habitat.
- Re- aligned channel graded with stable grade and
gentle side slopes.
1997
Insufficient water quality
treatment prior discharging
- water quality treatment cell BC-
13C-A3
to Bassett Creek k and Basset
Water Quality P3.27 immediately southwest of the intersection 1996
Creek Park Pond
of 36' Ave N and the railroad.
Local flooding in 36t Ave N
- Increased storm sewer pipe size to 21 " and
BC -A3
between Zealand Ave and
Water Quantity routed pipes along 36" Ave N rather than through 2002
Yukon Ave
development south of 36t Ave N.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan BonestPoo Page 27
District ID Storrawater Issue Issue Category a Ac tion
C ompleted
- Constructed water quality treatment cell BC-
P3.15B (wet volume = 0.2 acre - feet), immediately 1999
adjacent to the re- aligned channel between
Northwood Lake (BC- P2.5A)and BC- P3.15A
- Constructed water quality treatment cell BC-
Untreated stormwater runoff P3.15D (wet volume = 0.03 acre - feet),
BC -A3 discharging to pond BC- Water Quality immediately adjacent to the re- aligned channel 2002
P3.1 5A between Northwood Lake (BC- P2.5A) and BC-
P3.15
- Rerouted untreated upstream flows from
Northwood Parkway (east of Boone Avenue) into 1999
the excavated water quality treatment cell (0.4
acre -feet of wet volume) BC-P3.1 5E
6.2 EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
The following list of items presented in Table 6.2 represent current stormwater management issues or concerns
as identified by the documents included in Section 4 of this plan. It is not the intent of this list to include all of
the current stormwater management issues identified in the watershed documents in Section 4, only those
issues with a possibly corrective action that directly affects the City. The implementation of the possible
corrective actions will be addressed in the Implementation Section (Section 8).
Table 6.2 — Current Stormwater Manaqement Issues and Possible Corrective Actions
SC -A1 I Degraded water quality within
Meadow Lake (SC -P1.1)
Water City,
Quality SCWMC-
WMP
- Pursue golf course fertilizer management education
- Install wetland plantings in pond SC -P1.1 A to increase
biological uptake
- Conduct waterfowl management (shoreline plantings)
- Provide public education regarding stormwater quality,
including proper fertilizer application and the disposal of
yard and pet waste
- Cooperate with the SCWMC to address the nutrient loac
allocation requirements to be included in the future TMDL
Implementation plan
Insufficient water quality treatment - Look for opportunities to construct water quality BMPs
SC -A2 in the basin adjacent to 60 and Water City within the tributary area to the basin adjacent to 60t and
Quebec Avenues (SC -P2.6) tributary Quality Que Avenues P2 ) t
to Upper Twin Lake QQue A�e,.L...s (SC -. _. r 6, .r:butary o Upper Twin Lake
19 This stormwater management issues list only includes those issues directly affecting the City of New Hope, as identified by any of the
documents listed in Section 4, and is not meant to incorporate all of the stormwater management issues identified in the documents in Section 4.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonest Page 28
ID
Category
Possible Corrective Actions
- Reroute storm sewer flows from Winnetka Avenue to the
Insufficient water quality treatment
Water
west end of the Wincrest pond (SC- P3.4), to maximize
SC -A3
in the Wincrest pond (SC -P3.4)
Quality
City inflow residence time
- Excavate additional wet ponding volume in the Wincrest
tributary to Upper Twin Lake
pond (SC -P3.4) to improve water quality treatment efficiency
SC -A3
Insufficient trunk storm sewer
capacity along Bass Lake Road
Water
- Provide additional pipe capacity in coordination with the
City
(56th Avenue North)
Quantity
City of Crystal
- Expand flood storage and restrict discharge out of the 45
SC -A5
Excessive discharge rates out of
Water
Avenue pond (SC- P5.12)
City
- Provide additional flood storage in Sunnyside Park (SC-
District SC -A5 discharging to Crystal
Quantity
A5.19 and SC- A5.21)
SC -A5
Local flooding at the intersection of
Water
City - Provide additional trunk storm sewer capacity in 45'
45 and Xylon Avenues
Quantity
Avenue upstream of the 45th Avenue pond (SC- P5.12)
- Provide additional downstream trunk pipe capacity, see the
42 Ave flood study
SC MC- - Reroute local storm sewer flows along 42 "d Avenues at
SC -A5
Local flooding at the 42 Avenue
Water
low point at the railroad underpass
Quantity
WMP Winnetka Avenue, Quebec Avenue, Nevada Avenue, and
Oregon Avenue away from the trunk system serving this
intersection, see the 42n Ave flood study
Insufficient water quality treatment
- Excavate wet ponding volume in the 45' Avenue pond
SC -A5
in District SC -A5 tributary to Memory
Water
Quality
City (SC- P5.12)
- Provide appropriate water quality BMPs in Sunnyside Park
Pond
(SC -A5.19 and SC- A5.21)
SC -A6
Untreated stormwater runoff
discharge into DNR Protected Water
Water
- Excavate wet ponding volume at the wetland inlets
City
wetland SC -P6.6A
Quality
adjacent to Erickson Drive (SC- P6.6B)
Untreated stormwater runoff
Water
SC -A6
discharge into DNR Protected Water
Quality
City - Construct ponds SC -P6.14 and SC -P6.16
wetland SC -P6.8
Degraded wetland habitat in DNR
- Provide habitat restoration including vegetation
SC -A6
Protected Water wetlands SC -P6.6A
Water
management and diversification, and excavation
ity
and SC -P6.8
Quality
y
- Public education aimed at raising awareness about
wetland habitat
- Lower the overland EOF from this intersection, see 47 and
Flag Avenues flood study
SC -A6
Local flooding at the intersection of
Water
- Minimize upstream catch basin bypass by constructing
city
47 and Flag Avenues North
Quantity
street low points
- Provide additional downstream trunk pipe capacity in Flag
Avenue
Insufficient water quality treatment in
- Provide public education regarding stormwater quality,
-')C-A7
subdistrict SC -A7.4 and SC -A7.5
Water
City including proper fertilizer application and the disposal of
tributary to Bass Creek
Quality
yard and pet waste
- Focus frequent street sweeping efforts in area
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan v j : Bonestroo Page 29
City of New Hone May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 30
Local flooding at the intersection of Water
- Provide additional trunk pipe capacity immediately
SC -A7
Boone Avenue and East Research Quantity
city
downstream of the intersection
Center Road
Increased impervious surface as
watershed becomes fully developed
Water
SCWMC-
- Encourage the reduction of impervious surface by
SC -A1 -A7
will increase the duration and
Quantity
WMP
promoting low impact development principles and strategic
frequency of bank full conditions and
for new development and redevelopment projects
should be addressed and monitored
Standards that have prevented
- New development or redevelopment projects shall not
flooding potential as the Shingle
Water
SCWMC-
increase the existing 100 -year peak rate from the site
SC -A1 -A7
Creek watershed has developed
should be continued or enhanced as
Quantity
MP
-Seek opportunities to provide additional rate control to
development is completed
reduce the 100 -year peak discharge rate from New Hope
- Improvement projects or management strategies shall not
increase the 100 -year elevation of Shingle Creek nor its
tributaries or flood lain storage areas
SCWMC-
- Any fill that impacts flood storage in wetlands or
Shingle
floodplains shall be mitigated with compensating storage
Water quality and stability of Shingle
Water
Creek
within the same subreach or reach
SC -A1 -A7
Creek should be improved
Quality
Corridor
- Enact and enforce standards specifying buffer maintenanc
Study,
adjacent to Shingle Creek and its tributaries
-Work with the SCWMC to develop a Shingle Creek
WMP
Management Plan
- Construct or encourage the construction of streambank
stabilization and habitat restoration projects.
- Calibrate salts readers annual)
- Use the Road Weather Information Service and other
sensors to improve salt application decisions
- Evaluate new technologies on an annual basis, such as
prewetting and anti -icing as equipment needs replacement
- Investigate and adopt new salt products, such as Clear
Shingle
Excessive chloride levels in Shingle
Water
Creek
Lane, where feasible and cost effective
-Maintain good housekeeping practices associated with the
SC -A1 -A7
Creek
Quality
Chloride
TMDL
handling of road salt to minimize the potential for wash -ofl
- Provide operator training
- Stockpile snow away from sensitive areas
- Sweep City streets in late winter to remove as much
residual salt as possible
-Track and report activities in annual NPDES report, provid(
a copy to the Commission.
SC -A1-
General water resource water
Water
SCWMC-
-Work with SCWMC to develop management plans for
0.7
quality degradation
Quality
� WMP
, affected water resources
City of New Hone May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 30
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 31
Water quality in Twin Lake,
-Work with SCWMC to develop a Twin Lake Management
SC -A1-
especially Upper Twin Lake should
Water
SCWMC-
Plan
- Promote good housekeeping practices amongst property
A7
be improved
Quality
WMP
owners in Twin Lake subwatershed
- Wetland mitigation should be provided within the same
subwatershed
- Prioritize wetlands and complete wetland functions and
SC -A1-
Wetland protection and restoration
Water
SCWMC-
values assessment
- Establish buffer strip requirements adjacent to wetlands
A7
Quality
WMP
and watercourses
- Identify wetland restoration possibilities and construct or
encourage the construction of restoration projects
- Construct appropriate water quality BMP(s) in Jaycee Park
(BC -A1.2)
- Excavate wet ponding volume in Northwood Park (BC-
P2.5C)
- Require wet detention, or other techniques that provide
equal degrees of treatment, for all new or redeveloped
properties, where applicable
Insufficient water quality treatment
- Provide public education to residents and lake users on
BC -A1-
tributary to and degraded water
Water
Ci f'
practices that would reduce pollutants
A4
quality Medicine Lake, Northwood
Quality
SCWMC-
- Enforce City ordinances regarding disposal of litter, yard
Lake (BC- P2.5), and Bassett Creek
WMP
waste, and animal waste
and Bassett Creek Park Pond
- Place additional garbage cans adjacent to waterbodies to
p rovide more convenience for disposal of garbage
- Promote stormwater retention and runoff volume reduction
(e.. reduced impervious surf aces) where feasible
- Encourage vegetated buffer strips between maintained
lawns and waterbodies
- Excavate bottom sediment to remove a nutrient source
Local flooding location for properties
Water
- Increase the downstream pipe capacity in Boone Avenue
BC -A2
adjacent to pond BC -P2.2 (Hidden
Quantity
city
out of pond BC -P2.2
Valley Park pond)
BC -A3
Untreated stormwater runoff
Water
City
- Excavate wet ponding volume in pond BC- P3.15C
discharging to pond BC- P3.15A
Quanti
Local flooding at the low point east
- Lower and /or widen the existing overland overflow from
of Winnetka Avenue on Terra Linda
Water
both Terra Linda Drive and Medicine Lake Road, see the
3C -A4
Drive and the intersection of
Quantity
City
Terra Linda flood study
- Work with the City of Golden Valley to provide additional
Medicine Lake Road and Roslyn
Court
downstream trunk pipe capacity in Rhode Island Avenue
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 31
6.3 WETLAND INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
From the 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan, the Met Council requires the City to include the
following in the LWMP Update:
All communities need to include a wetland management plan or a process and timeline to prepare a plan.
At a minimum, the wetland management plan should incorporate a function and value assessment for
wetlands. Other items to address in the plan include the pretreatment of stormwater prior to discharge into
all wetland types, and the use of native vegetation as buffers for high quality wetlands. Buffers should be
consistent with the functions and values identified in the plan.
Both the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Plan and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Plan also
identify in watershed policy statements that the City complete a wetland inventory and assess wetland functions
and values.
The City of New Hope completed a Wetland Inventory and Management Plan in 1999, including a field
inventory of all wetlands identified in the City and an evaluation of the functions and values of each wetland. Tc
fully comply with the requirements outlined above, this document must be expanded to incorporate the
necessary wetland management standards, including buffer standards. While outside of the scope of this LWMP
Update, it is the City's intent to revise this 1999 document to comply with Met Council requirements. Details
regarding implementation process necessary to revise the 1999 document are included in Section 8.4.2.
6.4 TMDLS
Three waterbodies within the City of New Hope are currently identified on the state list of Impaired Waters: Bass
Creek, Meadow Lake, and Northwood Lake. In addition, seven other waterbodies in adjacent communities
receiving discharge from New Hope are currently identified on the state list of Impaired Waters: Bassett Creek,
Shingle Creek, Upper Twin Lake, Middle Twin Lake, Lower Twin Lake, Ryan Lake, and Medicine Lake. The list of
Impaired Waters is known as the 303(d) list from the applicable section of the Federal Clean Water Act, these
waters are ones that do not currently meet their designated use due to the impact of a particular pollutant or
stressor. If monitoring and assessment indicate that a waterbody is impaired by one or more pollutants, it is
placed on the list. At some point a strategy would be developed that would lead to attainment of the applicable
water quality standard. The process of developing this strategy is commonly known as the Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) process and involves the following phases:
1. Assessment and listing
2. TMDL study
3. Implementation plan development and implementation
4. Monitoring of the effectiveness of implementation efforts
Responsibility for implementing the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act falls to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. In Minnesota, the EPA delegates much of the program responsibility to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Information on the MPCA program can be obtained at the following web
address: http: / /www.pca. state .mn.us /water /tmdl /index.html
The following is an excerpt from the MPCA website describing the program and its need:
The Clean Water Act requires states to publish, every two years, an updated list of streams and lakes
that are not meeting their designated uses because of excess pollutants. The list, known as the 303(d)
list, is based on violations of water quality standards and is organized by river basin. Environmental
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 32
organizations and citizen groups have sued the EPA because states have not made adequate progress
to meet Section 303(d) requirements. The EPA has been sued for various reasons. Over the past 10
years, lawsuits have been filed in 42 states and the District of Columbia. Of those, 22 have been
successful. There is currently no such lawsuit in Minnesota. However, beyond the federal requirements,
there are many reasons for us to move forward with the development of TMDLs. Foremost is the need
to clean up our rivers, streams and lakes to maximize their contributions to the state's economy and
quality of life and to protect them as a resource for future generations.
For each pollutant that causes a water body to fail to meet state water quality standards, the federal
Clean Water Act requires the MPCA to conduct a TMDL study. A TMDL study identifies both point and
nonpoint sources of each pollutant that fails to meet water quality standards. Water quality sampling
and computer modeling determine how much each pollutant source must reduce its contribution to
assure the water quality standard is met. Rivers and streams may have several TMDLs, each one
determining the limit for a different pollutant.
Impaired waters within New Hope or adjacent communities are identified on Figure 6.1, with additional
information summarized in Table 6.3 below.
Table 6.3
Impaired Water
Bass Creek: Headwaters to Eagle Creek
- Impaired Waters in New
Affected use
Aquatic life
Hope or adjacent Communities'
Pollutant
Start
Fish IBI 2008
Completion
2015
Study
Underway
Bassett Creek: Medicine Lake to
Mississippi River
Aquatic life
Fish IBI
2006
2009
Underway
Shingle Creek: Headwaters to
Mississippi River'
Aquatic life
Chloride
2002
2006
Approved
Invertebrate IBI 2013 2015
Underway
Low Oxygen 2004 2006
Underway
Lower Twin Lake'
Aquatic recreation
Excess nutrients
2003
2005
Underway
Meadow Lake
Aquatic recreation
Excess nutrients
2008
2012
Underway
Medicine Lake'
Aquatic Recreation
Excess nutrients
2005
2008
Not Underway
Aquatic Consumption
Mercury FCA 1999 2011
Approved
Middle Twin Lake'
Aquatic recreation
Excess nutrients
2003
2005
Underway
Northwood Lake
Aquatic recreation
Excess nutrients
2010
2014
Not Underway
Ryan Lake'
Aquatic recreation
Excess nutrients
2003
2005
Approved
Twin Lakes'
Aquatic Consumption
Mercury FCA
1999
2011
Approved
PCB FCA 2002 2015
Underway
Upper Twin Lake'
Aquatic recreation
Excess nutrients
2003
2005
Approved
'From final MPCA 2006
303(d) List
'Impaired Water located in an adjacent community
The absence of a waterbody from the 303(d) list does not necessarily mean the waterbody is meeting its
designated uses. It may be that it has either not been sampled or there is not enough data to make an
impairment determination.
While not directly within the City, the City of New Hope is within the implementation area of the Shingle Creek
Chloride TMDL and the Twin and Ryan Lakes Excess Nutrients TMDL. Both of these studies have recently been
completed and the Implementation Plans affect the City. Additional information regarding the Twin and Ryan
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 33
Surface Water
Management Plan
Figure 6.1
Impaired Waters
Map
(_ Municipal Boundaries
Impaired Lakes
— Impaired Streams
2,500 0 2,500
Feet
August 2007 t
�I
I: \34\ 3406186\ Cad \GIS \Fgures \im pal red_watem. mxd
Lakes Excess Nutrients TMDL and the Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL is presented in the Sections 4.5 and 4.7,
respectively.
Discussion regarding the status of the TMDL studies addressing the impairments for the waterbodies listed in
Table 6.3 is presented in the implementation section (Section 8) of the LWMP. This section will also identify how
the City intends to be involved in the development of the TMDLs and the City's strategy for implementing the
plans.
6.5 NPDES PERMITTING PROCESS
The MPCA has designated the City of New Hope as an NPDES Phase II MS4 community (MN Rules 7090). New
Hope's application for permit coverage was completed in May, 2006. The permit application outlined New
Hope's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address six minimum control measures:
1. Public education
2. Public involvement
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination
4. Construction site runoff control
5. Post - construction runoff control
6. Pollution prevention in municipal operations
The City's SWPPP contains several best management practices within each of the listed control measures. These
were identified using a self - evaluation and input process with City staff. The City's permit application was
submitted to the MPCA prior to the June 1, 2006 deadline. The City's SWPPP was on public notice from April 7`
— May 8 2008.
Many of the goals and policies discussed in this Local Water Management Plan are directly related to
requirements listed in the NPDES program. As a result, the Goals and Policies section of this plan repeatedly
references items listed in the City's SWPPP.
6.6 COMPARISON OF REGULATORY STANDARDS
Development and redevelopment within New Hope is subject to review and approval from one of the two
watershed management organizations covering the City. Each watershed has established rules governing
stormwater management and protection of natural resources. The table in Appendix B provides an overview of
current watershed standards, as compared to the current City stormwater management standards. Where the
City's standards are not consistent with watershed standards, recommended actions to bring the City's
standards into consistency with the watershed are provided.
6.7 STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
Greater impervious coverage associated with new development, redevelopment, or site expansion activity places
additional burdens on the storm drainage system by increasing the rate and volume of runoff. This in turn
increases the amounts of pollutants exported from a development site. Existing or expanded storm drainage
systems needed to serve the developed area provide an efficient means of delivering these higher pollutant
loads to downstream receiving waters. Unless these pollutant loads are reduced, downstream receiving waters
will be degraded over time as a result of development.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 35
New Hope recognizes its responsibility to protect City water resources from adverse impacts due to increases in
land use intensity caused by new development, redevelopment, and site expansion. To minimize the impacts of
development on New Hope's valuable water resources, new development, redevelopment, and site expansion
activity shall be subject to water quality mitigation requirements as outlined in Section 7.2.2.
In general, mitigation measures shall be required for future development, redevelopment, and site expansion
activities that increase the existing impervious coverage of the site to achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in
total phosphorus and an 80 percent reduction in total suspended solids in the post - development condition.
Regional as well as on -site mitigation measures to reduce pollutant export can both be used to treat
stormwater. This plan also includes provisions for collecting water quality cash dedications under certain
situations and dedication of the revenue from such collections to help finance stormwater quality and wetland -
related system improvements. The following is intended to better define under what conditions the City can
collect a cash dedication and how it will be calculated:
1. The City has the discretion of requiring water quality cash dedication for all or a portion of the pollutant
removal targets for total phosphorus and total suspended solids. In exercising its discretion, the City will
consider such factors as:
• Topographic suitability of the site for water quality treatment features,
• the size of the site,
• the location of the site relative to sensitive resources or system components that require
protection,
• whether public improvements have been or will be made off -site for the expressed
purpose of mitigating the water quality impacts of the development,
• the extent to which the development has paid for mitigation already for the site, and
• consistency with watershed management organization requirements.
2. The amount of the cash dedication will be based on the size of a hypothetical treatment pond with a
wet volume sufficient to contain the runoff from a 2.5" rainfall event from the project.
3. For redevelopment or site expansion projects, when the impervious area on the site is increased above
the condition prior to redevelopment or site expansion by any amount, the cash dedication will be
determined as if the original condition of the site was undeveloped. The purpose of this standard is to
discourage increases in impervious coverage for redevelopment or site expansion projects.
4. The City Council each year should adopt a unit land area price for each general type of land use, a unit
pond volume price, and an appurtenance price that will be applied to the area and wet volume of the
pond at normal water level. The sum of all three components will be the total cash dedication for the
project. For the year 2008, the recommended rates are as follows:
5. Cost per acre of calculated wet pond surface area for specific land use types:
• Residential and Institutional
• Commercial /Industrial
• Unit pond volume cost
• Appurtenance cost (outlet, skimmer, etc.)
City of New Hope
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo
$150,000 /ac.
$200,000 /ac.
$4 yd'
20% of the sum of the land and pond
volume cost or $4,000, which ever is
less.
May, 2008
Page 36
The proceeds from the cash dedication will be ear - marked exclusively to finance water quality and
wetland management improvements in the City. Example cash dedication amounts based on this
procedure are as follows:
Development Description Cash Dedication
• Two acre new medium density residential development (50 percent impervious) - $21,000
Three acre commercial redevelopment project (impervious increase from 75 percent to 80 percent) -
$52,000
• Two acre commercial redevelopment project, no impervious increase - $0
Detailed guidance on how cash dedication amounts are to be calculated, using the above examples as
a basis, is included in Appendix C.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 37
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LO WATER MANAGEMENT P
Section 7 — Goals and Policies
7.1 GENERAL
This section outlines the City's goals and policies for stormwater management. The goals identified in this
section represent broad stormwater management categories aimed at addressing the purposes of stormwater
management planning identified in Minnesota State Statute 10313.201, as follows:
1. Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems;
2. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality
problems;
3. Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater
quality;
4. Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater
management;
5. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
6. Promote groundwater recharge;
7. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and
8. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground
water.
The specific policies under each goal will guide implementation of the Local Water Management Plan to achieve
the particular stormwater management goal and provide consistency between the City's policies and the two
watersheds with jurisdiction within the City.
7.2 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
The following goals and policies reflect current City policy and the City's current SWPPP, as well as additional
goals and policies necessary for consistency with the goals and policies of State, Regional, and local watershed
authorities.
7.2.1 WATER QUANTITY AND FLOOD CONTROL
Goal l: Control the rate of stormwater runoff from development and redevelopment development to minimize
the impact on downstream structures and water resources.
Policy 1.1: Peak stormwater runoff rates from new development, redevelopment, and site expansion
projects may not exceed the existing rates for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year storm
events; or the capacity of downstream conveyance facilities; or contribute to downstream
flooding.
Policy 1.2: Review and update City Ordinance as necessary to ensure consistency with the City's rate
control standard, as identified in Policy 1.1.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 38
Policy 1.3: Continue to enforce the 10 -year rainfall event as the minimum criteria for all stormwater
conveyance facility designs.
Policy 1.4: In addition to the 10 -year stormsewer design criteria for local systems, the capacity to
convey the 100 -year ponded outflow rate from stormwater ponds directly connected to
the system should also be provided.
Policy 1.5: Existing stormwater conveyance facilities that do not provide a 10 -year level of service,
plus upstream 100 -year ponded outflows should be upgraded, where practical.
Policy 1.6: Base all drainage system analyses and designs on proposed full development land use
patterns.
Goa/2.- Provide a reasonable level of stormwater flood protection within the City to minimize property damage
and limit public capital and maintenance expenditures due to stormwater flooding.
Policy 2.1: Review and update as necessary the City's Floodplain Overlay District Ordinance as
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 39
required by FEMA and the Minnesota DNR, or as needed for compliance with watershed
standards, to ensure adequate protection for structures and eligibility for flood insurance
programs.
Policy 2.2:
Structure low floor elevations hydraulically connected stormwater basins or conveyance
facilities shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the established 100 -year High Water Level of
the adjacent basin or facility.
Policy 23:
Establish and maintain overflow routes from stormwater basins and low areas to provide
relief during storm conditions which exceed design conditions, where possible.
Policy 2.4:
Properly design, operate, and maintain the surface water system. Strictly enforce City
ordinances regulating floodplain development.
Policy 2.5:
Preserve existing storage capacities of City and jurisdictional watershed flood control and
trunk facilities.
Policy 2.6:
Prohibit encroachment that will reduce the storage capacity of floodplains, unless
approved by the jurisdictional watershed and floodplain mitigation (compensatory
storages and/or channel modification is provided.
Policy 2.7:
Permanently protect surface water impoundments and drainage systems by requiring the
dedication of land and /or protective easements as required.
Policy 2.8:
Continue emergency flood response program for the City to minimize damage to property.
Policy 2.9:
Regulate land development within the Floodplain Overlay District to ensure that
floodplain capacity and flood elevations are not adversely impacted by development, and
that new structures are protected from damage.
7.2.2 SURFACE WATER QUALITY
643: Improve the guaiityof stormwater runoff discharging to the City"slaKes, streams, and wetlands
Policy 3.1:
Review and update City Ordinance as necessary to ensure that water quality treatment
standards are consistent with the City's stormwater management program.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 39
Policy 3.2: The City is committed to reviewing new development, redevelopment, and site expansion
projects in the context of nondegradation, and will require BMPs necessary to maintain or
reduce existing total phosphorus, total suspended solids, and stormwater runoff volume
loads discharging to public waters and watercourses, where feasible.
Policy 33: New water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed to provide a water quality
treatment volume (below the pond outlet) equivalent to site runoff from a 2.5 -inch
rainfall event, or the Permanent Stormwater Management System requirements of the
NPDES construction site permit, whichever leads to higher treatment capacity.
Policy 3.4: Consistent with the BCWMC design standards, new water quality ponds shall be
designed to provide skimming (1 -foot below the pond Normal Water Elevation) of
floatable debris up to the 5 -year 24 -hour storm event pond High Water Level.
Policy 3.5: Consistent with the BCWMC design standards, new water quality ponds shall be
designed to maintain an average depth of 4 -feet or greater for large ponds or 3 -feet or
greater for ponds with less than 3 ac -ft of wet volume, with a maximum depth no deeper
than 10 -feet.
Policy 3.6: All new development projects must provide BMPs that provide a minimum of 80% post -
development Total Suspended Solids and 50% post - development total phosphorus
reductions. Water quality ponds have been the most common water quality treatment
BMP in New Hope used to meet this requirement, however, the use of alternative water
quality BMPs (bioretention, infiltration basins, structural treatment devices, etc.) to meet
this requirement will also be considered.
Policy 33: Site expansion projects that propose to increase the impervious area by any amount shall
provide water quality treatment for all new impervious in conformance with Policy 3.6.
Policy 3.8: Redevelopment projects that propose to increase the existing impervious area by any
amount shall provide water quality treatment for all areas of site disturbance in
conformance with Policy 3.6.
Policy 3.9: If the City determines that on -site water quality treatment for new development,
redevelopment, or site expansion projects is not feasible due to site or efficiency
limitations, the developer will be responsible for a water quality cash dedication to fund
water quality improvements in the vicinity of the proposed site. Details regarding the cash
dedication cost calculation are Nrovided in Section 6. and Appendix C.
Policy 3.10: Consistent with BMP 5a -1 in the City's SWPPP, the City requires the installation of oil and
grit separators (or other acceptable BMPs) in all new or redeveloped industrial projects.
Policy 3.11: Adopt the waterbody classifications and subsequent water quality management standards
developed by the SCWMC and BCWMC and manage the waterbody to best meet the
water quality standards of this classification
Policy 3.12: Consistent with City ordinance, Section 8 -32, the City prohibits the application of fertilizer
which contains any amount of phosphorus or other compound containing phosphorus,
such as phosphate, except when an exemption included in Section 8 -32 can be claimed.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 40
Policy 3.13: Prohibit the discharge of foreign material into the stormwater system. Such material shall
include, but not be limited to, waste oil, paint, grass clippings, leaves, and ecologically
harmful chemicals. This policy is consistent with BMP's 1c -2, 3b -1, 4c -1, and 6a -2 in the
City's SWPPP.
Policy 3.14: Continue training public works staff related to a spill clean -up response focusing on
containing, neutralizing, and properly disposing of spilled materials to prevent discharge
of spilled materials into the storm sewer system. This policy is consistent with BMP 1 c -6
in the City's SWPPP.
Policy 3.15: Continue to address the proper application of pesticides and fertilizers through internal
City staff training and public education. This policy is consistent with BMP 1 c -6 in the
City's SWPPP.
Policy 3.16: Continue street sweeping and maintenance of detention ponds and pond inlet and outlet
structures according to the schedule outlined BMPs 6a -2, 6b -3, and 6b -5 in the City's
SWPPP.
Goal 4. Address the target pollutants identified in TMDL plans to improve the quality of impaired waters.
Policy 4.1: Amend the LWMP policies and stormwater management standards as necessary to
implement the pollutant load reductions identified in TMDL plans for impaired waters.
Policy 4.2: Use the findings of the TMDL plans to guide the stormwater management strategies for
development and redevelopment projects tributary to impaired waters.
7.2.3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY AND RUNOFF VOLUME MANAGEMENT
Goal 5.• Reduce pollutant loads to waterbodies and encourage groundwater recharge and protection by
reducing the volume of stormwater runoff from development, redevelopment, and street reconstruction
projects.
Policy 5.1: Consistent with the standard of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission,
the City shall require new development to provide runoff volume control BMPs that
infiltrate 1 h -inch of runoff from impervious surfaces, taking into consideration site
limitations including, but not limited to: soil conditions, depth to groundwater,
groundwater protection, safety, snow removal, and maintenance issues.
Policy 5.2: Review and update as necessary current City ordinances to incorporate the runoff volume
management standard identified in Policy 5.1.
Policy 5.4: Minimize impervious surfaces where feasible when reconstructing streets and other paved
surfaces.
Policy 5.5: Encourage soil amendment procedures following mass grading activities, including deep
ripping of soils to a depth of 18- inches, to re- establish the pre - development infiltrative
capacity of the soil.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 41
7.2.4 RECREATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND SHORELAND MANAGEMENT
Goal & To protect and enhance opportunities for water recreation.
Policy 6.1: Coordinate efforts with state, county and neighboring municipalities to enhance water -
based recreation to the extent practical.
Goal 7.• To protect and enhance fish and water related wildlife habitats.
Policy 7.1: Preserve protected waters and wetlands that provide habitat for game fish spawning and
wildlife to the extent feasible.
Policy 7.2: Coordinate efforts to protect threatened and endangered species with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
Policy 7.3: Coordinate efforts to protect areas of significant natural communities with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
Policy 7.4: Management practices shall promote and encourage the use of streams and rivers as
wildlife corridors.
Goal & Conserve and protect shoreland areas within the City.
Policy 8.1: Regulate land development within the Shoreland Permit Overlay District to minimize
impacts as specified in City Code.
Policy 8.2: Review and update as necessary the City's current Shoreland Permit Overlay District
Ordinance to verify the compatibility with the ordinance standards as set forth by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Policy 8.3: Management efforts will seek to protect non - disturbed shoreland areas and restore
disturbed shorelines and streambanks to their natural state, where feasible.
Policy 8.4: Management efforts will seek to preserve streambank and lakeshore vegetation during
and after construction projects, and create buffer zones along shorelines where natural
vegetation is maintained.
7.2.5 WETLAND AND LAKE MANAGEMENT
Goal 9: Protect and preserve wetlands to maintain or improve their function and value.
Policy 9.1: Continue to administer WCA responsibilities within the City to ensure no net loss of
wetland functions and values.
Policy 9.2: Update and adopt the City's 1999 Wetland Inventory and Management Plan to fully
comply with Met Council requirements in the Water Resources Management Policy Plan.
Policy 93: Review and update as necessary City wetland ordinances and standards in accordance
with the local watershed authorities' management plans.
Policy 9.4: Wet!and alterations, where allowed, shall be on the basis of no net loss. If the impact of
an alteration is unavoidable, it should be mitigated for through replacement, wetland
restoration, and /or improvements to existing wetland function and value.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 42
Policy 9.5: Coordinate wetland regulation with review agencies - the City, the State, the U.S. Army
Policy 11.1: Periodically review the Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance and make revisions as
necessary to meet the requirements of the applicable regulatory authorities.
Policy 11.2: Require that all land disturbing activities of one acre or more obtain an NPDES
construction stormwater permit from the MPCA, and prepare erosion control plans.
Policy 113: Require that erosion and sediment control conform to the standard practices contained in
the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (2005 or most recent update.)
Policy 11.4: Encourage preservation of natural vegetation to the greatest extent practical.
Policy 11.5: Require that the time that construction areas remain exposed is minimized by phasing
construction activities and establishing temporary and permanent vegetation.
Policy 11.6: Require that sediment discharge is prevented by protecting existing storm drain inlets and
conveyance systems, stockpiling soil in protected areas and constructing permanent
sediment forebays upstream of basins and water bodies.
Policy 11.7: Require that stormwater inlets are designed to prevent debris from entering the
conveyance system and impeding the flow path.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 43
Corps of Engineers, and the local watershed authorities.
Policy 9.6:
Require that, prior to development activities or public projects, a wetland delineation
must be completed, including a field delineation and report detailing the findings of the
delineation.
Policy 9.7:
Identify and implement opportunities to enhance the functions and values of degraded
wetlands within the City, as a part of park projects, infrastructure projects, or other
projects where practical.
Policy 9.8:
Encourage natural buffer zones around ponds and wetlands. Buffer areas should not be
mowed or fertilized, except that harvesting of vegetation may be perf ormed to reduce
nutrient inputs and provide weed control.
Policy 9.9:
Require that new development or redevelopment runoff be pre- treated prior to discharge
to wetlands
Goal 10: Manage lakes to improve water quality.
Policy 10.1
Continue to work with the BCWMC to implement 1996 Northwood Lake Watershed and
Lake Management Plan.
Policy 10.2
Continue to work with the SCWMC to achieve the water quality goals for Meadow Lake
as identified in the 2006 Water Quality Plan, and coordinate implementation efforts for
the future TMDL plan and implementation strategy to improve the water quality of
Meadow Lake.
7.2.6 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, MONOTORING, AND MAINTENANCE
Goal 11: Prevent sediment from construction sites from entering the City's surface water resources.
Policy 11.1: Periodically review the Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance and make revisions as
necessary to meet the requirements of the applicable regulatory authorities.
Policy 11.2: Require that all land disturbing activities of one acre or more obtain an NPDES
construction stormwater permit from the MPCA, and prepare erosion control plans.
Policy 113: Require that erosion and sediment control conform to the standard practices contained in
the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (2005 or most recent update.)
Policy 11.4: Encourage preservation of natural vegetation to the greatest extent practical.
Policy 11.5: Require that the time that construction areas remain exposed is minimized by phasing
construction activities and establishing temporary and permanent vegetation.
Policy 11.6: Require that sediment discharge is prevented by protecting existing storm drain inlets and
conveyance systems, stockpiling soil in protected areas and constructing permanent
sediment forebays upstream of basins and water bodies.
Policy 11.7: Require that stormwater inlets are designed to prevent debris from entering the
conveyance system and impeding the flow path.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 43
Policy 11.8 Continue to enforce the existing erosion control ordinance on all construction sites with a
development agreement and an appropriate bond. Require erosion and sediment control
on other sites experiencing erosion problems. Minimize runoff velocities and maximize
natural cover to reduce erosion.
Policy 11.9: Continue the City's inspection program for construction sites to ensure compliance with
the City's Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. In areas undergoing construction
activities, the cost of sweeping sediment from the streets generated by development shall
be borne by the developer and/or owner. The program shall include inspection following
installation, severe rain storms, and prior to seeding deadlines.
Goal 12: Maintain the function and effectiveness of stormwater management structures through monitoring and
maintenance.
Policy 12.1: Inspect and monitor the construction and installation of all new stormwater facilities and
require that such facilities be surveyed to create as -built drawings.
Policy 12.2: Require developers to provide a minimum one -year guarantee that stormwater
management facilities are properly installed, maintained and functioning.
Policy 12.3: Inspect and maintain City stormwater facilities, with minimum inspection and
maintenance responsibilities as follows:
Maintenance activities include but are not limited to removal of floating material,
clearing of blocked inlets, pipes or structures, street sweeping to remove debris and
litter, repairing eroded ground, reestablishing ground cover and dredging sediment
from ponds.
2. The City will inspect stormwater management facilities after major precipitation
events and in response to complaints or input from the general public or other
government agencies. Certain facilities will be inspected more frequently as
warranted.
3. The City will keep records of inspections and maintenance including dates,
observations and actions taken.
4. For stormwater retention basins receiving direct runoff from an area that has been
disturbed for development, the City will complete visual inspection and determination
of storage voiume at least annually for five years from the end of construction. For
other basins, visual inspection will be completed annually and determination of
storage volume will be completed at least every five years. If the basin is designed
with a forebay, the storage volume will be determined for the forebay only, unless it
is found to be reduced by 50 percent. When basin storage volume has been reduced
by 50 percent, within one year of inspection the sediment will be removed from the
basin to restore the original volume, and vegetation will be restored in disturbed
areas.
The City will inspect grit chambers, sump catch basins, sump manholes, inlet and
outlet structures, culverts and other stormwater management facilities that are not
functioning as designed according to the maintenance frequencies in the City's
SWPPP.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 44
7.2.7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, COORDINATION, AND EDUCATION
Goal 13: Coordinate the implementation of stormwater management efforts with the watersheds, adjacent
municipalities, and City residents.
Policy 13.1:
Coordinate an on -going public education and outreach programs with the local
watersheds, and other governmental agencies designed to bring awareness to the City's
stormwater management goals and policies. This policy is consistent with BMPs 1 a -1, 1 b-
1, and 1c -1 in the City's SWPPP.
Policy 13.2:
Continue the training program for all City staff, especially Public Works, regarding threats
to water quality and how best to address these problems. This policy is consistent with
BMPs 1c -6 and 1d -1 in the City's SWPPP.
Policy 13.3:
Communicate with the BCWMC and SCWMC regarding the implementation, schedule,
and funding of the stormwater management improvements identified in the LWMP and
Watershed Management Plans.
Policy 13.4:
Work with adjacent municipalities and the watersheds in planning and implementing
mutually beneficial regional stormwater management improvements.
Policy 13.5:
Continue the City's public education program for landowners to promote the use of BMPs
to improve and protect surface water and groundwater quality. The City encourages
residents and landowners to practice environmental friendly lawn care and to encourage
the use of native plantings or natural landscapes, where practical. This policy is consistent
with BMPs 1c-1 and 1c-3 of the City's SWPPP.
Policy 13.6:
Promote citizen and volunteer efforts to protect, restore and enhance local water and
natural resources. This policy is consistent with BMP 1c-2 of the City's SWPPP.
Policy 13.7:
Use available opportunities through its newsletter, public meetings, Cable TV broadcasts,
Comprehensive Plan, or interpretive elements at parks and open space sites to inform its
residents about the value of local water resources, the effects of stormwater runoff, and
opportunities for stewardship of water and natural resources. This policy is consistent
with BMP 1a -1 of the City's SWPPP.
Policy 13.8:
Work with local watershed management organizations, Hennepin County, and others
when appropriate and as resources are available to participate in resource management
plans or studies that benefit water and natural resources.
Policy 13.9:
Coordinate proposed development and redevelopment project reviews with the local
watershed management organizations.
Goal 14. adequate funding to support implementation of the surface water management plan.
Policy 14.1:
Fund implementation of the plan with revenue from the stormwater utility.
Policy 14.2:
Seek grant funds or other resources to assist with special projects or implementation of
LliviVi "r goals and policies.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 45
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 8 — Implementation
8.1 GENERAL
The Implementation Section of the LWMP describes the specific activities proposed by the City to address the
stormwater management issues presented in the System Assessment section (Section 6) and implement the
policies identified in the Goal and Policies section (Section 7). This section splits the stormwater system physical
improvements and programmatic elements identified in the System Assessment or Goals and Policies sections
into three categories:
1. Recommended Actions for Official Controls (Section 8.2)
2. System Improvement Projects and Activities (Section 8.3)
3. Additional Implementation Priorities (Section 8.4)
8.2 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR OFFICIAL CONTROLS
Official controls (codes and ordinances) are necessary tools supporting implementation of this surface water
management plan. Many of the stated goals and policies specifically reference City codes that exist or need to
be created. The City's MS4 permit includes a summary of ordinances required to comply with NPDES
requirements.
Over time, ordinances must be updated to remain consistent with stormwater management goals, policies and
practices. Table 8.1 identifies City ordinances related to surface water management and includes any
recommendations for updates to these ordinances as identified in Section 7.
Table 8.1 Surface Water Management Related Ordinances
Chapter 4
Descyipfion
Zoning
Review and Update
No update is necessary
Recommendation
Section 4 -25
Shoreland Permit Overlay District
Review and update per City
Policy 1.2, 2.1, 3. 1, and 8.2
Section 4 -26
Floodplain District
Review and update per City
Policy 2.1
Section 4 -35
Administration — Site Plan Review
Review and update per City Policy 11.1
Section 5 -1
Purpose and General
No update is necessa
Section 5 -3
Permits, Licenses, and Other Charges
Update as necessa
Section 5 -7
Drainage
No update is necessa
Section 6 -10
Dispersion of Percolating Waters
No update is necessa
Section 8 -32
Lawn Fertilizer Application Control
No update is necessa
Section 13 -5
Design Standards
Review and update per City
Policy 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, and 5.2
Section 13 -7
Required Improvements
No update is necessa
Section 14 -50
Sewer, Water, Drainage and Stormsewer Fees
Update as necessa
Section 14 -70
Watershed Management Tax District
No update is necessa
Appendix D
Flood lain and Wetland Systems District
Review and update per City
Policy 2.1 and 9.3
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 46
8.3 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
Based on the assessment of the City's current stormwater management program (Section 6), a prioritized list of
system improvement projects and activities has been identified. The system improvements identified range from
those being driven by regulatory requirements, to others driven more by the functionality of the City's regional
stormwater management system. Table 8.2 presents a summary of recommended high and medium priority
stormwater and water resource management projects and activities.
The City will continue to rely on its very detailed 5 -year capital improvement planning process to schedule and
plan for funding future capital improvement projects. This planning process is updated annually by City staff and
reviewed and approved annually by the City Council. The items listed in Table 8.2 will be used as a reference for
particular projects and activities specific to stormwater and water resources management to be included in the
capital improvement planning process.
Table 8.2 Hi h and Moderate Priority Stem Improvement Projects and Activities
8.4 ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS
This section includes additional stormwater management program implementation items either generated by
outside agency assessments of the City's current stormwater management program (e.g. City policy revisions,
completion of the wetland inventory and assessment, implementation items from TMDL plans, etc.) or identified
in the City's Goals and Policies (Section 7 These remaining implementation Items are relevant to overall
stormwater management within the City, and will likely be addressed as ongoing stormwater system
maintenance items, as projects in future CIPs, or in cooperation with other agencies operating within the City.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 47
Reroute Winnetka Avenue storm
Wincrest Pond (SC -P3.4)
sewer and excavate additional wet
High
25% project funding included in 2008
Improvements
ponding volume to provide greater
Shingle Creek WMC CIP
treatment efficien
Local flooding - 45t and
Provide additional trunk storm sewer
capacity from intersection to 45 1h
Medium
To be done in conjunction with the 45t
Xylon Avenues intersection
Avenue pond (SC- P5.12)
Avenue pond improvements
Managing peak discharge
Expand flood storage and restrict
discharge out of the 45t Avenue
Medium
o
25% project funding included in 2009
rate into Crystal
and (SC- P5.12)
Shingle Creek WMC CIP
Local flooding - Boone
Provide additional trunk pipe capacity
Avenue and East Research
immediately downstream of the
Medium
Center Road intersection
intersection
Local flooding - Terra Linda
Lower and /or widen the existing
Drive and the intersection
overland overflow from both Terra
High
Coordinate efforts to provide additional
of Medicine Lake Road and
Linda Drive and Medicine Lake Road
conveyance with the City of Golden Valley
Roslyn Court
Untreated stormwater
runoff discharging into a
Excavate wet ponding volume in
High
Northwood Park wetland
pond BC- P3.15C
8.4 ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS
This section includes additional stormwater management program implementation items either generated by
outside agency assessments of the City's current stormwater management program (e.g. City policy revisions,
completion of the wetland inventory and assessment, implementation items from TMDL plans, etc.) or identified
in the City's Goals and Policies (Section 7 These remaining implementation Items are relevant to overall
stormwater management within the City, and will likely be addressed as ongoing stormwater system
maintenance items, as projects in future CIPs, or in cooperation with other agencies operating within the City.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 47
8.4.1 OTHER POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS
Many other possible implementation items not included in Table 8.2, can be found in Table 6.2. The City will
consider including these individual items in future CIPs as issues arise and funding becomes available.
8.4.2 WETLAND INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
Implementation Priority Item: The Metropolitan Council's 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan, the
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Plan, and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Plan all require
that New Hope complete a Wetland Management Plan, including a functions and values assessment for
wetlands within the City.
Measures Necessary to Implement the Priority Item: The City of New Hope completed a Wetland Inventory and
Management Plan in 1999, including a field inventory of all wetlands identified in the City and an evaluation of
the functions and values of each wetland. Based on this information, the City intends to complete the required
Wetland Management Plan (including a functions and values assessment), consistent with the directive of City
Policy 9.2. In addition, the following items will be included in this document to comply with the requirements of
the agencies identified above:
• Require that wetland mitigation should be provided within the same subwatershed
• Establish buffer strip requirements adjacent to wetlands and watercourses
• Identify wetland restoration possibilities and construct or encourage the construction of restoration
projects
8.4.3 SHINGLE CREEK TMDL
Implementation Priority Item: The Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL has been approved by the MPCA and an
Implementation Plan has been completed. The TMDL analysis determined that the majority of chloride in the
Shingle Creek watershed is derived from nonpoint sources including road deicing, commercial and industrial
deicing, and fertilizer application, with the primary source being road salt and salt substitutes applied to the
dense network of local roads and county and state highways in the watershed.
The activities and BMPs identified in the implementation plan are the result of a series of stakeholder working
meetings led by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Representatives from cities (including
New Hope), MnDOT, Hennepin County, and regulatory agencies met multiple times to discuss the TMDL
requirements, BMPs and technologies available to address chloride, public safety, and the feasibility of
implementing the activity. 2° As a result of these meetings, New Hope identified their current efforts and
proposed BMPs /activities for managing the City's winter road salt supply within five categories:
1. Product Application Equipment and Decisions
2. Product Stockpiles
3. Operator Training
4. Clean -up /Snow Stockpiling
5. Ongoing Research into Salt Alternatives
2° Excerpts from the Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL Implementation Plan
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan . BOnestroo Page 48
Measures and Timeline Necessary to Implement the Priority Item: The TMDL concluded that an overall 71 %
reduction in chloride load to Shingle Creek must be achieved to meet State chloride concentration standards.
The Implementation Plan for this TMDL includes tables identifying the City's current activities and proposed
BMPs or activities related to road deicing. The information from these tables is as follows:
Table 8.3 Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL Im lementation Measures
Category BIVIP
... Current AdWies
New Hope Proposed
3:1 salt /sand
Annually calibration of spreaders
Product Application
Computerized sanders
Equipment and Decisions
Truck temperature sensors — air and pavement
Continued research
Turnover= 12 years
Product Stockpiles
Enclosed building on impervious surface,
At maximum extent practicable
detention pond
Operator Training
Operators use their own judgment using truck
Provide training
sensors
Annually calibration of spreaders
Plow as soon as possible
Clean -up /Snow Stockpiling
Minimal hauling
Evaluate annually
Sweep streets in spring and fall
Ongoing Research into Salt
Investigate new products, equipment, and
Use Clearlane product in 2008 -09
Alternatives
methods
In addition to the Proposed BMPs /Activities identified in Table 8.3, New Hope is committed to tracking and
reporting these activities in their annual NPDES report. A copy of this report will be provided to the Shingle
Creek Watershed Management Commission.
8.4.4 TWIN AND RYAN LAKES TMDL
Implementation Priority Item: The Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL and Implementation Plan was approved
by the US EPA in November 2007. TMDL study addresses a nutrient impairment in the Twin Lake chain of lakes.
Measures and Timeline Necessary to Implement the Priority Item: Wasteload and Load Allocations to meet State
standards indicate that nutrient load reductions ranging from 0 -76 percent would be required to consistently
meet standards under average precipitation conditions. Each stakeholder agreed that nutrient loading must be
reduced, but that as fully developed cities, options for retrofitting BMPs were limited. Each stakeholder agreed
to evaluate and include nutrient - reduction BMPs in street and highway projects, and to consider opportunities
such as redevelopment to add or upsize BMPs.
The TMDL study and this Implementation Plan identified specific improvements to reduce external and internal
phosphorus load. Currently, the improvements to the Wincrest Pond (SC -P3.4) and 45` Avenue Pond (SC- P5.12)
are included as projects to be completed within the first five years. These and others are "short term" projects
that could be accomplished in coming 10 -20 years. However, these projects alone will not be sufficient to
achieve water quality goals in these lakes. An essential "long- term" component of this Implementation Plan is
to routinely retrofit BMPs in this fully developed watershed as redevelopment or construction provide
opportunities. The long -term components impacting the City of New Hope include, increased infiltration
requirements for new and redevelopment projects, wildlife management, street sweeping, and road salt
reductions.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 49
8.4.5 OTHER TMDL STUDIES OF IMPAIRED WATERS
A number of other waterbodies within New Hope, or receiving discharge directly from New Hope have been
identified as Impaired Waters. At some point a strategy would be developed that would lead to attainment of
the applicable water quality standard. The process of developing this strategy is commonly known as the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process and involves the following phases:
1. Assessment and listing
2. TMDL study
3. Implementation plan development and implementation
4. Monitoring of the effectiveness of implementation efforts
The City recognizes that the responsibility for completion and implementation of the TMDL studies lies with the
primary stakeholders contributing to the impairment. The City intends to cooperate with the watersheds in the
development of the TMDL studies, acknowledging that the watersheds will take the lead on these studies. It is
the intention of the City to fully implement the items /actions identified in future TMDL Implementation Plans,
funding the implementation items /actions as necessary. Table 6.3 (see Section 6.4) identifies all of the Impaired
Waters identified within New Hope or in adjacent communities, and the status of the TMDL Study for each of
these impairments.
8.4.6 CITY POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS
The intent of this section is to specifically call out the implementation items identified in the City's Goals and
Policies Section. These implementation items are generally programmatic in nature, with many of them being
ongoing efforts that the City has and will continue to implement. Other policy implementation items specific to a
certain task will be addressed by the City in a timely fashion as the needs arise. The following table (Table 8.4)
identifies the implementation items identified in City stormwater management policies.
Table 8.4 — City Policy Implementation Items
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 50
1.5
Existing stormwater conveyance facilities that do not provide a 5 -year level of service, plus upstream 100 -
ear ponded outflows should be upgraded, where practical.
Adopt the waterbody classifications and subsequent water quality management standards developed by
the SCWMC and BCWMC and manage the waterbody to best meet the water quality standards of this
classification. This information will be included in the City's Wetland Functions and Values Assessment
document.
4.1
Amend the LWMP policies and stormwater management standards as necessary to implement the pollutant
load reductions identified in TMDL plans for impaired waters.
4.2
Use the findings of the TMDL plans to guide the stormwater management strategies for development and
redevelopment projects tributary to impaired waters.
6.1
Coordinate efforts with state, county and neighboring municipalities to enhance water -based recreation to
the extent practical.
7.2
Coordinate efforts to protect threatened and endangered species with the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources.
7.3
Coordinate efforts to protect areas of significant natural communities with the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 50
8.4.7 NPDES IMPLEMENTATION
The MPCA has designated the City of New Hope as an NPDES Phase 11 MS4 community (MN Rules 7090). New
Hope's application for permit coverage was completed in May, 2006. The permit application outlined New
Hope's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address six minimum control measures:
1. Public education
2. Public involvement
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination
4. Construction site runoff control
5. Post - construction runoff control
6. Pollution prevention in municipal operations
The City's SWPPP contains several best management practices within each of the listed control measures. These
were identified using a self - evaluation and input process with City staff. The City's permit application and
SWPPP was submitted to the MPCA prior to the June 1, 2006, deadline. The City's SWPPP was on public notice
from April 7' — May 8 th , 2008.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 51
Update and finalize the City's 1999 Wetland Inventory and Management Plan to fully comply with Met
9 2
Council requirements in the Water Resources Management Policy Plan.
Continue to work with the BCWMC to implement 1996 Northwood Lake Watershed and Lake
10.1
Management Plan.
Continue to work with the SCWMC to achieve the water quality goals for Meadow Lake as identified in the
10.2
2006 Water Quality Plan, and coordinate implementation efforts for the future TMDL plan and
implementation strategy to improve the water quality of Meadow Lake.
Coordinate an on -going public education and outreach programs with the local watersheds, and other
13.1
governmental agencies designed to bring awareness to the City's stormwater management goals and
policies.
Continue the training program for all City staff, especially Public Works, regarding threats to water quality
13.2
and how best to address these problems.
Communicate with the BCWMC and SCWMC regarding the implementation, schedule, and funding of the .
13.3
stormwater management improvements identified in the LWMP and Watershed Management Plans.
Work with adjacent municipalities and the watersheds in planning and implementing mutually beneficial
13.4
regional stormwater management improvements.
Work with local watershed management organizations, Hennepin County, and others when appropriate
13.8
and as resources are available to participate in resource management plans or studies that benefit water
and natural resources.
Coordinate proposed development and redevelopment project reviews with the local watershed
13.9
manage ent organizations.
Seek grant funds or other resources to assist with special projects or implementation of LWMP goals and
14.3
policies.
8.4.7 NPDES IMPLEMENTATION
The MPCA has designated the City of New Hope as an NPDES Phase 11 MS4 community (MN Rules 7090). New
Hope's application for permit coverage was completed in May, 2006. The permit application outlined New
Hope's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address six minimum control measures:
1. Public education
2. Public involvement
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination
4. Construction site runoff control
5. Post - construction runoff control
6. Pollution prevention in municipal operations
The City's SWPPP contains several best management practices within each of the listed control measures. These
were identified using a self - evaluation and input process with City staff. The City's permit application and
SWPPP was submitted to the MPCA prior to the June 1, 2006, deadline. The City's SWPPP was on public notice
from April 7' — May 8 th , 2008.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 51
8.4.8 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
New Hope's existing stormwater management system represents a major investment for the City of New Hope.
The ongoing maintenance of this existing stormwater management system is critical to protecting this valuable
investment. Generally, stormwater system maintenance is funded by the City's stormwater utility. The City's
stormwater system maintenance responsibilities include the following:
• Street sweeping
• Cleaning of catch basins
• Repair of catch basins and manholes
Assessing pipe condition (typically by televising)
• Inspection of storm sewer inlet and outlet structures
• Excavation of accumulated sediments from ponds
• Structural treatment devices, including sump manholes and grit chambers
The City should continue to evaluate if the existing stormwater utility rates can adequately fund the
maintenance of the existing stormwater management system. Table 8.5 provides the City's stormwater system
maintenance schedule.
Table 8.5 — Surface Water Svstem Maintenance Schedule
BMP
Catch basins
Maintenance Schedule
Inspected every 5 years, cleaned out as needed
Trunk storm sewer
Jetted on a scheduled rotation
Stormwater ponds
Inspected every 5 years, cleaned out as needed
Stormwater pond inlets /outlets
Inspected e very 5 years, cleaned as needed
Structural treatment devices, including
sump manholes and grit chambers
Inspected annually, cleaned as needed
Street sweeping
Twice annually
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 52
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 9 — Administration
9.1 REVIEW AND ADOPTION PROCESS
Review and adoption of this Surface Water Management Plan will follow the procedure outlined in Minnesota
Statutes 10313.235:
After consideration but before adoption by the governing body, each local government unit shall submit its
water management plan to the watershed management organizations/ for review for consistency with the
watershed plan. The organization[sJshall have 60 days to complete its review.
Concurrently with its submission of its local water management plan to the watershed management
organization, each local government unit shall submit its water management plan to the Metropolitan
Council for review and comment. The council shall have 45 days to review and comment upon the local
plan. The council's 45 -day review period shall run concurrently with the 60 -day review period by the
watershed management organization. The Metropolitan Council shall submit its comments to the
watershed management organization and shall send a copy of its comments to the local government unit.
After approval of the local plan by the watershed management organization[s], the local government unit
shall adopt and implement its plan within 120 days, and shall amend its official controls accordingly within
180 days.
9.2 PLAN AMENDMENTS AND FUTURE UPDATES
This Local Water Management Plan will be incorporated into the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan update and
will be applicable until 2018, at which time an updated plan will be required. Periodic plan amendments may be
required to incorporate major changes in local practices. In particular, changes in the two applicable Watershed
Management Plans may require updates to this plan. Plan amendments will be incorporated by following the
review and adoption steps outlined above.
The City views changes in local practice (e.g. modifications to the City's minimum engineering standards,
improved stormwater system maintenance techniques, etc.) that do not impact the standards or policies
identified in this plan as only minor changes in local practice, and thus would not necessitate a plan amendment
or update.
City of New Hope May, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 53
Appendix A
Joint Powers Agreements for the
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
and
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
* Bonestroo
AMENDMENT TO AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal,
Maple Grove, Minneapolis, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale, all of which are Minnesota
municipal corporations (the "Member Cities ").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Member Cities are parties to a joint powers agreement forming the Shingle Creek
Watershed Management Commission entitled the AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHINGLE
CREEK WATERSHED (the "Joint Powers Agreement "), the effective date of which was May 1, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Member Cities wish to amend the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter provided;
NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements
contained in the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter amended, the parties agree to amend the Joint Powers
Agreement as follows:
1. Article VIII FINANCES is amended to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. The Commission funds may be expended by the Board in accordance with this
agreement and in accordance with the procedures as established by law and in the manner as may be
determined by the Board. The Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or trust
companies, authorized by Chapters 118 and 427 of the Minnesota Statutes to receive deposits of public
moneys and to act as depositories for the Commission funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of
Commission funds without the signature of at least two Board members, one of whom shall be the
Treasurer or the Treasurer's Authorized Deputy Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be required to file with
the Secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least $10,000 or such higher amount as shall be
determined by the Board. The Commission shall pay the premium on said bond.
Subdivision 2. Each member agrees to contribute each year to a general fund, said fund to be
used for general administration purposes including, but not limited to: salaries, rent. suDDlies.
development of an overall plan, engineering and legal expenses, insurance, and bonds, and to purchase
and maintain de to measure hydrological and water quality data. Said funds may also be used for
CLL- 237616v 1 1
SH220 -1
normal maintenance of the facilities, but any extraordinary maintenance or repair expense shall be treated
as an improvement cost and processed in accordance with Subdivision 5 of this Article. The annual
contribution by each member shall be based fifty percent (50 %) on the net tax capacity of all property
within the Watershed and fifty percent (50 %) on the basis of the total area of each member within the
boundaries of the watershed each year to the total area in the Shingle Creek Watershed.
Subdivision 3.
(a) An improvement fund shall be established for each improvement project instituted under
Article VII, Subdivision 3. Each member agrees to contribute to said fund its proportionate share of the
engineering, legal and administrative costs as determined by the Commission as the amount to be assessed
against each member as a cost of the improvement. The Board shall submit in writing a statement to each
member, setting forth in detail the expenses incurred by the Commission for each project.
Each member further agrees to pay to or contract with the member governmental unit awarding said
contract for the improvement, its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement in accordance with the
determination of the Board under Article VII, Subdivision 4. The member awarding the contract shall
submit in writing copies of the engineer's certificate authorizing payment during construction and the
member being billed agrees to pay its proportionate share of said improvement costs within 30 days after
receipt of the statement. The member awarding the contract shall advise other contributing members of the
tentative time schedule of the work and the estimated times when the contributions shall be necessary.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the Commission may
by a vote of 2 /3rds of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Commission decide to proceed
to fund all or any part of the cost of a capital improvement contained in the capital improvement program
of the plan pursuant to the authority and subject to the provisions set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section
103B.251. It is expressed as a goal of this Agreement that cost sharing of capital improvement costs be
assigned and agreed to by members pursuant to Article VIII, Subdivision 7, Subsections 1 and 2 of this
Agreement. Without such agreement, all improvements will be constructed pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103B.251. The Commission and Hennepin County may establish a maintenance fund to
CLL- 237616v 1 2
SH220 -1
be used for normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole or in part with
money prodded by Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. The levy and
collection of an ad valorem tax levy for maintenance shall be by Hennepin County based upon a tax leiy
resolution adopted by a majority vote of all eligible members of the Commission and remitted to the
County on or before the date prescribed by law each year. If it is determined to levy for maintenance, the
Commission shall be required to follow the hearing process established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections
10313.915 and 103D.921 and acts amendatory thereof and in addition thereto. Mailed notice shall be sent
to the Clerk of each member municipality at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
Subdivision 4. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall adopt a detailed budget for the
ensuing year and decide upon the total amount necessary for the general fund. Budget approval shall
require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Board.
The secretary of the Board shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the clerk of each member
governmental unit together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each member.
The Council of each member agrees to review the budget, and the Board shall upon written notice
from any member received prior to August 1, hear objections to the budget, and may, upon notice to all
members and after a hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the members of any and
all modifications or amendments.
Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 5 below, each member agrees to provide the funds
required by the budget. If no objections are submitted to the Board, each member agrees to provide the
funds approved by the Board, after the Board has conducted the aforementioned hearing. Modifications
or amendments to the original budget require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible voters of then
existing members of the Board.
The schedule of payments by the members shall be determined by the Board in such a manner as
to provide for an orderly collection of the funds needed.
Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 6 below, upon notice and hearing, the Board by a favorable
vote of a majority of all eligible votes of then existing members may adopt a supplemental budget requiring
CLL- 237616v1 3
SH220 -1
additional payments by the members within 60 days of its adoption but in no event shall the budget require
any member to contribute in excess of one -half of one percent of the net tax capacity of all taxable property
within the watershed or within any member's corporate boundaries in any one calendar year.
Members' attention is drawn to Minnesota Statutes, Section 10313.245, which authorizes a
Watershed Management Tax District to be created within each member City to pay the costs of planning
and for the purpose of paying capital costs and /or normal and routine maintenance of facilities.
Subdivision 5. Assessments levied against Member Cities for general fund purposes are subject
to all of the following limitations:
1. Assessment Can
A. Definition For purposes of this subdivision, the term "Assessment Cap" means
the total amount that the Commission may levy against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any
year without the consent of a majority of Member Cities. The Assessment Cap for 2004 is $262,750.
Thereafter, the Assessment Cap will increase or decrease each year based, pro rata, on the annual change in
the consumer price index (U.S. City Average, All Items, All Urban Consumer) to the end of the second
quarter of the preceding year. (For example, the Assessment Cap for 2005 will be adjusted on the basis of
the change in the CPI from the end of the second quarter of 2003 to the end of the second quarter of 2004.)
B. Limitation and City Consent The Commission may levy an amount for general
fund purposes in excess of the Assessment Cap only with the consent of a majority of Member Cities
expressed by resolutions duly adopted by the city councils before September 1 of the preceding year.
The Commission may request authority to exceed the Assessment Cap for one or more years.
If a majority of Member Cities do not consent to the levy of an assessment in excess'of
the Assessment Cap, the Commission may levy an amount up to the Assessment Cap and the Commission
will make necessary changes to the budget.
2. Limitation on Increase of Asse ssment. The Commission may not assess a total levy
against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any year in an amount that exceeds 120% of the
CLL- 237616v1 4
SH220 -1
previous years' assessment without the consent of a majority of the Member Cities given in the same
manner as described in paragraph 1B above.
3. Limitation Based on Tax Capacity The Commission may not assess a levy or
combination of levy and supplemental levies against the Member Cities for general fund purposes in any
one year that requires any member to contribute an amount in excess of one -half of one percent of the net
tax capacity of that portion of the city lying within the Watershed.
Subdivision 6. Supplemental Budget and Limit on Assessment. The Board may adopt a
supplemental budget in accordance with Subdivision 4. However, the amount assessed against the Member
Cities for general fund purposes, when added together with other assessments for general fund purposes for
the same year, may not exceed the limitations on assessments set forth in Subdivision 5 without the consent
of the Member Cities. The consent of the Member Cities shall be secured in the same manner as is provided
in Subdivision 5, except that the September 1 deadline for Member City approval does not apply.
Subdivision 7. Cost Allocation for Capital Projects. The Commission shall apportion to the
respective members on either (1), (2) or (3) of the following bases:
(1) A negotiated amount to be arrived at by the members who have lands in the subdistrict
responsible for the capital improvement.
(2) (a) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to
each member on the basis of the net tax capacity of each member within the
boundaries of the watershed to the total net tax capacity in the Shingle Creek
Watershed area governed by this Agreement.
(b) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to
each member on the basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries
of the watershed each year to the total area in the Shingle Creek Watershed
governed by this Agreement.
(c) Capitai costs allocated under the 50% area/50% net tax capacity formula herein
set forth may be varied by the Commission by a 2 /3rds vote if:
CLL- 237616v1 5
SH220 -1
(1} ant n2ember conurunitti rocciiLs a direct tvnefit fro ►n the capital
►r!pm�cs �crit ul!Icll henef:+t can bL de; ncxl as a lateral as Well as a trunk
bane 3t. or
i2 M the capital irrlprm cinent provi&s a direct benclFt to one or fnore
Yll wbcrs u'h.cl: bc r]efit is so d' proportion ata w Lo require: in a sense of
kurnessa Jnodltic Lion L the 50.50 forrric:la.
id) Credit; io wn metnh►.r for loins acquired b} said rsnciuber to pond or store storm and
surtacce Aater -hall K abomwd against costs ba torth in Suhseztions (al_ ('b} and (c) of
tl;xs Seet;on.
(3) If agreement is not reached to proceed as srt turtlh in Subsection I or : tit this
Suhdiiision and it the proicct is wr-structcxl cued fhunceI pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 1033.251. tl -.e nivrnbcrs un lerstand and ag that said casts mill K; levied on all
t.axfible propert} in the %%atcrsli cd as set torth :n the st wte.
Se tit +n 2. This a rnendrn,.nt shall be u► full tbrw and .fleet upon the Ming of a ctrtit cxi cop} of a
resolution approving said ainertdmeat b} all nine Nlember Cities. Said resolutions shall be tiled with the Chair
of the Shingle Crwk— waterAled Commission, %%hu shall wrtitl the c.fAxtivc date• of the amendment in writing .
to all Member Cities. The ell date of the a►rrcndm nt shall be 'Alien appro ;%A b% all of the Member
Cities and \\hen the mad car and othLr authorized c:it% repr4sentati%es have ► xccutcd the anx nded agrecmu ►t.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the undersi-aed goicrnwnt units_ b% ;k.-tion of their wvcming
bodics.. have caused this :1rr «mint to be cucuwl irr aeeurdartcc Stith tlic autho:-itt, of Minnesota
Statutes_ Sections (('•313.201 through 1035.25; and Section 471.59.
�i
?3y:
Its
And
I ts
tl..- ��ti�•• d
Dated: I- p t-06
Datcd:.,Xa_z t}�4
DLted-
Dated- 3h, I /c t°
Dat--d.
Cull
By:
ITS
And h
1%
CITY OF CRYSTAL
Its —may=
And by--.
Its
TV-
MY Of MAPLE GROW
By:
Its
And by:
T
CITY OF h�
By:
Its
-LX-
And by.
Its
CITY f
13y.
Its
Aud b)
Its
(H -2 V% m
sfi2-1.6
Dated: 5-27—
Dated,:
Dated:
CITY OF OSSEO
By:
nm.
CI TY OFt?LYN Ou'- 11
By
Its
And by:
Its
CITYaBBLINSDAILE
By:
Its .-Mayor
And by � : - r�y�� t..�.
Its
AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF BASSETT CREEK
PREFACE
In 1968, the nine cities with land in the Bassett Creek watershed
entered into a joint powers agreement which established the Bassett Creek
Flood Control Commission. For the past 25 tyears the Commission,
consisting primarily of citizen volunteers and city staff members who have
volunteered their time, have worked long and hard to achieve the goals set
forth when the commission was established. An overall watershed
management plan was prepared and approved after public hearings. The
Commission has received technical advice from the United States Army Corps
of Engineers in their planning and has obtained the support and aid of all
United States Senators and Congressional Representatives representing the
member cities. In 1976 the Commission and the Corps of Engineers were
successful in having Bassett Creek included in the 1976 Water Resources
Development Act (Section 173 Public Law 94 -587). The Board of Engineers
for Rivers and Harbors submitted a favorable report to the Secretary of the
Army on March 30, 1977. The Secretary of the Army has by letter under date
of June 19, 1978 notified the U.S. Congress of the approval of the Chief of
Engineers.
The Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission has participated with
the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration, the City of Minneapolis and the Corps of Engineers in the
planning and construction of a deep tunnel in Minneapolis which is designed
to carry Bassett Creek under a portion of the City of Minneapolis. The
Commission has held hearings and approved and ordered upstream
construction in the cities of Golden Valley., Plymouth, Minneapolis, and
-1-
Crystal. The local share of these costs is being .paid by the nine member
communities pursuant to an agreement consistent with the fundinc
requirements set forth in Articles VII and VIII of the joint powerE
agreement which has been in effect from 1968 to 1993. The prior joint
powers agreement contained the following "Statement of Intent ":
STATEMENT OF INTENT REGARDING
AGREEMENT _
"Bassett Creek leaves Medicine Lake and flows generally eastward
through the Village of Medicine Lake, Plymouth, Golden Valley and into the
City of Minneapolis. In Minneapolis, the creek is channeled into a conduit
and runs underground to the Mississippi River to its eventual outf all. As
the creek runs through the aforementioned communities it collects story
waters and in effect acts as the storm sewer for a large densely populated
area and large unpopulated area. It also carries waters channeled to it or
naturally flowing to it from the Villages of Minnetonka and New Hope and the
Cities of Crystal, Robbinsdale, and St. Louis Park.
For a long time the improvement and development of this creek tc
carry the increased quantity of storm water has been needed to allow for the
orderly planning and development of the up- stream communities who mustrel}
on the creek as the outf all for storm waters collected or naturally f lowinc
from areas within these communities. As the communities contributinc
water to the creek have grown, and the lands naturally draining into the
creek have been covered with buildings and hard surfaced areas, the ability
of the creek and its appurtenant facilities to accommodate the water haE
diminshed. Studies have been conducted by the municipalities bott
individually and collectively and a study has been made by the United State;
Army Corps of Engineers. The threat of flood damage increases each yeal
with the increased use of land in the watershed area.
The nine member communities have been meeting over a number of
years in an effort to solve the storm water problems in the watershec
drained by Bassett Creek. Each year it becomes more apparent that
solutions must be sought to allow for a more orderly and efficient planninc
of the area and to allow the individual communities to plan storm sewer
facilities which must be constructed to serve lands within the individua:
communities. It is also apparent to all nine municipalities that plannin(
and construction to control the Bassett Creek cannot be done on the basis o:
each community looking at its individual problems. The creek downstreas
must be improved to accommodate the waters which will eventually bE
channeled and diverted to the outfall. To determine the downstreal
improvements - it -- is - necessary to know how much water will be contributed b,
the individual communities upstream and how much storm water will b(
retained in ponding areas upstream and the area of lands within th(
watershed which will be controlled b th indi nid al communities as "opel
lands" and which will not contribute as much storm water as lands which arl
developed residentially, commercially, or for industrial purposes.
Q►M
All of the nine communities within the Bassett Creek watershed
recognize the aforestated problems. In seeking solutions to the overall
drainage problem it becomes apparent that the only way the problems can be
solved is by joint planning, joint cooperation, joint financing and a
sincere desire on the part of each community to solve the overall drainage
problem within the watershed. This means that some agency, commission,
district, corporation, political subdivision, or other vehicle must be
found to plan and finance improvements to and to control the development of
lands within the watershed. Chapter 112 of the Minnesota Statutes
provides for the formation of a watershed district with the powers and
duties of conserving and controlling water and watercourses within a
watershed. The creation of such a district creates a new political
subdivision with the power to sue or be sued, to incur debts, liabilities
and obligations, to exercise the powers of eminent domain, to provide for
assessments, to borrow money and issue bonds and to do all other acts
necessary to carry out the powers vested in the district by said Chapter
112.' The managers of the district would be appointed by the Minnesota
Water Resources Board and subsequent appointments would be by the Board of
County Commissioners of Hennepin County. It is the belief of the parties
to this agreement that the creation of such a district would remove control
one step further from the electorate and the residents of this watershed
area who ultimately would pay the costs of the aforesaid improvements. It
would also create another political subdivision which would have to plan
and work with the individual parties to this agreement to solve the storm
water and drainage problems within the watershed.
The purpose of this statement of intent regarding the agreement is
to clarify and establish for any court of review or any arbitrator or for the
elected successors to the representatives who have entered into this
agreement, the reasons and purposes for this joint and cooperative
agreement. The parties to this agreement realize that the success or
failure of the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission created by this
agreement is dependent upon the sincere desire of each member community to
cooperate in the exercise of a joint power to solve a joint problem. Each
party to this agreement pledges this cooperation."
It is the intent of this amended agreement to carry forward the same
purposes as aforestated and to revise the Joint Powers Agreement to meet the
mandates of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B.201 through 103B.251 and
Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 relating to "Metropolitan Area Local Water
Management ". This amended agreement shall continue the existence of a
Watershed Management Organization in accordance with the provisions of the
Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act as set forth in Minnesota
Statutes 1992 Sections 103B.201 to and including 1038.251. The
organization hereby created shall have all of the powers and
-3-
responsibilities set forth in said 'statutes .for the Bassett Creek
Watershed. The purpose of the organization shall be to assist the 9 member
communities to preserve and use natural water storage and retention systems
to:
1. Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and
groundwater storage and retention systems;
2. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct
flooding and water quality problems;
3. Identify and plan.for means to effectively protect and
improve surface water and groundwater quality;
4. Establish more uniform local policies and official
controls for surface water and groundwater quality;
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;
S. To secure other benefits associated with the proper
management of surface water.
9. To promote and encourage cooperation among member cities
in coordinating local surface water and groundwater plans
and to be aware of their neighbui is problems and to protect
the public health, safety, and general welfare.
10. To continue the work of the Bassett Creek Water Management
Commission and to carry out the plans, policies anc
programs developed by said Commission from 1968 to 1993.
-4-
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
The parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State
of Minnesota, all of which have lands which drain surface water into Bassett
Creek and all of which have power to construct, reconstruct, extend and
maintain storm water management facilities. This agreement is made
pursuant to the authority conferred upon the parties by Minnesota Statutes
1992, Sections 471.59 and 103B.201 to and including Section 103B.251.
0J. I
I
The parties hereto create and establish the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission.
GENERAL PURPOSE
II.
The general purpose of this agreement is to provide an organization
which can investigate, study, plan and control the construction of
facilities to drain or pond storm waters, to alleviate damage by flood
waters; to improve the creek channel for drainage; to assist in planning for
land use; to repair, improve, relocate, modify, consolidate or abandon, in
whole or in part, drainage systems within the watershed area; and to do
whatever is necessary to assist in water conservation and the abatement of
surface water and groundwater contamination and water pollution. In
addition to the aforestated purposes, the organization hereby created
shall serve as the organization for the Bassett Creek watershed and shall
carry out all of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103B.201 through 103B.251, both inclusive.
-5-
DEFINITIONS
III.
For the purposes of this agreement, the terns used herein shall
have the meanings as defined in this article.
Subdivision 1. "Commission" means the organization created by
this agreement, the full name of which is "Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission." It shall be a public agency of its members.
Subdivision 2. "Board" means the Board of commissioners of the
Commission, consisting of one commissioner or one alternate commissioner
from each of the governmental units which is a party to this agreement and
which shall be the governing body of the Commission.
Subdivision 3. "Council" means the governing body of a
governmental unit which is a member of this Commission.
Subdivision 4. "Governmental Unit" means any city, county, or
town.
Subdivision 5. "Member" means a governmental unit which enters
into this agreement.
Subdivision 5. "Bassett Creek Watershed" means the area
contained within a line drawn around the extremities of all terrain whose
surface drainage is tributary to Bassett Creek and within the mapped areas
delineated on the map filed with the Board of Water and Soil Resource:
originally. filed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 473.877 Subd. 2 and as noF
amended by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.
MEMBERSHIP
IV.
The membership of the Commission shall consist of all of the
following governmental units as shall elect, through resolution of
_, ordinance adopted by their respective-.Councils, to become members:
City of Crystal
City of Golden Valley
City of Medicine Lake
City of Minneapolis
City of Minnetonka
City of New Hope
City of Plymouth
City of Robbinsdale
City of St. Louis Park
(The foregoing list is intended to include all governmental units which are
presently partially or entirely within the Bassett Creek Watershed.)
No change in governmental boundaries, structure or organizational
status shall affect the eligibility of any governmental unit listed above
to be represented on the Commission, so long as such governmental unit
continues to exist as a separate political subdivision.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
V.
Subdivision 1. The governing body of the Commission shall be its
Board. Each member shall be entitled to appoint one representative on the
Board, and one alternate who may sit when the representative is not in
attendance and said representative or alternate representative shall be
called a "Commissioner ".
Subdivision 2. The council of each member shall determine the
eligibility or qualification of its representative on the Commission but
the terms of each Commissioner shall be a5 established by this agreement.
Subdivision 3. The term of each Commissioner and Alternate
-7-
Commissioner appointed by each member shall be three years and until their
succesors are selected and qualify and shall commence on February 1, except
that the terms of the Commissioners first appointed shall commence from the
date of their appointment and shall terminate as follows:
a. The Commissioners appointed by the Cities of Crystal,
Golden Valley, and Medicine Lake shall terminate on
February 1, 1994.
b. The Commissioners appointed by the Cities of Minneapolis,
Minnetonka, and New Hope shall terminate on February 1,
1995.
C. The Commissioners appointed by the Cities of Plymouth,
Robbinsdale, and St. Louis Park shall terminate on
February 1, 1996.
Any vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term of any Commissioner by
the council of the governmental unit of the member who appointed said
Commissioner.. The Commission shall notify the Board of Water and Soil
Resources of member appointments and vacancies within 30 days after the
Commission is notified by a member. Each member agrees to publish a notice
of vacancies resulting from the expiration of a Commissioner's or Alternate
Commissioner's term or where a vacancy exists for any reason. Publication
and notice shall be in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section
103B.227, Subds. 1 and 2, as they now exist or as subsequently amended.
Subdivision 4. The council of each member agrees that its
representative commissioner will not be removed from the Board prior to the
expiration of the Commissioner's term, unless said Commissioner consents
in writing or unless said council has =resented the Commissioner with
charges in writing and has held a public hearing after reasonable notice to
-8-
the Commissioner. A member may remove a Commissioner or an Alternate
Commissioner for just cause or for violation of a Code of Ethics established
by the Commission or by the Member City or for malfeasance, nonfeasance, or
misfeasance. Said hearing shall be held by the Member City Council who
appointed the Commissioner. A Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner who
is an elected officer of a Member City who is not reelected may be removed by
the appointing Member City at the appointing Member's discretion. Any
decision by a Member to remove a Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner may
be appealed to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. A certified copy of
the Council's Resolution removing said Commissioner shall be filed with the
Secretary of the Board of Commissioners and shall show compliance with the
terms of this section.
Subdivision 5. Each member shall within 30 days of appointment
file with the Secretary of the Board of Commissioners a record of the
appointment of its Commissioner and Alternate Commissioner. The
Commission shall notify the Board of Water and Soil Resources of Member
appointments and vacancies within 30 days after receiving notice from the
Member. Members shall fill all vacancies within 90 days after the vacancy
occurs.
Subdivision 6. Commissioners shall serve without compensation
from the Commission, but this shall nct prevent a governmental unit from
providing compensation for its Commissioner. for serving on the Board, if
such compensation is authorized by such governmental unit and by law.
Commission funds may be used to reimburse a commissioner or Alternate
Commissioner for expenses incurred in performing Commission business and
if authorized by the Board.
Subdivision 7. At the first meeting of the Board and in February
-9-
of each year thereafter, the Board shall elect from its Commissioners
Chair, a Vice Chair, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such other officers as ii
deems necessay to conduct its meetings and affairs. At the organizationa:
meeting or as soon thereafter as it may be reasonably done, the Commissioi
shall adopt rules and regulations governing its meetings. Such rules anc
regulations may be amended from time to time at either a regular or a specia]
meeting of the Commission provided that a ten day prior notice of the
proposed amendment has been furnished to each person to whom notice of thf
Board meetings is required to be sent; a majority vote of all eligible vote:
of the then existing members of the Commission shall be sufficient to adopt
any proposed amendment to such rules and regulations.
The Board shall notify each Member City of the location and time of
regular and special meetings called by the Board. A meeting shall be hel(
at least annually, and all meetings shall be called and open to the public
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.705, or as amended.
POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD
VI.
Subdivision 1. The Commission, acting by its duly appointed Boar(
of Commissioners, shall as it relates to flood control, water quality .
ground water recharge and water conservation or in its construction of
facilities and other duties as set forth in Minnesota Laws have the power:
and duties set out in this article.
Subdivision 2. It may employ such persons as it deems necessary tc
accomplish its duties and powers. Any employee may be on a full time, pars
time or consulting basis as the Board determines.
Subdivision It may contract for space and for material anc
supplies to carry on its activities either with a member or elsewhere,
-io-
Subdivision 4. It may acquire necessary personal property to
carry out its powers and its duties.
Subdivision 5. It shall develop an overall plan containing a
capital improvement program within a reasonable time after qualifying, and
said plan shall meet all of the requirements as established in Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 103B. Said overall plan shall establish a comprehensive
goal for the development of Bassett Creek and shall establish a proposed
procedure for accomplishing the purposes of the organization as set forth
in Article II.
In preparing the overall plan, the Board may consult with the
engineering and planning staff of each. member governmental unit. It may
consult with the Metropolitan Council and other public and private bodies
to obtain and consider projections of land use, population growth, and
other factors which are relevant to the improvement and development of the
Bassett Creek watershed.
Said overall plan shall include the location and adequacy of the
outlet or outfall of said Bassett Creek. The plan shall include the
quantity of storage facilities and the sizing of an adequate outlet for all
branch lateral storm sewers within the Bassett Creek watershed. The plan
shall comply with state statutes and regulations promulgated and adopted by
the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
Upon completion of the overall plan, or amendments thereto, the
Board shall supply each member with a copy of the proposed plan and shall
submit the plan for review and comment to Hennepin County, all soil and
water conservation districts in Hennepin County and to all statutory and
home rule charter cities having territory within the watershed. All
governmental units which expect that substantial amendment of its local
-11-
comprehensive plan will be necessary in order to bring their .local wate
management into conformance with the Commission's watershed plan shal
describe as specifically as possible, the amendments to the local pla:
which it expects will be necessary. The Commission shall hold a public
hearing after 60 days mailed notice to the clerk of each member governmenta:
unit. The mailed notice of the hearing shall be sent at the same time th
plan is submitted to the members and to other governmental agencies. Afte
such public hearing, the Board shall prescribe the overall plan which shalt
be the outline for future action by the Commission.
The Commission shall then submit the plan, any comments receive(
and any appropriate amendments to the plan to the Board of Commissioners o:
Hennepin County. The County shall approve or disapprove projects in th
capital improvement program which may require the provision of county fund.
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 103B.251 or 103D.901. The Count-
shall have 60 days to complete its review. If the County fails to complet
its review within 60 days the plan and capital improvement programs shall b.
deemed approved.
After completion of the review by Hennepin County, the plan an
capital improvement program shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Counci
for its review. After completion of the review by the Metropolitan Counci
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.231, Subd. 8, the Commissio
shall submit the plan to the Minnesota Commissioner of Natural. Resource
and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for review and comment on th
consistency of the plan with state laws and rules relating to water an(
related land resources and to the Board of Water and Soil Resources fo
r°vlew as -provided in Minnesota statutes, Section 103B.231, Subd. 9.
ra
After return of the plan, the Commission shall submit to each of it
-12-
members a copy of the plan and all comments of the reviewing authorities.
The Commission shall wait for at least 30 days for comments from the
members.
The Commission shall adopt the overall plan within 120 days after
approval of the plan by the Board of Eater and Soil Resources. The
Commission shall then implement the approved plan and approved capital
improvement program by resolution of the Commission as hereinafter set
forth. The adoption of said overall plan shall be only upon a favorable
vote of a majority of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the
Commission. A copy of the adopted plan shall be filed with the clerk of
each member governmental unit. Upon notice and hearing as provided for in
adopting the overall plan, said plan may be amended by the Board on its own
initiative or on the petition of any member governmental unit.
The review provisions set forth in this section are those required
by Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.231. If the law is amended, approvals
shall be as required by law and the provisions contained in this section
shall be amended accordingly.
Subdivision 6. It shall make necessary surveys or utilize other
reliable surveys and data and develop projects to accomplish the purposes
for which the Commission is organized.
Subdivision 7. It may cooperate or contract with the State of
Minnesota or any subdivision thereof or federal agency or private or public
organization to accomplish the purposes for which it is organized.
Subdivision 8. It may order any member governmental'unitorunits
to construct, clean, repair, alter, abandon, consolidate, reclaim or
change the course oL terminus of ally ditch , draia., st -rm Se::er, Or water
course, natural or artifical, within the Bassett Creek watershed.
-13-
Subdivision 9. It may order any member governmental unit or units
to acquire, operate, construct or maintain dams, dikes, reservoirs an(
appurtenant works or other improvements necessary to implement the overal:
plan.
Subdivision 10. It shall regulate, conserve and control the us(
of storm and surface water and groundwater within the Bassett Creel
watershed.
Subdivision 11. It may contract for or purchase such insurance a:
the Board deems necessary for the protection of the Commission.
Subdivision 12. It may establish and maintain devices foi
acquiring and recording hydrological and water quality data within the
Bassett Creek watershed.
Subdivision 13. It may enter upon lands within or without the
watershed to make surveys and investigations to accomplish the purposes of
the Commission. The Commission shall be liable for actual damage:
resulting therefrom but every person who claims damages shall .serve the
Chairman or Secretary of the Board of Commissioners with a Notice of Clair
as required by Chapter 466.05 of the Minnesota Statutes.
Subdivision 14. It shall provide any member governmental unit
with technical data or any other information of which the Commission ha!
knowledge which will assist the governmental unit in preparing land us(
classifications or local water management plans within the watershed.
Subdivision 15. It may provide legal and technical assistance ii
connection with litigation or other proceedings between one or more of its
members and any other political subdivision, commission, Board or agency
relating to the planning or construction of facilities to drain or ponc
storm waters or relating to water quality within the Bassett Creei
-14-
watershed. The use of commission funds for litigation shall be only upon a
favorable vote of a majority of the eligible votes of the then existing
members of the Commission.
Subdivision 16. It may accumulate reserve funds for the purposes
herein mentioned and may invest funds of the Commission not currently
needed for its operations, in the - manner and subject to the laws of
Minnesota applicable to statutory cities.
Subdivision 17. It may collect monies, subject to the provisions
of this agreement, from its members, Hennepin County and from any other
source approved by a majority of its Board.
Subdivision 18. It may make contracts, incur expenses and make
expenditures necessary and incidental to the effectuation of these
purposes and powers and may disburse therefor in the manner hereinafter
provided.
Subdivision 19. It shall cause to be made an annual audit by a
certified public accountant or the state auditor of the books and accounts
of the Commission and shall make and file a report to its members at least
once each year including the following information:
a. the approved budget;
b. a reporting of revenues;
C. a reporting of expenditures;
d. a financial audit report or section that includes a
balance sheet, a classification of revenues and
expenditures, an analysis of changes in final balances,
and any additional statements considered necessary for
full financial disclosure;
e. the status of all Commission projects and work within the
-15-
watershed; and
f. the business transacted by the commission and other matter
which affect the interests of the commission.
Copies of said report shall be transmitted to the clerk of each membe
governmental unit.
Subdivision 20. Its books, reports and records shall be availabl
for and open to inspection by its members at ill reasonable times.
Subdivision 21. It may recommend changes in this agreement to it
members.
Subdivision 22. It may exercise all other powers necessary an
incidental to the implementation of the purposes and powers set fort
herein and as outlined and authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section
103B.201 through 103B.251.
Subdivision 23. It shall cooperate with the State of Minnesota
the Commissioner of Natural Resources and the Director of the Division o
Waters, Soils and Minerals of the Department of Natural Resources i
obtaining permits and complying with the requirements of Chapter 103G o
the Minnesota Statutes.
Subdivision 24. Each member reserves the right to conduc
separate or concurrent studies on any matter under study by the Commission
Subdivision 25. It shall establish a procedure for establishin
citizen or technical advisory committees and to provide other means fc
public participation.
METHOD OF PROCEEDING
VII.
Subdivision 1. The procedures to be followed by the Board i
carrying out the powers and duties set forth in Article VI, Subdivisions 5
oil=
6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, shall be as set forth in this article.
Subdivision 2. The Commissioners shall be the same as those
serving as Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners for the predecessor
Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. The Board shall immediately
proceed to revise the overall plan as set forth in Article VI, Subdivision 5
or as required by state statute. Upon adoption of said overall plan, the
Board shall proceed to implement said plan, and implementation may be
ordered by stages.
Subdivision 3. The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
shall be the successor to the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission as
constituted under the prior Joint Powers Agreement. All personal
property, money, bank accounts, records or any other thing of value and on
hand with the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission shall be
transferred to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.
Subdivision 4. The location and adequacy of the outlet for
Bassett Creek shall be determined and the Commission shall then prepare
plans which will provide capacity to outlet the surface waters which will be
collected within the Bassett Creek watershed. In determining the
necessary capacity for said outlet, the Commission shall take into
consideration the quantity of land within the watershed which each member
governmental unit has to pond or act as a reservoir for surface waters.. It
shall consider only lands which are under public ownership or under public
control and that will be perpetually dedicated to acting as a reservoir for
surface waters. The commission may require from each member governmental
unit a commitment in writing of the lands which shall be so dedicated,
including a legal description of the gross area and the capacity in acre
feet of water storage. No project which will channel or divert.additional
O &Z
waters to Bassett Creek shall be commenced by any member governmental unit
prior to approval of the Board of the design of an adequate outlet or of
adequate storage facilities. The adequacy of said outlet shall be
determined by the Board after. consultations with its professional
engineers.
Subdivision 5. All construction, reconstruction, extension or
maintenance of. Bassett . Creek including outlets, lift stations, dams,
reservoirs, or other appurtenances of a surface water or storm sewer systen
which involve construction by or assessment against any member
governmental unit or against privately or publicly owned land within the
watershed shall follow the statutory procedures outlined in Chapter 429 of
the Minnesota Statutes except as herein modified. The Board shall secure
from its engineers or some other competent person a report advising it in a
preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and -as tc
whether it shall best be made as proposed or in connection with some other
improvement and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended and
the proposed allocation of costs between members.
The Board shall then hold a public hearing on the proposed
improvement after mailed notice to the clerk of each member governmental
unit within the watershed. The Commission shall not be required to mail or
publish notice except by said notice to the clerk. Said notice shall be
mailed not less than 45 days before the hearing, shall state the. time and
place of the hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated
total cost and the estimated cost to each member governmental unit. The
Board may adjourn said hearing to obtain further information, may continue
said hearing pending action of the member governmental units or may take
such other action as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this
-18-
Commission.
To order the improvement, in accordance with the powers and duties
established in Article VI, Subdivisions 7, 6 and 9, a resolution setting
forth the order for a capital improvement project shall require a favorable
vote by two - thirds of all eligible votes of then existing Board of the
Commission. In all cases other than for capital improvement projects, a
majority vote of all eligible members of the Board shall be sufficient to
order the work. The order shall describe the improvement, shall allocate
in percentages the cost allocation between the member governmental units,
shall designate the engineers to prepare plans and specifications, and
shall designate the member who will contract for the improvement in
accordance with Subdivision 7 of this Article.
After the Board has ordered an improvement or if the hearing is
continued while the member governmental units act on said proposal, it
shall forward said preliminary report to all member governmental units with
an estimated time schedule for the construction of said improvement. The
Board shall allow an adequate amount of time, and in no event less than 45
days, for each member governmental unit to conduct hearings, in accordance
with the provisions of the aforestated Chapter 429 or the charter
requirements of any city, or to ascertain the method of financing which said
member governmental unit will utilize to pay its proportionate share of the
costs of the improvement. Each member governmental unit shall ascertain
within a period of 90 days the method it shall use to pay its proportionate
share of the costs.
If the Commission proposes to utilize Hennepin County's bonding
,_ L__ L �h + Stat,11tec n .251. or if the
aut�,ori�Y as sew �cr � J. � = yrnes -. ..�.. .. .., S ection 1 3B
Commission proposes to certify all or any part of a capital improvement to
-ly-
Hennepin County for payment, then and in that event all proceedings shall bi
carried out in accordance with the provisions set forth in said Sectio:
103B.251.
The Board shall not order and no engineer shall prepare plans an(
specifications before the Board has adopted a resolution ordering th+
improvement. The Board may order the advertising for bids upon receipt o:
notice from each member governmental unit who wi11 be assessed that it ha:
completed its hearing or determined its method of payment or upoi
expiration of 90 days after the mailing of the preliminary report to the
members.
Subdivision 6. Any member governmental unit being aggrieved b,
the determination of the Board as to the allocation of the costs of saic
improvement shall have 30 days after the commission resolution ordering the
improvement to appeal said determination. Said appeal shall be in wiihin(
and shall be addressed to the Board asking for arbitration. Th4
determination of the member's appeal shall be referred to a Board o:
Arbitration. The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three persons; oni
to be appointed by the Board of Commissioners, one to be appointed by thf
appealing member governmental unit, and the third to be appointed by the twc
so selected. In the event the two persons so selected do not appoint thi
third person within 15 days after their appointment, then the Chief Judge o,
the District Court of Hennepin County shall have jurisdiction to appoint.
upon application of either or both of the two earlier selected, the thirc
person to the Board of Arbitration. The third person selected shall not be
a resident of any member governmental unit and if appointed by the Chiei
Judge said person shall be a registered professional engineer. The
arbitrators' expenses and fees, together with the-other expenses, not
-20-
including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration shall be
divided equally between the Commission and the appealing member.
Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration
Act, Chapter 572 of the Minnesota Statutes.
Subdivision 7. Contracts for Improvements. All contracts which
are to be let as a result of the Board's order to construct, repair, alter,
reclaim or change the course or terminus of any ditch, drain, storm sewer,
or watercourse, or to acquire, operate, construct or maintain dams, dikes,
reservoirs or their appurtenances or to carry out any of the other
provisions of the plan as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, and for which
two or more member governmental units shall be responsible for the costs,
shall be let in accordance with the provisions of Section 429.041 of the
Minnesota Statutes. The bidding and contracting of said work shall be let
by any one of the member governmental units, as ordered by the Board of
Commissioners, after compliance with the statutes. All contracts and
bidding procedures shall comply with all the requirements of law applicable
to contracts let by a statutory city in the State of Minnesota.
The Commission shall not have the authority to contract in its own
name for any improvement work for which a special assessment will be levied
against any private or public property under the provisions of Chapter 429
or under the provisions of any City charter. These contracts shall be
awarded by action of the council of a member and shall be in the name of a
member governmental unit. This section shall not preclude the Commission
from proceeding under Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251.
Subdivision 8. Contracts with Other Governmental Bodies. The
Commission may exercise the powers set forth in Articl% VI, Subdivision 7,
but said contracts for a capital improvement shall require a favorable vote
-21-
of two - thirds majority of the eligible votes of the then existing members o:
the Commission.
Subdivision 9. Supervision. All improvement contracts awarder
under the provisions of Subdivision 7 of this Article shall be supervised b,
the member governmental unit awarding said contract or said member
governmental unit may contract or appoint any qualified staff member of
members of the Commission to carry out said supervision, but each member
agrees that the staff of this Commission shall be authorized to observe an(
review the work in progress and the members agree to cooperate with the
Commission staff in accomplishing the purposes of this Commission.
Representatives of the Commission shall have the right to enter upon thr
place or places where the improvement work is in progress for the purpose o:
making reasonable tests and inspections. The staff of this Commissiol
shall report and advise and recommend to the Board on the progress of sai4
work.
Subdivision 10. Land Acquisition. The Commission shall not hav+
the power of eminent domain. The member governmental units agree that an,
and all easements or interest in land which are necessary will be negotiate)
or condemned in accordance with Chapter 117 of the Minnesota Statutes by th(
unit wherein said lands are located, and each member agrees to acquire th
necessary easements or right of way or partial or complete interest in iani
upon order of the Board of Commissioners to accomplish the purposes of thi:
agreement. All reasonable costs of said acquisition shall be considere+
as a cost of the improvement. If a member governmental unit determines i•
is in the best interests of that member to acquire additional lands, it
conjunction with the taking of lands for storm and surface drainage o.
storage, for some other purposes, the costs of said acquisition will not bi
-22-
included in the improvement costs of the ordered project. The Board in
determining the amount of the improvement costs to be assessed to each
member governmental unit may take into consideration the land use for which
said additional lands are being acquired and may credit the acquiring
municipality for said land acquisition to the extent that it benefits the
other members of this agreement. Any credits may be applied to the cost
allocation of the improvement project under construction or the Board if
feasible and necessary may defer said credits to a future project.
If any member unit refuses to negotiate or condemn lands as ordered
by the Board, any other member may negotiate or condemn outside its
corporate limits in accordance with the aforesaid Chapter 117. All
members agree that they will not condemn or negotiate for land acquisition
to pond or drain storm and surface waters within the corporate boundaries of
another member within the Bassett Creek watershed except upon order of the
Board of this Commission.
The Commission shall have authority to establish land acquisition
policies as a part of the overall plan. The policies shall be designed to
equalize costs of land throughout the watershed. Said policy is contained
in the existing watershed management plan and may be continued in any
revised overall plan required by Minnesota Statutes.
Subdivision 11. Pollution Control and Water Quality. The
Commission shall have the authority and responsibility to protect and
improve water quality in the watershed as this is one of the main purposes
set forth in the Surface Water Management Act. All member governmental
units agree that they will refuse to allow the drainage of sanitary sewage
or industrial wastes onto any land or into any watercourse or storm sewer
draining into Bassett Creek. The Board may investigate on its own
-23-
initiative and shall investigate upon petition of any member all complaint
relating to pollution of surface water or groundwater draining into o
affecting Bassett Creek or its tributaries. Upon a finding that the tree;
or surface waters or groundwater- are being polluted, the Board shall orde
the member governmental unit to abate this nuisance and each member agree;
that it will take all reasonable action available to it under the law t+
alleviate the pollution and to assist in protecting and improving the wate.
quality of surface water and groundwater in the watershed.
Subdivision 12. Local Water Management Plans. The Commissioi
shall have power and authority to review the members' local wate
management plans, capital improvement programs and official control:
required by Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.235 and /or by rule:
promulgated and adopted by the Board of Water and Soil Resources. Th
members also understand that the overall plan and capital improvemen
program required for the entire watershed must consist of the local parts i
the plan and therefore every effort shall be made by the Commission t
coordinate the local plans with the watershed's overall plan. The member:
further understand and agree that upon completion and approval of th
overall plan required by Minnesota Statutes 103B.231, each member will b
required to present their local management plan to the Commission a.
required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.235. It is therefor
important that each member provide the Commission with their best effort t�
coordinate and plan for the individual member's local plan at the. same time
the watershed overall plan is being assembled.
FINANCES
VIII.
Subdivision 1. The Commission funds may be expended by the Boar
-24-
in accordance with this agreement and in accordance with the procedures as
established by law and in the manner as may be determined by the Board. The
Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or trust companies,
authorized by Chapters 118 and 427 of the Minnesota Statutes to receive
deposits of public moneys and to act as depositories for the Commission
funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of Commission funds
without the signature of at least two Board members, one of whom shall be the
Treasurer or his Authorized Deputy Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be
required to file with the Secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least
$10,000 or such higher amount as shall be determined by the Board. The
Commission shall pay the premium on said bond.
Subdivision 2. The members agree to contribute all cash, bank
deposits, and other assets held by the Bassett' Creek Water Management
Commission to the new Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission to
carry out the purposes of the Commission. Each member governmental unit
has contributed its proportionate share of said funds based on the net tax
capacity and area of all taxable property within the Bassett Creek
watershed.
Subdivision 3. Each member agrees to contribute each year to a
general fund, said fund to be used for general administration purposes
including, but not limited to: salaries, rent, supplies, development of
an overall plan, insurance, and bonds, and to purchase and maintain devices
to measure hydrological and water quality data. Said funds may also be
used for normal maintenance of the facilities, but any extraordinary
maintenance or repair expense shall be treated as an improvement cost and
processed in accordance with Subdivision 4 of this Article. The annual
contribution by each member shall be based fifty percent (50 %) on the net
-25-
tax capacity of all property within the Watershed and fifty percent (50 %) of
the basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries of the
Watershed each year to the total area in the Bassett Creek watershed. In n(
event shall any assessment require a contribution to exceed one -half of on(
percent of the net tax capacity within the watershed.
Subdivision 4.
(a) An improvement fund shall be established for each improvement
project instituted under Article VII, Subdivision 3. Each member agree:
to contribute to said fund its proportionate share of the engineering,
legal and administrative costs as determined by the amount to be assessec
against each member as a cost of the improvement. The Board shall submit it
writing a statement to each member, setting forth in detail the expense:
incurred by the Commission for each project.
Each membE er agrees to pay to or contract with the member
governmental unit awarding said contract for the improvement, it:
proportionate share of the cost of the improvement in accordance with the
determination of the Board under Article VII, Subdivision 5. The member
awarding the contract shall submit in writing copies of the engineer'!
certificate authorizing payment during construction and the member beinc
billed agrees to pay its proportionate share of said improvement cost!
within 30 days after receipt of the statement. The member awarding the
contract shall advise other contributing members of the tentative time
schedule of the work and the estimated times when the contributions shall be
necessary.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
subdivision, the Commission may by a vote of 2 /3rds of all eligible votes of
the then existing members of the Commission decide to proceed to fund all of
-26-
any part of the cost of a capital improvement contained in the capital
improvement program of the plan pursuant to the authority and subject to the
provisions set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1038.251. The
Commission and Hennepin County may establish a maintenance fund to be used
for normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole
or in part with money provided by Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103B.251. The levy and collection of an ad valorem tax
levy for maintenance shall be by Hennepin County based upon a tax levy
resolution adopted by a majority vote of all eligible members of the
Commission and remitted to the County on or before the date prescribed by
law each year. If it is determined to levy for maintenance, the Commission
shall be required to follow the hearing process established by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103D.915 and 103D.921 and acts amendatory thereof and in
addition thereto. Mailed notice shall be sent to the Clerk of each member
municipality at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
Subdivision 5. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall
adopt a detailed budget for the ensuing year and decide upon the total
amount necessary for the general fund. Budget approval shall require a
favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes of the then existing
members of the Board.
The Secretary of the Board shall certify the budget on or before
July 1 to the clerk of each member governmental unit together with a
statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each member.
The Council of each member agrees to review the budget, and the
Board shall upon notice from any member received prior to August 1, hear
objections to the budget, and may upon notice to all members and after a
hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the members of
-27-
any and all modifications or amendments.
Each member agrees to provide the funds required by the budget an(
said determination shall be conclusive if no member enters objections it
writing on or before August 1. If no objections are submitted to the Board,
each member agrees to provide the funds approved by the Board, after the
Board has conducted the aforementioned hearing. Modifications of
amendments to the original budget require a favorable vote by a majority o3
all eligible voters of then existing members of the Board.
The budget shall not in any event require any member to contribute
in excess of one -half of one percent of the net tax capacity of all taxable
property within the watershed and within said members corporate
boundaries.
The schedule of payments by the members shall be determined by the
Board in such a manner as to provide for an orderly collection of .the funds
needed.
Upon notice and hearing, the Board by a favorable vote of a majoritl
of all eligible votes of then existing members may adopt a supplemental
budget requiring additional payments by the members within 60 days of its
adoption but in no event shall the budget require any member to contribute
in excess of one- half of one percent of the net tax capacity of all taxable
property within the watershed or within any member's corporate boundaries
in any one calendar year.
Members' attention is drawn to Minnesota Statutes, Sectior
103B.245, which authorizes a watershed Management Tax District to be
created within each member City to pay the costs of planning and for the
purpose of paying capital costs and /or normal and routine maintenance of
facilities.
-28-
Subdivision
5. Cost Allocation. All capital costs incurred by
the Commission shall
be apportioned to the respective members on either
(1) , (2) , or (3 ) of
the following bases:
(1) A negotiated
amount to be arrived at by the members who
have
lands in the subdistrict responsible for the capital
improvement.
(2) (a)
Fifty percent of all capital costs or the
financing thereof shall be apportioned to each
member.on the basis of the real property valuation
net tax capacity of each member within the
boundaries of the watershed each year to the total
real property valuation net tax capacity in the
Bassett Creek watershed area governed by this
Agreement.
(b)
Fifty percent of all capital costs or the
financing thereof shall be apportioned to each
member on the basis of the total area of each
member within the boundaries of the watershed
each year to the total area in the Bassett Creek
watershed area governed by this Agreement.
(c)
Capital costs allocated under the 50% area /50%
net tax capacity formula herein set forth may be
varied by the Commission by a 2 /3rds vote if:
(1) any member community receives a direct
benefit from the capital improvement
which benefit can be defined as a lateral
-29-
as well as a trunk benefit, or
(2) the capital improvement provides
direct benefit to one or more member
which benefit is so disproportionate a
to require in a sense of fairness
modification in the 50/50 formula.
(d) Credits to any member for lands acquired by sai
member to pond or store storm and surface wate
shall be allowed against costs set forth i
Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this Section
(3) If the project is constructed and financed pursuant t
Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251, the member
understand and agree that said costs will be levied on al
taxable property in the watershed as set forth in th
statute.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
I%.
Subdivision 1. The Commission shall not have the power to issu
certificates, warrants or bonds.
Subdivision 2. The Commission shall not have the power of eminen
domain and shall not own any interest in real property. All interests i
lands shall be held in the name of the corporate member wherein said land
are located.
Subdivision 3. The Commission shall not have the power to levy
special assessment upon any privately or publicly owned land. All suc
assessments shall be levied by the member wherein said lands are located
It shall have the power to require any member to contribute the cost
-30-
allocated or assessed according to the other provisions of this agreement.
Subdivision 4. Each member agrees that it will not directly or
indirectly collect or divert any additional surface water to the
Mississippi River or its tributaries from any subdistrict or subtrunk
without a permit from the Board of Commissioners. Permits may be granted
by the Board for a member to proceed with the construction or reconstruction
t.
of improvements within the individual corporate members' boundaries and at
its sole cost upon a.finding:
(a) that there is an adequate outlet; and
(b) that said construction is in conformance with the overall
plan; and
(c) that the construction will not adversely affect other
members of this agreement.
Subdivision 5. Any member who is more than 60 days in default in
contributing its share to the genezal fund shall have the vote of its Board
member suspended pending the payment of its proportionate share.
Any member who is more than 60 days in default in contributing its
proportionate share of the cost of any improvement to the contracting
member shall upon application of the contracting member have the vote of its
Board member suspended, pending the payment of its proportionate share.
Any Board member whose vote is under suspension shall not be
considered as an eligible member as such membership affects the number of
votes required to proceed on any matter under consideration by the Board.
DU:RATI ®N
X .
Subdivision 1. Each member agrees to be bound by the terms of this
agreement until January 1, 2015, and it may be continued thereafter at the
-31-
option of the parties.
Subdivision 2. This agreement may be terminated prior to Januar
1, 2015, by the unanimous consent of the parties. If the agreement is to bf
terminated, a notice of the intent to dissolve the Commission shall be sen'
to the Board of Water and Soil Resources and to Hennepin County at least 9{
days prior to the date of dissolution.
Subdivision 3. In addition to the manner provided in Subdivisior
2 for termination, any member may petition. the Board to dissolve the
agreement. Upon 90 days notice in writing to the clerk of each member
governmental unit and to the Board of Water and Soil Resources and tc
Hennepin County, the Board shall hold a hearing and upon a favorable vote bl
a majority of all eligible votes of then existing Board members, the Board
may by Resolution recommend that the Commission be dissolved. Said
Resolution shall be submitted to each member governmental unit and if
ratified by three - fourths of the councils of all eligible members within 6G
days, said Board shall dissolve the Commission allowing a reasonable time
to complete work in progress and to dispose of personal property owned by
the Commission.
DISSOLUTION
%I.
Upon dissolution of the Commission, all property of the Commission
shall be sold and the proceeds thereof, together with monies on hand, shall
be distributed to the eligible members of the Commission. Such
distribution of - Commissi.on.assets shall be.made in proportion to the total
contribution to the Commission as required by the annual budget.
-32-
EFFECTIVE DATE
XII.
This agreement shall be in full farce and effect upon the filing of
a certified copy of the resolution approving said agreement by all nine
members. Said resolution shall be filed with the Chair of the existing
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (presently W. Peter Enck of
the City of New Hope), who shall notify all members in writing of its
effective date and shall set the date for the next meeting to be conducted
under this amended Joint Powers Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental units, by action
of their governing bodies, have caused this agreement to be executed in
accordance with the authority of Minnesota Statutes Sections 103B.211 and
471.59.
-33-
Approved by the City Council
Approved by the City Council
September 7 , 1993.
Appr ed by the City Council
1993.
Approved by the City Council
1993.
Approved by the City Council
1993.
Approved by the City Council
g ilju- / , 1993.
Approved by the City Council
JUL 3 43 , 1993.
Approved by the City Council
t.L4 (n , 1993.
Approved by the City Council
Q � 1993.
CITY OF CRYSTAL
By
Attest 2AA A.
CITY OF iSOLDEN VALLEY n j
R. tti-71% / •fir
Attest
CITY OF MEDICINE LAKE
By
Attest
CITY OF T LL"nIDtMli
B
'" Mayor
Attest
i y Clerk
CI
By
At
CITY OF J NEW HOPE
Attest �ff�1[F
B
A
f
M.
CITY 0 ST. LO IS PARK
By W-
Attest
-34-
ountersigned
City Ftn
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
Appendix B
Stormwater Management Design Standards
Comparison
* Bonestroo
Append6c B - Stor nwater Management Design Standards Comparison
Categ
B assett Creek WMC Design Standards
Shingle Creek WMC Design Standards
Existing New Hope Design Standards
Recommended Action for LSWMP U ate
Any single family detached housing project 15 acres or larger in size;
New commercial, industrial, institutional or public development
projects in any other land use 5 acres or larger in size; and any land
project imrohring a site of more than 0.5 acres of land
disturbing activity requested by a member city to be reviewed
regardless of project size.
Commercial, industrial, institutional or public redevelopment project
Plans for any land development or site development within the 100 -
involving a site )f more than 5 acres of land
year floodplain as defined by the Flood Insurance Study for the
member city.
Project Review Required
The City reviews all development and re- development proposals for
Plans of any land development or individual she development
compliance with City stormwater management design standards
No action required
New residential development project involving a site of more than 2
adjacent to or within a lake, wetland, or a natural or altered
acres and whicf contains four or more proposed living units
watercourse as listed in the final inventory of Protected Waters and
Wetlands for Hennepin County, as prepared by the DNR
Residential redevelopment project involving more than 10 acres
Single family developments of more than 15 acres that drain to more
where there are four or more existing living units
than one watershed, for that portion of the site draining into the
Shingle Creek Watershed.
Infiltration
BMP checklist paduding infiltration 0 required for each project
submittal
One -half inch of impervious surface runoff must be infiltrated within
No standard idtified
en
Develop an infiltration standard consistent with the Shingle Creek WMC
72 hours using accepted BMPs for infiltration
standard (see Policy 5.1)
The permanent pool volume below the normal water level shall be
greater than or equal to the runoff volume from a 2.5 -inch, 24 -hour
Permanent sedimentation and water quality ponds consistent with
Permanent Pool Volume
storm over the entire contributing drainage area, assuming full
NURP and BMPs are required, providing a permanent wet pool with
Permanent pool greater than or equal to the runoff from a 2.54nch
o act
No required
development'
dead storage of at least the runoff from a 2.5 inch evert
storm event
Wet Pond Average Depth
9
4 feet or greater for large p onds, 3 feet or greater for ponds with
less than 3 ac -ft of wet volume'
4 feet or greater
3.5 feet or greater
Increase the G wet pond avers depth standard to 4 feet to be
consist¢nt with WMO standards (see Policy 3.5)
Skimming
Up to the 5 -year basin HWL
Up to the 1 -year basin HWL
1/3 of the 100 -year pond bounce
Modify the City skimming standard to require skimming up to the 5 -year
HWL to, be consistent with the Bassett Creek WMC standard (see Policy
3,4)
Onsite detention basins shall avoid or minimize increases in
predevelopment runoff rates to the greatest extent practical. The
Peak runoff fares may not exceed existing rates for the 2 -year, 10-
Rate Control
capacity of the receiving body to corvey and/or store the runoff shall
year, and 1 DO -year critical storm event or the capacity of
Follow the rate control guidance provided in the 1996 SWMP,
Add language to the current rate control standard to be consistent with
also be considered so as to not adversely affect water levels off the
downstream conveyance facilities; or contribute to flooding
Appendix C
Ap�
the standards of both watersheds (see Policy 1.1)
site
Freeboard
Low floor elevation of adjacent structures must be a minimum of 2-
feet above the established 100- 00-year high water level
ye 9
No standard identified
Low floor elevation of adjacent structures must be a minimum of 2-
feet above the established 100•yeat high water level
No action required
Filling will generally not be allowed within that floodplain
established in tha Water Management Plan. If any municipality
No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure
Floodplain Alteration
desires to fill within the established floodplain, such filling will
require the approval of the Commission and require provisions for
Compensating storage is required to mitigate floodplain fill
shall be located, extended, converted, repaired, maintained, or
structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of the
Include language within the Chys standard to require compensatory
storage to mitigate floodplain fill to be consistent with the standards of
compensating storage and/or channel improvement so that the flood
City's floodplain ordinance and other applicable regulations which
both watersheds (see Policy 2.6)
level shall not be increased at any point along the channel due to
apply to uses within the jurisdiction of the floodplain ordinance
the fill
A buffer policy adjacent to water resources (including wetlands) be
Buffer Strips
included in the member cifies'revised local stormwater management
elated buffer strips of a minimum 20
V P foot average 30 foot width
are required adjacent to wetlands and watercourses
No standard identified
Develop a buffer strip standard within the Wetland Management Plan
plans
Manage wetlands in accordance with the WCA. The BCWMC will
Wetlands may not be drained, filled, excavated, or otherwise altered
Welland alterations, where allowed, shall he on the basis of no net
Wetlands
assist the member cities with manag ng wetlands In accordance with
without an approved wetland replacement Ian from the local
pP p
loss. If the impact of an alteration is unavoidable, it should be
No action required
the WCA as requested
government unit (LGU) with jurisdiction
mitigated for through replacement, wetland restoration, and/or
improvements to existing wetland function and value
Erosion control plans submitted for review shall show proposed
Erosion and Sediment
methods of retaining waterbome sediments onsite during the period
of construction, and shall specify methods and schedules to
Erosion control plan using Best Management Practices (BMPs) is
Erosion control plan using Best Management Practices (BMPs) is
Control
determine how the site will be restored, covered, or revegetated
required
required
Na action, required
after construction
, r •-.. �".: y y ...� .....�,,,.,,.,. nc no:u ac,ev a niye. uy rvrxr iave�
Appendix C
Water Quality Cash Dedication Methodology
0 Bonestroo
Calculation of Cash Dedication — Supplemental Information
City of New Hope LWMP
Introduction
The following is a more detailed explanation of the calculation of cash dedications for new and re-
development projects as proposed in the New Hope Local Water Management Plan. Guidance for
calculation of the cash dedication amounts is presented in Section 6.7. This method is similar to the
methods used in several other Twin City Metro area suburbs.
Background
The method of cash dedication calculation proposed in the draft plan relies on the use of a water quality
pond design program called PONDSIZE to determine the size of a hypothetical pond recommended to treat
runoff from the development in question. This model requires input on the area of the proposed
development, how much of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces (such as rooftops, driveways,
and streets), and the capability of non - impervious areas to absorb precipitation. The output of the
PONDSIZE model provides information on the surface area of the pond at normal water level, the volume of
the standing water pool in the pond (i.e. between the normal water level and the bottom of the pond), and
the mean depth of the standing water pool. Depending on the land use proposed for the development, the
area of the hypothetical pond (acres) in the model output is then multiplied by the appropriate unit land
cost (see Section 6.7 for unit costs) and the pond volume (in cubic yards) is multiplied by the unit pond
volume cost.. The two costs are summed. A cost for appurtenances is then added which is 20% of the sum
of the land and pond volume cost or $4,000, whichever is less. The total of the pond area cost, the pond
volume cost, and the appurtenance cost is the total cash dedication for the development.
The same general method is used when figuring a cash dedication for a redevelopment or site expansion
project where impervious coverage would be expanded as a result of the redevelopment or site expansion
activity. The purpose of this proposed provision is to provide an incentive to avoid expansion of impervious
coverage associated with redevelopment or site expansion projects. Impervious coverage is directly tied to
the pollutant export characteristics of urban land; the higher the impervious coverage, the greater the
pollution mass generated by that unit of land.
Explanation of Cash Dedication Calculations
The following is an explanation for calculation of cash dedication amounts for each of the four examples
shown in Section 6.7 of the Local Water Management Plan.
Example: Two -acre new medium - density residential development (50% impervious coverage)
Explanation:
Based on a development area of 2 acres and an impervious coverage of 50% as well as a simple
pro -rata adjustment to account for the small size of the development, the PONDSIZE model
generates a hypothetical pond 0.10 acres in area with a wet volume of 0.241 acre -feet (.241 acre -
feet X 1613 yds /acre -foot = 388 yds Since the development is residential, the pond area of
0.102 acres is multiplied by $150,000 /acre (see Section 6.7) to give $15,270. The pond volume of
388 yd' is multiplied by the unit pond volume cost of $4/yd' (see Section 6.7) to give $1,550. The
sum of these amounts is $16,820. The appurtenance cost is $3,360 (the lesser of 20% of this
amount or $4,000). Thus, the total cash dedication is approximately $20,190.
2. Example: Four -acre commercial redevelopment (from 75% to 80% impervious coverage)
Explanation:
Using the same model inputs as above but adjusting the impervious coverage to 80 %, the
PONDSIZE model generates a hypothetical pond 0.281 acres in area with a wet volume of .695
acre -feet (1122 yd'). The development is commercial, so the pond area of .281 acres is multiplied
by $200,000 /acre to give $56,200. The pond volume of 1122 yd' is multiplied by $4 /yd'to give
$4,490. The sum of these amounts is $60,690. The appurtenance cost is the lesser of 20% of
this figure ($12,140) or $4,000. Thus the total cash dedication amount is $56,200 + $4,490 +
$4,000 = $64,690.
Example: Two -acre commercial redevelopment project with no increase in impervious coverage
Explanation:
The City will not require a water quality cash dedication when a redevelopment projects do not
increase the existing impervious percentage. The purpose of this standard is to discourage
increases in impervious coverage for redevelopment projects.
COUNCIL
V'Ra Request for Action
Originating Department
Approved for Agenda
Agenda Section
Public Works
October 27, 2008
Development & Plannin
Item No.
8.2
By: Guy Johnson
By: Kirk McDonald
Resolution adopting and directing implementation of the Local Water Management Plan (LWMP).
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is recommending that the Council pass a resolution adopting the local water management plan (LWMP)
and directing implementation of said plan.
POLICY /PAST PRACTICE
The city of New Hope adopted a surface water management plan in 1996 to implement the policies and
objectives of Minnesota statutes. The city of New Hope values its natural resources. Through the
implementation of the local watershed management plan, a framework was established to help maintain and
improve those natural resources.
BACKGROUND
In December of 1992, Council authorized the preparation of the city surface water management plan as
required by Minnesota Statute 103B. The city adopted the plan in November of 1996. The local water
management plan was initiated with several goals in mind; minimize existing potential for flooding, erosion
and sedimentation from surface water flows; promote groundwater recharge through creation of additional
ponding areas; preserve and improve water recreational facilities; and protect and enhance wildlife habitat.
This management plan conformed with the requirements of both the Bassett Creek and Shingle Creek
Watershed management plans approved by the state board of water and soil resources. Much of the content,
including the goals, still hold true today, however many of the projects identified to reach those goals have
been completed.
MOTION? ( � SECOND BY
BY �J f au..dIL�fc L�
TO: 4. 1 -/ 6
L
I:RFA \Pubworks\2008 \Local Water Management Plan Adoption
Request for Action
October 27, 2008
Page 2
Current Minnesota Statute 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410, require that the city's 1996 plan be updated to
a local Neater management plan (LWMP). The statutes and rules are administrated by the Minnesota board of
water and soil resources. The new LWMP must meet these requirements, along with being consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Metropolitan Council's water resource management policy plan, the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC), and the Shingle Creek Watershed Management
Commission (SCWMC).
A draft LWMP was distributed to, and has been reviewed by, the Metropolitan Council, SCWMC, BCWMC,
and the city's watershed commissioners. After the reviews were completed, the groups submitted their
comments regarding the city's proposed plan. At its August 18, 2008, work session, Council discussed the
LWMP, the comments received from all the groups, and staffs suggested responses to all of the comments.
The plan was revised to incorporate the feedback from the work session's discussions, and then resubmitted
to the BCWNIC and SCWMC.
The LWMP and the responses have been reviewed by both the SCWMC and the BCWMC. SCWMC approved
the LWMP on September 11, 2008, and BCWMC passed a resolution on October 16, 2008 approving the city's
LWMP. The resolution, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 103B.235, Subd. 4, states that the city shall
formally adopt the plan.
FUNDING
The local water management plan was funded through the city's storm water fund.
ATTACHMENTS
The BCWMC resolution and a SCWMC letter approving the city's LW1\1P, a transmittal letter from the
engineer, a copy of the LWMP executive summary, and the resolution are attached.
City of New Hope
Resolution No. 08 —
Resolution adopting and directing implementation
of the Local Water Management Plan (LWMP)
WHEREAS, the watershed commissions composed of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission (BCWMC) and the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
(SCWMC) have prepared and approved a watershed management plan; and,
WHEREAS, the water management plan of the commissions and Minnesota Statutes require that
local water management plans be prepared as required by Minnesota Statute, Section
103B.235, and in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8410; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the plan is to provide detailed information including, but not limited to,
storm water flows, pond and pipe improvements, pond storage requirements for flood
prevention, wet volume requirements for water quality control and pond levels, wetland
classification and water quality assessments in lakes; and,
WHEREAS, the local watershed management plan will provide a framework and direction for
improvements in storm water quantity, storm water quality and water bodies (lakes,
streams, and wetlands); and,
WHEREAS, the city of New Hope places great value in maintaining and improving the city's natural
resources including our watersheds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Minnesota:
1. That the LWMC is hereby adopted.
2. The mayor and city manager (the "Officers ") are authorized and directed to enter
into, and sign on behalf of the city, the resolution adopting and directing
implementation of the updated local water management plan.
Adopted by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota this 27th day of
October, 2008.
Attest C. �.�.(���� ��' Lk
City Clerk
Mayor
I:RfA\Pubworks\ 2008\ Local Water Management Plan Adoption Resolution
BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 08 -08
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOCAL PLAN PREPARED
BY THE CITY OF NEW HOPE
WHEREAS, the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission has been organized as a
joint powers watershed management organization pursuant to the authority set forth in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103B.211, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has prepared a water management plan, which has been
reviewed by all appropriate state and local agencies and has been approved by the Board of Water
and Soil Resources, and
WHEREAS, the water management plan of the Commission and Minnesota Statutes
require that local water management plans be prepared as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section
103B.235 and in accordance with Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8410, and
WHEREAS, the City of New Hope has prepared and submitted to the Commission the
City's local water management plan, and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.235, Subd. 3 authorizes the watershed
management organization to review and approve local water management plans and to take other
actions necessary to assure that the local plan is in conformance with the Commission's plan and
the standards set forth therein,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the Bassett Creek Water Management
Commission, as follows:
1. The New Hope Local Surface Water Management Plan dated May 2008, as
amended in August 2008, is hereby approved.
2. This Commission has reviewed the plan and hereby determines that the plan has
been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.235 and
Minnesota Rules 8410.0160 and 8410.0170, and contains the requirements for local plans.
3. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.235, Subd. 4, the New Hope
plan shall be adopted and implemented by the City within 120 days of this action, and the City shall
amend its official controls in accordance with the plan within 180 days.
4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.235, Subd. 5, and consistent with the
Bassett Creek Water Management Plan, the City shall submit amendments to the local water
management plan to this Commission for review and approval in accordance with State Statutes
and Minnesota Rules.
Chairman
Attest:
Secretary
2
Shin - ,.reek
Watershed Management Commission
3235 Fernbrook Lane N • Plymouth, MN 55447
Phone (763) 553 -1144 • Fox (763) 553 -9326
www.shinglecreek.org
September 16, 2008
Guy Johnson
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Brad Schleeter
Bonestroo & Associates
2335 W. Highway 36
St. Paul, MN 55113
Re: New Hope Local Water Management Plan Update
Gentlemen:
The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission considered the Local Water Management Plan update
submitted by the City of New Hope on May 28, 2008. The Plan was also submitted to the Metropolitan Council for
its statutory 45 -day review. The Commission is required to consider Met Council comments in its review of the
Local Plan. Metropolitan Council comments were received June 3, 2008, and related to runoff treatment and
volume management.
The Commission preliminarily reviewed the LWMP update at its July 10, 2008 meeting and forwarded comments to
the City. The City has since made a number of revisions to the LWMP based on those comments and comments
received from the Bassett Creek WMC. The Commission's review of the revisions noted that, while the Bass Creek
biotic impairment was referenced in the plan, there were no policies or activities specifically related to Bass Creek in
the plan. The LWMP revision does note in Policy 4.3 that it is the intention of the City to fully implement action
items in future TMDL Implementation Plans, which would presumably include potential Bass Creek actions.
At their September 11, 2008 meeting, the Commission determined that the revisions to the LWMP adequately
address the comments made to the City by the Commission and Metropolitan Council and voted to approve the New
Hope LWMP as revised September 3, 2008.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your City's Local Watershed Management Plan. If you have
any additional comments, please contact Diane Spector at Wenck Associates, 763.479.4280, or dspector @wenck.com.
Sincerely,
Judie A. Anderson
Administrator
Cc: Diane Spector, Wenck Associates.
William G. Moore Metropolitan Council
Jack Frost, Metropolitan Council
JAA:tim
ZAShingle Creek \ManagementPlan\LocalPlans\New Hope\L- commenting on New Hope revised LWMP.doc
C':•• ...,, _'.L.. '.- __ _ _ .....,: .- ... . _ . - - - -'. Y.c- '. `... s _ ..� ..... e. .. ate... � 'F,.".:". .. .cc ,. n .e_s.:' _ . .a <. N.. .....: ..ti .. -. —�
Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park • Crystal • Maple Grove • Minneapolis • New Hope • Osseo • Plymouth • Robbinsdale
2 H q; it lay 36 W
St. Pai MJ 55113
rrl 651. 636 -4600
F, -, ,x 651- 636.1311
twv ;. 1 ,0110 rti.lu.com
September 9, 2008
Fonorable Mayor and City Council
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428 -4898
Re: Local Water Management Plan
City of New Hope
Bonestroo File No.: 34 -06 -186
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members.
0 BoneStroo
Transmitted herewith is the City of New Hope's final local Water Management Plan (LWMP), The LWMP
addresses water quantity and quality issues and priorities within the City, coordinating these priorities closely
with the Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commissions, which have jurisdiction in New
Hope.
This LWMP addresses review comments received from City staff, City Council members, the Metropolitan
Council, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, and the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission. Consequently, the LWMP represents a consensus among different levels of
government on New Hope's approach to managing its local water resources as well as how New Hope's efforts
fit with broader regional water resource management objectives. Equally important, the Plan meets the
requirements listed under Minnesota Statute 1038, Minnesota Rules 8410, and applicable Watershed
Management Organization rules.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City of New Hope. If you have any questions regarding the Local
Water Management Plan, please contact me at (651) 604 -4801.
Sincerely,
BONESTROO
Bradley P. Schleeter
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Bradley`P': Schleeter, P.E. t. Paul
St. Clain
Date: September ZOr? Rey, IJo, 4501 Rochester
Mibaaukee
rhicarlo
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Executive Summary
Background
This Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) will serve as a comprehensive planning document to guide the City of
New Hope in conserving, protecting, and managing its surface water resources. This plan has been created to meet
the requirements detailed in Minnesota Statutes 103B and Minnesota Rules 8410, administered by the Minnesota
Board of Water and Soil Resources. This plan is also consistent with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan
Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan, and the two watershed management commissions having
jurisdiction within the City: Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) and Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC).
This LWMP is organized into sections that generally follow guidance provided by State statute, rules, and the
Metropolitan Council. These sections are described as follows:
• Section 1 identifies the purpose and scope of the LWMP.
• Section 2 describes the physical setting; the history, natural resources and land uses within the City.
• Sections 3 through 5 describe the regulatory agencies having jurisdiction in New Hope, and past studies and
agreements related to surface water resources.
• Section 6 presents a collection of the stormwater management related assessments within the City, identifies
recently completed and future stormwater management projects as well as assessments completed by others
that affect New Hope.
• Section 7 lists the goals and policies identified to address surface water management needs in the City.
• Section 8 summarizes implementation items from the stormwater management related assessment (Section 6)
and the goals and policies listed in Section 7.
• Section 9 outlines the continued administration of this plan.
Relation of Updated LWMP to 1996 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)
The preparation of this plan included a full review of the current surface water system in New Hope, relying heavily
on information from the 1996 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) and City staff input. The intent of this
LWMP update is to bring New Hope into compliance with current stormwater management regulatory requirements
and this update will supersede the main text of the 1996 SWMP (Chapters 1 -9). However, the stormwater system
technical information presented in the 199b SWMP Appendices A -D does not warrant an update and i.herefore these
appendices are incorporated by reference. The 1996 SWMP Appendices A -D will not be restated in this LWMP, but
rather the 1996 SWMP will stand as a reference document for technical background information regarding the
proposed system improvements. Once adopted, the LWMP update will officially supersede Chapters 1 -9 of the 1996
SWMP and incorporate by reference the technical Appendices A -D of the 1996 SWMP.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan #` Bonestroo Page i
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Executive Summary
Background
This Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) will serve as a comprehensive planning document to guide the City of
New Hope in conserving, protecting, and managing its surface water resources. This plan has been created to meet
the requirements detailed in Minnesota Statutes 1036 and Minnesota Rules 8410, administered by the Minnesota
Board of Water and Soil Resources. This plan is also consistent with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan
Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan, and the two watershed management commissions having
jurisdiction within the City: Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) and Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC).
This LWMP is organized into sections that generally follow guidance provided by State statute, rules, and the
Metropolitan Council. These sections are described as follows:
• Section 1 identifies the purpose and scope of the LWMP.
• Section 2 describes the physical setting; the history, natural resources and land uses within the City.
• Sections 3 through 5 describe the regulatory agencies having jurisdiction in New Hope, and past studies and
agreements related to surface water resources.
• Section 6 presents a collection of the stormwater management related assessments within the City, identifies
recently completed and future stormwater management projects as well as assessments completed by others
that affect New Hope.
• Section 7 lists the goals and policies identified to address surface water management needs in the City.
• Section 8 summarizes implementation items from the stormwater management related assessment (Section 6)
and the goals and policies listed in Section 7.
• Section 9 outlines the continued administration of this plan.
Relation of Updated LWMP to 1996 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)
The preparation of this plan included a full review of the current surface water system in New Hope, relying heavily
on information from the 1996 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) and City staff input. The intent of this
LWMP update is to bring New Hope into compliance with current stormwater management regulatory requirements
and this update will supersede the main text of the 1996 SWMP (Chapters 1 -9). However, the stormwater system
technical information presented in the 1996 SWMP Appendices A -D does not warrant an update and therefore these
appendices are incorporated by reference. The 1996 SWMP Appendices A -D will not be restated in this LWMP, but
rather the 1996 SWMP will stand as a reference document for technical background information regarding the
proposed system improvements. Once adopted, the LWMP update will officiaiiy supersede Chapters 1 -9 of the 1996
SWMP and incorporate by reference the technical Appendices A -D of the 1996 SWMP.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page i
Current Regulatory Setting
The City has a strong interest in protecting and managing its valuable water and natural resources, recognizing the
relationships between resource protection, land use management, development, redevelopment and fiscal
responsibility. Sections 3 -5 of this Plan identify the context into which the New Hope LWMP is fashioned. These
sections summarize the various regulatory agencies applicable plans, studies, and agreements, influencing the City's
stormwater management program.
System Assessment
Section 6 includes an assessment of the City's current stormwater management system. The assessment identifies
management issues identified by the City, the two watersheds with jurisdiction within the City, and other state and
federal agencies and splits these issues into two categories:
1. Stormwater management issues addressed by the City.
2. Existing stormwater management issues and possible corrective actions.
Goals and Policies
Following the assessment of the City's current stormwater management system, Section 7 identifies the City's goals
and policies for stormwater management. The goals identified in this section represent broad stormwater
management categories aimed at addressing the purposes of stormwater management planning identified in
Minnesota State Statute 103B.201, as follows:
1. Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems;
2. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality
problems;
3. Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater
quality;
4. Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater
management;
5. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
6. Promote groundwater recharge;
7. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and
8. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground
water.
The specific policies under each goal will guide implementation of the Local Water Management Plan to achieve the
particular stormwater management goal and provide consistency between the City's policies and the two watersheds
with jurisdiction within the City. The goals and policies in Section 7 reflect those identified in the City's 1996 SWMP,
as well as additional goals and policies necessary for consistency with the goals and policies of State, Regional, and
local watershed authorities.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local water Management Plan Bonestroo Page ii
Stormwater Management Implementation
The Implementation Section (Section 8) of the LWMP describes the specific activities proposed by the City to address
the stormwater management issues presented in Section 6 and implement the policies identified in Section 7. Section
8 provides recommended actions related to the City's official stormwater management controls and a list of system
improvement projects and activities, as well as other implementation priorities.
Appendices
This LWMP will be incorporated into the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update and will be applicable until 2018,
at which time an updated LWMP will be required. Periodic amendments may be required to incorporate changes in
local practices. In particular, changes in the two applicable Watershed Management Plans may require revisions to
this plan.
The LWMP Appendices include the following:
• Appendix A includes the Joint Powers Agreements between the City and both the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.
• Appendix B presents the stormwater management standards comparison between the City's current
stormwater management standards and those of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, as identified in.their respective Watershed Management
Plans.
• Appendix C presents a comparison of the City's stormwater management goals and policies with those of the
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.
• Appendix D provides detailed guidance on how the water quality cash dedication amounts are to be
calculated.
• Appendix E includes the approved New Hope Design Guidelines document.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan •+ �` Bonestr oo Page iii
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Paul, MN 55113
Tel 657-636-4600
Fax 651-636-1311
www.bonestroo.com
September 9, 2008
* B®nestroo
Mr. Guy Johnson
Director of Public Works
5500 International Parkway
New Hope, MN 55428
Re: Local Water Management Plan
City of New Hope
Bonestroo File No.: 34-06-186
Dear Guy:
Transmitted herewith is the City of New Hope's final Local Water Management Plan (LWMP). The LWMP
addresses water quantity and quality issues and priorities within the City, coordinating these priorities closely
with the Shingle Creek and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commissions, which have jurisdiction in New
Hope.
This LWMP addresses review comments received from City staff, City Council members, the Metropolitan
Council, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, and the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission. Consequently, the LWMP represents a consensus among different levels of
government on New Hope's approach to managing its local water resources as well as how New Hope's efforts
fit with broader regional water resource management objectives. Equally important, the Plan meets the
requirements listed under Minnesota Statute 103B, Minnesota Rules 8410, and applicable Watershed
Management Organization rules.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City of New Hope. If you have any questions regarding the Local
Water Management Plan, please contact me at (651) 604-4801.
Sincerely,
BONESTROO
4-�Siai_/
Bradley P. Schleeter
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Bradley rScTileeter, P.E. St. Paul
St. Cloud
Date: September 9, 2008 Reg. No. 45013 Rochester
Milwaukee
Chicago
CITY OF NEW NOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table of Contents
2.1
LOCATION AND HISTORY
2.2
.............................................................................................................................................
TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE
4
2.3
......................................................................................................................................
SOILS......................................................................................................................................................................6
4
2.4
GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER
2.5
....................................................................................................................................6
CLIMATE..................................................................................................................................................................8
2.6
WATER RESOURCES
26.7
...................................................................................................................................................
Creeks............................................................................................................................................................10
9
26.2 1 akes
70
26.3
..............................................................................................................................................................
Wetlands........................................................................................................................................................11
2.7
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS.................................................................................................................................................
2.8
FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION........................................................................................................................................
11
2.9
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
11
2.9.1
...................................................................................................................................
Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................................................................
12
29.2 Land Use
IZ
.........................................................................................................................................................12
SECTION3
- REGULATORY SETTING
...................................................................................................................................14
3.1
CITY SERVICES........................................................................................................................................................
3.2
HENNEPIN COUNTY
14
3.3
..................................................................................................................................................
HENNEPIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT (HCD)
14
3.4
..................................................................................................................
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
15
3.4.1
................................................................................................................
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC)
15
........................................................................
3..4.2 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission(BCWMC)
15
3.5
...................................................................
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
15
3.6
..............................................................................................................................................
STATE BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES (BWSR)
17
3.7
................ ....................... ........... .............................................
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY(MPCA)
1 17
3.8
.....................................................................................................
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR)
. 17
3.9
..................................... .........................................................
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH(MDH)
18
3.10
...............................................................................................................
MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD (EQB)
18
3.11
....................................................................................................
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION(MNDOT)
18
3.12
..............................................................................................
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)_
19
3.13
......................................................................................................
U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS(USACE)
19
3.14
...................................................................................................................
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
19
3.15
..................................................................................................
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
19
3.16
..................................................................................................
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY(USGS)........................................................
19
3.17
............................................................._......
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE(USFWS)
19
..................................................................................................................
19
SECTION 4-
RELATED STUDIES, PLANS AND REPORTS
........................................................................................................20
4.1 1996 NEW HOPE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.........................._.................................................................... 20
4.Z 2004 SCWMC SECOND GENERATION WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN........................................................................... 20
4.3 2004 BCWMC WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................
...................................................................................... 21
4.4 2005 SCWMC SHINGLE CREEK CORRIDOR STUDY. ........................................................................................................ 21
4.5 2007 TWIN AND RYAN LAKES NUTRIENT TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD(TMDL)................................................................. 21
4.6 2006 SCWMC WATER QUALITY PLAN....................................................................................................................... 21
Bonestroo
4.7 2006 SHINGLE CREEK CHLORIDE TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL)...........................................................................
22
4.8 BASSET[ CREEK MAIN STEM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN.........................................................................
I............... 22
4.9 BASSETT CREEK PARK POND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN.........................................................................................
23
4.10 NORTHWOOD LAKE WATERSHED AND LAKE MANAGEMENT PIAN......................................................................
I................ 23
SECTION 5 - WATER RESOURCES RELATED AGREEMENTS...................................................................................................24
5.1 SHINGLE CREEK WMC JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT........................................................................................................
24
5.2 BASSETT CREEK WMC JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT........................................................................................................
24
SECTION6 - SYSTEM ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................................................
25
6.1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE CITY..........................................................................................
25
6.2 EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ........................................
I..................... 28
6.3 WETLAND INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT ......................................... -................ .....................................................
..... 32
6.4 TMDLs.................................................................................................................................................................32
36
6.5 NPDES PERMITTING PROCESS....................................................................................................................................
36
6.6 COMPARISON OF REGULATORY STANDARDS...................................................................................................................
36
6.7 COMPARISON OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES.................................................................................
6.8 STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................
36
6.9 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL..............................................................................................................................
38
SECTION7 - GOALS AND POLICIES....................................................................................................................................41
7.1 GENERAL...............................................................................................................................................................
41
41
7.2 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES.....................................................................................................
7.2 .1 Water Quantity and Flood Control...................................................................................................................
41
722 Surface Water Quality......................................................................................................................................43
723 Groundwater Quality and Runoff Volume Management....................................................................................46
7.2,4 Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and Shorefand Management ............... ..... ......
.... ............... ............. I....... 46
725 Wedandand Lake Management ......................................................................................................................47
7.2.6 Erosion and Sediment Control, Monitoring, and Maintenance..........................................................................48
727 public participation, Coordination, and Education............................................................................................50
728 Funding
50
SECTION8 - IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................................................................................................
51
8.1 GENERAL ................ .... .............................................:.............................................................................................
51
51
8.2 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR OFFICIAL CONTROLS.........................................................................................................
52
8.3 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS................................................................................................................................
52
8.4 WETLAND INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT......................................................................................................................
53
8.5 TWIN AND RYAN LAKES TMDL...................................................................................................................................
8.6 SHINGLE CREEK TMDL.............................................................................................................................................53
54
8.7 NPDES IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................................................................................................
55
8.8 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.................................................................................................................................
55
8.9 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES......................................................................................................................................
57
8.10 POTENTIAL FUNDING................................................................................................................................................
SECTION9-ADMINISTRATION..........................................................................................................................................58
9.1 REVIEW AND ADOPTION PROCESS................................................................................................................................
58
58
9.2 PLAN AMENDMENTS AND FUTURE UPDATES..................................................................................................
I...............
List of Tables
Table2.1 New Hope Population.....................................................................................................................4
Table 2.2 Soil Survey Data for New Hope.......................................................................................................8
Table 2.3 Average Monthly Precipitation, 1976-2006.....................................................................................8
Table 2.4 Average Monthly Snowfall, 1976-2006...........................................................................................8
Table 2.5 24-hour Rainfall Depths and Frequency
.. •••... 9
# Bonestroo
Table 2.6
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 8.3
Table 8.4
Table 8.5
List of Figures
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 3.1
Figure 6.1
Map 1
Appendix
Minnesota DNR Public Waters in New Hope...................................................................................
c
Stormwater Management Issues Addressed by the City..................................................................
25
Current Stormwater Management Issues and Possible Corrective Actions .......................................
26
Impaired Waters in New Hope or Adjacent Communities................................................................
35
Surface Water Management Related Ordinances............................................................................
51
Priority System Improvement Projects............................................................................................
52
Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL Implementation Measures................................................................
54
Surface Water System Maintenance Schedule................................................................................
55
ImplementationProgram...............................................................................................................56
LocationMap.......................................................................
.................
Hydrologic Soil Group Classification Map ..............................................
2030 Proposed Land Use Map...............................................................
Watershed Management Organization Jurisdictional Boundaries............
ImpairedWaters Map............................................................................
Surface Water Svstem Mao ................
Appendix A
Joint Powers Agreements for the SCWMC and BCWMC
Appendix B
Stormwater Management Design Standards Comparison
Appendix C
Stormwater Management Goals and Policies Comparison
Appendix D
Water Quality Cash Dedication Methodology
Appendix E
New Hope Design Guidelines
* Bonestroo
... ........... I........................... 5
.......................................... 7
........................................13
........................................16
................................ I..... 34
.......................... Attachment
CITY OF NEW NOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAG
Executive Summary
Background
This Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) will serve as a comprehensive planning document to guide the City of
New Hope in conserving, protecting, and managing its surface water resources. This plan has been created to meet
the requirements detailed in Minnesota Statutes 103B and Minnesota Rules 8410, administered by the Minnesota
Board of Water and Soil Resources. This plan is also consistent with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan
Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan, and the two watershed management commissions having
jurisdiction within the City: Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) and Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC).
This LWMP is organized into sections that generally follow guidance provided by State statute, rules, and the
Metropolitan Council. These sections are described as follows:
• Section 1 identifies the purpose and scope of the LWMP.
• Section 2 describes the physical setting; the history, natural resources and land uses within the City.
• Sections 3 through 5 describe the regulatory agencies having jurisdiction in New Hope, and past studies and
agreements related to surface water resources.
• Section 6 presents a collection of the stormwater management related assessments within the City, identifies
recently completed and future stormwater management projects as well as assessments completed by others
that affect New Hope.
• Section 7 lists the goals and policies identified to address surface water management needs in the City.
• Section 8 summarizes implementation items from the stormwater management related assessment (Section 6)
and the goals and policies listed in Section 7.
• Section 9 outlines the continued administration of this plan.
Relation of Updated LWMP to 1996 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)
The preparation of this plan included a full review of the current surface water system in New Hope, relying heavily
on information from the 1996 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) and City staff input. The intent of this
LWMP update is to bring New Hope into compliance with current stormwater management regulatory requirements
and this update will supersede the main text of the 1996 SWMP (Chapters 1-9). However, the stormwater system
technical information presented in the 1996 SWMP Appendices A -D does not warrant an update and therefore these
appendices are incorporated by reference. The 1996 SWMP Appendices A -D will not be restated in this LWMP, but
rather the 1996 SWMP will stand as a reference document for technical background information regarding the
proposed system improvements. Once adopted, the LWMP update will officially supersede Chapters 1-9 of the 1996
SWMP and incorporate by reference the technical Appendices A -D of the 1996 SWMP.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page i
Current Regulatory Setting
The City has a strong interest in protecting and managing its valuable water and natural resources, recognizing the
relationships between resource protection, land use management, development, redevelopment and fiscal
responsibility. Sections 3-5 of this Plan identify the context into which the New Hope LWMP is fashioned. These
sections summarize the various regulatory agencies applicable plans, studies, and agreements, influencing the City's
stormwater management program.
System Assessment
Section 6 includes an assessment of the City's current stormwater management system. The assessment identifies
management issues identified by the City, the two watersheds with jurisdiction within the City, and other state and
federal agencies and splits these issues into two categories:
1. Stormwater management issues addressed by the City.
2. Existing stormwater management issues and possible corrective actions.
Goals and Policies
Following the assessment of the City's current stormwater management system, Section 7 identifies the City's goals
and policies for stormwater management. The goals identified in this section represent broad stormwater
management categories aimed at addressing the purposes of stormwater management planning identified in
Minnesota State Statute 1036.201, as follows:
1. Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems;
2. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality
problems;
3. Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater
quality;
4. Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater
management;
5. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
6. Promote groundwater recharge;
7. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and
8. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground
water.
The specific policies under each goal will guide implementation of the Local Water Management Plan to achieve the
particular stormwater management goal and provide consistency between the City's policies and the two watersheds
with jurisdiction within the City. The goals and policies in Section 7 reflect those identified in the City's 1996 SWMP,
as well as additional goals and policies necessary for consistency with the goals and policies of State, Regional, and
local watershed authorities.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan # Bwestroo Page ii
Stormwater Management Implementation
The Implementation Section (Section 8) of the LWMP describes the specific activities proposed by the City to address
the stormwater management issues presented in Section 6 and implement the policies identified in Section 7. Section
8 provides recommended actions related to the City's official stormwater management controls and a list of system
improvement projects and activities, as well as other implementation priorities.
Appendices
This LWMP will be incorporated into the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update and will be applicable until 2018,
at which time an updated LWMP will be required. Periodic amendments may be required to incorporate changes in
local practices. In particular, changes in the two applicable Watershed Management Plans may require revisions to
this plan.
The LWMP Appendices include the following:
• Appendix A includes the Joint Powers Agreements between the City and both the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.
• Appendix B presents the stormwater management standards comparison between the City's current
stormwater management standards and those of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, as identified in their respective Watershed Management
Plans.
• Appendix C presents a comparison of the City's stormwater management goals and policies with those of the
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.
• Appendix D provides detailed guidance on how the water quality cash dedication amounts are to be
calculated.
• Appendix E includes the approved New Hope Design Guidelines document.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page iii
CITY OF NEW NOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 1 — Purpose and Scope
1.1 PURPOSE
This Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) will serve as a comprehensive planning document to guide the City
of New Hope in conserving, protecting, and managing its surface water resources. This plan has been created to
meet the requirements detailed in Minnesota Statutes 103B and Minnesota Rules 8410, administered by the
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. This plan is also consistent with the goals and policies of the
Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Policy Plan, and the two watershed management
commissions having jurisdiction within the City: Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC)
and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). This plan may be periodically amended to
remain current with local practices and policies.
Beyond the regulatory requirements this plan intends to satisfy, the LWMP will serve as an update to the main
text (Chapters 1-9) of the 1996 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). It is not however, the intent of this
plan to update the stormwater system technical information presented in the 1996 SWMP Appendices A -D as
this information does not warrant an update. Therefore, the 1996 SWMP appendices are incorporated by
reference and will stand alone as a reference document for technical background information regarding the
proposed system improvements.
1.2 SCOPE
This LWMP serves multiple purposes including statutory and rule compliance. Minnesota statute 10313.235
defines content for local water management plans. According to the statute's text:
Each localplan, in the degree ofdetail requiredin the wateishedp/an, shall.
(1) describe existing andproposedphysica/ environment andfand use, -
(1) define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, andpaths of stormwater runoff
(3) identify areas and elevations for stormwaterstorage adequate to meet performance
standards established in the watershedp/an,-
(4) define water quality and water qualityprotection methods adequate to meet performance
standards established in the watershedplan,•
(5) identify regulated areas- and
(6) set forth an implementation program, including a description of off'cia/controls and, as
appropriate, a capital improvementprogram.
Minnesota Rules 8410, written for the Board of Water and Soil Resources, provide more detail on local plan
content. Though the BWSR guidance applies specifically to watershed management organizations, this guidance
has historically been used to frame expectations for municipal plans. According to Minnesota Rules 8410.0160,
local plans must include sections containing:
1. Table of Contents
2. Purpose
3. Water Resource Management Related Agreements
4. Executive Summary
5. Land and Water Resource Inventory
6. Establishment of Goals and Policies
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 1
7. Relation of Goals and Policies to Local, Regional, State, and Federal Plans, Goals, and Programs
8. Assessment of Problems
9. Corrective Actions
10. Financial Considerations
11. Implementation Priorities
12. Amendment Procedures
13. Implementation Program
14. Appendix
The reader will find that New Hope has structured its LWMP to provide the information required by 8410
without holding strictly to the outline contained in the rules. Through this document the City provides signposts
identifying where a statutory or rulemaking requirement might be addressed.
The LWMP must also satisfy Metropolitan Council requirements as contained in their 2030 Water Resources
Management Policy Plan. These requirements build on those of Rules 8410. Section 3, Regulatory Context,
presents the expanded requirements.
Beyond state level requirements and those of Metropolitan Council, this plan must conform to the underlying
Watershed Management Organization (WMO) plans. Very often WMOs outline specific content for local plans
that go beyond that required by statute and rule. For the WMOs with jurisdiction in New Hope, the following
local plan requirements pertain:
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC)
Paraphrased from the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions 2"d Generation
Watershed Management Plan (WMP):
1. Describe the existing and proposed physical environment and land use.
2. Describe the existing and proposed hydrology and demonstrate that stormwater storage volumes and
management sector peak outflow rates meet the requirements specified in the WMP.
3. Identify how the goals and policies, and rules and standards established in the WMP will be
implemented at the local level.
4. Identify how the wetlands functions and value assessments required by the SCWM WMC Plan will be
undertaken.
5. Include a policy describing how the member city intends to protect threatened and endangered species
and areas of significant natural communities identified by the DNR within their boundaries.
6. Assess existing or potential water resource related problems and identify nonstructural, programmatic,
and structural solutions, including those program elements detailed in Minnesota Rules 8410.0100,
Subp. 1 through 6.
7. Summarize the estimated cost of implementation and analyze the member city's ability to finance the
recommended actions.
8. Set forth an implementation program including a description of official controls, programs, policies, and
a capital improvement plan.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonesti'oo Page 2
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC)
General standards for local water management plans from BCWMC Watershed Management Plan.
1. Describe existing and proposed physical environment and land use.
2. Define drainage areas and the volume rates and paths of stormwater runoff.
3. Identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance standards
established in the BCWMC Plan.
4. Define water quantity and water quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards
established in the BCWMC Plan.
5. Identify regulated areas.
6. Set forth an implementation program, including a description of official controls and, as appropriate, a
capital improvement program.
This plan is organized as follows:
Section 2: Describe the physical setting; the history, natural resources and land uses within the City.
Section 3: Summary of the regulatory agencies having jurisdiction in New Hope.
Section 4: Identify related stormwater management studies, plans and reports affecting New Hope.
Section 5: Present the water resources related agreements with the City.
Section 6: Present a collection of the stormwater management related assessments within the City, identifying
recent completed and future stormwater management projects as well as other regulatory
assessments to be addressed by the City.
Section 7: List the goals and policies identified to address surface water management needs in the City.
Section 8: Summarize current ordinances and implementation projects and activities planned to implement the
goals and policies listed in Section 7.
Section 9: Outline the continued administration of this plan.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 3
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT
Section 2 — Physical Setting
2.1 LOCATION AND HISTORY
The City of New Hope is located in Hennepin County in the northwestern portion of the Twin Cities metropolitan
area about 12 miles northwest of downtown Minneapolis (see Figure 2.1). New Hope is a fully -developed
community comprised of approximately six square miles bordered by 62nd Avenue North to the north, Medicine
Lake Road to the south, Highway 169 to the west, and the City of Crystal to the east.
New Hope was a farming community in the early 1900s. The area was settled as part of the Crystal Lake
Township and became the home for many family farms. As housing developments spread west from
Minneapolis in the 1930s, the new residents of Crystal Lake Township began the movement to incorporate the
township. In 1936, the city of Crystal was incorporated. Forming a city was not supported by all residents in the
township. The rural residents in the western half of the township broke away from the city of Crystal and formed
their own township. The name the farmers selected for their new township was a reflection of the time: New
Hope.
Prompted by rapid development in the early 1950's, the township of New Hope incorporated into the Village of
New Hope in 1953. When the township was incorporated, it had 600 residents. The City grew rapidly and was
the home to over 2,500 people by 1958. This rapid population growth continued through the 1960s, and by
1971, there were 24,000 residents in New Hope. The population of the community has declined slightly since
1971. Population information for the City of New Hope is presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 - Naw Hnna PnnuUtinn
Year
1960'
_._r_._. ..
Populatio6lo"',
3,552
• L
___
1970'
23,180
___
1980'
23,087
8,795
1990'
21,853
8,507
2000'
20,873
8,665
20102
22,200
9,300
20202
23,000
9,800
20302
� i is r........ n-._
23,500-------
10, 200
2 Metropolitan Council 2030 Regional Development Framework (Updated January 2007)
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE
New Hope is characterized by gently rolling topography common in the northwest portion of the Twin Cities
Metropolitan area as a result of past glacial activity. Within this gently rolling topography, a number of poorly
drained depressional areas of various sizes exist, supporting the City's wetlands and lakes. Hydraulic connectivity
of these depressional areas exists via natural overland drainageways or where these natural drainageways have
been blocked by development, via manmade conveyance methods. The natural drainage in New Hope splits
between the two watersheds: Shingle Creek to the north and Bassett Creek to the south.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local water Management Plan BollPage 4
10 0 10
Miles
September 2008
Local Water
Management Plan
Figure 2.1
Location Ma
The northwestern portion of the City generally drains northwesterly into Bass Creek, which cuts across the very
�1 northwest corner of the City. Once leaving the City, Bass Creek continues to drain northeasterly and becomes a
tributary to Shingle Creek, which is ultimately tributary to the Mississippi River. The northwestern portion of the
City tributary to Bass Creek includes the highest percentage of wetlands in the City. These wetlands represent
the head waters of Bass Creek and most of them are DNR protected waters. In addition to the wetlands in this
portion of the City, Meadow Lake drains west directly into Bass Creek through a system of pipes.
The northeast portion of the City drains primarily via storm sewer into the City of Crystal, and these flows are
ultimately tributary to Twin Lakes. From the Twin Lakes system, flows discharge to Shingle Creek, then to the
Mississippi River. Both Shingle Creek and Twin Lakes are identified as Impaired Waters for various pollutants
and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies for a number of these impairments have been completed to
determine implementation items to address these impairments.
The majority of the southern portion of the City (Bassett Creek Watershed) drains directly into Bassett Creek via
the North Branch of Bassett Creek. On the west end of the City, Northwood Lake is a man-made lake tributary
to the North Branch of Bassett Creek and receives drainage primarily from Plymouth and a smaller portion of
New Hope. From Northwood Lake, the North Branch of Bassett Creek drains into the City of Crystal and is
tributary to the main channel of Bassett Creek, eventually discharging into the Mississippi River. The remaining
southwest corner of the City drains into Medicine Lake in Plymouth, prior to discharging to Bassett Creek.
2.3 SOILS
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) published the S&ZSurvey ofHennepin County, Minnesota in
2004. The soil survey identifies the physical properties of the soils within the county and provides mapping to
identify the locations of the various soils types.
The primary benefit of the soil survey to this LWMP is the classification of various soil types into Hydrologic Soil
Groups (HSG), according to the soil's ability to infiltrate water during long -duration storms. The four hydrologic
soil groups are: Group A— high infiltration, Group B — moderate infiltration, Group C — slow infiltration, and
Group D — very slow infiltration. Figure 2.2 identifies the HSG classifications within the City.
Table 2.2 presents the soil survey data, relates these to HSG classifications, and provides percent of coverage
within the City. In highly urbanized landscapes like New Hope however, much of the existing soil material within
the City has been compacted, mixed, and possibly imported with urban development. Therefore, the variability
and unpredictability of these disturbed soils warrant that a HSG classification identified in the soil survey for any
given soil type be reviewed on a site specific basis to determine the physical infiltration characteristics of the soil.
As identified in Table 2.2, the soils in one-third of the City are not assigned a HSG classification. The soils in the
remaining two-thirds of the City do have HSG classifications; however, as mentioned above the site specific soil
infiltration characteristics should be verified on a site -by -site basis.
Long-time city residents and city staff indicate that tighter soils generally cover the majority of the city. However,
pockets in the northern portions of the City are covered by sandy soils exhibiting a high infiltration capacity. It
appears that infiltration BMPs will be likely to succeed in the sandy portions of the City only, while filtration
BMPs with under -drains may be more appropriate for use in the majority of the City.
City of New Hope •- September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan STC Bonestroo Page 6
Table 2.2 - Soil Survey Data for New Hope
_ �{olfefo, f[c iffs Mo
nw
..
73.9
. .o_
2%
. . f
A
ubbard 2%62.5
2%
ou hton 2%An
B
2058.8
63%
us 1%
IDundas
2%
Hamel 2%
Koronls <1%
Lester 51%
Nessel < 1%
Udorthents 5%
B/D
0.84
< 1%
Cordova < 1%
Glencoe < 1%
Hamel < 1%
Urban Land'
1043.5
32%
32%
Water'
36.2
1%
1%
TOTAL
3275.8
100%
100%
Area given no HSG classification in the 2004 Soil Survey of Hennepin County, Minnesota
2.4 GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER
The soils within New Hope include variable soil types ranging from pockets of sandy soil in northern portions of
the City, to heavier soils throughout large portions of the remainder of the City. This surficial material overlays
St. Peter Sandstone. For additional information, consult the Geo%gicAt/as Hennepin County(Balaban,1989).
New Hope provides water to its customers in cooperation with the cities of Crystal and Golden Valley through a
joint powers organization called the Joint Water Commission (1WC). The 1WC has a long-term contract to
purchase treated water from the City of Minneapolis. The water is drawn from the Mississippi River, treated, and
pumped to reservoirs in Crystal and Golden Valley. From there, it is distributed to the cities of New Hope,
Crystal, and Golden Valley.'
2.5 CLIMATE
Climate data for New Hope (Station 215838) are published by the National Weather Service (NWS) station at
Chanhassen, MN. The NWS is a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Tables 2.3 and 2.4 provide a summary of precipitation and snowfall data for New Hope.
Table 2.3 -
1976-2006
1.05 10.85 12.15 12.88 13.94 14.84 14.60 14.17 13.44 12.35 12.01 1 1.15 1 33.41
001•-M
Month Oct Nov ,& Dec
a . Fe Mar A r Army.
' Excerpts from the City of New Hope website, www.ci.new-hope.mn.us
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan # Bonestroo Page 8
Rainfall frequency estimates are used as design tools in water resource projects. Rainfall frequencies are
summarized in Technica/Paper No. 40, RainfallFiequencyAt/as of The United5tates, published by the U.S.
Weather Bureau in 1961. The U.S. Weather Bureau was combined with other agencies in 1970 to form the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Table 2.5 lists rainfall frequencies for New Hope.
Table 2.5 - 24 -Hour Rainfall Depths and Frequency
Recurrence Interval (yrs)
24 -hr
Rainfall
Depth (in)
27-627P
BC-P2.5A
Wetlands
Victory Park Pond
27-568W
SC -P7.3
Unnamed Wetland
27-569W
SC -P6.8
Unnamed Wetland
27-570W
SC-P6.6A
Unnamed Wetland
27-628W
SC -P5.5/5.6
Creeks
Bass Creek
SC -P4.4
Unnamed Tributary of Bassett Creek'
BC-P2.5A/3.15A
2.6 WATER RESOURCES
The City of New Hope has developed around a variety of surface water resources that are both aesthetically and
recreationally valuable to the community, including lakes, wetlands, and creeks. The Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) has regulatory jurisdiction over many of the City's waterbodies defined as Public
Waters of the State. All of the waterbodies identified by the Minnesota DNR as Public Waters are included in
Table 2.6 and identified on Map 1 of this report.
Table 2.6 - Minnesota DNR Public Waters in New Hope'
Type
Lakes
;
Meadow Lake
D LWMP ID
27-57P SC-P1.1B
Northwood Lake
27-627P
BC-P2.5A
Wetlands
Victory Park Pond
27-568W
SC -P7.3
Unnamed Wetland
27-569W
SC -P6.8
Unnamed Wetland
27-570W
SC-P6.6A
Unnamed Wetland
27-628W
SC -P5.5/5.6
Creeks
Bass Creek
SC -P4.4
Unnamed Tributary of Bassett Creek'
BC-P2.5A/3.15A
'Source. Minnesota DNR PWI Maps and Lists
' Identified in the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Plan as "North Branch of Bassett Creek"
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan .# Bonestroo Page 9
2.6.1 CREEKS
The tributary area to Bass Creek includes the northwest portion of the City, however, the majority of this
tributary area drains through a series of large wetlands, storm sewer, and ditches into Plymouth prior to
discharging into Bass Creek. Only the very northwest corner of the City, including the discharge from Meadow
Lake, is directly tributary to Bass Creek as it drains through the far northwest corner of the City, crossing under
TH 169 and exiting the City of New Hope under 62nd Avenue. Proceeding north out of the City, Bass Creek
becomes the headwaters of Shingle Creek, which discharges to the Mississippi River. Bass Creek is designated
by the MPCA as an Impaired Water for Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), discussed in more detail in Section 6.6
of this plan.
Shingle Creek does not flow through New Hope, flowing north and east of City. However, Bass Creek is tributary
to Shingle Creek, along with the northeast section of the City, draining to Shingle Creek via stormsewer through
Twin Lakes. Shingle Creek is designated by the MPCA as an Impaired Water for Chloride and the
implementation plan for addressing this impairment impacts the City of New Hope's stormwater management
program, and is therefore mentioned in this section. Impaired Waters are discussed in more detail in Section 6.4
of this plan.
In the southern portion of the City, the North Branch of Bassett Creek discharges into New Hope from Plymouth
under TH 169 into Northwood Lake. The North Branch of Bassett Creek flows out of Northwood Lake and
proceeds east through Northwood Park into Crystal, prior to discharging into the main Bassett Creek channel.
2.6.2 LAKES
Meadow Lake
Meadow Lake is located in the north -central portion of the City, is a relatively small, shallow lake with a surface
area of approximately 11 acres. This lake is an identified DNR Public Water and is also included on the State
Impaired Waters list for excess nutrients (see Section 6.4 for more information). At this time, no TMDL has been
completed for Meadow Lake.
Northwood Lake
Northwood Lake is located southeast of the TH169-Rockford Road interchange. This lake has a relatively large
drainage area of approximately 862 acres, which includes roughly 780 acres from the City of Plymouth.
Northwood Lake has a surface area of approximately 15 acres. As discussed earlier, this lake is an identified
DNR Public Water and is also included on the State Impaired Waters list for excess nutrients (see Section 6.4 for
more information). At this time, no TMDL has been completed for Northwood Lake. Bassett Creek WMC
completed the Northwood Lake Watershed and ManagementP/an for Northwood Lake in 1996, identifying
specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) to improve the water quality within the lake. The BMPs identified in
the BCWMC plan are included in Section 4 of New Hopes LWMP.
Existing lake monitoring information was identified for Northwood Lake from two sources: Bassett Creek WMC
and Metropolitan Council. The most current lake monitoring information for Northwood Lake can be found at
the following website locations:
• Bassett Creek WMC: htto'//www.bassettcreekwmo org/Water%20Ouality/Water%20Ouality%20Main htm
• Metropolitan Council: htto://www.metrocouncil org/environmenVRiversLakes/Lakes/index htm
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 10
2.6.3 WETLANDS
In addition to the traditional stormwater management function of wetlands within the City as an important
means to provide flood storage and reduce runoff rates, the City of New Hope recognizes the water quality
treatment, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic benefit provided by wetlands. Wetland protection and restoration has
become an important City goal to ensure that the City's wetlands are preserved for future generations.
The protection and restoration of wetlands is integral to the City's proposed improvements which aim to provide
additional water quantity and quality treatment upstream of the City's wetlands.
The City of New Hope completed a Wetland Inventory and Management Plan in 1999, including a field
inventory of all wetlands identified in the City and an evaluation of the functions and values of each wetland.
To fully comply with Met Council requirements, this document must be expanded to incorporate the necessary
wetland management standards, including buffer standards. While outside of the scope of this LWMP, it is the
City's intent to revise this 1999 document to comply with Met Council requirements (see Section 6.3 for more
information).
2.7 DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
The majority of the City's stormwater infrastructure was constructed prior to the mid 1970's, and as was the
practice at that time, stormwater management relied heavily on large diameter trunk storm sewer to route
stormwater away from impervious areas quickly and discharge this stormwater directly into nearby wetlands,
lakes, and creeks. As a result, local stormwater basins providing both rate control (to reduce downstream local
flooding) and water quality treatment (to provide additional protection to downstream natural resources) are not
common in New Hope. Rather, the City's stormwater system discharges large portions of the City's residential
and commercial/industrial areas directly to nearby water resources. A schematic plan of the drainage system was
prepared for this study and is shown on Map 1 attached to this report.
One challenge for the City as a part of this LWMP will be to identify locations where the City's existing
stormwater system can be improved or new features added within existing development or redevelopment
projects. The benefit to the City as a result of these stormwater improvements could potentially include:
• Reduction in localized flooding
• Enhancement and restoration of existing natural resources
• Creation of new natural resources
• Improved water quality in the City's lakes, wetlands, creeks
2.8 FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) updated the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for Hennepin County in 2004. The FIRM map shows all 100 -yr floodplain
boundaries for the county, and includes both the floodway and flood fringe for rivers, lakes, wetlands, and
streams where FEMA has completed detailed engineering studies. Flood elevations are also provided for areas
where detailed studies have been completed. FEMA FIRM maps are identified in New Hope for the following
waterbodies or locations:
• Bass Creek — Panel #27053C0184E
• Meadow Lake — Panel #27053C0192E
• Northwood Lake, North Branch of Bassett Creek, Hidden Valley Park pond — Panel #27053C0194E
• 62nd Avenue discharge to Crystal — Panel #27053CO203E
• Fred Sims Park, Memory Lane Pond (Crystal) — Panel #27053CO211 E
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan # Bonestroo Page 11
• 36th Avenue discharge to Crystal — Panel #27053CO213E
The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) Watershed Management Plan identifies
BCWMC's adopted 100 -year floodplain elevations for waterbodies in New Hope within the jurisdiction of the
BCWMC, namely Northwood Lake and the North Branch of Bassett Creek. The 100 -year floodplain information
is identified in Table 5-3 of the BCWMC Watershed Management Plan and includes 100 -year floodplain
elevations for Northwood Lake (889.5) and the North Branch of Bassett Creek (from 889.5 to 881.0),
downstream of Northwood Lake.
2.9 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
2.9.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
In response to local needs and State Statutes requirements, the City of New Hope has conducted a planning
process to update its Comprehensive Plan through the year 2030. The Comprehensive Plan is intended to define
the natural environment, land use, transportation, and infrastructure goals of the community as a means of
defining New Hope's future community growth and vision of development and/or redevelopment.
Beyond the desires and needs of the local community, the Metropolitan Council's 2030 Regional Development
Framework also establishes a regional context in which the City of New Hope must define its role and direct its
future. This Regional Development Framework mandates specific regional criteria that must be addressed in the
2030 Comprehensive Plan Update .2
2.9.2 LAND USE
Since the 1976 Comprehensive Plan, New Hope has matured to a fully developed community. The City has
undertaken numerous planning efforts since 1976 that have addressed more specific planning topics or issues
such as 42nd Avenue Improvement Study/ 42nd Avenue/City Center Market Study; New Hope Vacant Land
Study Phase I and II, Winnetka Center Market Study, 1998 New Hope Comprehensive Plan Update, Bass Lake
Extension Redevelopment Area, 2002 Livable Communities Study, and 2003 City Center Task Force Study.
New Hope is a fully developed community lacking large undeveloped tracts of land which raises the need for in-
place expansion and redevelopment of land uses. The following map (Figure 2.3) graphically illustrates the
distribution and extent of a variety of land use types in New Hope.'
a Excerpts from the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan
' Excerpts from the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan =TC Bonestroo Page 12
.nn►P w►�. nom
1
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 3 — Regulatory Setting
3.1 CITY SERVICES
The New Hope Department of Public Works manages the City's stormwater infrastructure and is responsible for
the monitoring and maintenance of storm sewers, ponding areas, water quality devices and outlet control
structures. The City Department of Public Works provides the design, operation, and maintenance necessary to
minimize local flooding and improve water quality in the City's stormwater system. Public Works also
coordinates with watershed management organizations and other outside agencies in water resource
management and conservation.
A search of the City's ordinances identified following sections as being related to surface water management
and protection:
Section 4-25
Shoreland Permit Overlay District
Section 4-26
Floodplain District
Section 4-35
Administration — Site Plan Review
Section 5-1
Purpose and General
Section 5-3
Permits, Licenses, and Other Charges
Section 5-7
Drainage
Section 6-10
Dispersion of Percolating Waters
Section 8-32
Lawn Fertilizer Application Control
Section 13-5
Design Standards
Section 13-7
Required Improvements
Section 14-50
Sewer, Water, Drainage and Stormsewer Fees
Section 14-70
Watershed Management Tax District
Appendix D
Floodplain and Wetland Systems District
The Zoning and Subdivision regulations are currently being revised in conjunction with development of the 2008
Comprehensive Plan. The revised regulations will incorporate the goals and policies identified in this Local Water
Management Plan.
3.2 HENNEPIN COUNTY
Hennepin County, originally part of Dakota County, was created in 1851. The County provides many services
within the City of New Hope, including health services and property and vital records.
Hennepin County was the first county to begin groundwater planning in 1988, with authority delegated to the
Hennepin Conservation District. The plan received state approval in March 1994. Although the county has not
formally adopted the plan, the county is proceeding with implementation of many aspects of the plan. In
addition, the County's Department of Environmental Services provides education, outreach, and funding to
individuals and organizations. These programs include the Hennepin County River Watch and the Wetland
Health Evaluation Program.
City of New Hope
Local Water Management Plan
Bonestroo
September, 2008
Page 14
3.3 HENNEPIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT (HCD)
The Hennepin Conservation District (HCD) was founded in 1949 as a Special Purpose Unit of Government under
Section 103C of Minnesota Law. The original charter of HCD was "to provide a local organization through
which land owners and operators may obtain on -the -farm technical assistance with a focus on productive
agriculture. However, the role of HCD has evolved as the landscape of Hennepin County has changed.
Today, NCD is involved in a wide variety of land and water conservation issues including assisting landowners
with sustainable land use to working with municipalities to develop growth management strategies. The
programs and expertise of the HCD seek to strike the balance between natural resource conservation and
responsible economic development.
The HCD Mission Statement is as follows: "Facilitate the conservation of water, soil, and related natural
resources through education, technical assistance, and implementation of sound land use practices, in the most
cost-effective manner, for the benefit of current and future generations."'
3.4 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS
In 1982, the legislature approved the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, Chapter 1038 of
Minnesota Statutes. This act requires all metro -area local governments to address surface water management
through participation in a Watershed Management Organization (WMO). A WMO can be organized as a
watershed district, as a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) among municipalities, or as a function of county
government. There are 46 Watershed Management Organizations within the metropolitan area. s
The City of New Hope is divided into multiple drainage basins that flow to two separately managed watersheds.
Figure 3.1 shows the two watershed management organizations with jurisdiction in the City. The powers and
duties of these Minnesota statutory authorities include:
• Approval authority over local water management plans.
• Ability to develop rules regarding management of the surface water system.
• Ability to determine a budget and raise revenue for the purpose of covering administrative and capital
improvement costs.
• Regulation of land use and development when one or more of the following apply:
o The City does not have an approved local plan in place.
o The City is in violation of their approved local plan.
• The City authorizes the watershed toward such regulation.
• Wetland Conservation Act administration when designated as the Local Government Unit (LGU) for a City.
• Other powers and duties as given in statute and joint powers agreements.
3.4.1 SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (SCWMC)
SCWMC was formed in 1984 and incorporates the northern portion of the City of New Hope, discharging to
Shingle Creek via Bass Creek or the Twin Lakes system. The jurisdictional boundary for the SCWMC within New
Hope includes approximately 2,125 acres and is identified on Figure 3.1.
3.4.2 BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (BCWMC)
In 1984, the existing Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission (formed in 1968) revised its JPA and created the
BCWMC. The BCWMC incorporates the southern portion of the City of New Hope, discharging to Bassett Creek
via the North Branch of Bassett Creek or Medicine Lake. The jurisdictional boundary for the BCWMC within New
Hope includes approximately 1,267 acres and is identified on Figure 3.1.
Excerpts from the FCD website, www.hcd.hennepin.mn.us
s Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources, web fact sheet, www.bwsr.state.mn.us/outreachlfactsheets
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 15
3.5 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Established by the Minnesota Legislature in 1967, the Metropolitan Council is the regional planning
organization for the Twin Cities, seven -county area. The Council manages public transit, housing programs,
wastewater collection and treatment, regional parks and regional water resources. Council members are
appointed by the Minnesota Governor.'
The Metropolitan Council reviews municipal comprehensive plans, including this Local Water Management Plan.
The Council adopted the WaterResources Management Po/icyP/an in 2005, establishing the expectations to be
met in local plans. The Council's goals focus on water quality standards and pollution control, "to reduce the
effects of nonpoint source pollution on the region's wetlands, lakes, streams and rivers."'
3.6 STATE BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES (BWSR)
The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) works through local government agencies to
implement Minnesota's water and soil conservation policies. The BWSR is the administrative agency for soil and
water conservation districts, watershed districts, watershed management organizations and county water
managers. The BWSR is responsible for implementation of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act and
the Wetland Conservation Act. Staff members are located in eight field offices throughout the state.'
First established in 1937 as the State Soil Conservation Committee, the agency became part of the University of
Minnesota in the 1950's, transferred to the Department of Natural Resources in 1971, then transferred to the
Department of Agriculture in 1982. In 1987 the State Legislature established the current Board of Water and
Soil Resources. The Board consists of 17 members, appointed by the governor to four-year terms. Multiple state
and local agencies are represented on the Board. In 1992, the BWSR adopted rules (8410), establishing the
required content for Local Water Management Plans.'
The City is the Local Government Unit (LGU) for the Wetland Conservation Act. The City will continue to
administer Wetland Conservation Act permits.
3.7 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MPCA)
The MPCA is the state's lead environmental protection agency. Created by the State Legislature in 1967, the
MPCA is responsible for monitoring environmental quality and enforcing environmental regulations to protect
the land, air and water. The MPCA regulates New Hope's management of wastewater, stormwater and solid
waste.10
The MPCA is the permitting authority in Minnesota for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), the federal program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency to address polluted
stormwater runoff. The MPCA included the City of New Hope on the list of entities identified as owning and
operating a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), and these entities must obtain NPDES permit
coverage in 2007. New Hope's application for coverage has been developed concurrently with this Local Water
Management Plan. To obtain coverage, the City is required to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Program (SWPPP) to address six minimum control measures:
e Metropolitan Council website, www.metrocouncil.org/about
' Metropolitan Council, Water Resources Management Policy Plan, 2005, P. 27
' Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources, website www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/whatbwsr
' Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources, website www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/bwsrhistory
10 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Guide to MPCA Programs, 2007
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan # Bonestroo Page 17
1. Public education
2. Public involvement
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination
4. Construction site runoff control
5. Post -construction runoff control
6. Pollution prevention in municipal operations
In addition to the NPDES program, the MPCA is required to publish a list of impaired waters; lakes and streams
in the state that are not meeting federal water quality standards. For each water body on the list, the MPCA is
required to conduct a study to determine the allowable TMDL for each pollutant that exceeds the standards. The
2006 MPCA list of impaired waters identifies 2,250 TMDL reports needed for 1,297 lakes, rivers and streams in
the state. Local governments will be required to incorporate completed TMDL studies into their surface water
management plans. Impaired waters in New Hope are summarized in Table 6.3 in Section 6.4 of this plan.
In response to these multiple regulatory activities, the MPCA published the MinnesotaStormwaterManuai
(Version 1. 1, 2006), providing stormwater management tools and guidance. The Manual presents a unified
statewide approach to stormwater practices.
Published by the MPCA, the Minnesota StonnwateiManual provides detailed guidance on stormwater
management practices in the region. In particular, low -impact development, better site design, and on-site
infiltration of runoff are recommended to offset the adverse impacts created by additional impervious surfaces.
These runoff volume reduction methods provide multiple benefits, including groundwater recharge, protection of
natural stream banks, reduced nutrient loads to lakes and wetlands, and reduced thermal impacts to aquatic
habitat. Applicable City standards will reference this document for additional design guidance for a variety of
stormwater management practices.
3.8 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR)
Originally created in 1931 as the Department of Conservation, the DNR has regulatory authority over the natural
resources of the state. DNR divisions specialize in waters, forestry, fish and wildlife, parks and recreation, land
and minerals, and related services. The Division of Waters administers programs in lake management, shoreland
management, dam safety, floodplain management, wild and scenic rivers, the Public Waters Inventory (PWI),
and permitting of development activity within public waters. A list of the PWI waterbodies identified in the City
of New Hope is included in Table 2.6.
3.9 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (MDH)
The MDH manages programs to protect the public health, including implementation of the Safe Drinking Water
Act. The MDH has regulatory authority for monitoring water supply facilities such as water wells, surface water
intakes, water treatment, and water distribution systems. The MDH also is responsible for the development and
implementation of the wellhead protection program.
3.10 MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD (EQB)
The EQB is comprised of five citizen members and the heads of ten state agencies that play an important role in
Minnesota's environment and development. The EQB develops policy, creates long-range plans and reviews
proposed projects that may significantly influence Minnesota's environment.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan J* Bonestroo Page 18
3.11 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MNDOT)
MnDOT is the state agency responsible for the planning, improvement, and maintenance of the state's highway
system. MnDOT approval is required for any construction activity within state right-of-ways. MnDOT also
administers funding for qualifying transportation projects completed in the City. Anticipated activities of MnDOT
are periodically published in their State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).
3.12 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
The EPA develops and enforces the regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress;
however the MPCA bears responsibility for implementing many of the resulting programs within Minnesota.
The NPDES program and the Impaired Waters List are both the result of the Clean Water Act, administered by
the EPA.
3.13 U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS (USACE)
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including subsequent modifications, the EPA and the USACE
regulate the placement of fill into all wetlands of the U.S. In 1993, there was a modification of the definition of
"discharge of dredged material" to include incidental discharges associated with excavation. This modification
meant that any excavation done within a wetland required the applicant to go through Section 404 permitting
procedures. In 1998, however, this decision was modified so that excavation in wetlands is now regulated by
the USACE only when it is associated with a fill action.
3.14 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)
FEMA manages federal disaster mitigation and relief programs, including the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). This program includes floodplain management and flood hazard mapping. FEMA updated the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for New Hope in 2004. Section 2.8 includes a list of waterbodies and locations
identified in the FIRM maps, along their map panel number.
3.15 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Formerly
named the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the NRCS provides technical advice and engineering design services
to local conservation districts across the nation. The Sol/Survey of Hennepin County, Minnesotawas published
by the NRCS in 2004. The NRCS also developed hydrologic calculation methods that are widely used in water
resources design.
3.16 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)
The USGS provides mapping and scientific study of the nation's landscape and natural resources. USGS maps
provide the basis for many local resource management efforts.
3.17 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
The USFWS works to conserve and protect the nation's fish, wildlife, plants and habitat. The USFWS developed
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) beginning in 1974, to support federal, state and local wetland
management work.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan' Bonestroo Page 19
CITY OF NEW HOPE — LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 4 — Related Studies, Plans and Reports
4.1 1996 NEW HOPE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City's 1996 Surface Water Management Plan serves as the basis for this LWMP. The 1996 SWMP identifies,
from a regional perspective, the stormwater quantity and quality improvements within the City to address local
and regional flooding issues, water quality improvement, infrastructure management, stormwater planning, etc.
for future development, redevelopment, and capital improvement projects within the City.
To meet current stormwater management regulatory requirements, the City must update this 1996 SWMP to be
in compliance with the various state, regional, and local agencies with jurisdiction in the City. The scope of this
LWMP includes updates to portions of the 1996 SWMP including:
• Discussions regarding the current regulatory setting in which the LWMP is being prepared
• Assessment of City's stormwater management system, identifying issues and possible corrective actions
• The City's stormwater management goals and policies
• Implementation of the City's stormwater management system
• Coordination between the LWMP and the Water Management Plans of the two WMO with jurisdiction in
New Hope
The intent of this LWMP update is to bring New Hope into compliance with current stormwater management
regulatory requirements and this update will supersede the main text of the 1996 SWMP (Chapters 1-9).
However, the stormwater system technical information presented in the 1996 SWMP Appendices A -D does not
warrant an update and therefore these appendices are incorporated by reference. The 1996 SWMP Appendices
A -D will not be restated in this LWMP, but rather the 1996 SWMP will stand as a reference document for
technical background information regarding the proposed system improvements. Once adopted, the LWMP
update will officially supersede Chapters 1-9 of the 1996 SWMP and incorporate by reference the technical
Appendices A -D of the 1996 SWMP.
4.2 2004 SCWMC SECOND GENERATION WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
The SCWMC Second Generation Watershed Management Plan was adopted in May 2004. In the first generation
plan, the Commission established standards in eight management areas, including runoff management,
floodplain management, shoreland management, water quality monitoring, erosion and sedimentation control,
stormwater treatment, wetlands management and groundwater protection. The thrust of the Second Generation
Plan is to establish water resources priorities for the next ten years, identify goals, and determine how best to
achieve those goals."
Stormwater management implementation items identified in the SCWMC plan impacting New Hope are
included in the System Assessment section (Section 6) of this Plan. The stormwater management goals identified
in the SCWMC plan are incorporated into the Goals and Policies section (Section 7) of this Plan. The City's
implementation plan for the stormwater management items impacting New Hope and goals identified in the
SCWMC plan is included in the Implementation section (Section 8) of this Plan.
" Excerpts from the 2004 SCWMC Second Generation Watershed Management Plan
City of New Hope .L- September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan 2RL'► Bonestroo Page 20
4.3 2004 BCWMC WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
The BCWMC Watershed Management Plan was adopted in September 2004 and sets the vision and guidelines
for managing surface water within the boundaries of the BCWMC. The Watershed Management Plan
summarizes the location, history, goals, policies, and implementation tasks of the BCWMC. The BCWMC's
general goals fall under the categories of water quality, flood control, erosion and sediment control, stream
restoration, wetland management, groundwater, public ditches, and public involvement and information.12
Stormwater management implementation items identified in the BCWMC plan impacting New Hope are
included in the System Assessment section (Section 6) of this Plan. The stormwater management goals identified
in the BCWMC plan are incorporated into the Goals and Policies section (Section 7) of this Plan. The City's
implementation plan for the stormwater management items impacting New Hope and goals identified in the
BCWMC plan is included in the Implementation section (Section 8) of this Plan.
4.4 2005 SCWMC SHINGLE CREEK CORRIDOR STUDY
Completed in August 2005, the intent of this plan is not to prescribe specific improvements, but to develop a set
of standards and principles to be used by riparian cities to manage the Shingle Creek corridor so as to further its
ecological restoration. Although not directly tributary to the Shingle Creek Corridor as identified by this study,
the City of New Hope is within the overall tributary area to Shingle Creek and thus will seek to incorporate the
ecological restoration goals (as they apply to an upstream tributary) into the LWMP.13
4.5 2007 TWIN AND RYAN LAKES NUTRIENT TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL)
The Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL and Implementation Plan was approved by the US EPA in November
2007. TMDL study addresses a nutrient impairment in the Twin Lake chain of lakes. The goal of this TMDL is to
quantify the pollutant reductions needed to meet State water quality standards for nutrients in South Twin,
Middle Twin, North Twin and Ryan. The lake system discharges into Shingle Creek, which ultimately discharges
into the Mississippi River. Water quality in North and South Twin Lake is considered poor with frequent algal
blooms while Ryan and Middle Twin Lake have more moderately degraded water quality. North and South Twin
Lakes do not currently support recreational activities while Ryan and Middle Twin Lake partially support
recreational activities.
Wasteload and Load Allocations to meet State standards indicate that nutrient load reductions ranging from
0-76 percent would be required to consistently meet standards under average precipitation conditions.
Improvements to wetland 539W, internal load management, and reduction of nonpoint sources of phosphorus
in the watershed by retrofitting BMPs would have the most impact on reducing phosphorus load and improving
water quality in the chain of lakes.74
4.6 2006 SCWMC WATER QUALITY PLAN
The Shingle Creek (and West Mississippi) Watershed Management Commissions' Water Quality Plan (adopted in
September 2006) is intended to help achieve a Second Generation Management Plan goal of protecting and
improving water quality. The SCWMC Water Quality Plan is intended to: 15
1z Excerpts from the 2004 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan
13 Excerpts from the 2005 SCWMC Shingle Creek Corridor Study
14 Information from the MPCA website: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/project-twinryan.html
u Excerpts from the SCWMC Water Quality Plan
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan # Bonestroo Page 21
• Set forth the Commissions' water quality goals, standards, and methodologies in more detail than the
general goals and policies established in the Second Generation Management Plan.
• Provide philosophical guidance for completing water resource management plans and TMDLs; and
• Provide direction for the ongoing water quality monitoring programs that will be essential to determining
if the TMDLs and implementation program are effectively improving water quality.
4.7 2006 SHINGLE CREEK CHLORIDE TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL)
The Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL has been approved by the MPCA and an Implementation Plan has been
completed. The TMDL analysis determined that the majority of chloride in the Shingle Creek watershed is
derived from nonpoint sources including road deicing, commercial and industrial deicing, and fertilizer
application, with the primary source being road salt and salt substitutes applied to the dense network of local
roads and county and state highways in the watershed. The TMDL concluded that an overall 71 % reduction in
chloride load to Shingle Creek must be achieved to meet State chloride concentration standards. Aimed at
reducing chloride loads to Shingle Creek, the Implementation Plan for this TMDL includes tables identifying the
City's current activities and proposed BMPs or activities related to road deicing, grouped into the following
categories:
• Product Application Equipment and Decisions
• Product Stockpiles
• Operator Training
• Clean-up/Snow Stockpiling
• Ongoing Research into Salt Alternatives
4.8 BASSETT CREEK MAIN STEM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Bassett Creek Main Stem Watershed Management Plan (completed for the BCWMC in June 2000)
establishes priorities and provides guidelines for the cities of Plymouth, Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, New Hope,
Crystal, Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, and Minneapolis, the BCWMC, and citizens for meeting water quality goals
set for the Main Stem of Bassett Creek. The BCWMC goal for the Bassett Creek Main Stem is a management
classification of Level III, meaning its water quality should support fishing, aesthetic viewing, and wildlife
observation activities. As part of the Bassett Creek Main Stem Plan, in -pond improvement options and site-
specific structural best management practices for each drainage district were evaluated. However, none of the
recommended in -pond improvement options are identified in the City of New Hope.
The Bassett Creek Main Stem Plan also recommends that an inventory of stream channel erosion sites be
performed in two phases by member cities. Phase I is the acquisition of all existing sources of information
regarding known stream channel erosion. Phase II is a field inventory of problematic stream sites along the
entire length of the creek. Since the completion of the Bassett Creek Main Stem Plan, the City of New Hope has
completed the channel erosion inventory for Bassett Creek."
None of the in -pond or in -stream improvement options are identified in the City of New Hope, thus no further
specific action by the City is necessary at this time. However, the Bassett Creek Main Stem Plan echoes the
general best management practices recommendations offered for the entire Bassett Creek watershed.
These general BMPs are identified in the System Assessment (Section 6) section of this document.
" Excerpts from the 2004 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan, Section 4.3.2.3
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan # Bonestroo Page 22
4.9 BASSETT CREEK PARK POND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Bassett Creek Park Pond Watershed Management Plan (completed for the BCWMC in 2000) establishes
priorities and provides guidelines for the cities of New Hope, Crystal, and Golden Valley, the BCWMC, and
citizens for meeting water quality goals set for Bassett Creek Park Pond. Until a water quality monitoring
program can be established to verify the existing water quality conditions and to monitor the impact of best
management practices on the water quality of the Bassett Creek Park Pond, structural BMPs will not be
implemented.
As discussed above, the City of New Hope has completed a channel erosion inventory for Bassett Creek within
the Bassett Creek Park Pond Watershed. The City did not identify any stream erosion or sedimentation sites
within New Hope. Therefore, no specific action by the City is necessary at this time."
4.70 NORTHWOOD LAKE WATERSHED AND LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The NorthwoodLakeWatershedandLake Management Plan (completed for the BCWMC in 1996) establishes
priorities and provides guidelines for the cities of New Hope and Plymouth, the BCWMC, and citizens for
meeting water quality goals set for Northwood Lake. The water quality in Northwood Lake, located in the city of
New Hope, has typically fallen below the BCWMC's water quality goals for a Level II management classification.
The results of this study indicate that it may not be possible to meet Level II goals in Northwood Lake. Since the
lake is classified by the DNR as a Class V wetland, it may be appropriate to change the management level of the
lake to Level 111.18
As part of the Northwood Lake Plan's evaluation of water quality management alternatives, site-specific
structural best management practices, in -lake Improvements, and other BMPs were recommended.
These recommended structural best management practices are generally consistent with the water quality
improvements identified by the City's 1996 SWMP, and a portion of these improvements have already been
constructed by the City. Additional information regarding the water quality management improvement
recommendations identified in the Northwood Lake Watershed and Lake Management Plan is presented in the
System Assessment (Section 6) section of this document.
" Excerpts from the 2004 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan, Section 4.3.3.7
• Excerpts from the 2004 BCWMC Watershed Management Plan, Section 4.3.3.8
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 23
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 5 — Water Resources Related Agreements
5.1 SHINGLE CREEK WMC JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
In 1984, the nine cities with land in the Shingle Creek watershed (Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal,
Maple Grove, Minneapolis, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth and Robbinsdale), entered into a Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) to form watershed management organizations charged with certain surface and groundwater
management functions. The joint powers type of organization was selected because the cities believed it
provided the best balance for the establishment of watershed -wide policies and strategies for meeting
watershed management requirements while at the same time retaining the most flexibility and local input at the
lowest cost. In 2006 the member cities adopted an amendment to the JPA that set an "assessment cap" for
general fund purposes. A copy of the amended JPA can be found in Appendix A.
5.2 BASSETT CREEK WMC JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
In 1969, the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission was formed by adoption of a Joint Powers Agreement
between the nine communities in the Bassett Creek Watershed, including New Hope. In accordance with
provisions of the 1982 Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the Bassett Creek Flood Control
Commission revised its Joint Powers Agreement and created the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission.
Its mission is to control flooding and to maintain and enhance the quality of the surface and ground water
resources in the watershed. A copy of the revised JPA can be found in Appendix A.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan BOnestrt 00 Page 24
CITY OF NEW HOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 6 — System Assessment
The following section will summarize the assessment of the City's current stormwater management system.
The assessment includes past, present, and future stormwater management issues identified by the City, the two
watersheds with jurisdiction within the City, and other state and federal agencies.
6.1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE CITY
The items presented in Table 6.1 were identified as water quantity or quality issues in the 1996 SWMP or within
the Watershed Management Plans of the two watersheds with jurisdiction within the City and have since been
addressed by the City.
Table 6.1 - Stormwater Management Issues Addressed by the Citv
Major
Drainage
Category
Corrective Action Taken
Year
ID
CompletedArea
- Rerouted flows along the southern portion of the
Untreated stormwater runoff
lake to the end of the lake furthest from the outlet
2006
SC -A1
discharging to Meadow Lake
Water Quality
to maximize inflow residence time.
(SC -P1.1)
- Installed 4 hydrodynamic separators to remove
ollutants rior to discharging into Meadow Lake.
2006
SC -A1
Degraded water quality within
Water Quality,
- Excavated 0.6 acre-feet of sediment.
2006
Meadow Lake (SC -P1.1)
Aesthetic
Insufficient water quality
- Redirected flows from the low point in Xylon
SC -A2
treatment in District SC -A2
Water Quality
Avenue into the pond in Dorothy Mary Park (SC-
1999
tributary to Upper Twin Lake
P2.1) to achieve improved water quality.
- Provide 1.8 acre-feet of flood storage volume in
an Elm Grove Park dry pond ( SC -P3.9) to store
and attenuate peak flows adjacent to this
2006
intersection.
Local flooding along 55th
- Redirected the overflow from Elm Grove Park
SC -A3
Avenue North and in the St.
Water Quantity
around the west side of St. Raphael's Church,
2006
Raphael's Church parking lot
avoiding the flood location in the east parking lot.
(Crystal)
- Disconnected flows from the intersection of 55th
and Quebec Avenues from the 33 -inch pipe
running through the flood location in the St.
2006
Raphael's Church east parking lot and redirect this
trunk pipe to the west side of the Church.
Insufficient water quality
treatment in the Village Golf
- Excavated additional wet volume in the Village
SC -A3
Course pond .
Water Quality
Golf Course pond (SC -P3.2) to provide greater
1998
tributaryto Upperr Twin Lake
wiL
water quality treatment.
Local flooding at the
- Constructed stormwater pond adjacent to 56th
SC -A3
intersection of 56th and
Water Quantity
and Wisconsin Avenues North — Hosterman Jr
2001
Wisconsin Avenues North
High School (SC -P3.15).
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Boll Page 25
Major
Year
Drainage
Category
Corrective Action Taken
Completed
Area ID
Channel erosion in Subdistrict
Water Quality,
- Additional rate control provided in constructed
1998
SC -ASC
-A4.9
Erosion
ponds SC-P4.3,SC-P4.9A and SC-P4.9B.
Insufficient water quality
- Cleaned deposited sediments out of channel
1997
SC -A4
treatment in District SC -A4
Water Quality
nt to railroad tracks.
_ Water
Water quality treatment provided in constructed
tributary to Upper Twin Lake
ponds SC-P4.9A and SC -P4.96.
1998
Insufficient water quality
- Excavated 1.5 acre-feet of wet ponding volume
SC -A5
treatment in District SC -A5
Water Quality
within the CCI pond (SC -P5.14) and redirected
1996
tributary to Memory Lake Pond
adjacent 33 -inch trunk storm sewer into this pond
and Upper Twin Lake
to provide water quali treatment.
Excessive discharge rates out
Excavated 10.6 acre-feet of flood storage volume
SC -A5
of District SC -A5 discharging
Water Quantity
in the CCI pond (SC -P5.14).
1996
to Crystal
Local flooding at the
- Rerouted storm sewer flows from 42nd and
SC -A5
intersection of 45th and Xylon
Water Quantity
Winnetka Avenues away from the trunk system
1999
Avenues
serving this intersection.
- Excavated 1.4 acre-feet of wet ponding volume
Untreated stormwater runoff
in the Pet Hospital Pond (SC -P6.7) and 0.6 acre -
SC -A6
discharge into a DNR
Water Quality
feet of wet ponding volume in the Collisys Site
2003
Protected Water (SC -P6.8)
Pond (SC -P6.19) to provide water quality
treatment prior to discharging to SC -P6.8.
Untreated stormwater runoff
- Excavated 2.7 acre-feet of wet ponding volume
SC -A7
discharging into Victory Park
Water Quality
as part of the Victory Park Pond Improvements
2005
Pond, a DNR Protected Water
project (SC -P7.7) at the inlets from Boone Avenue.
(SC -P7.3)
- Rerouted 24 -inch Boone Avenue storm sewer
flows from the south around this intersection to
2005
Local flooding at the
free pipe capacity at the intersection.
SC -A7
intersection of Boone Avenue
Water Quantity
- Upsized the existing 36 -inch trunk pipe to a 54-
and East Research Center
inch trunk pipe in East Research Center Road at
Road
the point at which the rerouted flows from Boone
2005
Avenue tie into this system.
- Provided additional downstream pipe capacity
BC -Ai
Local rear -yard flooding east
Water Quantity
via 27" storm sewer in Independence Circle and
2004
of Independence Circle
36" storm sewer to the south.
Local flooding location for
- Provided an additional 3.2 acre-feet of flood
BC -A2
properties adjacent to Hidden
Water Quantity
storage within Hidden Valley Park pond (BC-
2003
Valley Park pond (BC-P2.2A)
P2.2B-D) 19CWMCWMP/D#N9-37A, NB-38AI
- Provided upstream rate control in the St. Josephs
Ravine erosion in subdistrict
Church regional pond (BC -P2.3) to control
2003
BC -A23, contributing
BC -A2.3,
Water Quality,
discharge rates to this ravine.
excessive Total Suspended
Erosion
- Constructed a 36 -inch pipe low flow diversion
Solids load to Northwood Lake
parallel to the ravine to protect the channel.
2003
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 26
Major
'�rainage
Stormwater Issue
Issue Category
-,Area ID
—Completed
Excavated an additional 1.4 acre-feet of wet
volume within a series of stormwater wetland cells
Insufficient water quality
in Hidden Valley Park pond (BC-P2.2B-D)
BC -A2
treatment of flows discharging
Water Quality
IBCWMCWMPID#NB-37A, NB-38AJto provide
2002
to Hidden Valley Park pond
water quality treatment for the residential area
(BC-P2.2A)
and grade school draining to this pond. In addition
to the wet volume benefit, increased biological
uptake by the wetland plantings is expected.
- Provided a total of 5.8 acre-feet of flood storage
in the Gethsemane Cemetery pond (BC-P2.6A-B)
Local flooding location for
1BCWMCWMPID#N8-18A,BJto reduce the peak
1999
BC A2
properties adjacent to
Water Quantity
discharge rates to Northwood Lake (BC-P2.5A).
- Upsized the existing outlet for pond Northwood
1997
Northwood Lake (BC P2.SA)
Lake (BC-P2.5A) to a 3'x7' box culvert.
- Upsized 36" Ave. N. pipe from 18" to 24"
between Fla Ave. N. and Ensign Ave. N.
2002
- Excavated 2.8 acre-feet of wet volume in pond
BC -P2.3 (St. Joseph's Church) IBCWMCWMPID#
NB-36AJto provide water quality treatment prior
2005
to discharging to Northwood Lake (BC-P2.5A).
- Excavated 1.7 acre-feet of wet volume in the 2 -
cell pond BC-P2.6A-B (BCWMCWMPID#NB-
Untreated stormwater runoff
18A-BJand rerouted flows from Boone Avenue
1999
BC -A2
discharging to Northwood
Water Quality
into pond to provide water quality treatment prior
Lake (BC-P2.5A)
to discharging to Northwood Lake.
- Excavated 1.0 acre-feet of wet volume within a
3 -cell pond BC-P2.5B (BCWMCWMPID#-NB-
35A,9, CJ to provide water quality treatment prior
1999
to discharging to Northwood Lake.
- Rerouted flows from Ensign Ave into St. Joseph's
Church pond (BC -P2.3).
2003
- Re -aligned channel between Northwood Lake
(BC-P2.5A) and pond BC-P3.15A to improve
1997
Channel erosion between
stability.
- Provided a variety of plantings along the re -
BC -A3
Northwood Lake (BC-P2.5A)
Water Quality,
and pond BC-P3.15A
Erosion
aligned channel to improve slope stability, provide
1997
a stream buffer, and improve wildlife habitat.
- Re -aligned channel graded with stable grade and
1997
gentle side slopes.
Insufficient water quality
treatment prior to discharging
- Constructed water quality treatment cell BC -
BC -A3
to Bassett Creek and Basset
Water Quality
P3.27 immediately southwest of the intersection
1996
Creek Park Pond
of 36th Ave N and the railroad.
Local flooding in 36'Ave N
-Increased storm sewer pipe size to 21" and
BC -A3
between Zealand Ave and
Water Quantity
routed pipes along 36"' Ave N rather than through
2002
Yukon Ave
development south of 36' Ave N.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 27
6.2 EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
The following list of items presented in Table 6.2 represent current stormwater management issues or concerns
as identified by the documents included in Section 4 of this plan. It is not the intent of this list to include all of
the current stormwater management issues identified in the watershed documents in Section 4, only those
issues with a possibly corrective action that directly affects the City. The implementation of the possible
corrective actions will be addressed in the Implementation Section (Section 8).
19 This stormwater management issues list only includes those issues directly affecting the City of New Hope, as identified by any of the
documents listed in Section 4, and is not meant to incorporate all of the stormwater management issues identified in the documents in
Section 4.
City of New Hope Bonestroo Page
September,008
Local Water Management Plan Pa a 28
Year
Major
Drainage
Stormwater Issue
Issue CategoryAction
Area ID
- Constructed water quality treatment cell BC -
P3.1513 (wet volume = 0.2 acre-feet), immediately
1999
adjacent to the re -aligned channel between
Northwood Lake (BC-P2.5A) and BC-P3.15A.
- Constructed water quality treatment cell BC -
Untreated stormwater runoff
BC -A3
discharging to pond
Water Quality
P3.151) (wet volume = 0.03 acre-feet), adjacent to
the re -aligned channel between Northwood Lake
2002
BC-P3.15A
(BC-P2.5A) and BC -P3.15.
- Rerouted untreated upstream flows from
Northwood Parkway (east of Boone Avenue) into
1999
the excavated water quality treatment cell (0.4
acre-feet of wet volume) BC-P3.15E.
6.2 EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
The following list of items presented in Table 6.2 represent current stormwater management issues or concerns
as identified by the documents included in Section 4 of this plan. It is not the intent of this list to include all of
the current stormwater management issues identified in the watershed documents in Section 4, only those
issues with a possibly corrective action that directly affects the City. The implementation of the possible
corrective actions will be addressed in the Implementation Section (Section 8).
19 This stormwater management issues list only includes those issues directly affecting the City of New Hope, as identified by any of the
documents listed in Section 4, and is not meant to incorporate all of the stormwater management issues identified in the documents in
Section 4.
City of New Hope Bonestroo Page
September,008
Local Water Management Plan Pa a 28
Major
--
a ID
Issue
..
Issue
. .
PossibleCorrective
- Reroute storm sewer flows from Winnetka Avenue to
Insufficient water quality treatment
the west end of Wincrest pond (SC -P3.4), to maximize
SC -A3
in the Wincrest pond (SC -P3.4) Water
City
inflow residence time.
- Excavate additional wet ponding volume in the
tributary to Upper Twin Lake Quality
Wincrest pond (SC -P3.4) to improve water quality
treatment efficiency.
SC A3
Insufficient trunk storm sewer
Water
City
-Provide additional pipe capacity in coordination with
capacityalongBass Lake Road
Quanti
the City of Crystal.
Possible flooding issues in the
SC -A3
apartments adjacent to the Village
Water
City
- As redevelopment occurs in this area, investigate
Golf Course pond (SC -P3.2)
Quantity
potential local flooding issues and address as necessary.
- Expand flood storage and restrict discharge out of the
SC -A5
Excessive discharge rates out of
Water
City
45t" Avenue and (SC -P5.12).
- Provide additional flood storage in Sunnyside Park (SC-
District SC -A5 discharging to Crystal
Quantity
A 5.199 and SC -A5.21).
SC -AS
Local flooding at the intersection of
Water
City
- Provide additional trunk storm sewer capacity in 45`"
45th and X Ion Avenues
Quantity
Avenue upstream of the 45th Avenue pond (SC -P5.12).
SC -A5
Local drainage problems at the
Water
City
- A part of improvements to Fred Sims Park, investigate
apartments south of Fred Sims Park
Quantity
existing drainage issues in theapartments to the south.
- Provide additional downstream trunk pipe capacity, see
the 42nd Ave flood study.
- Reroute local storm sewer flows along 42nd Avenues at
'SC -A5
Local flooding at the 42"d Avenue
Water
SC MC-
low point at the railroad underpass
Quantity
WMP
Winnetka Avenue, Quebec Avenue, Nevada Avenue, and
Oregon Avenue away from the trunk system serving this
intersection, see the 42nd Ave flood study.
Insufficient water quality treatment
- Excavate wet ponding volume in the 45" Avenue pond
SC -A5
in District SC -A5 tributary to
Water
City
(SC -P5.12).
- Provide appropriate water quality BMPs in Sunnyside
Memory Pond
Quality
Park (SC -A5.19 and SC -A5.21).
SC -A6
Untreated stormwater runoff
discharge into DNR Protected Water
Water
Cit y
- Excavate wet ponding volume at the wetland inlets
wetland SC-P6.6A
Quality
adjacent to Erickson Drive (SC-P6.6B).
Untreated stormwater runoff
SC -A6
discharge into DNR Protected Water
Water
Quality
City
- Construct ponds SC -P6.14 and SC -P6.16.
wetland SC -P6.8
Degraded wetland habitat in DNR
Water
- Provide habitat restoration including vegetation
SC -A6
Protected Water wetlands SC-P6.6A
Quality
City
management and diversification, and excavation.
- Public education regarding rotectin wetland habitat.
and SC -P6.8
- Lower the overland EOF from this intersection, see 4711
Local flooding at the intersection of
Water
and Flag Avenues flood study.
Minimize upstream catch basin bypass.
SC -A6
47th and Flag Avenues North
QuantityCity
Provide additional downstream trunk pipe capacity in
Fla Avenue.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management. Plan . Bonestroo Page 29
Wor
..
CategoryIdentified
by:
Actions
a ID
71
Insufficient water quality treatment
Public education to include proper fertilizer application
SC -A7
in subdistrict SC -A7.4 and SC -A7.5
Water
Quality
City
and the disposal of and and et waste.
tributary to Bass Creek
- Focus frequent street sweeping efforts in area.
SC A7
Local flooding at the intersection of
Water
- Provide additional trunk pipe capacity immediately
Boone Ave and E Research Cntr Rd
QuantityCity
downstream of the intersection.
Increased impervious surface as
-Encourage the reduction of impervious surface by
watershed becomes fully developed
Water
SCWMC-
promoting low impact development principles and
SC -A1 -A7
will increase the duration and
Quantity
WMP
strategies for new development and redevelopment
frequency of bank full conditions and
projects.
should be addressed and monitored
Standards that have prevented
- New development or redevelopment projects shall not
flooding potential as the Shingle
Water
SCWMC
increase the existing 100 -year peak rate from the site.
-Seek opportunities to provide additional rate control to
SC -A1 -A7
Creek watershed has developed
p
Quantity
WMP
should be continued or enhanced as
reduce the 100 -year peak discharge rate from New
development is completed
Hope.
- Improvement projects or management strategies shall
not increase the 100 -year elevation of Shingle Creek nor
its tributaries or floodplain storage areas.
- Any fill that impacts flood storage in wetlands or
floodplains shall be mitigated with compensating
SCWMC-
storage within the same subreach or reach.
SC -Ai -A7
Water quality and stability of Shingle
Water
Shingle Creek
- Enact and enforce standards specifying buffer
Creek should be improved
Quality
Corridor
maintenance adjacent to Shingle Creek and its
Study, WMP
tributaries.
-Work with the SCWMC to develop a Shingle Creek
Management Plan.
-Construct or encourage the construction of streambank
stabilization and habitat restoration projects.
- Calibrate salts readers annually.
- Use the Road Weather Information Service and other
sensors to improve salt application decisions.
- Evaluate new technologies on an annual basis, such as
prewetting and anti -icing as equipment needs
replacement.
- Investigate and adopt new salt products, such as Clear
Shingle Creek
Lane, where feasible and cost effective.
SC -A1 -A7
Excessive chloride levels in Shingle
Water
Chloride
-Maintain good housekeeping practices associated with
Creek
Quality
TMDL
the handling of road salt to minimize the potential for
wash -off.
- Provide operator training.
- Stockpile snow away from sensitive areas.
- Sweep City streets in late winter to remove as much
residual salt as possible.
-Track and report activities in annual NPDES report,
provide a copy to the Commission.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 30
Major
Issue
.•
-, PossibleActions
Area DCategory
SC -A1-
General water resource water
Water
SCWMC -Work with SCWMC to develop management plans for
A7
quality de ratlation
Quality
WMP affected water resources.
Water quality in Twin Lake,
-Work with SCWMC to develop a Twin Lake Management
SC -A1
especially Upper Twin Lake should
Water
SCWMC-
Plan.
-Promote good housekeeping practices amongst property
A7
be improved
Quality
WMP
owners in Twin Lake subwatershed.
- Wetland mitigation should be provided within the same
subwatershed.
-Prioritize wetlands and complete wetland functions and
SC -A1-
Wetland protection and restoration
Water
SCWMC-
values assessment.
-Establish buffer strip requirements adjacent to wetlands
A7
Quality
WMP
and watercourses.
-Identify wetland restoration possibilities and construct or
encourage the construction of restoration projects.
- Construct appropriate water quality BMP(s) in Jaycee Park
(BC -A1.2).
- Excavate wet ponding volume in Northwood Park (BC-
P2.5C) - BCWMC WMP ID# NB -29A -B.
- Require wet detention, or other techniques that provide
equal degrees of treatment, for all new or redeveloped
ro erties, where a licable.
Insufficient water quality treatment
- Provide public education to residents and lake users on
BC -A1-
tributary to and degraded water
Water
CIS'practices
that would reduce pollutants.
A4
quality in Medicine Lake, Northwood
Quality
BCWMC
- Enforce City ordinances regarding disposal of litter, yard
Lake (BC -P2.5), and Bassett Creek
WMP
waste, and animal waste.
and Bassett Creek Park Pond
Place additional garbage cans adjacent to waterbodies to
provide more convenience for disposal of garbage.
- Promote stormwater retention and runoff volume reduction
(e.. reduced impervious surfaces) where feasible.
Encourage vegetated buffer strips between maintained
lawns and waterbodies.
- Excavate bottom sediment to remove a nutrient source.
Local flooding location for properties
BC -A2
adjacent to pond BC-P2.2A
Water
City
- Increase the downstream pipe capacity in Boone Avenue
(Hidden Valle Park pond)
Quantity
out of pond BC-P2.2A.
BC -A3
Untreated stormwater runoff
discharging to pond BC-P3.15A
Water
Quantity
City
- Excavate wet ponding volume in pond BC-P3.15C.
Local flooding at the low point east
Water
- Lower and/or widen the existing overland overflow from
BC -A4
of Winnetka Avenue on Terra Linda
Quantity
City
both Terra Linda Drive and Medicine Lake Road, see the
Drive
Terra Linda flood study.
Local flooding at the low point at
BC -A4
the intersection of Medicine Lake
WaterWork
City
with the City of Golden Valley to provide additional
Road and Rhode Island Avenue
Quantity
downstream trunk pipe capacity in Rhode Island Avenue.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 31
6.3 WETLAND INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
From the 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan, the Met Council requires the City to include the
following in the LWMP Update:
All communities need to include a wet/and managementp/an or a process and timeline to prepare a plan.
At a minimum, the wetland managementp/an should incorporate a function and value assessment for
wetlands. Other items to address in the plan include the piemeatment ofstormwater prior to discharge into
all wetland types. and the use of native vegetation as buffers for high quality wetlands. Buffets should be
consistent with the functions and values identified in the plan.
Both the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Plan and Bassett Creek Watershed Management Plan also
identify in watershed policy statements that the City complete a wetland inventory and assess wetland functions
and values.
The City of New Hope completed a Wetland Inventory and Management Plan in 1999, including a field
inventory of all wetlands identified in the City and an evaluation of the functions and values of each wetland.
To fully comply with the requirements outlined above, this document must be expanded to incorporate the
necessary wetland management standards, including buffer standards. While outside of the scope of this LWMP
Update, it is the City's intent to revise this 1999 document to comply with Met Council requirements. Details
regarding implementation process necessary to revise the 1999 document are included in Section 8.4.2.
6.4 TMDLS
Three waterbodies within the City of New Hope are currently identified on the state list of Impaired Waters:
Bass Creek, Meadow Lake, and Northwood Lake. In addition, seven other waterbodies in adjacent communities
receiving discharge from New Hope are currently identified on the state list of Impaired Waters: Bassett Creek,
Shingle Creek, Upper Twin Lake, Middle Twin Lake, Lower Twin Lake, Ryan Lake, and Medicine Lake. The list of
Impaired Waters is known as the 303(d) list from the applicable section of the Federal Clean Water Act, these
waters are ones that do not currently meet their designated use due to the impact of a particular pollutant or
stressor. If monitoring and assessment indicate that a waterbody is impaired by one or more pollutants, it is
placed on the list. At some point a strategy would be developed that would lead to attainment of the applicable
water quality standard. The process of developing this strategy is commonly known as the Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) process and involves the following phases:
1. Assessment and listing
2. TMDL study
3. Implementation plan development and implementation
4. Monitoring of the effectiveness of implementation efforts
Responsibility for implementing the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act falls to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. In Minnesota, the EPA delegates much of the program responsibility to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Information on the MPCA program can be obtained at the following web
address: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/index.html.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 32
The following is an excerpt from the MPCA website describing the program and its need:
The Clean WaterAct requires states to publish, every two years, an updated list of streams and lakes
that are not meeting their designated uses because of excess pollutants. The list, known as the 303(d)
list, is based on violations of water qualitystandards and is organized by nverbasin. Environmental
organizations and citizen groups have sued the EPA because states have not made adequate progress
to meet Section 303(d) requirements. The EPA has been sued for various reasons. Over the past 10
years, lawsuits have been filed in 41 states and the District of Columbia. Of those, 12 have been
successful. There is currently no such lawsuit in Minnesota. However, beyond the federal requirements,
there are many reasons for us to move forward with the development of TMOLs. Foremost is the need
to clean up our rivers, streams and lakes to maximize their contributions to the state's economy and
quality of life and to protect them as a resource for future generations.
For each pollutant that causes a water body to fail to meet state water quality standards, the federal
Clean WaterAct requires the MPCA to conduct a TMDL study. A TMDL study identifies both point and
nonpoint sources of each pollutant that fails to meet water quality standards Water quality sampling
and computer modeling determine how much each pollutant source must reduce its contribution to
assure the water quality standard is met. Rivets and streams may have several TMDLs, each one
determining the limit for a different pollutant.ZO
The absence of a waterbody from the 303(d) list does not necessarily mean the waterbody is meeting its
designated uses. It may be that it has either not been sampled or there is not enough data to make an
impairment determination.
While not directly within the City, the City of New Hope is within the implementation area of the Shingle Creek
Chloride TMDL and the Twin and Ryan Lakes Excess Nutrients TMDL. Both of these studies have recently been
completed and the Implementation Plans involve the City. Additional information regarding the Twin and Ryan
Lakes Excess Nutrients TMDL and the Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL studies is presented in the Sections 4.5 and
4.7, respectively. Implementation items related to the Twin and Ryan Lakes Excess Nutrients TMDL and the
Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL studies is included in Section 8.5 and Section 8.6, respectively.
Regarding the City's role in future TMDLs and TMDL Implementation Plans, the City recognizes that the
responsibility for completion and implementation of the TMDL studies lies with the primary stakeholders
contributing to the impairment. The City intends to cooperate with the WMOs in the development of the TMDL
studies, acknowledging that the WMOs will take the lead on these studies. It is the intention of the City to fully
implement the items/actions identified in future TMDL Implementation Plans, funding the implementation
items/actions as necessary. Table 6.3 (see Section 6.4) identifies all of the Impaired Waters identified within
New Hope or in adjacent communities, and the status of the TMDL Study for each of these impairments.
Impaired waters within New Hope are identified on Figure 6.1, with additional information regarding these
waters, as well as impaired waters in close proximity to New Hope receiving discharge from the City summarized
in Table 6.3 below.
20 Excerpts from the MPCA website: htti)://www.oca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/index.html
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan # Bonestroo Page 33
---- 63RD AVEN
BROOKLYN
PARK
Z
AO
�O
d
y
Meadow Lake
NT
Local Water
a4
9�
Management Plan
Impairment: Nutrient/Eutrophication
9L
F
Biological Indicators
ASS LAKE RE
Affected Use: Aquatic Recreation
Figure 6.1
Impairment: Fish Sioassessments
2
Affected Use: Aquatic Life
IU
C
2
Impaired Waters
a
Z
3
Map
0
m
49TH AVEN
AIRVIEWAVEN
Parcel Information
=Municipal Boundary
OImpaired Lakes
=
NEW HOPE
a— Impaired Streams
F-
O
c
42ND AVE N
J
a
Nort wood Lake
Impairment: Nutrient/Eutrophication
Biological Indicators
'
Affected Use: Aquatic Recreation
2,500 0 2,500
Feet
26TH AVE N MEDICINE LAKE RD
_
nil.
September 2008 Ar
Bonestrus
GOLDEN
VALLEY
r
c\34\340618eNcad\css\F�gums\implred_watem o902os.mxd
Table 6.3 - Impaired Waters in New Hope or Adiacent Communities'
Impaired Water
Year
Affected use
Pollutant
Listed
Stressor
Start
Completion TMDL Study—
Bass Creek: Headwaters to
Fish
Eagle Creek
2002
Aquatic life
bioassessments
2007
2009 Underway
Bassett Creek: Medicine
2004
Aquatic life
Fish
bioassessments
2006
2009 Underway
Lake to Mississippi River
2008
Aquatic recreation
Fecal Coliform
2009
2011 Not Underway
2006
AMB'
2007
2009 Underwa
2004
Oxygen, Dissolved
2007
2009 Underway
Shingle Creek: Headwaters
Auatic lif
qe
Approved in 2008:
to Mississippi River
Chloride
Approved TMDL EPA ID# 32032
1998
Aquatic consumption
PCB in fish tissue
1998
2011
Underway
2002
Aquatic recreation
N/EBI°
Approved in 2007:
Approved TMDL EPA ID# 33807
Upper Twin Lake
PP
Aquatic consumption
Mercury in fish
Approved in 2008:
tissue
Approved TMDL EPA ID# 32414
1998
Aquatic consumption
PCB in fish tissue
1998 2011
Underway
2002
Aquatic recreation
N/EBI°
Approved in 2007:
Approved TMDL EPA ID# 33808
Middle Twin Lake
Aquatic consumption
Mercury in fish
Approved in 2008:
tissue
Approved TMDL EPA ID# 32414
1998
Aquatic consumption
PCB in fish tissue
1998
2011
Underway
2002
Aquatic recreation
N/EBI"
Approved in 2007:
Approved TMDL EPA ID# 33808
Lower Twin Lake Z
Aquatic consumption
Mercury in fish
Approved in 2008:
tissue
Approved TMDL EPA ID# 32414
Meadow Lake
2002
Aquatic recreation
N/EBI"
2007 2008 1 Underway
Ryan Lake
Aquatic recreation
N/EBI^
Approved in 2007:
Approved TMDL EPA ID# 33810
2004
Aquatic recreation
N/EBI°
2008
2010
Not Underway
Medicine LakeZ
Aquatic consumption
Mercury in fish
Approved in 2008:
tissue
Approved TMDL EPA ID# 32414
Northwood Lake
2004
A vatic recreation
N/EBI"
2010 2014 Not Underway
From final MPCA 2008 303(d) List
Z Impaired Water located in an adjacent community
'Aquatic Macroinvenebrate Bioassessments
Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan # Bonestroo Page 35
6.5 NPDES PERMITTING PROCESS
The MPCA has designated the City of New Hope as an NPDES Phase II MS4 community (MN Rules 7090).
New Hope's application for permit coverage was completed in May, 2006. The permit application outlined New
Hope's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address six minimum control measures:
1. Public education
2. Public involvement
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination
4. Construction site runoff control
5. Post -construction runoff control
6. Pollution prevention in municipal operations
The City's SWPPP contains several best management practices within each of the listed control measures.
These were identified using a self-evaluation and input process with City staff. The City's permit application was
submitted to the MPCA prior to the lune 1, 2006 deadline. The City's SWPPP was on public notice from April 7"
— May 8", 2008 and MS4 permit coverage was officially extended on July 16, 2008.
Many of the goals and policies discussed in this Local Water Management Plan are directly related to
requirements listed in the NPDES program. As a result, the Goals and Policies section of this plan repeatedly
references items listed in the City's SWPPP.
6.6 COMPARISON OF REGULATORY STANDARDS
Development and redevelopment within New Hope is subject to review and approval from one of the two
watershed management organizations having jurisdiction in the City. Each watershed has established rules
governing stormwater management and protection of natural resources. The table in Appendix B provides an
overview of current watershed standards, as compared to the current City stormwater management standards.
Where the City's standards are not consistent with watershed standards, recommended actions to bring the
City's standards into consistency with the watershed are provided.
6.7 COMPARISON OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES
Similar to the comparison of regulatory standards described in Section 6.6, the comparison of stormwater
management goals and policies identifies where the City needs to take action to implement or compliment a
particular goal or policy of the two watershed management organizations having jurisdiction in the City.
The comparison of stormwater management goals and policies can be found in Appendix C.
6.8 STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
Greater impervious coverage associated with new development, redevelopment, or site expansion activity places
additional burdens on the storm drainage system by increasing the rate and volume of runoff. This in turn
increases the amounts of pollutants exported from a development site. Existing or expanded storm drainage
systems needed to serve the developed area provide an efficient means of delivering these higher pollutant
loads to downstream receiving waters. Unless these pollutant loads are reduced, downstream receiving waters
will be degraded over time as a result of development.
New Hope recognizes its responsibility to protect City water resources from adverse impacts due to increases in
land use intensity caused by new development, redevelopment, and site expansion. To minimize the impacts of
development on New Hope's valuable water resources, new development, redevelopment, and site expansion
activity shall be subject to water quality mitigation requirements as outlined in Section 7.2.2.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan eonestroo Page 36
In general, mitigation measures shall be required for future development, redevelopment, and site expansion
activities that increase the existing impervious coverage of the site to achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in
total phosphorus and an 80 percent reduction in total suspended solids in the post -development condition.
Regional as well as on-site mitigation measures to reduce pollutant export can both be used to treat
stormwater. This plan also includes provisions for collecting water quality cash dedications under certain
situations and dedication of the revenue from such collections to help finance stormwater quality and wetland -
related system improvements. The following is intended to better define under what conditions the City can
collect a cash dedication and how it will be calculated:
1. The City has the discretion of requiring water quality cash dedication for all or a portion of the pollutant
removal targets for total phosphorus and total suspended solids. In exercising its discretion, the City will
consider such factors as:
• Topographic suitability of the site for water quality treatment features,
• the size of the site,
• the location of the site relative to sensitive resources or system components that require
protection,
• whether public improvements have been or will be made off-site for the expressed purpose of
mitigating the water quality impacts of the development,
• the extent to which the development has paid for mitigation already for the site, and
• consistency with watershed management organization requirements.
2. The amount of the cash dedication will be based on the size of a hypothetical treatment pond with a
wet volume sufficient to contain the runoff from a 2.5" rainfall event from the project.
3. For redevelopment or site expansion projects, when the impervious area on the site is increased above
the condition prior to redevelopment or site expansion by any amount, the cash dedication will be
determined as if the original condition of the site was undeveloped. The purpose of this standard is to
discourage increases in impervious coverage for redevelopment or site expansion projects.
4. The City Council each year should adopt a unit land area price for each general type of land use, a unit
pond volume price, and an appurtenance price that will be applied to the area and wet volume of the
pond at normal water level. The sum of all three components will be the total cash dedication for the
project. For the year 2008, the recommended rates are as follows:
Cost per acre of calculated wet pond surface area for specific land use types:
• Residential and Institutional $150,000/ac.
• Commercial/Industrial $200,000/ac.
• Unit pond volume cost $4 yd'
• Appurtenance cost (outlet, skimmer, etc.) 20% of the sum of the land and pond
volume cost or $4,000, which ever is less.
The proceeds from the cash dedication will be ear -marked exclusively to finance water quality and
wetland management improvements in the City. Example cash dedication amounts based on this
procedure are as follows:
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan . Bonestroo Page 37
Development Description Cash Dedication
• Two acre new medium density residential development (50 percent impervious) - $21,000
• Three acre commercial redevelopment project (impervious increase from 75 percent to 80
percent) - $52,000
• Two acre commercial redevelopment project, no impervious increase - $0
Detailed guidance on how cash dedication amounts are to be calculated, using the above examples as
a basis, is included in Appendix D.
6.9 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
New Hope's current erosion and sediment control program follows the guidance provided in the NPDES MS4
General Permit. As part of the permit requirements, the City's responsibilities include:
1. Develop an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to require erosion and sediment controls, as well
as sanctions to ensure compliance, to the extent allowable under law.
2. Requirements for construction site operators to control waste, such as discarded building materials,
concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause
adverse impacts to water quality.
3. Develop requirements for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment
control best management practices.
4. Establish procedures for site plan review which incorporate consideration of potential water quality
impacts.
5. Establish procedures for receipt and consideration of reports of noncompliance or other information on
construction related issues submitted by the public.
6. Establish procedures for site inspection and enforcement of control measures.
The City of New Hope has erosion and sediment control standards for all projects which will be reviewed and
revised as necessary as the City updates its official controls subsequent to approval of this Local Water
Management Plan. Existing City Code was reviewed to identify official controls related erosion and sediment
control. This review found that standards for erosion and sediment control included in Section 4-30) and 13-
5(e). A summary of these Code Sections (in italics) is as follows:
Permit Requirement — No person maygrade, fill, excavate, store or dispose of soil and earth materials or
perform any other land -disturbing or land -filling activity without first obtaining a permit as set forth in
this section.
Application Required — Application. The application for a permit must include all of the following items:
a. Application.
b. Site map andgrading plan.
c Interim erosion and sediment control plan.
d. Final erosion and sediment control plan, where required.
e. Soil engineering report, where required.
f. Engineenrygeologyreport, where required.
g. Work schedule.
A Application fees.
i. Performance bond or other acceptable security (see subsection 4-30')(18)).
j. Any supplementary material required by the issuing authority.
City of New HopeSeptember, 2008
Local Water Management Plan ' Bonestroo Page 38
• Decision on a Permit — The city shall review al/ documents submitted pursuant to this section, and, if
necessary, request additional data, clarification of submitted data or correction of defective submissions
within ten working days after the date ofsubmission. The cityshall notify applicant of the decision on the
permit within 40 days of submission by the applicant, which submission shall include action by any
affectedpeimitting authorityhaving jurisdiction.
• Notice — Applicant shall be notified of the city's decision on the application within three working days of
the decision.
• Permit Duration — Permits issued under this chapter shall be valid for the period during which the
proposed /and: disturbing or filling activities and soil storage takes place or is scheduled to take place,
whichever is shorter. Permittee shall commence permitted activities within 60 days of the scheduled
commencement date for grading or the permittee shall resubmit all required application forms, maps,
plans, schedules andsecunty to the city except where an item to be resubmittedis waivedby the city.
• Implementation of Permits —
a. The city shall review all reports submitted bypeimittee. The city may require permittee to modify the
grading plan, interim or final plans. and maintenance methods and schedules. The city shall notify
the permittee in writing of the requirement and specify a reasonable period of time within which
permittee must comply. All modifications are subject to city's approval.
A The city may inspect the site:
1. Upon receipt ofa report bypeimittee underprovisions ofsubsections 4-3()(17) a andb.
2 To verify completion of modifications required under subsection 4-3(/')(28) a.
3. During and following any rainfall,
4. At any other time, at the city's discretion.
c. Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, the city may
require the following reports and drawings and supplements thereto:
T An as yradedgrading plan
2 A soilgrading report
3 A geologicgrading report
• Suspension or Revocation of Permit — The city shall first have resorted to the procedures set forth in this
section before any other work enforcement procedure set forth in this chapter.
a. The city shall suspend the permit and issue a stop work order, and permittee shall cease all work on
the work site, except work necessary to remedy the cause of the suspension, upon notification of
such suspension when:
1. The city determines that the permit was issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information
supplied, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation of the provisions of this Code.
2 Permittee fails to submit reports when required under subsections 4-3()(27) and (28).
3. Inspection by the city under subsection 4-3(/')(28) b reveals that the work or worksite:
I. Is not in compliance with the conditions set forth in subsection 4-3(")(26) or
Is not in conformity with the grading plan, interim or fina/p/an as approved or as modified
under subsection 4-3((l)(28)a, or
iii. Is not in compliance with an order to modify under subsection 4-3(')(28) a.
4. Permittee fails to comply with an order to modify within the time limits imposed by the city
(see subsection 4-36)(28)a).
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan . Bonestroo Page 39
b. The city shall revoke the permit and issue a stop work order and permittee shall cease work if
permittee fails or refuses to cease work, as required under subsection 4-30J(30)a above, after
suspension of the permit and receipt of stop work order and notification thereof.
c. The city shall reinstate a suspended permit upon peim/ttee' correction of the cause of the
suspension.
d. The city shall not reinstate a revoked permit unless and until the permittee has collected all
conditions which resu/tedin the revocation.
Fines and Penalties —Any person, firm, corporation or agency acting as princ0 /agent, employee or
otherwise, who fails to comp/y with the provisions of this Code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $700.00, or by imprisonment in
jail for not more than 90 days, or by both, for each separate offense. Each day any violation of this
chaptershall continue shall constitute a separate offense.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 40
OF NEW NOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 7 — Goals and Policies
7.1 GENERAL
This section outlines the City's goals and policies for stormwater management. The goals identified in this
section represent broad stormwater management categories aimed at addressing the purposes of stormwater
management planning identified in Minnesota State Statute 10313.201, as follows:
1. Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems;
2. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality
problems;
3. Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater
quality;
4. Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater
management;
5. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
6. Promote groundwater recharge;
7. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and
8. Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground
water.
The specific policies under each goal will guide implementation of the Local Water Management Plan to achieve
the particular stormwater management goal and provide consistency between the City's policies and the two
watersheds with jurisdiction within the City.
7.2 SURFACE WATER
GOALS AND POLICIES
The following goals and policies reflect current City policy and the City's current SWPPP, as well as additional
goals and policies necessary for consistency with the goals and policies of State, Regional, and local watershed
authorities.
7.2.1 WATER QUANTITY AND FLOOD CONTROL
goal 7: Control the rate ofstormwater runoff from development and redevelopment development to minimize
the impact on downstream structures and water resources.
Policy 1.1: Peak stormwater runoff rates from new development, redevelopment, and site expansion
projects may not exceed the existing rates for the 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year storm
events; or the capacity of downstream conveyance facilities; or contribute to downstream
flooding.
Policy 1.2: Review and update City Ordinance as necessary to ensure consistency with the City's rate
control standard, as identified in Policy 1.1.
Policy 1.3:
Continue to enforce the 10 -year rainfall event as the minimum criteria for all stormwater
conveyance facility designs.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 41
Policy 1.4: In addition to the 10 -year stormsewer design criteria for local systems, the capacity to
convey the 100 -year ponded outflow rate from stormwater ponds directly connected to
the system should also be provided.
Policy 1.5: Existing stormwater conveyance facilities that do not provide a 10 -year level of service,
plus upstream 100 -year ponded outflows should be upgraded, where practical.
Policy 1.6: Base all drainage system analyses and designs on proposed full development land use
patterns.
Policy 1.7: The SCWMC WMP identifies a maximum allowable 100 -year 24-hour peak discharge rate
out of the City (within the jurisdiction of the SCWMC) of 950 cfs. This total rate must not
be exceeded as development and redevelopment activities proceed within the City.
Additional information regarding the maximum allowable discharge rate from New Hope
identified by the SCWMC can be found in Section 3 of the SCWMC 2004 WMP.
Goal 1 - Provide a reasonable level ofstormwater flood protection within the City to minimize property damage
and Amitpublic capital and maintenance expenditures due to stormwater flooding.
Policy 2.1: Review and update as necessary the City's Floodplain Overlay District Ordinance as
required by FEMA and the Minnesota DNR, or as needed for compliance with watershed
standards, to ensure adequate protection for structures and eligibility for flood insurance
programs.
Policy 2.2: Structure low floor elevations hydraulically connected stormwater basins or conveyance
facilities shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the established 100 -year High Water Level of
the adjacent basin or facility.
Policy 2.3: Establish and maintain overflow routes from stormwater basins and low areas to provide
relief during storm conditions which exceed design conditions, where possible.
Policy 2.4: Properly design, operate, and maintain the surface water system. Strictly enforce City
ordinances regulating floodplain development.
Policy 2.5: Preserve existing storage capacities of City and jurisdictional watershed flood control and
trunk facilities.
Policy 2.6: Prohibit encroachment that will reduce the storage capacity of floodplains, unless
approved by the jurisdictional watershed and floodplain mitigation (compensatory
storage) and/or channel modification is provided.
Policy 2.7: Permanently protect surface water impoundments and drainage systems by requiring the
dedication of land and/or protective easements as required.
Policy 2.8: Continue emergency flood response program for the City to minimize damage to property.
Policy 2.9: Regulate land development within the Floodplain Overlay District to ensure that
floodplain capacity and flood elevations are not adversely impacted by development, and
that new structures are protected from damage.
Policy 2.10: Adopt the official 100 -year floodplain elevations for the North Branch of Bassett Creek
and Northwood Lake as identified in Table 5-3 of the BCWMC WMP.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan i3onestroo Page 42
7.2.2 SURFACE WATER QUALITY
1
Goal 3.- Improve the quality ofstormwateirunoffdischarginq to the City's lakes, streams, and wetlands
Policy 3.1: Review and update City Ordinance as necessary to ensure that water quality treatment
standards are consistent with the City's stormwater management program.
Policy 3.2: The City is committed to reviewing new development, redevelopment, and site expansion
projects in the context of nondegradation, and will require BMPs necessary to maintain or
reduce existing total phosphorus, total suspended solids, and stormwater runoff volume
loads discharging to public waters and watercourses, where feasible.
Policy 3.3: New water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed to provide a water quality
treatment volume (below the pond outlet) equivalent to site runoff from a 2.5 -inch
rainfall event, or the Permanent Stormwater Management System requirements of the
NPDES construction site permit, whichever leads to higher treatment capacity.
Policy 3.4: Consistent with the BCWMC design standards, new water quality ponds shall be
designed to provide skimming (1 -foot below the pond Normal Water Elevation) of
floatable debris up to the 5 -year 24-hour storm event pond High Water Level.
Policy 3.5: Consistent with the WMO design standards, new water quality ponds shall be designed
to maintain an average depth of 4 -feet or greater for large ponds or 3 -feet or greater for
ponds with less than 3 ac -ft of wet volume, with a maximum depth no deeper than 10 -
feet.
Policy 3.6: All new development projects must provide BMPs that provide a minimum of 80% post -
development Total Suspended Solids and 50% post -development total phosphorus
reductions. Water quality ponds have been the most common water quality treatment
BMP in New Hope used to meet this requirement, however, the use of alternative water
quality BMPs to meet this requirement will also be considered. A list of possible
alternative water quality BMPs includes:
• Bioretention features
• Infiltration/filtration features
• Underground infiltration/filtration features
• Stormwater capture (e.g. cisterns, rain barrels) and reuse for irrigation
• Stormwater wetlands
• Structural treatment devices
Additional information regarding these BMPs as well as other strategies that will
minimize future impacts to water resources can be found in the Minnesota Stormwater
Manual, at htto://www.Dca.state.mn us/water/stormwater/stormwater-manual htmI as
well as the City's Design Guidelines, included in Appendix E.
The design of water quality treatment features must consider the City's concerns
regarding the health impacts of these features on residents, specifically features that
create a favorable environment for mosquito breeding.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 43
Policy 3.7: Site expansion projects that propose to increase the impervious area by any amount shall
provide water quality treatment for all new impervious in conformance with Policy 3.6.
For site expansion projects located within the jurisdiction of the SCWMC that meet
SCWMC project review thresholds and involve more than 50% of the site, the SCWMC
requires that their water quality and volume control rules apply to the entire site and not
just the new impervious. Where less than 50% of the site is involved, then the applicant
must meet SCWMC rules on the newly developed areas and must make a good faith
effort to provide water quality treatment and volume control for the existing development
on site.
For site expansion projects located within the jurisdiction of the BCWMC that meet
BCWMC project review thresholds and increase the amount of existing impervious
surface, the BCWMC requires that there be no increase in the existing total phosphorus
load from the site.
Policy 3.8: Redevelopment projects that propose to increase the existing impervious area by any
amount shall provide water quality treatment for all areas of site disturbance in
conformance with Policy 3.6.
For redevelopment projects located within the jurisdiction of the SCWMC that meet
SCWMC project review thresholds and involve more than 50% of the site, the SCWMC
requires that their water quality and volume control rules apply to the entire site and not
just the new impervious. Where less than 50% of the site is involved, then the applicant
must meet SCWMC rules on the newly developed areas and must make a good faith
effort to provide water quality treatment and volume control for the existing development
on site.
For redevelopment projects located within the jurisdiction of the BCWMC that meet
BCWMC project review thresholds and increase the amount of existing impervious
surface, the BCWMC requires that there be no increase in the existing total phosphorus
load from the site.
Policy 3.9: If the City determines that on-site water quality treatment for new development,
redevelopment, or site expansion projects is not feasible due to site or efficiency
limitations, the developer will be responsible for a water quality cash dedication to fund
water quality improvements in the vicinity of the proposed site. Details regarding the cash
dedication cost calculation are provided in Section 6.7 and Appendix D.
Policy 3.10: Consistent with BMP 5a-1 in the City's SWPPP, the City requires the installation of oil and
grit separators (or other acceptable BMPs) in all new or redeveloped industrial projects.
Policy 3.11: Adopt the waterbody classifications and subsequent water quality management standards
developed by the SCWMC and BCWMC. Within the jurisdiction of the BCWMC,
Northwood Lake is classified as a Level II waterbody and will be managed to meet the
water quality goals for a Level II waterbody as identified in Table 4-3 of the BCWMC
WMP.
City of New Hope # i3onestroo September,2008
44
Local Water Management Plan Page 44
Policy 3.12:
Consistent with City ordinance, Section 8-32, the City prohibits the application of fertilizer
which contains any amount of phosphorus or other compound containing phosphorus,
such as phosphate, except when an exemption included in Section 8-32 can be claimed.
Policy 3.13:
Prohibit the discharge of foreign material into the stormwater system. Such material shall
include, but not be limited to, waste oil, paint, grass clippings, leaves, and ecologically
harmful chemicals. This policy is consistent with BMP's 1c-2, 3b-1, 4c-1, and 6a-2 in the
City's SWPPP.
Policy 3.14:
Continue training public works staff related to a spill clean-up response focusing on
containing, neutralizing, and properly disposing of spilled materials to prevent discharge
of spilled materials into the storm sewer system. This policy is consistent with BMP 1 c-6
in the City's SWPPP.
Policy 3.15:
Continue to address the proper application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers
through internal City staff training and public education. This policy is consistent with
BMP 1s-6 in the City's SWPPP.
Policy 3.16:
Continue street sweeping and maintenance of detention ponds and pond inlet and outlet
structures according to the schedule outlined BMPs 6a-2, 6b-3, and 6b-5 in the City's
SWPPP.
Policy 3.17:
Consistent with BCWMC WMP requirements, all regulated stormwater activities within
the jurisdiction of the BCWMC must be treated to Level 1 water quality standards.
Policy 3.18:
Assess the need to develop a specific spill containment cleanup plan for the City.
Policy 3.19:
In accordance with the City's SWPPP, the City will assess the need to develop other
necessary management programs, as necessary.
Goal 4: Address the targetpollutants identified in TMDL plans to improve the quality of impaired waters.
Policy 4.1:
Amend City practices and stormwater management standards as necessary to implement
the pollutant load reductions identified in TMDL plans for impaired waters.
Policy 4.2:
Use the findings of TMDL plans to guide the stormwater management strategies for
development and redevelopment projects tributary to impaired waters.
Policy 4.3:
The City recognizes that the responsibility for completion and implementation of the
TMDL studies lies with the primary stakeholders contributing to the impairment. The City
intends to cooperate with local WMOs in the development of the TMDL studies,
acknowledging that the WMOs will take the lead on these studies. It is the intention of
the City to fully implement the items/actions identified in future TMDL Implementation
Plans, funding the implementation items/actions as necessary.
cry of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 45
7.2.3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY AND RUNOFF VOLUME MANAGEMENT
Goal 5. Reduce pollutant loads to waterbodies and encourage groundwater recharge and protection by
reducing the volume ofstormwater runoff From development, redevelopment, andstreet reconstruction
projects.
Policy 5.1: Consistent with the standard of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission,
the City shall require new development to provide runoff volume control BMPs that
infiltrate 1/2 -inch of runoff from impervious surfaces, taking into consideration site
limitations including, but not limited to: soil conditions, depth to groundwater,
groundwater protection concerns, and safety concerns. Other methods of runoff volume
abstraction that achieve a level of benefit equivalent to the 1/2 -inch infiltration standard
could also be used, pending City approval.
Policy 5.2: Review and update as necessary current City ordinances to incorporate the runoff volume
management standard identified in Policy 5.1.
Policy 5.3: As included in the City's Design Guidelines (see Appendix E), minimize impervious
surfaces where feasible when constructing or reconstructing streets and other hard
surfaces.
Policy 5.4: Encourage soil amendment procedures following mass grading activities, including deep
ripping of soils to a depth of 18 -inches, to re-establish the pre -development infiltrative
capacity of the soil.
7.2.4 RECREATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND SHORELAND MANAGEMENT
Goa/ 6. To protect and enhance opportunities for water recreation.
Policy 6.1: Coordinate efforts with state, county and neighboring municipalities to enhance water-
based recreation to the extent practical.
Goa/7.• To protect and enhance fish and water related wildlife habitats.
Policy 7.1: Preserve protected waters and wetlands that provide habitat for fish spawning and
wildlife to the extent feasible.
Policy 7.2: Coordinate efforts to protect threatened and endangered species with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
Policy 7.3: Coordinate efforts to protect areas of significant natural communities with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
Policy 7.4: Management practices shall promote and encourage the use of streams and lakes as
wildlife corridors.
Policy 7.5: Continue to address the proper application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers
through internal City staff training and public education. This policy is consistent with
BMP 1c-6 in the City's SWPPP.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 46
Goal B. Conserve andprotectshorelandareas within the City.
Policy 8.1: Regulate land development within the Shoreland Permit Overlay District to minimize
impacts as specified in City Code.
Policy 8.2: Review and update as necessary the City's current Shoreland Permit Overlay District
Ordinance to verify the compatibility with the ordinance standards as set forth by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Policy 8.3: Management efforts will seek to protect non -disturbed Shoreland areas and restore
disturbed shorelines and streambanks to their natural state, where feasible.
Policy 8.4: Management efforts will seek to preserve streambank and lakeshore vegetation during
and after construction projects, and create buffer zones along shorelines where natural
vegetation is maintained.
7.2.5 WETLAND AND LAKE MANAGEMENT
Goal9. Protect and preserve wetlands to maintain or improve their function and value.
Policy 9.1: Continue to administer WCA responsibilities within the City to ensure no net loss of
wetland functions and values.
Policy 9.2: Update and adopt the City's 1999 Wetland Inventory and Management Plan to fully
comply with local WMO WMPs and Met Council requirements identified in the Water
Resources Management Policy Plan.
Policy 9.3: Review and update as necessary City wetland ordinances and standards in accordance
with the local watershed authorities' management plans.
Policy 9.4: Wetland alterations, where allowed, shall be on the basis of no net loss. If the impact of
an alteration is unavoidable, it should be mitigated through replacement, wetland
restoration, and/or improvements to existing wetland function and value.
Policy 9.5: Coordinate wetland regulation with review agencies - the City, the State, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and the local watershed authorities.
Policy 9.6: Require that, prior to development activities or public projects, a wetland delineation
must be completed, including a field delineation and report detailing the findings of the
delineation.
Policy 9.7: Identify and implement opportunities to enhance the functions and values of degraded
wetlands within the City, as a part of park projects, infrastructure projects, or other
projects where practical.
Policy 9.8: Encourage natural buffer zones around ponds and wetlands. Buffer areas should not be
mowed or fertilized, except that harvesting of vegetation may be performed to reduce
nutrient inputs and provide weed control. For development and redevelopment projects
that require a review by the SCWMC, a buffer is required adjacent to a protected water,
wetland, or stream.
Policy 9.9: Require that new development or redevelopment runoff be pre-treated prior to discharge
to wetlands.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan # Bonestroo Page 47
Goal 10.� Manage lakes and creeks to improve water quality.
Policy 10.1: Continue to work with the BCWMC to implement 1996 Northwood Lake Watershed and
Lake Management Plan.
Policy 10.2:
Continue to work with the SCWMC to achieve the water quality goals for Meadow Lake
as identified in the 2006 Water Quality Plan, and coordinate implementation efforts for
the future TMDL plan and implementation strategy to improve the water quality of
Meadow Lake.
Policy 10.3:
Upon approval of a TMDL Implementation Plan for the impaired waters identified in Table
6.3, the City will review whether modifications to the City's SWPPP are warranted to
address the TMDL Waste Load Allocation (WLA) identified by the TMDL process. The
SWPPP update process to address TMDL WI -As and implementation activities follows the
direction of the City's MS4 Permit. The City intends to coordinate TMDL implementation
efforts with outside agencies to address the items identified in the TMDL Implementation
Plans.
7.2.6 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, MONITORING, AND MAINTENANCE
Goal 11: Prevent sediment from construction sites from entering the city's surface water resources.
Policy 11.1:
Periodically review the Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance and make revisions as
necessary to meet the requirements of the applicable regulatory authorities.
Policy 11.2:
Require that all land disturbing activities of one acre or more obtain an NPDES
construction stormwater permit from the MPCA, and prepare erosion control plans.
Policy 11.3:
Require that erosion and sediment control conform to the standard practices contained in
the Minnesota Stormwater Manual (most recent update).
Policy 11.4:
Encourage preservation of natural vegetation to the greatest extent practical.
Policy 11.5:
Require that the time that construction areas remain exposed is minimized by phasing
construction activities and establishing temporary and permanent vegetation.
Policy 11.6:
Require that sediment discharge is prevented by protecting existing storm drain inlets and
conveyance systems, stockpiling soil in protected areas and constructing permanent
sediment forebays upstream of basins and water bodies.
Policy 11.7:
Require that stormwater inlets are designed to prevent debris from entering the
conveyance system and impeding the flow path.
Policy 11.8:
Continue to enforce the existing erosion control ordinance on all construction sites with a
development agreement and an appropriate bond. Require erosion and sediment control
on other sites experiencing erosion problems. Minimize runoff velocities and maximize
natural cover to reduce erosion.
Policy 11.9:
Continue the City's inspection program for construction sites to ensure compliance with
the City's Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. In areas undergoing construction
activities, the cost of sweeping sediment from the streets generated by development shall
be borne by the developer and/or owner. The program shall include inspection following
installation, severe rain storms, and prior to seeding deadlines.
City of New Hope
Local Water Management Plan
September, 2008
# Bonestroo Page 48
Goal 12 -Maintain the function and effectiveness ofstormwater management structures through monitoring and
maintenance.
Policy 12.1: Inspect and monitor the construction and installation of all new stormwater facilities and
require that such facilities be surveyed to create as -built drawings.
Policy 12.2: Require developers to provide a minimum one-year guarantee that stormwater
management facilities are properly installed, maintained and functioning.
Policy 12.3: Inspect and maintain City stormwater facilities, with minimum inspection and
maintenance responsibilities as follows:
1. Maintenance activities include but are not limited to removal of floating material,
clearing of blocked inlets, pipes or structures, street sweeping to remove debris and
litter, repairing eroded ground, reestablishing ground cover and dredging sediment
from ponds.
2. The City will inspect stormwater management facilities after major precipitation
events and in response to complaints or input from the general public or other
government agencies. Certain facilities will be inspected more frequently as
warranted.
3. The City will keep records of inspections and maintenance including dates,
observations and actions taken.
4. For stormwater retention basins receiving direct runoff from an area that has been
disturbed for development, the City will complete visual inspection and determination
of storage volume at least annually for five years from the end of construction. For
other basins, visual inspection will be completed annually and determination of
storage volume will be completed at least every five years. If the basin is designed
with a forebay, the storage volume will be determined for the forebay only, unless it
is found to be reduced by 50 percent. When basin storage volume has been reduced
by 50 percent, within one year of inspection the sediment will be removed from the
basin to restore the original volume, and vegetation will be restored in disturbed
areas.
5. The City will inspect grit chambers, sump catch basins, sump manholes, inlet and
outlet structures, culverts and other stormwater management facilities that are not
functioning as designed according to the maintenance frequencies in the City's
SWPPP.
Policy 12.4: Provide stream maintenance and repairs when the maintenance and repair work is
primarily aesthetic in nature.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 49
7.2.7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, COORDINATION, AND EDUCATION
Goal 13: Coordinate the implementation of stormwater management efforts with the watersheds, adjacent
municipalities, and City residents.
Policy 13.1:
Coordinate on-going public education and outreach programs with the local watersheds,
and other governmental agencies designed to bring awareness to the City's stormwater
management goals and policies. This policy is consistent with BMPs 1a-1, 1 b-1, and 1c-1
in the City's SWPPP.
Policy 13.2:
Continue the training program for all City staff, especially Public Works, regarding threats
to water quality and how best to address these problems. This policy is consistent with
BMPs 1c-6 and 1d-1 in the City's SWPPP.
Policy 13.3:
Communicate with the BCWMC and SCWMC regarding the implementation, schedule,
and funding of the stormwater management improvements identified in the LWMP and
Watershed Management Plans.
Policy 13.4:
Work with adjacent municipalities and the watersheds in planning and implementing
mutually beneficial regional stormwater management improvements.
Policy 13.5:
Continue the City's public education program for landowners to promote the use of BMPs
to improve and protect surface water and groundwater quality. The City encourages
residents and landowners to practice environmental friendly lawn care and to encourage
the use of native plantings or natural landscapes, where practical. This policy is consistent
with BMPs 1c-1 and 1c-3 of the City's SWPPP.
Policy 13.6:
Promote citizen and volunteer efforts to protect, restore and enhance local water and
natural resources. This policy is consistent with BMP 1c-2 of the City's SWPPP.
Policy 13.7:
Use available opportunities through its newsletter, public meetings, Cable TV broadcasts,
Comprehensive Plan, or interpretive elements at parks and open space sites to inform its
residents about the value of local water resources, the effects of stormwater runoff, and
opportunities for stewardship of water and natural resources. This policy is consistent
with BMP 1a-1 of the City's SWPPP.
Policy 13.8:
Work with local watershed management organizations, Hennepin County, and others
when appropriate and as resources are available to participate in resource management
plans or studies that benefit water and natural resources.
Policy 13.9:
Coordinate proposed development and redevelopment project reviews with the local
watershed management organizations.
7.2.8 FUNDING
Goal N..• Secure adequate funding to support implementation of the surface water managementplan.
Policy 14.1: Fund implementation of the plan with revenue from the stormwater utility and
periodically review the stormwater utility rates to determine if the revenues are adequate.
Policy 14.2: Seek grant funds or other resources to assist with special projects or implementation of
LWMP goals and policies.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 50
CITY OF NEW NOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 8 — Implementation
8.1 GENERAL
The City has developed an implementation program based on the information developed in earlier sections of
this Local Water Management Plan. This program reflects the needs and concerns of many stakeholders
including the City Council, City Staff, citizens, and local watershed management organizations.
This section summarizes the implementation items identified in Sections 6 and 7 of this LWMP, prioritizes these
items, and presents a preliminary cost estimate to complete the items based on the best available information.
It should be noted that estimated costs presented in the section are preliminary only and are presented for long-
term budget planning purposes.
8.2 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR OFFICIAL CONTROLS
Official controls (codes and ordinances) are necessary tools supporting implementation of this Local Water
Management Plan. Over time, existing ordinances must be updated to remain consistent with stormwater
management goals, policies and practices. To address the need to review and update City Code, many of the
stated goals and policies in this plan specifically reference City ordinances that exist or need to be created.
Also, the City's MS4 permit includes a summary of ordinances required to comply with NPDES requirements and
the ordinances are reflected in the City's SWPPP. Table 8.1 identifies City ordinances related to surface water
management and includes any recommendations for updates to these ordinances as identified in Section 7.
Table 8.1 - Surface Water Management Related Ordinances
Section 4-3(j)
Grading, erosion and sediment control
regulations
Review and update per City Policy 11.1
Section 4-25
Shoreland Permit Overlay District
Review and update per City Policy 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, and 8.2
Section 4-26
Flood Iain District
Review and update er City Poli 2.1
Section 4-35
Administration — Site Plan Review
Review and update per City Policy 11.1
Section 5-1 d
()
Discharge of Surface Waters into Sanitary
Sewer
No update is necessary
Section 5-3(e),
Section 14-50(11)
Stormwater Utility
Review and update per City Policy 14.1
Section 5-7
Drainage
No update is necessary
Section 6-10
Dispersion of Percolating Waters
No update is necessary
Section 8-32
Lawn Fertilizer Application Control
No update is necessary
Section 13-5(e,f)
Erosion and Sediment Control, Drainage
Review and update per City Policy 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 5.2, and 11.1
Section 14-70
Watershed Management Tax District
No update is necessa
Appendix D
Floodplain and Wetland Systems District
Review and update per Cily Policy 2.1 and 9.3
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 51
8.3 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
From the assessment of the City's current stormwater management program comes the identification of existing
stormwater management issues as presented in Table 6.2. Table 8.2 identifies the system improvement projects
from Table 6.2 the City considers to be high or medium priority projects. The system improvements identified in
the table below range from those being driven by increased regulatory requirements (e.g. TMDLs), to others
driven by the functionality of the City's regional stormwater management system.
Table 8.2 - Priority S stem Im rovement Pro ects
8.4 WETLAND INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
Implementation Priority Item: The Metropolitan Council's 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan, the
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Plan, and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Plan all require
that New Hope complete a Wetland Management Plan, including a functions and values assessment for
wetlands within the City.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan # Bonestroo Page 52
Drainage
Project
Description Comments
Area
Reroute Winnetka Avenue storm sewer and • 25% project funding included in 2008 Shingle
SC -A3
Wincrest Pond (SC -P3.4)
Creek WMC CIP
excavate additional wet ponding volume to
improvements
provide greater treatment efficiency. •Identified as an implementation item in the
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL
Expand flood storage, excavate wet volume, and
• 25% project funding included in 2009 Shingle
SC -A5
45 Avenue pond (SC -P5.12)
restrict discharge out of the 45'" Avenue pond
Creek WMC CIP
improvements
(SC -P5.12).
• Identified as an implementation item in the
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL
SC
45' and Xylon Avenues storm
Provide additional trunk storm sewer capacity.
from intersection to 45 Avenue
To be done in conjunction with the 45`"
-A5
sewer improvements
pond
(SC -P5.12).
Avenue pond improvements
Reroute local storm sewer flows along 42"c
SC -A5
42nd Avenue railroad underpass
Avenues at Nevada Avenue and Oregon Avenue
improvements
away from the trunk system serving this
intersection.
Basin SC -P6.8 water quality
Construct ponds SC -P6.14 and SC -P6.16 to
SC -A6
provide water quality treatment prior to
improvements
discharging into Basin SC -P6.8.
Boone Avenue and East
Upsize existing 36" storm sewer to provide
SC -A7
Research Center Road storm
additional trunk pipe capacity immediately
sewer improvements
downstream of the intersection.
Basin BC -P2 5A water quality
Construct pond BC-P2.5C to provide water
BC -A2
quality treatment prior to discharging into Basin
improvements
BC-P2.5A.
Basin BC -P3.1 5A water quality
Construct pond BC -P3.1 5C to provide water
BC -A3
quality treatment prior to discharging into Basin
improvements
BC-P3.15A.
Terra Linda Drive emergency
Lower/widen the existing overland overflow from
BC -A4
overflow improvements
Terra Linda Drive.
8.4 WETLAND INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
Implementation Priority Item: The Metropolitan Council's 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan, the
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Plan, and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Plan all require
that New Hope complete a Wetland Management Plan, including a functions and values assessment for
wetlands within the City.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan # Bonestroo Page 52
Measures Necessary to Implement the Priority Item: The City of New Hope completed a Wetland Inventory and
Management Plan in 1999, including a field inventory of all wetlands identified in the City and an evaluation of
the functions and values of each wetland. Based on this information, the City intends to complete the required
Wetland Management Plan (including a functions and values assessment), consistent with the directive of City
Policy 9.2. In addition, the following items will be included in this document to comply with the requirements of
the agencies identified above:
• Require that wetland mitigation should be provided within the same subwatershed.
• Establish buffer strip requirements adjacent to wetlands and watercourses.
• Identify wetland restoration possibilities and construct or encourage the construction of restoration
projects.
8.5 TWIN AND RYAN LAKES TMDL
Implementation Priority Item: The Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL and Implementation Plan was approved
by the US EPA in November 2007. TMDL study addresses a nutrient impairment in the Twin Lake chain of lakes.
Measures and Timeline Necessary to Implement the Priority Item: Wasteload and Load Allocations to meet State
standards indicate that nutrient load reductions ranging from 0-76 percent would be required to consistently
meet standards under average precipitation conditions. Each stakeholder agreed that nutrient loading must be
reduced, but that as fully developed cities, options for retrofitting BMPs were limited. Each stakeholder agreed
to evaluate and include nutrient -reduction BMPs in street and highway projects, and to consider opportunities
such as redevelopment to add or upsize BMPs.
The TMDL study and this Implementation Plan identified specific improvements to reduce external and internal
phosphorus load. Currently, the improvements to the Wincrest Pond (SC -P3.4) and 45" Avenue Pond (SC -P5.12)
are included as projects to be completed within the first five years. These and others are "short term" projects
that could be accomplished in coming 10-20 years. However, these projects alone will not be sufficient to
achieve water quality goals in these lakes. An essential "long-term" component of this Implementation Plan is
to routinely retrofit BMPs in this fully developed watershed as redevelopment or new construction provide
opportunities. The long-term components impacting the City of New Hope include, increased infiltration
requirements for new and redevelopment projects, wildlife management, street sweeping, and road salt
reductions.
8.6 SHINGLE CREEK TMDL
Implementation Priority Item: The Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL has been approved by the MPCA and an
Implementation Plan has been completed. The TMDL analysis determined that the majority of chloride in the
Shingle Creek watershed is derived from nonpoint sources including road deicing, commercial and industrial
deicing, and fertilizer application, with the primary source being road salt and salt substitutes applied to the
dense network of local roads and county and state highways in the watershed.
The activities and BMPs identified in the implementation plan are the result of a series of stakeholder working
meetings led by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Representatives from cities (including
New Hope), MnDOT, Hennepin County, and regulatory agencies met multiple times to discuss the TMDL
requirements, BMPs and technologies available to address chloride, public safety, and the feasibility of
implementing the activity." As a result of these meetings, New Hope identified their current efforts and
proposed BMPs/activities for managing the City's winter road salt supply within five categories:
" Excerpts from the Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL Implementation Plan
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 53
I . Product Application Equipment and Decisions
2. Product Stockpiles
3. Operator Training
4. Clean-up/Snow Stockpiling
5. Ongoing Research into Salt Alternatives
Measures and Timeline Necessary to Implement the Priority Item: The TMDL concluded that an overall 71 %
reduction in chloride load to Shingle Creek must be achieved to meet State chloride concentration standards.
The Implementation Plan for this TMDL includes tables identifying the City's current activities and proposed
BMPs or activities related to road deicing. The information from these tables is as follows:
Table 8.3 - Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL Implementation Measures
In addition to the Proposed BMPs/Activities identified in Table 8.3, New Hope is committed to tracking and
reporting these activities in their annual NPDES report. A copy of this report will be provided to the Shingle
Creek Watershed Management Commission.
8.7 NPDES IMPLEMENTATION
As discussed in Section 6.5, the City of New Hope is designated as an NPDES Phase II MS4 community. As part
of New Hope's application to obtain permit coverage, the City's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
identifies many specific implementation items related to surface water management in New Hope. While it is not
the City's intent to reproduce the specific implementation items from their SWPPP in this LWMP (a copy of the
current SWPPP can be obtained by contacting City Hall), the specific items identified in the SWPPP can be
lumped into implementation categories, including:
• Education and outreach to City staff and residents
• Ordinance reviews and updates
• System inspection and maintenance activities
• Plan review procedures and standards
• Reporting procedures
• System improvements
Many of the specific implementation items identified in the SWPPP are consistent with other implementation
activities included in this section of the LWMP.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 54
New ..• Proposed
CategoryBMP
..-
3:1 salt/sand
Annually calibration of spreaders
Computerized sanders
Product Application
Truck temperature sensors — air and pavement
Continued research
Equipment and Decisions
Turnover = 12 years
Product Stockpiles
Enclosed building on impervious surface,
At maximum extent practicable
detention pond
Operators use their own judgment using truck
Provide training
Operator Training
sensors
Annually calibration of spreaders
Plow as soon as possible
w
Evaluate annually
Minimal hauling
Stockpiling
Stockpiling
Sweep streets in spring and fall
Ongoing Research into
Investigate new products, equipment, and
Use ClearLane product in 2008-09
Salt Alternatives
methods
In addition to the Proposed BMPs/Activities identified in Table 8.3, New Hope is committed to tracking and
reporting these activities in their annual NPDES report. A copy of this report will be provided to the Shingle
Creek Watershed Management Commission.
8.7 NPDES IMPLEMENTATION
As discussed in Section 6.5, the City of New Hope is designated as an NPDES Phase II MS4 community. As part
of New Hope's application to obtain permit coverage, the City's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
identifies many specific implementation items related to surface water management in New Hope. While it is not
the City's intent to reproduce the specific implementation items from their SWPPP in this LWMP (a copy of the
current SWPPP can be obtained by contacting City Hall), the specific items identified in the SWPPP can be
lumped into implementation categories, including:
• Education and outreach to City staff and residents
• Ordinance reviews and updates
• System inspection and maintenance activities
• Plan review procedures and standards
• Reporting procedures
• System improvements
Many of the specific implementation items identified in the SWPPP are consistent with other implementation
activities included in this section of the LWMP.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 54
8.8 OPERATION AND
New Hope's existing stormwater management system represents a major investment for the City of New Hope.
The ongoing maintenance of this existing stormwater management system is critical to protecting this valuable
investment. Generally, stormwater system maintenance is funded by the City's stormwater utility. The City's
stormwater system maintenance responsibilities include the following:
• Street sweeping
• Cleaning of catch basins
Repair of catch basins and manholes
• Assessing pipe condition (typically by televising)
• Inspection of storm sewer inlet and outlet structures
• Excavation of accumulated sediments from ponds
• Structural treatment devices, including sump manholes and grit chambers
The City should continue to evaluate if the existing stormwater utility rates can adequately fund the
maintenance of the existing stormwater management system. Table 8.5 provides the City's stormwater system
maintenance schedule.
Table 8.4 - Surface Water Svstem Maintenance Schedule
BMP
Catch basins
Maintenance Schedule
Inspected every 5 years, cleaned out as needed
Trunk storm sewer
Jetted on a scheduled rotation
Stormwater ponds
Inspected every 5 years, cleaned out as needed
Stormwater pond inlets/outlets
Inspected every 5 years, cleaned as needed
Structural treatment devices, including
sump manholes and grit chambers
Inspected annually, cleaned as needed
Street sweeping
Twice annually
8.9 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Based on the assessment of the City's current stormwater management program (Section 6) and various
implementation activities identified in the City's surface water management policies section (Section 7), a list of
system improvement projects and activities has been identified (see Table 8.5). This table presents a summary of
recommended high and medium priority surface water management projects and activities. The budget amounts
included in this table should be considered planning -level cost estimates, with more specific cost estimates to be
determined as the project or activity approaches.
For capital improvement projects, the City will continue to rely on its very detailed 5 -year capital improvement
planning process to schedule and plan for funding these projects. This planning process is updated annually by
City staff and reviewed and approved annually by the City Council. The items listed in Table 8.5 will be used as
a reference for particular projects and activities specific to stormwater and water resources management to be
included in the capital improvement planning process.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 55
Table 8.5 - Implementation Proqram
Activity
Activity
Activity Description
Proposed
Budgeted i
Start
1
Review and Update City Code
Review and update the ordinances as necessary per Table 8.1 to
2009'
$10,000
comply with current stormwater management standards and rules.
2
Wincrest Pond (SC -P3.4)
Reroute Winnetka Avenue storm sewer and excavate additional
2008-09
$365,000
improvements
wet pondinq volume to provide greater treatment efficiency!
45t1 Avenue pond (SC -P5.12)
Expand flood storage, excavate wet volume, and restrict discharge
2011
$240,000
3
improvements
out of the 45`h Avenue pond (SC -P5.12 ).2
45" and Xylon Avenues storm
Provide additional trunk storm sewer capacity from intersection to
2010-11
$175,000
4
sewer improvements
45`h Avenue pond (SC -P5.12).
42nd Avenue railroad underpass
Reroute local storm sewer flows along 42nd Avenues at Nevada
5mprovements
Avenue and Oregon Avenue away from the trunk System serving this
2011
$600,000
intersection.
Basin SC -P6.8 water quality
Construct ponds SC -P6.14 and SC -P6.16 to provide water quality
2013
$50,000
6
improvements
treatment upstream of Basin SC -P6.8.
Boone Avenue and East Research
Upsize existing 36" storm sewer to provide additional trunk pipe
2012
$100,000
7
Center Road storm sewer
capacity immediately downstream of the intersection.
improvements
Northwood Lake (BC-P2.5A) water
Construct pond BC-P2.5C (BCWMC WMP ID# NB -29A -B) to
2014
$52,000
8
quality improvements
provide water quality treatment upstream of Northwood Lake.
9
Northwood Park basin 3C -P3.1 5A
Construct pond BC -P3.1 5C to provide water quality treatment
2009
$110,000
water quality improvements
upstream of Basin BC -P3.1 5A.
10
Terra Linda Drive emergency
Lower/widen the existing overland overflow from Terra Linda Drive.
2009
$150,000
overflow improvements
11
Finalize 1999 Wetland Inventory
Finalize the 1999 Wetland Inventory and Assessment of wetlands
2009
$5,000
and Assessment
in New Hope.
Shingle Creek TMDL
Annual calibration of spreaders and road deicing product
Ongoing
$2.000
12
Implementation
application and equipment research.
annual)
Public Education and Outreach
Coordinate public education and outreach programs with outside
$2,500
13
agencies to provide stormwater management education
Ongoing
annually
Program
opportunities for City residents.
City staff training in the operation, maintenance and inspection of
Ongoing
$1,000
14
City Staff Training
stormwater facilities.
annual)
General inspection and maintenance of the City's stormwater
management system, including:
15
General Inspection and
• Bi -annual street sweeping
• Inspection and maintenance of ditches, creeks, and storm sewer
Ongoing
$844,000
(2009
Maintenance Program
e Inspection and maintenance of stormwater basins and outfalls
budget)
• Inspection and maintenance of structural pollution control
devices
16
MS4 Permit Annual Reporting
Annual reporting for MS4 permit compliance.
Ongoing
$12.000
annual)
' Enabling ordinances should be completed within 180 days of the approval of the LWMP
2 Implementation activity identified in the Twin and Ryan Lakes TMDL Implementation Plan
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 56
8.10 POTENTIAL FUNDING
Implementation of the proposed studies, programs, and improvements identified in this section impacts City's
budget. To quantify this effect, a review of the ability of the City to fund these studies, programs, and
improvements is required.
Below is a listing of various sources of revenue that the City will attempt to utilize:
• Existing storm water utility
• Grant and partnership monies possibly secured from various agencies
• General fund
• Watershed Management Tax Districts as provided for in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 10313.245 for those
projects being completed by or in cooperation with the SCWMC or BCWMC
• Special assessments for local improvements performed under authority of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429.
• Other sources potentially including tax increment financing, tax abatement, state aid, and others
The City's stormwater utility fund is the primary source for the studies, programs, and improvements projects
identified in this LWMP. The City reviews the funding adequacy of their stormwater utility in conjunction with
their 5 -year Capital Improvement Program update every two years. The next update to the City's Capital
Improvement Program will occur in 2009.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Pag- 57
CITY OF NEW NOPE - LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Section 9 — Administration
9.1 REVIEW AND ADOPTION PROCESS
Review and adoption of this Surface Water Management Plan will follow the procedure outlined in Minnesota
Statutes 103B.235:
Afterconslderatlon butbefoie adoption by the govemingbody, each loca/governmentunitshallsubmitits
watermanagementp/an to the watershed management organlzatlon(sJ forrev/ew for consistency with the
watershedp/an. The organizavon[sJshal/have 60 days to complete its review.
Concurrently with its submission of/ts local water managementp/an to the watershed management
organization, each local govemment unit shall submit its water managementplan to the Metropolitan
Council for review and comment. The council shall have 45 days to review and comment upon the local
plan. The councils 45 -day reviewpedodshall run concurrently with the 60 -day reviewperlodby the
watershed management organization. The Metropolitan Council shall submit its comments to the
watershed management organization and shall send a copy of its comments to the local government unit
After approval of the loca/p/an by the watershed management organizationisJ, the loca/govemment unit
shall adopt and/mp/ement its plan within 120 days, andshall amend its official controls accordingly within
180 days.
9.2 PLAN AMENDMENTS AND FUTURE UPDATES
This Local Water Management Plan will be incorporated into the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan update and
will be applicable until 2018, at which time an updated plan will be required. Periodic plan amendments may be
required to incorporate major changes in local practices. In particular, changes in the two applicable Watershed
Management Plans may require updates to this plan. Plan amendments will be incorporated by following the
review and adoption steps outlined above.
The City views changes in local practice (e.g. modifications to the City's minimum engineering standards,
improved stormwater system maintenance techniques, etc.) that do not impact the standards or policies
identified in this plan as only minor changes in local practice, and thus would not necessitate a plan amendment
or update.
City of New Hope September, 2008
Local Water Management Plan Bonestroo Page 58
Appendix A
Powers Agreements for the
Watershed Management Commission
and
Watershed Management Commission
-Or Bonestroo
AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF BASSETT CREEK
PREFACE
In 1968, the nine cities with land in the Bassett Creek watershed
entered into a joint powers agreement which established the Bassett Creek
Flood Control Commission. For the past 25 :years the Commission,
consisting primarily of citizen volunteers and city staff members who have
volunteered their time, have worked long and hard to achieve the goals set
forth when the commission was established. An overall watershed
management plan was prepared and approved after public hearings. The
Commission has received technical advice from the United States Army Corps
of Engineers in their planning and has obtained the support and aid of all
United States Senators and Congressional Representatives representing the
member cities. In 1976 the Commission and the Corps of Engineers were
successful in having Bassett Creek included in the 1976 Water Resources
Development Act (Section 173 Public Law 94-587). The Board of Engineers
for Rivers and Harbors submitted a favorable report to the Secretary of the
Army on March 30, 1977. The Secretary of the Army has by letter under date
of June 19, 1978 notified the U.S. Congress of the approval of the Chief of
Engineers.
The Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission has participated with
the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration, the City of Minneapolis and the Corps of Engineers in the
planning and construction of a deep tunnel in Minneapolis which is designed
to carry Bassett Creek under a portion of the City of Minneapolis. The
Commission has held hearings and approved and ordered upstream
construction in the cities of Golden Valley, Plymouth, Minneapolis, and
-1-
Crystal. The local share of these costs is being paid by the nine member
communities pursuant to an agreement consistent with the funding
requirements set forth in Articles VII and VIII of the joint powers
agreement which has been in effect from 1968 to 1993. The prior joint
powers agreement contained the following "Statement of Intent":
STATEMENT OF INTENT REGARDING
AGREEMENT
"Bassett Creek leaves Medicine Lake and flows generally eastward
through the Village of Medicine Lake, Plymouth, Golden Valley and into the
City of Minneapolis. In Minneapolis, the creek is channeled into a conduit
and runs underground to the Mississippi River to its eventual outfall. As
the creek runs through the aforementioned communities it collects storm
waters and in effect acts as the storm sewer for a large densely populated
area and large unpopulated area. It also carries waters channeled to it or
naturally flowing to it from the Villages of Minnetonka and New Hope and the
Cities of Crystal, Robbinsdale, and St. Louis Park.
For a long time the improvement and development of this creek to
carry the increased quantity of storm water has been needed to allow for the
orderly planning and development of the up -stream communities who must rely
on the creek as the outfall for storm waters collected or naturally flowing
from areas within these communities. As the communities contributing
water to the creek have grown, and the lands naturally draining into the
creek have been covered with buildings and hard surfaced areas, the ability
of the creek and its appurtenant facilities to accommodate the water has
diminshed. Studies have been conducted by the municipalities both
individually and collectively and a study has been made by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers. The threat of flood damage increases each year
with the increased use of land in the watershed area.
The nine member communities have been meeting over a number of
years in an effort to solve the storm water problems in the watershed
drained by Bassett Creek. Each year it becomes more apparent that
solutions must be sought to allow for a more orderly and efficient planning
of the area and to allow the individual communities to plan storm sewer
facilities which must be constructed to serve lands within the individual
communities. It is also apparent to all nine municipalities that planning
and construction to control the Bassett Creek cannot be done on the basis of
each community looking at its individual problems. The creek downstream
must be improved to accommodate the waters which will eventually be
channeled and diverted to the outfall. To determine the downstream
improvements -it is necessary to know how much water will be contributed by
the individual communities upstream and how much storm water will be
retained in ponding areas upstream and the area of lands within the
watershed which will be controlled by the individual communities as "open
lands" and which will not contribute as much storm water as lands which are
developed residentially, commercially, or for industrial purposes.
-2-
All of the nine communities within the Bassett Creek watershed
recognize the aforestated problems. In seeking solutions to the overall
drainage problem it becomes apparent that the only way the problems can be
solved is by joint planning, joint cooperation, joint financing and a
sincere desire on the part of each community to solve the overall drainage
problem within the watershed. This means that some agency, commission,
district, corporation, political subdivision, or other vehicle must be
found to plan and finance improvements to and to control .the development of
lands within the watershed. Chapter 112 of the Minnesota Statutes
provides for the formation of a watershed district with the powers and
duties of conserving and controlling water and watercourses within a
watershed. The creation of such a district _creates a new political
subdivision with the power to sue or be sued, tc incur debts, liabilities
and obligations, to exercise the powers of eminent domain, to provide for
assessments, to borrow money and issue bonds and to do all other acts
necessary to carry out the powers vested in the district by said Chapter
112.' The managers of the district would be appointed by the Minnesota
Water Resources Board and subsequent appointments would be by the Board of
County Commissioners of Hennepin County. It is the belief of the parties
to this agreement that the creation of such a district would remove control
one step further from the electorate and the residents of this watershed
area who ultimately would pay the costs of the aforesaid improvements. It
would also create another political subdivision which would have to plan
and work with the individual parties to this agreement to solve the storm
water and drainage problems within the watershed.
The purpose of this statement of intent regarding the agreement is
to clarify and establish for any court of review or any arbitrator or for the
elected successors to the representatives who have entered into this
agreement, the reasons and purposes for this joint and cooperative
agreement. The parties to this agreement realize that the success or
failure of the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission created by this
agreement is dependent upon the sincere desire of each member community to
cooperate in the exercise of a joint power to solve a joint problem. Each
party to this agreement pledges this cooperation."
It is the intent of this amended agreement to carry forward the same
purposes as aforestated and to revise the Joint Powers Agreement to meet the
mandates of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B.201 through 103B.251 and
Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 relating to "Metropolitan Area Local Water
Management". This amended agreement shall continue the existence of a
Watershed Management Organization in accordance with the provisions of the
Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act as set forth in Minnesota
Statutes 1992 Sections 103B.201 to and including 103B.251. The
organization hereby created shall have all of the powers and
-3-
responsibilities set forth in said statutes for the Bassett Creek
Watershed. The purpose of the organization shall be to assist the 9 member
communities to preserve and use natural water storage and retention systems
to:
1. Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and
groundwater storage and retention systems;
2. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct
flooding and water quality problems;
3. identify and plan for means to effectively protect and
improve surface water and groundwater quality;
4. Establish more uniform local policies and official
controls for surface water and groundwater quality;
S. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
6. Promote groundwater recharge;
7. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water
recreational facilities;
8. To secure other benefits associated with the proper
management of surface water.
9. To promote and encourage cooperation among member cities
in coordinating local surface water and groundwater plans
and to be aware of their neighbor's problems and to protect
the public health, safety, and general welfare.
10. To continue the work of the Bassett Creek Water Management
Commission and to carry out the plans, policies and
programs developed by said Commission from 1968 to 1993.
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
The parties to this Agreement are governmental units of the State
of Minnesota, all of which have lands which drain surface water into Bassett
Creek and all of which have power to construct, reconstruct, extend and
maintain storm water management facilities. This agreement is made
pursuant to the authority conferred upon the parties by Minnesota Statutes
1992, Sections 471.59 and 103B.201 to and including Section 103B.251.
NAME
I.
The parties hereto create and establish the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission.
GENERAL PURPOSE
II.
The general purpose of this agreement is to provide an organization
which can investigate, study, plan and control the construction of
facilities to drain or pond storm waters, to alleviate damage by flood
waters; to improve the creek channel for drainage; to assist in planning for
land use; to repair, improve, relocate, modify, consolidate or abandon, in
whole or in part, drainage systems within the watershed area; and to do
whatever is necessary to assist in water conservation and the abatement of
surface water and groundwater contamination and water pollution. In
addition to the aforestated purposes, the organization hereby created
shall serve as the organization for the Bassett Creek watershed and shall
carry out all of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103B.201 through 103B.251, both inclusive.
MMC
DEFINITIONS
III.
For the purposes of this agreement, the terms used herein shall
have the meanings as defined in this article.
Subdivision 1. "Commission" means the organization created by
this agreement, the full name of which is "Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission." It shall be a public agency of its members.
Subdivision 2. "Board" means the Board of commissioners of the
Commission, consisting of one commissioner or one alternate commissioner
from each of the governmental units which is a party to this agreement and
which shall be the governing body of the Commission.
Subdivision 3. "Council" means the governing body of a
governmental unit which is a member of this Commission.
Subdivision 4. "Governmental Unit" means any city, county, or
town.
Subdivision 5. "Member" means a governmental unit which enters
into this agreement.
Subdivision 6. "Bassett Creek Watershed" means the area
contained within a line drawn around the extremities of all terrain whose
surface drainage is tributary to Bassett Creek and within the mapped areas
delineated on the map filed with the Board of Water and Soil Resources
originally filed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 473. B77 Subd. 2 and as now
amended by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.
MEMBERSHIP
IV.
The membership of the Commission shall consist of all of the
following governmental units as shall elect, through resolution or
WE
ordinance adopted by their respective Councils, to become members:
City of Crystal
City of Golden Valley
City of Medicine Lake
City of Minneapolis
City of Minnetonka
City of New Hope
City of Plymouth
City of Robbinsdale
City of St. Louis Park
(The foregoing list is intended to include all governmental units which are
presently partially or entirely within the Bassett Creek Watershed.)
No change in governmental boundaries, structure or organizational
status shall affect the eligibility of any governmental unit listed above
to be represented on the Commission, so long as such governmental unit
continues to exist as a separate political subdivision.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
V.
Subdivision 1. The governing body of the Commission shall be its
Board. Each member shall be entitled to appoint one representative on the
Board, and one alternate who may sit when the representative is not in
attendance and said representative or alternate representative shall be
called a "Commissioner".
Subdivision 2. The council of each member shall determine the
eligibility or qualification of its representative on the Commission but
the terms of each Commissioner shall be as established by this agreement.
Subdivision 3. The term of each Commissioner and Alternate
-7-
Commissioner appointed by each member shall be three years and until their
succesors are selected and qualify and shall commence on February 1, except
that the terms of the Commissioners first appointed shall commence from the
date of their appointment and shall terminate as follows:
a. The Commissioners appointed by the Cities of Crystal,
Golden Valley, and Medicine Lake shall terminate on
February 1, 1994.
b. The Commissioners appointed by the Cities of Minneapolis,
Minnetonka, and New Hope shall terminate on February 1,
1995.
C. The Commissioners appointed by the Cities of Plymouth,
Robbinsdale, and St. Louis Park shall terminate on
February 1, 1996.
Any vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term of any Commissioner by
the council of the governmental unit of the member who appointed said
Commissioner. The Commission shall notify the Board of Water and Soil
Resources of member appointments and vacancies within 30 days after the
Commission is notified by a member. Each member agrees to publish a notice
of vacancies resulting from the expiration of a Commissioner's or Alternate
Commissioner's term or where a vacancy exists for any reason. Publication
and notice shall be in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section
103B.227, Subds. 1 and 2, as they now exist or as subsequently amended.
Subdivision 4. The council of each member agrees that its
representative commissioner will not be removed from the Board prior to the
expiration of the Commissioner's term, unless said Commissioner consents
in writing or unless said council has presented the Commissioner with
charges in writing and has held a public hearing after reasonable notice to
the Commissioner. A member may remove a Commissioner or an Alternate
Commissioner for just cause or for violation of a Code of Ethics established
by the Commission or by the Member City or for malfeasance, nonfeasance, or
misfeasance. Said hearing shall be held by the Member City Council who
appointed the Commissioner. A Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner who
is an elected officer of a Member City who is not reelected may be removed by
the appointing Member City at the appointing Member's discretion. Any
decision by a Member to remove a Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner may
be appealed to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. A certified copy of
the Council's Resolution removing said Commissioner shall be filed with the
Secretary of the Board of Commissioners and shall show compliance with the
terms of this section.
Subdivision 5. Each member shall within 30 days of appointment
file with the Secretary of the Board of Commissioners a record of the
appointment of its Commissioner and Alternate Commissioner. The
Commission shall notify the Board of Water and Soil Resources of Member
appointments and vacancies within 30 days after receiving notice from the
Member. Members shall fill all vacancies within 90 days after the vacancy
occurs.
Subdivision 6. Commissioners shall serve without compensation
from the Commission, but this shall not prevent a governmental unit from
providing compensation for its Commissioner. for serving on the Board, if
such compensation is authorized by such governmental unit and by law.
Commission funds may be used to reimburse a Commissioner or Alternate
Commissioner for expenses incurred in performing Commission business and
if authorized by the Board.
Subdivision 7. At the first meeting of the Board and in February
-9-
of each year thereafter, the Board shall elect from its Commissioners a
Chair, a Vice Chair, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such other officers as it
deems neces say to conduct its meetings and affairs. At the organizational
meeting or as soon thereafter as it may be reasonably done, the Commission
shall adopt rules and regulations governing its meetings. Such rules and
regulations may be amended from time to time at either a regular or a special
meeting of the Commission provided that a ten day prior notice of the
proposed amendment has been furnished to each person to whom notice of the
Board meetings is required to be sent; a majority vote of all eligible votes
of the then existing members of the Commission shall be sufficient to adopt
any proposed amendment to such rules and regulations.
The Board shall notify each Member City of the location and time of
regular and special meetings called by the Board. A meeting shall be held
at least annually, and all meetings shall be called and open to the public
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.705, or as amended.
POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD
VI.
Subdivision 1. The Commission, acting by its duly appointed Board
of Commissioners, shall as it relates to flood control, water quality,
ground water recharge and water conservation or in its construction of
facilities and other duties as set forth in Minnesota Laws have the powers
and duties set out in this article.
Subdivision 2. It may employ such persons as it deems necessary to
accomplish its duties and powers. Any, employee may be on a full time, part
time or consulting basis as the Board determines.
Subdivision 3. It may contract for space and for material and
supplies to carry on its activities either with a member or elsewhere.
-io-
Subdivision 4. It may acquire necessary personal property to
carry out its powers and its duties.
Subdivision 5. It shall develop an overall plan containing a
capital improvement program within a reasonable time after qualifying, and
said plan shall meet all of the requirements as established in Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 103B. Said overall plan shall establish a comprehensive
goal for the development of Bassett Creek and shall establish a proposed
procedure for accomplishing the purposes of the organization as set forth
in Article II.
In preparing the overall plan, the Board may consult with the
engineering and planning staff of each member governmental unit. It may
consult with the Metropolitan Council and other public and private bodies
to obtain and consider projections of land use, population growth, and
other factors which are relevant to the improvement and development of the
Bassett Creek watershed.
Said overall plan shall include the location and adequacy of the
outlet or outfall of said Bassett Creek. The plan shall include the
quantity of storage facilities and the sizing of an adequate outlet for all
branch lateral storm sewers within the Bassett Creek watershed. The plan
shall comply with state statutes and regulations promulgated and adopted by
the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
Upon completion of the overall plan, or amendments thereto, the
Board shall supply each member with a copy of the proposed plan and shall
submit the plan for review and comment to Hennepin County, all soil and
water conservation districts in Hennepin County and to all statutory and
home rule charter cities having territory within the watershed. All
governmental units which expect that substantial amendment of its local
-11-
comprehensive plan will be necessary in order to bring their .local water
management into conformance with the Commission's watershed plan shall
describe as specifically as possible, the amendments to the local plan
which it expects will be necessary. The Commission shall hold a public
hearing after 60 days mailed notice to the clerk of each member governmental
unit. The mailed notice of the hearing shall be sent at the same time the
plan is submitted to the members and to other government al agencies. After
such public hearing, the Board shall prescribe the overall plan which shall
be the outline for future action by the Commission.
The Commission shall then submit the plan, any comments received
and any appropriate amendments to the plan to the Board of Commissioners of
Hennepin County. The County shall approve or disapprove projects in the
capital improvement program which may require the provision of county funds
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 103B.251 or 103D.901. The County
shall have 60 days to complete its review. If the County fails to complete
its review within 60 days the plan and capital improvement programs shall be
deemed approved.
After completion of the review by Hennepin County, the plan and
capital improvement program shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Council
for its review. After completion of the review by the Metropolitan Council
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.231, Subd. 8, the Commission
shall submit the plan to the Minnesota Commissioner of Natural Resources
and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for review and comment on the
consistency of the plan with state laws and rules relating to water and
related land resources and to the Board of Water and Soil Resources for
review as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.231, Subd. 9.
After return of the plan, the Commission shall submit to each of its
-12-
members a copy of the plan and all comments of the reviewing authorities.
The Commission shall wait for at least 30 days for comments from the
members.
The Commission shall adopt the overall plan within 120 days after
approval of the plan by the Board of Eater and Soil Resources. The
Commission shall then implement the approved plan and approved capital
improvement program by resolution of the Commission as hereinafter set
forth. The adoption of said overall plan shall be only upon a favorable
vote of a majority of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the
Commission. A copy of the adopted plan shall be filed with the clerk of
each member governmental unit. Upon notice and hearing as provided for in
adopting the overall plan, said plan may be amended by the Board on its own
initiative or on the petition of any member governmental unit.
The review provisions set forth in this section are those required
by Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.231. If the law is amended, approvals
shall be as required by law and the provisions contained in this section
shall be amended accordingly.
Subdivision 6. It shall make necessary surveys or utilize other
reliable surveys and data and develop projects to accomplish the purposes
for which the Commission is organized.
Subdivision 7. It may cooperate or contract with the State of
Minnesota or any subdivision thereof or federal agency or private or public
organization to accomplish the purposes for which it is organized.
Subdivision 8. It may order any member governmental unit or units
to construct, clean, repair, alter, abandon, consolidate, reclaim or
change the course or terminus of any ditch, drain, storm sewer, or water
course, natural or artifical, within the Bassett Creek watershed.
-13-
Subdivision 9. It may order any member governmental unit or units
to acquire, operate, construct or maintain dams, dikes, reservoirs and
appurtenant works or other improvements necessary to implement the overall
plan.
Subdivision 10. It shall regulate, conserve and control the use
of storm and surface water and groundwater within the Bassett Creek
watershed.
Subdivision 11. It may contract for or purchase such insurance as
the Board deems necessary for the protection of the Commission.
Subdivision 12. It may establish and maintain devices for
acquiring and recording hydrological and water quality data within the
Bassett Creek watershed.
Subdivision 13. It may enter upon lands within or without the
watershed to make surveys and investigations to accomplish the purposes of
the Commission. The Commission shall be liable for actual damages
resulting therefrom 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 Chapter 466.05 of the Minnesota Statutes.
Subdivision 14. It shall provide any member governmental unit
with technical data or any other information of which the Commission has
knowledge which will assist the governmental unit in preparing land use
classifications or local water management plans within the watershed.
Subdivision 15. It may provide legal and technical assistance in
connection with litigation or other proceedings between one or more of its
members and any other political subdivision, commission, Board or agency
relating to the planning or construction of facilities to drain or pond
storm waters or relating to water quality within the Bassett Creek
-14-
watershed. The use of commission funds for litigation shall be only upon a
i
favorable vote of a majority of the eligible votes of the then existing
members of the Commission.
Subdivision 16. It may accumulate reserve funds for the purposes
herein mentioned and may invest funds of the Commission not currently
needed for its operations, in the -manner and subject to the laws of
Minnesota applicable to statutory cities.
Subdivision 17. It may collect monies, subject to the provisions
of this agreement, from its members, Hennepin County and from any other
source approved by a majority of its Board.
Subdivision 18. It may make contracts, incur expenses and make
expenditures necessary and incidental to the effectuation of these
purposes and powers and may disburse therefor in the manner hereinafter
provided.
Subdivision 19. It shall cause to be made an annual audit by a
certified public accountant or the state auditor of the books and accounts
of the Commission and shall make and file a report to its members at least
once each year including the following information:
a. the approved budget;
b. a reporting of revenues;
C. a reporting of expenditures;
d. a financial audit report or section that includes a
balance sheet, a classification of revenues and
.expenditures, an analysis of changes in final balances,
and any additional statements considered necessary for
full financial disclosure;
e. the status of all Commission projects and work within the
-15-
watershed; and
f. the business transacted by the commission and other matters
which affect the interests of the commission.
Copies of said report shall be transmitted to the clerk of each member
governmental unit.
Subdivision 20. Its books, reports and records shall be available
for and open to inspection by its members at all reasonable times.
members.
Subdivision 21. It may recommend changes in this agreement to its
Subdivision 22. It may exercise all other powers necessary and
incidental to the implementation of the purposes and powers set forth
herein and as outlined and authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections
103B.201 through 103B.251.
Subdivision 23. It shall cooperate with the State of Minnesota,
the Commissioner of Natural Resources and the Director of the Division of
Waters, Soils and Minerals of the Department of Natural Resources in
obtaining permits and complying with the requirements of Chapter 103G of
the Minnesota Statutes.
Subdivision 24. Each member reserves the right to conduct
separate or concurrent studies on any matter under study by the Commission.
Subdivision 25. It shall establish a procedure for establishing
citizen or technical advisory committees and to provide other means for
public participation.
METHOD OF PROCEEDING
VII.
Subdivision 1. The procedures to be followed by the Board in
carrying out the powers and duties set forth in Article VI, Subdivisions 5,
-16-
6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, shall be as set forth in this article.
Subdivision 2. The Commissioners shall be the same as those
serving as Commissioners and Alternate Commissioners for the predecessor
Bassett Creek Water Management Commission. The Board shall immediately
proceed to revise the overall plan as set forth in Article VI, Subdivision 5
or as required by state statute. Upon adoption of said overall plan, the
Board shall proceed to implement said plan, and this implementation may be
ordered by stages.
Subdivision 3. The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
shall be the successor to the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission as
constituted under the prior Joint Powers Agreement. All personal
property, money, bank accounts, records or any other thing of value and on
hand with the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission shall be
transferred to the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission.
Subdivision 4. The location and adequacy of the outlet for
Bassett Creek shall be determined and the Commission shall then prepare
plans which will provide capacity to outlet the surface waters which will be
collected within the Bassett Creek watershed. In determining the
necessary capacity for said outlet, the Commission shall take into
consideration the quantity of land within the watershed which each member
governmental unit has to pond or act as a reservoir for surface waters. It
shall consider only lands which are under public ownership or under public
control and that will be perpetually dedicated to acting as a reservoir for
surface waters. The commission may require from each member governmental
unit a commitment in writing of the lands which shall be so dedicated,
including a legal description of the gross area and the capacity in acre
feet of water storage. No project which will channel or divert additional
-17-
waters to Bassett Creek shall be commenced by any member governmental unit
prior to approval of the Board of the design of an adequate outlet or of
adequate storage facilities. The adequacy of said outlet shall be
determined by the Board after consultations with its professional
engineers.
Subdivision 5. All construction, reconstruction, extension or
maintenance of Bassett Creek including outlets, lift stations, dams,
reservoirs, or other appurtenances of a surface water or storm sewer system
which involve construction by or assessment against any member
governmental unit or against privately or publicly owned land within the
watershed shall follow the statutory procedures outlined in Chapter 429 of
the Minnesota Statutes except as herein modified. The Board shall secure
from its engineers or some other competent person a report advising it in a
preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to
whether it shall best be made as proposed or in connection with some other
improvement and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended and
the proposed allocation of costs between members.
The Board shall then hold a public hearing on the proposed
improvement after mailed notice to the clerk of each member governmental
unit within the watershed. The Commission shall not be required to mail or
publish notice except by said notice to the clerk. Said notice shall be
mailed not less than 45 days before the hearing, shall state the time and
place of the hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated
total cost and the estimated cost to each member governmental unit. The
Board may adjourn said hearing to obtain further information, may continue
said hearing pending action of the member governmental units or may take
such other action as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this
-18-
Commission.
To order the improvement, in accordance with the powers and duties
established in Article VI, Subdivisions 7, 8 and 9, a resolution setting
forth the order for a capital improvement project shall require a favorable
vote by two-thirds of all eligible votes of then existing Board of the
Commission. In all cases other than for capital improvement projects, a
majority vote of all eligible members of the Board shall be sufficient to
order the work. The order shall describe the improvement, shall allocate
in percentages the cost allocation between the member governmental units,
shall designate the engineers to prepare plans and specifications, and
shall designate the member who will contract for the improvement in
accordance with Subdivision 7 of this Article.
After the Board has ordered an improvement or if the hearing is
continued while the member governmental units act on said proposal, it
shall forward said preliminary report to all member governmental units with
an estimated time schedule for the construction of said improvement. The
Board shall allow an adequate amount of time, and in no event less than 45
days, for each member governmental unit to conduct hearings, in accordance
with the provisions of the aforestated Chapter 429 or the charter
requirements of any city, or to ascertain the method of financing which said
member governmental unit will utilize to pay its proportionate share of the
costs of the improvement. Each member governmental unit shall ascertain
within a period of 90 days the method it shall use to pay its proportionate
share of the costs.
If the Commission proposes to utilize Hennepin County's bonding
authority as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251, or if the
Commission proposes to certify all or any part of a capital improvement to
-19-
Hennepin County for payment, then and in that event all proceedings shall be
carried out in accordance with the provisions set forth in said Section
103B.251.
The Board shall not order and no engineer shall prepare plans and
specifications before the Board has adopted a resolution ordering the
improvement. The Board may order the advertising for bids upon receipt of
notice from each member governmental unit who will be assessed that it has
completed its hearing or determined its method of payment or upon
expiration of 90 days after the mailing of the preliminary report to the
members.
Subdivision 6. Any member governmental unit being aggrieved by
the determination of the Board as to the allocation of the costs of said
improvement shall have 30 days after the commission resolution ordering the
improvement to appeal said determination. Said appeal shall be in writing
and shall be addressed to the Board asking for arbitration. The
determination of the member's appeal shall be referred to a Board of
Arbitration. The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three persons; one
to be appointed by the Board of Commissioners, one to be appointed by the
appealing member governmental unit, and the third to be appointed by the two
so selected. in the event the two persons so selected do not appoint the
third person within 15 days after their appointment, then the Chief Judge of
the District Court of Hennepin County shall have jurisdiction to appoint,
upon application of either or both of the two earlier selected, the third
person to the Board of Arbitration. The third person selected shall not be
a resident of any member governmental unit and if appointed by the Chief
Judge said person shall be a registered professional engineer. The
arbitrators' expenses and fees, together with the other expenses, not
-20-
including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration shall be
divided equally between the Commission and the appealing member.
Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration
Act, Chapter 572 of the Minnesota Statutes.
Subdivision 7. Contracts for Improvements. All contracts which
are to be let as a result of the Board's order to construct, repair, alter,
reclaim or change the course or terminus of any ditch, drain, storm sewer,
or watercourse, or to acquire, operate, construct or maintain dams, dikes,
reservoirs or their appurtenances or to carry out any of the other
provisions of the plan as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, and for which
two or more member governmental units shall be responsible for the costs,
shall be let in accordance with the provisions of Section 429.041 of the
Minnesota Statutes. The bidding and contracting of said work shall be let
by any one of the member governmental units, as ordered by the Board of
Commissioners, after compliance with the statutes. All contracts and
bidding procedures shall comply with all the requirements of law applicable
to contracts let by a statutory city in the State of Minnesota.
The Commission shall not have the authority to contract in its own
name for any improvement work for which a special assessment will be levied
against any private or public property under the provisions of Chapter 429
or under the provisions of any City charter. These contracts shall be
awarded by action of the council of a member and shall be in the name of a
member governmental unit. This section shall not preclude the Commission
from proceeding under Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251.
Subdivision 8. Contracts with Other Governmental Bodies. The
Commission may exercise the powers set forth in Article VI, Subdivision 7,
but said contracts for a capital improvement shall require a favorable vote
-21-
of two-thirds majority of the eligible votes of the then existing members of
the Commission.
Subdivision 9. Supervision. All improvement contracts awarded
under the provisions of Subdivision 7 of this Article shall be supervised by
the member governmental unit awarding said contract or said member
governmental unit may contract or appoint any qualified staff member or
members of the Commission to carry out said supervision, but each member
agrees that the staff of this Commission shall be authorized to observe and
review the work in progress and the members agree to cooperate with the
Commission staff in accomplishing the purposes of this Commission.
Representatives of the Commission shall have the right to enter upon the
place or places where the improvement work is in progress for the purpose of
making reasonable tests and inspections. The staff of this Commission
shall report and advise and recommend to the Board on the progress of said
work.
Subdivision 10. Land Acquisition. The Commission shall not have
the power of eminent domain. The member governmental units agree that any
and all easements or interest in land which are necessary will be negotiated
or condemned in accordance with Chapter 117 of the Minnesota Statutes by the
unit wherein said lands are located, and each member agrees to acquire the
necessary easements or right of way or partial or complete interest in land
upon order of the Board of Commissioners to accomplish the purposes of this
agreement. All reasonable costs of said acquisition shall be considered
as a cost of the improvement. If a member governmental unit determines it
is in the best interests of that member to acquire additional lands, in
conjunction with the taking of lands for storm and surface drainage or
storage, for some other purposes, the costs of said acquisition will not be
-22-
included in the improvement costs of the ordered project. The Board in
( determining the amount of the improvement costs to be assessed to each
member governmental unit may take into consideration the land use for which
said additional lands are being acquired and may credit the acquiring
municipality for said land acquisition to the extent that it benefits the
other members of this agreement. Any credits may be applied to the cost
allocation of the improvement project under construction or the Board if
feasible and necessary may defer said credits to a future project.
If any member unit refuses to negotiate or condemn lands as ordered
by the Board, any other member may negotiate or condemn outside its
corporate limits in accordance with the aforesaid Chapter 117. All
members agree that they will not condemn or negotiate for land acquisition
to pond or drain storm and surface waters within the corporate boundaries of
another member within the Bassett Creek watershed except upon order of the
Board of this Commission.
The Commission shall have authority to establish land acquisition
policies as a part of the overall plan. The policies shall be designed to
equalize costs of land throughout the watershed. Said policy is contained
in the existing watershed management plan and may be continued in any
revised overall plan required by Minnesota Statutes.
Subdivision 11. Pollution Control and Water Quality. The
Commission shall have the authority and responsibility to protect and
improve water quality in the watershed as this is one of the main purposes
set forth in the Surface Water Management Act. All member governmental
units agree that they will refuse to allow the drainage of sanitary sewage
or industrial wastes onto any land or into any watercourse or storm sewer
draining into Bassett Creek. The Board may investigate on its own
-23-
initiative and shall investigate upon petition of any member all complaints
relating to pollution of surface water or groundwater draining into or
affecting Bassett Creek or its tributaries. Upon a finding that the creek
or surface waters or groundwater are being polluted, the Board shall order
the member governmental unit to abate this nuisance and each member agrees
that it will take all reasonable action available to it under the law to
alleviate the pollution and to assist in protecting and improving the water
quality of surface water and groundwater in the watershed.
Subdivision 12. Local Water Management Plans. The Commission
shall have power and authority to review the members' local water
management plans, capital improvement programs and official controls
required by Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.235 and/or by rules
promulgated and adopted by the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The
members also understand that the overall plan and capital improvement
program required for the entire watershed must consist of the local parts in
the plan and therefore every effort shall be made by the Commission to
coordinate the local plans with the watershed's overall plan. The members
further understand and agree that upon completion and approval of the
overall plan required by Minnesota Statutes 103B.231, each member will be
required to present their local management plan to the Commission as
required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.235. It is therefore
important that each member provide the Commission with their best effort to
coordinate and plan for the individual member's local plan at the same time
the watershed overall plan is being assembled.
FINANCES
VIII.
Subdivision 1. The Commission funds may be expended by the Board
-24-
in accordance with this agreement and in accordance with the procedures as
established by law and in the manner as may be determined by the Board. The
Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or trust companies,
authorized by Chapters 118 and 427 of the Minnesota Statutes to receive
deposits of public moneys and to act as depositories for the Commission
funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of Commission funds
without the signature of at least two Board membefs, one of whom shall be the
Treasurer or his Authorized Deputy Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be
required to file with the Secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least
$10,000 or such higher amount as shall be determined by the Board. The
Commission shall pay the premium on said bond.
Subdivision 2. The members agree to contribute all cash, bank
deposits, and other assets held by the Bassett Creek Water Management
Commission to the new Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission to
carry out the purposes of the Commission. Each member governmental unit
has contributed its proportionate share of said funds based on the net tax
capacity and area of all taxable property within the Bassett Creek
watershed.
Subdivision 3. Each member agrees to contribute each year to a
general fund, said fund to be used for general administration purposes
including, but not limited to: salaries, rent, supplies, development of
an overall plan, insurance, and bonds, and to purchase and maintain devices
to measure hydrological and water quality data. Said funds may also be
used for normal maintenance of the facilities, but any extraordinary
maintenance or repair expense shall be treated as an improvement cost and
processed in accordance with Subdivision 4 of this Article. The annual
contribution by each member shall be based fifty percent (50%) on the net
-25-
tax capacity of all property within the watershed and fifty percent (50%) on
the basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries of the
Watershed each year to the total area in the Bassett Creek watershed. In no
event shall any assessment require a contribution to exceed one-half of one
percent of the net tax capacity within the watershed.
Subdivision 4.
(a) An improvement fund shall be established for each improvement
project instituted under Article VII, Subdivision 3. Each member agrees
to contribute to said fund its proportionate share of the engineering,
legal and administrative costs as determined by the amount to be assessed
against each member as a cost of the improvement. The Board shall submit in
writing a statement to each member, setting forth in detail the expenses
incurred by the Commission for each project.
Each membe er agrees to pay to or contract with the member
governmental unit awarding said contract for the improvement, its
proportionate share of the cost of the improvement in accordance with the
determination of the Board under Article VII, Subdivision 5. The member
awarding the contract shall submit in writing copies of the engineer's
certificate authorizing payment during construction and the member being
billed agrees to pay its proportionate share of said improvement costs
within 30 days after receipt of the statement. The member awarding the
contract shall advise other contributing members of the tentative time
schedule of the work and the estimated times when the contributions shall be
necessary.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
subdivision, the Commission may by a vote of 2/3rds of all eligible votes of
the then existing members of the Commission decide to proceed to fund all or
-26-
any part of the cost of a capital improvement contained in the capital
improvement program of the plan pursuant to the authority and subject to the
provisions set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. The
Commission and Hennepin County may establish a maintenance fund to be used
for normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole
or in part with money provided by Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103B.251. The levy and collection of an ad valorem tax
levy for maintenance shall be by Hennepin County based upon a tax levy
resolution adopted by a majority vote of all eligible members of the
Commission and remitted to the County on or before the date prescribed by
law each year. If it is determined to levy for maintenance, the Commission
shall be required to follow the hearing process established by Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103D.915 and 103D.921 and acts amendatory thereof and in
addition thereto. Mailed notice shall be sent to the Clerk of each member
municipality at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
Subdivision 5. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall
adopt a detailed budget for the ensuing year and decide upon the total
amount necessary for the general fund. Budget approval shall require a
favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes of the then existing
members of the Board.
The Secretary of the Board shall certify the budget on or before
July 1 to the clerk of each member governmental unit together with a
statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each member.
The Council of each member agrees to review the budget, and the
Board shall upon notice from any member received prior to August 1, hear
objections to the budget, and may, upon notice to all members and after a
hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the members of
-27-
any and all modifications or amendments.
Each member agrees to provide the funds required by the budget and
said determination shall be conclusive if no member enters objections in
writing on or before August 1. If no objections are submitted to the Board,
each member agrees to provide the funds approved by the Board, after the
Board has conducted the aforementioned hearing. Modifications or
amendments to the original budget require a favorable vote by a majority of
all eligible voters of then existing members of the Board.
The budget shall not in any event require any member to contribute
in excess of one-half of one percent of the net tax capacity of all taxable
property within the watershed and within said members corporate
boundaries.
The schedule of payments by the members shall be determined by the
Board in such a manner as to provide for an orderly collection of the funds
needed.
Upon notice and hearing, the Board by a favorable vote of a majority
of all eligible votes of then existing members may adopt a supplemental
budget requiring additional payments by the members within 60 days of its
adoption but in no event shall the budget require any member to contribute
in excess of one- half of one percent of the net tax capacity of all taxable
property within the watershed or within any member's corporate boundaries
in any one calendar year.
Members' attention is drawn to Minnesota Statutes, Section
103B.245, which authorizes a watershed Management Tax District to be
created within each member City to pay the costs of planning and for the
purpose of paying capital costs and/or normal and routine maintenance of
facilities.
Subdivision
5. Cost Allocation. All capital costs incurred by
the Commission shall
be apportioned to the respective members on either
(1), (2), or (3) of
the following bases:
(1) A negotiated
amount to be arrived at by the members who
have
lands in the subdistrict responsible for the capital
improvement.
(2) (a)
Fifty percent of all capital costs or the
financing thereof shall be apportioned to each
member on the basis of the real property valuation
net tax capacity of each member within the
boundaries of the watershed each year to the total
real property valuation net tax capacity in the
Bassett Creek watershed area governed by this
Agreement.
(b)
Fifty percent of all capital costs or the
financing thereof shall be apportioned to each
member on the basis of the total area of each
member within the boundaries of the watershed
each year to the total area in the Bassett Creek
watershed area governed by this Agreement.
(c)
Capital costs allocated under the 50% area/50%
net tax capacity formula herein set forth may be
varied by the Commission by a 2/3rds vote if:
(1) any member community receives a direct
benefit from the capital improvement
which benefit can be defined as a lateral
-29-
as well as a trunk benefit, or
(2) the capital improvement provides a
direct benefit to one or more members
which benefit is so disproportionate as
to require in a sense of fairness a
modification in the 50/50 formula.
(d) Credits to any member for lands acquired by said
member to pond or store storm and surface water
shall be allowed against costs set forth in
Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this Section.
(3) If the project is constructed and financed pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251, the members
understand and agree that said costs will be levied on all
taxable property in the watershed as set forth in the
statute.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
I%.
Subdivision 1. The Commission shall not have the power to issue
certificates, warrants or bonds.
Subdivision 2. The Commission shall not have the power of eminent
domain and shall not own any interest in real property. All interests in
lands shall be held in the name of the corporate member wherein said lands
are located.
Subdivision 3. The Commission shall not have the power to levy a
special assessment upon any privately or publicly owned land. All such
assessments shall be levied by the member wherein said lands are located.
It shall have the power to require any member to contribute the costs
-30-
allocated or assessed according to the other provisions of this agreement.
Subdivision 4. Each member agrees that it will not directly or
indirectly collect or divert any additional surface water to the
Mississippi River or its tributaries from any subdistrict or subtrunk
without a permit from the Board of Commissioners. Permits may be granted
by the Board for a member to proceed with the construction or reconstruction
of improvements within the individual corporate members' boundaries and at
its sole cost upon a finding:
(a)
(b)
(c)
that there is an adequate outlet; and
that said construction is in conformance with the overall
plan; and
that the construction will not adversely affect other
members of this agreement.
Subdivision 5. Any member who is more than 60 days in default in
contributing its share to the general fund shall have the vote of its Board
member suspended pending the payment of its proportionate share.
Any member who is more than 60 days in default in contributing its
proportionate share of the cost of any improvement to the contracting
member shall upon application of the contracting member have the vote of its
Board member suspended, pending the payment of its proportionate share.
Any Board member whose vote is under suspension shall not be
considered as an eligible member as such membership affects the number of
votes required to proceed on any matter under consideration by the Board.
DURATION
X.
Subdivision 1. Each member agrees to be bound by the terms of this
agreement until January 1, 2015, and it may be continued thereafter at the
-31-
option of the parties.
Subdivision 2. This agreement may be terminated prior to January
1, 2015, by the unanimous consent of the parties. If the agreement is to be
terminated, a notice of the intent to dissolve the Commission shall be sent
to the Board of Water and Soil Resources and to Hennepin County at least 90
days prior to the date of dissolution.
Subdivision 3. In addition to the manner provided in Subdivision
2 for termination, any member may petition. the Board to dissolve the
agreement. Upon 90 days notice in writing to the clerk of each member
governmental unit and to the Board of Water and Soil Resources and to
Hennepin County, the Board shall hold a hearing and upon a favorable vote by
a majority of all eligible votes of then existing Board members, the Board
may by Resolution recommend that the Commission be dissolved. Said
Resolution shall be submitted to each member governmental unit and if
ratified by three-fourths of the councils of all eligible members within 60
days, said Board shall dissolve the Commission allowing a reasonable time
to complete work in progress and to dispose of personal property owned by
the Commission.
DISSOLUTION
XI.
Upon dissolution of the Commission, all property of the Commission
shall be sold and the proceeds thereof, together with monies on hand, shall
be distributed to the eligible members of the Commission. Such
distribution of -Commission -assets shall be made in proportion to the total
contribution to the Commission as required by the last annual budget.
-32-
EFFECTIVE DATE
XII.
This agreement shall be in full force and effect upon the filing of
a certified copy of the resolution approving said agreement by all nine
members. Said resolution shall be filed with the Chair of the existing
Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (presently W. Peter Enck of
the City of New Hope), who shall notify all members in writing of its
effective date and shall set the date for the next meeting to be conducted
under this amended Joint Powers Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental units, by action
of their governing bodies, have caused this agreement to be executed in
accordance with the authority of Minnesota Statutes Sections 103B.211 and
471.59.
-33-
Approved by the City Council
1993.
Approved by the City Council
September 7 , 1993.
Appr ed by the City Council
1993.
Approved by the City Council
1993.
1pproved by the City Council
n�3 1993.
1pproved by the City Council
{(Q / 1993.
ipproved by the City Council
JUL 1 6 W _, 1993.
ipproved by the City Council
1993.
approved by the City Council
1993.
-34-
CITY OF CRYSTAL
By
Attest
2
CITY OF /GOLDEN VALLEYS
0
Attest
CITY OF MEDICINE LAKE
to
Attest
CITY 0
/� 7
By
'Mayor
Attest ! t1
Clerk
L---
Countersigned
City �
� IPA ce
CITYP1IN TONAL
Atte
CITY OF NEW HOPE
B%�
Attest {�fii1 f G!72r`.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
B
A
-,j
C
B
A
CITY O ST.
LO IS PARK
By
Attest
AMENDMENT TO AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMI
TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal,
Maple Grove, Minneapolis, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale, all of which are Minnesota
municipal corporations (the "Member Cities").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Member Cities are parties to a joint powers agreement forming the Shingle Creek
Watershed Management Commission entitled the AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHINGLE
CREEK WATERSHED (the "Joint Powers Agreement"), the effective date of which was May 1, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Member Cities wish to amend the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter provided;
NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements
contained in the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter amended, the parties agree to amend the Joint Powers
Agreement as follows:
1. Article VIII. FINANCES is amended to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. The Commission funds may be expended by the Board in accordance with this
agreement and in accordance with the procedures as established by law and in the manner as may be
determined by the Board. The Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or trust
companies, authorized by Chapters 118 and 427 of the Minnesota Statutes to receive deposits of public
moneys and to act as depositories for the Commission funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of
Commission funds without the signature of at least two Board members, one of whom shall be the
Treasurer or the Treasurer's Authorized Deputy Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be required to file with
the Secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least $10,000 or such higher amount as shall be
determined by the Board. The Commission shall pay the premium on said bond.
Subdivision 2. Each member agrees to contribute each year to a general fund, said fund to be
used for general administration purposes including, but not limited to: salaries, rent, supplies,
development of an overall plan, engineering and legal expenses, insurance, and bonds, and to purchase
l _ and maintain devices to measure hydrological and water quality data. Said funds may also be used for
CLL-237616vl )_
SH220-1
normal maintenance of the facilities, but any extraordinary maintenance or repair expense shall be treated
as an improvement cost and processed in accordance with Subdivision 5 of this Article. The annual
contribution by each member shall be based fifty percent (50%) on the net tax capacity of all property
within the Watershed and fifty percent (50%) on the basis of the total area of each member within the
boundaries of the watershed each year to the total area in the Shingle Creek Watershed.
Subdivision 3.
(a) An improvement fund shall be established for each improvement project instituted under
Article VII, Subdivision 3. Each member agrees to contribute to said fund its proportionate share of the
engineering, legal and administrative costs as determined by the Commission as the amount to be assessed
against each member as a cost of the improvement. The Board shall submit in writing a statement to each
member, setting forth in detail the expenses incurred by the Commission for each project.
Each member further agrees to pay to or contract with the member governmental unit awarding said
contract for the improvement, its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement in accordance with the
determination of the Board under Article VII, Subdivision 4. The member awarding the contract shall
submit in writing copies of the engineer's certificate authorizing payment during construction and the
member being billed agrees to pay its proportionate share of said improvement costs within 30 days after
receipt of the statement. The member awarding the contract shall advise other contributing members of the
tentative time schedule of the work and the estimated times when the contributions shall be necessary.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the Commission may
by a vote of 2/3rds of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Commission decide to proceed
to fund all or any part of the cost of a capital improvement contained in the capital improvement program
of the plan pursuant to the authority and subject to the provisions set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section
103B.251. It is expressed as a goal of this Agreement that cost sharing of capital improvement costs be
assigned and agreed to by members pursuant to Article VIII, Subdivision 7, Subsections 1 and 2 of this
Agreement. Without such agreement, all improvements will be constructed pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103B.251. The Commission and Hennepin County may establish a maintenance fund to
CLL-237616vl 2
SH220-1
be used for normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole or in part with
money provided by Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. The levy and
collection of an ad valorem tax levy for maintenance shall be by Hennepin County based upon a tax levy
resolution adopted by a majority vote of all eligible members of the Commission and remitted to the
County on or before the date prescribed by law each year. If it is determined to levy for maintenance, the
Commission shall be required to follow the hearing process established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections
103D.915 and 103D.921 and acts amendatory thereof and in addition thereto. Mailed notice shall be sent
to the Clerk of each member municipality at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
Subdivision 4. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall adopt a detailed budget for the
ensuing year and decide upon the total amount necessary for the general fund. Budget approval shall
require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Board.
The secretary of the Board shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the clerk of each member
governmental unit together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each member.
The Council of each member agrees to review the budget, and the Board shall upon written notice
from any member received prior to August 1, hear objections to the budget, and may, upon notice to all
members and after a hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the members of any and
all modifications or amendments.
Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 5 below, each member agrees to provide the funds
required by the budget. If no objections are submitted to the Board, each member agrees to provide the
funds approved by the Board, after the Board has conducted the aforementioned hearing. Modifications
or amendments to the original budget require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible voters of then
existing members of the Board.
The schedule of payments by the members shall be determined by the Board in such a manner as
to provide for an orderly collection of the funds needed.
Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 6 below, upon notice and hearing, the Board by a favorable
vote of a majority of all eligible votes of then existing members may adopt a supplemental budget requiring
CLL -237616v l 3
SH220-1
additional payments by the members within 60 days of its adoption but in no event shall the budget require
any member to contribute in excess of one-half of one percent of the net tax capacity of all taxable property
within the watershed or within any member's corporate boundaries in any one calendar year.
Members' attention is drawn to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.245, which authorizes a
Watershed Management Tax District to be created within each member City to pay the costs of planning
and for the purpose of paying capital costs and/or normal and routine maintenance of facilities.
Subdivision 5. Assessments levied against Member Cities for general fund purposes are subject
to all of the following limitations:
1. Assessment Can.
A. Definition. For purposes of this subdivision, the term "Assessment Cap" means
the total amount that the Commission may levy against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any
year without the consent of a majority of Member Cities. The Assessment Cap for 2004 is $262,750.
Thereafter, the Assessment Cap will increase or decrease each year based, pro rata, on the annual change in
the consumer price index (U.S. City Average, All Items, All Urban Consumer) to the end of the second
quarter of the preceding year. (For example, the Assessment Cap for 2005 will be adjusted on the basis of
the change in the CPI from the end of the second quarter of 2003 to the end of the second quarter of 2004.)
B. Limitation and City Consent. The Commission may levy an amount for general
fund purposes in excess of the Assessment Cap only with the consent of a majority of Member Cities
expressed by resolutions duly adopted by the city councils before September I` of the preceding year.
The Commission may request authority to exceed the Assessment Cap for one or more years.
If a majority of Member Cities do not consent to the levy of an assessment in excess of
the Assessment Cap, the Commission may levy an amount up to the Assessment Cap and the Commission
will make necessary changes to the budget.
2. Limitation on Increase of Assessment. The Commission may not assess a total levy
against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any year in an amount that exceeds 120% of the
CLL -237616v1 4
SH220-1
rprevious years' assessment without the consent of a majority of the Member Cities given in the same
manner as described in paragraph IB above.
3. Limitation Based on Tax Ca aD city. The Commission may not assess a levy or
combination of levy and supplemental levies against the Member Cities for general fund purposes in any
one year that requires any member to contribute an amount in excess of one-half of one percent of the net
tax capacity of that portion of the city lying within the Watershed.
Subdivision 6. Supplemental Budget and Limit on Assessment. The Board may adopt a
supplemental budget in accordance with Subdivision 4. However, the amount assessed against the Member
Cities for general fund purposes, when added together with other assessments for general fund purposes for
the same year, may not exceed the limitations on assessments set forth in Subdivision 5 without the consent
of the Member Cities. The consent of the Member Cities shall be secured in the same manner as is provided
in Subdivision 5, except that the September 1 deadline for Member City approval does not apply.
Subdivision 7. Cost Allocation for Capital Projects. The Commission shall apportion to the
respective members on either (1), (2) or (3) of the following bases:
(1) A negotiated amount to be arrived at by the members who have lands in the subdistrict
responsible for the capital improvement.
(2) (a) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to
each member on the basis of the net tax capacity of each member within the
boundaries of the watershed to the total net tax capacity in the Shingle Creek
Watershed area governed by this Agreement.
(b) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to
each member on the basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries
of the watershed each year to the total area in the Shingle Creek Watershed
governed by this Agreement.
(c) Capital costs allocated under the 50% area/50% net tax capacity formula herein
set forth may be varied by the Commission by a 2/3rds vote if.
CLL-237616vl 5
SH220-1
(1) antmember community receives a direct benefit from the capital
improvement which benefit can be defined as a lateral as well as a trunk
benefit or
(2) the capital improvement provides a direct benefit to one or more
members which benefit is so disproportionate as to require in a sense of
fairness a modification in the -50150 formula.
(d) Credits to any member for lands acquired by said member to pond or store storm and
surface water shall be allowed against costs set forth in Subsections (a), (b) and (c) of
this Section.
(3) If agreement is not reached to proceed as set forth in Subsection I or 2 of this
Subdivision and if the project is constructed and financed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 103B251, the members understand and agree that said costs will be levied on all
taxable property in the watershed as set forth in the statute.
Section 2. This amendment shall be in full force and effect upon the filing of a certified copy of a
resolution approving said amendment by all nine Member Cities. Said resolutions shall be filed with the Chair
of the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission, who shall certify the effective date of the amendment in writing
to all Member Cities. The effective date of the amendment shall be when approved by all of the Member
Cities and when the mayor and other authorized city representatives have executed the amended agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned government units, by action of their governing
bodies, have caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota
Statutes_ Sections 103E201 through 103B255 and Section 471.54.
Dated: �- v 01 /
CIT'
By:
Its
Arid
Its
M- 76:rn 1 6
stt=•t
Dated: /I a (-OS
Dated:
Dated: c C7
Dated:
CLL-1376)6vt
SH210-I
CITY
By:
Its
C
And by: -
Its C i Apia v�u .e fax_
CITY OF CRYSTAL
By: ,t.2
Its MAVnr
By:
Its
And
Its
Jlfll/�rLf1/IL�,�i
CITY OF
CM
By:
Its
And
Its
J
Dated: 5-a7— 04
Dated:
Dated: 3j1%co'l
CITY OF OSSEO
CS
Its i`^ O.K o 2
CITY OFrPLYMOL:TH
I�—
By:
its
�jGoc /.LG �t�Gl/ZNi62ti`-
And by:o,
Its
f
• ?•� •ByIts la
And by,
Its City Manager
!'.\CL[CNT3+.Yt4FIIN{ii.f:'(."Ul'AtC+2t 1(WMema+w Mps�Am�:nlmetrito�:Ck�inte-Goopemii+eAgt.3cc
C11.2.3706s1 g
slMoll
Appendix B
iagement Design Standards
Comparison
* Bonestroo
Appendix B - Stormwater Management Design Standards Comparison
Category
Bassett Creek WMC Design Standards
Shingle Creek WMC Design Standards
Existing New Hope Design Standards
Recommended Action for LSWMP Update
New commercial, industrial, institutional or public development
project involving a site of more than 0.5 acres of land
Any single family detached housing project 15 acres or larger in size;
projects in any other land use 5 acres or larger in size; and any land
disturbing activity requested by a member city to be reviewed
regardless of project size.
Commercial, industrial, institutional or public redevelopment project
involving a site of more than 5 acres of land '
Plans for any land development or site development within the 100 -
year floodplain as defined by the Flood Insurance Study for the
member city.
Project Review Required
The City reviews all development and re -development proposals for
compliance with City stormwater management design standards
No action required
New residential development project involving a site of more than 2
acres and which contains four or more proposed living units
Plans of any land development or individual site development
adjacent to or within a lake, wetland, or a natural or altered
watercourse as listed in the final inventory of Protected Waters and
Wetlands for Hennepin County, as prepared by the DNR.
Residential redevelopment project involving more than 10 acres
where there are four or more existing living units
Single family developments of more than 15 acres that drain to more
than one watershed, for that portion of the site draining into the
Shingle Creek Watershed.
Infiltration
Permanent Pool Volume
BMP checklist (including infiltration BMPs) required for each project
submittal
The permanent pool volume below the normal water level shall be
greater than or equal to the runoff volume from a 2.5 -inch, 24-hour
storm over the entire contributing drainage area, assuming full
development
One-half inch of impervious surface runoff must be infiltrated within
72 hours using accepted BMPs for infiltration
Permanent sedimentation and water quality ponds consistent with
NURP and BMPs are required, providing a permanent wet pool with
dead storage of at least the runoff from a 2.5 inch event
No standard identified
Permanent pool greater than or equal to the runoff from a 2.5 -inch
storm event
Develop an infiltration standard consistent with the Shingle Creek WMC
standard (see Policy 5.1)
No action required
Wet Pond Average Depth
4 feet or greater for large ponds, 3 feet or greater for ponds with
less than 3 ac -ft of wet volume
4 feet or greater
3.5 feet or greater
Increase the City wet pond average depth standard to 4 feet to be
consistent with WMO standards (see Policy 3.5)
Modify the City skimming standard to require skimming up to the 5 -year
HWL to be consistent with the Bassett Creek WMC standard (see Policy
3.4)
Skimming
9
U to the 5 -year basin HWL
P Y
Onsite detention basins shall avoid or minimize increases in
Up to the 1 -year basin HWL
1/3 of the 100 -year pond bounce
Add language to the current rate control standard to be consistent with
the standards of both watersheds (see Policy 1.1)
Rate Control
predevelopment runoff rates to the greatest extent practical. The
capacity of the receiving body to convey and/or store the runoff shall
also be considered so as to not adversely affect water levels off the
site
Peak runoff rates may not exceed existing rates for the 2 -year, 10 -
year, and 100 -year critical storm event; or the capacity of
downstream conveyance facilities; or contribute to flooding
Follow the rate control guidence provided in the 1996 SWMP,
Appendix C
Freeboard
Low floor elevation of adjacent structures must be a minimum of 2-
feet above the established 100 -year high water level
Law floor elevation of adjacent structures must be a minimum of 1-
foot above the established 100 -year high water level
Low floor elevation of adjacent structures must be a minimum of 2 -
feet above the established 100 -year high water level
No action required
Filling will generally not be allowed within that floodplain
Include language within the City's standard to require compensatory
storage to mitigate floodplain fill to be consistent with the standards of
both watersheds (see Policy 2.6)
Floodplain Alteration
established in the Water Management Plan. If any municipality
desires to fill within the established floodplain, such filling will
require the approval of the Commission and require provisions for
compensating storage and/or channel improvement so that the flood
level shall not be increased at any point along the channel due to
the fill
Compensating storage is required to mitigate floodplain fill
No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure
shall be located, extended, converted, repaired, maintained, or
structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of the
City's floodplain ordinance and other applicable regulations which
apply to uses within the jurisdiction of the floodplain ordinance
Buffer Strips
A buffer policy adjacent to water resources (including wetlands) be
included in the member cities' revised local stormwater management
plans
Vegetated buffer strips of a minimum 20 foot, average 30 foot width
are required adjacent to wetlands and watercourses
No standard identified
Develop a buffer strip standard within the Wetland Management Plan
Wetlands
the
Manage wetlands in accordance with the WCA. The BCWMC will
assist the member cities with managing wetlands in accordance with
WCA, as requested
q
Wetlands may not be drained, filled, excavated, or otherwise altered
without an approved wetland replacement plan from the local loss.
government unit (LGU) with jurisdiction
Wetland alterations, where allowed, shall be on the basis of no net
If the impact of an alteration is unavoidable, it should be
mitigated for through replacement, wetland restoration, and/or
g 9 p
No action required
improvements
to existing wetland function and value
Erosion and Sediment
of
Control
determine
Erosion control plans submitted for review shall show proposed
methods of retaining waterborne sediments onsite during the period
construction, and shall specify methods and schedules to Erosion
required
how the site will be restored, covered, or revegetated
control plan using Best Management Practices (BMPs) is Erosion
q required
control plan using Best Management Practices (BMPs) is
No
action required
q
after
construction
Appendix C
iagement Goals and Policies
Comparison
0 Bonestroo
Bassett Creek WMC Stomnvater Management Policy Shingle Creek WMC Stormwater Management Policy New Hope Comment or Pirciposed Action
Policies Related to Surface Water Quality
Policy 4.2.2.1(A) The BCWMC will classify major waterbodies into one of four management categories (Level I— IV) based on desired water quality goals and
recreational uses of the water bodies. Adopt a policy that accepts the waterbody classifications identified by the
watershed (see Policy 3.11).
Policy 4.2.2.1(B) In their local water management plans, the member cities will classify water bodies into one of four management categories (Level I — IV) based on
desired water quality goals and recreational uses of the water bodies. Adopt a policy that accepts the waterbody classifications identified by the
watershed (see Policy 3.11).
Policy 4.2.2.1(C) The BCWMC will work with stakeholders to manage waterbodies to attain the BCWMC water quality goals
Noted, no action necessary.
Policy 4.2.2.1(D) [The BCWMC and the member cities will implement the improvement options listed in Table 12-2 (see BCWMC WMP) to improve or maintain the
The improvement option lined by the BCWMC in New Hope are included in
water quality of the water bodies with regional significance, based on feasibility, prioritization, and available funding.]
Table 6.5 of the LWMP, no further action needed.
Policy 4.2.2.1(E) [The BCWMC will give higher priority to water quality improvement projects including nonstructural measures and education that are the most
effective at achieving water quality goals.) Noted, no action necessary.
Policy 4.2.2.1(F) [The BCWMC will fund 100 percent of the water quality improvement project costs for those projects listed in the 10 -year CIP.I
Noted, no action necessary.
Policy 4.2.2.1(6) [The BCWMC will cooperate with member cities, the MPCA and other stakeholders in the preparation of TMDL studies for water bodies on the
MPCA's current or future impaired waters (303(d)) list.]
Adopt a policy that acknowledges that the Citywill coordinate TV BL
implementation efforts with the local agencies (see Policy 4.3).
Policy 4.2.2.1(H) The BCWMC will continue to identify opportunities to maintain or improve the excellent water quality in Twin Lake (in the city of Golden Valley).
Noted, no action necessary.
Policy 4.2.2.1(p[The BCWMC will monitor, or coordinate with others to monitor, the water quality of the lakes and streams in the watershed on a regular basis.]
Policy 4.2.2.1(1) [The BCWMC will consider moving projects listed in Table 12-3 (see WMP) to the 10 -year CIP, using the minor plan amendment process, if water
Noted, no action necessary.
quality problems arise in water bodies that are monitored regularly (e. g., Parkers Lake).]
Noted, no action necessary,
Policy 4.2.2.1(K) The BCWMC will include chloride monitoring in its stream water quality testing programs, when appropriate.
Policy 4.2 2, 1(L) [The BCWMC will compile a water quality report for every year sampling is conducted for the BCWMC's lakes and/or streams.]
Noted, no action necessary.
Noted, no action necessary.
Policy 4.2.2.2(A) [The BCWMC will require all regulated stormwater to be treated to Level I standards throughout the watershed.]
Adopt a policy that accepts the waterbody classifications identified by the
Policy 4.2.2.2(8) The BCWMC will continue to participate in the Metropolitan Council's Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP) to monitor the water quality
watershed (see Policy 3.11).
of Bassett Creek before it enters the Mississippi River.
Noted, no action necessary.
Policies .2.2(q and 11.2.2.4(5) [Each city shall adopt an ordinance that enforces the Minnesota State Law limiting the use of lawn fertilizers containing
phosphorus.]
Current City Ordinance 8-32(C)(3) addresses this policy, no further action
Policy 4.2.2.2(D) [BCWMC requires developers to consider/evaluate the use of BMPs in the Requirements for Improvements and Development Proposals (1998)
needed.
(Appendix F), and to submit with their application a report on the BMPs implemented on the proposed project and why the other suggested BMPs cannot be
implemented on the project.]
Noted, no action necessary.
Policy 4.2.2.4(A) [The BCWMC will review projects and developments to evaluate compliance with BCWMC water quality management standards.]
Policy 4.2.2.4(B) [The BCWMC will continue to work with other public agencies to gain their compliance with the BCWMC water quality management standards,
Noted, no action necessary,
such compliance will help maintain and possibly improve the quality of stormwater runoff.]
Noted, no action necessary.
Policy 4.2.2.4(C) The BCWMC will review local watershed management plans for compliance with this Plan's goals and policies regarding water quality.
Noted, no action necessary.
Policy 2.1 Through the development of lake and resource management plans the Commissions will refine their rules
Adopt a policy that strives for non -degradation of public waters and
and standards for new development to prevent further degradation of water quality.
watercourses (see Policy 3.2).
Policy 2.2 The Commissions will evaluate existing water quality and monitor future water quality.
Noted, no action necessary.
Policy 2.3 The Commissions will determine cost-effective long-term practical use of lakes and streams by preparing
use attainability -type studies.
Noted, no action necessary.
Policy 2.4 Individual water resources will be classified or prioritized.
Adopt a policy that accepts the waterbody classifications identified by the
Policy 2.5 The Commissions will establish short term and long term water quality goals for each water resource base
watershed (see Policy 3.11).
Policy 3.18 states that the City will coordinate efforts with the local agencies
on its short and long term practical use.
to establish short and long term goals for waterbodies.
Policy 2.6 The Commissions' public information and education program will include components specifically focused
Policy 13.1 directs the City to coordinate on-going public education and
on maintaining and improving water quality
outreach programs to address water quality.
Policy 2.7 The Commissions will maintain regulations regarding the treatment of stormwater discharges.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 2.8 The Commissions encourage member cities to adopt innovative and sustainable strategies for maintenance
Adopt a policy that directs the City to consider innovative and sustainable
and improvement of water quality within their local codes and policies. strategies
for maintenance and improvement of water quality (see Policy 3.6).
Bassett Creek WMC Stomnwater Management Policy I Shingle Creek WMC Stormwater Management Policy New Hope Comment or Proposed Action
Policies Related to Water Quantity and Flood Control
Policy 5.2.2.1(A) The BCWMC will reserve the remaining funds from the BCWMC flood control project construction account for floodproofing of homes, for an
emergency fund for repairing flood control project features, and for a maintenance fund for flood control project features.
Noted, no action necessary
Poli 5.2.2.1(B) [The BCWMC will regularly inspect the flood control project system, including water level control and conveyance structures.)
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 5.2.2.1(C) [The BCWMC will maintain and repair the flood control project system as needed.)
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 5.2.2.1(D) [The BCWMC will finance maintenance and repair of water level control and conveyance structures that were part of the original flood control
project on the same basis as the original project.]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 5.2.2.1(E) [The BCWMC will establish a reserve fund, to be used as needed for emergency repairs to the flood control project system.]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 5.2.2, 1(F) The cleaning of the flood control project features and related structures, including removing debris, vegetation, etc. is the responsibility of the city
Properly design, operate, and maintain the surface water system. Strictly
the structure is located in.
Policy 5.2.2.1(6) Rhe BCWMC will provide funding assistance for homes along the trunk system that were proposed to be floodproofed as part of the original flood
enforce City ordinances regulating floodplain development.
control project that do not have 100 -year flood protection.]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 5.2.2.1(H) The BCWMC will construct and fund modifications to existing structures built as part of the original flood control project, excluding improvements
to private property (e.g., floodproofing of homes), in accordance with the joint powers agreement.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 5.2.2.1(1) The BCWMC will construct and fund new features that increase the benefits provided by the flood control project system in accordance with the
joint powers agreement.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 5.2.2,1(1) [The member cities shall provide the BCWMC with information regarding proposed changes to the flood control project system.) [The BCWMC will
Adopt a policy that directs the City to coordinate any improvements to the
not approve changes to the flood control project system that would result in detrimental effects that cannot be resolved.]
BCWMC flood control project system or trunk system with the BCWMC (see
Policy structures along the BCWMC trunk system, or structures between the BCWMC storage sites
[All proposed changes to existing controlstructures,for
Policyl3.8 and 13.9)
e designs
and the designated trunk must submitted to the BCWMC for review and approval.]
review
Adopt a policy that directs the City to prohibit a loss of storage within the
will
Policy 5.2.2.2(A) [The BCWMC will monitor (or arrange for monitoringof) water levels on the prima lakes in the watershed.]
flood control system or trunk system (see Policy 2.6)
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 5.22.2(B) The member cities must implement the BCWMC's development policies.
Adopt all the pertinent policies within the local watershed authorities'
management plans.
Policy 5.2.2.2(C) [The BCWMC will review proposed improvements, developments and redevelopment projects in the watershed. The member cities need to
continue forwarding proposed projects to the BCWMC for review.]
Adopt a policy that directs the City to cooperate with the watersheds to review
proposed development and redevelopment projects (zee Policy 13.9)
Policy 5.2.22(E) The BCWMC and the member cities must require rate control in conformance with the flood control project system design and [the BCWMC WMPf
Adopt a rate control policy that complies with the rate control requirements
Policy 5222(F) [The BCWMC adopted 100 -year floodplain elevations for those reaches of Bassett Creek and other parts of the trunk system that are under the
identified by the local watershed (see Policy 1.1)
BCWMC's jurisdiction.)
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 5.2.2.2(6) [The BCWMC will allow only those land uses in the BCWMC-established floodplain that will not be damaged by floodwaters and will not increase
flooding.] [The BCWMC encourages the communities to remove [existing streets and structures] from the floodplain as development or redevelopment allows. No
Adopt a flood control policy that is consistent with this BCWMC policy (see
new structures or improvements will be permitted in the floodplain, which would be subject to damage by the 100 -year flood, including basements, public utilities,
Policy 2.6and 2.7)
and streets.]
Policy 5.2.2.2(H) The BCMWC will generally not allow filling within the BCWMC-established floodplain. Proposals to fill within the BCWMC-established floodplain
must obtain BCWMC approval and must provide compensating storage and/or channel modification so that the flood level shall not be increased at any point along
Adopt a flood control policy that is consistent with this BCWMC policy (see
the trunk system due to the fill.
Policy 2.6)
Policy 5.2.2.2(1) The BCWMC prohibits expansion of existing non -conforming land uses within the floodplain unless they are fully floodproofed in accordance with
Adopt a flood control policy that is Consistent with this BCWMC (see
existing codes and regulations.
policy
Policy 2 9)
Policy 52.2.2(1) The lowest floor of all permanent structures must be at least 2 feet above the established 100- year floodplain elevation. The member cities'
Establish allowable elevations for the lowest floor of buildings adjacent to
ordinances must include this requirement.
ponding areas and floodplain when drainage facilities are constructed for an
area. A freeboard of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level is desirable
(see Policy 2.2).
Policy 5.2.2.2(K) The BCWMC will review changes in municipal water resource management plans, land use plans, zoning, and other plans, for their effect on the
adopted floodplain and flood control project when such plans are submitted to BCWMC.
Adopt a policy that directs the City to cooperate with the watersheds to review
proposed development and redevelopment projects (see Policy 13.9)
Policy 5.2.2.2(L) Economic considerations alone will not be a sufficient reason to alter the Floodplain.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 5.2.2.2(M) When a modification to a flood storage site or to any part of the flood control project system is proposed that would result in an increase in the
flood profile above the existing flood profile, the BCWMC will modify the existing flood profile to recognize the increased level once the modification has been
Noted, no action necessary
approved by the BCWMC, local and state regulatory agencies and after a public hearing on the modification plan has been held.
Policy 5.2.2.2(N) The BCWMC will review local watershed management plans for compliance with this Plan's goals and policies regarding flooding and rate control.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 5.2.2.2(0) [The BCWMC will not approve any diversions of surface water within, into, or out of the watershed that may have a substantial adverse effect on
stream flow or water levels at any point within the watershed.]
Noted, no action necessary
Bassett Creek WMC Stonnwater Management Policy Shingle Creek WMC Stormwater Management Policy New Hope Comment or Proposed Action
Policies Related to Water Quantity and Flood Control continued
Policy 1.1 The Commissions will regulate stormwater discharge rates at member city boundaries
Adopt a rate control policy that complies with the rate control requirements
identified by the local watershed (see Policy 1.7)
Policy 1.2 Sufficient flood storage and channel capacity will be maintained
Adopt a flood control policy that specifies that existing flood storage and
channel capacity shall be maintained (see Policy 2.5)
Policy 1.3 The Commissions expect member cities will periodically inspect and maintain their existing stormwater
Property design, operate, and maintain the surface water system. Strictly
management system with periodic review by the Commissions
enforce City ordinances regulating Floodplain development. (see Policy 12.3).
Policy 1.4 Public easements or other methods of control are required to preserve wetlands, drainageways, floodplams
Permanently protect surface water impoundments and drainage systems by
and open waterbodies used for stormwater storage.
requiring the dedication of land and/or protective easements as required. (see
Policy 2.7).
Policy 1.5 The Commissions will maintain a watershed monitoring system to record stream flow and precipitation.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 1.6 Member cities shall adopt Floodplain management ordinances that require as a minimum one foot of
Establish allowable elevations for the lowest floor of buildings adjacent to
ponding areas and floodplains when drainage facilities are constructed for an
freeboard above the 100 -year profile.
area. A freeboard of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level is desirable.
(see Policy 2.1 and 22)
Bassett Creek WMC Stormwater Management Policy I Shingle Creek WMC Stormwater Management Policy New Hope Comment or Proposed Action
Policies Related to Groundwater Quality and Runoff Volume Management
Policy 5.2.2.2(D) Project proposers must apply best management practices to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff, to the maximum practical extent Examples of
stormwater runoff volume reduction methods include.
• Reducing the amount of planned impervious surface (as areas develop).
Adopt a policy that requires projects to incorporate BMPs to reduce
• Reducing the amount of impervious surface (during redevelopment).
stormwater runoff volume to the maximum extent practicable (see Polity 3.6)
• Promoting infiltration.
Policy 9.2.2(A) The BCMWC will review all DNR groundwater appropriation permits in the BCWMC
Noted, no
Policy 9.2.2(6) The BCWMC will encourage state agencies to collect and manage groundwater data.
action necessary
Policy 9.2.2(C) The BCWMC will encourage the member cities to adopt wellhead protection programs. These programs will include the identification and sealing of
Noted, no action necessary
abandoned wells.
Adopt a policy to direct the City to investigate the need for a wellhead
Policy 92.2(D) The BCWMC will encourage appropriate agencies to enforce proper well abandonment.
protection program.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 9.2.2(E) In sensitive recharge areas, the BCWMC will require that detention ponds be lined or engineered to prohibit infiltration.
Adopt a policy that would require stormwater ponds to be lined in sensitive
Policy 9.2.2(F) See Section 5.22.2 (floodplain management policies) for additional policies affectinggroundwater
groundwater.
recharge areas, if applicable
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 6.1 The Commissions will maintain regulations regarding groundwater recharge by infiltration.
Adopt a policy that addresses the watershed infiltration requirement (see
Policy 5.1)
Policy 6.2 The Commissions encourage member cities to consider development strategies that minimize impervious
Adopt a policy that encourages development stratigies that minimize
surface, disconnect impervious surface, and encourage infiltration.
impervious surface, disconnect impervious surface, and encourage infiltration
(see Policy 3.6)
Policies Related to Recreation, Fish
and Wildlife Habitat, and Shoreland Management
Policy 4.22.3(A) The BCWMC requires that a buffer policy for land adjacent to water resources (including wetlands) be included in the member cities' revised local
Adopt a policy that directs the City to complete the 1999 Wetland Inventory
stormwater management plans.
and Management Plan, that would include buffer standards (see Policy 9.8)
Policy 4.2.2.3(6) When the BCWMC deems appropriate, the BCWMC will react to recommendations from other agencies regarding fish and wildlife issues.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 4.2.2.3(C) The BCWMC will collect, or coordinate with others to collect, macroinvertebrate (insect) monitoring data at selected stream locations within
BCWMC, preferably through continued support of Hennepin Conservation District's River Watch program.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 4.22.30)) The BCWMC will promote and encourage protection of non -disturbed Shoreland areas and restoration of disturbed shorelines and streambanks to
their natural state where feasible.
Policy 4.2.2.3(E) The BCWMC will encourage preservation of streambank and lakeshore vegetation during and after construction projects.
Policy 4.2.2.3(F) The BCWMC will encourage the creation of a buffer zone along shorelines where natural vegetation is maintained.
Policy 4.2.2.3(G) [The cities are required to maintain control and responsibility for Shoreland regulation.]
Policy 7.22(G) The BCWMC will consider the effect of stream/ditch structures on natural habitat and the needs of people/pedestrians.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 7.2.2(K) The BCWMC will consider the effect of future flood control projects on the natural beauty and wildlife habitat values of Bassett Creek.
Noted,
no action necessary
Policy 3.1 Water resource management plans and studies prepared for water quality management will also include
evaluations of recreation, fish and wildlife impacts.
Noted, no anion necessary
Policy 3.2 In establishing wetland and water quality management standards and strategies, the Commissions will
take into account impacts on recreation, fish and wildlife
Noted, no anion necessary
Policy 3.3 Member cities shall establish a policy to protect threatened or endangered species or areas of significant
Adopt a policy that addresses the protection of threatened and endangered
natural communities as identified by the DNR.
species or areas of significant natural communities as identified by the DNR
(see Policy 7.2)
Policy 3.4 The Commissions encourage member cities to adopt management practices that promote and encourage
Adopt a policy that directs management practices that promote and encourage
the use of streams and rivers as wildlife corridors.
the use of stream and lakes as wildlife corridors (see Policy 7.4)
Policy 8.2 Member cities with priority lakes shall adopt a shoreland management ordinance as required by the
Adopt a policy that directs the City to update their current Shoreland ordinance
Department of Natural Resources within one year of adoption of the Second Generation plan
in accordance with the watershed policy (see Policy 8.2)
Bassett Creek WMC Stormwater Management Policy Shingle Creek WMC Stormwater Management Policy New Hope Comment or Proposed Action
Policies Related to Wetland and Lake Management
Policy 8.2.2(A) The BCWMC will encourage member cities to complete wetland inventories and assess wetland functions and values.
Adopt a policy that directs the City to complete the 1999 Wetland Inventoryand
Management Plan, that would include a functions and values assessment
of wetlands (see Policy 9.2)
Policy 8.2.2(B) The BCWMC will encourage member cities to develop wetland protection ordinances.
Adopt and keep current City ordinances and standards in accordance with the
local watershed authorities' management plans. (see Policy 9.3)
Policy 8.2.2(C) [The BCWMC adopts the Minnesota Rapid Assessment Method (MnRAM) as the wetland assessment method and the wetland management
classification system for the member cities to utilize when assessing and classifying wetlands located within their cities.]
The 1999 Wetland Inventory and Management Plan utilized MnRAM to assess
wetlands, no further anion necessary
Policy 8.2.2(D) The BCWMC requires that a buffer policy adjacent to water resources (including wetlands) be included in the member cities' revised local stormwater
management plans,
Adopt a policy that directs the City to complete the 1999 Wetland Inventory
and Management Plan, that would include buffer standards (see Policy 9.8)
Policy 8.2.2(E) The member cities are required to manage wetlands in accordance with the WCA. The BCWMC will assist the member cities with managing wetlands
in accordance with the WCA, as requested.
The Citywill continue to administer WCA responsibilities within the Cityto
ensure no net loss of wetland functions and values (see Policy 9.1).
Policy 8.2,2(F) The BCWMC will serve as the -GU responsible for administering the WCA for member cities, as requested (currently Medicine Lake, Robbinsdele, and
St. Louis Park).
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 8.2.2(G) The BCWMC will review local watershed management plans for compliance with this Plan's goals and policies regarding wetland management.
Noted, the LSWMP will incorporate this BCWMC policy
Policy 7.1 Where the Commissions are the LGU, the Commissions will administer Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)
The City will continue to administer WCA responsibilities within the City to
rules.
ensure no net loss of wetland functions and values (see Policy 9.1).
Policy 7.2 The Commissions will identify high priority areas for wetland preservation, restoration, and establishment.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 7.3 The Commissions will evaluate the need for wetland banking within one year of adoption of the Second
Generation Plan.
Noted, no action necessary
Policies Related
to Erosion and Sediment Control
Policy 6.2.2(A) The BCWMC will encourage land use planning and development that minimizes sediment yield, through compliance with established BCWMC
policies.
Adopt a policy to minimize sediment yield through erosion and sediment
Policy 61[The BCWMC will review projects and developments for compliance with BCWMC erosion and sediment control standards.]
requirements of the BCWMC (see Policy 11. 1)
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 6.2.2(C) [The BCWMC will require preparation of erosion control plans for construction projects.]
Adopt a policy that requires erosion and sediment control plans be prepared
Policy 6.21(D) [The BCWMC will perform regular erosion and sediment control inspections and inform member cities of improvements needed for effective erosion
for proposed construction projects (see Policy 11.2)
and sediment control.]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 6.2.2(E) [The member cities must adopt, administer, implement, and enforce ordinances addressing erosion and sediment control, including the permitting
Adopt a policy that directs the City to review and update their erosion and
and inspection of such controls.]
sediment control ordinance as necessary to meet the requirements of the
BCWMC (see Policy 11.1 and 11.8)
Policy 6.2.2(F) The member cities' ordinances must include the requirements and procedures for reviewing, approving, and enforcing erosion control plans.
ry
Adopt a policy that directs the Cito review and update their erosion andsediment
control ordinance as necessary to meet the requirements of the
Policy 6.2.2(G) The BCWMC will require local watershed management plans to describe existing and proposed city ordinances, permits, and procedures addressing
BCWMC (see Policy 11.1 and 11.8)
erosion and sediment control and preparation of erosion control plans.
Noted, the LSWMP will incorporate this BCWMC policy
Policy 6.2.2(H) The BCWMC will review local watershed management plans for compliance with this Plan's goals and policies regarding erosion and sediment
control.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 7,2.2(A) The BCWMC will establish and maintain a Creek and Streambank Trunk System Maintenance, Repair and Sediment Removal Fund through an annual
assessment.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 7.2.2(8) The BCWMC will use the Creek and Streambank Trunk System Maintenance, Repair and Sediment Removal Fund to finance maintenance and repairs
needed to restore a creek or streambank area to the designed Flow rate.
Noted, no action necessary
Polity 7.2.2(C) The BCWMC will use the Creek and Streambank Trunk System Maintenance, Repair and Sediment Removal Fund to finance work needed to restore
a creek or streambank area that has either resulted in damage to a structure, or where structural damage is imminent, based on an assessment of benefits.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 7.2.2(D) [The BCWMC will use the Creek and Streambank Trunk System Maintenance, Repair and Sediment Removal Fund to finance the portion of a project
that provides BCWMC benefits.]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 7.2.2(E) The BCWMC may use the Creek and Streambank Trunk System Maintenance, Repair and Sediment Removal Fund to finance the BCWMC's share of
maintenance projects to be applied for by the cities that have a regional benefit, or to partially fund smaller, localized projects that cities wish to undertake.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 7.2.2(F) The BCWMC member cities will complete and update their inventories of significant erosion and sedimentation areas along the Bassett Creek trunk
system and will share this information with the BCWMC.
The
Cityhas completed the channel erosion inventory and reported the
Policy 7.2.2(H) The BCWMC will review maintenance or enhancement of navigability as part of the feasibility evaluation on all new projects.
findings
to the BCWMC as required
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 7.21(p The BCWMC will encourage restoration of stream and streambank areas where the natural beauty of the creek has been compromised.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 7.2.2(1) The member cities are responsible for funding maintenance and repairs that are primarily aesthetic improvements.
Properly
design, operate, and maintain the surface water system. Strictly
enforce
City ordinances regulating floodplain development.
Policy 8.1 Member cities shall adopt an erosion control ordinance as required by the Metropolitan Council within one Adopt
a policy that directs the City to review and update their erosion and
year
of adoption of the Second Generation Plan. sediment
control ordinance as necessary to meet the requirements of the Met
Council
(see Policy 11.1)
Policy
8.3 The Commissions will maintain management standards for the control of erosion for new development,
redevelopment,
or additions to existing developments Noted,
no anion necessary
Policy
8.4 Streambank stabilization, lakescaping, and shoreland management will be promoted as methods to reduce
erosion
and sedimentation in surface waters. Noted,
no action necessary
Bassett Creek WMC Stormwarer Management Policy I Shingle Creek WMC Stonnwater Management Policy New Hoe Comment or Proposed Action
Policies Related to Public Participation, Coordination, and Education
Policy 9.2.2(6) The BCWMC encourages the member cities to educate the general public concerning the use of BMPs to prevent contamination of groundwater
supplies and the importance of these measures in protecting groundwater supplies.
Adopt a policy aimed at the education of residents regarding groundwater
Policy 11.2.2.1(A) [The BCWMC will relay the followingkey messages regarding the BCWMC (see BCWMC WMP)I
management and protection (see Policy 13.5)
Policy 11.2.2.1(B) [The BCWMC's relay of the key messages will inform the target audience of the following: (see BCWMC WMP)I
Noted, no anion necessary
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.1(C) [The BCWMC will relay the key messages to the following target audiences: (see BCWMC WMP)]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.1(D) [The BCWMC will develop the following standard BCWMC information: (see BCWMC WMP)I
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2, 1(E) [The BCWMC will evaluate its success at relaying key messages regarding the BCWMC (see BCWMC WMP)]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.2(A) [The BCWMC will relay the following key messages regarding public involvement (see BCWMC WMP)]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.2(8) IThe BCWMC's relay of the key messages will inform the target audience of the following: (see BCWMC WMP)]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.2(C) [The BCWMC will relay the key messages to the following target audiences:(see BCWMC WMP))
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.2(D) The BCWMC will recruit volunteers to conduct monitoring and participate in shore clean-up activities (e.g., adopt -a -stream, adopt -a -wetland
programs).
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.2(E) The BCWMC will provide training sessions for volunteers who participate in monitoring activities (e.g., sample collection, etc.).
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.2(F) The BCWMC will inform the public of BCWMC-sponsored volunteer opportunities through fact sheets, news releases, short videos for local
government cable N, etc.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.2(6) The BCWMC will support storm drain stenciling programs in the watershed.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.2(H) The BCWMC will develop and implement a recognition program (certificates, letters of appreciation, events, thank you ads, etc.) for BCWMC
volunteers.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.2(p [The BCWMC will evaluate its success at relaying key messages regarding public involvement. (see BCWMC WMP)j
Policy 11.2.2.3(A)[ The BCWMC will relay the following key messages regarding changing behaviors: (see BCWMC WMP)] -
Noted, no action necessary
Polis 11.2.2.3(B) [The BCWMC's relay of the key messages will inform the target audience of the following: (see BCWMC WMP)]
Noted, no action necessary
Poli 11.2.2.3(C) [The BCWMC will relay the key messages to the followingtarget audiences: (see BCWMC WMP)I
Noted, no action necessary
Poli 11.2.2.3(D) [The BCWMC will evaluate its success at relaying key messages about changing behaviors. (see BCWMC WMP)]
Noted, no action necessary
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(A) [The BCWMC will fund communications efforts that provide education coordination between the member cities and BCWMC.]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(B) [The BCWMC will update and maintain its website and use it to communicate with and provide information to the public. (see BCWMC WMP)I
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(C) [The BCWMC will incorporate public involvement and public education efforts into all of its proposed projects. (see BCWMC WMP)]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(D) The BCWMC will form citizen committees on an as -needed basis and only A there are meaningful tasks for the committee to accomplish.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(E) The BCWMC will distribute BCWMC meeting notices and agendas to city officials and key staff. The meeting notice and/or agenda will include a
description of the key discussion Rem(s).
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(F) The BCWMC will begin a signage program to install informational signs at BCWMC watershed projects (existing/proposed), major BCWMC water
bodies, monitoring sites, demonstration projects, adopt-a-stream/wetland sites, etc.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(6) The BCWMC will make a brief presentation annually to city and county officials regarding the BCWMC's mission and current/proposed projects.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(H) The BCWMC will hold an annual tour, event and/or orientation for interested citizens.
Policy 11.2.2.4(p The BCWMC will develop a one-page fact sheet about related agencies and how citizens can report water quality problems or possible rule
Noted, no action necessary
violations.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(1) The BCWMC will recognize/award lawn care firms that offer environmentally friendly options, and businesses or organizations with watershed -
friendly landscaping and ground maintenance practices.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(K) The BCWMC will utilize existing watershed education and behavior -modification communications tools (e.g., programs/materials developed by its
member cities, such as the award-winning Plymouth educational materials for the Medicine Lake and Parkers Lake watersheds materials).
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(L) [The BCWMC will support environmentally friendly lawn and landscape care. This support could include the following:(see BCWMC WMP)]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(M) [The BCWMC will arrange for presentations and disseminate fact sheets for the following: (see BCWMC WMP)]
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(N) The BCWMC will support the development of a speaker's bureau for garden clubs, homeowner associations, neighborhood meetings, etc.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(0) The BCWMC will develop a brief report on its Plan for the future.
Policy 11.2.2.4(P) The BCWMC will support a Citizens Academy.
Noted, no anion necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(Q) The BCWMC will support pilot programs aimed at specific -target" audiences.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 11.2.2.4(R) The BCWMC will communicate complex and/or technical issues in a manner that is appropriate for the audience.
Noted, no action necessary
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 4.1 The Commissions will annually review their activities with the public and obtain public input on past,
current and upcoming activities.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 4.2 The Commissions will develop and administer an education and public outreach program on issues relevan
to their goals and policies.
Noted, no anion necessary
Policy
c43 The Commissions will establish ad hoc advisory committees as necessary regarding specific topics of
interest.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 4.4 The Commissions encourage member cities to charge a standing citizens advisory committee to, on a
Adopt a policy that directs the City to organize a Citizens Advisory Committee
continuing basis, monitor watershed activities, goals and policies. to
monitor watershed activities, goals, and policies (see Policy 13.3)
Policy 4.5 The Commissions will publish an annual report that contains information required by law as well as a
review of progress towards meeting goals and objectives.
Noted, no action necessary
Policy 4.6 The Commissions will develop and administer an education and public outreach program that fulfills
Ad a policy that directs the City to develop and administer an education
NPDES Phase II requirements, and encourage member cities to adopt this program as one part of their NPDES Phase and
public outreach program that fulfills NPDES Phase II requirements (see
II
permit requirements.
Policy 13.1, 13.3, 13.4, and 13.8)
Appendix D
ity Cash Dedication Methodology
0 Bonestroo
Calculation of Cash Dedication — Supplemental Information
City of New Hope LWMP
Introduction
The following is a more detailed explanation of the calculation of cash dedications for new and re-
development projects as proposed in the New Hope Local Water Management Plan. Guidance for
calculation of the cash dedication amounts is presented in Section 6.7. This method is similar to the
methods used in several other Twin City Metro area suburbs.
Background
The method of cash dedication calculation proposed in the draft plan relies on the use of a water quality
pond design program called PONDSIZE to determine the size of a hypothetical pond recommended to treat
runoff from the development in question. This model requires input on the area of the proposed
development, how much of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces (such as rooftops, driveways,
and streets), and the capability of non -impervious areas to absorb precipitation. The output of the
PONDSIZE model provides information on the surface area of the pond at normal water level, the volume of
the standing water pool in the pond (i.e. between the normal water level and the bottom of the pond), and
the mean depth of the standing water pool. Depending on the land use proposed for the development, the
area of the hypothetical pond (acres) in the model output is then multiplied by the appropriate unit land
cost (see Section 6.7 for unit costs) and the pond volume (in cubic yards) is multiplied by the unit pond
volume cost. The two costs are summed. A cost for appurtenances is then added which is 20% of the sum
of the land and pond volume cost or $4,000, whichever is less. The total of the pond area cost, the pond
volume cost, and the appurtenance cost is the total cash dedication for the development.
The same general method is used when figuring a cash dedication for a redevelopment or site expansion
project where impervious coverage would be expanded as a result of the redevelopment or site expansion
activity. The purpose of this proposed provision is to provide an incentive to avoid expansion of impervious
coverage associated with redevelopment or site expansion projects. Impervious coverage is directly tied to
the pollutant export characteristics of urban land; the higher the impervious coverage, the greater the
pollution mass generated by that unit of land.
Explanation of Cash Dedication Calculations
The following is an explanation for calculation of cash dedication amounts for each of the four examples
shown in Section 6.7 of the Local Water Management Plan.
Example: Two -acre new medium -density residential development (50% impervious coverage)
Explanation:
Based on a development area of 2 acres and an impervious coverage of 50% as well as a simple
pro -rata adjustment to account for the small size of the development, the PONDSIZE model
generates a hypothetical pond 0.10 acres in area with a wet volume of 0.241 acre-feet (.241 acre-
feet X 1613 yds'/acre-foot = 388 yds'). Since the development is residential, the pond area of
0.102 acres is multiplied by $150,000/acre (see Section 6.7) to give $15,270. The pond volume of
388 yd3 is multiplied by the unit pond volume cost of $4/yd3 (see Section 6.7) to give $1,550. The
sum of these amounts is $16,820. The appurtenance cost is $3,360 (the lesser of 20% of this
amount or $4,000). Thus, the total cash dedication is approximately $20,190.
2. Example: Four -acre commercial redevelopment (from 75% to 80% impervious coverage)
Explanation:
Using the same model inputs as above but adjusting the impervious coverage to 80%, the
PONDSIZE model generates a hypothetical pond area of 0.281 acres, with a wet volume of 0.695
acre-feet (1122 yd'). The development is commercial, so the pond area of .281 acres is multiplied
by $200,000/acre to give $56,200. The pond volume of 1122 yd' is multiplied by $4/yd3to give
$4,490. The sum of these amounts is $60,690. The appurtenance cost is the lesser of 20% of
this figure ($12,140) or $4,000. Thus the total cash dedication amount is $56,200 + $4,490 +
$4,000 = $64,690.
3. Example: Two -acre commercial redevelopment project with no increase in impervious coverage
Explanation:
The City will not require a water quality cash dedication when a redevelopment project does not
increase the existing impervious percentage. The purpose of this standard is to discourage
increases in impervious coverage for redevelopment projects.
Appendix E
New Hope Design Guidelines
0 Bonestroo
Design Guidelines City of New Ho
Design Guidelines
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Background...................................................................................2
DesignDistricts..................................................................................................4
ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
FacadeTreatment..............................................................................................5
Ground Level Expression...................................................................................6
Transparency: Window and Door Openings.......................................................7
Entries..............................................................................................................8
RoofDesign......................................................................................................9
Building Materials and Colors...........................................................................10
Franchise Architecture......................................................................................11
SITE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Building Placement/Site Planning........................................................................12
Parking Areas/Screening....................................................................................13
ParkingStructures............................................................................................14
Pedestrians and Common Space........................................................................15
Landscaping and Site Improvements..................................................................16
PreferredTrees...................................................................................................17
Location and Screening of Services, Loading, and Storage Areas.......................18
Lighting..............................................................................................................19
Signs..................................................................................................................21
Hierarchy of Street Treatments............................................................................23
TransitFacilities...................................................................................................26
Stormwater Treatments.......................................................................................27
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Preferred Trees List........................................................................28
Appendix B: Stormwater Treatments Strategies...................................................30
March 24, 2008
1
3 City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Purpose and Background
In general, buildings within New Hope should provide interest at the street level, create distinct street comers,
demonstrate the use of high quality materials, and enhance the overall pedestrian experience on the street.
The New Hope Design Guidelines serve three primary functions:
1) To guide developers or property owners proposing expansions, renovations, or new construction of buildings
or parking in commercial, industrial, and multifamily residential areas.
2) To facilitate dialog between the city and developers/property owners to achieve creative design solutions.
3) To assist city officials, commissioners, and staff in reviewing development proposals.
The guidelines, by definition, are a set of recommended design goals for new and existing buildings and sites. The
guidelines set forth the general desired character for commercial, industrial, and multifamily residential properties,
suggesting overall character without dictating specific design requirements.
The primary purpose of the guidelines is to:
• Reinforce the community's vision for development
• Foster high quality architecture and site planning
• Encourage creativity in accomplishing design goals
• Protect public and private investment in buildings and infrastructure
March 24- 20008
Purpose and Background Implementation
The guidelines will be linked to New Hope's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the guidelines
will be determined through the city's design review process.
Applicability
The guidelines apply to all commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and/or multifamily residential buildings with 3 or more
units and to the following activities:
• New construction
• Any exterior changes
• Any development or expansion of parking areas that would result in a lot with more than 4 parking
spaces
If New Hope City Code does not require review by the Planning Commission and/or approval by the City Council for a
given alteration, such as repainting, facade changes, or expansions of no significant size (less than 25 percent building),
the alternation may be handled administratively, as determined by the city manager or designee. The administrative
review process might involve review by the city's design and review committee. The guidelines apply only to the buildings
or site elements being developed or altered.
The guidelines are mandatory; however, it is understood there will often be many ways to achieve the intent of the
guidelines. The city may permit alternative approaches that, in its determination, meet the objectives of the design
guidelines. The city may also waive any guideline when specific physical conditions of the site or building would make
compliance difficult or inappropriate.
March 24, 2008
City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Design Districts
Five design districts have been established. Generally, the guidelines apply to all districts, unless otherwise noted. The
City Center and Highway districts are geographic areas, while the General Commercial, Industrial, and Multifamily districts
are based on land use.
1) The City Center District centers on the intersection of Winnetka and 42nd avenues, extending north to 45th
Avenue, south to QuebecAvenue, west to BooneAvenue, and east to Louisiana Avenue. The City Center serves as
the primary commercial area in the city, and offers many opportunities for redevelopment and enhancements.
2) The Highway Commercial District extends the full length of the city along Highway 169 from 62nd
Avenue to Medicine Lake Road.
3) The General Commercial District includes all commercial properties not included in the City Center or
Highway districts. The majority of the commercial properties within this district line Winnetka Avenue, Bass Lake
Road, 42nd Avenue and 62nd Avenue, with three primary commercial nodes located along Winnetka Avenue at
Bass Lake Road, 36th Avenue, and Medicine Lake Road.
4) The Industrial District includes all industrial properties in the city. Most ofthe industrial uses are concentrated
in three areas: 1) Science Industry Park, located in the northwest portion of the city around Science Center Drive;
2) along the C.P. rail line running east and west across the city's northern portion; and 3) along the C.P. rail line
running north and south across the city's eastern portion.
5) The Multifamily Residential District includes all multifamily residential properties in the city. Multifamily
homes are mostly located in R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and R4 (High Density Residential) Zoning
Districts.
March 2�-9QOB
Design Guidelines City of New Hop
Facade Treatments ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To add visual interest and variety, emphasize the pedestrian scale, and avoid long,
monotonous facades.
Delrined Base, Middle, and Top
Buildings should have a well-defined base, middle, and top. The base or ground floor should appear visually distinct from
the upper stories through the use of a change in building materials, window shape or size, an intermediate cornice line, an
awning, arcade or portico, or similar techniques. The base or ground floor of the building should include elements that relate
to the human scale, including texture, projections, doors, windows, awnings, canopies, or ornamentation.
Distinct Modules
The primary facade(s) of buildings of 40 feet or more in width should be articulated into smaller increments through the use of
different textures, division into storefronts with separate display windows, ornamental features such as arcades or awnings,
or by division of the building mass into several smaller segments.
Awnings
Where awnings are used, canvas or fabric awnings are preferred. Awnings should closely complement the building's archi-
tectural character and aesthetics.
March 24, 2008
distinct
Rizontal
I corner
window
wnings.
City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Ground Level Expression
ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To create visual interest, opportunties for sociability, and overall pedestrian safety and
comfort.
Ground level expression refers to the way in which a building meets the street. Methods should be used to distinguish the
ground floor of a building from upper floors, such as creating an intermediate cornice line, using different building materials or
detailing, and using awnings, trellises, or arcades. Windows and clear entrances may also be used to enhance a building's
appearance on the street, and may be further augmented by pocket parks, outdoor cafe seating, and plantings.
To create an increased sense of enclosure, all buildings shall have a minimum cornice height of 16 feet. Two and three-
story buildings are encouraged.
March 24-2908
Design Guidelines City of New Hop
ALL DISTRICTS
Transparency: Window Objective: To enliven the streetscape and enhance security by providing views into and out of
and Door Openings buildings with windows and door openings.
Window and Door Design
Windows should be designed with punched and recessed openings to create a strong rhythm of light a n d
shadow.
Mirrored glass or glass block should not be used on street -facing facades. Glazing in windows and doors should be
clear or slightly tinted, allowing views into and out of the interior.
Window shape, size, and patterns should emphasize the intended organization of the facade and the definition of the
building.
Display windows at least three feet deep may be used to meet these requirements, but not windows located above eye
level.
CITY CENTER AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
For commercial or mixed-use buildings, window and door openings shall comprise at least 30 percent of the area of the
ground floor of the primary street facade. A minimum of 20 percent of any two sides or rear facades at ground level shall
consist of window and door openings designed as specified above. A minimum of 15 percent of all upper story facades shall
consist of window or balcony door openings designed as specified above.
HIGHWAY DISTRICT
Where commercial or office uses are found on the ground floor, at least 20 percent of the ground floor primary (street -facing)
facade and 15 percent of each side or rear facade shall consist of window and door openings designed as specified above.
Note that spandrel glass may be used on up to half the window and door surfaces on any building facade.
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
For multifamily residential buildings, a minimum of 20 percent of primary (street -facing) facades and 15 percent of each side
or rear facade shall consist of window and door openings designed as specified above.
March 24, 2008
Entries ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To establish the visual importance of the primary street entrance and to ensure that
entries contribute to the visual attractiveness of the building and are readily visible.
Primary building entrances on all buildings should face the primary abutting public street or walkway, or link to that street
by a clearly defined and visible walkway or courtyard. Additional secondary entrances may be oriented to a secondary
street or parking area. In the case of a corner building or a building abutting more than one street, the street with the
higher classification shall be considered primary. The main entrance should be placed at sidewalk grade. Entries shall
be designed with one or more of the following:
• Canopy, portico, overhang, arcade or arch above the entrance
• Recesses or projections in the building facade surrounding the entrance
• Peaked roof or raised parapet over the door
• Display windows surrounding the entrance
• Architectural detailing such as tile work or ornamental moldings
• Permanent planters or window boxes for landscaping
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
For multifamily residential buildings, additional porches, steps, roof overhangs, hooded front doors or similar architectural
elements should be used to define the primary entrances to all residences.
Main entrance clearly defined by an arcade and
enhanced with planters.
Well-defined entry with architectural detail-
ing, visually notable raised roof line, and
permanent planters.
March 2a ?008
Design Guidelines City of New Hop
Roof Design ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To add visual interest and variety and to minimize views of rooftop equipment from public
streets and pedestrian ways.
Roof design
A building's roofline can establish its individuality and interest within the context of commercial or industrial areas, and variety
in rooflines from building to building can add visual interest to mixed-use and residential areas. Some suggested techniques
that add interest include varying heights and cornices within an otherwise unified design scheme, using roofline changes to
note entrances or commercial bays, and establishing contrasting rooflines at street corners.
Rooftop equipment
All rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from across adjacent streets 15 feet behind the curb or from adjacent pro-
perites at the property line. Preferably, rooftop equipment should be screened by the building parapet, or should be located out
of view from the ground. If this strategy is not possible, the equipment should be grouped behind an enclosure and set back
a distance of 11/2 times its height from any primary facade fronting a public street. Screens shall be of durable, permanent
materials (not including wood) that are compatible with the primary building materials.
Exterior mechanical equipment, such as ductwork, shall not be located on primary building facades.
March 24, 2008
City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Building Materials and Colors
Multifamily residential with decorative door and
window treatments, metal railings and a variety of
building materials.
ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To ensure that high-quality, durable, and authentic building materials are used
and that building colors are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with their surroundings.
Building Colors
Building colors should accent, blend with, or complement the surroundings. Principal building colors should generally
consist of subtle, neutral, or muted colors with low reflectance (e.g. browns, grays, tans, and dark or muted greens).
"Warm -toned" colors are encouraged because of their year-round appeal. No more than two principal colors should
be used on a facade or individual storefront. Bright or primary colors are acceptable when determined through the
design and review process to be appropriate for the site and building use.
ALL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Building Materials
All buildings should be constructed of high-quality materials.
• The primary building materials should cover at least 60 percent of the facade. The materials must
be integrally colored and may consist of brick, natural stone, precast concrete units, architectural precast
concrete panels, or glass.
• Secondary building materials should cover no more than 30 percent of the facade and may consist
of decorative block, stucco, or EFTS.
• Accent materials may be used on up to 10 percent of any of the building's facades. These materials may
include door and window frames, lintels, cornices, architectural metalwork, glass block, copper flashing,
or similar materials.
In addition to the materials listed above, residential buildings may also use painted wood lap siding, painted wood
shakes, or synthetic wood siding resembling horizontal lap siding.
Materials to avoid:
• Unadorned plain or painted concrete block
• Unadomed precast concrete panels
• Prefabricated steel or sheet metal panels
• Aluminum, vinyl, fiberglass, asphalt or fiberboard (masonite) siding
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
A variety of building materials should be used to provide visual interest. Wall materials capable of withstanding
vandalism or accidental damage should be chosen. Pole buildingslpostframe construction (agriculture buildings)
and exposed metal finished buildings are not permitted.
10 _ March 24 408
Design Guidelines City of New Ho
pe
ALL DISTRICTS
Franchise Architecture Objective: To encourage building design that supports the city's design goals.
Franchise establishments typically desire a specific architectural motif in order to emphasize consistency in their network
and attract regular customers. In many cases, this standardized architecture conflicts with a unique regional architecture
and character desired for the community. There are ways, however, of incorporating the franchise's desired signage and
even some building treatments, while still encouraging the basic principles of commercial building design listed above.
Franchises or national chains should follow these guidelines to create context -sensitive buildings that are sustainable
and reusable.
Drive-through canopies and accessory structures, when required, shall be constructed of the same materials as the
primary building, with the same level of architectural quality and detailing.
LZ
Irl
High -Quality Materials
wall signs, colorful canopies, and adequate
landscaping.
Prototypical Franchise Logo
and Color Treatment
Simple building with interesting
comer teatment, good materials,
colorful awnings, and small wall signs.
Building design sensitive to context created with
landscape and pedestrian walkways, pedestrian
scale signs, awnings, and high-quality materials.
March 24, 2008
11
City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Building Placement/
Site Planning
ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To orient buildings toward the primary street to improve walkability and attractiveness
to pedestrians.
CITY CENTER DISTRICT
All buildings should have a well-defined front facade with primary entrances facing the street. Buildings should be aligned
so that the dominant lines of their facades parallel the lines of the street. Single -use buildings must be less than 10,000
square feet in area, except by CUP; and buildings should occupy at least 60 percent of the lot frontage.
Building facades should be flush with the sidewalk or setback no more than 10 feet for at least 60 percent of the length
of their front facades. At intersections, these buildings should "hold the corner'—that is, have street facades at or near
the sidewalk on both streets.
GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND HIGHWAY DISTRICTS
Buildings should have a well-defined front facade with entrances facing the street. Larger buildings (30,000 square feet
or more in size) may be oriented perpendicular to the street provided that at least one entrance facing the street is pro-
vided. Buildings may be set back a maximum of 85 feet from the sidewalk to allow for 2 rows of parking and drive aisles
plus landscaped frontage. This setback may be increased in cases where topography or other physical conditions would
prevent parking areas from being located to the rear of the building.
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Residential buildings may be oriented toward the primary street or toward internal streets or courts, with side facades
parallel to the primary street. Facades parallel to the primary street should be well -detailed, and service areas should not
be located along the primary street frontage. A transitional, semi -private area should be provided between the sidewalk
and the front door of all residential buildings. Landscaping, steps, porches, grade changes, and low omamental fences
or walls should be used to provide increased privacy and livability for first floor units.
12 _ March 2�_2QOB
Parking Areas/Screening ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To soften the appearance of parking areas and minimize the visual impact of
parking lots when viewed from adjacent properties, streets, and sidewalks,
Buffer Views
Railing, columns, seating, and various levels of
planting are utilized where space is available.
Parking lot frontage on pedestrian streets should be minimized, and their edges and interiors should be extensively
greened with a combination of hedges, ornamental railings, walls, bollards, trees, and other methods to screen
parking from pedestrian spaces.
Parking areas shall be screened with a combination of landscape materials, landform, and decorative fencing or
walls sufficient to screen parked cars on a year-round basis while providing adequate visibility for pedestrians.
Internal parking lot landscaping should be incorporated when possible. Within off-street parking facilities with 50 or
more stalls, irrigated landscaped islands or peninsulas or rain gardens should be provided at a rate of 180 square
feet per 25 surface stalls or a fraction thereof. The islands or peninsulas must be contained within raised, curbed
beds consistent with other applicable parking lot construction required by city ordinance. Depressed biofiltration
islands shall be permissible provided a ribbon -style curb or other approved edging is installed, traffic control
measures are taken, trash management plans are in place, and some vertical aspects - like trees or tall plantings
- are provided to give the biofiltration island more visual appeal and break up the sight lines of the parking lot.
Strategies for shared parking between adjacent uses are encouraged, including taking advantage of peak and
off-peak cycles, business hours, nighttime activities, special events and other needs.
Internal Landscaping 4
Simple, effective internal parking lot landscap-
ing with trees in islands defines parking bays,
improves image, and cools environment.
Define Edge '
Physical barriers separate
parking from
the pedestrian space.
March 24, 2008
13
City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Parking Structures
ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To ensure that parking structures are compatible with the surrounding buildings and
positively impact the streetscape.
Parking structures should comply with all design guidelines for nonresidential buildings. Some guidelines to note in-
clude:
• If possible, the ground floor facade facing the main streets should be designed with architectural details similar
to other nearby buildings.
• The parking structure facade should express top, middle, and base modules.
• Seasonal landscaping should be used to soften the design of the structure.
• All entrances (pedestrian and vehicular) should be clearly defined.
Entrance drives to the parking structure should be located to minimize conflicts with pedestrian traffic.
• Parking structures should be designed to encourage active uses along the ground floor.
Treat as Buildings
Good architectural detailing, high- quality materi-
als, defined entrance driveways, and readable
signs.
Top, Middle, and Base
Ground floor offices, clearly
defined entrances, and high-quality construction
materials.
10
- 0000 -.0 90*�
00
10grlsr
March 2a- 2008
14
Pedestrians and Common ALL DISTRICTS
Space Objective: To ensure that pedestrians and bicyclists have safe and convenient access to all
business establishments and to enhance community interactions through the provision of usable
common space.
Pedestrian Areas
The coordination of public and private pedestrian treatments is required. Sidewalks may be required along all street
frontages. A well-defined pedestrian path shall be provided from the sidewalk to each principal pedestrian entrance of a
building. Walkways shall be located so that the distance between the street and entrance is minimized. Walkways shall be
at least 5 feet in width, and shall be distinguished through pavement material from the surrounding parking lot. Walkways
shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs, flower beds, and/or planter pots. Sidewalks of at least 5 feet in width shall be
provided along all building facades that abut public parking areas.
Green space is especially encouraged at the comers of main intersections in the city. These areas should be intensely
J` landscaped to hold the corner and enhance the pedestrian environment and visual appearance from the street.
OA
Y1144i�! Common Space
�. The creation of common space is recommended, including plazas, courtyards, and landscaped seating areas. Elements
i within common spaces might include sculptures, built-in benches, pedestrian -scale lighting, public art, and colorful pav-
ing. Common spaces should be visible and easily accessible, provided with adequate light, and sheltered from adverse
Common Space wind.
common gatnenng area wits
water amentity, and seating.
March 24, 2008
15
City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Landscaping and
Site Improvements
ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To ensure private landscaping and site improvements enhance the visual appearance
of the community, complement existing and planned public improvements, and aid in managing
stormwater runoff volume.
Landscape improvements and site furnishings, including lighting, seating, planters, trees or shrubs, trash receptacles,
and similar elements, shall be defined and utilized throughout the city.
Street trees should be planted within a landscaped boulevard, generally spaced no more than 30 feet apart (see Preferred
Trees lists on page 17 and Appendix A). All front yards should be intensely landscaped.
Decorative boulevard treatment with trees and y
% eye ` = `� perennial plantings.
L 4W
h `n Semi-public open space with seating, landscap-
ing, and water feature. rP
i
IT
�4 Street trees and plantings highlight entrance to
NIM building.
M, ��\', Residential public open space
; with trees and plantings.
rr•
Preferred Trees
parkway planting, the Freeman maple
is easily grown in a variety of soil condi-
tions.
ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To ensure trees planted in New Hope thrive and contribute to an attractive
landscaping system throughout the city.
Trees represent an important part of the landscaping throughout the city. There area number of characteristics to consider
when selecting trees for planting in New Hope including:
• Hardiness
Mature size and growth habit
Sidewalk right-of-way
Electric right-of-way
Salt tolerance
Pest/disease resistance
Cleanliness/litter problems
Rooting habits
Maintenance requirements
Soil compatibility
Based upon these considerations, the following trees are allowed in the boulevard. When locating boulevard trees in
commercial areas, the visibilityof existing and future businesses should be considered. Appendix A includes an expanded
list of preferred trees, which would be suitable for planting in other areas of the city.
Preferred Boulevard Trees
American elms (resistant) (Ulmus americana)
"Valley Forge" "New Harmony" 'Princeton"
Basswood (Tilia americana)
Black ash (Fraxinus nigra)
Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa)
Corktree (Phellodendron species)
Freeman maple (Acer x freemanii)
Ginkgo (male only) (Ginkgo biloba)
Hackber y (Celtis occidentalis)
Honeylocust (thornless) (Gelditsia triacanthos
var. inermis)
Ironwood (Ostrya virginiana)
Kentucky coffeetree (Gymnocladus dioicus)
Northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis)
Ohio buckeye (Aesculus glabra)
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Red oak (Quercus rubra)
River birch (Betula nigra)
Sugar maple (Acer saccharum)
Swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor)
White ash (Fraxinus americana)
White oak (Quercus alba)
March 24, 2008
17
City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Location and Screening of
Service, Loading, Drive -
Through, and
Storage Areas
ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To screen views from and minimize noise impacts on surrounding streets and
properties.
Any outdoor storage, service, drive-through, or loading area shall be screened as provided in the Zoning Ordinance and
located in the side or rear of the main building.
Loading docks, drive-throughs, truck parking, HVAC equipment, transformers, trash collection, and other service functions
shall be incorporated into the design of the building or screened with walls of design and materials similar to the principal
building. Landscape material shall also be incorporated to create a screen of at least 6 feet in height. This screening will
help ensure that the visual and noise impacts of these functions are fully contained.
Businesses with service bays for auto repair and similar uses should locate bays to the side or rear of the building, when
feasible.
Dumspter enclosure located in the rear of the
building and constructed of the same materials
as the main building.
18 March ?4--2,008
Lighting ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To ensure quality lighting design through glare reduction, minimum overspill, and the
use of pedestrian -scale lighting fixtures, while maintaining adequate light levels for safety.
Distinctive light fixture complements high quality
materials and relates to streetscape.
Exterior light fixtures should be selected and located to minimize glare and negative effects upon the night character in
the community. Lighting of structures should be minimized to reduce ambient light pollution from above and below.
The style of lighting fixtures should be compatible with the architecture of nearby buildings. Lights attached to buildings
should be screened by the building's architectural features to eliminate glare onto adjacent properties. Pedestrian scaled
lighting, not exceeding 15 feet in height, should be located adjacent to walkways and entrances to buildings.
Parking lot illumination should consist of a combination of commercial grade parking lot and pedestrian style fixtures.
Pedestrian fixtures should be used for lighting internal parking lot walkways. Parking lot fixtures should be employed
to illuminate parking bays and drive aisles.
March 24, 2008
19
City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Lighting, continued
Parking lot illumination should achieve levels to provide safety while minimizing overlighting and excessive spillover of
ambient light onto adjacent properties. Cutoff fixtures should be located below the mature height of trees in parking lot
islands to prevent ambient "glow" or light pollution from adjacent properties. Evenly distributed illumination should be
provided.
Appropriate light sources:
-Incandescent
• Halogen
• High-pressure sodium
• "Warm" metal halide
Inappropriate light sources:
• Fluorescent
• Neon
• Colored
• Low-pressure sodium
• Mercury vapor
Appropriate light fixture types:
• Pole mounted
• Recessed
• Shield spotlighting
Inappropriate light fixture types:
• Internally lit awnings
• Blinking or flashing
Pedestrian level light from 42nd Avenue
Streetscape project.
20 March 2"08
Signs ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To encourage signs that are architecturally compatible with the style, composition,
materials, colors, and details of the building, and with other signs on nearby buildings. Signs
should be an integral part of the building and site design.
Projection Sign
Wall and projecting signs
Signs should be positioned so they are an integral design feature of the building and to complement and enhance the
building's architectural features. Signs should not obscure or destroy architectural details such as stone arches, glass
transom panels, or decorative brickwork. Signs may be placed:
• In the horizontal lintel above the storefront windows
• Within window glass, provided that no more than 33 percent of any individual window is obscured
• Projecting from the building
• As part of an awning
• In areas where signs were historically attached
Monument Sign
Canopy Sign
March 24, 2008
21
City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Shape- Wall signs should generally be rectangular. In most cases, the edges of signs shall include a raised border that
Signs, continued sets the sign apart from the building. Individual raised letters set onto the sign area surface are also preferred. Projecting
signs may be designed in a variety of shapes.
Colors- Sign colors shall be compatible with the building facade to which the sign is attached. No more than three
colors should be used per sign, unless part of an illustration. To ensure the legibility of the sign, a high degree of contrast
between the background and letters is preferred. A combination of softlneutral shades and darkirich shades (see Build-
ing Colors standard) are encouraged.
Materials- Sign materials should be consistent or compatible with the original construction materials and architectural
style of the building facade on which they are to be displayed. Natural materials such as wood and metal are more ap-
propriate than plastic. Neon signs may be appropriate for windows.
Illumination- External illumination of signs is permitted by incandescent, metal halide, or fluorescent light that emits
a continuous white light. Light shall not shine directly onto the ground or adjacent buildings. Neon signs are permitted.
Internally lit awnings are not permitted. Internally lit box signs and variable electronic message signs are discouraged.
Free-standing signs- Ground or monument signs are encouraged rather than pylon signs. Sign materials, colors,
and architectural detailing should be similar to those of the principal building. The area around the base of the sign should
be landscaped.
,•.,
Monument sign
Commercial monument sign with readable graphics
M
�' 1
and quality materials
22 March 2,"08
Design Guidelines City of New Hope
Hierarchy of Street ALL DISTICTS
Objective: To ensure that streets create a backbone for the community, establish a setting for
Treatments casual meetings, and provide open space for public gatherings and festivals.
Streets serve as the stage where people interact within the public realm. The way in which a street is designed often
determines the level and quality of this interaction. The streets located within the commercial and industrial areas in
New Hope establish the city's identity and open space framework.
Each street in the city has a different type of streetscape to establish the character of the street and assist in navigation.
The term "streetscape" refers to an area's physical setting, which is shaped by the relationships and design of build-
ings, parking lots/structures, streets, sidewalks and landscaping, as well as street furniture, such as lamps, benches,
planters, kiosks, bus shelters, and public art. A hierarchy of streetscape treatments will highlight and respond to the
different districts and street functions within the city. They include:
A. Gateways and Parkways
B. Commercial Streets
C. Local and Residential Streets
The design intent of each of the various street types follows.
March 24, 2008
23
City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Above: Commercial Streets
A. Gateways and Parkways
Tree -lined boulevards and medians will create a distinctive parkway character and provide
gateways to various areas in the city. Primary bicycle pathways will also be identified and
located throughout the city. Treatments include:
• Pedestrian and bicycle linkages to surrounding development, transit facilities,
and open spaces
• Landscaped medians
Parallel parking bays defined with curb bump -outs, where possible
• Tree -lined boulevards
• Walkways ranging in width between 5 and 8 feet
• Pedestrian -scale lighting
• Directional signage, if applicable
B. Commercial Streets
Those streets located within the core commercial area will serve the local businesses and
public open space. Where possible, on -street parking should be incorporated to maximize
the numberof parking spaces within the core area, while providing traffic calming measures.
The sidewalks lining these commercial streets will possess the most intense streetscape
treatment including:
• Generous sidewalk space that can accommodate outdoor cafes, farmers' markets,
community festivals, public art, sidewalk sales, and other activities.
• Streetscape elements, such as street trees, pedestrian -scale lighting, kiosks,
directional signs, colorful banners, sculpture, and benches.
24 March 74-2Q08
design Guidelines City of New Hop
Above: Residential Streets
C. Local & Residential Streets
Local and residential streets serve as linkages between the mixed-use
centers and residential districts, outlying commercial uses, and park-
ing facilities. Local and residential streets have the lowest intensity of
streetscape treatments. Common streetscape elements will provide
continuity between the different areas.
Treatments include:
• Parallel parking bays defined with curb bump -outs, where pos-
sible
• Tree -lined boulevards
• Walkways ranging in width between 5 and 8 feet
• Pedestrian -scale lighting
Traffic calming measures, such as neck downs and raised speed
tables with crosswalks at intersections
March 24, 2008
25
City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Transit Facilities
ALL DISTRICTS
Objective: To support and encourage the use of public transportation by adding quality transit
facilities along main transit routes in the city.
Transit related facilities should be incorporated into development projects where appropriate. Transit facilities include
transit shelters, courtesy benches, bus schedules, wayfinding signage, pedestrian walkways, lighting, and other ele-
ments that facilitate the use of public transit.
Transit facilities should be located for convenient access by transit users, but should not obstruct views or create
conflicts with the city's street and sidewalk maintenance procedures. Transit facilities should not encroach on existing
sidewalks or trails.
Courtesy Benches
When installed, courtesy benches must comply with the requirements of New Hope City Code Section 6-16. Benches
should be installed on durable, level surfaces and designed with attention to their surroundings.
Transit Shelters
The installation of quality transit shelters is strongly encouraged along main transit routes for the convenience and
comfort of transit users. A concrete pedestrian landing that extends the full length of the structure must be provided.
The landing should extend to the curb and must accommodate persons with disabilities. When appropriate, shelters
should include amenities that encourage transit use, such as benches, lights, and heat.
Courtesy Bench
Quality courtesy bench installed on a r,
p durable, level surface.
Transit Shelters
Transit shelters designed to integrate with
existing buildings in the New Hope City Center
area.
26 March 24 2008
ALL DISTRICTS
Stormwater Treatments Objective: To promote stormwater systems designed as amenities that serve as attractive
enhancements for the community, while achieving the city's water quality standards.
Innovative stormwater management strategies are strongly encouraged. Several innovative technologies are available to
improve stormwater quality, while offering benefits such as lowering peak flow velocity and volume, lessening possibilities
of erosion, filtering pollutants, silt, phosphorous and nitrogen, and reusing water for irrigating parks and gardens rather
than installing expensive systems. Stormwater treatment strategies should also serve other purposes such as creating
community amenities that enhance common spaces, supporting biodiversity, and reducing the capital costs for municipal
infrastructure. All stormwater strategies employed in the city must meet the water quality standards of the New Hope
Surface Water Management Plan.
When designing a stormwater system for properties in New Hope, the following site planning principles should be con-
sidered:
Minimize Total Impervious Area- Impervious areas prevent infiltration of rainfall and act as pollutant collectors
between storms, while vegetated surfaces tend to treat or uptake pollutants. Total impervious surface should be reduced
by locating parking areas beneath buildings, minimizing building footprints by adding stories, and by using porous paving
materials rather than traditional asphalt and concrete for parking lots, roads, sidewalks, and driveways.
Minimize Direct Connection Between Impervious Surfaces- Connected impervious surfaces result in
rapid stormwater flows. Driveways, sidewalks, and streets may be sloped so that runoff drains first to lawns or vegetated
swales.
Plant More Trees- Trees and shrubs can capture as much as 35 percent of the annual rainfall through absorption
or evaporation. Roots provide a path for increased water infiltration as well.
Please refer to Appendix B for additional guidelines and recommendations for the design of stormwater treatment systems
in New Hope.
March 24, 2008 27
31) City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Appendix A:
CITY OF NEW HOPE PREFERRED TREE LIST
Preferred Tree List The following tree list has been compiled by the New Hope city forester to aid residents and businesses in the selection
of trees that are acceptable in the city of New Hope. There are a number of important considerations when selecting
trees. These include:
Hardiness
Mature size and growth habit
Salt tolerance
Pest/disease resistance
X
Rn
X*n
X*n
Rn
Rn
Rn
n
Xn
Rn
Rn
Rn
Rn
R
Rn
Cleanliness/litter problems
Rooting habits
Maintenance requirements
Soil compatibility
Based upon these considerations, the following plant materials are deemed suitable for planting in New Hope. Those
trees recommended for planting within the public right-of-way are indicated with an "R". Those trees prohibited from
the right-of-way have the post script "X". The planting of understory deciduous trees and coniferous
trees (overstory and understory) are prohibited within the public right-of-way unless
approved by the city forester. The plant materials that have been noted with an asterisk "*' are identified as
less desirable species for planting in New Hope. Those trees that are native to Minnesota are indicated with an "n".
R Acer x freemanii — Freeman maple
Acer platanoides — Norway maple
Acer rubrum — Red maple
Acer negundo — Boxelder
Acer saccharinum — Silver maple
Acer saccharum — Sugar maple
Aesculus glabra — Ohio buckeye
Betula nigra — River birch
Betula papyrifera — Paper birch
Catalpa speciosa — Northern catalpa
Celtis occidentalis — Hackberry
Fraxinus americana — White Ash
OVERSTORY DECIDUOUS TREES
Fraxinus nigra — Black Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvania — Green Ash
Ginkgo biloba — Ginkgo (Male only)
Gelditsia triacanthos var. inermis—Honeylocust (thornless)
Rn Gymnocladus dioicus — Kentucky coffeetree
Xn Juglans nigra - Walnut
n Larix laricina - Tamarak
Larix species — Larch
Xn Morus rubra — Red mulberry
Rn Ostrya virginiana — Ironwood
R Phellodendron species — Corktree
X Populus deltoides "Siouxland" — Siouxland poplar (cottonless)
Xn Populus grandidentata — Bigtooth aspen
X* Populus species — All other poplars
Xn Populus tremuloides — Quaking aspen
n Prunus serotina — Black cherry
Rn Quercus alba — White oak
28 March 24008
Design Guidelines City of New Hope
Appendix A, continued:
Rn Quercus bicolor — Swamp white oak
Rn Quercus ellipsoidalis — Northern pin oak
Rn Quercus macrocarpa — Bur oak
Xn Quercus palustris — Pin oak
Rn Quercus rubra — Red oak
X* Robinia pseudoacacia — Black locust
X* Salix species — Willow
Rn Tilia americana — Basswood
X Tilia cordata — Little leaf linden
R Ulmus americana "Valley Forge", "Princeton", "New Harmony"—
American elms (resistance)
X Ulmus hybrids — Hybrid elms
UNDERSTORY DECIDUOUS TREES
Acer ginnala — Amur maple
n Amelanchier species — Serviceberry
Carpinus caroliniana — Blue beech
Cercis canadensis — Eastern redbud
n Cornus alternifolia — Pagoda dogwood
n Cornus racemosa — Gray dogwood
Crataegus crus-galli var. inermis — Cockspur hawthorn
(thornless)
X* Elaeagnus angustifolia— Russian olive
n Euonymus alatus — Burning bush tree
Hydrangea paniculata — Hydrangea (tree)
Maackia amurensis — Amur maackia
Magnolia acuminata — Cucumbertree magnolia
Magnolia stellata — Star magnolia
Malus species — Crabapple (apple scab resistant ONLY)
n Prunus americana — American wild plum
Prunus armeniaca var. mandshurica - Apricot
Prunus maackii — Amur chokecherry
Prunus nigra "Princess Kay" — Princess Kay Plum
Prunus cerasus "North Star' & "Meteor" — Sour cherry
Prunus sargentii — Sargent cherry
X* Prunus virginiana "Canada Red" — Canada red chokecherry
Pyrus species - Pear
X* Salix matsudana "Tortuosa" — Corkscrew willow
Xn Salix discolor — Pussy willow
Sorbus alnifolia — Korean mountain ash
Sorbus aucuparia — European mountain ash
Syringa reticulata — Japanese tree lilac
Viburnum lantana — Mohican (wayfaring) tree
n Viburnum lentago — Nannyberry tree
OVERSTORY CONIFEROUS TREES
n Abies balsamea — Balsam fir
n Abies concolor — White fir
n Juniperus virginiana — Eastern redcedar
n Picea abies — Norway spruce
n Picea glauca — White spruce
* Picea pungens — Colorado spruce
n Pinus banksiana — Jack pine
Pinus cembra — Swiss stone pine
Pinus nigra — Austrian pine
Pinus ponderosa — Ponderosa pine
n Pinus resinosa — Red (Norway) pine
n Pinus strobus — Eastern white pine
Pinus sylvestris — Scotch pine
Pseudotsuga menziesii — Douglas fir
n Tsuga canadensis — Canadian hemlock
UNDERSTORY CONIFEROUS TREES
Juniperus chinenses — Chinese upright juniper
Juniperus scopulorum — Rocky Mountain juniper
n Thuja occidentalis — American arborvitae
Pinus mugo — Mugo pine
March 24, 2008 29
City of New Hope Design Guidelines
Appendix B:
Stormwater Treatment
Strategies
Stormwater systems can be designed as an amenity, a multiple use civic infrastructure that makes water processes legible,
sustainable, and expressive. If stormwater is perceived as a replenishing amenity and resource, rather than a waste that
should be hidden away, stormwater systems can incorporate earth and vegetation to serve as cleansing filters.
Several innovative technologies have been developed to ameliorate poor stormwater quality. Using these strategies to
daylight stormwater processes benefits overall water quality by:
• Lowering peak flow velocity and volume
Lessening possibilities of erosion
• Settling heavy metals and silt out of stormwater flow
• Filtering pollutants, silt, phosphorous, and nitrogen
• Regenerating groundwater
• Cooling water before it reaches a water body
• Reusing water for irrigating parks and gardens rather than installing expensive systems
• Ameliorating the heat island effect of urban areas
Other benefits include:
• Enhancing the amenity value of the community
• Supporting biodiversity at the street level by building an ecological structure
• Lowering capital costs for municipal infrastructure
• Educating the community about drainage and cleansing processes of degraded water
• Opportunities to incorporate art and education with the use of follies celebrating the hydrologic event
• Opportunities for practicing responsible regional watershed planning at the site scale
• Opportunities to create public gathering spaces at larger water collection areas, which celebrate the ephemeral
qualities of a rainstorm or spring thaw
• Opportunities to create a common vocabulary of streetscape elements rooted in place through the use of native
plants and the revelation of ephemeral climatic events
All Stormwater strategies employed in the city must meet the water quality standards of the New Hope Surface Water
Management Plan.
30 March 24008
Design
Appendix B, continued:
A. Detention Ponds or Marshes
Detention ponds and marshes detain and store stormwater runoff to allow for settling of particulate pol-
lutants, vegetative uptake, and control of peak flood rates. They may be constructed above or below
grade, and may be wet or dry. Although these systems control peak rates, they do not mitigate increased
runoff volumes.
Pervious Paving
Figure W-3: Pervious Poring
March 24, 2008
31
B. Infiltration
inflow
Infiltration systems intercept and reduce direct site surface runoff, allowing waterto percolate back intothe
Water Elevation
ground through coarse gravel, sand, or other filtering media. These types of systems control peak rates,
Anaerobicobic Zone
Anaerobic
help preserve existing on-site hydrology, maintain stream base flow, and recharge Please
Standpipe Outlet
groundwater.
note that New Hope's soils are predominately clay, which may make infiltration difficult in some cases.
Perforated Pipe Inlet
Muck Layer
Trenches- Trenches are shallow (2 to 10 feet deep) and are placed in relatively permeable soils that are
Gravel Trench mpermeable Liner
backfilled with coarse stone, a sand filter, and lined with filter fabric. The trench surface can be covered
sage"ate Tc
and/or consist of gabion, stone, sand, or a grassed covered area with a surface inlet. Trenches allow for
shear
partial or total infiltration of stormwater runoff into the underlying soil.
Me" Grote
s' -o' Deep trench
Basins- Basins are depressions created by excavation, berms, or small dams for the short term ponding
1.5'-2.5- Did. Clean Stone
of surface runoff until it percolates into the soil.
l Protectwe Layer Filter Lined Sides
Finer Fabric Lined Sid95
Pervious Paving Systems- Pervious paving systems consist of strong structural materials, such
i 6".12" Deep Sand Filler or Filter Fobic
as concrete or asphalt, regularly interspersed with voids which are filled with pervious materials such as
" steal
sandy loam or grassed turf. These surfaces are underlain by soils capable of allowing infiltration. Pervi-
Street infiltration Trench
ous asphalt is not recommended for clay -rich soils since it easily clogs and thus necessitates frequent
Figure Vit: Street lntilbation Trench
replacement.
Pavers with Sand Filled JOIn15
1.-2. Bedding sand
Roof Downspout Systems- Roof downspout systems consist of small-scale chambers or varia-
conWocted aggregate
tions of infiltration trenches that are specifically designed to accept and infiltrate roof drainage only. They
should be covered with rip rap to dissipate the water's erosive energy.
compacted sWgrode
Pervious Paving
Figure W-3: Pervious Poring
March 24, 2008
31
Appendix B, continued:
C. Biofiltration
Biofiltration systems use vegetation and/or sand and other natural filtration media to reduce pollutants in stormwater
runoff. Filtration, infiltration, absorption, sedimentation, and biological uptake of stormwater pollutants are all methods
utilized by biofiltration systems.
Vegetated Swales- Vegetative swales possess less than six percent side slopes and are wide and shallow to
maximize flow residence time and promote pollutant removal. They are often used downstream from detention facilities,
around parking lots, in parking lot medians, and along roadsides.
Vegetated Swale
Figure N-4: Vegetated SWOL
Bloretention Parking Median
Fgure Vl-5: Bloretention Parking Median
Vegetated Filter Strips- Filter strips consist of vegetated sloped strips in which
flow is distributed broadly along the length of the vegetated area as overland sheet
flow. Requiring ample space to spread the flow over a wide area at a small depth,
wet Tolerant species suitable areas for filter strips include areas along uncurbed roads, between parking
Wet Prairie Plantings lots and stormwater inlets, adjacent to vegetated swales, and upstream of infiltration
facilities.
Media Filters- Media filters strain runoff through a medium, such as sand, peat,
compost, or pelletized leaf compost, into an underdrain system that conveys treated
runoff to a detention facility or to the point of ultimate discharge. They can be used
in highly developed sites or be retrofitted to existing sites.
32 March 242008
Catch Basin Filter Inserts- Catch basin filter inserts are suspended within catch
Wet Tolerant species
basins and designed to strain sediment. Because they require high maintenance to
Wet Praide Plantings
avoid hydraulic failure, they are applicable only to a small drainage area.
6--9" Ponding
2'-3' Mulch
4'-0' Planting Soil
Finer Fabric
Optional Sand Layer
Gravel
Drain
32 March 242008
esi
idix B, continued:
Poking Loi
Permeable Curb
Stone Trench Level Spreader
Gross FNter Slip
Optional Sand Layer
Bioretention Argo
Wet Pickle Rants
Gravel Curtan Drain Overflow
Blorete rhon Swale with Level Spreader & Gross FIRer Strip- Plan
Figure NCBlaeteniion Svale wen Level swecder and Grass Fitter Ship - Plan
Source: Clavier
Patlng Lot
Permease curb
Stone Trench Level Spreader
Grass Filer SMp
Berth
Wet Rahe Plants
Optional Sand Layer
Gravel Curtain Drain Overn w
Bioretention Swale with Level Spreader & Grass Filter Strip- Section
Figure VI -7: Bioretention Smwith Leval spreader and Gross Filler Sirip- Section
source: Cloylor
Bioretention Swale- Sechon
Figure VI -8: Bioretenhon S ,e - Sech'M
Source: cloylor
March 24, 2008
6--9' Ponding
2.3' Mulch
4'-V Ran" SON
ROM Fabric
Gravel
Drain
D. Multifunctional Systems
Multifunctional systems incorporate multiple stormwater treatments
Enhanced Swales and Ponds- Enhanced swales contain infiltration/filtration
systems which consist of an infiltration pond with a layer of filter media (sand/crushed
limestone) in their beds. They work best where soils are very coarse.
Bioretention- Bioretention systems consist of shallow landscaped areas that allow
for ponding and filtration of water runoff. Treatment involves settling, vegetative uptake,
and filtering as water passes through layers of sand, loam, and compost before infiltra-
tion or collection in underlying perforated pipes. Traditionally designed convex grassed
medians/parkways and piping/catch basins may be replaced with concave bioretention
gardens and vegetated stormwater channels.
33
Appendix B, continued:
E. Site Planning Principles
Minimize Total Impervious Area- Impervious areas prevent infiltration of rainfall and act as pollutant collectors
between storms, while vegetated surfaces tend to treat or uptake pollutants. Total impervious surface may be reduced
by locating parking areas beneath buildings, minimizing building footprints by adding stories, and using porous paving
materials rather than traditional asphalt and concrete for parking lots, roads, sidewalks, and driveways.
Minimize Direct Connection Between Impervious Surfaces- Connected impervious surfaces result in
rapid stormwater flows. Driveways, sidewalks, and streets may be sloped so that runoff drains first to lawns or vegetated
swales.
Conduct Watershed -Based Zoning- Local governments can promote innovative storm water management
by:
Conducting land use master planning across scales to ensure that future growth is compatible with high water
quality.
• Creating regulations that are preventative, rather than reactive, such as Best Management Practices, buffer
regulations, limits on impervious surfaces, limits on curb and gutter, and require low irrigation and low fertil-
izer/pesticide plantings.
• Adopting sensitive area ordinances to provide for buffers and to ensure development does not occur in key
areas such as steep slopes, fioodplains, and wetlands.
• Reviewing municipal codes and making modifications to protect water quality.
Plant More Trees- Trees and shrubs can capture as much as 35 percent of the annual rainfall through absorption
or evaporation. Roots provide a path for increased water infiltration as well.
Use Rooftops for Stormwater Collection and Filtration- Eco -roofs cover all or a
Grosses a cxomcicomers portion of a roof with grasses and ground covers and can be retrofitted to existing buildings with little
]"Mulch
basting Roof
2'x6'
FW. Vl-9: Eco4R
Source: Lipton
March 24.2008
Appendix B, continued:
Figure W-10Welland Runnel
Source. Haruen
Wetlmtl Species- Catlloil. Common Reed.
Blue Flag Iris, Sedges
paling Lot Sheet Runoff
Permeable Grate
Gravel
Impermeable PVC Liner
cvefflow Grossy SWalelllilgafion Won
or no structural reinforcement. This soft roof filters and reduces stormwater runoff volume, while enhancing the thermal
and acoustic insulation of the building.
Use Native Plant Materials Appropriate to Soil Type and Wetness- Plants such as Cattails, Blue Flag
Iris and Sedgegrass are site specific and respond to wet conditions. Such tall grasses shall be permitted by approved
design landscaping. For more recommended plant species, reference the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency listing of
plants for stormwater design at www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/manuals/stormwaterplants.htmi.
Sources:
Claytor, Richard and Thomas Schueler. Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems. Chesapeake
Research Consortium, 1996.
Hansen, Richard. "Watermarks at the Nature Center." Landscape Journal, Special Issue, 1998.
Lipton, Tom. 'Integrated Approaches to Urban Stormwater Management: Examples from Home and Abroad."
Integrating Stormwater into the Urban Fabric Conference Proceedings.
American Society of Landscape Architects, Oregon Chapter, 1996.
Schueler, Thomas, Controlling Urban Runoff.- A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing
Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1987.
Tourbier, J. Toby and Richard Westmacott. Water Resources Protection Technology. Urban Land
Institute, 1981.
35
March 24, 2008