IP #865For the full report on
0
this improvement
M
project, refer to the
City Council agenda
packets and/or
PII ng Cc)rnrnIIISIs[()n
41
, ?.,genda packets.
PROJECT NO. 865
Twin Lake TMDLs
Res 09 -40 2/23/09 Approval of wetland 639W restoration feasibility analysis study
Res. 2010 -160 11/22/10 Resolution approving a cooperative agreement for a Twin Lake wetland 639W improvement
project (improvement project no. 865)
COUNCIL
�0J4
Originating Department
Public Works
Approved for Agenda
February 23, 2009
Agenda Section
Development &
Planning
Item No.
Kirk McDonald, City Manager
Resolution approving a cooperative agreement for a Wetland 639W restoration feasibility analysis study
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff is recommending that the Council pass a resolution approving a cooperative agreement that sets forth
the cost share distribution for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission's ( SCWMC) Wetland
639W restoration feasibility analysis.
BACKGROUND
The SCWMC is taking the lead and will be coordinating the mandated total maximum daily load (TMDL)
studies in the Shingle Creek watershed. The TMDL study for Twin and Ryan lakes has been approved by the
federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Best management practices (BMPs) are identified in the
approved TMDL implementation plan.
The Twin and Ryan lake TMDL study has identified sources of excess nutrients in the lakes. As part of the
TMDL, the restoration of Wetland 639W was identified as a high priority BMP because of the amount of
phosphorus it contributes to the lakes.
The Wetland 639W restoration feasibility analysis will help determine the most efficient means of reducing
the phosphorus entering the lakes from the wetland. The feasibility analysis will include additional
monitoring; identify and recommend the most cost effective restoration options; resolve any possible
permitting issues; and complete preliminary plans and cost estimates for the restoration project.
Request for Action
'February 23, 2009
Page 2
The cost sharing agreement is between the Commission and the cities of New Hope, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn
Center, and Crystal. All four cities contribute storm water runoff to the wetland. Brooklyn Center and Crystal
receive direct benefit downstream for the Lakeshore residents around the lakes. The Commission has received
a grant for 50% of the project cost and the Commission has agreed to contribute an additional 25 %. The
agreement requires the four cities to contribute the remaining 25% of the project cost.
This cooperative cost sharing agreement is only for the cost allocation of the restoration feasibility analysis
study. Cost allocations for the future construction of the restoration project would be determined through the
feasibility analysis and reviewed by the stakeholders as a separate cooperative agreement.
FUNDING
The estimated cost for the restoration feasibility analysis study is $120,000. The Commission has received a
grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and EPA in the amount of $60,000. With the
Commission contributing an additional $30,000, the four cities would be responsible for the remaining
$30,000.
Because of the direct benefit to the property owners located downstream around the lakes, the proposed
agreement has the cities of Brooklyn Center and Crystal responsible for the first 35% of the remaining $30,000.
Their direct benefit allocations would be $5,250 each, for a total of $10,500. The remaining 65% of the $30,000,
or $19,500, would be the contributing storm water runoff allocation that would be split between all four cities.
This allocation would be $4,875 for each of the four cities. The city of New Hope's allocation of $4,875, would
be funded through the city's storm water fund.
ATTACHMENTS
A letter from the SCWMC, copies of the agreement and the resolution, a map of the wetland area, and a copy
of the project summary, are attached.
City of New Hope
Resolution No. 2009- 40
Resolution approving and authorizing execution of
Cost Sharing Agreement
WHEREAS, the City is a member of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, a Minnesota
joint powers watershed management organization created and operating in accordance with
Minn. Stat. § 103B.221, et. sea. (the "Commission "); and
WHEREAS, Wetland No. 639W, is located in the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, and Crystal.
Wetland No. 639W is a major source of phosphorous to North Twin Lake and the restoration
of Wetland No. 639W is the highest priority implementation action in the Twin and Ryan
Lakes Nutrient TMDL Implementation Plan. The Cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park,
Crystal and New Hope are within the sub - watershed of wetland No. 639W; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has secured approval of a $60,000 grant from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency to conduct the required study to identify and evaluate options to reduce or
eliminate phosphorous discharge from Wetland No. 639W (the "Study"); and
WHEREAS, the grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will cover 50% of the cost of the
Study. The Commission will pay $30,000 (25% of the cost of the Study), and the Commission
has requested that the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal and New Hope agree
to pay the remainder of the costs of the Study in accordance with a cost sharing agreement
(the "Cost Sharing Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is reasonable, appropriate, and in the best interests of
the City to participate in the Cost Sharing Agreement for the payment of the cost of the Study.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Minnesota as
follows:
1. The Council approves the Cost Sharing Agreement and authorizes and directs the
mayor and manager to execute the Cost Sharing Agreement.
2. City manager is authorized to take all steps necessary to comply with the Cost Sharing
Agreement in accordance with its terms.
Adopted by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 23rd day of
February, 2009.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
i� / I / 94 ��
_ia ayor
COST SHARING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the ' 3 day of . , 2009, by and between the
cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, New Hope, all Minnesota municipal corporations
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Cities "), and the Shingle Creek Watershed Management
Commission, a Minnesota joint powers organization (the "Commission ").
1. BACKGROTJT�T
1.01. The Commission is a joint powers watershed management organization created and operating in
accordance with Minn. Stat. § 103B.221, et seq
1.02. The Cities are among the members of the Commission.
1.03. Wetland No. 639W, is located in the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Brookl Park, and Crystal.
Wetland No. 639W is a major source of phosphorous to North Twin Lake and the restoration of
Wetland No. 639W is the highest priority implementation action in the Twin and Ryan Lakes
Nutrient TMDL Implementation Plan. The Cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal and
New Hope are within the sub - watershed of'Vetland No. 639W.
1.04. The Commission has secured approval of a 560,000 grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency to conduct the required study to identify and evaluate options to reduce or eliminate
phosphorous discharge from Wetland Nov 639W (the "Study ").
1.05. The grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will cover 50% of the cost of the Study.
The Commission will pay S30,000 (25% of the cost of the Study), and the Cities have agreed to pay
the remainder of the costs of the Study as hereinafter set forth.
2. AGREEA ENT
2.01. The Commission will contract for, undertake and complete the work of the Study in accordance with
the requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency through a contract with its consulting
engineer, Wenck & Associates.
2.02. Upon receipt of invoices for services from Wenck, the Commission will pay such invoices and
invoice the Cities for that part of the Study costs that are not covered by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency grant or the Commission. Such costs shall be invoiced to the Cities in the following
proportions:
Brooklyn Center 33.75%
Brooklyn Park 16.25%
Crystal 33.75%
New Hope 16.25%
2.03. The Cities will pay the Commission within 30 days of receipt of such invoices.
2.04. None of the Cities will be charged more, under this agreement, than the following amounts, without
their prior agreement:
Brooklyn Center
S10,125
Brooklyn Park
S 4,875
Crystal
$ 10,125
New Hope
S 4,875
CADocuments and Settings \kmcdonald \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK29 \Cost_Sharin5z_Aereement _SH220 -12 (2).DOC
2.05. This Agreement may not be amended without the written consent of all parties.
2.06. This Agreement shall be effective on, and shall be dated as of the date it is executed by all parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, by their authorized officers and agents have executed
this Agreement to be effective as of the date first above written.
IN
if
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Tim Willson, Mayor
And hv:
Curt Boganey, City Manager
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
Steve Lampi, Mayor
And hv:
Jamie Verbrugge, City Manager
CITY OF CRYSTAL
ReNae Bowman, 1Vlayor
Anti hv:
Anne Norris, City Manager
CITY OF NEW HOPE
By:
' thi Ikerriken., Mayor
And
Kirk McDonald, City Manager
C :\Documents and Settingslkrncdonald\Local Settings \Temporary Internet Piles \OLK29 \Cost_Sharing_Agreernent _SH220 -12 (2).DOC
Shin n
reek Watershed Management Commission
3235 Fernbrook Lane N • Plymouth, MN 55447
Phone (763) 553 -1144 • Fax (763) 553 -9326
www.shinglecreek.org
January 27, 2009
Mayors and City Managers
City of Brooklyn Center
City of Brooklyn Park
City of Crystal
City of New Hope
RE: Wetland 639W Restoration Feasibility Analysis
City Cost Share Agreement
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter conveys to you for your City Council's consideration a cooperative agreement setting forth the
cost share distribution for the above referenced Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission project.
The Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency on November 9, 2007 identified the sources of excess nutrients to this
chain of lakes, specified how that nutrient loading would need to be reduced to improve water quality in the
lakes to the state water quality standard, and outlined a plan of action to progress toward meeting that
standard. The TMDL and previous studies identified a degraded wetland just upstream of Upper Twin Lake
as a significant source of phosphorus to the lake. This wetland is located on the east side of Crystal Airport;
a portion of this wetland is in "MAC Park," a park and nature preserve that is operated jointly by the cities
of Crystal and Brooklyn Center (see Figure 1 of the attached workplan). The entire wetland is known by its
DNR wetland inventory number, 27 -639W. The restoration of Wetland 639W was identified as a high
priority improvement project in the TMDL and the approved TMDL Implementation Plan.
The Commission successfully competed for and obtained a $60,000 grant from the MPCA/EPA to complete
a feasibility analysis to determine the best and most cost - effective means of reducing phosphorus export
from this wetland. The feasibility analysis will: fill in data gaps about the wetland with additional
specialized monitoring; identify options for this restoration; recommend the most feasible and cost- effective
option; identify and resolve permitting issues; and complete conceptual and preliminary plans and
specifications and cost estimates. The feasibility analysis is necessary not only to move the project forward,
but also to solicit grant funds for the construction phase of the project. The feasibility analysis will be
guided by a Technical Advisory Committee of representatives from the four cities, MAC, and the MPCA as
well as representatives from other interested agencies.
The $60,000 grant is to be matched by local funds. In accordance with the Commission's cost share
policy, the Commission has agreed to contribute 25% or $30,000; the balance of $30,000 is the
responsibility of the benefitting cities, defined as the cities that drain to the wetland. The City of
Brooklyn Park proposed the cost share shown in the attached July 7, 2008 memorandum. The four cities'
staff have agreed that the proposed cost share for the feasibility analysis is generally acceptable at the
staff level. On December 11, 2008 the Commission authorized the preparation of a proposed five -party
Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park • Crystal • Maple Grove • Minneapolis • New Hope • Osseo • Plymouth • Robbinsdale
Mayors and City Managers
January 27, 2009
Cooperative Agreement whereby each city agrees to contribute its share to the Commission for this
feasibility analysis. The agreement and a model resolution are presented to you for your review and City
Council consideration. Please note that this agreement establishes the cost share solely for the feasibility
analysis. The cost share for construction of a future project will be developed through this feasibility
analysis process and then considered by the City Councils as part of a separate cooperative agreement.
Enclosed with this letter is the Wetland 639W Restoration Feasibility Analysis Workplan approved by the
MPCA and EPA that shows the activities included in this project. The Commission has already authorized
completing several of the monitoring activities in 2008, and the Technical Advisory Committee will be
convened within the next two months to begin reviewing the collected data and developing restoration options.
We appreciate your consideration of this agreement. Questions regarding the agreement may be directed
to the Commission's attorney, Mr. Charlie LeFevere, Kennedy & Graven, 612 - 337 -9215. Please submit
one copy of the executed agreement and a certified resolution to the Commission's administrator, Judie
Anderson, 3235 Fernbrook Lane N, Plymouth, MN 55447. Questions regarding the project may be
directed to the Commission's engineer, Mr. Ed Matthiesen, P.E., Wenck Associates, 763 - 479 -4208 or
ematthiesen(a>wenck.com.
Sincerely,
riwa Carstept's
Tina Carstens, Chair
City of Brooklyn Park Commissioner
Cc: Steve Lillehaug, City of Brooklyn Center
Gary Brown, City of Brooklyn Park
Tom Mathisen, City of Crystal
Guy Johnson, City of New Hope
ZAShingle Creek \CIPs \2008 Projects \Wetland 639W \L - cities conveying 639W inter -city agreement.doc
Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park Crystal • Maple Grove • Minneapolis • New Hope • Osseo • Plymouth • Robbinsdale
ATTACHMENT A
1. Grant Project Summary - WETLAND 639W RESTORATION FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Project Title: Wetland 639W Restoration Feasibility Analysis
Organization (Grantee): Shingle Creek Watershed Commission
Project start date: February 1, 2008 Project end date: December 31, 2009
Work plan submittal date: January 18, 2008
Grantee Contact Name: Tina Carstens
Title: Chair, Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
Address /Phone: 3235 Fernbrook Lane
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
763 -553 -1144
Email: iudieAAass.biz
Project Consultant:
Title:
Address /Phone:
E -mail:
Ed Matthiesen
Commission Engineer
Wenck Associates, Inc.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, Minnesota
763 - 479 -4208
ematthiesen(awenck.com
Watershed, Lake or Water Body:Wetland 27 -639W and North Twin Lake 27- 0042 -01
Latitude /Longitude for center of project area: 45° 03'50 "N -93 °20'30 "W
County: Hennepin
Project Funding Type (check one): X 319 Implementation _319 DER
Grant Amount: $ 59,995.75 Proposed Cash Match Funds: $60,062.50
Total Project Costs: $120,058.25
CFMS Grant Agreement Number: B19857
Local Units of Government in the Project Area:
Counties:
1. Hennepin
2.
3.
4.
Townships:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cities:
1. Crystal
2. Brooklyn
Center
3. Brooklyn
Park
4.
Agencies:
1. Metropolitan
Airports
Commission
2.
3.
4.
Organizations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Other:
1.
2.
3.
4.
State Senate Districts: 45, 46
State House Districts: 45B, 46B
2. Statement of Problems and Existing Conditions
This project is a feasibility study and design for the restoration of Wetland 27 -639W, which is a major
external phosphorus source to Impaired Water 27- 0042 -01, North Twin Lake. This wetland
restoration is the highest- priority implementation action in the Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL
Implementation Plan. Water quality sampling shows that average total phosphorus load doubles
between the inlet and outlet of this flow - through wetland. Wetland 639W contributes an estimated
730 pounds of total phosphorus per year into North Twin Lake. This load is one of the largest sources
of total phosphorus to North Twin. This wetland was identified as a phosphorus source to the Twin
Lake chain in diagnostic work completed in 1999 and 2003, and again in the TMDL completed in
2007.
The wetland is located in the Shingle Creek watershed, and is just to the east of the Crystal Airport,
between 63 Avenue North and 57 Avenue North (see Figure 1). The wetland is located in the cities
of Crystal, Brooklyn Park, and Brooklyn Center.
3. Work Plan
GOAL Identify and evaluate options to reduce or eliminate phosphorus discharge from Wetland 27-
639W, select the most feasible design, and prepare construction plans and specifications for future
construction of the selected design.
OBJECTIVE 1 SCREEN OPTIONS
Task 1.1 Develop Alternate Design Concepts
The first task will be to develop and screen design concepts for feasibility, permittability, and
effectiveness. The three general design options that will be evaluated include: high or low flow
bypass; ecological restoration; and chemical treatment of the outflow. It is likely that the final design
will be some combination of these alternatives.
2 Project # 2038
Z: \Shingle Creek \CIPs \2008 Projects \Wetland 639W\080821 Wetland 639W Contract A_Work Plan_FINAL.doc
CFMS Grant Agreement Number: B 1985 7
Schedule: September 1, 2008 —November 30, 2008
Task 1.2 Meet with TAC to discuss design options
The preliminary design options will be screened by the Technical Advisory Committee for this project.
Likely stakeholders for the TAC include the MPCA, Minnesota DNR, Board of Water and Soil
Resources, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, New Hope, Crystal,
Robbinsdale, and the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (Commission). At this
meeting the stakeholders will identify which design options are acceptable and which are not
acceptable.
Schedule: September 1, 2008 — November 30, 2008
Objective l: Estimated Cost: MPCA Grant Funds: $7,048.25 Match: $0 Total: $7,048.25
OBJECTIVE 2 UPDATE HYDRAULIC AND HYDROLOGIC MODELS
Task 2.1 Prepare QAPP and MPCA reports
Because additional monitoring would be conducted, a Quality Assurance Project Plan will be
necessary to assure that quality control procedures are established and carried out. The Commission
will provide a monitoring plan and its monitoring Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to the MPCA
and the MPCA will develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) prior to the 2008 monitoring
season. In addition, two semi - annual progress reports will be prepared for MPCA each year due
February 1 st and August 1 st that include an update on work plan tasks and expenditures. Also, a final
progress report using the MPCA CWP /319 /TMDL Final Report format will be submitted
electronically to MPCA.
Schedule: February 1, 2008 — November 30, 2009
Task 2.2 Channel Flow and Water Quality Monitoring
A previous study obtained one year of flow and water quality data for the inlet, mid point, and outlet of
the wetland. An additional years' data will provide for a better rating curve at the outlet and more
flow and water quality data to better understand the dynamics of this flow - through wetland.
Bimonthly grab samples and at least one storm event taken at each location over the course of the 2008
monitoring season will be analyzed for TP, DP, OP, TSS, and VSS. Water quality data will be
submitted annually on November I st to MPCA in a format compatible with STORET.
Schedule: May 1, 2008 —November 15, 2008
Task 2.3 Groundwater Well Level Monitoring
To understand the hydrology and geochemistry of this wetland system, it is essential to understand the
dynamics of the groundwater contribution to the system. No groundwater data is currently available.
3 Project 4 2038
Z: \Shingle Creek \CIPs \2008 Projects \Wetland 639W\080821 Wetland 639W Contract A Work Plan_FINAL.doc
CFMS Grant Agreement Number: B19857
For this task, six shallow groundwater wells would be drilled and groundwater levels monitored during
the 2008 monitoring season.
Schedule: May 1, 2008 — November 15, 2008
Task 2.4 Obtain Cross Sections and Spot Elevation Data
This task is field survey work to obtain channel cross sections and key spot elevations and locations
throughout the wetland. Two -foot contour interval topological data is available for a part of the
subwatershed draining to the wetland. This data will be supplemented with field survey data as
necessary to refine subwatershed boundaries and flow paths.
Schedule: September 1, 2008 — December 31, 2008
Task 2.5 SWMMM Modeling
Data collected under this objective will be used to model the hydraulics and hydrology of the wetland.
To speed processing and analysis, the existing SWMM model will be updated with the new
information and stand -alone model of the wetland will be built, with inputs provided by the
Commission's SWMM model. Several flow and precipitation scenarios will be run to model the
bounce and inundation period of the wetland under various conditions. The goal of the SWMM
modeling and the H/H analysis in Task 2.6 below is to identify whether pollutant export takes place
under high flow, low flow, or all flow conditions, and how hydraulic and hydrologic modifications
such as partial flow bypass would impact the wetland's hydrology.
Schedule: November 1, 2008 — March 31, 2009
Task 2.6 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis
Activities under this task include preparing a water budget for the wetland system; developing an
accurate rating curve for the wetland outlet; hydrograph separation to better understand the flow -
through dynamics; and developing pollutographs to better understand the conditions under which
phosphorus export occurs.
Schedule: November 1, 2008 — March 31, 2009
Task 2.7 Meet with the TAC to Review Hydrologic and Hydraulic Data
The collected data and the SWMMM model will be discussed with the Technical Advisory Committee
at one meeting. Additionally, because the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission's capital projects
cost share policy requires contributing and benefitting cities to share in the cost of constructing a
project, at this time the TAC will begin to discuss how to identify and quantify "contributing" and
"benefitting."
Schedule: November 1, 2008 — February 1, 2009
Objective 2: Estimated Cost: Grant Funds: $17,450.00 Match: $27,138.50 Total: $44,588.50
4 Project # 2038
Z: \Shingle Creek \CIPs \2008 Projects \Wetland 639W \080821 Wetland 639W Contract A_Work Plan_FINAL.doc
CFMS Grant Agreement Number: B 19857
OBJECTIVE 3 BIOGEOCHEMISTRY AND ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Task 3.1 Analyze soil cores
There are three major mechanisms controlling phosphorus retention in wetlands, including soil
adsorption; uptake and long -term storage in poorly degraded peat mass or peat accretion; and short-
term uptake by microbial organisms and algae. To evaluate the potential for long term storage of
phosphorus in the wetland, the adsorption capacity and phosphorus pools must be identified in the
soils. This task provides for the analysis of soil cores from the wetland. Six cores will be collected as
part of the groundwater well drilling performed under Task 2.3. The soil will be analyzed for
phosphorus binding sites and current pools of phosphorus. Three sections of each of the cores will be
analyzed by sequential phosphorus extraction, and bulk density will be assessed.
Schedule: May 1, 2008 — December 31, 2008
Task 3.2 Perform Wetland Delineation and Biotic Assessment
This task includes an analysis of the current biotic conditions within Wetland 639W. A wetland
delineation will be performed to establish the boundaries of Wetland 639W and any other wetlands in
the project limits. A functions and values assessment using the latest version of MnRAM will be
performed, as well as a floristic assessment to determine existing species quality and richness.
Macroinvertebrates will be collected at three to five locations to add to information about pre -
restoration biotic integrity. These assessments would be repeated following future restoration to
evaluate the impact of restoration activities on biotic integrity.
Schedule: September 1, 2008 — October 31, 2008
Task 3.3 Meet with TAC to Review Ecological Data
The collected chemical and ecological data and the findings will be discussed with the Technical
Advisory Committee. The TAC will continue to discuss cost sharing and other elements of the
cooperative agreement that will be necessary to construct the project.
Schedule: February 1, 2009 — April 1, 2009
Obiective 3 : Estimated Cost: Grant Funds: $6,751.50 Match: $5,260.00 Total: $12,011.50
OBJECTIVE 4 IDENTIFY AND REVIEW DESIGN OPTIONS
Task 4.1 Identify Design Options
Based on previous study, it is likely that the most feasible solution to reducing or eliminating
phosphorus discharge from this wetland will be modification of the hydraulic characteristics of the
wetland and the channel that flows through it, supplemented by active treatment methods. The final
design likely will be a combination of concepts previously identified: 1) partial diversion of flow
around the wetland; 2) dechannelization and increased storage within the wetland; and 3) a temporary
5 Project # 2038
Z: \Shingle Creek \CIPs \2008 Projects \Wetland 639W \080821 Wetland 639W Contract A_Work Plan_FINAL.doc
CFMS Grant Agreement Number: B 19857
or permanent alum /ferric chloride treatment system. This will not only reduce phosphorus and
sediment loading, but will also decrease flooding that has occurred in the past on adjacent properties.
Construction of this project would restore the natural hydrology of the wetland while providing a long-
term solution to water quality and flooding issues.
Schedule: December 1, 2008 — April 1, 2009
Task 4.2 Meet with TAC to Discuss Design Options
The TAC will meet to review the design options and select a preliminary design. Cost sharing and
other elements of the cooperative agreement will be finalized.
Schedule: April 1, 2009 — June 1, 2009
Task 4.3 Public Meeting to Obtain Public Input
The design options and TAC recommendation will be reviewed at a public meeting to obtain public
review and input. Residents adjacent to the wetland as well as the general public will be invited to
attend and provide observations and input. Preliminary design information will also be posted on the
Commission's website for public review and comment.
Schedule: April 1, 2009 — June 1, 2009
Obiective 4 : Estimated Cost: Grant Funds: $23,481.50 Match: $0 Total: $23,481.50
OBJECTIVE 5 PERMITTING AND EASEMENTS
Task 5.1 Meet with DNR, BWSR, and TEP on Potential Wetland Impacts
This task includes initial discussions with DNR and BWSR representatives, and an on -site meeting
with permitting staff and Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) members to review the wetland
delineation, permitting issues and potential wetland impacts.
Schedule: October 1, 2008 — November 1, 2008
Task 5.2 Obtain Necessary Permits
Following discussions with agency representatives, this task is the preparation and submittal of
necessary permits identified in those discussions. Permits may include DNR and Corps of Engineers
permits as well as review and approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission, cities, and
MPCA.
Schedule: November 1, 2008 — April 1, 2009
Task 5.3 Prepare Wetland Mitigation Plan
Project # 2038
Z: \Shingle Creek \CIPs \2008 Projects \Wetland 639W \080821 Wetland 639W Contract Attachment A_Work Plan_FINAL.doc
CFMS Grant Agreement Number: B19857
If the permitting agencies and TEP find that wetland impacts will occur, then a wetland mitigation plan
will be necessary. This plan would identify and quantify those impacts, and explain how the proposed
restoration project would include provisions to mitigate those impacts. For example, if proposed
wetland fill was not exempt from Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) mitigation and the volume
would exceed the de minimis volume, then the restoration project would include a provision to create
new wetland areas at a multiplier required by the TEP.
Schedule: November 1, 2008 — April 1, 2009
Task 5.4 Identify Necessary Easements for City Acquisition
While the restoration project is expected to be confined to publicly -owned land, it may be necessary to
obtain easements from adjacent property owners, including the Metropolitan Airports Commission, to
place structures such as bypass channels or pipes across land not owned or controlled by any of the
cities with land in the project area. This task would identify the extent of any necessary easements,
and provide legal descriptions for city use in acquiring those easements.
Schedule: November 1, 2008 — April 1, 2009
Obiective 5 : Estimated Cost: Grant Funds: $3,047.25 Match: $0 Total: $3,047.25
OBJECTIVE 6 PREPARE PRELIMINARY PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Task 6.1 Meet with TAC to Select Design
Following the public meeting and on completion of the above analysis, the TAC will make a
recommendation to the Commission as to the design that is most feasible and cost effective at
achieving the goal of eliminating phosphorus export from Wetland 639W.
Schedule: April 1, 2009 — May 1, 2009
Task 6.2 Prepare Feasibility Report
This report will identify the design options considered, document the data and process used to evaluate
those options, present and describe the design option recommended by the TAC, and present an
Engineer's Estimate of the cost of constructing the project. The Feasibility Report will be presented to
the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. If accepted, the Commission will call for a
public hearing to consider and order the project.
Schedule: January 1, 2009 — June 1, 2009
Task 6.3 Prepare Preliminary Construction Specifications
Following a public hearing, an order to construct the project, and execution of the cooperative
agreement between the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and the participating cities, preliminary
7 Project # 2038
Z: \Shingle Creek \CIPs \2008 Projects\Wetland 639W \080821 Wetland 639W Contract A_Work Plan_FINAL.doc
CFMS Grant Agreement Number: B19857
construction specifications will be prepared for potential winter 2009 -10 bidding and construction. If
weather conditions are not favorable, then the project would be constructed in winter 2010 -2011.
Schedule: August 1, 2009 — November 30, 2009
Task 6.4 Prepare Preliminary Construction Plans
Following a public hearing, an order to construct the project, and execution of the cooperative
agreement between the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and the participating cities, construction
plans will be prepared for potential winter 2009 -10 bidding and construction. If weather conditions
are not favorable, then the project would be constructed in winter 2010 -2011.
Schedule: August 1, 2009 — November 30, 2009
Obiective 6 : Estimated Cost: Grant Funds: $2,217.25 Match: $27,664.00 Total: $29,881.25
4. Gantt Chart - See Attachment C
5. Evaluation Plan
This project is the preparation of a feasibility study and construction documents for the future
construction of a wetland restoration project. This project will be successful if it results in the
identification of a feasible design to reduce or eliminate phosphorus export from Wetland 27 -639W.
Evaluation of the success of that design in reducing phosphorus export would be conducted as part of a
future construction project, evaluating post- construction water quality data to the pre- construction data
acquired here and in previous study.
6. Implementation Monitoring (319 Projects Only)
This project is the development of a feasibility report and construction documents for the future
construction of a restoration project for Wetland 639W. Implementation monitoring will be conducted
as a part of future implementation of the recommended project. The feasibility report will include a
recommended monitoring program for evaluating the outcome of that future construction.
7. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (319 Projects Only)
This project includes a work task to develop a QAPP guiding the surface and groundwater flow, level,
and quality data collected as part of this project.
8. Project Budget and Expenditure Report - See Attachment D
8 Project # 2038
Z: \Shingle Creek \CIPs \2008 Projects \Wetland 639W \080821 Wetland 639W Contract A_Work Plan_FINAL.doc
CFMS Grant Agreement Number: B 19857
9. Project Support Summary
Project Name: Wetland 639W Restoration Feasibility Analysis
6.4.1 Project Support Summary: Please complete the following section for all the sources of match money
and in -kind contributions for your project. The match requirement is at least 50 % of the total project
costs.
Cash Contribution In -kind Total Protect
1.4.2 Project Sponsors To Project (2) Contribution Support (2 +3)
(Attach additional sheets if necessary) To Project
319 Grant amount requested $59,995.75
Clean Water Partnership Loan (for 319
A. Project Sponsor - subtotals $59,995.75 $0.00 $59,995.75
Local Contributing Sponsors:
1. Shingle Creek Watershed $30,000.00 $30,000.00
2. Member Cities $30,062.50 $30,062.50
3 $ 0.00
4 $ 0.00
B. Local Contributing Sponsors subtotals $60,062.50 0 $60,062.50
State and /or Federal Contributing
Sponsors:
5 $ 0.00
6 $ 0.00
7 $ 0.00
8 $ 0.00
9 $ 0.00
C. State and /or Federal Contributing 1 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Sponsors Subtotals: (cannot be more that
20% of the total project costs)
SUBTOTAL: All project sponsors $120,058.25 $ 0.00 $120,058.25
Total Cash Total In -kind 1 Total Project Cost
GRAND TOTALS 1 $120,058.25 $ 0.00 $120,058.25
9 Project # 2038
Z: \Shingle Creek \C]Ps \2008 Projects \Wetland 639W \080821 Wetland 639W Contract A_Work Plan_FINAL.doc
CFMS Grant Agreement Number: B19857
10 Project # 2038
Z: \Shingle Creek \CiPs \2008 Projects\Wetland 639W 080821 Wetland 639W Contract A Work Plan_FINAL.doc
February 27, 2009
Ms. Judie Anderson
3235 Fernbrook Lane N.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Subject: Cost Sharing Agreement
Enclosed please find:
Resolution No. 2009 -40 approving a cooperative agreement for a Wetland 639W
restoration feasibility analysis study
Cost Sharing Agreement (executed by New Hope officials)
Please direct any questions to Guy Johnson, director of public works, at 763 -592 -6766.
Sincerely,
Valerie Leone, CMC
City Cleric
Enc.
cc: Guy Johnson
4401 Xylon Avenue North ® New Hope, Minnesota 55428 -4898 e www. ci.new- hope.mn.us
City Hall: 763- 531 -5100 . Police (non - emergency): 763- 531 -5170 ® Public Works: 763- 592 -6777 e TDD: 763- 531 -5109
City Hall Fax: 763- 531 -5136 ® Police Fax: 763- 531 -5174 ® Public Works Fax: 763- 592 -6776
COUNCIL
Request for Action
Originating Department
Approved for Agenda
Agenda Section
Public Works
November 22, 2010
Consent
Item No.
By: Guy Johnson, Director
By: Kirk Mc Donald, City Manager
6.7
Resolution approving a cooperative agreement for a Twin Lake wetland 639W improvement project
(improvement project no. 865)
Requested Action
Staff is recommending that the Council pass a resolution approving a cooperative agreement that sets forth
the cost sharing distribution for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission's (SCWMC) Twin Lake
wetland 639W improvement project.
Background
The SCWMC is taking the lead and will be coordinating the mandated total maximum daily load (TMDL)
projects in the Shingle Creek watershed. The TMDL study for Twin and Ryan lakes has been approved by the
federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Best management practices (BMPs) are identified in the
approved TMDL implementation plan.
The Twin and Ryan lake TMDL study has identified sources of excess nutrients in the lakes. As part of the
TMDL, the restoration of wetland 639W was identified as a high priority BMP because of the amount of
phosphorus it contributes to the lakes. The city approved a cooperative agreement with the Commission in
February of 2009 to participate in a restoration feasibility analysis study of the wetlands. The restoration
feasibility analysis study was used to help determine the most efficient means of reducing the phosphorus
entering the lakes from the wetland. This Twin Lake wetland 639W improvement project is a product of the
feasibility analysis.
The cost sharing agreement is between the Commission and the cities of New Hope, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn
Center, Robbinsdale, and Crystal. All five cities contribute storm water runoff to the wetland. The city of
Crystal designed the project and will be coordinating construction of the improvements.
MOTION , SECOND BY
f
BY
L
1:NrH\ru0worKS\ZU1 U I win Lake VVetland 639W Improvement Project Cooperative Agreement
Request for Action
November 22, 2010
Page 2
Funding
The estimated cost for the project is $550,000. The Commission has received a grant from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in the amount of $300,000, and the Commission is also contributing an
additional $142,500. A portion of the $300,000 will be used for monitoring and reporting by the Commission
to the MPCA. The five cities are responsible for an estimated $127,500. The city's portion of the $127,500 is an
estimated $6,800 and will be funded through the city's storm water fund.
Attachments
A copy of the resolution and agreement, copies of the agreement's attachments, and a map of the wetland
area are attached.
City of New Hope
Resolution No. 10 - 160
Resolution approving a cooperative agreement for
Twin Lake wetland 639W improvement project
WHEREAS, the city is a member of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, a Minnesota
joint powers watershed management organization created and operating in accordance with
Minn. Stat. § 103B.221, et. seq. (the "Commission "); and,
WHEREAS, Wetland No. 639W, is located in the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, and Crystal.
Wetland No. 639W is a major source of phosphorous to north Twin Lake and the
restoration of wetland No. 639W is the highest priority implementation action in the Twin
and Ryan lakes Nutrient TMDL Implementation Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission has secured approval of a $300,000 grant from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency to construct an improvement project for wetland No. 639W; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission will pay an estimated $142,500 (up to 25% of actual costs), and the
Commission has requested that the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal,
Robbinsdale, and New Hope agree to pay a portion of the project costs in accordance with
a cost sharing agreement (the "Cooperative Agreement "); and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is reasonable, appropriate, and in the best interest
of the city to participate in the Cooperative Agreement for payment of the cost of the
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Minnesota:
1. The Council approves the Cooperative Agreement and authorizes and directs the mayor
and city manager to execute the Cooperative Agreement.
2. The city manager is authorized to take all steps necessary to comply with the
Cooperative Agreement in accordance with its terms.
Adopted by the City Council of the city of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 22nd day of
November, 2010.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
November 29, 2010
Ms. Judie Anderson
3235 Fernbrook Lane N.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Judie:
At its meeting of November 22, 2010, the New Hope City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-
160 approving a cooperative agreement for Twin Lake wetland 639W improvement project. I
understand the Commission approved the project at its October meeting.
Enclosed is the agreement signed by New Hope officials.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Valerie Leone, CMC
City Clerk
Enc.
cc: Guy Johnson, Director of Public Works
•`
4401 Xylon Avenue North + New Hope, Minnesota 55428 -4898 a www. ci.new- hope.mn.us
City Hall: 763 - 531 -5100 + Police (non - emergency): 763- 531 -5170 Public Works: 763- 592 -6777 ® TDD: 763- 531 -5109
City Hall Fax: 763 -531 -5136 ® Police Fax: 763 -531 -5174 + Public Works Fax: 763- 592 -6776
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FOR
TWIN LAKE WETLAND 639W IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
This Agreement is made as of this _ day of 2010, by and among the Shingle
Creek Watershed Management Commission, a joint powers watershed management organization (hereinafter
the "Commission "), the City of Crystal, Minnesota (hereinafter "Crystal "), and the Cities of Brooklyn Center,
Brooklyn Park, New Hope and Robbinsdale, all of which are Minnesota municipal corporations (hereinafter
the "Contributing Cities ").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Commission adopted the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Second Generation
Watershed Management Plan as amended on September 8, 2005, May 10, 2007, September 11, 2008,
September 10, 2009 and September 9, 2010 (the "Plan "), a watershed management plan within the meaning
of Minn. Stat., § 10313.231; and
WHEREAS, the Plan includes a capital improvement program ( "CIP ") that lists a number of water
quality project capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, the water quality projects identified in the CIP include the Twin Lake Wetland 639W
Improvement Project more fully described in Attachment One to this Agreement, which is hereby made a
part hereof (the "Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Plan specifies that projects in the CIP will be partially funded by a County tax levy
under Minn. Stat., § 10313.251; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has entered into a grant contract with the State of Minnesota effective
as of June 2, 2010 (the "Grant Contract "), a copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment Two, and hereby
made a part hereof, and
WHEREAS, the Grant Contract provides that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency of the State of
Minnesota, shall grant to the Commission a sum not to exceed Three Hundred Thousand and No /100 Dollars
($300,000.00), which funds shall be used to perform the duties and tasks specified in the Grant Contract; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2010, the Commission adopted a resolution ordering the Project,
directing that it be constructed by Crystal and that the Commission's share of the Project costs be certified to
Hennepin County for payment in accordance with Minn. Stat., § 10313.251; and
WHEREAS, it is expected that Hennepin County will levy taxes throughout the watershed for the
Project, for collection and settlement in 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Commission and Crystal have agreed for the City as Sub- grantee to assume certain
of the duties and responsibilities of Grantee under the Grant Contract in consideration of receiving a portion
of the funds provided for in the Grant Contract and subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth
therein; and
WHEREAS, the Contributing Cities have agreed to contribute to the Project on the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth; and
forth.
WHEREAS, Crystal is willing to construct the Project on the terms and conditions hereinafter set
NOW, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE PREMISES AND MUTUAL COVENANTS
AND AGREEMENTS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
The Project will consist of improvements in the City of Crystal as more fully described on
Attachment One.
Crystal will design the Project and prepare plans and specifications for construction of the
Project. Plans and specifications are subject to approval by the Commission's consulting
engineer, and the City Engineers of each of the Contributing Cities.
Crystal will advertise for bids and award contracts in accordance with the requirements of law.
Crystal will not award contracts if the amount bid by the lowest responsible bidder, together
with other reasonable and necessary project costs customarily included in the cost of public
improvements (including but not limited to engineering costs and a reasonable allowance for
contingencies) (hereinafter referred to as the "Total Estimated Project Cost ") exceeds
$570,000, without the prior approval of the City Councils of the Contributing Cities. Crystal
will award the contract and supervise and administer the construction of the Project to assure
that it is completed in accordance with plans and specifications. Crystal will require the
contractor to provide all payment and performance bonds required by law. Crystal will require
that the Commission and the Contributing Cities be named as additional insured on all liability
policies required by Crystal of the contractor. Crystal will require that the contractor defend,
indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Commission, Crystal and the Contributing Cities,
their agents, officers, and employees, from all claims or actions arising from performance of
the work of the Project conducted by the contractor. Crystal will supervise the work of the
contractor. However, the Commission may observe and review the work of the Project until it
is completed. Crystal will not approve any change order that will result in a Total Estimated
Project Cost in excess of $570,000 without the prior approval of the City Councils of the
Contributing Cities.
4. Crystal will pay the contractor and all other expenses related to the construction of the Project
and keep and maintain complete records of such costs incurred.
Upon award of a contract for construction of the Project, Crystal will invoice, and each of the
Contributing Cities will promptly pay to Crystal, an amount determined as follows:
The Total Estimated Project Cost minus $282,681 (the portion of grant proceeds from
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that apply to construction of the Project
rather than monitoring and reporting that will be undertaken by the Commission)
minus the amount estimated by the Commission to be received from settlement of the
tax levy described in paragraph 5 is the "Projected Net Project Cost". Crystal and each
Contributing City will pay to Crystal an initial payment, which will be invoiced by
Crystal, equal to the following percentage of the Projected Net Project Cost:
Brooklyn Center
23%
(estimated to be $29,325)
Brooklyn Park
39 -1/3%
(estimated to be $50,150)
Crystal
31%
(estimated to be $39,525)
New Hope
5 -1/3%
(estimated to be $ 6,800)
Robbinsdale
1 -1/3%
(estimated to be $ 1,700)
2
After all project costs, all income from the grants received under the Grant Contract and all
funds received or to be received from the Commission are finally determined, Crystal will
disburse to the Contributing Cities and Crystal any funds remaining, prorated on the basis of
the percentages of contribution in this paragraph 4. If funds paid by Crystal and the
Contributing Cities, the Pollution Control Agency under the Grant Contract and the
Commission are not sufficient to cover projects costs, Crystal will invoice itself and the
Contributing Cities for the deficiency prorated on the basis of the percentages in this
paragraph 4, which invoice each of the Contributing Cities will promptly pay.
5. The Commission will use its best efforts to secure payment from the County in accordance
with Minn. Stat., § 10313.251 in the amount of One Hundred Forty-Two Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($142,500). It is understood that tax settlement from the County is not
expected to occur until 2011.
Out -of- pocket costs related to the Project, incurred and paid by the Commission for publication
of notices, securing County tax levy, preparation of contracts, review of proposed contract
documents and administration of this contract shall be repaid from funds received in the tax
settlement from Hennepin County. Amounts received from the County, up to $142,500, less
reimbursement to the Commission of such expenses, are available for reimbursement to Crystal
for costs incurred by Crystal in the design and construction of the Project. Reimbursement to
Crystal will be made on completion of the project and submittal of as- builts. Reimbursement
to Crystal will be made as soon as funds are available provided a request for payment has been
received from Crystal providing such detailed information as may be requested by the
Commission to substantiate costs and expenses.
Reimbursement to Crystal from the Commission will not exceed the amount received from the
County, up to $142,500, for the Project less any amounts retained by the Commission for
Commission expenses. All costs of the Project incurred by Crystal in excess of such
reimbursement, including all costs incurred in excess of estimated project costs due to
unforeseen conditions or any other cause, shall be borne by Crystal and the Contributing Cities
or secured by Crystal from other sources.
7. Crystal as Sub - grantee will perform and satisfy certain obligations of Grantee under the Grant
Contract. Specifically, but without limiting the foregoing, Sub - grantee will perform all of the
following:
(a) Sub - grantee will perform Tasks 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1 as described in Attachment A of the
Grant Contract and comply with all requirements of the Grant Contract relating to
performance of Tasks 1. 1, 1.2 and 2.1 except any obligations that, by their nature, can
only be performed by Grantee or others. Grantee will perform Tasks 3.1 and 3.2 of the
Grant Contract and will comply with all requirements of the Grant Contract related to
Tasks 3.1 and 3.2.
(b) Sub - grantee will be reimbursed for costs incurred in performing its obligations under
paragraph 7.(a) above, up to a maximum total amount of $282,681. All additional costs
incurred by Sub- grantee in the performance of this Agreement will be borne by Sub -
grantee or secured by Sub - grantee from the Contributing Cities and other sources.
Reimbursement is subject to compliance by Sub - grantee with requirements and
conditions of the Grant Contract.
3
(c) The times of performance and expiration of the Grant Contract shall be as provided in
the Grant Contract.
(d) Sub -grantee will provide invoices for reimbursement in accordance with the
requirements of Paragraphs II and III of the Grant Contract. Reimbursement will be
forwarded to Sub - grantee when received by Grantee.
(e) Sub -grantee will comply with all provisions specified in Paragraphs XN through XXI
of the Grant Contract and the provisions of Appendix B of the Grant Contract.
(f) Reimbursement to Sub -grantee will be subject to, among other conditions, those
specified in Paragraph 111.13 of the Grant Contract.
(g) Grantee and Sub -grantee will each be subject to the liability and indemnity provisions of
Paragraph XIIT of the Grant Contract with respect to claims arising out of performance
of their respective obligations under the Grant Contract and this Agreement.
Crystal's books, records, documents, and accounting procedures related to the Project are
subject to examination by the Commission and the Contributing Cities.
9. Crystal will secure all necessary local, state, or federal permits required for the construction of
the Project.
10. The project will be constructed on land owned or easements held by Crystal or on land owned
by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and leased to Crystal.
11. Crystal will have ownership of the associated improvements, and will maintain them in good
operating condition in perpetuity or until such time as they are replaced with like
improvements.
12. Crystal will defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the Commission and the
Contributing Cities and its agents, officers, and employees, from any claims arising out of the
design, construction, or maintenance of the Project, including environmental claims. Nothing
herein shall be deemed a waiver of the limitations of liability in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
466.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly
authorized officers on behalf of the parties as of the day and date first above written.
SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
By: 14;
Its Chair
And b
Its Secretary
CITY OF CRYSTAL
By:
Its Mayor
And by:
Its Manager
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
By:
Its Mayor
And by:
Its Manager
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
By:
Its Mayor
And by:
Its Manager
CIT
By:
And
CITY OF ROBBINSDALE
By:
Its Mayor
And by:
Its Manager
ZAShingle Creek \CIPs \2010 Projects \639W Construction \A -Twin Lake Wetland Cooperative Agt SH220 -12 - 374809v3.DOC
5
Its Manager
ATTACHMENT ONE
Twin Lake Wetland 639W Improvement Project
Feasibility Summary
The proposed project is the modification of the outlet of Wetland 27 -0639W to reduce phosphorus
export from the wetland to Upper Twin Lake, an Impaired Water that exceeds the state standard for total
phosphorus concentration. The proposed modification consists of the construction of a sheet pile weir
just upstream of the outlet to increase storage in the wetland, and the construction of an upstream outlet
structure and high flow overflow channel. Wetland 639W is shown in Figure 1.
Modifying the outlet to limit outflow from the wetland will help the wetland stay as wet as possible,
reducing the periods of soil dryness that lead to soil mineralization and export of friable material. This
will be accomplished through the construction of a sheet pile weir along the "bottom" of the wetland.
This weir will be set at elevation 856.0, approximately two feet above the ground elevation. Figure 2
shows a schematic drawing of the proposed modified outlet. A new outlet set at elevation 855.5 will be
constructed at a point upstream of the central wetland basin. This outlet will discharge into a new open
channel that will be constructed along the edge of the wetland and into an existing Swale downstream of
the sheet pile weir. Figure 3 shows the general location of the new channel.
Water will be stored in the wetland until the elevation exceeds 855.5, at which point the upper outlet will
begin to discharge into the channel. Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling indicate that channel discharge
and storage in the wetland between
Precipitation Evapotranspiration
elevations 855.5 and 856.0 can
accommodate up to a 1.5 inch event.
1
When the basin is full (i.e., at
I
v 3
elevation 855.5), events smaller than
US OverfPow
DS Weir
1.5 inches will be retained in the
weir At 855,5
At 856.0
wetland. Larger events will be
T
discharged both through the channel
the top of the sheet
Channel
2_T
and over pile
weir.
Figure 2. Conceptual cross section of
proposed sheet pile weir and new
outlet.
Groundwater
Wetland 639W
Wetland storage
Storage: 1.5" event
Conceptual Model
0
Municipal Boundary 500 250 0 500 Feet
Wetland 639W + 19
LAl240\1240- 01\mxd \wetland 639W
Sluirgle Creek NX-atershed Majtagemerit Commission � Wen J.�N 2t ?Ub
4
Wetla fl Vh�nckAssociates, Inc- 1800 Pioneer Creek Center
VV tj I�T 1
t ��d 639W Environmental Engineers Maple Plain, MN 55359 -0429
7
i
CONSTRUCT CHANNEL
INLET WEIR
(SEE SHEET C -102)
I
1l �'
\
t
EXMATE APPROX. 75V CHANNEL
! \ (I N& LOCA71ON TO AVOID SELECTED
f l TREE'S)
TRAIL O
I ' PROJECT LUtTS -
(� OF CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCT APPROX. 455"
CONTROL STRUCTURE
\ (SEE SHEET C -104)
ty l j t
1 ws APPROX LIMITS
OF — ---^- —
EXISTING
BOARDWALK
CHANNEL AND CONSTRUCT APPROX. 335'.
TRAIL CROSSING RAISED TRAIL
(SEE SHEET C -103) - (SEE SHEET C -105)
Figure 3. Proposed Wetland 639W outlet modification.
Performance and Cost
Previous study and the Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL estimated that Wetland 639W exports between
600 -800 pounds of total phosphorus annually, depending on the amount of precipitation received. The goal of
this project is to reduce phosphorus export by an average 300 pounds per year. This would accomplish a
significant fraction of the approximately 750 pound annual total phosphorus wasteload reduction required to
Upper Twin Lake. Because Middle Twin is connected to Upper Twin through a short channel, improving
Upper Twin will have a beneficial effect on Middle Twin. It is estimated that the project could remove up to
500 pounds of phosphorus export in an average year.
The following is a summary of the estimated costs and funding sources for this project. The MPCA Section
319 construction grant extends through August 29, 2014. The benefitting cities include Brooklyn Center,
Brooklyn Park, Crystal, and New Hope. Because the project is located mostly in Crystal, Crystal will be the
lead agency and manage the construction project.
Costs
Construction $410,000
Contingency 85,000
Final Design and Construction Engineering 50,000
Followup Monitoring and Reporting 25,000
Total $570,000
Funding
MPCA Section 319 Grant $300,000
Shingle Creek WMC 142,500
Cities 127,500
Total $570,000
3748090 CLL SH220 -12 8