HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 09-24 EDAP EDA MEETING
City of Brooklyn Center
September 24, 2007 AGENDA
1. Call to Order
—The EDA requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A
copy of the full City Council packet, including EDA (Economic Development Authority), is
available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council
Chambers by the Secretary.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
—The following items are considered to be routine by the Economic Development Authority
(EDA) and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Commissioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the
consent agenda and considered at the end of Commission Consideration Items.
a. Approval of Minutes
1. August 13, 2007 Regular Session
4. Commission Consideration Items
a. Resolution Approving Dissolving Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 and
Returning Excess Tax Increments to Other Taxing Jurisdictions
•Requested Commission Action:
—Motion to adopt resolution.
5. Adjournment
E.
'h
s
,r
....e �:r .t_
o-: :i
'r....
.x.
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIT�
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
AUGUST 13, 2007
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Regular Session called to
order by President Tim Willson at 8:06 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
President Tim Willson and Commissioners Kay Lasman, Mary O'Connor, Dan Ryan, and Mark
Yelich. Also present were Executive Director/City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works
Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, City
Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Lasman moved and Commissioner Ryan seconded approval of the Agenda and
Consent Agenda, and the following item was approved:
3a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. July 23, 2007 Regular Session
Motion passed unanimously.
4. COMMISSION CONSIDERATION ITEMS
4a. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-14 ELECTING SECRETARY FOR THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN
CENTER
Executive Director/City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and
stated the purpose of the proposed resolution.
Commissioner Lasman moved and Commissioner O'Connor seconded adoption of
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-14 Electing Secretary for the Economic Development Authority in
and for the City of Brooklyn Center.
Motion passed unanimously.
08/13/07 -1- DRAFT
4b. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-15 APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
BROOKLYN CENTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
TETRA TECH EM, INC. REGARDING WORK TO BE PERFORMED
PURSUANT TO HENNEPIN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUND
GRANT AGREEMENT CONTRACT NO. A070885
Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed
resolution.
Commissioner Lasman moved and Commissioner Yelich seconded adoption of RESOLUTION
NO. 2007-15 Approving Agreement Between the Brooklyn Center Economic Development
Authority and Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Regarding Work to be Performed Pursuant to Hennepin County
Environmental Response Fund Grant Agreement Contract No. A070885.
Motion passed unanimously.
4c. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-16 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
WRITE OFF UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed
resolution.
There was discussion regarding prepayment and deposits to help prevent unpaid balances.
Commissioner Lasman moved and Commissioner Yelich seconded adoption of RESOLUTION
NO. 2007-16 Authorizing the Executive Director to Write Off Uncollectible Accounts Receivable.
Motion passed unanimously.
4d. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-17 ACCEPTING BID, AWARDING A CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING EASEMENT ACQUISITION, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
2007-15, TIF DISTRICT 3 REGIONAL STORM WATER QUALITY
TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed
resolution.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom discussed various aspects of the project
including the benefits and funding of the proposed project.
Commissioner Yelich moved and Commissioner Lasman seconded adoption of RESOLUTION
NO. 2007-17 Accepting Bid, Awarding a Contract and Authorizing Easement Acquisition,
Improvement Project No. 2007-15, TIF District 3 Regional Storm Water Quality Treatment
Improvements.
Commissioner O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed.
08/13l07 -2- DRAFT
5. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lasman moved and Commissioner Ryan seconded adjournment of the Economic
Development Authority meeting at 8:28 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
i
i
08/13/07 -3- DRAFT
Xr
t t
h
Ct}U1�CIL ITEM MEMUR�A11iDU�+I
TU: C'u� Boganey, City Mana
FRt�M: Gar� Eite1, �a�nm�ity Drevelopment Director r���
DATEs S+epte�n�er 18, 2t�0"�
�UBJECT: Resolutic�n D�svlvireg T� Increment Financing IIis���ct I�o. X a�ncl Returnin� Excess T�ar
Increme�t� ta C}ther T`�ciz�g Jwrisdictians
Recommendatit��t
R�mmend City Coun�il apprc�val �f Re�olutian Dissolvin� Taac I�crement F�in� t�►istrict 1'�1v. 1 and
Re�ng E�c�ss 'Ta� tncre�ents to t7rther T`axing Jurisdict�ions
Back�ror�nd•
T'� incremet�t District NQ, l, c�mmonl� known as the "Broaicwc�od F'ro,�ecty', was cr�at�cl in 19�2 as hnusing
district to accomplish follc�wing;
1�cc�uisitian a�d assembla�ce c�f properties and surplus higt�way right-o� way tc� f�cilitate the
develt�pme�t c��`a �5 r�tal u�t aparlmen# bualding and 73 condo�niniu�n uni#s far eiderly persons au�d
h�uus�holds �d 32 market ra�� tawnhome units.
The extensicrn ufwater mains, s�att�it�y sewer, streets, and stc�r�n se�v�r r.tt� seive the developmen�
The District ws�s amend�ct 1990 throu�h a consalidatian with the Earle Browri Farn� Tax I�ncrernent Financing
District and be��e knavtm as �iuusin� Development and Redevelopme�nt Project 1'+�a. 1.
in 20U4, the Dis�rict acco�aptish�i the ob,j+�tives of the apprc�veci budget an� satisf ed its cial obli�atictns
wit3� its final debt s�z^+rice payment,
The district w�s +created with a base value �f $23,900 and has evc�lved into a residentia� neigh�onc��od with
�{�5 property valt�e c�f$�4,�67,4013.
'T�� pu�po� c�f t�is tesc�lutio� is to fc►rmally natify Hennepin Cc�unty af the eatl� closuu�rees ofthis Tax Incrernent
I3is�rict �nd to au�iorize the return �f the $522,411,21 of excess tax increment to H�sn�pin Gc�wnty for
redistributic�n to the appropriat� taxing authorities.
T�ix incremezat Iteve�aues fmfin District l aver ehe last three years are;
2005 18�,+�02
20�i $212,t�S
2{}t17 $2G1"7,752
B�dget Issue�:
�pproxim;ately 34 c�f the exc�ss ta�c i��rerrn�nt will be retuened fa the City c�f B�k1yn Center Adtiiticmally,
tize mazleet value which equat�s �v �16�,�82, will b� �dded to #he Gity�s t�ve�rall ta�c capacity of$25,UU9,97�+
fc�r ihe 2009 bu�i�e�E whict� �ill hav�e a nunc�r affe�ct on the 2U{�9 budgetJta�c rate.
C�mrnissicrn►er introduc�l th� foll�wi�r� r�lu�i�n �ad ma�ved its
adc�ption.
EDA RESOLUTION N{3.
�tE�{�LUTTC?l+� API'RO"�NG DISSOLVING TA� ThTCREME�" �IN�1}.YCING
DISTRiCT NC).1 AND� �TURI�tING EXCESS TA�X �NCR��EI�'T"S T"t7l C1THElt
TAXING �[3RISDIG'TIt�NS
WHE�REA�, on Au�ust 16, 1989, the Aut�ttarity adopt� ta�c irtcretxxe�i financing
plan fc�r a hausing t� increm�ent f nancing district cammc�nly� r�ferr�d �o as Ta�r Ia�:crement
Fin�ncing District No. l(Broc�kwcwd); and
YVk�ERE.AS, �ll of the capital and administrative +cc�sts of Ta�c iticrer��nt
Fin,a�cin� I�is�rict No. l as �+et fortt► in the t�xx increment firrancing p�an have �een paid or
pro�rided fc�r; air�d
VT]:�EREAS, �ere is currently on depc>sit in the tax incremer►t �uccount fc�r th�: Tax
Incre�n�t Distr�ct N'+a. 1$ 522.U1 I.2� af excess tax incr�ments �s dei�� �n 1V,�innt+�ta SEatutes,
Sectian 4�6�.1'7'�, sut�d. and
NC►W THEREFC}RE BE IT RESC?LVED by the �aaur�d a�f Gammis�ionez� (the
"Boazri") �f tt�e Ecc�namic L?evelc��ament Authority of Bmoklyr� G�nt�er, Mint�estata (ttte
"Auth�arity"), as follo�uv�:
I. The Board h��y finds, deterrmines and de�lares to dissolve and d�ertify'Ta7c
Incr�rn�n� Finanein� D!�strict Na. 1 as of�e t�nber 24 2(�D7.
2. Exces�s tax increm�t as defined in Minnesota Statut�s, ��ct�oi� 469.�7'7, Sub. 9 in
the amount c�f 522.011.21 held in the tax increment a�count aha11 be retuin�d t� the
Gc�unty ,�4uditor of H�rin�pin County for dista�ibutaon t�► the �ect�d t� ,jurisdictiocts
in accsard�nce wi�h �lia��sota Statutes, S�t�on 469.17?, Sub, 9.
3, "The City Finance Dire�tor is hereby dire�t�d #c� s�n� a c�gy 4f thi� r�salu�ion tar th�
�+au�aty Auditc�r a�f H���in Counry and ta tak� any c�t��r st�s which are ne�ess�y
t�, ,�i�svlve 'Ta�c Increment Financing District Nsa. 1 and to distribute Lh� ��cess #aac
increme�ts tc� th� other taxing jurisdictions.
Dat� �siden�
Th� rr�otic�n far tt�e actoptia� of the foregoing resolutiot� w�s dul� s�conde� �ry commissic�ner
a��d �pon vt�te bein� taken therean, the foliowing vate� i�r favor thet�of:
and the fo�Iawi�t� voted a,��i�st �e same:
wl�ereupern sait�'r�ssc>lutian was d�lared duly passeci and atiapt�.
�,t�
x
z
z:
:c.
t
Y
E
t
1
i f
�t.:
a
S,
i
x
2.
C
Y
1 k
t
h':
t
Y
T
.;u
C:
z r k r.,
'v,. n
k w
F
:v
'.i r
u
r v.
a:
..'3
i Y
i
d:. k
�i v:'
4" "�..i
F
s
E:
.:T
f
..,t,
;S.
s
n
�n
�:t ..-,'a
Y
j
v
r
1
.x r
y
Z
y .0 r
'.i:
.n .s.
S
t
:i
1
y
.i
C f
.q'
S
r
5
.e
w:...r.
y i:
.r.
s'- i:
i..
S..
i
n
rz
�,.i v
r ,'a
Materials for this item will be distributed
during the meeting on
Monday, September 24, 2007.
r„.
v:
f
z
v
�s
Y
r.
s
i
F t f
�r .i.
.::a
n .r y{
i
..F. t a
l
....:'i
y
T E.
:.:r:
i
i
i
i::,
r
k
.:.r
...i
>4
J
2.
�'i
.E
t
y
s
r
w
4
c.
s:;
n :.v� y
t,
zk
y
:�g
i .:k:•.
k
t
x
s
�'.,t
za
k
.i.
i
.:1
.n.�v
::r
i .n,•i
s. fi
+i.
:n
r
v:.
:n
4
z..: i:
:Y i.
:a.:: i�
;A
t t
��t i. f
.......s ..,,....i z........ ....:e, .....a..., ..z..... ....'i.
3
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM COUNCIL WORK SESSION
DATE: September 20, 2007
TO: Brooklyn Center City Council
FROM: Curt Boganey, City Man�����
SUBJECT: Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED
Staff will provide an overview of the attached memorandum and plan from the Shingle
Creek Watershed Management Commission regarding the TMDLs Implementation
Plan that is mandated by the MPCA.
i The staff will forward any City Council comments to the Shingle Creek Watershed
Mana ement Commission re ardin the ro osed TMLD Im lementation Plan. The
g g g P P P
comment period ends October 15, and the commission has requested any City comments
by Thursday, October 4, 2007.
BACKGROUND
I
The Watershed Commission is mandated to adopt a TMLD Implementation Plan by the
MPGA. The final step in this process is the approval of an Implementation Plan that sets
forth the activities that Cities and others will take to reduce phosphorus loading in the
four lakes identified. The Commission and the Technical Advisory Committee have
prepared the attached draft plan.
According to the memoranduxn, if the plan is adopted there are so
me additional activities
thaf will likely require additional resources. Adoption of the plan does not commit the
Commission to undertake these activities at a particular time or at a particular budget
level.
COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES
Does the City Council have comments to offer the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission regarding the proposed plan?
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 (763) 569-3400
City Hall TDD Number (763) 569-3300 FAX (763) 569-3434
FAX (763) 569-3494
www. cityofbrooklyncenter.org
n r reek Watershed Management Commission
3235 Fembrook Lane N• Plymouth, MN 55447
Phone (763) 553-1144 Fax (763) 553-9326
www.shinalecreek.ora
September 18, 2007
Mayors and City Managers
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission via surface and email
Hennepin Couniy, Minnesota
Re: TNIDLs Implementation Plan
Upper, Middle, Lower Twin and Ryan Lakes
Gentlemen and Ladies:
As you know, earlier this year the Shingle Creek Chloride Tota1 Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study was
approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The cities in the Shingle Creek watershed,
Hennepin County, and MnDOT are now working to implement the actions identified in the TMDL
Implementation Plan to reduce the amount of chloride entering into Shingle Creek from road salt.
For the past few years the Commission has also been developing TMDLs far 13 of the 16 lakes in the
watershed that are listed by the MPCA as Impaired Waters for excess nutrients. The TMDLs for the first four
lakes Upper, Middle, and Lower 'l�vin Lakes and Ryan Lake are about to receive fmal approval. On
September 17, 2007, the MPCA published public notice that the TMDL is open for final review and public
comment during the period September 17 to October 1 S, 2007. The notice and final TMDL can be viewed at:
htta://www.nca.state.mr►.us/water/nndUnroiect-twinrvan.html. The TMDLs for the other nine lakes are being
finalized and will go through the same process later this year.
Following the close of the comment period, the MPCA will make any A TMDL is the
revisions required and submit the TMDL report to the EPA for final approval. �XIMUMAMOUNT
We exnect to ha�e the EPA's final annroval bv the end of the vear. As with OFA POLLUTANT a
the chloride TMDL, MS4s will then ha�e 18 months to revise their waterbody can receive
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) to incorporate nutrient and still MEET WATER
reduction activities. The T1VIDL identifies very significant phosphorus QUALITYSTANDARDS
reductions that must be achieved far these lakes to meet state water quality
standards. Six of the nine member cities drain to the Twin Lake chain.
Plymouth, Maple Grove, and Osseo do not and thus are not required to participate in reductions for Twin and
Ryan Lakes.
The final step in the TNIDL process is the approval of an Implementation Plan that sets forth the activiries the
cities, Hennepin County, and MnDOT will undertake to reduce phosphorus loading to the four lakes. The
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Watershed Commission ha�e reviewed the attached draft
Implementation Plan, and it is submitted to you for your review and comment. The Commission will review
your comments and act on the Implementation Plan at its October 11, 2007 meeting. Please submit comments to
Judie Anderson by Thursday, October 4, 2007. We apologize for the short review time, but to be eligible for
Clean Water Legacy Act restoration grant funds, the final approved Implementation Plan must be submitted to
the MPCA by the end of October.
For the most part, the implementation activities in this Plan would NOT require the Commission's operating
budget to exceed its assessment cap. There are new or expanded activities in the Plan that have been discussed
several times by the Commission and TAC and are expected to be funded from reallocation within the existing
budget. However, there are some additional watershed and city activities that will likely require additional
�.�.:���m.�.�_...�..._
Brookl�m Center Brooklyn Park Crystal Maple Grove Minneapolis New Hope Osseo Plymouth Robbinsdale
Mayors and City Managers
September 18, 200'7
Page 2
resources. Approval of the Implementation Plan does not commit the Commission to undertake these activities
at a particular time or at a particular budget level. Activities in the TMDL are those that, in the TAC's and
Engineer's estimations, would be the most effective in restoring water quality in the lalces to state standards.
Any new or enhanced activities to be undertaken by the Commission would be considered through the regular
budget process and any that would require additional resources above the assessment cap would be presented
to the member cities for their authorization.
New or exnanded activities that mav reauire additional resources include:
An expanded version of the Commission's Water Quality Report to accommodate the additional data
collection and reporting made necessary by the TMDLs. To date, the report has been in essence an
extended memorandum summarizing the results of water quality monitoring in the watershed and been
funded as part of the annual stream monitoring budget. The amount of data collection and reporting
necessary to document TNIDL-related activities will require a significantly higher level of effort. Cities
will be required to report this data in their annual NPDES reports, so there would be an economy of scale
for the Commission to prepare a report that cities would simply reference. The Commission currently
spends about $S,Q00 per year analyzing and reporting water quality data. We estimate it may cost $10-
12,000 per year to include the TMDL implementafion information.
Many of the lakes will require in-lake treatment to reduce the amount of phosphorus already in the lake.
Prior to undertaking any projects, more detailed feasibility analyses will be required to deternune the best
way to achieve the required improvements. These types of feasibility analyses typically cost $10-30,000
or more, depending on the type of improvement.
The lalces will require other types of internal load management that are operating, not capital, costs. The
lakes, especially Upper Twin La1ce, are infested with carp and other rough fish that need to be managed or
removed. Invasive aquatic plants such as curly-leaf pondweed and Eurasian water milfoil are present in a11
the lakes. Plant management through chemical treatment or mechanical harvesting will be considered.
Treatment can cost $4,000-5,000 per lake per year.
The Implementarion Plan calls for retrofitting the watershed with stormwater treatrnent where street
reconstruction projects or redevelopment provide opportunities. Many cities are already making it a practice
to routinely include tlus retrofit in their projects. MnDOT and Hennepin County have also included
significant treatment in their TH 100 and CSAH 81 projects, including treating city stormwater that is
discharged to highway ponds. Retrofitting may require cities to spend more to add ponds, underground
treatment devices, etc., as well as incur ongoing associated maintenance costs.
Finally, implementation of TNIDLs will require city staffs to track acriviries such as street sweeping and
storm sewer and other maintenance more than they have in the past. All these activities will be reported to
the MPCA and the public to document the level of effort being made to improve water quality in the lakes.
Thank you in advance for your time and comments and the efforts of your staffs in completing and reviewing
the TMDLs and Implementation Plan. If you have any questions on the TMDL report or Implementation Plan,
please contact Joe Bischoff at Wenck Associates, 763.479.4229, or ibischoffna.wenck.com. Please submit your
comments by October 4, 2007 to Judie Anderson at the Commission office above, or iudie(a�iass.biz.
Sincerely,
Greg Gappa, Chair
City of Crystal Commissioner
Cc: Commissioners, TAC
J:\Shingle Creek\TMDLs�LakeTMDL�I,ake TMDLs�I,-cities convey TL impl plan.doc
c�,�.�.��.;,�:�;�., z,�.,., ........m��-�.�,��:�...�..._. ..r__.....,,"°L,.�.
Brookl�m Center Brooklyn Park Crystal Maple Grove Minneapolis New Hope Osseo Plymouih Robbinsdale
Twin and Ryan Lakes
TMDL Implementation
Plan
Shingle Creel� WMC
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Crystal
Minneapolis
Minneapolis Parks
New Hope
Robbinsdale
Wenck File #1240 Mn/DOT
Hennepin County
Prepared for:
SHINGLE CREEK
WATER MANAGENiENT COMIVIISSION
NIINNESOTA
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Prepared by:
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC D R A F T
1800 Pioneer Creek Center Septe111beT 2�07
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249
(763) 479-4200
J:\Shingle Creek\TMDLs�LakeTMDL�L,ake TMDLs\Twin_Ryan
Iakes TMDL Imple Plan Final Review Draft_Sep 2007.doc
Twin and Ryan Lakes
TMDL Implementation
Plan
Shingle Creek WMC
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Crystal
Minneapolis
Minneapolis Parks
New Hope
Robbinsdale
Wenck File #1240 Mn��T
Hennepin County
Prepared for:
SHINGLE CREEK
WATER MANAGEMENT COIVIlVIISSION
MINNESOTA
POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Prepared by:
WENCK ASSOCIATES nvc. D R A F T
1800 Pioneer Creek Center September 2007
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249
(763) 479-4200
J:\Shingle Creek\TMDLs�L,akeTMDL�I,ake TMDLs\Twin Ryan
Lakes TMDL Imple Plan Final Review Draft Sep 2007.doc
�I'
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1-1
2A TWIN AND RYAN LAKES TMDL SUMMARY ........................................................2-1
2.1 Current Water Quality 2-1
2.2 Meeting State Standards 2-1
2.3 Required Phosphorus Load Reductions 2-2
2.3.1 Allocations .............................................................................................2-2
2.3.2 Implementation Focus 2-3
3.0 IIVIPLEIVIENTATION PLAN 3-1
3.1 Implementation Plan Principles 3-1
3.2 Implementation Plan 3-2
3.2.1 Implementation Strategies .....................................................................3-3
3.2.2 Sequencing 3-4
3.2.3 Stakeholder Responsibilities 3-5
3.3 Adaptive management 3-5
4.0 WATERSHED COMNIISSION ACTIVITIES 4-1
4.1 General Coordination ...........................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Coordination ..........................................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Annual Report on Monitoring and Activities 4-1
4.1.3 Rules and Standards 4-2
4.1.4 Establish Performance Standards 4-2
4.2 Education 4-2
4.2.1 Public Education and Outreach 4-2
4.2.2 Encourage Public Official and StaffEducation .....................................4-3
4.2.3 Presentations at Meetings 4-3
4.2.4 Demonstration Projects 4-3
4.2.5 Feasibility Studies 4-4
4.3 Ongoing Monitoring 4-4
4.3.1 Water Quality Monitoring 4-4
4.3.2 Other Monitoring 4-5
5.0 STAKEHOLDER ACTIVITIES 5-1
5.1 Reduce External Load 5-1
5.1.1 DNR Wetland 639W Restoration 5-1
5.1.2 Add Treatment in Watershed 5-1
5.1.3 Increase Infiltration in Watershed 5-1
J:\Shingle Credc\1MDIs�LakeT'MDL�Lake TMDLs\Twin Ryan Lalces TMDL Imple Plm� Final Review Draft_Sep 2007.doc
1
I,'�.._
Table of Contents (Cont.)
5.1.4 Shoreline Management and Restoration 5-2
5.1.5 Wildlife Management 5-2
5 .1.6 Street Sweeping .....................................................................................5-2
5.1.7 Road Salt Reductions 5-3
5.2 Reduce Internal Load 5-3
5.2.1 Chemical Treatment 5-3
5 .2.2 Lake Drawdown 5-3
5.3 Biologic Integrity Management 5-4
53 .1 Aquatic Plant Management 5-4
5.3.2 Rough Fish Management 5-4
5 .4 Tracking and Reporting 5-4
J:�Slvngle Creek\TMDLs�i.akeTMDLV.ake TMDLs\Twin_Ryan Lakes TMDL Imple Plan Final Review Draft_Sep 2007.doc
ll
I
1.0 Introduction
The Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study addresses a
nutrient impairment in the Twin Lake chain of lakes. The Twin Lake chain of lakes is a regional
water resource located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, in the Shingle Creek watershed,
specifically in the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crysta.l Minneapolis, and Robbinsdale.
The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) in cooperation with the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has completed a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TNIDL) analysis to quantify the phosphorus reductions needed to meet State water quality
standards for nutrients in South Twin (27-0042-01), Middle Twin (27-0042-02), North Twin (27-
0042-03) and Ryan (27-0058-00) Lakes (see Figure 1) in accordance with Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act. The TMDL was prepared in cooperation with the six cities with land located
in the Twin Lake subwatershed as well as Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/DOT).
'I'
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL 1 l October 2007
Implementation Plan
y
a Y�x S
a �169
N p
8 w
�i' 7� g �u��
'.7. q �m
a��,�
'd t �i �Wetland 639W
�a
Z �,r�s��a�a m ��a p
�x��� ✓�sA�
n r
y M "eom ,s mm aod, f
a G
I 4.
y
�y a �y�
>'lt 1 1
a�r•� 2,
a q 3 g"� 4ye.., a. y m e o 8
e x WM v 5� '�h u k
r
1h 1 �g�qflaFa T S�
a?a.. .e
3
a R
SSM s Wt� E I
R .i H e�'� Ol
g Z bOth S1N �/�r;
a y� �a
��C�
#y �y E Wr:;
O S4'�MIM Mudal Subwatershad �i a
Nadonal Wetlands Irnentory Wetland ce c,�,"� M
DNR Protected Waters 0 3 F.tir.� �4��
W
N Subwatershed Boundaries n aa�y�
a
A
GI�IOS a n a i h h I t
Brookl Center ,e,
1'� x� t aem
BroolQyYl Pa�tC �n o L m y a, ;��r 5
k
���d� A .y�jM 9 w
1 Minneapolis a�Aa e o u
9 New Hope q ?.��4
mn TViin lake Anoka
a.1 Robbinsdale �i' r Watershed
o l
SOUI'C64: D9�p81't1YlAl1t Of N81ZUf8I F fi x. Heif� iK ans IM+t� n
_�o-::
Resources, Metropditan Counai, ��J k
Cities G.ver
o.s a.25 0 o.s nn�ies
O ��u�w��mcmFioure Twin Cities MetroArea
TWIN AND RYAN LAKES NUTRIENT TMDL JULY 20p7
o Wenck
N Municipal and Street Location Map 1�nckAsaociates,lnc iB�PioneerCreekCenter Figure 3.1
EnvironmerAal Fnnineers Mapl3 Hain. MN 55359-0249
O
J
�I
2.0 Twin and Ryan Lakes TMDL Summary
A key aspect of a TMDL is the development of an analytical link between loading sources and
receiving water quality. To establish the link between phosphorus loading to the quality of water
in the lakes, monitoring data extending back to 1990 was reviewed to better understand
conditions and trends. Other data examined include fish community data compiled by the DNR,
a shoreline condition survey conducted by a lake association, and some limited aquatic
vegetation data. A key source of data was previous monitoring and diagnostic studies of Twin
Lake and a large wetland complex to the north of North Twin Lake, DNR public waters wetland
639W (see Figure 1).
2.1 CURRENT WATER QUALITY
Monitoring data suggest that the chain is a highly productive system, with the greatest water
quality problems occurring in North Twin Lake. Table 1 summarizes historic water quality data
for the four lakes. North Twin, the uppermost lake in the chain, is hypereutrophic, and both
internal and watershed loading appear to be significant sources of phosphorous. The majority of
phosphorous in Middle Twin is from water coming from North Twin and from the watershed.
South Twin Lake is a eutrophic lake where internal loading has the potential to increase algal
productivity throughout the season. Ryan Lake, the last in the chain, is a deep, mesotrophic lake
that has relatively good water quality for an urban lake.
Table 1. Water qualitv by lake,1990-2004.
Summer Avera�e
Lake TO Chlorophyll-a Secchi Depth
Phosphorus
(u.�JI.J
North Twin Lake 122 48 0.5
Middle Twin Lake 51 23 1.25
South Twin La1ce 92 58 0.8
Ryan Lake 49 6 1.7
Current State Standard <40 <14 >1.4
Source: 2007 Twin and Ryan Lakes TMDL Repor�
2.2 MEETING STATE STANDARDS
The four lakes in this chain were listed as Impaired Waters because they have excess levels of
nutrients that could lead to severe nuisance blooms of algae. Nutrient loads in this TMDL are
set for phosphorus, since this is typically the limiting nutrient for nuisance aquatic plants. A
water quality standards rules revision is in progress in Minnesota. The proposed rules would
establish different standards for deep and shallow lakes, taking into account nutrient cycling
differences between shallow and deep lakes and resulting in more appropriate standards for
Minnesota lakes.
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 2-1
Two sets of end points were evaluated in the TMDL. The numeric target used to list these four
lakes was the current phosphorus standard of 40µg/L. However, South Twin and North Twin
are shallow lakes and would be subject to the proposed target of 60µg/L once the proposed
standaxds are approved. Therefore, the TNIDL assumes that the current water quality standards
will apply and will guide the implementation plan and necessary reductions until the proposed
standards have been adopted. At such time as the State adopts the proposed standards, the
standards in Table 2 will apply. The TNIDL presents load and wasteload allocations and
estimated load reductions for both scenarios.
Table 2. Tar�et total phosphorus concentration end points used in the TMDL.
Current TP Standard Proposed TP Standard
(u�) (u�.�)
North Twin Lake 40 60
Middle Twin Lake 40 40
South Twin Lake 40 60
Ryan Lake 40 40
2.3 REQUIl2ED PHOSPHORUS LOAD REDUCTIONS
Wasteload and load allocations to meet State standaxds indicate that nutrient load reductions
ranging from 0-76 percent would be required to consistently meet standards under average
precipitation conditions. This Implementation Plan details the specific activities the stakeholders
in the watershed plan to undertake to attain that reduction.
2.3.1 Allocations
Stormwater discharges are regulated under NPDES, and allocations of nutrient reductions are
considered wasteloads that must be divided among permit holders. Because there is not enough
information available to assign loads to individual permit holders, the wasteload allocations in
the TNIDL are combined as gross wasteload allocations (see Table 3) assigned to all permitted
dischargers in the contributing lakeshed. The load allocation is also allocated in the same
manner. Each stakeholder has agreed to implement BMPs to the maximum extent practicable.
This collective approach allows for greater reductions for some agencies with greater opportunity
and less for those with greater constraints.
Table 3. Wasteload allocation b� NPDES aermitted facilitv for each lake.
NPDES Permit Number Nort Twin M iddle Twin South Twin R.yan
MS400006-Brooklyn Center Gross WLA I Gross WLA I Gross WLA TGross WLA
MS400007-Brooklyn Park Gross WLA Gross WLA Gross WLA Gross WLA
MS400012-Crystal Gross WLA Gross WLA Gross WLA Gross WLA
MN0061018-Minneapolis N/A N/A N/A Gross WLA
MS400039-New Houe Gross WLA Gross WLA I Gross WLA Gross WLA
MS400046-Robbinsdale N/A Gross WLA Gross WLA Gross WLA
M5400138-Hennepin Gross WLA I Gross WLA Gross WLA I Gross WLA I
MS400170-MnDOT N/A Gross WLA Gross WLA Gross WLA
N/A Not applicable does not drain to lake.
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 2-2
2.3.2 Implementation Focus i'
The focus in implementation will be on reducing the annual phosphorus loads to the lakes
through structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices. Load allocations by source are
provided in Table 4 and Table 5 for average precipitation conditions. No reduction in
atmospheric loading is targeted because this source is impossible to control on a local basis. If
North Twin Lake met the standard for shallow lakes in the North Central Hardwood Forests
ecoregion, the reduction of its outflow load would result in the remaining lakes in the chain
complying with the State standards. However, lakes are uniquely dynamic systems. A dry year
may result in increases in internal loading counteracting the effects of reduced flow and loading
from upstream. As a result, implementation will address not only North Twin Lake, but also
stormwater discharges to the other basins as well as internal loading where appropriate.
However, the TNIDLs established here remain protective of the water quality standards for each
of the basins.
Table 4. TMDL allocations expressed as annual loads for North Twin, Middle Twin, South Twin, and Ryan
Lakes assumin� current standards (40 u�/L) for North and South Twin Lake.
Wasteload Load
Critical Margin of
Conditions Lake Allocation Allocation ty TMDL (kg/yr)
(1��h'r� (�In,� Safe
Average North Twin Lake 118 55 Implicit 173
Precipitation Middle Twin Lake 150 63 Imulicit 213
Yeaz South Twin Lake 179 15 Implicit 194
Ryan Lake 170 43 Implicit 213
Wet North Twin Lake 210 55 Implicit 265
Precipitation Middle Twin Lake 263 63 Implicit 326
Year
South Twin Lake 276 15 Implicit 291
Ryan Lake 298 23 Implicit 321
Dry Precipitation North Twin Lake 100 I 55 I Imnlicit 155
YeaT Middle Twin Lake 127 63 Imulicit 190
South Twin Lake 176 15 Imvlicit 191
Ryan Lake 162 43 Imvlicit 205
'The wasteload allocation is allocated to NPDES-permitted facilities in accordance with Table 3.
2 'The load allocation includes 15% of the stormwater load due to loading from wetland 639W.
Table 5. TMDL Allocations expressed as annual loads for North Twin, Middle Twin, South Twin, and Ryan
Lakes assumin� shallow lake standardsf 60 t�/L) for North and South Twin Lake.
Critical Wasteload �ad Margin of TMDL
Conditions Lake Allocation Allocation
(k glvr) 1 (kg1Yr1 5afety (►cg/Yr')
Average North Twin Lake I92 85 Implicit 277
Precipitation Middle Twin Lake 141 63 Implicit I 204
Ye South Twin Lake 258 45 Imulicit 303
Ryan Lake 170 43 Implicit 213
Wet North Twin Lake 335 8S Imulicit 420
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementaxion Plan 2-3
Critical Wasteload Load Margin of TMDL
Conditions Lake Allocation Allocation ty
e (kglvr)' (l�lvr) Safe r
Precipitation Middle Twin Lake 263 63 Imnlicit 326
Year
South Twin Lake 405 45 Imulicit 450
Ryan Lake 278 43 ImUlicit 321
Dry Precipitation North Twin Lake 165 85 Implicit 250
Ye�' Middle Twin Lake 130 63 Implicit 193
South Twin Lake 252 45 Imulicit 297
Ryan Lake 167 43 Implicit 210
'The wasteload allocation is allocated to NPDES-permitted facilities in accordance with Table 3.
Z The load allocation includes 15% of the stormwater load due to loading from wetland 639W.
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 2-4
I'
3.0 Implementation Plan
The activities and BMPs identified in the implementa.tion plan are the result of a series of
Technical Advisory Committee and stakeholder meetings led by the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission. Representatives from cities, Mn/DOT, Hennepin County and
regulatory agencies met several times to discuss the TMDL requirements, TMDL results,
shallow lakes, and potential BMPs. In addition, the City of Brooklyn Center prepared a detailed
diagnostic study and Management Plan that included extensive public input from lake residents.
A summary implementation plan for the TNIDL document was developed using this input,
distributed to stakeholders for review and posted on the SCWMC website www.shin�lecreek.or�
for public review and comment. This Implementation Plan expands upon that summary plan
with more detail.
3.1 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PRINCIPLES
Through the discussion of policies and practices, current activities, and ongoing research, the
stakeholders developed principles to guide development and implementation of the load
reduction plan. These include:
l. Restore Biolo�ical Inte�ritv
The stakeholders recognize the importance of a healthy biological community in the lake to
provide internal controls on water clarity, especially in shallow lakes. To that end, the
stakeholders agreed to work cooperatively to restore the biological communities in these lakes,
including fish, plants, and zooplankton.
2. Control Internal Load
The stakeholders recognize that a significant portion of the phosphorus load is a result of internal
loading and that the internal load must be addressed to successfully improve water quality in
these lakes. Consequently, the stakeholders agreed to work cooperatively to reduce internal
phosphorus loading in the lakes.
3. Retrofit BMPs in the Watershed As Onnortunities Arise
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 BMI's in street and highway projects, and to consider opportunities such as
redevelopment to add or upsize BMPs.
4. Encouraee Communication
The stakeholders agreed that the stakeholder meetings themselves had been a useful forum for
discussion and sharing. Opportunities to share ideas and experiences to widen the knowledge
base should be part of the implementation plan.
i
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 3-1
5. Foster Stewardshin
City staff, especially maintenance staff, should be provided opportunities for education and
training to better understand how their areas of responsibility relate to the protection and
improvement of water quality in the lakes.
6. Communicate With the Public
Public education should take a variety of forms, and should include both general and specialized
information, targeted but not limited to:
General public
Elected and appointed officials
Private applicators
Property managers
3.2 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The stakeholders agreed that implementation should be a joint effort, with the SCWMC taking
responsibility for ongoing coordination, general education and monitoring activities and the
NPDES permittees taking responsibility for BMP implementation. The cities, Hennepin County,
and MixDOT would be expected to incorporate these BMPs into their Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and NPDES Minimum Measures, and to annually assess progress
toward advancing the implementation principles detailed above in Section 3.1. The stakeholders
will annually report to the SCWMC their annual activities, and the Commission will summarize
those activities into its own Water Quality Annual Report. T'his framework is illustrated in
Figure 2 below.
Watershed TMDL
Implementation
Plan
Adaptive Watershed
Management F-� Activities
Annual Report
4
City Policies Hennepin County MnDOT
SWPPP Poficies Policies
SWPPP SWPPP
Annual NPDES Annual NPDES Annual NPDES
Report Report Report
Figure 2. Implementation Framework.
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TNIDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 3-2
The impairments to Twin and Ryan Lakes developed over time as the watersheds draining to I I'
them urbanized. As the watershed developed, the native prairie and savanna was cleared and
wetlands ditched and filled to support farming. Over the past century the farms and remaining
undeveloped land were converted to urban and suburban uses, increasing the volume of runoff
and the amount of pollutants conveyed to the lakes. Improvement of these lakes will also take
many years through implementation of BMPs as well as eventual redevelopment of existing land
uses with lower-impact development and stormwater treatment.
In general the focus will be on reducing external phosphorus load through specific BMPs as well
as retrofitting BMPs as redevelopment or construction provide opportunities. Street and
highway reconstruction projects include stormwater detention ponds and treatment such as
underground treatment devices where possible and can provide significant opportunities for
external load reduction. MnDOT incorporated several ponds into the reconstruction of TH 140
several years ago that provide treatment not only for previously-untreated highway runoff but
also previously-untreated neighborhood drainage. Brooklyn Center included underground
treatment devices in a neighborhood street reconstruction project adjacent to Middle Twin, and
Crystal is considering incorporating rain gardens into a neighborhood street reconstruction
project on the other side of Middle Twin. Hennepin County is retrofitting CSAH 81 (Bottineau
Boulevard) with stormwater treatment as that highway is reconstructed in phases. Those BMPs
also provide treatment for neighborhood runoff draining through the highway system.
As external controls reduce phosphorus loading from the watershed, attention will turn to
controlling the internal loads: An important part of that strategy is restoring and maintaining
biological integrity and associated impacts to water quality through management of the aquatic
plant community, fishery, and macroinvertebrate and zooplankton assemblages. However,
biological manipulation cannot provide all the internal load reduction that would be required.
More detailed study is required to evaluate whether chemical treatment with alum, hydraulic
drawdown, or other means of reducing internal loading are feasible.
The following sections discuss the general BMP strategies that were identified in the TNIDL
process to reduce phosphorus load, restore ecological integrity, and meet state water quality
goals for these lakes; the general sequence of implementation activities; and the stakeholders
responsible for leading implementation of each identified activity.
3.2.1 Implementation Strategies
BMP strategies for each lake as identified in the TMDL are listed below and described in more
detail in Sections 4 and 5 of this Plan.
Strateeies For All Lakes
Evaluate adequacy of existing rules and standards for runoff water quality treatment and volume
management and revise if necessary
Add BMPs as opportunities arise to decrease runoff from the watershed and increase stormwater
treahnent
Conduct aquatic plant surveys and prepare management plans
Encourage shoreline restoration to improve runoff filtration
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 3-3
Increase infiltration in watersheds
Increase frequency of street sweeping in sensitive areas
Strateeies for North Twin Lake
Focus on reducing external loads
o Add water quality treatment in watershed 3
o Monitor and maintain existing ponds to sustain removal effectiveness
o Retrofit with offline underground treatment devices
Restore DNR wetland 639W
Internal load management
o Remove and control rough fish
o Prepare drawdown feasibility study
o Conduct lake drawdown and/or apply alum treatment
Strate�ies for Middle Twin Lake
Reduce external load through BMPs as opportunities axise
Strateeies for South Twin Lake
Focus on reducing external loads
o Add water quality treatment in watershed 4
o Monitor and maintain existing ponds to sustain removal effectiveness
o Retrofit with offline underground treatment devices
Internal load management
o Alum treatment may be feasible
Strateeies for Rvan Lake
Focus on reducing external loads
o Increase treatment in lakeshed
o Monitor and maintain existing treatment to sustain removal effectiveness
o Increase rain gardens, filtration in lakeshed
o Shoreline restoration and maintenance
Internal load management
o Biological management
3.2.2 Sequencing
Some of the above activities may be undertaken immediately, while others would be
implemented as opportunities arise. In general implementation will proceed according to the
following sequence of activities:
First Five Years
Continue monitoring and information gathering
Focus on reducing external loading from the watershed
Evaluate rules and standards
Evaluate ways to refine street sweeping practices to maacimize pollutant removal
Identify opportunities for BMP retrofit
Implement specific BMP projects as funding allows
Twin and R an Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Y
Implementation Plan 3-4
Wetland 639W Restoration
o Crystal Twin Oak Pond
o New Hope Wincrest Pond
o New Hope 45`� Avenue Pond
Implement BMP retrofits as opportunities arise
Implement BMP and restoration demonstration projects as opportunities arise
Second Five Years and Subseauent Permit Cvcles
Continue monitoring
Evaluate progress towards goals
Amend Implementa.tion Plan as necessary based on progress
Implement BMP retrofits as opporiunities arise to continue to reduce external loading
When sufficient external load controls are in place, prepare feasibility studies for internal load
reduction strategies such as drawdowns and chemical treatment
Implement internal load reduction BMPs
3.2.3 Stakeholder Responsibilities
The primary stakeholders in this Plan are the Shingle Creek Watershed Management
Commission (SCWMC), the cities draining to the lake chain, Hennepin County, and MnDOT.
In addition, properiy owners in the watershed have a role to play in implementing BMPs on their
private properties. The Education program will provide both residential and non-residential
property owners and managers with information on BMPs that would have the most impact on
improving water quality.
Table 6 shows which stakeholder will take the lead on im lementin the various im lementation
P g P
activities identified in this Plan.
3.3 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
The load allocations in the TMDL represent Assess Design
aggressive goals for nutrient reductions.
Progress Strategy
Consequently, implementation will be conducted
using adaptive management principles. Adaptive
management is an iterative approach of f�; Adaptive
implementation, evaluation, and course correction Management
(see Figure 3). It is appropriate here because it is Evaluate
difficult to predict the lake response to load Implement
reductions. Future conditions and technological
advances may alter the specific course of actions
detailed in this Plan. Continued monitoring and Monitor
course corrections responding to monitoring results
offer the best opportunity for meeting the water
quality goals established in this TNIDL.
Figure 3. Adaptive management
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 3-5
I
i
Table 6. Implementation Activity By S akeholder.
Actor Stormwater Non-stormwater Internal Load Aquatic Vegetation Aquatic Life Monitoring/ Reporting
externalload
V Evaluate watershed rules and Prepare feasibility Evaluate and make Evaluate and make Continue CAMP citizen
standards reports and make recommendations for recommendations for water quality inonitoring
Evaluate volume recommendations on curly leaf pondweed rough fish removal for Conduct periodic in- depth
r management standards internal load management in all North Twin Lake lake monitoring
Provide focused education strategies for North, lakes Evaluate rough fish Monitor aquatic
and outreach South, and Ryan Evaluate feasibility of barriers in North Twin vegetation every five
Solicit and fund Lakes, such as drawdown for North Lake years
Demonstration Projects chemical treatment and South Twin Lake Collect iinplementation
Prepare grant applications and/or lake drawdown Identify potential data from stakeholders
Evaluate ways to refine street shoreline restoration annually
sweeping practices projects Prepare annual report on
monitoring and activities
Evaluate potential water Restore wetland Implement internal Implement curly leaf Implement rough fish Report impiementation
quality pond and other BMP 639W load reduction pond weed removal in North activities to SCWMC
V projects in watersheds 3 and 4. Implement goose strategies management Twin Lake annually
Implement BMPs to reduce management in Implement shoreline
loads as opportunities arise watershed restoration projects
Conduct routine pond
inspections for maintenance
Sweep streets at least twice
annually
E., Sweep streets at least once Report implementation I
0 annually activities to SCWNIC
e Implement BMPs to reduce ammally
loads as opportunities arise
o Sweep streets at least twice Report implementation i
annually activities to SCWMC
t j Implement BMPs to reduce annually
x loads as opportunities arise
�a, Implement BMPs to reduce
a loads as opportunities arise i
°p
a
4.0 Watershed Commission Activities
The SCWMC has agreed to take the lead on general coordination, education, and ongoing
monitoring. The Commission will also collect annual NPDES reports and other information
from the stakeholders and compile BMI' activities undertaken by all parties. This information
will be incorporated into the Commission's annual Water Quality Report. The following
activities will be conducted by the SCWMC.
4.1 GENERAL COORDINATION
4.1.1 Coordination
One of the primary Commission roles in managing the watershed is serving as a coordinator of
policy and activities. The Commission will continue in that role in the implementation of this
TMDL. General activities now undertaken by the Commission will be continued or expanded as
the Commission moves from management planning to implementation coordination. These are
activities that are included as part of the Commission's general administrative budget, and no
additional cost is expected from their implementation:
Providing advice and assistance to member cities on their implementation activities;
Researching and disseminating to the cities information on changing BMP technology and
I ractices•
P
Collecting annual implementation activity data;
Recommending management activities such as vegetation or fishery management, partnering
with the DNR;
Periodically updating the Capital Implement Program (CIP)
Conductin ubl'
g p ic hearings on proposed projects
Sharin t
he cost of uali in im rovement ro'ects
g
q fY g P
P J
Estirriated Cost: Ongoing activity
Funding Source: General operating budget
4.1.2 Annual Report on Monitoring and Activities
An annual report on phosphorus load reduction activities is necessary under the adaptive
management approach established in the TMDL. Each year the Commission will collect from
the permittees in the watershed a listing of the activities undertaken in the previous year. This
report will summarize those activities and provide the permittees responsible for the gross
wasteload allocation with necessary information for their annual NPDES reports. The report will
detail BMP implementation, associated load and volume reductions where known, and current
monitoring data to evaluate activity effectiveness. This report will be a part of the Commission's
annual Water Quality Report. The format and content of the Water Quality Report is being
revised to include reporting on the three stream TMDLs and 13 lalce TMDLs in the watershed.
I,'
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementarion Plan 4-1
Estimated Cost: $10,000-12,000
Funding Source: General operating budget (currently budgeted at about $5,000)
4.1.3 Rules and Standards
The Commission has directed its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review and if
necessary revise the current rules to address the effectiveness of the regulatory program in
meeting the TMDL requirements. As a part of this process, the Commission will review the
current pollutant removal performance standard, and will consider expanding the current
infiltration requirement into a more broad volume management rule that will reduce runoff to the
lakes, thereby reducing the associated phosphorus loads.
Estimated Cost: $2,000
Funding Source: General operating budget for Management Plan activities (current budget is
$3,000)
4.1.4 Establish Performance Standards
Each permittee will be implementing various BMPs to reduce phosphorus load and stormwater
volume. In some cases estimating the volume and load reduction will be part of the BMP design
process. For example, when adding a new pond or enhancing an existing pond to achieve a
higher removal rate load and volume reductions can be calculated using standard modeling
techniques. However, many other types of BMPs such as rain gardens, reforestation, reductions
in impervious pavement, etc. have an impact that is more difficult and time-consuming to
calculate. The Commission has directed its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review
literature and other data and establish standardized performance values for various BMPs. For
example, a typical residential rain garden might be credited with reducing phosphorus by X
kilograms annually. Or, an underground treatment device of Brand X would be assigned specific
removal efficiencies. The MI'CA is exploring establishing such standards, as are other
watershed management organizations. T'he TAC will work in partnership with the MPCA to
establish such standards for Shingle Creek.
Estimated Cost: $3,000
Funding Source: General operating budget for Engineering Administration activities (current
budget is $41,000)
4.2 EDUCATION
4.2.1 Public Education and Outreach
The Commission operates an ongoing education and outreach program that is managed by the
standing Education and Public Outreach Committee (EPOC). The EPOC is a group comprised
of city staff, Commissioners, and watershed resident volunteers that develops and implements
educational materials and programming.
The Twin Lake Homeowners Education Survey conducted several years ago found that over 90
percent of the property owners surveyed knew that phosphorus is a common cause of lake
pollution, but only 27 percent used phosphorus-free fertilizer. The Commission in fall, 2007 is
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 4-2
I
undertaking a more extensive professional opinion survey to better understand what people know
and how public education and outreach can most effectively communicate how individual
properiy owners can impact water quality through the implementation of individual Best
Management Practices in the watershed.
The Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources, the University of Minnesota
Extension Service, and University of Wisconsin Extension have prepared numerous fliers and
brochures on various topics relating to lake management that can be made available to target
audiences at city meetings, block club and National Night Out gatherings, and other
opportunities, and links posted on the Commission's and cities' web sites. The EPOC has also
developed specialty brochures focused on groups such as apartment and small commercial
building managers.
Estimated Cost: Ongoing activity
Funding Source: General operating budget for Education activities (current budget is $28,700)
4.2,2 Encourage Public Official and Staff Education
There is a need for city, county, and state officials and staff to understand the TNIDL and the
proposed implementation activities so that they can effectively make budget and programming
decisions and conduct daily business. Resources such as self-study lake management
background information from Water on the Web ("Understanding Lake Ecology"), Project
NEMO (Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials), UW Extension ("Understanding Lake
Data") and other sources would provide basic information about lake ecology to help staff, i!,''
Councils and Commissions make informed decisions about lake management.
Estimated Cost: $500
Funding Source: General operating budget for Education activities (current budget is $28,700)
4.2.3 Presentations at Meetings
Awareness of lake management can be raised through periodic presentations at meetings of lake
associations, homeownership associations, block clubs, garden clubs, service organizations,
senior associations, advisory commissions, City Councils, or other groups as well as displays at
events such as remodeling fairs and yard and garden events. "Discussion kits" including more
detailed information about topics and questions and points for topic discussion could be made
available to interested parties. The Commission's annual education budget assumes stafF
attendance at three presentations or events such as sta.ffing booths at events
Esti�nated Cost: $1,000
Funding Source: General operating budget for Education activities (current budget is $28,700)
4.2.4 Demonstration Projects
Property owners may be reluctant to adopt good lake management practices without examples
they can evaluate and emulate. A few demonstration projects have been completed in the
watershed through outside grants or from the Commission's Education and Implementation
Grant program, including a shoreline restoration project in a park on Middle Twin Lake in
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 4-3
Brooklyn Center and a shoreline restoration and a rain garden in a park on Ryan Lake in
Minneapolis. The Commission will encourage demonstration projects so property owners can
see how a project or practice is implemented and how it looks. Examples might include planting
native plants; planting a rain garden; restoring a shoreline; managing turf using low-impact
practices such as phosphorus-free fertilizer, reduced herbicides and pesticides, and proper
mowing and watering techniques; and improving drainage practices with redirected downspouts
and rain barrels. The estimated cost of this activity is highly variable. The Commission annually
budgets $20,000 for grant matching and small projects. The Commission will evaluate
appropriate activities and develop guidelines for funding demonstration projects from this
budget.
Estirnated Cost: Varies based on the type of activity
Funding Source: General operating budget for grant match/demonstration projects (current
budget is $20,000)
4.2.5 Feasibility Studies
The Commission will lead the preparation of feasibility studies evaluating internal load
management strategies such as chemical treatment or lake drawdown. These studies and
resulting recommendations will be prepared in consultation with the Commission's Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC).
Estimated Cost: $10,000 30,000 each
Funding Source: Member cities by cooperative agreement
4.3 ONGOING MONITORING
4.3.1 Water Quality Monitoring
The SCWMC will lead monitoring and tracking of the effectiveness of activities implemented to
reduce nutrient loading in the watershed. The Commission will continue to participate in the
Metropolitan Council's Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program (CAMP). Through this
program, citizen volunteers monitor surface water quality and aesthetic conditions biweekly.
Each year four to six lakes in the Shingle Creek watershed are monitored in this manner. This
program is also a useful outreach tool for increasing awareness of water quality issues. The
estimated cost of this monitoring is $6,500 annually, and is included in the Commission's
existing Monitoring budget
Estimated Cost: $6,500 annually
Funding Source: Monitoring budget for CAMP monitoring (current budget is $6,500)
The Commission will also periodically (every 4-5 years) conduct a more detailed analysis of
water quality, collecting biweekly data on surface, water column, and bottom conditions. This
data will provide a more detailed picture of lake response to BMP activities and will help
determine necessary "course corrections" as part of the Adaptive Management philosophy
guiding this Implementation Plan.
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TNIDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 4-4
I'.
As described in Section 4.1.1 above, the Commission annually publishes a Water Quality Report
that compiles and interprets monitoring data from the lakes, streams, and wetlands in the
watershed. The monitoring data collected by the commission and other agencies will be
analyzed to determine the linkage between BMP implementation and water quality and biotic
mtegrity m Twm and Ryan Lakes, and to assess progress toward meeting the total maximum
daily load and in-lake phosphorus concentration goals. This detailed monitoring is not part of
the Commission's e�sting Monitoring budget. As the Commission completes its current cycle
of management planning in 2009 with the Wetland Management Plan, that annual budget
($15,000) will be reallocated to more extensive lake monitoring.
Estimated Cost: $7,000 10,000 per lake
Funding Source: Reallocated operating budget for management plans (current budget is
$15,000)
4.3.2 Other Monitoring
A baseline aquatic vegetation survey has been completed for these lakes and will be updated
every 4-5 years as part of the more detailed water quality assessment described in Section 4.3.1
above. Zooplankton sampling has not been conducted and should be periodically completed to
assess overall biologic conditions. The estimated cost of this monitoring is $2-3,000 per lake.
Neither type of monitoring is routinely part of the Commission's existing Monitoring budget.
As the Commission completes its current cycle of management planning in 2009 with the
Wetland Management Plan, that annual budget ($15,000) will be reallocated to more extensive
lake monitoring.
Estimated Cost: $3,000-4,000 per lake
Funding Source: Reallocated operating budget for management plans (current budget is
$15,000)
'The Commission will work together with the DNR to determine the optimum strategy far
monitoring the fish community.
Estimated Cost: To be determined
Funding Source: To be determined
Twin and Ryan Lalces Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 4-5
5.0 Stakeholder Activities
While the SCWMC will coordinate implementation of the Twin and Ryan Lakes TMDL,
individual stakeholders will be ultimately responsible for implementing the identified BMPs.
These activities will be included in the NPDES Phase II Permits that all of the stakeholders hold,
and activities will be reported annually.
Each stakeholder is in a unique position to implement BMPs. For example, implementation of
BMPs requiring new equipment or accessories is dependant upon the individual stakeholder's
ongoing equipment replacement schedule. Other activities must be integrated into other street
and highway maintenance and reconstruction responsibilities. The following are the general
BMP implementation areas agreed to by the stakeholders.
5.1 REDUCE EXTERNAL LOAD
5.1.1 DNR Wetland 639W Restoration
DNR wetland 639W is the source of an estimated one-third of the external phosphorus load to
North Twin Lake. Restoring the wetland to a phosphorus sink or at a minimum eliminating
export of phosphorus from the wetland can have a significant impact on the water quality in
North Twin Lake and downstream lakes. Alternatives for water quality impacts include
diversion of stormwater around the wetland, an alum or ferric chloride treatment plan, alum
treatment to the wetland or de-channelization and increased storage in the wetland.
Estimated Cost: $700,000 to $750,000
Funding Source: Cities, SCWMC through county levy, grant funds
5.1.2 Add Treatment in Watershed
External phosphorus loads are high in Subwatersheds 3 and 4, and additional treatment options
will be sought in those subwatersheds as opportunities such as street reconstruction projects
arise. The most effective options would be additional stormwater ponding, in-line treatment, and
expansion of existing ponding. Specific projects planned by cities in the coming five years
include the proposed Twin Oak Pond by the City of Crystal, and the Wincrest Pond and 45�'
Avenue Ponds in New Hope. Other projects would be implemented as opportunities arise, such
as through street reconstruction projects.
Estimated Cost: $290,000-Wincrest Pond; $550,000-45�' Avenue Pond; $75,000-Twin Oak
Pond
Funding Source: Cities, SCWMC through county levy, grant funds
5.1.3 Increase Infiltration in Watershed
The Commission's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has been charged to review the
existing infiltration requirement on new development and redevelopment and evaluate whether it
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 5-1
I
should be enhanced or revised as a more broad volume management standard. Cities will work
with developers to incorporate Low Impact Development principles into development and
redevelopment as appropriate. In addition, the Commission's education program will provide
information to property owners on methods of reducing runoff and increasing infiltration on their
individual properties.
Estimated Cost: City staff level of effort to be determined
Funding Source: Cities, Commission's education program
5.1.4 Shoreline Management and Restoration
Restore shoreline areas with native vegetation and lakescaping where opporiunities present
themselves. The SCWMC and the City of Brooklyn Center completed a shoreline restoration at
Twin Lake Park on Middle Twin Lake, while a neighborhood organization in Minneapolis in
completing an ongoing shoreline restoration on Ryan Lake. Shoreline restoration can cost $30-
50 per linear foot, depending on the width of the buffer installed. Residential property
shoreline totals about 17,000 linear feet on the four lakes, with the balance of the shoreline
riparian wetlands. Ideally about 75 percent of the residential shoreline would be native
vegetation, with about 25 percent available for lake access. Accornplishing this goal would
require restoration of about 12,750 feet of shoreline.
Estimated Cost: $385,000 $640,000
Funding Source: Private property owners, cities, grant funds
5.1.5 Wildlife Management
Controlling Goose populations can increase phosphorus loading as well as fecal coliform
roduction. Several cities in the watershed have artici ated in the annual Universi of
I
P P P tY
Minnesotal Minnesota DNR goose removal program. If the goose population becomes too
large, harvesting should be conducted to reduce the population and associated pollution.
Estimated Cost: $3,000-4,000 per removal
Funding Source: Cities, DNR
5.1.6 Street Sweeping
Newer street sweeping technologies are available that use high pressure to remove a greater
percent of the small particles that can carry phosphorus to the lakes. Using these newer
technologies can help improve water quality. Studies conducted in the Lakes Nokomis and
Hiawatha lakesheds in Minneapolis (Wenck Associates 1998) suggested that improved street
sweeping technologies and increased street sweeping frequency could reduce phosphorus loads
by 7 percent.
Estimated Cost: $100,000 to 200,000 per new sweeper
Funding Source: Cities
Increased street sweeping frequency may be most effective in the direct watersheds to the three
Twin Lake basins. These watersheds had surprisingly high phosphorus loads and little area
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 5-2
available for other treatment technologies. Cities' existing sweeping policies and practices
should be reviewed to determine how existing practices could be refined to improve efficiency
and effectiveness as well as to identify where additional sweeping would provide the most water
quality benefit.
Estimated Cost: $65-85 per mile of additional sweeping
Funding Source: Cities
5.1.7 Road Salt Reductions
Shingle Creek, to which the Twin Lake subwatershed ultimately drains, is an Impaired Water
due to high concentrations of chloride. A TNIDL approved by the EPA in 2007 identified road
salt for ice control as the primary source of this chloride. Various BMPs to significantly reduce
sodium chloride are identified in that TNIDL's Implementation Plan. Phosphorus is often
present in road salt as a stabilizing agent or an impurity. Reducing the use of road salt to limit
chloride loading may also reduce phosphorus loading. Some data is available to infer those
potential reductions, but more analysis should be conducted to prepare a more accurate estimate
of the total load reduction that may result from reducing road salt usage in the watershed.
Estimated Cost: $3,000 for data analysis
Funding Source: SCWMC general operating budget
5.2 REDUCE INTERNAL LOAD
5.2.1 Chemical Treatment
One of the most effective controls for internal phosphorous loading in lakes is the chemical
addition of alum. Alum applications will be most effective in North and South Twin Lake but
could also potentially be applied to Ryan Lake.
Estimated Cost: $200 000-North• $75 000-South• $50 000-R an
Y
Funding Source: Cities, SCWMC through county levy, grant funds
5.2.2 Lake Drawdown
Restoration of shallow lakes is reliant upon a major biological shift to move the lake from a
turbid to a clear water state. The most effective tool for causing this shift is a whole-lake draw
down. The drawdown, or biomanipulation, is typically coupled with aquatic vegetation and
rough fish controls. North Twin Lake is the most likely candidate for a full drawdown, although
it may also be possible to drawdown South Twin or Ryan. Once sufficient external load controls
are in place, the feasibility of a drawdown will need to be investigated. If a drawdown is not
feasible, other biomanipulation techniques will need to be investigated.
Estimated Cost: $200,000 to $300,000
Funding Source: Cities, SCWMC through county levy, grant funds
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 5-3
�I
5.3 BIOLOGIC INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT
5.3.1 Aquatic Plant Management
The SCWMC recognizes the importance of a healthy biological communiTy in meeting water
clarity goals, especially in shallow lakes. Aquatic plant management is a key aspect in
maintaining a healthy shallow lake. To establish and maintain a healthy lake system, an aquatic
plant management plan will be established and followed that includes invasive species
management (notably curly leaf pondweed).
Estimated Cost: $3,000 for management plan and $4-5,000 per year/lake treated
Funding Source: Cities, lake associations
5.3.2 Rough Fish Management
Another factor affecting internal phosphorus release and plant establishment is the presence of
carp. The rough fish population in Twin Lake is incredibly high, approximately 10 times the
upper 10�` quartile of all DNR sampled lakes. Carp controls include removal and controlling
access to spawning areas.
Initial removal of rough fish could be quite extensive. Additionally, access to the two North
Twin Lake wetland complexes should be restricted to prevent spawning. This action includes
design and installation of carp barriers as well as a significant initial effort for carp removal
focusing on North and South Twin Lakes.
Estimated Cost: $25,000 to $50,000
Funding Source: Cities, lake associations, grant funds, DNR
Biannual removal maintenance will be required to effectively control carp populations. T'his
action includes carp removal biannually, focusing on North and South Twin Lakes.
Estimated Cost: $2,000 to $5,000 annually
Funding Source: Cities, lake associations
5.4 TRACHING AND REPORTING
Each stakeholder will integrate BMPs into the SWPPP six minimum measures required by their
NPDES General Permits for stormwater discharges. Activities will be tracked and reported in
their annual NPDES report. Each stakeholder will provide a copy of the annual report to the
Commission, which will then incorporate that information into the Commission's annual Water
Quality Report. Additional MS4 staff time will be necessary to track and report on activities
specific to this TMDL, however, it is diffcult to estimate the magnitude of the additional level of
effort.
Estimated Cost: City staff level of effort to be determined
Funding Source: Cities
�I
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan 5-4
Literature Cited
Wenck Associates Inc. 1998. Lakes Nokomis and Hiawatha Diagnostic Feasibility Study Internal
Phosphorus Load Estimates. Internal Technical Memorandum.
Wenck Associates Inc. 2004. Twin Lakes Diagnostic Study. Wenck Report 1244-01-01.
Wenck Associates Inc. 2004. Twin Lakes Management Plan. Wenck Report 1244-01-02.
Wenck Associates, Inc. 2007. Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL.
Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL October 2007
Implementation Plan